This question https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/1310/what-percentage-of-american-terrorism-is-domestic-vs-muslim is taking some heat from the community, as pointed out in the comments.
A. I really don't want a lot of comments :)
B. I want to be an example here.
So, what is the non-constructive aspect of this question?
I think it was your prose more than the underlying question. It started out as a decent inquiry — what percentage of terrorism is actually domestic? But using the correct vernacular is the earmark of an "expertly"-posed question. Maybe you were going for effect, but When you start to indulge in acerbic rhetoric:
There is this common idea out there that every bomb is set off by a guy in a turban … that common idea should not be beyond scrutiny. What do the data say here?
… you can see where folks might start to call into question the actual purpose of your post.
[Note: I'm not really addressing you here specifically, Affable Geek, but talking over your shoulder to the rest of the community regarding how questions are posed and thus treated.]
Consider my comments here:
… [it a problem when the question] becomes a thinly-veiled excuse debate and soapbox the provocative quotes. Seems you can justify just about any question on this site by ending it with the right buzzwords — as if adding "Are there any studies to support this?" somehow gives it the appearance of canonical objectivity.
I'm not saying that was your objective, but add to that that you had to spend about 80% of the question defining the definitions and terminology and clarifications and context under which it could be answered… and you can start to see why the whole thing starts to look "not constructive."
Let's try this again with what I see as a constructive question — Stack Exchange style:
What percentage of American terrorism acts turns out to be domestic?
Shortly after attacks like the one at the Boston Marathon, the rumors and reporting quickly start to speculate about "Middle-Eastern terrorism." But with all the anti-government and isolationists groups operating in this country, I was wondering if these foreign-involvement assumptions are justified.
Are there studies or statistics about what percentage of terrorist attacks in the US turn out to be domestic?
I know this may be difficult to answer, as the application of terms like "terrorist" and "Muslim" tend to come into question. But any statistics that actually define these terms would help this answer greatly.
See the difference?
The problem comes from the false dichotomy presented as the premise to the question.
One option for resolving this would be inquiring about the origin, domestic vs foreign. Another would be to inquire about the motivations, ie eco-terrorism/anarchist/religious/etc.
The question sinks itself into deep trouble by failing to understand this separation. Think about the fact that you can have domestic Islamic terrorism, and you'll see where you've inappropriately divided your question.
Questions like this have an inherently sensitive nature, and they can quickly get out of control if the asker errs on their line of inquiry. I would advise splitting this into two or more questions, starting from domestic vs foreign.
The topic of terrorism is broad, ill defined, and often politically spun.
As such, attempting to distill it down into two categories, domestic vs. muslim is awkward, at best. For starters, the two categories aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. In addition, even though you made a disclaimer, the term 'muslim terrorism' is still a bit loaded.
As it is now, it's in this murky broad-but-sorta-specific no mans land. I'd try to either ask a more specific question, or less specific question.
'more specific' example:
How many terrorist acts directed at the united states have been claimed to be perpetrated by Islamic Extremists/Terrorist Organizations?
'less specific' example:
Has there been any sort of classification of terrorist acts directed at the United States?
Here are issues I see with the question
It has some grammar issues. The sentences don't flow together very well. You use the passive voice too much. You are also rambling.
You're including too much extra stuff. The labeling of the Boston Marathon really shouldn't affect the answer. Your clarification regarding "Muslim" and "claims to be Muslim" doesn't really clarify anything at all.
I suspect that you were trying to avoid answers that tell you that supposed "Muslim" terrorists aren't actually Islamic.
You are really asking 2-3 questions questions
The question was re-posted by another user, using the improved phrasing Robert suggested. Therefore I removed Affable's version, I see no reason to keep around two versions of essentially the same question.
I would like to ask everyone to refrain from starting yet another round of side-discussions in comments on the new question. If you feel you are knowledgeable enough about the subject matter, please provide an answer to the question, preferably backed up by solid references.
It's a good idea to remember that Stack Exchange is populated by people who either work with computers, or use computers in their work. As a result, they prefer questions that lend themselves to "binary" answers, or least can be broken down in a flow chart. Robert's example came closer to meeting this standard than the original one (although both were closed).
"Geeks" like you and me are supposed to be good at this sort of thing (although sometimes we aren't).
