Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 September 13
2010 September 15 >

14 September 2010[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

action taken was contrary to consensus Kevin Baastalk 16:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

also notice the even more overwhelming keep consensus of an earlier attempt at deletion (if my memory serves me correctly, by the same nominator): Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy. Kevin Baastalk 16:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I don't have the slightest idea as to what you are challenging; the "XfD" link in this DRV is pointing to just the article, not a discussion. Is it this large merge finding from 2008? Tarc (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • yes. sorry about that. i tried putting a link to that first, but it malformed the template. yes, that one. (can you fix, please?) i count 4 delete, 1 merge, 2 keep, and 6 strong keep. the prior one was even stronger, like 10:1 keep. (it's obvious that it had a lot more people participating in the vote. (better advertised?)) i'm surprised a second attempt was even made. not so surprised that it failed, ofcourse. but there precisely lies the problem. Kevin Baastalk 17:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, link fixed. First off, I'd have to ask "why now?", since it has been 2.5 years since that thing closed. Second, and this purely my opinion, but I pretty much discount 2004-era XfDs. It's a prehistoric wiki-era when the d was for "deletion" rather than "discussion", and outcomes depended more on vote-counting than argument-weighing as it is (supposed to) be done nowadays. Finally, several of the keeps were more favorable of retaining a main controversies page, but offered either "weak keep" or "merge" for the rest. Tarc (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. with all due respect, if you actually tally the "several of the keeps were more favorable of retaining a main controversies page, but offered either "weak keep" or "merge" for the rest." count, you will find exactly one "week keep [the rest]" and exactly one "keep or merge the rest ... subarticles will still be needed (ahem)". hardly "several". the rest were all keep or strong keep all the articles. Kevin Baastalk 18:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • are you talking about the most recent deletion discussion? The one in 2008? Protonk (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • yes. Kevin Baastalk 18:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case I'll generally endorse the decision, as the best way to close the contentious discussion about an article which had frankly grown out of proportion to its eventual importance (And was anchored on a flawed interpretation of exit polling which has since been debunked). However, building a new, reasonably sourced and weighted article isn't outside the realm of possibility. Protonk (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • There has been no flawed or debunked interpretations of exit polling. Statistics by its very nature works both ways. As the Exit poll article clearly states "Exit polls have historically and throughout the world been used as a check against and rough indicator of the degree of election fraud.". The question is simply one of degree and probability. Having corrected that factual error (everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts), I must add that it is not really relevant in the first place. There were a myriad of very real issues, especially in ohio, and that is what the controversies, and likewise, articles are about, not exit the polls. Also, although "building a new, reasonably sourced and weighted article isn't outside the realm of possibility", the current method has clearly failed at accomplishing that. And finally, that is not the question to be debated here. If you were voting on an AfD request, those kind of opinions would be perfectly relevant. But here we are assessing whether the action taken reflected the consensus of those voting on an AfD that is already closed. Kevin Baastalk 14:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. In this case, exit polling was interpreted erroneously to reach the conclusion that it was wildly improbable for the voters in Ohio to elect Bush given the results of the exit poll. Nate Silver gives a gentle introduction to the problem but the biggest issue is the fact that exit polls don't represent a random sample of voters and so acting as though they do when generating standard errors is a mistake. Exit polls both select polling places, which creates clusters of voters who share certain observable and unobservable characteristics and voters leaving those polling places self-select in deciding to talk to a pollster. Though self selection exists in phone polling, the effect is much less pronounced and a bit more random than self-selection in exit polling. A strong rhetorical argument was made at the AAPOR conference in 2006. A more balanced argument can be found in this journal article (A fairly well regarded journal published by the APSA). Beyond the clustering and self selection issues are issues of absentee voting--not captured in exit polls and poorly modeled or not at all modeled by the news organizations who commission or report such polls. In short: non-response is correlated with political inclination. An omnibus evaluation of the specific exit poll methodology used in Ohio concluded that Kerry voters participated more in in exit polls than Bush voters (the study was commissioned by the polling company itself, but has been reprinted in Elections and Exit Polling, a