Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 22

December 22

Victims of political repressions clean-up

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A couple of swaths of these have been recently deleted, and over the months it's been going bit by bit, but so far we have missed nominating some of these. These seem to be the remnants. Many of the parent/sub categories for these have already been deleted in the previous discussions, so the scheme is a bit of a mess right now. I suggest finishing these off, for the same reasons given by the nominator and participants in the previous discussions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete all: I absolutely agree as continuation of [3] and [4]. I had, in fact, been collecting those categories which remained, almost identical to the compilation above, and was going to resubmit as "Repression redux" CFDs. Reasons the same: WP:POV, WP:WEASEL, et al. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete all per nominator. Per comment at one of the other recent CFDs, categories such as this are a diabolically subjective POV-fest, incapable of objective definition, and their existence sets up good-faith editors for battles over nuances of political values. Congrats to the nominator on collecting the remaining ones and bringing them here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all for now, handle deletion case-by-case basis. I see no reason for deletion for many or even most of these, valid and useful categories with entries that are solid and well-documented. --Sander Säde 08:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but we've done case-by-case for the past few months, and the consensus has been that we need to deal with all of them the same; otherwise we're favouring or disfavouring certain nationalities and countries over others. If one is POV and problematic, then they all are under this phrasing. (Besides, how can we legitimately keep Category:Estonian victims of Soviet repressions when the parent Category:Victims of Soviet repressions has already been deleted by consensus? To delete the parent is almost an implied consensus to delete the subcategories.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna take issue with the statement that Category:Victims of Soviet repressions was deleted by consensus. In that discussion I see just the three of you (Good Ol', BHG, and Rms) + 2 other users who provide no rationale for their vote (hence, per rules, their input should not be counted). So rather it seems like a good portion of the community - necessary for establishment of consensus - was simply not aware of it taking place (this is of course nobody's fault). I was certainly surprised when bot-removal of the category started popping up on my watchlist. So there really was no consensus in the first place and that particular discussion should be had again. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The deletion of these has been going on for some time, and every time the discussion has been had since September 2009, consensus has been to delete them. Some discussions get more input than others, but the result has always been the same. For one with wider input, see here. I'm not sure how else the discussion you complain about could have been closed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe since September, but apparantly not since May [5]. And in regard to the discussion you link to, what can I say? To me it looks like the closing admin made a mistake, particularly since the votes appear to be split evenly - looks like they went with their own personal opinion rather than that of the discussants. Hence, it should be relisted. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It all comes down to sources. If the source clearly states a person was repressed by [insert suitable oppressor], then how can we argue against adding the person to a such category? If we have dozens of people, who have been repressed/murdered/deported by an country or political system, then why not should all of them to be easily located by a category? I've found a couple of these categories before to be excellent for navigating and finding articles I've been interested. "POV and problematic" are not reason for deletion in this case - otherwise, we might as well delete all of Wikipedia. How many of these categories have only entries that are not sourced? Delete these. Keep others. A simple and clear policy. --Sander Säde 09:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliable don't help resolve subjective issues such as this, because it is equally possible for another equally scholarly source to make an opposite value judgement on the same set of facts. POVs can be dealt with quite adequately in the text of an article, but not with categories, which either applied or not, and appear both in the article and in the category listing with no explanation or qualification.
Lists are a much better tool for grouping this sort of subjective judgement, where each inclusion can be sourced, annotated and explained. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I would just add to what BHG said above by stating that if there was a source that clearly states that a person was "repressed by X", then that's a reasonably clear indication that the source itself may not be neutral; hence we wouldn't really want to use it anyway. And in any case, there are always going to be conflicting sources that characterize the "repression" as something entirely different, like "effective suppression of insurrection", etc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all: I see no reason for deletion. I don't believe the term "political repression" is problematic in itself: if there's a problem in its application, this should be dealt on a case-by-case basis. Viator slovenicus (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually Viator slovenicus: I have a problem with someone creating It is extremely problematic that, due to lax category creating guidelines, no fewer than four dubious pages categories for one small country were created, to wit: Category:Slovenian victims of Nazi German repressions, Category:Slovenian victims of political repression in Fascist Italy, Category:Slovenian victims of political repressions and Category:Slovenian victims of political repressions in Communist Yugoslavia.

Of these four, one is a general parent category (Category:Slovenian victims of political repressions) and another relates to Communism. While it is particularly offensive that two categories related to the Holocaust period should be fashioned for one small, homogeneous country that suffered relatively little if at all during that heinous period, this example should demonstrate just how POV-ridden and ethnically driven these categories are. They are innately unreliable and capricious. To allow these last categories to remain when the remainder have been deleted would be irresponsible and unacceptable. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep and rename for the defunct Nazi Germany and Soviet Union based on the scheme I previously proposed (now below). - In the immediately prior CfD at Partial list of victimology categories, I suggested a comprehensive renaming scheme for those Wikipedia categories with "repression" and "victim" in their name. That suggestion received some comments set out in the below collapsed template:

