 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Jaselee1993. Peer reviewers:
CashVanBuskirk.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
"to generate terror, create chaos, and intimate" the public? Surely that should be "to intimidate" or "to intimate [sic]"? Not sure which, as I don't have access to the original. 68.101.78.195 ( talk) 11:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed the typo. Thanks for flagging. Neutrality talk 02:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I changed the first line to avoid quoting a dictionary . Please, do not revert it to the way it was. If you think you can do a better job, please go ahead, but do not start with a dictionary quote. Dictionaries may be used as references and may even be quoted but in special occasions WP:DICTS. 71.63.91.85 ( talk) 12:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- WP:DICTS is an essay (and therefore not a policy and guideline). There is no bar on the citation or the quotation of dictionaries to get a handle on the broad topic, so long as the article as a whole isn't a WP:DICTDEF (which this article is not).
- I'm fine with dropping the in-text attribution to the dictionary.
Neutrality
talk
13:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- @ Neutrality: thanks for your reply and also for your general interest in this article. I want to alert you to a conversation I started about this article's lead--I was trying to test my arguments in a larger forum. An editor went beyond my query and suggested reworking this article to include the subject of "hard targets" into a new hybrid one called Targets of terrorist attacks. Though I do not completely agree, I think there is certainly a vacuum without a pairing article (i.e., Hard Targets). Filling up that void could become a project if you agree. In regards to our immediate concern with the current article's lead solely made of a dictionary's quote, those who joined the conversation agreed that it is not appropriate. Again, the arguments are laid down in here. We can bring the discussion back to this article's talk page ( here) if you prefer. I just wanted you to know the full extent of my views before taking any action. I would appreciate your thoughts before I remove the quote from the lead. Cheers, 71.63.91.85 ( talk) 12:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
-
Hard target redirects to
soft target.
Neutrality
talk
13:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Neutrality The redirect from the hard to the soft was mentioned in the discussion. And there lies a problem, according to what was mentioned. But I am not too concerned with that now; that could become a future focus of attention for me. At this moment, I am more interested in reaching a consensus regarding the article's lead. Please, take a look at my arguments here, and the rest of the conversation here. As I mentioned above, I can copy and paste from the other forum and bring the conversation here (article's talk page), if you prefer it this way. I have not done it yet to avoid replication and clutter. But if it would facilitate our quest for a consensus, I would easily do it. 71.63.91.85 ( talk) 18:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
The term 'soft target' also seems to include verbal attacks. According to the collins dictionary: "a thing or a person that is easy to criticize or make an attack upon" ( source) -- － Cy21 ➜ discuss 09:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
In the article we have:
> Of terrorist attacks worldwide from 1968 to 2005, 72% (8,111) struck soft targets and 27% (4,248) struck hard targets.
However the math doesn't add up - 8111 / 4248 is far off from 72% / 27%. The source here is a book which makes learning the original intention of the numbers difficult. Razziabuissa ( talk) 00:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)