volume edited by an expert in the field). It is most certainly not something which can "go either way". The principal article in popular press regarding the exit poll controversy is certainly RFK jr's from Rolling Stone, an article I read with rapt attention (and believed for some time). In it the author basically cherry picks opinions from researchers arguing that the difference between exit polls and outcome in Ohio could not have occurred by chance. He makes the critical error of assuming that the shift in each exit poll is independent of another; this assumption is absolutely false, for the reasons shown above. If the assumption is false, the previously astronomical probabilities given in the piece (generated by basically multiplying the individual probabilities of a polling place result being different from the exit poll result, which is true iff the differences are independent from each other) do not describe the probability that the exit polls are jointly different from the results. As for the general concern that the initial controversy is irrelevant to the DRV, sure. Recapitulating the arguments isn't necessarily the best path, but I want to do so for a few reasons. First, the argument we are having now occurred in the AfD, meaning that one of the reasons voters wanted to merge or delete the specific articles was that they didn't describe the issue neutrally alone. Second, we have two more years of hindsight. More scholarly papers have been published, better models for predicting elections have been developed and charges of fraud have not been substantiated. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, it's a matter of degree and probability. The issues that came up have very largely been substantiated, and it didn't take two years, it was done right away. Take for instance the many election related lawsuits against the ohio secretary of state at the time (e.g. http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/klbna.php ), many of which are finished and ruled in favor of the plaintiff. That's just one of many examples, each one rather noteworthy in itself. I'd refer you to the wikipedia pages for plenty more examples, but there you see we run into a little conundrum. But again, you see, none of this is relevant. If this were an AfD request, or the AfD request in question was still open, it might be. But it is not. This is a review of a clerical task involving an AfD that is closed. Kevin Baastalk 19:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing there weren't irregularities. Hence why we have a large article on those irregularities and controversies. But the AfD concluded that the sub-articles were better merged into a larger article in order to deal with problems of scope, attention and POV. Among those smaller articles (some which weren't actually smaller) were specific articles on voting machines, exit polls and such. Those issues have not taken a life of their own and have not been borne out in the literature--were they substantiated by serious work, we could argue that they are unfairly shoehorned into a larger article. Like I said way above, this is a 2 year old AfD and I don't think it completely bars creating a new article which reflects the distribution of opinion and research on the subject. It should be taken as a cautionary tale, given that the articles ballooned into POV monstrosities. And it isn't "a matter of degree and probability". That implies that there is some mix of interpretations of the results based on the fact that polls are involved. That kind of equivocation isn't helpful. As for your ending comment, that leaves me with the opinion that regardless of the data, the basic conclusion of the AfD was uncontroversial and within admin discretion. Protonk (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Though it does not imply that, when striving for accuracy, thoroughness and honesty are always helpful. Re: "But the AfD concluded..." we are not debating what the administrator that closed the afd concluded. we would not even be having this discussion had he concluded differently. i don't know what "data" you are refering to when you say "regardles of the data", hopefully not the consensus. in any case it's quite obvious that the conclusion of the AfD was and remains controversial. and i hope that by "within admin discretion" you are implying that the admin can choose to do whatever they want regardless of what the consensus is. if that were the case, it would be kind of pointless to even have AfD's in the first place. Kevin Baastalk 19:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a necessary condensation of the AfD debate into a single opinion (or ANY debate) and that condensation usually occurs in the closing admin making some discrete decision about the article. If the close is good, then we can say something like "the afd concluded" and mean both the conclusion of the admin and the conclusion some hypothetical admin would make in the same circumstance. What makes a good close is a matter for meta-debate but the basic idea is that the close should reflect a preponderance of reasoned opinion, should (if the opinions allow) bring some finality to the discussion and should accord with policy/guidance. To say that we wouldn't be here were the close "different" is not just tautological, it is wrong. We wouldn't be here, a DRV would have been raised sooner or another AfD would have occurred in the meantime for those article. When I say that a close is within admin discretion that is a shorthand for the "good close" comments above, specifically the first. A close of a unanimous debate is also within admin discretion, so there is no implication