Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 August 4

4 August 2021

CRUSE

CRUSE (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

csda7 is invalid because the article asserted significance -- for example, its scanners out-performed four other notable companies.--RZuo (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Temporarily undeleted for DRV. Daniel (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to AfD if desired. There's a CCS in one of the references that's even more explicit than those in the text of the article. Jclemens (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy overturn and send to AfD. If someone wants a discussion, let them have the discussion. Don’t make this wait a week here. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Category:Political prisoners

Category:Political prisoners (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was closed as "convert to container category" with the rationale "Although a majority of participants would prefer to keep the category and discuss inclusion on a case-by-case basis, on this occasion the arguments based on Wikipedia policies outweigh the numbers." This is very subjective - with the disclaimer that I was the category's creator and voted keep, I nonetheless find the keep arguments well-articulated, and the opposing one much less so. In particular, I note that I and others have replied to several voters who suggested containerization, but said voters never replied to us. It's disappointing that silent refusal to participate in the discussion is treated as "convincing". I could see this being closed as no consensus, or relisted, but I don't think closing this as de facto delete (containerize isn't much better) is the right action. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn — the “keep” voters were, on the whole, every bit as thoughtful, engaged, logical and policy-grounded as the other side. Ignoring our arguments is arbitrary and, frankly, insulting. — Biruitorul ^Talk 13:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn to keep At the very, very, least the closing statement is poor. "...on this occasion the arguments based on Wikipedia policies outweigh the numbers." is a fine reason to go against the majority, but you have to actually cite what policies are involved. Beyond that, BHG made a strong argument, but A) it was well refuted and B) most people didn't agree with it. And yes, we are capable of using sources to figure out category membership. Bad close that cannot be allowed to stand. Hobit (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn - I'm a bit shocked that, despite so many of us voting to Keep this important category it was unilaterally deleted anyways. Please, there are so many important historical topics about political imprisonment that predate modern NGO designations. --Dan Carkner (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Wrong on both counts, @Dan Carkner:

1. See WP:NOTVOTE. The closer's job is not to count heads, but to weigh policy-based reasoned argument.
2. The closer's decision was not made unilaterally. It was explicitly based on weighing the arguments made in the discussion: the arguments based on Wikipedia policies outweigh the numbers.

This blatant misrepresentation of the close is disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Closer's response: Forgive me not going into more detail in the close. I will remedy that. As for the to-and-fro about WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, I was satisfied by the arguments that categories can be justified by text within the article, and if need be can be discussed on a case-by-case basis. However, I found that the justifications for the category did not satisfy WP:SUBJECTIVECAT: an inherently non-neutral inclusion criterion should not be used in naming/defining a category. What about adding sub-cats by prison? Category:Boven-Digoel internees was made a sub-cat during the discussion – probably justifiable in my opinion, but POV. Category:Detainees of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp was repeatedly brought up as a controversial case, to which the only answer given was WP:FRINGE, but that hardly avoids POV. Category:Prisoners in the Tower of London might perhaps also be put forward to be a sub-cat, because a lot of the members could be called political even if some were regular criminals, and WP:SUBCAT says When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent also. I concluded that recording people in Wikipedia as political prisoners should only be done in articles, lists, and categories by designating organisation. – Fayenatic London 16:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Fayenatic, with respect, "political prisoner" has 6.8 million hits on google books, it's a very important topic, ranging across almost all modern nations and empires, not something that should be deleted because you find it murky to sort out one case study from another. It's a defining attribute of many important historical figures, especially victims of Soviet regimes and other totalitarian systems that predate modern NGOs; not something that is equivalent to the mere status of being someone who has been imprisoned for any reason. Dan Carkner (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dan Carkner, that argument is based on a classic straw man: the notion that this CFD is to "delete" en.wp's coherent of political prisoners.
No article has been deleted by this CFD, and no article's text has been altered. This CFD was solely about the use of categories to group en.wp's articles on people who have been labelled as political prisoners, and as the closer explicitly notes above recording people in Wikipedia as political prisoners should only be done in articles, lists, and categories by designating organisation. The claim that this amounts to "delete" political prisoners is nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Categories serve a useful purpose for someone who wants to navigate a topic, and can be be managed by editors much more easily than maintaining a manually edited list related to a topic-- and such lists are often incomplete and poorly sourced. Not to mention the sub categories by nationality offer a way to group articles related to the larger topic. The main article about political prisoners, and of course all the individual biographical articles about prisoners or prisons are not deleted, but the functional ability to navigate them for users is reduced. I feel OK with using the word delete on this deletion review, it's what we're talking about and not a straw man. Dan Carkner (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dan Carkner, your comment was phrased to describe deletion of an important topic. That remains false.
WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV can not be set aside for navigational convenience. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