As noted in the above collapsed template, Rms125a, BrownHairedGirl, and SmokeyJoe commented. Rms125a, the purpose of CfD is discussion, not deletion, and I don't appreciate the way you jumped down on me personally for my efforts in the prior CFD discussion. Even if you think that there is room for equal debate as to whether Nazi Germany use forcible subjugation as part of a persistent and systematic mistreatment of an individual or groups, the collective of reliable source material says otherwise and such Wikipedia categories can be populate based on reliable sources. The same is true for the Soviet Union. In General: Countries may engage in some act of forcible subjugation within their own geographic boarders some time in there existence, but unlike the defunct Nazi Germany and defunct Soviet Union, the collective of reliable sources do not support the idea that most countries engage in political repression to where it becomes a persistent and systematic mistreatment of an individual or groups. Using "persecuted" in the category name is "a well-intentioned effort to narrow the scope of the categories" related to political repression as BrownHairedGirl mentioned. Wikipedia property: We do have decent articles on political repression, persecution, Nazi Germany, and Soviet Union which can be used by editors in deciding whether a particular article should be added to a given "people persecuted by political repression in Nazi Germany" or "people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union" category. Perspective: Perspective always is applied to bad, good, human rights, and other ethical and political issues. That is human nature. But merely because a small group of individuals may be perceived to hold a certain belief doesn't make the topic subjective and, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the answer lies in the collective of the reliable sources, not on any one reliable source. In other words, merely because a topic is subject to the political position of an editor or author doesn't make the topic subjective. Most topics on Wikipedia could be politically spun. When a written source presents the political position of an editor or author, then the reliability of the source should be question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The category should not be delete. Position: Because the collective of the reliable sources agree that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union engaged in persecution by political repression, the CfD related to these defunct period states as nominated by Good Ol’factory should be renamed based on the scheme:

"x people persecuted by political repression in y",
where x is blank or from Category:People by nationality and y is one of "Nazi Germany" or "Soviet Union"

-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Uzma Gamal -- we use sources, references and links to back up and defend the articles we create and/or the text we insert inside those articles. They cannot be used in the same way regarding potentially unlimited, over-reaching, POV-ridden, subjective, and capricious categorizations. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"political repressions" is not quite correct here - in quite a few cases the categories are about ethnic repressions, for example, Cossacks, Jews, apartheid etc. --Sander Säde 15:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sander - any category that purports to represent an entire people who have been allegedly repressed because of their religion, race, skin color, etc. is potentially or actually unlimited. It means anyone who fulfills even one criterion automatically derives the benefit of belonging to a certain category. It would be extremely difficult, rancorous and possibly impossible to police against potential abuses under these circumstances. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Uzma Gamal has made a misleading out-of-context quote of my comment "a well-intentioned effort to narrow the scope of the categories", because Uzma neglected to note that my next sentence in the same edit began "unfortunately it doesn't work". That omission inverts my meaning.

Uzma's suggestion of relying in reliable sources doesn't work either. The overall question of "was there political repression in Nazi Germany?" is answered by most RSs as "yes", but the same answer can be given for just about any country we select on the globe. The problem is that the terms remain subjective, and the addition of "persecution" is merely another subjective term. Words such as "imprisoned", "killed", "arrested" or "deported" are capable of objective assessments, but "persecuted" and "repressed" remain value judgements. RSs don't help with value judgements, because the value judgements depend on perspective rather than on a neutral assessment of the facts.

Per WP:NPOV, all this stuff can be addressed in the body of an article by starting the various perspectives. "The Nazis labelled Obadobdorf as a threat to National Socialism whom they would hunt down without mercy. Snodgrass (1973) described this as 'vicious persecution', but Jones and Smith (1998) concluded that despite the obvious anti-semitism, Obadobdorf's actions would have been treated harshly by the criminal justice system in most countries". That sort of multiperspective assessment cannot be conveyed through categories, which allow no qualification or counterview: either a category is applied or it's not. That's why all of these categories remain equally problematic, and why no amount of tweaking the wording can fix the fundamental problem of subjectivity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Above I listed everything you posted in that previous debate about my list, so I don't see how anyone could have been mislead or viewed it as being out of context. Also, are you saying that because you believed my efforts didn't work, that it is misleading to and out of context to say you believed them to be "a well-intentioned effort to narrow the scope of the categories"? By your own standards, BrownHairedGirl, you made a misleading out-of-context quote of my comment "Nazi Germany use forcible subjugation as part of a persistent and systematic mistreatment of an individual or groups" by stating that the overall question is: "was there political repression in Nazi Germany?" The approach in trying to reframe my keep arguments shows strength in my arguments. Also, if Wikipedia consensus is that Persecution, political repression, or even Political repression in the Soviet Union inherently are NPOV, then Wikipedia would not have articles on them. These are strong points for keeping and renaming the categories. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Uzma, I didn't quote you or claim that I was quoting you when I posed that question; I was framing the issue underlying those categories.

I disagree with your prev suggestion because it doesn't work, but believed it was made in a good faith effort to address the problem, and out of civility I said so. It's quite possible to be well-intentioned but wrong, and that's what I think of your suggestion here, and I make no apology for assuming that you acted in good faith.

Finally, please try to read what I wrote about the difference between how we handle NPOV in articles, and the difficulties of doing so with categories. You should also read WP:NPOV, and WP:CAT#What_categories_should_be_created, which says