that the word discretion implies that the preponderance of opinion was necessarily disregarded. When I say "regardless of the data", I should have said "regardless of the facts on the ground about the specific issue of exit polling implying fraud"--meaning although I have shown that the basis for the allegations in the old exit polling article are false, I don't need to show that in order to say that the close of the AfD was basically sound. It is sufficient to say that a messy debate may be concluded (and in this case, concluded without permanently deleting content) by selecting a single outcome. Protonk (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't need to be so long in your response. and your "not only tautological, it is WRONG" statement is obviously WRONG (the irony!). You are clearly slipping on your logic here. and re:exit polls you have not proven anything. i accept the logic you stated above about the debate but it does not reduce to the conclusion that you say it does - that conclusion does not logically follow. For instance, even after those adjustments there still remains significant discrepancies, which are higher in areas where more problems (and more severe problems) are reported, which, ofcourse, is in line with what one would expect. That's how polls are used as a check and in that respect it is all quite sound. (Another place where you are slipping on your logic.) Any case like i said as we both know none of that is relevant here, the only relevant questions are what i stated below. first one determines the balance of the sentiment in the AfD. then when evaluates the decision with respect to that. from what you said you seem to be putting the cart before the horse in that respect, but thanks for clarifying at least that you are considering the cart. Kevin Baastalk 13:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I voted to keep all but the voter suppression article in 2008 and favorably linked the RS article.  :) See what I said about my change of heart? And you and I even had a discussion then. Protonk (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My main question is this: if you objectively look at the opinions of those involved in the afd discussion (on the afd page) (administrator aside, ofcourse), what is the balance of opinion? (by my count, and i even did i fine-grained tally, it's strongly slanted towards keep all of the articles.) the second question then is was the administrators actions faithful to this balance? Kevin Baastalk 19:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I recall, I closed it as a redirect with the suggestion of merging what content wasn't rubbish. The content wasn't deleted, specifically so that the material not susceptible to the main problem (the terrible sourcing and that the subarticle had turned into a POV fork) could be used in the main article. Did Kevin go through and recover the well-sourced material? The problem here is not recovering material from deletion, the problem is purely editorial - David Gerard (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the close was a good compromise solution. The only other possible close would have been no-consensus, which would not have helped matters any the more than the merge did. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close per DGG. --Avenue (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Close per David Gerard. I think Kevin Baas is trying to rules lawyer his way around some really awful content (the deleted sub-articles). Also, i believe Kevin Baas is misrepresenting the AfD, by my count there are only 5 "strong keeps" not 6, and Klausness and Avenue both !voted strong keep only for the article that survived, not the for the whole set. I also count 5 deletes, not 4, R.Fiend changed his delete !vote to keep only for 2004 United States election voting controversies not for the whole set. Contrary to what Kevin Baas claims, i think if you objectively read the AfD you will see that the majority of the participants were concerned with what useful content there was in the sub articles, not the articles themselves. In that sense, the decision was the right one, merge the useful delete the garbage. Id like to think we did at least a passable job of that. Bonewah (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bonewah, you really should be recusing yourself and you know it. And you shouldn't be making attacks directed at the person. Esp. in the form of wild accusations. Esp. with respect to intent. Besides being ridiculously presumptuous, it's outright immoral. Kevin Baastalk 13:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And why should i recuse myself Kevin? Why should you be entitled to express your opinion on this subject and I be forbidden from doing so? Bonewah (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a false analogy : i am not an administrator, and i am not voting. Obviously. Does the judge/jury ask the plaintiff to recuse themself on account of their involvement? That would be pretty silly, now, wouldn't it? Kevin Baastalk 14:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your rationale that he recuse himself then? He didn't close the discussion you are debating and even if he did, DRV benefits when the closing admin provides comment on the close. Protonk (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This debate was closed nearly 2½ years ago. Can the nominator please explain why it has taken so long before this listing? Stifle (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    At first I wanted sentiments to cool down so people would have a clearer perspective. (it was obvious that people where not being objective), then came real life. Perhaps I was overly optimistic on the objective thing. Kevin Baastalk 13:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Puerto Rican Political Prisoners (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Restore Category. Closing admin improperly deleted the Category as consensus was not reached. Closing admin does not appear to have covered the full extend of the debate in the rationale.My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