"...and such lists are often incomplete and poorly sourced" - Categories are not an end-run around needing references. period, full stop. If you cannot create a referenced list article on the topic, that topic has no business being a category on Wikipedia. This is per long established policy, not just WP:CAT, but WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, and so on. - jc37 19:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, they have to be sourced, and can be. I've written my share of political prisoner biographies for people who were interned for membership in parties and which is reflected both in the contemporary journalistic coverage and secondary academic literature. There's no reason I shouldn't be able to describe them as a political prisoner in a category if the literature reflects it overwhelmingly. It strikes me as downgrading the validity of the topic to prevent people from using the term in categories.--Dan Carkner (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

You can have reliable sources saying someone thinks that, in their subjective opinion, someone qualifies for the subjective term of "political prisoner" and that is absolutely appropriate for the article space. But this category is making a radically different assertion: in the official opinion of Wikipedia, that subjective claim is objectively true. Good luck finding a reliable source for that! - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

If this was a problem, we wouldn't have any mildly controversial category, for rapists, scandals, conspiracy theories, etc. You can find reliable sources that are obsolete or just a bit fringe supporting many minority viewpoints, and we don't categorize them. Categories, after all, are for defining qualities, not minority viewpoints (which may or may not be reliable but are generally fringe and not defining, thus not categorizable). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