Categorizations appear on pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Uzma: I believe BHG is accurate when she points out that your citation of her words was incomplete by not including the immediately following words ("unfortunately it doesn't work") which are essential to the argument she was making, which I share. To wit, while well-intentioned, your proposed system of renaming (see above) is little more than a tweak and no better than the current non-NPOV system we are trying to reform (i.e. subjective terms "persecuted" and "repression"). Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, some of this here conundrum has to do with user need, even among Wikipedians, to have everything presented in a nice package with a big bow around it like a holiday or birthday present, all ready for immediate consumption. I have observed in passing a lot of relatively newly-created categories, tailor-made for the interests/value judgments of the categories' creators or to maximize the number of categories which can accrue to a subject, often using silly but disastrously broad intersections. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom: 1) Inherently subjective, politically driven and POV-pushing, and embarrassing to Wikipedia. 2) The existence of the book Political Repression in Modern America from 1870 to 1976 by American Professor Robert Justin Goldstein (and published by University of Illinois Press in 2001) was presented as an argument in the CFD for Category:Victims of American political repression, but was dismissed by User:Xdamr, who closed as delete ([6]) on the grounds that such a category wasn't NPOV. (Again -- reliable sources notwithstanding, our America-leaning consensus didn't like the existence of that one.) This introduces serious editorial bias. Does "Free Encyclopedia" = "Encyclopedia of American Exceptionalism"? And what is to be done about scholarly and WP:RS sources that are reliable in terms of facts but partisan in their description? 3) Wikipedia, I think, is meant to represent a non-partisan effort. This very debate and ones like it -- essentially, the very fact that these categories are seen as so seriously controversial and constantly objected to individually and collectively, with sources for claims of "repression" explicitly given, implied, or otherwise -- is a testament to the partisanship that's just embedded at the very core of our categorization problem itself. Wholly non-partisan categories like Category:Italian opera composers, Category:American businessmen, Category:Children of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, and Category:Soviet prisoners and detainees are 300% uncontroversial; this particular tree of "repression" categories, like now-deleted structures Category:Political prisoners, Category:Traitors, and Category:Terrorists (adhering to partisan or charged labels that, like "victims of repression" may also be found in some WP:RS work), is pretty much at the opposite pole of the WP:NPOV criterion. Logically, the way to move forward from where we are is to have these categories deleted likewise. Anything else places the discretion at some level of subjectivity, whether the sources' or the editors'. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment (while I think about it more) - looking at the two links provided by Rms125a@hotmail.com it seems like in the first discussion the delete vote was upheld with minimal participation - and essentially by the same three or four people who are arguing for deletion here - and should probably be restored/relisted to get wider community input, while the second link shows that there was no consensus to delete another batch of categories. I understand the concerns with these categories, but I don't see at the moment how these are sufficient for deletion or different from standard concerns about POV in articles. Yes, caution should be used when using these cats (and prolly the default should be "don't include" unless very strong sources are provided for support) but that's not the same as deleting. Ok, apparently I've thought about it as I was writing this so Keep all. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Add. Looking at it some more it seems like some of the categories from the discussion closed as 'no consensus' (and there is some very strong keeps in that discussion) are being relisted here, for example Category:Victims of Apartheid repressions in South Africa. Hence this isn't a "continuation" of that vote, but rather a relisting. It also very strongly suggests that this deletion discussion [7] should be had again - Relisted - since it appears a good portion of the community was not aware of it (I certainly wasn't and I would've liked to have said something) and might have a different view.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Volunteer Marek: "Comment (while I think about it more).... Ok, apparently I've thought about it as I was writing this" -- this is an immature and annoying style of writing. Responses should be kept simple and respectful, not stream of consciousness. And crediting me for providing links of which you happened to be unaware so that you can vote here now is gratuitous and not appreciated, especially when you apparently reference me as part of some imaginary conspiratorial troika underhandedly deleting categories willy-nilly. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you're annoyed but there was nothing immature in what I wrote. Neither was it disrespectful. However, if you continue to patronize me like this it will get that way really fast. Usually the problem is editors NOT explaining the basis for their vote, rather than vice versa. If you don't like the style, that's fine, but please keep it to yourself and discuss the issue rather than the editor.

As far as this troika business goes - well, now THAT's disrespectful. I never said or implied anything of the kind and I do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth. The point was merely that the previous discussion did not have a very lage number of editors participating. I also don't see what your problem with me "crediting" you for the link is. You posted it. I referenced it. So?Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You made the following assertions:

a) "In that discussion I see just the three of you (Good Ol', BHG, and Rms) + 2 other users who provide no rationale for their vote (hence, per rules, their input should not be counted)." (Error alert/correction - per rules those votes without rationale are to be "accorded lesser weight")

"and essentially by the same three or four people who are arguing for deletion here"

So much for the "I never said or implied anything of the kind" (re "troika")

b) "So rather it seems like a good portion of the community - necessary for establishment of consensus - was simply not aware of it taking place (this is of course nobody's fault)."

