Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Political prisoners

The following discussion comes from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, where it is currently listed as unresolved. It may be reviewed again in the future in the light of evolving standards and guidelines for categorization.21:33, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Political prisoners

Inherent POV, breeding ground for revert wars. Have moved content to the objective (if unwieldy) Category:People considered political prisoners by Amnesty International. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 04:28, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

That seems a bit extreme. Most people would agree that Nelson Mandela was a political prisoner, but in his autobiography he describes how Amnesty International would not intervene on his behalf because he had engaged in armed insurrection against the state. --Saforrest 00:11, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

-> "...breeding ground for revert wars...": is that a "prophecy", or just a "self-fulfilling prophecy"?

-> "...objective...": please re-read NPOV guideline: "objecitvity" has no place on wikipedia, only a combination of POV's, which is defined as the NPOV.

-> "Amnesty International" is inherently POV (that's the reason why they exist in the first place!), so they have their place on Wikipedia, but not as the only reference for the political prisoner idea: I suggest to make the "AI" political prisoners category a subcategory of the existing "political prisoners" category.

-> For what follows I use some of the terminology of wikipedia:categorization of people, so I go from the supposition Neutrality at least read that article (note: if not agreeing to the content of that guideline, please feel invited to post your objections on its talk page):

• I saw no attempt to start a discussion on Category talk:political prisoners, and even less an attempt to contact user:Lupin (who had started this category), or anybody who had assigned this category to a wikipedia article.
• I saw no attempt to give a good category definition of that category, and I see no problem re. the political prisoners category that could not be solved by a good category definition.
• In short: I saw no avoidance of dispute technique used by Neutrality, before jumping to the 3rd step of a dispute resolution procedure (a poll on CfD) - that's why I called this a "self-fulfilling prophecy" above.

--Francis Schonken 07:45, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note: de-problematised this category one step by applying "SCD" tool instead of "CfD" - further I move this discussion to the category's talk page: discussion to be continued there first, in the case there would still be problems regarding this category (and its present subcategory). --Francis Schonken 09:11, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete--Josiah 23:43, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) Keep -- there are political prisoners, and there enough that a category is mot inappropriate, and politcal prisoners are notable, and the fact of their being politcal prisoners is notable. Keep There are quite many political prisonars and this also in so called democratic states. But the Category is POV thus it sould be renamed to "People considered political prisoners by Amnesty International" or maybe one could include other institutions beside AI too. helohe 15:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)