That is thoroughly disingenuous. The issue here is not fringe or obsolete or minority viewpoints. The problem is that contested definitions often frame the two sides of a major political dispute, and in the case of the 1981 Irish hunger strike. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Please stop the Straw mans. What has the 1981 Irish strike to do with this? Is there any category that was edit warred there, and/or ended up being deleted because it was abused there? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, there is no straw man at all. On the contrary, the 1981 Irish hunger strike is a clear example of a nation divided over the question to whether a set of people were criminals or political prisoners. Far from being an objective fact discernible from reliable sources, it was the core issue of a violent political dispute. Your choice to label it as a straw man displays a deep contempt for facts which do not suit your agenda. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london I appreciate your rationale, but you present a novel argument. Only one person brought up the SUBJECTIVECAT argument, which I attempted to refute. Nobody else as far as I can tell saw it as particularly valid (or not). As for the sub-cats by prison, I don't think this was discussed either. I think your explanation above reads like a valid VOTE but is not a proper summary for close - it seems, to me, like you found one voters argument persuasive and ignored everything else. Thus you turned your personal vote into a close. That I find not appropriate - you acted not as a neutral closer, but as a participant in the discussion. You should have voted and presented your arguments, some of which are quite novel, and given others the opportunity to comment on your vote. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse "Political prisoner" is an inherently POV term, and the closer's rationale about needing more context for this seems a reasonable approach. Jclemens (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Having gone through and read the comments, I find BrownHairedGirl's argument persuasive and sufficiently aligned with NPOV policy that the keep !voters simply don't have a policy-based leg to stand on. Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  As a further question to those advocating that this exist as a category, if he 1) actually had an article (he doesn't, we have articles on others of the same name) and 2) if his jailing was longer, should Canadian Pastor Tim Stephens [1] be included in a category of political prisoners? That's a rhetorical question, obviously, because the answer really depends on what one believes with respect to the legitimacy of Covid-19 restrictions affecting religious observances. Jclemens (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  The only "problem" this term has is that it is occasionally abused as some folks try to claim they are political prisoners despite no support for these outside tiny minorities. But as I said, it is not a problem for us; fringe claims do not get categorized. Just like 99% of sources agree that Mandela or Ghandi were political prisoners, hardly anybody in reliable sources would support Stephens. As I said, we can have a category hatnote noting that inclusion in this category requires in-text citation to a reliable source that is not challenged or fringe. Usually, it's quite easy to find plenty of academic or respected NGO / journalists saying someone is a political prisoner. Fringe cases should not be allowed. Problem solved. (And again, this is not a new rule, this is normal - categories are not for fringe claims, which is why despite, let's say, the existence of Holocaust denials or evolution denials groups and like, we don't categorize The Holocaust or evolution theory as false or conspiracies or whatever). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  More disingenuousness. In the case of the 1981 Irish hunger strikers or Julian Assange or Leonard Peltier, there is not a mainstream view versus a fringe: there are two radically different worldviews which have opposing concepts of what is a political prisoner. Choosing one pOV over the other is breach of WP:NPOV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  You have not presented any sources for your assertions. You may be right, or not, but each case like this should be discussed on the relevant article's talk page. In either case, and more to a point I am not aware any of the cases you cite have been included in our category, not to mention edit warred on. You are suggesting controversy time and again where none exists (certainly not on Wikipedia). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  There are plenty of sources in the articles, which could read if you were interested in the facts.
  It is wholly irrelevant whether or not those examples have previosuly been included in Category:Political prisoners, because if the category is to exist it must be possible to make an NPOV decision on whether to include them. Instead, you are using a series of evasion tactics to avoid answering the question of hpow that decision can be made in a NPOV way when opinion is clearly divided between major camps, and you have repeatedly misreprsented the balance of opinion on such cases as one of mainstream views versus fringe. You are pushing a POV, and denying reality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse. The closer correctly applied the policy of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Deciding inclusion on a case-by-case basis is not a viable option when the definition of political prisoner is so heavily dependent on POV. It is deeply depressing to see how some editors in the CFD argued to disregard that core policy POV issue in favour of a majoritarian view of sources, and come here to continue their opposition to policy. That approach would entrench Wikipedia's systemic bias, because the inevitable prominence given to English-language sources by our English-speaking editors would tilt the population of this category towards the perspective of English-speakers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • PS In addition to my principled objection per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, I have a very specific concern about this category: Ireland.
    One of the key episodes of The Troubles in Northern Ireland was the 1981 Irish hunger strike, which was about the prisoners' demand for Special Category Status, i.e. being treated as political prisoners. The British Government withdrew that status, and the prisoners' response was the hunger strike which became the major political crisis across the island of Ireland in 1981.
    Note that the whole dispute was about "who is a political prisoner".
    If we have a Category:Political prisoners to populated with biographical articles (whether directly or in by-country subcats such as Category:Political prisoners in Northern Ireland), then editors face a binary choice; either the prisoners such as Bobby Sands are categorised as political prisoners, or they are not. That decision comes down to a choice between the Irish republican POV or the British POV. There is no side-stepping this, e.g. by excluding all Irish prisoners from such categories, because any such exclusion would be an endorsement of one POV. In the mid-2000s, The Troubles was a vicious battleground on Wikipedia, with groups of POV-warriors in constant conflict. Restoring this sort of POV category will restart that editorial conflict by forcing Wikipedia to choose a side. Per WP:NPOV, that should not happen. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