You continue to ignore the fact that you are the only editor posting here using the argument that he or she was unaware of the CFD. For 9 days, no fewer than thirty categories were on combined display at CFD. If you missed it for whatever reason that's not a valid basis for relisting. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment on creation process. The vast majority of these categories were created by one editor, and none of the articles I've looked at contain specific citations for the "repression" claims. Editors who work with certain other nationality articles then seemed to pick up on this and created ones for those nationalities. It looks to me like a situation where there was one bad idea from one editor, and then a bunch of me-too-ism from some others who worked in different areas. Editors with concerns regarding specific articles or groups of articles should realise that deleting these categories doesn't mean the articles in question can't be otherwise categorized in a more neutral way relating to the topics. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thirty (30) categories were on CFD from December 13 until December 21. If certain editors were oblivious to this then I suspect that these categories were not of paramount importance to them. There should be no relisting. The editors on the prior thread made our cogent arguments and the matter was decided. The final categories recommended for deletion herein should also be deleted in the best interest of Wikipedia as they are subjective, politically/ethnically inspired cruft, and to leave them while the rest were deleted would be absurdly illogical. Better categories (not Uzma Gamal's) can be created which are based on objective criteria and agreeable to all of good faith. Let's not forget WP:IAR, which no one should be loath to invoke to protect and preserve Wikipedia's integrity. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete -- We need to decide what this tree is really about. The victims of genocide are clearly in a category of their own. Many people were imprisoned in Communist countries, not just USSR ("Soviet") for their beliefs, but not always their political beliefs; sometimes religious ones; and sometimes in USSR during 1930s, because an official had to fulfil a quota for shipping people to forced labour camps, involving imprisonment on very flimsy grounds. In the 1920s, the Soviet Communists imprisoned the entire membership of other political parties. These are all legitimate categories (and some probably exist). However, the words "victim" and "political repression" are inevitably POV. If you were a communist in USSR or a Nazi in Germany, you would regard the action taken as legitmate and justified, however much I as a western liberal and democrat may deplore. There are potentially legitimate categories to be created, and I hope that this discussion will establish what they are. However, the present ones are POV and must be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment if you were to rename the section Category:Victims of political repression in communist Czechoslovakia to Category: Political prisoners in communist Czechoslovakia you would get rid of the NPOV problems. However, in my familly alone, and we are not a big familly, 2 people died in political prison during the comunist era... And thinking about that, even that name would be contensions, because technically one of them was in a "work camp" and not a prison... I'm not asking for sympathy here, you can see from my American name that my grandparents escaped. I never knew these people. But maybe it sheds light on the impossibility of such a list. It would include thousands of names. Maybe you would make the list Category:Notable political prisoners in communist Czechoslovakia it would include people like our president Vaclav Havel. Looking up his name, he already belongs to the first group, but also Category:Prisoners and detainees of Czechoslovakia and Category:Czechoslovak prisoners and detainees. Though neither of those groups are appropriate, as their title does not specify that he was a political prisoner during comunist era Czechoslovakia... Tim.thelion (talk) 06:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Tim, I sympathize with your family losses, but your comment "However, in my familly alone, and we are not a big familly, 2 people died in political prison during the comunist era... And thinking about that, even that name would be contensions, because technically one of them was in a "work camp" and not a prison..." seems to indicate a degree of overriding personal familial sentiment which may be impacting on what should be all Wikipedians' default NPOV setting. Nobody is stating the Nazis and the Soviets, and for that matter many others throughout history didn't commit atrocities. The point is (how to) create and name categories both encyclopaedically and neutrally. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Rms, in order to understand all points of view, one has to consider all points of view. Understanding is essencial for NPOV editing. Maybe I'm not the right person to make this desission alone. But my comments, my POV, are essential to the discussion as a whole... There is also a problem here. There are typically 3 groups of people. Those who know nothing. Those who know something and have a POV bias on what they know. And those who know everything. And given that as humans, we can only belong to either the first or the seccond, and only ever strive for the third :D ... Tim.thelion (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Interesting suggestion, Tim.thelion ... but unfortunately the concept of a political prisoner is equally POV. As such it is just as unsuitable as "political repression" as the basis for a category.

  The article political prisoner is a shameful mess, but it does give some idea of the huge variety of perspectives on the use of the term. Talk:Political prisoner is full of disputes over the application of the term to individuals, and we have a red-hot current example in Julian Assange. Is Assange a political prisoner, or is he just a person being investigated in relation to alleged sexual offences? There is no shortage of refs available in very reliable sources to lend support to whichever view you prefer (see Talk:Political prisoner#Julian_Assange and Talk:Julian Assange). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

  There are some cases where it is clearcut and cases where it is not clear cut and also cases where it is hard to know. In the case that a person is imprisoned for offenses such as "Holding illegal unauthorised public gatherings." "Publishing materials defamitory to the state." or "Inciting revolution" there is little arguing that these people are not political prisoners. Even if you think these people are bad... Then there are cases where, for example, someone was arrested and the familly does not know what happened to them. Or they where arrested for their dealings in the black market during the comunist times(many people will argue this is political imprissonment especially given the rumors/reports that bribery and good connections could get one out of these charges). These examples are not clear cut. And in the case of Assange, if we where to get some leaked document with Hillary Clintons signature ordering the Swedish to arrest Assange under false charges it would be clear cut. Otherwise we simply don't know... (not sure about people who have attempted or comited political assasination, spies, terrorists... Arguably these people are political prisoners as well) How about the Category:Political activists and writers who were imprisoned under various charges during the comunist era in Czechoslovakia that seems pretty unambiguous... Tim.thelion (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, the examples you cite are not clearcut. For instance, "holding illegal unauthorised public gatherings" is phrase which would include those arrested in England under the sections 132 to 138 of SOCA, which allows the banning of demonstrations near Parliament Square. It's entirely a matter of POV whether people arrested in that way are political prisoners or people detained for breaches of public order, and similar issue arise with demos in other countries. Convictions for illegal forms of trading are not in themselves political unless you are a completely-purist free-trader, and that's a POV of itself; while the notion that bribery and/or corruption makes a conviction "political" is a poor one, because if we applied that test then every petty criminal convicted in a corrupt judicial system (of which there have been plenty) becomes a "political prisoner".
  I am not in any way trying to defend the state, just to point out that that all these situations can be viewed from two perspectives, and there is no objective NPOV way of deciding whether to apply the "political" label. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

  That's why I proposed getting rid of the political lable when attached to the crime, and instead attach it to the person. A petty criminal would not be included in a category of political activists imprisoned under various charges, and there is no disputing, for example, that Vaclav Havel was a political activist. There is also no disputing the fact that he was imprissoned. This category would include Assange, yet not imply that he was a prisoner for political reasons... Tim.thelion (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, if you attach the label to the individual then you are creating an irrelevant intersection between Category:Activists and Category:Criminals, which are two unrelated attributes. It would resolve the difficulties over Assange, but the scope of the category would then be broad enough to include everyone from Nelson Mandela and Bobby Sands to a minor political activist imprisoned for murdering his own granny or a Scottish politician convicted of arson.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

  Or, worst of all, a George Galloway! Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

