Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 18

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< November 17 November 19 >

November 18 edit

Template:Islamic terrorism edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Islamic terrorism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Reason: Breaches WP:POV and WP:Civil and violates the general rule regarding links. The facts as I see them.

  1. The template would appear to breach WP:CIVIL as well as NPOV in the sense of it being uncivil to the readership by presenting as encylopedic an index for a term which the vast majority of Muslims worldwide would regard as oxymoronic and offensive.
  2. Although on on the surface the template seemed to follow some existing guidelines, it breaks certain others, fundamentally NPOV (for example associating concepts such as jihad (which for most Muslims is a non violent internal struggle) with Terrorism. Similarly other general Islamic concepts such as Sharia which have nothing whatsoever to do with Islamuc Terrorism.
  3. As the article Islamic terrorism makes clear, the very term Islamic terrorism is a highly disputed one.
  4. The template violates general namespace policy that "templates should not be used to create lists of links to other articles when a category or a See also list can perform the same function.
  5. The template only existed on the Islamic terrorism page and this has now been deleted. The only other linked to page is a User Talk page.
  6. My guess is that the template and or its usage was a deliberate act to associate Islam generally with terrorism as part of the general Culture of fear that is being engendered in today's society and therefore as such it is not for Wikipedia to be an instrument in such efforts.
  7. The template was created by an editor who has very recently received a one year ban from Wikipedia for, amongst other things, contentious editing contrary to WP policies. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo_2/Evidence#Prior_remedies_have_not_dissuaded_engagement_in_years-long.2C_controversial_editing_practices.2C_which_are_in_contradiction_to_Wikipedia_guidelines_and_policies.
  8. Note however, in relation to the previous item I have not determined whether the banned user Stevertigo who created the template has been involved in similar activities to this one previously but I regard his banning as prima facea evidence that his motives may not have been within the spirit of Wikipedia.