The purpose of the Deletion Review/Appeal is not to invoke past deletion precendents as justification for a new deletion. There is a Wikipedia policy that condems such rigid positions. Fact is, even the guidelines on this page pointedly state, "[the Deletion Review] process should not be used to point out other pages that have not been deleted where your page has — each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits." As the principle here is, "each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits" it then follows that "this process should not be used to point out other pages that have been deleted and thus this one should as well." It was also pointed out fairly well in the debate that the Category complies entirely with WP:NPOV. It is not the category as created but, on the contrary, the deletion request itself that was WP:POV. The debate centered on what, in the realm of article names, Wikipedia calls the common name vs. descriptive name. There is a clear analogy here to Categories. I further find it unacceptable that the closing admin appears to have taken but a mere 4 minutes to read, sort out, and process a debate that was 2 weeks in the making. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

Restore Category. Agreed. Just read discussion, consensus wasn't reached. He acted careless and irresponsible by closing the discussion. He apparently closed most of the discussions so he was just on a deletion frenzy. Feedback ☎ 03:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Over the months, there has been quite consistent consensus at CFD to delete categories that categorize individuals as "political prisoners" because they violate WP:NPOV (see here, here, here, here). The fact that a political prisoner category for one particular nationality (in this case, Puerto Rican) was defended by a select number of editors seems to me to activate the considerations of WP:CONLIMITED. Having not heard from the closing admin nor seen any discussion of this on his talk page, I would be hesitant to jump to the conclusions being made above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reminder that "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. This applies to past "precedents" as well. Now to the Past CfD's which were linked above. The middle two reference the first one which again is in direct contradiction to WP:CCC. The latter link says deletion because POV and OR with no explanation on how those policies applied directly. So they do not apply to this discussion. The first one makes the argument that there is no "neutral definition" of the term political prisoner. This in fact has changed since 2006. There is an extensive article on Political Prisoners and reliable source definitions of the term. The argument that "from discussion in 2006", this category should be deleted is not at par with maintaining quality and rationale in deleting this category. This applies to the other categories that where mentioned as well. What we are in agreement is that WP:CONLIMITED applies here. But rather than just saying that it applies, I will explain my rationale. The Wikiproject CfD editors that have nominated this article for deletion have failed to convince the broader community that generally accepted policy or guidelines do not apply. These were pointed out repeatedly during the CfD discussion, none of which have been addressed. A few examples are why the first sentence of WP:V does not apply and why NPOV is ignored when it states that 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.. For this reason Consensus has not been reached on this discussion.
    The first sentence of WP:V means that everything that is included must be verifiable, but it does not mean that everything that is verifiable must be included. This is a logical error: that A -> B does not mean that B -> A. Ruslik_Zero 18:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your summary above. My citing the precedents was more provided here to show the contextual history and lead into my use of CONLIMITED rather than the reason the close should be affirmed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Quazgaa’s point (in "[No one addressed] why the first sentence of WP:V does not apply") has nothing to do with "A -> B does not mean that B -> A". His point is not that B->A, but that B was not disproven. The significance of his edit is that by failure to disprove B, the Cat passed the WP:V test. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
I think Ruslik's point still stands as relevant, even with this clarification. That could well be an indication that Ruslik understood perfectly what was said, but said what he said nonetheless. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I want to object to me having acted careless and irresponsible by closing the discussion. He apparently closed most of the discussions so he was just on a deletion frenzy. Yes, I closed 7 discussions on 24 August, 2 of them as no consensus, 2 as relist, 1 as keep, 1 as rename and only one as delete. Mercy11, how do you know that it took me just 4 minutes to close it? I was actually keeping eye on it for few days before I made a decision.