  It is just as POV to fail to document the wide extent of political and religious repression under Czechoslovak comunism as it is to document it.... For example, one would not notice that a very large procent of early multiparty parlament members(the NPOV term for members of the new democratically formulated parlament after 1992) in Czechoslovakia had been imprissoned during the comunist era. That's no coincidence. It's not like a whole bunch of people decided to elect criminals to our parliament. Tim.thelion (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

  Tim, there is no suggestion anywhere in this discussion that we fail to document anything. This discussion is about whether the use of a category as a navigational device between those documents accords with wikipedia's core policy of WP:NPOV. Regardless of the outcome here, there is nothing to stop you creating a list to cover the topic which interests you, where the inclusion of each entry can be referenced, explained, and if necessary qualified.
  As to whether "a whole bunch of people decided to elect criminals to our parliament" ... well a defender of the pre-1990 regime might say that's exactly what happened. I happen to disagree, just as you do, but since many of those ppl were convicted of crimes, our objection is POV.
  What you are asking for here is in effect a "category of good people imprisoned by a regime I dislike", which is thoroughly POV, and as such is unacceptable whatever the nature of the regime. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

  I want to correct myself on the date. The first postcomunist elections were in 1989 and not 1992... 1992 was the year the country got split in two... But one more comment/question. Isn't there something inbetween a category and a list? Why are there even two different formats? It would make sense to have, for example, a note at the top of the Vaclav Havel article saying he is a member of the list of political activists imprissoned during the comunist era in Czechoslovakia... Furthermore, how does a list resolve the POV issue? I'm not saying it's not POV, but the article on Havel explicitly states: "His political activities resulted in multiple stays in prison, the longest being four years, and also subjected him to constant government surveillance and harassment." And you would be hard pressed to find a single living person who would dispute that ... Note, I have removed the words "and harassment" from the article as they were not NPOV... Tim.thelion (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

  Tim, the dates are not relevant to the issues of subjectivity being discussed here. If there is a list of political activists imprisoned in Czechoslovakia, then add it's accepted practice to add it to the "See also" section at the bottom of his article. Why do we have both lists and categories? Quick answer: because they work differently and they have different strengths and weaknesses (see WP:CLS). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Most & Rename: The purpose of a cat is to logically group items and to aid navigation for readers. There are a few silly breakdowns in this cat (the Slovenian ones RMS125a pointed out) but most of these cats serve a valid purpose. The problem is that "victim" and "repression" are hard to define and the cats should be definable. (I don't see this a POV debate because substituting Peterkingiron's POV for moral relativism with the existing cats POV for moral certainty just exchanges one POV for another.) Category:People prosecuted under anti-homosexuality laws may serve as a good model to rename as it is definable. This won't cover people who "disappeared" in Argentina or other extra-judicial killings so it has it's limits. The problem with my solution is that it requires knowledge of each country so it's hard to apply this within the mass deletion nomination. But, I'll get it started where I have expertise: RevelationDirect (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

  @RevelationDirect. The distinction between POV and definability doesn't get us anywhere, because the lack of a neutral definition leaves us with nothing but POV in deciding whether and how to populate these categories. If we had a stable, neutral and objectively-assessable definition, then there wouldn't be any particular POV problem here. Peterkingiron argued for definability, and it is quite mischievous to accuse him of pushing a POV of "moral relativism". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I honestly considered this passage moral relativism: "the words 'victim' and 'political repression' are inevitably POV. If you were a communist in USSR or a Nazi in Germany, you would regard the action taken as legitmate and justified". Maybe I misread the larger argument though. We're not doing that great in the name-calling department if the best we can come up with is "mischievous" and "morally relative"! RevelationDirect (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The aim of the exercise here is not to promote one POV over another, regardless of what view we might hold ourselves. That's a core policy of wikipedia, and if you think that's a form of moral relativism which you dislike, then that's an issue to take up with the Wikimedia Foundation, rather than with the individuals editors who uphold it. Peterkingiron argued for Wikipedia policy, and it's not fair to make any inference from that what his own personal view is on these topics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Whether someone is a "victim of repression" is a subjective opinion, not an objectively verifiable fact. The existence of such categories is incompatible with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Actually, the now-deleted parent is quite sufficient. And "political" is too narrow, many were victims/deported for other reasons (e.g., owned some property) than political views. There is nothing "subjective", either scholarly sources describe someone in that fashion, indicate they were killed by state authorities, deported by state authorities, etc., or not. BTW, in non-English, "repressed" (and translated to "repressed" in English) is also specifically used for anyone deported. Clearly there is nothing "subjective" about whether someone was deported or not. They were or they weren't. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

  And to BrownHairedGirl earlier, re: "because it is equally possible for another equally scholarly source to make an opposite value judgement" -- I regret I must point out that in the case of the Soviet Union and alternate versions of history, this includes victim blaming, e.g., that all the Estonians deported were Nazis (odd, considering the first mass deportations were while Stalin and Hitler were allied), criminals, and prostitutes. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

  Vecrumba, I would have no objection to a category of people deported: that's a verifiable fact (or at least potentially verifiable), with no value judgement involved. Similarly, a category of people killed by state authorities is also potentially verifiable, and I see no objection to it principle.

