Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism/merger

Proposed merger with WikiProject Terrorism
As both groups are basically dealing with the same subject, it seems to me to make sense that the two Projects combine efforts. They might be able to improve more articles more quickly if they had a coordinated effort to do so, as opposed to having two, potentially competing, groups covering the same territory. Badbilltucker 14:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As the founder of the aforementioned group, I would strongly invite and welcome the members of this group into our fold - we could benefit greatly from combining our passions to learn and educate. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 15:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes i think joining together is a good idea as it makes a stronger project.Hypnosadist 01:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh... we never agreed to merge. It takes two to tango, and we refuse. This project is fine as is, and I most certainly dont want to join yours now that you vandalized our page... ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 13:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a spurious accusation of vandalism. Please don't call other editors vandals until they start adding random obscenities of pictures of genitals to articles.  It pretty much derails any possibility of dialogue.  Whoever merged the projects was clearly not trying to damage the encyclopedia, so let's keep the mud out of this. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't vandalise anything, I merged the two projects. Please doublecheck edit summaries before reverting.  I'm combining the two "participants" into one, I'm moving the two lists of objectives into one, I'm adding all your information into ours. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 14:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This project is not merging into yours. You invited us to, and if someone wants to join yours they can, however as the founder of this I have never once agreed to merge and most certainly will not now. I do not appreciate your removal of things from this and placing them on your project as if you had that authority. I will also ask you to stop removing our templates from pages. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 21:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Being a "founder" gives you no more power than anyone else in a WikiProject. -- Ned Scott 01:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Nobody owns any page here.  Common sense matters more than anyone's ego, and common sense seems to point towards merging projects with near-identical scope. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The two fundamental questions to me seem to be Personally, I would favor the latter name, as it is slightly broader and deals with the responses to terrorism as well. And, regarding the second question, there have been projects dealing with the same subject matter competing with each other before, and the results were not good. In the instances I am aware of, one of the projects was deleted over the objections of the project's participants. I sincerely hope that the two of you can achieve some sort of reasonable agreement, or at least accomodation of each other. One other possibility exists. Do you think that both groups could agree on a third name for a project, which potentially you could both "merge" into? I would welcome any responses. Badbilltucker 17:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (1) which name would be better, "Terrorism" or "Terrorism and counter-terrorism", if there were to be a merger, and
 * (2) is any real purpose served by having both of the two overlapping projects exist and, at least potentially, begin some kind of edit warring?
 * A merger is not happening. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 20:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WikiProjects aren't clubs, it doesn't work like that. You can't actually "refuse" in that manner. It might be that the two projects do not merge, but it's not just because you say so, etc. You are showing serious ownership issues here. WikiProjects are supposed to be points of collaborations first, not groups of editors first. It's a bit like having two talk pages for the same article. In some situations, depending on the Project's scope, having more than one project can be ok, but this is not one of those situations. Having two different projects with the same scope will only lead to conflict, will be very inefficient, and is just plain.. stupid. -- Ned Scott 09:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess we have a difference of opinion then. There are overlaps in many projects, I don't see how having an overlap can lead to conflict. Unless of course people from one project start removing templates from the other or removing information from their page. This has happened to our project in the past, and it was not appreciated. I am perfectly fine with the existence of this other Wikiproject with similar aims, and while you seem to think it stupid I am willing to have some good faith that the people of both projects can both improve Wikipedia. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 02:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WikiProjects are points of collaboration first, and groups of people second. Why would we have two different points of centralized collaboration? Isn't that.. an oxymoron? There is no reason to keep two projects like this, as it totally defeats the point of having a WikiProject. It shouldn't matter "where" the talk pages are, or what title the templates have, it's the same effort and same kinds of discussion. Why would you want to needlessly separate something like that? there's no point. -- Ned Scott 02:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Has this question been resolved as a "no-merge"? I do see the two projects being very closely aligned and, by the title, one would assume that the "Terrorism" project is a subset of the "Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism" project. So, what was the consensus on the merger? -- Kimon talk 14:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly be interested in re-starting talks to try and merge the two projects, it seems pointless and inefficient to overlap each other. The only person who has voiced any feeling against a merger is the founder of WP:TACT (I'm the founder of WP:T) who seems to be having some issues with WP:Ownership. Personally I feel "Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism" is an overly long name, though I certainly believe that counter-terrorism articles should be an equal focus of the/our project/s. In my mind, it's the same as if we called it Wikiproject:American Revolution and the British Response To Such or something...one can assume that the subject includes those opposed to it. Anyways, both projects seem to have a strong core of editors, and if there's still clear consensus to merge, then I'd love to start cross-referencing our lists of articles upon which to focus, and those which are featured, or working towards FA status, those that need work, new articles that need attention, AFDs and everything else that the projects should be doing for each other. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 12:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I got your message about merging the two projects called terrorism and counterterrorism. I favour the idea. The new name should include both words "terrorism" and "counterterrism".
 * But I don't think I'll be having much to do with Wiki in the future, at least on terrorism. Wiki is too vulnerable to anonymous ignoramuses who regard Wiki as just one more free site on which to splatter their personal graffiti. You know how it goes. I'm going to be moving over to one of the Creative Commons sites. LDH 22:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC) (moved from userspace)