    Regarding Bobby Sands, his case was controversial - 40 years ago. My review of modern literature about him suggests he is generally recognized as a political prisoner by scholars, as in, I am seeing him being labelled as such (ex. here), and no challenges to this label, which seems to make it defining. So the process would be to categorize him as such, until sources challenging this status are found, at which point they'd be reviewed on talk, and if the challenges are non-fringe, the category would be removed as no longer defining (since there would be a disagreement). However, since you presented no modern, reliable sources disputing classification of him as a political prisoner, I see no problem with this - the only attribution of such object is your personal POV. You *think* this is a controversial claim that invalidates the category, but this is just your subjective view, not backed up by any sources. In either case, cases like Sands are exception to the rule, most people called political prisoners are hardly challenged. The category is defining and uncontroversial for vast majority of people who'd be in it (the list is at Talk:Political_prisoner#Category_for_political_prisoners_recreated,_challenged and did not contain Sands). I'll end by asking a question I fully expect to be ignored by you (prove me wrong...): do you dispute that Aung San Suu Kyi, Václav Havel, Nelson Mandela, Liu Xiaobo, Adam Michnik and Alexei Navalny - to take a few prominent high profile cases - are recognized as political prisoners by majority of reliable sources? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus, because there was none.—S Marshall T/C 17:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I want to draw this review's attention to a crucial statement by @Piotrus, who requested this review. In the CFD discussion, Piotrus wrote at 03:58, 5 July 2021: Some categories may be too politicized, particularly in the US, to work on English Wikipedia. This one is not..
  That is an explicit acknowledgement that the topic is a matter of political perspective, and it suggests that these categories not be used wrt to the country most heavily-represented among Wikipedia editors. It implicitly accommodates the highly-partisan notion that "political prisoners" exist only in some "bad countries", and that editors should not trouble themselves trying to apply the same principle regardless of regime. I assume that Piotrus's suggestion was a good faith attempt to avoid controversy; but it amounts to creating a structure which locks in differential standards, and it also provides an excellent illustration of the falsity of Piotrus's claim that the definition of political prisoner is settled. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  As I said in that discussion, no definition for any social science term is really settled; you ignored this point there, and you keep hanging into it as if proves anything - except that you are not very familiar, apparently, with how the existence of multiple definitions is a norm in social sciences. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  No, I did not ignore that point. I chose not to waste time engaging with your disingenuous attempt to conflate the fuzziness of some concepts with cases such as this where various definitions are in open conflict. I assumed that whoever closed the discussion would be smart enough to see through your exercise, and I was right.
  This is not complicated, Piotus: there are many cases such as the 1981 Irish hunger strikers or Julian Assange where well-reasoned mainstream views supporting labelling someone as a political prisoner, and other well-reasoned mainstream views opposing the label. Your attempts to wave away those deep divides are either disingenuous or woefully ill-informed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse - I think others have said it well enough above. Also, this isn't XfD round two, and of course WP:NOTAVOTE. IWANTIT because IWANTIT and 'I've seen the term on the internet' aren't good enough reasons to keep, see also WP:SUPPORT and Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Google_test. - jc37 19:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

How about "I've seen the term in several decades of political science and history literature" rather than "I've seen it on google"? We're not talking about a fringe concept here, even if it's open to being problematized as being used in a politicized manner at times. Dan Carkner (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The issue here is not that it's open to being problematized as being used in a politicized manner at times. The problem is that the term is inherently political. See e.g. Steinert, 2020: "the concept is ambiguously used in academic studies referring to both theoretically and empirically distinct groups of individuals". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

As I pointed out (being the person who found this source), this is normal in social sciences. Most concepts have multiple ambiguous definitions. A study of globalization even got several books and articles dedicated to analyzing the few hundred definitions of it (ex. here: "Many authors have attempted, with relative success, to define globalization in a variety of ways. Some claim that it cannot be done...") ; I am not seeing you trying to CfD Category:Globalization, however. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

No, Piotrus, it is not at all normal in social science to use contested terminology without clarifying which definition(s) are being used. on the contrary, that is a very basic form of bad practice. Furthermore, it is appallingly bad practice in social science to respond to evidence of conflicting definitions as the cause of major political division by falsely accusing the other person of "inventing" uncontested historical fact. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment (as participant) This DRV seems to struggle with the same issue as the CFD: editors talking past each other about the importance of this political concept versus the lack of a non-subjective process of actually picking which articles go in the category. The former is interesting and inspiring while the latter is pretty boring and mechanical. But actual categorization relies on the latter and no formula for escaping WP:SUBJECTIVECAT was ever presented. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Endorse I find DRV most helpful with input from non-participants but, since most of !votes here are from the earlier CFD, I'll make my support explicit. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• overturn. WP:Supervote. It’s not good enough for one camp of !voters to be right, the discussion has to reach a consensus. I see a “no consensus” and recommend continued discussion at Talk:Political prisoner#Category for political prisoners recreated, challenged, with consideration of an RfC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @SmokeyJoe: This is very clearly not a supervote. See WP:Supervote#Advice_to_editors_decrying_a_supervote_close: For example, if an XfD discussion has more "keeps" than "deletes" but the "deletes" are grounded in policy and the "keeps" are of the WP:ILIKEIT variety (or conversely if the deletes say WP:ITSCRUFT and the "keeps" are grounded in policy), it's not a "supervote" to close in accordance with a significant minority opinion. This close was clearly founded in the core policy which to which the minority pointed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