I as to past precedents, I think in case of categories they are important. Categories are not content pages. They exist to facilitate classification of the articles and navigation among them. This means that any categorization scheme should internally consistent. Ideally every category should be part of a category tree. So, deletion of the similar categories in past is a powerful argument for the deletion of similar categories in the futute. Ruslik_Zero 08:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the Wikipedia policy that Quaazaa is pointing out, namely, this one HERE reads as follows, "While past extensive discussions can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed."
This means what it says, that prior precedents are not to be used in making delete decisions. But these guidelines were not followed by the closing admin, instead he relied on his own skewed interpretation of WP:NPOV to throw in an elusive “objective criteria” into the equation, overriding policy, and now he can neither substantiate nor defend his closing decision.
Furtherrmore, Wikipedia’s list of reasons for deletion, which are found HERE, do not say that “deletion of the similar categories in [the] past is a powerful argument for the deletion of similar categories in the future”, as the closing admin is now stating. The “past precedent argument”, therefore, holds no water. It is an on-the-fly guideline of the closing admin. Likewise, nowhere does it say that the guidelines for past precedents are to be applied with any greater force to Categories than to articles. There is no need to make up policies and guidelines when the Wikipedia policies and guidelines are time-tested and should have been used in this instance to determine the outcome of this Category deletion request. Closing admins are not free to make up their own on-the-fly policies as if they were Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia policy establishes the principle HERE that when admins consider pages for deletion "each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits".
By going back to the past precedent argument, the closing admin is admitting that the prior precedents set the stage for his decision. And this is contrary to policy as explained HERE. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I appreciate that Mercy11 feels very strongly on this issue, but Wikipedia doesn't take sides. The discussion did not establish that "political prisoner" is a neutral term, which leaves deletion (and the proposed upmerge) as the proper outcome. Mackensen (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are in agreement that Wikipedia does not take sides…and that’s precisely the violation here: that in this case where the category has been deleted, the closing admin has taken sides by supporting non-existing sources that would lend credence to his implied claim that the members of the Category “Puerto Rican Political Prisoners” were not political prisoners. This implied claim is contrary to reason, when all the existing neutral sources (see list provided) either say they were political prisoners or imply they were PPs via an prominently stated link. The closing admin thus deleted the Category without any reasonable basis. Here is what the neutral sources have to say about the members of the category "Puerto Rican political prisoners":
US Govt/Executive Branch:
"Political Prisoners by virtue of sedition charge"
US Congressman:
"Political Prisoners"
The Republican Party:
"Prisoners aligned with Puerto Rican Independence"
U.N.:
"Political Prisoners"
"Political Prisoners"
Academia:
"Political Prisoners"
The American Society of Criminology:
"Political Prisoners"
Human Rights Organizations:
"Political Prisoners"
A Writer and Criminologist:
"Political Prisoners" (In, “Prose and cons: essays on prison literature in the United States” By Daniel Quentin Miller. Page 251.)
All the Sovereign Latin America and the Caribbean Countries:
"Political Prisoners"
The 130 countries in the NAM:
"Political Prisoners"
US Judiciary:
"Political Prisoners", per its definition. (See wikidictionary)
My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Restore Category: No rationale provided on why the first sentence of WP:V should be ignored. QuAzGaA 11:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse fair reading of rough consensus. There was a lot of noise and unconvinced participants, tempting me to call "no consensus", but too much of that was a noisy unconvincible. I wish that the closer would have explicitly cited the precedents, for the benefit of the current and future unconvinced. The category fails my personal test of an existing parent article. I suggest that the unconvinced consider working on Puerto Rican Political Prisoners, after a careful reading of WP:NPOV, WP:COI and WP:NOTADVOCATE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I invite SmokeyJoe to please explain specifically how those policies apply to the discussion at hand. Also, I suggest that the "convinced" try and convince the "unconvinced" using the policies that seem to be floating through these discussions. Providing policy names as "suggested reading" does not add anything to these discussions. QuAzGaA 15:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Parent article"? Good point Smokey, and maybe an idea for future work – unless, of course, the closing admin is making lack of a parent article a necessary and sufficient condition criteria for killing the Category… in which case a “hold”, while such article was developed, would had been more appropriate.
