Talk:Terrorism/Draft

Article Checklist for "Terrorism/Draft"

Workgroup category or categories	Military Workgroup, Politics Workgroup [Editors asked to check categories]
Article status	Developed article: complete or nearly so
Underlinked article?	No
Basic cleanup done?	Yes
Checklist last edited by	--Charles Sandberg 14:12, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.

---

Approval area

This artcle is first nominated version 100127060 for approval by Politics editor Richard Jensen using the individual approval method. --Matt Innis (Talk) 20:48, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

In short, we must find a terrorism expert to approve this article. My apologies, again. --Larry Sanger 11:19, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

As per my own earllier suggestion on Richard Jensen's Talk page, I have written to Professor Michael Nacht at UC Berkeley, asking him if he would be willing to have a look at this article. If, by extraordinary good fortune, he is willing to comment on it, I will forward his comments and post them here. If we are even more lucky, perhaps he would consider joining us as an editor. It's a long shot, but I though it worth a try, as this seems a strong entry in an important area; should we be favored with any comments, positive or negative, I'm sure they would be of great value. Russell Potter 17:14, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Images

Want any more for this? Stephen Ewen 00:21, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes this could use some more images. --Charles Sandberg 05:45, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Charles, about the AK-47 image caption. "...low cost and high numbers." I would recommend a chance to "...low cost and high availability." Additionally, if the AK-47 is a highly reliable weapon, it's probably worthy of mention as a reason why it's popular.--Robert W King 09:13, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

Done --Charles Sandberg 15:46, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

Definition

I've taught this topic before in philosophy classes and one of the most difficult aspects of the topic is, of course, the definition. We must, therefore, get that topic right. "Terrorism refers to any act, usually violent, meant to coerce behavior for political ends." This will not do. By this definition, all arrests by police officers are terrorism, given the "political end" of maintaining law and order. I'm not sure we should begin with any particular definition at all, since there is no agreed definition. Also, there are some who deny the existence of "state terrorism," or who find the concept problematic. Therefore, to assert, without qualification, that "armies, police, and intelligence services" commit terrorism is to take a stand on that issue--which is contrary to CZ:Neutrality Policy. One last thing: I should think the obvious first example to give of a terrorist act would be the destruction of the World Trade Center, the most devasting and consequential single terrorist act ever--thus, we ought to have a picture of that at the top, before we have one of the OK City Federal Bldg bombing. --Larry Sanger 17:34, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

About 911, I was thinking about doing that and putting Oklahoma City down in the history section. --Charles Sandberg 17:37, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

The opening paragraph is a suitable encyclopedia-style definition; do not just read the first sentence! The article then does an unusually good job of discussing the definition issue, with citations and quotations from multiple authoritative sources. If someone has changes to make, please make them on the draft page. We need to get approvals moving along and changes in text or illustrations will just delay matters.Richard Jensen 17:42, 5 July 2007 (CDT)