    On the contrary, I think Joe is very much right. This was the case "that reflects the preference of the closer, rather than according to the content of the discussion." Although I am willing to consider that the closer really tried to be neutral, but was still swayed by one side's arguments - but that compromises their neutrality, when, as many other parties point out, neither side had a clear superiority in their arguments (and of course, I lean towards the view that keepers were more persuasive - although I am sure you'd disagree). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

    Piotrus, you misunderstand the role of the closer. The closer weighed the arguments against policy, which is their core responsibility. You want a headcount, but WP:NOTAVOTE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

    There were no WP:JUSTAVOTE "votes". I want a closer to not discard arguments of one side under no justification or one that I find lacking. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn. I don't see a consensus reached in the CFD discussion. The arbitrary close is troubling.--Darwinek (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• I think the question a topic is too subjective to be a category is, itself, subjective. I don't understand how a closer can claim that their view is somehow an objectively true. (I !voted above). Hobit (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Hobit Indeed. There are "arguments" which can be dismissed out of hand (per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid) but the closer here did not identify any problematic arguments. Despite the clear no consensus, they chose to side with one side with a justification that I find quite lacking and I concur that it seems subjective. If FL found arguments of one side more compelling than others, but neither clearly disqualifiable due to being "just a votes", "personal attacks", "I like its" and uch, and in rough balance, numerically, they should have either closed as no consensus or simply voted themselves and let the discussion continue. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• A question for those who voted to overturn: @Piotrus, Biruitorul, Hobit, Dan Carkner, S Marshall, and SmokeyJoe.
  If we have a Category:Political prisoners or a set of Category:Political prisoners by country/nationality categories, then we editors face a binary choice with every prisoner: do they get categorised as political or not. There is no half-way house: either a prisoner is in the category or they are omitted.
  In the case of the 1981 Irish hunger strikers such as Bobby Sands there are two clearly distinct, polar-opposite points of view. Having a Category:Political prisoners means that editors must make a binary choice between two options:

1. Categorise Bobby Sands and the other prisoners in the H-blocks in Category:Political prisoners, thereby endorsing the Irish republican point of view.
2. Omit Bobby Sands and the other prisoners in the H-blocks from Category:Political prisoners, thereby endorsing the point of view of the British government, which expressly described the prisoners as criminals.

With categories, there is no in-between option, no opportunity to use cautious phrasing to covey nuance or dispute. Either an article is in a category or it is not.

If you are unfamiliar with the topic, please read the article Bobby Sands to see how opinion was polarised into opposing blocks.

So my question is: Please explain how either of those two options is compatible with the policies WP:NPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

Please note that this is not a theoretical question. It is a practical one about a very high-profile issue which will have to be decided one or the other if this category is undeleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be well outside the scope of the review process, as outlined by WP:DRVPURPOSE. — Biruitorul ^Talk 04:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The case of Bobby Sands is to be discussed on his talk page first. And the alleged controversy is not even backed up by any sources (we only have your word that there is any modern neutralality problem and a British vs Irish POV in reliable sources). Plus he wasn't ever categorized as a political prisoner on Wikipedia. You are inventing a threat of possible future controversies to argue the existing category is controversial - but it has never been so on Wikipedia (and on the contrary, it happily exists on dozens of other Wikipedias in various languages too - now that's a fact, unlike speculation on whether in some wiki future we will have a dispute over how to categorize Sands). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

More nonsense, Piotrus. Of course he wasn't ever categorized as a political prisoner on Wikipedia, because such categories have been deleted promptly after creation.

Similar your claim that we only have your word that there is any modern neutralality problem is based either on a failure to read the article, or on outright deceit. The question of whether Sands was a political prisoner is what the whole dispute was about. I am disgusted by your mailicious smears that I am "inventing" something. It is a matter of undisputed historical fact that the hunger strike was about whether or not the H-block prisoners were political prisoners, and your claim that I am fabricating it is very nasty conduct toward another editor, as well as contemptuous of historical fact.

I am inventing nothing. This is a real, practical issue, which is exceptionally well-documented: a search for "h-blocks" political status" gets over 500 hits on Gbooks and 128 hits on Gbooks. If Category:Political prisoners is re-created, either Sand belongs in the category or he doesn't. Which POV to you uphold, Piotrus: The IRA or the British govt?

If, as you claim, this is all uncontroversial, then you can tell you what your quick, simple answer is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)