 * Support merge --TheFE ARgod  (Ч) 21:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Mild oppose For two reasons. First, I believe that the focus of WP:CounterTerrorism articles are less theoretical and philosophical, and more historical and tactical in nature. In the same way that an article on Mt. Everest falls equally under the scope of WP:MOUNTAIN and WP:CLIMB, two different wikiprojects that quite often share articles, the Operation Entebbe article is important to both the terrorism and counterterrorism projects for different reasons. It's important to the WP:Terrorism project in that it was a major state sponsored terrorist event, in which hostages died. It's important to the WP:Counterterrorism project, in that it was an example of the tactical use of C-130's to quickly deploy light tank units, as well as one of the defining operations of several prominent israeli commanders, including Yonatan Netanyahu's death. Look at it this way. Terrorism does not need counter-terrorism to exist. It exists on its own, regardless of any attempts to stop it. At the same time, Counterterrorism articles are generally not about the broader applications of testimony, but more about the physical counterterrorism operation itself.. That's my argument. The second part is simply aesthetical: the name is too long. &rArr;   SWAT  Jester    Denny Crane.  22:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong support - The subject of counterterrorism is inherently dependent on the subject of terrorism. Given the fact that the articles are so closely related in terms of subject matter, it makes no sense to have them continue to exist as separate projects. The separation could also, at least potentially, result in the creation of a POV fork which is something we try to avoid. Personally, I wouldn't mind having the joint project called Terrorism and Counterterrorism, to make its scope clearer, but the name really isn't all-important. John Carter 22:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support1)Merging will provide a unity of location to discusss the Many issues this area of study raises. 2)Avoids POV as i can see by the nature of the names of the projects that counter terror could become POV towards the governments and terrorism pov for the terrorists and freedomfighters (note i dont think this HAS happened just its a risk). 3)All counter-terrorism articles are covered under the broad heading of studying terrorism, its really a sub-set like biogs of terrrorist/groups or methods of terrorism. 4)It will make interreacting with big wikiprojects whose areas we touch upon such as LAW and Military History much easier because of the unity of discusion. (Hypnosadist ) 22:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support - I don't understand Rangeley's opposition to merging. Maybe there's some reasoning I don't know about.  I was there when the one project was founded, and I'm pretty sure we didn't realize there was a pre-existing project.  Merging seems to make good sense, and no person, founder or otherwise, has the authority to dictate how projects go without consensus support.  As I am an extremely inactive editor, perhaps my opinion matters less, but it was requested, so there it is. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as the topics do seem to be similar.-- Sef rin gle Talk 03:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support seems like a good idea so that everything can be organized more appropriatly and easier.-- Southern Texas  03:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support it realy looks it will be better if the projects are merged. The projects have both a lot of common things between them and it will help to improve the main topic of the projects.(talk) 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. No reason to spread ourselves over two concepting projects.--Vindheim 14:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - am really alarmed at the rather haughty proprietorial attitudes displayed above- diran 15:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

''Given the broad support, I'm beginning to merge the two projects. This will probably take anywhere from a few days, to a week, since I hope to "update" the projects as well and try to add new/better features. For right now I'm moving it to Wikiproject:Terrorism, but that is free to change if people want to dispute which name we're using. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 17:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)