2 replaced http://politics.stackexchange.com/ with https://politics.stackexchange.com/
source | link

If we removed the tag, how would we tag the other questionother question that currently carries it?

Personally I think any tag like is somewhat redundant on politics.stackechange.com ... and seems over-broad. There are other alternatives, but is equally loaded in the other direction, and isn't common enough to avoid being misunderstood IMO.

The word "terrorism" is undoubtedly problematic - whole books have been written about that fact - but it's an important concept in political discourse, and the fact that it's problematic can in itself throw up interesting questions.

If we removed the tag, how would we tag the other question that currently carries it?

Personally I think any tag like is somewhat redundant on politics.stackechange.com ... and seems over-broad. There are other alternatives, but is equally loaded in the other direction, and isn't common enough to avoid being misunderstood IMO.

The word "terrorism" is undoubtedly problematic - whole books have been written about that fact - but it's an important concept in political discourse, and the fact that it's problematic can in itself throw up interesting questions.

If we removed the tag, how would we tag the other question that currently carries it?

Personally I think any tag like is somewhat redundant on politics.stackechange.com ... and seems over-broad. There are other alternatives, but is equally loaded in the other direction, and isn't common enough to avoid being misunderstood IMO.

The word "terrorism" is undoubtedly problematic - whole books have been written about that fact - but it's an important concept in political discourse, and the fact that it's problematic can in itself throw up interesting questions.

1
source | link

If we removed the tag, how would we tag the other question that currently carries it?

Personally I think any tag like is somewhat redundant on politics.stackechange.com ... and seems over-broad. There are other alternatives, but is equally loaded in the other direction, and isn't common enough to avoid being misunderstood IMO.

The word "terrorism" is undoubtedly problematic - whole books have been written about that fact - but it's an important concept in political discourse, and the fact that it's problematic can in itself throw up interesting questions.