Template talk:Infobox civilian attack

The term "perpetrators" violates NPOV

The definition used in this template is "The groups that bring about or carries out a harmful, illegal, or immoral act (use perpetrator in case of a single group)."

"Harmful" is a catch-all escape hatch, but the term usually has a negative tone to it. But some would argue that the Killing of Nahida and Samar Anton or the Church of Saint Porphyrius airstrike were neither illegal nor immoral - nobody has faced any criminal charges, and the people carrying them out didn't think it was immoral, or even necessarily harmful. jftsang 18:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

What other term is there for someone who did something? This template is intended for cases that are criminal. In the few cases where there is a justified usage on a page where "perpetrator" would be the wrong word, just omit the parameter. Many of the cases that would have the problem you mention shouldn't even be using this template; the airstrike page shouldn't be, probably the military action one instead. I'm not sure if the other one is even notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 October 2024

The TfD has been closed as keep. Thanks, Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 01:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to replace "perpetrator" with "attacker"

The term "perpetrator" can carry a value judgment, and we shouldn't be saying that in wikivoice. That is the spirit behind WP:TERRORIST as well. Instead, we should consider a neutral term like "attacker" or "Responsible party". "Attacker" is natural and neutral, certainly as neutral as the word "attack" itself. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Attacker and attack have more of a value judgement. Disagree. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I think "attack" is very neutral and commonly used in WP:ARTICLETITLE, which policy dictates must be neutral. Besides, we already have a field called "Attack type".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Also, this parameter should never be used unless a criminal conviction exists anyway, or the person is dead. Any other use is inappropriate. This infobox is for terrorist attacks and other crimes, I think attacker is worse. A crime is usually said to have a perpetrator, not an attacker. In any crime that isn't a terror attack that parameter is confusing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

If we want a word that does not carry any value judgment whatsoever, "by" is an option. TompaDompa (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

That makes it seem like the crime is an art piece or something. Jarring.

This is inherently an infobox for very contentious events and should not be used in more ambiguous ones where that would be an issue. If there is no convicted (or deceased and considered by RS to have done it) perpetrator, the parameter should not be used. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 November 2024

Please add a |sentence= parameter similar to {{Infobox event}}. Juwan (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

this is for use on the article Murder of Laken Riley, which currently uses that template badly. Juwan (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I asked for this last year and they said since I had no consensus there would need to be a wider discussion. My asking for consensus garnered no responses. Alas. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA I don't understand how there would not be consensus on this. this is something that is very clearly missing and would improve the infobox plus fix this mistake. Juwan (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I thought it was stupid too, but hey. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

To editors Juwan and PARAKANYAA: Juwan, you are right about the embedded template being used badly, and yet it seems to have worked like sort of a bandaid? Anyway, we see in this template's documentation how the Infobox event template should be embedded, and I have corrected that in the article you cited. That is why a consensus is needed: to answer the question, "If the event template or other templates can be embedded to pick up other parameters, then why does |sentence= need to be added to this infobox?" P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth It's especially bizarre that that one has it and this doesn't because this is the crime infobox -if one should have it and not the other it's this one and not event. Event is a very overloaded infobox and has many parameters it shouldn't, including "sentence". I don't think weather events should have a crime sentence, but a terrorist attack or murder usually will.

Anyway, I asked all the relevant wiki projects, and none chimed in. I think it should have it, many many crime articles use it but they have to awkwardly use the child parameter and it's just an extra step that doesn't need to be there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I cannot disagree in regard to |sentence= being a little out of place in the event ibox; however, your response raises the question, "If 'many many crime articles use it', then who is going to fix all those usages if the parameter is added to this ibox?" The whole idea of embedding is to be able to pick up other parameters (such as |sentence=) that are not in this ibox. My sense here is that if other project editors you notified did not chime in, it's because they thought the extra parameter was not really needed here, and they just didn't take the time to say so. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 21:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

is it reasonable to assume "no response = no agreement"? that is debatable at best. Juwan (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth I would be down to do it. Would probably have to figure out some kind of query.

Or, it's because most editors don't really get templates and how they work and what they impact. And most Wikiprojects are very dead. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth apart from what PARAKANYAA said, which I agree. there is also the problem of how it looks on mobile. on the Wikipedia app for example, there is a nasty gap between "convinctions" and "sentence" because the template is expecting a title header that it doesn't get, which another layer of jank added that can be simply updated with two lines of code. Juwan (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm very sorry that I am unable to convey the reasons for the earlier decision last November. That decision still applies. Since parameters that are not in this template can be added by easily embedding other templates that do have the needed parameters, then the status quo, that those parameters are not required in this template, must remain as it is until more editors come to help you overturn the present consensus. And editor PARAKANYAA, I think you should self-revert your edit at Murder of Laken Riley, because there was a sentencing and it should be included. The embedding of the other ibox is still a good way to include it. Please put it back the way it was. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth The sentencing is not standard information for these kinds of pages, so it should not be included and I stand by that. Not everything needs to be in the infobox, as this has demonstrated. Clearly we don't include it in most criminal case articles, and there isn't an extra reason to include it here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Two editors have disagreed with you, myself and the editor who reverted you. If you don't self-revert, then I will have to revert your edit. I'm just trying to avoid that. The sentencing in that ibox is appropriate, so again, please self-revert. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth I will take it to the talk page of the article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)