Terrorism Template‑class | |||||||
|
This template was considered for deletion on 2010 March 1. The result of the discussion was "Keep". |
There are 2 similar templates. See
I think it may be possible to consolidate them. I don't know.
There is some discussion about them here:
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)
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)
...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)
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)
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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)
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)
What do you mean? Seriously, I don't understand. Which comment did you mean? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 22:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Also, the "stupid" comments should go. Such as the one on this talk page.
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)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.
(Unindent) Nothing condescending at all. I quote myself:
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)
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)
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)
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". |
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". |
Terrorism Template‑class | |||||||
|
This template was considered for deletion on 2010 March 1. The result of the discussion was "Keep". |
There are 2 similar templates. See
I think it may be possible to consolidate them. I don't know.
There is some discussion about them here:
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)
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)
...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)
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)
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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)
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)
What do you mean? Seriously, I don't understand. Which comment did you mean? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 22:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Also, the "stupid" comments should go. Such as the one on this talk page.
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)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.
(Unindent) Nothing condescending at all. I quote myself:
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)
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)
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)
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". |
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". |