However, the policy is quite clear. It says HERE that “each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits.” The closing admin did not follow this policy.
It was clear there was no consensus in the delete debate. The closing admin acted contrary to the policy that indicates HERE that “The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so.”
I would argue that the closing admin was in doubt as to whether or not there was consensus on the objectivity portion of his closing comments. At that point, instead of leaving the Category alone, as indicated in this Wikipedia guideline HERE which states that "If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators will normally not delete it," the closing admin instead decided to delegate the closing/Kill decision to the past precedent argument to tip the balance. Unfortunately for the rationale supported by the closing admin, past precedents, says in this Wikipedia policy HERE, are not to be used to make decisions on deleting new pages. This means that while a closing admin may refer to past precedents for informational purposes (i.e., to fill in any information vacuums he may have), he cannot use such precedents in the decision-making task itself. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Endorse, as the term being used has been repeatedly shown not to be NPOV, and this CFD didn't make the case that it is. --Kbdank71 18:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Repeatedly shown"? Hum,,, sounds to me like "Let's not try going to the moon, as it has been repeatedly tried but always failed before." I will proffer the following links and let you see for yourself if they repeatedly show that the name "Puerto Rican Political Prisoners" is shown in the context of being POV. Here are mainstream U.S. news media stories calling these people "political prisoners":
Political Prisoners by link
Political Prisoners by link
Political Prisoners
Political prisoner
Political Prisoners by link
Political Prisoners by link
Political Prisoners by link
Political Prisoners by link
Political Prisoners by link
Political Prisoners by link
Political Prisoners
Political Prisoners
Political Prisoners
My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Yes, repeatedly shown here at wikipedia, via consensus. Just because mainstream media says something doesn't mean a) it should be in the encyclopedia, or b) that it's npov. --Kbdank71 10:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What has been repeatedly failed to be rationalized is a) Why it should not be in the encyclopedia, and b) Why its not WP:NPOV. This category has repeatedly been shown why it should be in this encyclopedia through policies and guidelines which try to represent all sides of an issue, thus striving to become neutral. This Encyclopedia represents an international English community, not any specific demographical majority. In representing all sides of the issue, and basing his actions on what is best for the project, what policies should be ignored, what policies should take precedent, is the core responsibility of a closing Admin. This is not the case here. Not just because since 2006 ..... Not because its logical for them to do so. Thus a Consensus has yet to be achieved here. QuAzGaA 12:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alleged past precedent "consensus" and point letter "b" about the Category being POV, have both been covered above as invalid. The really exciting contribution here is, imo, letter "a" ("it should [not] be in the encyclopedia"):
The opposing doesn’t want the category to survive. But, not because of it violates WP:V, WP:RS or WP:OR. Nor is it because of a lack of neutral mainstream media (his point above), neutral authorities, neutral officials, etc., that have stated that these people were, in fact, political prisoners. Nor is it because everyone that matters says these people were political prisoners. No, it’s not because of any of that. Rather, it’s because the opposing Wikipedia editors feel there is something awkward (a gut feeling) with the “Puerto Rican Political Prisoners” category. This may make no sense to some of us, but to the side seeking deletion of the Category, in their mindset, from their perspective, etc., it makes perfect sense.
Now, past precedents or not, neither one closing editor, nor a few editors, nor consensus by the majority of editors, can supersede Wikipedia policy, as stated HERE. But this gut feeling is, in their view, enough to kill the category.
