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)Reply
- 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)Reply
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)Reply
- Attacker and attack have more of a value judgement. Disagree. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
- 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)Reply
- 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)Reply
- 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)Reply
- 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)Reply
_-_The_Noun_Project.svg){kind=small}
Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)