Template talk:Terrorism category definition

2 templates

There are 2 similar templates. See

• {{Terrorism category definition}}
• {{Terrorist category definition}}

I think it may be possible to consolidate them. I don't know.

There is some discussion about them here:

• Category talk:Terrorists#Avoid self-reference in terrorist definition

If they can't be consolidated, then I think they need to be more carefully worded so as to clearly indicate where each template is to be used. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Note: This discussion was started at Category talk:Terrorists.

I don't think the collapsible format an improvement.

Further, the body of the template's text starting with "This category's scope includes individuals, incidents, and organizations..." makes it inappropriate for category:terrorists.

Changing to that template (and btw omitting the {{SCD}} template) has zero appeal to me. Maybe if someone would explain what the intended appeal in the change is, that would help. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't create the templates. I see your point though about the confusion concerning the scope. Maybe the text of {{SCD}} could be incorporated in the main templates. Also maybe the 2 main templates could be combined by rewording it. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

...and we could change it's colour. Or add a flower or something more decorative. But that's all besides the question. The question was why (...would we do any of this). I see no improvement. Neither do I even see an attempt of someone trying to explain why this would be an improvement. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I didn't create the templates. Because the names of {{Terrorist category definition}} and {{Terrorism category definition}} are so similar though, many people will confuse the two. The text is very similar. The template with the color background looks much better though, so many people will gravitate towards its use. The other template ends up looking like text someone added to the top of a particular category page, and so many people will not even notice that it actually is a template and can be added to category pages. Most people will not know that the template is a guideline for many categories.

I agree that the default setting of the template should be that it is open and not closed. A simple table without show/hide links would be fine in my opinion. There should be a border around the table though, and there should be a pastel background color so that people pay attention to its categorization guidelines when categorizing stuff in that particular category.

For all these reasons then it makes more sense to me to have just one template for all categories with either "terrorist" or "terrorism" in the name. The template will need to more carefully worded though. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd keep the distinction, discarding it resumes to a defense of stupidity.

{{Terrorist category definition}} is carefully worded. {{Terrorism category definition}} wasn't when it was created without apparent discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Since August 2008 the text of the 2 templates was almost exactly the same until the latest round of edits in the last few days. See the comparison of the text farther down on this talk page.

Currently the 2 template pages do not link to each other. I only added the links on the talk page in the last few days. So until recently most people reading either template page, or its talk page, would not have known of the other template.

So up to now it is not necessarily a matter of stupidity in most cases as to why someone would have chosen one template over the other. One can't decide if one does not have a choice.

And there is also the argument of convenience. I don't see why one template couldn't be used if it were written well. We could decide on some text, and then redirect one template name to the other template name. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Comparing text of 2 templates before revisions in November 2008

See the history link for each template. Here below is the text of the 2 templates before the latest round of revisions in November 2008.

Template:Terrorism category definition. August 25, 2008

This category's scope includes individuals, incidents, and organizations.

There exist many different definitions of terrorism, but all of the following elements should be present for pages included in this category or its subcategories:

• Use of unlawful violence or the threat of unlawful violence.
• Targeting civilians.
• Actions not attributable to a state, i.e. excluding state terrorism.
• Absence of a state of war– specifically, conventional warfare– thus excluding war crimes.
• Designed to coerce, frighten, or "send a message" to the public or a government, thus excluding organized crime performed for personal gain.
• Finally, this category should only be placed on pages which already have verifiable text that the individual has been identified as a terrorist. If there are no reliable sources which call the individual a terrorist, then this category is not appropriate.

All pages listed in these categories are related to the verifiable use or attempted use of terrorist tactics and according to all the criteria above. Self-identification as a "terrorist" is not required; see terrorism for a list of alternative terms, with both positive and negative connotations. WP:TERRORIST still applies to pages' content.

Template:Terrorist category definition. August 16, 2008

This category is for individuals only. For organizations, see Category:Terrorism and List of terrorist organizations.

There exist many different definitions of terrorism, but the article terrorism notes the following elements defining individuals on this list:

• Use of unlawful violence or the threat of unlawful violence.
• Targeting civilians.
• Non-state actor, thus excluding state terrorism.
• Absence of a state of war (specifically conventional warfare), thus excluding war crimes.
• Designed to coerce, frighten, or "send a message" to the public or a government, thus excluding organized crime performed for personal gain.

Individuals listed in this category have verifiably used or attempted to use terrorist tactics, by the above criteria. Self-identification as a "terrorist" is not required; see terrorism for a list of alternative terms, with both positive and negative connotations.

This category should only be placed on articles which already have verifiable text that the individual has been identified as a terrorist.

If there are no reliable sources which call the individual a terrorist, then this category is not appropriate.

Discussion

To avoid confusion please do not add comments to the above 2 talk subsections. Please comment here or in other talk sections.

I left a note on some terrorism-related talk pages asking for additional input. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

TBH, I can't see how unqualified terrorist categorization can be reconciled with WP:TERRORIST, when anyone can simply categorize anyone or anything as terrorist. There have been discussions on this, and I suppose they usually end without conclusion because of 9/11. Another problem is that it's impossible to add references to categories, which invites instability and edit wars. All the criteria are problematic:

• "Use of unlawful violence or the threat of unlawful violence." Unlawful by what law? By whose interpretation?
• "Targeting civilians." Who's a civilian? What if he's armed? What's targeting? What if a man was believed to be armed but turned out not to be?
• "Non-state actor, thus excluding state terrorism." What if a country is in a civil war, and there are two competing governments? What if it's unclear whether he was operating in compliance with state orders or not?
• "Absence of a state of war (specifically conventional warfare), thus excluding war crimes." How conventional must a war be? What about civil wars? Is the Second Intifada, for example, a war or not?
• "Designed to coerce, frighten, or "send a message" to the public or a government, thus excluding organized crime performed for personal gain." Again, that's hard to determine. A tactical objective can always be argued for. Analyzing motives is difficult.

Personally, I have never added a terrorist category to any article, and generally oppose them. I would like to see the use of such unqualified, inherently POV categories diminish. Cheers, Nudve (talk) 07:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The August 2008 templates mention that articles must meet all the criteria. Not just one of the criteria. I didn't write up the templates, though, so I am figuring this all out too. I did find this relevant list of deletion attempts:

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Terrorists

It seems that there have been many attempts to delete terrorist categories as a whole. No deletion attempt has succeeded. That list page does not list attempts past 2006. That may be because Wikipedia:Categories for deletion became Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.

Since we can't delete the words terrorist and terrorism from categories, then in my opinion we need to refine these templates.

Here is a more recent CFD discussion:

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 25#Unqualified "Terrorism" --Timeshifter (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Category inclusion is not an endorsement by Wikipedia

Please see WP:TERRORIST.

Wikipedia never uses the words "terrorist" or "terrorism" in the unqualified narrative voice of an article. They are always attributed to sources. Category inclusion is not an endorsement by Wikipedia of the viewpoints of those sources.

Concerning bias toward sourcing please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia never uses the words "terrorist" or "terrorism" in the unqualified narrative voice of an article. They are always attributed to sources." is taking your wishes for truth. In other words you're making promises you can't possibly control.

"Category inclusion is not an endorsement by Wikipedia of the viewpoints of those sources.
Concerning bias toward sourcing please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias." - generalities, shouldn't be repeated in each category of this class. And WP:ASR. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)