The side seeking deletion is translating “gut feeling” into WP:COMMONSENSE, and finding their rationale in that. Their rationale seems to go like this: “It’s common sense. We have it, and they don’t. We are immune from Wikipedia policies, because common sense has no boundaries: common sense is so powerful that it supersedes even Wikipedia policy.” The problem is that gut feeling and common sense are not the same thing. So this comes down to, imo, a battle between gut feeling/resting on past laurels and WP:CCC/WP:POL. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Restore Category: Wikipedia does not have any verification or sourcing standards for categories. They either belong or they don't. This one meets inclusion criteria for being geographically-based. Linda Olive (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is certainly wrong: the standards are the same for everything (WP:V). We also already have a geographically-based category—Category:Puerto Rican prisoners and detainees. Why to create another one? Ruslik_Zero 10:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifiability is not under dispute here; we are passed that point. What is being disputed is whether or not the Category name violates WP:NPOV. I do find it interesting, though, that the response from the closing admin points us in the direction of a category that does not uniquely identify the individuals in question. "Amusing" because this has already been discussed - extensively. Please. Please. Please: Did the closing admin not read the extensive delete debate on this found HERE? It is a subject of further curiosity that the closing admin will, on the one hand, bend the Wikipedia guidelines on precedents found HERE to accommodate his own interpretation of why precedents are, as he says, “important…in [the] case of categories” vs. content pages, but then HERE he claims that “[no], the standards are the same for everything.” He can’t have it both ways. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Comment. The debate closing admin has added HERE to his closing comment on "past precedents." However, he has thus far not clarified the other portion of his comment. Namely, what did he mean by "Categorization should be based on objective criteria, but none has been specified here"? Exactly what “objective criteria” was he seeking to see and why was that so paramount to him to in fact become the deciding factor for killing the Category? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
    Wikipedia:Overcategorization says that categorization should not be based on an opinion as in this case. In other words there should be objective criteria for inclusion. Ruslik_Zero 10:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The CfD discussion clearly established that this category meets the inclusion criteria per WP:V. It has been clearly established that reliable sources and mainstream media outside the geographical area support the existence of this category. When this Category meets these inclusion criteria, does that qualify it to be an "Opinion" based category per your statement? I beleive that this statement may be an indication that bias may have been applied in closing the CfD in the manner that it was. Without any clearly established rationale on why wikipedia policies specifically support deletion, and why the policies which support inclusion should be ignored. The strongest argument here is that in 2006 there was no "neutral definition" of the term political prisoner. That is no longer the case. QuAzGaA 12:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You continue to misinterpret the policy. WP:V has nothing to do with this debate. Ruslik_Zero 14:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then please clarify your contradictory statement above: the standards are the same for everything (WP:V). .QuAzGaA 16:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:V says if you're going to add something to wikipedia, it needs to have a source. It does not say that everything that has a source has to be in wikipedia. As for the statement the standards are the same for everything, that just means that policies like WP:V apply to categories just as they do to articles. There is no contradiction. --Kbdank71 19:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The closing admin and User:Kbdank71 are both incorrect, as the issue raised has nothing to do with misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy, and because, contrary to the claim, there is a contradiction. The issue Quaazaa is raising has to do with the closing admins flip-floping to accomodate his own interpretation of Wikipedia policy. And herein lies the contradiction, not in the policies, granted, but in the way how the closing admin is trying to manipulate the interpretation of the policies to fit his needs. On the one hand, the closing admin is bending the Wikipedia guidelines on precedents found HERE to accommodate his own interpretation of why precedents are, as he says, "important...in [the] case of categories" vs. content pages, but on the other hand as shown HERE he claims that "[no], the standards are the same for everything." That's the issue Quaazaa is raising. The significance of Quaazaa's concern is that the closing admin "is trying to have it both ways." And Quaazaa is saying (and so am I too) "No, wait a minute: You can't have it both ways." That's a legitimate concern. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • The closing admin appears to be dancing from excuse to excuse in his quest to kill the Category. First it was the “objective criteria” claim found HERE, then he followed that with the invalid “past precedents” rationale found HERE, now he is coming up with overcategorization HERE to explain (incredibly) a question on his meaning of “objective criteria”.
Fact is, lack of an objective criteria is not a reason for deletion according to Wikipedia delete guidelines found HERE, and furthermore the phrase "objective criteria" is not found at all in the overcategorization link the closing admin is giving HERE. He now points to overcategorization, imo, because he can find no basis to defend his initial “objective criteria” claim.
