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)

This is what I added to this template: [1]

Please try to be clear in your replies so that people know what I am adding and what you are discussing. Indentation, italics, and all that.

I did not try to put out my wishes as truth. I made a point specific to categories based on WP:TERRORIST.

You wrote: "generalities, shouldn't be repeated in each category of this class." That is what templates do. See your other template: Template:Terrorist category definition. You seem to be the person maintaining and reverting any changes to that template.

Both Template:Terrorist category definition and Template:Terrorism category definition are on many category pages. They should be. Because terrorism and terrorist categories are some of the most controversial on Wikipedia.

A closing admin for a CFD discussion referred people to one of those templates. See:

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 25#Unqualified "Terrorism"

From the closing admin statement there: "Looking at Category:Terrorists, there seems to be a rather definitive definition there, as well as a strong reminder to cite all inclusions. A tightening of these definitions, and some dedicated work into finding sources, can clean these categories up in comparatively little time."

You might try acknowledging peoples ideas some more. Also, the "stupid" comments should go. Such as the one on this talk page. I notice that you have some incivility warnings on your talk page.

I also noticed that you used my idea of interlinking the 2 templates. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Re.

Also, the "stupid" comments should go. Such as the one on this talk page.

What do you mean? Seriously, I don't understand. Which comment did you mean? --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

After reading your comments on several talk pages you come off as condescending at times. You make bad assumptions too. Such as your comment earlier on this talk page (thread copied from another talk page) concerning calling editors stupid who don't choose the correct template out of the 2 templates: "I'd keep the distinction, discarding it resumes to a defense of stupidity." I explained why your assumptions and logic could be incorrect. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA - comment on the edits, not the editor please. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting. I politely point out what could be perceived as incivility, and you call it a personal attack. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Re.

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.

To me, that read like (hardly veiled), people are stupid, don't expect them to distinguish between the words "terrorist" and "terrorism", they have only one letter different. I can't agree with such arguments, it is condescending to the average intelligence of editors. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not call them stupid. There was no secret, veiled meaning in my statements. Your statement was pretty clear though: "I'd keep the distinction, discarding it resumes to a defense of stupidity." --Timeshifter (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comment was condescending to say the least. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I said the templates (at the time) had almost exactly the same wording, and they were easily confused with each other. That is the truth, not condescension. And I pointed out that they couldn't be compared anyway most of the time since most readers wouldn't know of the other template. I suggested interlinking them. You did so. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't say "wording" of the templates, you said "names" of the templates were so similar (indeed these names differed only one letter). It was a condescending remark regarding people not being able to distinguish between the names. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I also said: "The text is very similar." Go look. I suggest you try reading more carefully, and making less assumptions. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't make the comment regarding the similarity of the names (...are so similar though, many people will confuse the two) less condescending. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) Nothing condescending at all. I quote myself:

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.

Because of all this it is obvious to me that we need clearer terrorism category definitions. Just look at all the incorrect interpretations you are making of my statements. And look at my possible misinterpretation of your "stupid" remark.

We need to avoid any possible misinterpretation of the template text. The text I added clarifies the category definition in my opinion. It may need further tweaking and clarification too. Between the two of us we should be able to prevent any misinterpretations. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry don't see anything convincing in your argumentation, as I explained before. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

March 2010

I think the current wording of this template is much too vague and passive. There are now dozens of categories on Wikipedia (have a look through Category:Terrorism) whose titles most definitely go against WP:TERRORIST. I'm not talking about category titles like Category:Terrorism laws. I'm talking about category titles that label articles as "terrorist incidents" even though there aren't reliable sources within those articles that call the incidents "terrorist". It's got out of hand.

This is the current template...

About [Category:Something terrorism-related] and related categories This category's scope includes pages on topics and subjects relating to terrorism, subject to Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist, terrorist or freedom fighter?.

Firstly, is there any need for that bolded sentence?
Secondly, the template is simply stating, in quite a passive tone, that "this category is subject to WP:TERRORIST".
It needs to be more direct.

I suggest the following, based on the wording of Template:Subjective category...

This category may inappropriately label persons, groups or events as "terrorism".
This means that it may need to be renamed and/or restructured.
See Wikipedia's guidelines on the use of the word "terrorism".