See also Talk:Islamic terrorism#Sidebars Hauskalainen (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - See related TfD archived discussions:
See also WP guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. --Noleander (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete & convert to footer navbox template - This is a difficult call. Certainly Islamic terrorism is a subject unto itself, but when the topic is a rather disparaging subject, with lots of irrational animosity surrounding it, we should exercise careful judgment. Sidebar templates are very prominent, and give an imprimatur of significance that may be unwarranted. Query: is there a group of editors who are constructively working together on a "series of articles" about Islamic Terrorism? Or is the list of articles merely a, well, list? Query: Do the articles listed in this template refer to each other in an integrated manner? Or are they an incoherent collection? Lists and categories are more appropriate if the articles are not a coherent, cohesive group. A compromise that I suggest is that we convert this template from a sidebar template to a footer template, which is less provocative. And that we continue to use and grow the existing Terrorism sidebar template for articles in this list. --Noleander (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This template does not duplicate any category, certainly not Category:Islamic terrorism, or any see also section, so that is not an issue. Regarding your "jihad" and "most Muslims" argument, we do not hesitate to link to St. Augustine in the Calvinism template (not to equate Islamic Terrorism and Calvinism) because "most Christians" don't view the saint in the same way as Calvinists do. Wikipedia does not shy away from covering "disputed topics", or those with disputed names. While it should not be used to engender a "climate of fear" (we have no evidence that this template was created with that intent), it should not be deleted to try to assuage people's legitimate or illegitimate fears either. Quigley (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quigley: What criteria would you suggest be used to decide whether a list of articles should qualify as a Sidebar template? Certainly not any list of loosely-related articles? Should there be sources that link-together all the topics within the template? I ask this in the context of in-your-face Sidebar templates, not mere lists, Categories, or footer templates which are less prominent and - IMHO - can contain less tightly-related articles. --Noleander (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources should link together all the topics within the template. There are enough reliably sourced connections made in the eponymous article to Jihad, Wahhabism, Islamism, etc. Quigley (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked Quigley hereto answer the substantive points about POV and CIVIL which seem not to have been addressed in the Keep recommendation. CIVIL as well as POV are cited at WP:TfD as reasons for delete.Hopefully we will get a reply before too long.--Hauskalainen (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL does not apply as it is a guideline for conduct between editors. And I did address your "POV" argument, or more specifically your "jihad" example, so reread that. Another point: It doesn't matter what most Muslims think about jihad if Islamic terrorists think another thing about jihad; every splinter group out of some mainstream political or religious group interprets key theology or history differently, and the links to those articles are always provided. Quigley (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Quigley Jihad was just one example. A lot of the other items in the list are NOT issues of terrorism and actually if you read the statements of, for example, Osama Bin Laden, gave as his main reasons for attacking the United States were more political then religious. Yes he uses a lot of language (references to Allah) which seems to us to be highly religious but could say George Bush is being religious when he ends his speeches with " and God Bless the United States of America". Allah is, after all, just the word for God in Arabic. I agree also with the "in your face" argument that Noleander uses. These type of boxes are misusing Wikipedia to seed the idea that Islam, Sharia, etc.. are associated with terrorism which is really offensive and surely is a breach of Wikipedia policy. As far as WP:CIVIL is concerned I do agree that the policy is generally a guide for editor behaviour to each other.... but please read the very top of this page. WP:CIVIL is given a policy reason why a template could be deleted. And I do think that allowing this type of template is uncivil to the readership. I do not mean to be re-writing policy but I was just interpreting what this might have meant. Templates are not involved in inter-editot dialogs. --Hauskalainen (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i was just curious what is viewed as POV about this template, it covers various types of terrorism and doesn't seem to be associating anything in particular with only "islamic terrorism". and also, what is uncivil about the template? i was under the impression WP:CIVIL was a policy guiding interaction between editors. i would happily support converting this to a footer navbox as Noleander suggests if that is suitable and addresses some of the disagreement with the template. withholding vote pending clarification of the policies being invoked for deletion. WookieInHeat (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is okay for WP to discuss controversial topics that may be viewed as disparaging to a religion: WP is not censored. However, when it comes to Sidebar templates, special care must be taken. Why? Because when a typical reader visits WP the sidebars are BRIGHT! COLORFUL! and AT THE TOP! They look like an official Wikipedia logo. They are in the reader's face, on the top right side of the reader's window, opposite the official WP left-side navigation menus, and immediately below the WP Search field. For that reason, IMHO, Sidebar templates require special care, more so than Lists, Categories or Footer templates. I suggest that Sidebar templates must be very neutral, very significant, and (this is kind of fuzzy) actually have a group of editors that have massaged it and ensured its quality and reliability. In cases of doubt, I suggest that Footer templates should be used because they provide the same functionality without giving the appearance of official endorsement by WP. --Noleander (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
like i said before, totally agree with your suggestion. my questions were more geared towards the reasons given by the nominator who appears to simply want the template gone altogether. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i'm particularly confused about reason #5: "The template only existed on the Islamic terrorism page and this has now been deleted. The only other linked to page is a User Talk page." that article still exists and doesn't appear to have been deleted anytime in the recent past. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@WookieInHeat Sorry, but its not meant to be a reason for deleting the template. I was just pointing out that this template only exists in one place. Templates exist primarily to feed identical data to many articles. This template seems to have been created for one purpose only, and that is the In Your Face POV "opinion masquerading as encyclopedic fact".
  • Keep or convert to footer navbox i understand the reason for my confusion now, i was confusing two different templates. anyway, WP:CIVIL is a policy guiding editors in their interactions with eachother, it has nothing to do with preventing some audience from being offended by an article or a template for that matter. the NPOV claim seems rather silly if the Islamic Terrorism article is to remain, the sidebar merely compiles the various facets of "islamic terrorism" which are discussed in the article for quick navigation. if this template is POV, the nominator should also be creating an AfD for the article it's in (which is likely to be "speedily kept" since it has been attempted before). after i figured out what the nominator was talking about with point #5, i realized they had gone and deleted the template from the article and then tried to use the template's absence from the article as a reason to support their wish to delete the template. this TfD seems to be based on false premises, but i would still support a conversion to a footer navbox. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I disagree that the article Islamic Terrorism is POV and I have not called for it to be deleted and not will I. It clearly represents both sides of the argument that there is or is not such a thing. It makes it very clear up front that the very term is a hotly disputed one. This is something that the template we are discussing does not do and which gives the term encyclopedic credibility which IMHO it does not deserve.--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"No, I disagree that the article Islamic Terrorism is POV..." precisely, and there is nothing in the template that is not discussed in the article. WookieInHeat (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This nomination appears to stem from fundamental misunderstandings/misapplications of policy. Specifically, WP:CIVIL applies to relations between editors, not to template usage in articles. While WP:NPOV applies in articles, it wouldn't be applied to tools like navigation aids...they don't have a POV, just a degree of utility. It's certainly possible to question the presence of a specific item in the template, but that wouldn't justify deleting the entire template. The term Jihad may have multiple meanings, but in the Western world and English speaking countries, the link between jihad and terrorism is undeniable and seems reasonable to include in the template although it would be possible to discuss further on the template's talkpage. Finally, it is not part of our mandate to avoid potential offense to certain religious groups; in fact, removing content on the grounds that some might find it offensive is clearly covered in WP:NOTCENSORED. The one thing I agree with, a comment from Noleander, regards the benefit of editors staying involved to maintain a coherent organization; that sounds like a good idea. Doc Tropics 01:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The one thing I agree with, a comment from Noleander, regards the benefit of editors staying involved to maintain a coherent organization; that sounds like a good idea."
respectfully disagree. WookieInHeat (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc I am not trying to censor Wikipedia at all! I am quite happy for the Islamic Terrorism article to remain. You say that "in the Western world and English speaking countries, the link between jihad and terrorism is undeniable" is just an example of the misunderstanding of the term jihad in most of the Western media and therefore in the minds of the English language Wikipedia. This template is, in my mind, just a reinforcement of an idea that is, at the very least, highly contentious. Wikipedia prides itself on writing neutrally and I simply do not think it proper for Wikipedia to list concepts such as Sharia and Jihad and a whole host of other things that most NOT connected with terrorism. I am not trying to censor Wikipedia. If there is a connection to terrorism then by all means introduce that it in the text with links to the other articles. If the link is in a proper context it could be quite neutral. Presenting these in a prominent box headed Islamic Terrorism simply is NOT neutral.--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the word "sharia" appears five times throughout the article and the word "jihad" appears more then 100 times. saying the template is POV because it contains these words is an open-ended argument that could just as easily be turned around to say removing those terms is POV because it is attempting to suppress any correlation between islam and islamic terrorism. regardless, that is a content discussion suitable for a talk page, not a deletion discussion. to get back to the topic at hand for a moment; are you interested in the idea of converting the template to a footer navbox, or only in having it deleted? WookieInHeat (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV applies to everything by the way not just articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & convert to footer navbox template - Sidebars about contentious issues seem to be problematic in general. Conversion to a footer navbox template would retain the functionality but avoid the resemblance to visual propaganda that these sidebars about contentious issues often seem to have in the way they can compete for and (mis)direct the reader's attention. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and convert to footer template if necessary. Per Noleander, WookieInHeat, and Sean.hoyland. Rehman 05:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:KIA edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn.