  You may regard the sources you dislike as victim-blaming, but that sort of charge is frequently levelled by both sides in a political or historical dispute; as an Irish citizen, I'm well used to it. It's quite proper to discuss opposing views in an article and let the reader decide which (if either) they prefer, and that's exactly what WP:NPOV recommends. But using one perspective of a historical dispute as a basis for applying value-laden terms is a game that could be played both ways; would I be right in guessing that you wouldn't welcome categorising those deported using terminology from the Soviet perspective, perhaps along the lines of Category:Enemies of socialism? I'd deplore that sort of subjectivity too, but that's the sort of thing we open up if we start using POV categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

  Why is it that editors insist I "hate" or "dislike" sources or viewpoints? That's saying I care about what I personally think and not about what reputable sources state. There's nothing "POV" about "victim" and "repression" if it's based on sources and not on our personal conjectures quoting primary sources, dictionary definitions, and the like and pontificating (sorry, I've heard this sort of thing too much) on what words are "bad" on Wikipedia because they are "judgemental," etc. Doing that is what is "POV" here. One side's freedom fighter is another side's terrorist, but, quite frankly, we're not dealing with that here. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  And, "Individuals jailed, deported, or killed by the Soviet Union as Enemies of Socialism" would be just fine as a category. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  I agree that "Individuals jailed, deported, or killed by the Soviet Union as Enemies of Socialism" would be fine as a category, because the question of whether someone was punished in that way on those charges is verifiable as a point of fact; those facts can be agreed both by those wholeheartedly back the USSR's actions, and by those who regard these measures as breaches of human rights . However, the question of whether such actions are "political repression" (the western liberal POV) or a state punishing criminals (the Soviet POV) is not a point of fact; it is a value judgement. Why are you so keen to use the category system to convey value judgements, rather than leaving the reader to make up their own mind on the facts and on the sourced commentary in the text of the articles? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep all. This term is widely used in huge number of reliable secondary sources. Frankly speaking, there is such thing as victims of political repression, no matter if one likes it or not. It should also be applied in each specific case per sources, but this is not a matter of having certain categories, but a matter of using them. Biophys (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I remind Biophys of his topic ban here, which is in effect and which refers to all topics related to the Soviet Union. The text of your topic ban (applied 23 May 2009) runs as: "3) Biophys (talk · contribs) is banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 1 year. At the end of 1 year, Biophys may apply to have the ban reviewed by the Arbitration Committee. 4) Biophys is restricted to 1 revert per week per article in the topic area for 1 year. This restriction will run consecutively with the topic ban." This might be considered to be a "related article, broadly construed". (Thanks to Xxanthippe for the info. re ban) Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I am only prohibited from editing articles. My topic ban does not tell anything about discussion of categories.Biophys (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you are banned from editing "all related articles, broadly construed", which would appear to include this CfD as many of the categories in question pertain to the former Soviet Union, as you well know. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

As I explained at your talk page, Category:Victims of political repression is not an article about Soviet Union, and I did not edit it. Biophys (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

:::: Additionally, in acknowledging there is such thing as victims of political repression but voting to retain the category anyway is quite concerning. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes there have been victims of political repression (not "victims of political repressions", which is grammatically inaccurate), throughout history. However, defining categories related to repression (which is a subjective term) must be done objectively and the categories created which should be deleted were created by those seekign to push a POV or ethnic agenda, which is contrary to what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. Better categories than those still existent or proposed by Uzma Gamal, which are merely tweaked and slightly reworded, can be created, but first we have to clean up this mess. If, as some suggest, we do CfDs category by category on a countrywide or religious basis, not only are we wasting time but we are giving approbation to certain ethnic "repression"-related categories and not to others. There has to be a better way! Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• This is reference work. We are doing everything per sources. If reliable sources tell that that "victims" exists (and there are many books specifically about this subject), here we are.Biophys (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • That's a vast oversimplification of the process. If a source described someone as a "victim or political repression", it could probably be balanced with another source that described it in a less emotive way. We can't have a category scheme for every choice of words that some author chooses to describe someone by. We have to use some judgment in adopting categories that present a neutral point of view. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I am sure there are many questionable cases, as would be with almost any category (for example, one could argue if something should be classified as a peptide or a protein). But there are also numerous cases when such assignment would be totally non-controversial and never disputed by any serious sources. A typical case from an area I am familiar with: a person X was officially recognized and rehabilitated by an official state committee as a victim of repression by the same state. In fact, maybe 90% of cases I am familiar with are totally non-controversial in this regard and undisputed. It's not one source, but all (or almost all) sources. Please note how many articles belong to these sub-cats.Biophys (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Just because a state says a person was repressed politically doesn't mean it is the ideal way to neutrally describe the incident. The state is adopting a point of view, and it may not be agreed to by all observers. To compare the problem to the problem of whether to to categorize something as a peptide or protein is not a parallel situation in the least. In this case, there are other ways to phrase what is being categorized that will avoid the loaded language—how about trying to actually make a category that describes objectively what happened to the person. (For instance, if they were imprisoned, put them in a prisoner category.) The number of articles in a particular subcategory is not particularly relevant to this discussion. "Keep because it's big" isn't a terribly convincing argument. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
        • • As I explained already, this is not a "loaded term", but wording from official documents, at least in the country I originally came from (hence also in books and other publications). As about keeping big categories, yes, that should be an important consideration. A lot of people contributed to this classification, as one can see from hundreds articles that belong here. Let's respect work by others.Biophys (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
            • Keep telling yourself that and I'm sure it will come true. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
        • You think that certain categories should be deleted because they are not "neutral". You think that "peptide" is neutral but "repression" (for example) is not. But this is all your perception and is not really relevant. It only matters if certain categories help to navigate wikipedia pages and justifiable per sources. Let me give another example. Recently, a Category:Russian terrorists was deleted. It included members of Narodnaya Volya. I am sorry, but these people proudly declared themselves "terrorists" and have been described as such in every source, Russian or Western. Same is frequently the case here. Biophys (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
          • I'd appreciate it if you quit putting words in my mouth. I never said "peptide" was "neutral". This discussion is tiresome—I do find it telling, however, that you are defending these categories on the grounds that Category:Terrorists should exist but doesn't. That's an issue that was settled by consensus long ago, and it seems you have not reconciled to that yet. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
            • • I intentionally gave you an example of a "highly controversial" category that was removed for political reasons (whatever they are), but must exist per sources. If we want to create encyclopedia, such categories must be kept. Consensus can change.Biophys (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
                • No category "must be kept"; indeed, the "terrorists" ones were not. It's black-and-white views like that that prevent one from seeing the nuances of the situation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"You think that peptide is neutral but repression (for example) is not" -- absolutely. To compare peptide and repression is frankly ridiculous. A peptide is a biological/chemical entity (don't know how else to put it as I'm not a scientist), while "repression" is a noun whose meaning and context are dependent on the opinion of the user of the term, many of whom have agendas to push. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing ridiculous. It is entirely subjective if a molecule of 50 amino acid residues long should be classified as a peptide or a protein. Still, we have no problem with the both categories, and I did not see any serious disputes about this. Why do we have disputes here? This is really a puzzle since I do not see any difference between something like "repression", "victim" or "protein" as long as something has been defined as belonging to "repressions", "victims" or "proteins" in the literature. Once again, this is reference work. Biophys (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I vote for ridiculous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It is wholly ridiculous, Hodja. For instance, to Nazi and fascist supporters, who produce plenty of "reference works", Adolf Hitler and Germany were victims, and the Ustase got a bad rap. If you cite the writings of certain extremist apologists as a "reference" you're going to come up with considerably different results than if you use The Times of London or the Wall Street Journal as references. Do Haaretz and Al Jazeera ever agree on anything? What about Conor Cruise O'Brien and Tim Pat Coogan? Even impeccable references can be labeled by opposing viewpoints as subjective, but just because we have not managed to solve that problem yet vis a vis Wikipedia is no reason to throw every shred of objectivity and neutrality and scholarship and common sense out the window. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Hodja, you still have not satisfactorily responded to the question of whether you are allowed to be participating in this CfD, given that many of the categories relate to the former Soviet Union. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Every existing classification including biological taxonomy is approximate and can be challenged. But this is not a reason to live without classification. Same is here. And frankly, renaming Category:Austrian victims of Nazi German repressions to Category:Austrian people persecuted by political repression in Nazi Germany is indeed ridiculous.Biophys (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum, anyone? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "Category:Austrian people persecuted by political repression in Nazi Germany is indeed ridiculous" -- that was Uzma Gamal's idea -- remember. Since Uzma has apparently abandoned this colloquy you should let Uzma know how you feel rather than preach to the converted on that point, which doesn't in any way, btw, strengthen your own stance, since Uzma's renaming scheme was just a minor tweak, like a band-aid for a gunshot wound. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Re. "Every existing classification including biological taxonomy is approximate and can be challenged." As already stated, so far as all of us know, nobody has ever applied that hunch to such categories as Category:Italian composers, Category:Children of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, and Category:Israeli military personnel, and I really can't see such categories being challenged the way that Category:Victims of political repression has now been repeatedly challenged at CfD. This present challenge is clearly analogous to the way that such categories as Category:Political prisoners and Category:Terrorists have been succesfully challenged to the point of deletion in previous CfD nominations.