Thoughts? ~Asarlaí 04:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have issues with the existence of the categories, you should take it up at CfD, and abide by the consensus formed there. I don't favor a passive-aggressive style of suggesting a category is incorrect in the category description. That solves nothing. On some level, I think that WP:WTA is not meant to apply to categories, although the logic behind it is certainly susceptible to extension - WTA is a content guideline, meant to guide the narrative text of an article, not the category system. Ray^Talk 04:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the suggested change. Why would WP:WTA not apply to categories? It certainly applied when Category:Terrorists was deleted. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"I like it" is not a good reason. Even if WTA did apply (and the history of the guideline suggests it's meant to avoid descriptions of people, not particular actions, ideologies, or types of behavior), the correct forum to restructure categories is CfD, not a passive-aggressive "this category is wrong" type of wording. Ray^Talk 18:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't see how the proposed wording is "passive-aggressive". No threats or implied threats are made. It's simply stating that the category may need to be renamed, moved or restructured to avoid labelling things as "terrorist". The current wording doesn't do this.

Secondly, as TheMightyQuill stated, why wouldn't WP:TERRORIST apply to categories? It states that "care must be taken ... when applying the label of terrorist, extremist, or freedom fighter to a specific person, group, or event". If the category "Terrorist attacks in X" is added to an article about a certain event, is that not labelling the event as "terrorism"? It's fine if there are reliable sources in that article that call the event "terrorism", but in many cases there aren't. ~Asarlaí 18:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Because WP:TERRORIST is a style guideline, which, by convention, only applies to articlespace. If you want to argue about categories, you're going to have to do so on the merits. Secondly, you do not put something in a category that says "this category needs to be reorganized" if that's not the consensus of the community. Take it to CfD if you think the category needs to be deleted - I suspect, given that it's still here, that you would lose. If you want to add more precise inclusion criteria, we can have a fruitful discussion about that. If you want to strike individual articles from the category, the place to discuss that is at the talk pages for the individual articles. Ray^Talk 19:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand my intentions in rewording this template.

• This is not about one single category.
• This is not about deleting categories.

What drove me to propose the rewording was seeing the huge amount of categories for "Terrorist attacks in Country X", "Terrorist attacks in Year X", "Terrorist attacks by Group X", etc. If there are enough reliable sources in those articles that call the incidents "terrorist"... that's fine... they can be added to the categories. However, a quick look through some of the categories showed that many of them don't have enough reliable sources that call the incidents "terrorist". The fact that those articles are added to the categories, I believe, goes against WP:TERRORIST. ~Asarlaí 20:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Superfopp: I propose alternative wording, then. "Please ensure that reliable sources report allegations of terrorist activity before including articles on particular incidents or actions in this category." Would that do? Ray^Talk 20:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, your issue is with the second part of Asarlai's proposed wording. Let's keep the first part which simply states that use of the category could inappropriately label persons, groups or events... that applying that category to an article could be in contravention of WP:Terrorist. Then add your proposed text below. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting my objection. My objection is to the suggestion that there needs to be this vague thing called "restructuring." I'd be okay with something like "Please remember that per WP:WTA it is contrary to Wikipedia custom to directly label individuals or groups as terrorists, extremists, or freedom fighters." Ray^Talk 17:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

How is this?

This category may inappropriately label persons, groups or events as "terrorism".
Please ensure that reliable sources report allegations of terrorist activity before including articles on particular incidents or actions in this category.
See Wikipedia's guidelines on the use of the word "terrorism".

TheMightyQuill (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I could agree with that, though I'd prefer if it were a bit more straightforward. I propose the following:

This category may inappropriately label persons, groups or events as "terrorism".
Please ensure that allegations of "terrorism" within articles are supported by reliable sources before adding such articles to this category.
See Wikipedia's guidelines on the use of the word "terrorism".

~Asarlaí 16:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think attribution is also important, since "terrorism" is as much an opinion as it is fact. "Please ensure that allegations of "terrorism" are clearly attributed and supported by reliable sources before adding such articles to this category." ? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I prefer TheMightyQuill's version, but they both seem alright. Ray^Talk 22:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)