Template:KIA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Original discussion was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#KIA/Surrender/Executed typography. I don't think there is enough wide-spread recognition of the dagger symbol for KIAs. The average reader just thinks it's a cross. {{KIA|alt=yes}} should be used instead. It sisters  (DOW) and  (POW) both use an acronym. Marcus Qwertyus 17:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As per the last discussion about this on the template talk page. The cross/dagger has a usage in historical research, and I don't believe that POW KIA is a suitable alternative for pre-20th Century battles. Ranger Steve Talk 18:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    POW? Don't you mean KIA? Marcus Qwertyus 18:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bummer, yes. Sorry 'bout that. Ranger Steve Talk 19:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I'm missing something, but are you actually suggesting that the template be deleted, or just edited to display the alternative (acronym) form? The latter doesn't require going through TFD. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just want the alternate acronym form to be used. I thought the use of Templates for Discussion was pretty ambiguous. Marcus Qwertyus 13:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I honestly thought it was a cross until reading this, it isn't really necessary but I do use it, why not. If anything I'd say deleting it would be best, the symbol is misleading and the "WIA" and the "MIA" templates are just a couple of initials in parentheses which does't really help but to add more unnecessary info to a battle box that should be left very simple.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Find this very useful in Biogs, no issue with dagger icon Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Hartman edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Hartman (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hardcoded infobox for one article, so I substituted it, and now it is orphaned. 134.253.26.11 (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_18&oldid=1146570808"