It's not awfully hard to see why that might be. Methinks there is a reason why categories like "victims of repression" time and again stirs controversy on WP:NPOV-related grounds at CfDs -- because, unlike some other aforementioned categories, this categorization itself is controversial, and that's palpably clear to anyone familiar with the dictionary definition of "controversial" as "subject to controversy; given to controversy; disputatious." As BHG has already quoted the WP:CAT admonition that

"Categorizations appear on pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate",

I'll simply add that, in this case, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I certainly don't mind encyclopedias that do choose to subscribe to a particular point of view, but my understanding remains that Wikipedia's principles demand that while representing all notable POVs as part of lending perspective and balance to articles about controversial areas, the Wikipedia project is not itself meant or supposed to endorse any particular point of view. If we seriously accept some assertion to the effect that "anything is open to challenge and up for grabs" we might as well go all out and wax philosophical about it, denying the existence of neutrality, objectivity, or the apparent distinction between fact and value. But that denial itself would flatly contradict the project's explicit policy (WP:NPOV) that neutrality "cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." Zloyvolsheb (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Still no satisfactory response by Biophys (Hodja) to the previous comment, to wit: "By the way, Hodja, you still have not satisfactorily responded to the question of whether you are allowed to be participating in this CfD, given that many of the categories relate to the former Soviet Union."

Additionally, Biophys (Hodja) has been informed by at least two editors not to leave personal diatribes on other editors' talkpages regarding this CfD. Anything germane to the conversation should be here. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

South African Cat

• Rename South African Cat Category:Victims of Apartheid repressions in South Africa to Category:People prosecuted under Apartheid laws in South Africa and place that under Category:Apartheid laws in South Africa. Any objection to moving this cat out of the larger nomination to deletion and into it's own rename discussion? RevelationDirect (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

  I can't speak for anyone else but your proposed renaming (Category:Victims of Apartheid repressions in South Africa to Category:People prosecuted under Apartheid laws in South Africa) looks good to me. With a genuinely NPOV structure now, it should be OK for moving out of the larger nomination. But more opinions from the gallery would be appreciated. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

