This category is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization and/or individual a terrorist—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.
This category was nominated for deletion on 9 November 2007. The result of the discussion was rename.
This category was nominated for deletion on 16 January 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.
This category was nominated for deletion on 25 July 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.
This category was nominated for deletion on 31 August 2014. The result of the discussion was Keep.
There is one aspect of the term/category that I find bizarre. I know nothing about Islam but I've heard almost all authorities and political leaders (like President Bush) saying that Islam, as a doctrine, is diametrically opposed to acts of terrorism. If that's true, doesn't that make the term an oxymoron? And if it's an oxymoron, should it exist as an encyclopedic category? Wouldn't something like "al-Queda terrorism" be more realistic? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same reason nearly all racist lynchings of black men in the US south were carried out by Christians. Every religion has fringe creeps who commit terrible acts. Think of the Spanish Inquisition: should there be a category for "Christian Torturers"? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that the Islamic terrorists carry out and justify their attacks in the name of their religion, and with the explicit purpose of furthering their religious fundamentalist goals. The same can't exactly be said about the KKK lynchers. If you think that Islamic terrorism doesn't exist or shouldn't be mentioned then why don't you nominate that article for deletion or renaming first? This category should follow that article's naming to keep with consistency. /Slarre (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right. As I've said repeatedly I know nothing about the Muslim religion and even less about what motivates terrorists so if you are sure that religion is what motivates them, then maybe you are right. But I DO know that the KKK claimed to be doing their nasty deeds in the name of Christianity; so I still say that "Christian terrorism" or "Christian torture" might be rationalized as a category but would not sit well with me. The main difference in my opinion is that there are many reliable sources which use the term "Islamic terrorism" so I think that is the most solid reason for having it as a category; but I still think it's not necessary, is borderline racist(and certainly could maybe be perceived as racist) and beneath the standards to which we should want this encyclopedia to attain. But that's my opinion, which clearly is not the consensus view, so I won't be thinking much about this category any more. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Islam opposes the killing of innocents (see Islamic military jurisprudence for evidence), thus Slarre's argument doesn't hold. I could also point to the overwhelming number of sex scandals in churches and ask does Christianity promote sexual abuse and pedophilia? However, it'd be absurd to create a category that presented that view since the majority of Christians are decent people. Thus, I this category has little precedent on wikipedia. Infact, it can be used as precedent for ridiculous examples like the one I mentioned above.Bless sins (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please take your debates off wiki. Slarre's point was that because they justify it, it is a releavant cat. Doesn't matter if the justification is proper. YahelGuhan05:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. Stated justification does not make something relevant as a category. The Spanish Inquisition justified torture in the name of Christianity so does that make "Christianity's Torture" a relevant cat.? Not in my book. I think it's better to just admit that this wiki, try as we may, has a certain amount of systemic western judeo/christian bias which we absolutely refuse to address because, as with most all biases, we were either raised as children with it or propagandized into it and either do not want to think about it or simply do not see it. It's better not to make statements about why this category is acceptable and npov, its better just to say most of the community want to keep it and majority rules. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Islam is peace, not terrorism. So please rename the category like 'Terrorism in the name of Islam' or 'Terrorism in the name of Religion'--Asees2 (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mr.grantevans2 and Asees, delete the category as it is not a neutral name. Looking at the names of organizations/people you have in the category is really funny. Many are called terrorist when they are fighting back against illegal invasion (e.g. Palestine and Iraq) condemned by international law. Atubeileh (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