Act IV, after a delay from the closing admin, he now claims that the problem is that the category is based on opinion (“Categorization”, he says, “should not be based on an opinion as in this case.”) There are two things wrong with this argument: (1) The passage in question, this one HERE, is not talking about Wikipedia editors’ opinions; it is talking about the “personal opinions” of the members of the category (Quote: “Avoid categorizing people by their personal opinions”). That is, the category should be based on fact, not on the opinion the members of the category have about themselves. For example, the category "Puerto Rican Political Prisoners" should not exist if its membership inclusion criteria were those people who themselves opinionated they were political prisoners. (2) The closing admin is confusing "holding an opinion" with "being an activist". He killed the category because it would violate WP:NPOV as the members claimed (read: opinion) they were political prisoners (which is a given, they did have that view of themselves). However, the closing admin failed to note that these prisoners were also activists, and "activists" is an approved defining characteristic for the people in that group and, as such, it becomes entirely acceptable to have such category. As such passage does not apply, it follows that the closing admin was wrong in deleting the category, even if his basis was this newly provided "opinions/personal opinions" criteria. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

Restore Category. It is clear that consensus was not reached, plus the admin did not even take into consideration the fact that others had suggested a possible renaming of the same. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct Marine, consensus was not reached. Yet the closing admin went ahead and based his closing rationale on lack of “objective criteria”. Ladies and gentlemen, if consensus is not reached, the closing admin is not free to make up his own rules to still kill the Category. He’s got to abide by the guidelines. The guidelines state HERE that if there is no consensus, the closing admin is to leave the Category alone. He did not do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercy11 (talk • contribs)
  • Endorse as accurate reading of policy-based consensus. Arguments supporting category too often rest on distortion of sources and willful misreading of applicable policies. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The first sentence appears to be a case of WP:MAJORITY. The second appears to be a case where WP:MAJORDICK applies.
Claims that the category violated policy (first WP:OR, second WP:V, then WP:RS, and last WP:NPOV) were one by one demonstrated to be without foundation. Then came the "objective criteria" and "prior precedent" arguments, and we also disproved those as well, for sedition charges -is- an objective criteria and the use of past precedents violates the delete policy. What else can the opposition say now? The personal accusations above of "[willful] distortion of sources" and "willful misreading of policies" are understandable now that the opposition has, it seems, run out of reasonable grounds to kill the category. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Comment. I find it rather exhausting to even read this discussion. Would it be possible for everyone to just state their opinion once and let others do the same, without extended rebuttals of others' points? I don't know why this needs to turn into a "re-litigation" of all the questions that were discussed in depth at the CFD. ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close; proper read of consensus and policy. That the term "political prisoner" is widely used is not in dispute, but that only proves that it is verifiable that the term is applied, not that it is verifiable that the term is correctly applied. It's quite clear (to me, at least) that its application is never more than a POV characterization, not an objective one. While it may be appropriate to state within an article that X group has called individual Y a political prisoner, categorizing an article applies the label without any attribution and is thus POV. postdlf (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - (1) the discussion and consensus: the closure seemed to represent consensus. If the closure had accepted a rename (which is something I suggested) I think that would have been less strongly evidenced as consensus in the discussion. But there was certainly no consensus for keeping the category as it was. (2) Application of policy/guidelines: another accusation raised is that the closure overrules or ignores WP:V, and that even consensus can't trump this. This argument shows a failure to understand that categorization depends on balancing different and sometimes competing policies and guidelines, and in this case WP:NPOV was clearly a valid factor for the closer to weigh up. (A comparable "V vs NPOV" scenario: I can find seriously scholarly work in which Muhammad is described as a "False prophet", but his article doesn't belong in Category:False prophets because the cited work would only be expressing one point of view. A broader "weighing up other things against verifiability" example is overcategorization: it is both verifiable and noteworthy that David Schwimmer was an actor on Friends, and a large part of his article is devoted to this. Yet he doesn't, and shouldn't, appear in "Category:Friends actors" or indeed any subcategory of "Category:Friends" because sorting actors by their film and TV appearances would not enable effective navigation. Verifiability and even noteworthiness can be perfectly validly trumped at CFD if other factors of are felt more important for a reasonable navigational structure, and this is one of those cases.) TheGrappler (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_September_14&oldid=1138437703"