  I object to your proposal to rename the existing victims categ to Category:People prosecuted under Apartheid laws in South Africa. I note the long-standing example of Category:People prosecuted under anti-homosexuality laws, but I;m not happy about that category either. It does indeed have the merit of being definable, but prosecution is not the same as conviction, and while the South African apartheid courts were not exactly renowned for the fairness to the defendant, it is wrong to categorise people by what they were prosecuted for: in some cases, the charges against an accused person may be rejected by the court or even thrown out by the judge as a pile of nonsense ... and the acquitted person should not have the label hanging around their neck. I am aware that in some cases the fact of prosecution may have a highly destructive effect on the individual, but tagging people with unsuccessful charges seems like a very bad route to follow. If applied (for example) to murder or rape charges, it would amount to a no-smoke-without-fire smear category, and that would be unacceptable. We already have categories for people convicted of various charges: see Category:People by criminal conviction. So why not have a Category:People convicted under Apartheid laws in South Africa? That's neutral, definable, and excludes those who were acquitted ... but it has a much narrower in scope than the current category, because much of the repression under apartheid was carried out through administrative rather than judicial means. rather than renaming, it would be much better to create the new category and populate it as appropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

  "So why not have a Category:People convicted under Apartheid laws in South Africa?" I stand corrected. I did kinda overlook the distinction between "prosecuted" and "convicted", given the general disregard in which the regime was held. Thanks, BHG. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

  Loose Consensus: There seems to be agreement that a legally definable category for South Africa would be okay. There is some disagreement over whether that should be based on "prosecution" or "conviction" though. I would suggest that the place for such a fine-tuning discussion going into the specifics of South African law would be better suited for a Cfr discussion rather than a Cfd one. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

  The specifics of the South African legal system: In general I agree that conviction is a better categorization than prosecution because you don't want to impugn someone's character when they were subsequently found not guilty. But there is no stigma for these crimes as evidenced by politicians bragging about them. More importantly, "prosecution" is problematic in a South African context. Because you need a clean criminal record for many civil service jobs, the Ministry of Justice's Criminal Records Board has expunged the records of countless Apartheid-era convictions. When a conviction is expunged in South Africa it's not just ignored from that point forward but, legally, it never happened whereas the prosecution still did. This is a form of legal wordplay of course but, since I'm advocating moving this category to a legal subject matter tree, we should stick with the legal definitions. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

  A legally definable category might work, but it would be very different to the current subjective category. From the currently dominant anti-apartheid POV, Category:Victims of Apartheid repressions in South Africa could legitimately include nearly all non-whites in apartheid South Africa, so it's a useless starting point. Discussions on creating a new, verifiable NPOV category should begin at the relevant wikiproject, where editors with more knowledge of the subject can bring more their expertise to the scoping issues as well as the subjectivity. The expunging of records is one factor that should form apart of such a discussion.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

  If you look at how this cat is populated you'll realise that this is by no means a legal cat. Chris Hani's victim role was more literal; he was assassinated. People at the Sharpeville massacre were simply killed, no legal procedure involved. Others were denied medical treatment, denied promotion, forced to move to another town, etc. So no, this cat should not be renamed as suggested. --Pgallert (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

If it is not "a legal cat", then it is subjective and renaming is pointless. Delete with the rest. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn Psychiatry Cat Request

Request to Hold Nomination for Category:Victims of psychiatric repression only. This subject tree does have issues but, other than the similarity in name, it is distinct from the political repression by country cats and should be discussed separately. I entered a nomination to move the lead article in the parent cat. If that succeeds, I'll enter a nomination to rename the cat in a week where, if appropriate, we can discuss deleting the cat at that point. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC) I oppose this hold request. The requested move of the article has a very poor rationale, and has no apparent relevance to the problems of this category, which are actually almost identical to the political ones: that the category is inherently subjective, because it is very much a matter of POV whether a particular application of psychiatry is repressive (or "punitive" in RevelationDirect's preferred terminology). For example, the anti-psychiatry movement characterises psychiatry as inherently repressive, so from that perspective it could include all people who have been subjected to psychiatry. Huge debates rage about the repressive (or otherwise) nature of psychiatric approaches to women and LGBT people, and to racism in psychiatry. So it's the same subjectivity problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Since the lead article rename is unlikely to be successful, there is no longer a reason to delay considering this cat for deletion. I withdraw my request. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• From WP:NPOV:

Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Deleting categories justified by sources is a violation of NPOV.Biophys (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• As above, you still fail to distinguish between the categorisation of individual articles, and the existence of categories which convey a point of view rather than an assertion of fact. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". Where categories assert a point of view incapable of objective assessment, they are a) unstable (because inclusion depends entirely on which sources are selected) and b) give WP:UNDUE weight to one of those viewpoints, and are incapable of giving due weight to the others. That is the basis of the long-standing guideline at WP:OC#Subjective_inclusion_criterion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • • We just talked about this, and here is your argument. I gave you one quite obvious example of a person who does belong to the category according to nearly all sources. There is a huge number of other examples, for example in countries like Nazi Germany. You tell that there are also other examples that are disputable. Yes, of course. But so is the case with a lot of other categories, even such as Category:Proteins. Does it justify removal of a category? No. I am talking here about following WP:NPOV per sources; this has nothing to do with WP:IAR. Biophys (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

We are not talking about someone being "tall" or "famous", but about someone officially recognized (by multiple reliable sources and frequently by the same state) as unjustly persequted person. Hence, Wikipedia:OC#Subjective_inclusion_criterion is irrelevant. Here the point of view is objectively assessed by sources. Biophys (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It remains a point of view, as exemplified by the fact that one regime took one view and a later regime took another. All this can be discussed in the text of the article, but you are trying to use the category system to promote one subjective POV over another. If you want to categorise points of fact (such as whether someone was imprisoned or killed or deported), then of course reliable sources can be weighed to determine whether to assert those facts ... you are trying to make a value judgement without the attribution or qualification which is require by WP:NPOV. This sort of category is no different in concept from a Category:Bad people or Category:Good people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)