Talk:Arab Agricultural Revolution/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Misnamed?

this article seems misnamed or else it needs to be split up. Only part of the article is a about agriculture. The rest is on other, but still important, Muslim advances. Hmains 04:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it Capitalized? I've removed a few of the distracting links, bluebirding every third noun. --Wetman 07:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest Muslim technology or something the like. Also, its very enthuſiaſm begs the queſtion: whatever became of it?

--

Leandro GFC Dutra 11:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"Muslim Agricultural Revolution" is a term picked from a pdf file written by a partisan source. This is embarrassing. Arrow740 (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow's point does raise the legitimate question of why this article has the title it does rather than 'Arab Agricultural Revolution" or the other mentioned in the article, 'Medieval Green Revolution'. Dialectric (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This entire article has a disturbing level of ethnic-triumphalism that is very much contrary to the unviersalist spirit of wikipedia. I am unsure if the article is at all salvageable without reducing it to a short list of bullet points. -- Prophet121 04:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prophet121 (talk • contribs)

Islamic Agricultural Revolution

is correct since 'Islamic' is an adjective, while 'Muslim Agricultural Revolution' is grammatically incorrect, as 'Muslim' is a noun, both in Arabic & also in English when transliterated. A noun cannot clarify another word accept by addition, so in that case the correct wording will be "Muslims' Agricultural Revolution".(Ilaila (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

I agree. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, sources say that Muslim is an adjective, and has been since 1777, and on Wikipedia at least, "sources" trump "agreement". Of course "A noun cannot clarify another word accept by addition" is also about as wrong as you can get[1], or we would have to talk about "steaming engines" and a "ferrovious stations". --dab (𒁳) 14:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

splitting this article

how about taking the industry and technology sections out of this article and placing them in a new article to be named Industry and Technology in the Islamic Golden Age, leaving this article just for agriculture?. Hmains (talk) 06:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is full of totally unsubstaniated claims, making Muslism out to be the founders of modern agriculture and science. It is quite ludicrous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.38.29 (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The article isn't that bad, but it does need work. It is fairly diffuse; many things are largely irrelevant to agricultural systems (e.g. References to Islamic cookbooks). The proto-capitalistic system is interesting, but this article does give one the impression the capitalism as we know it today was largely influenced by Islamic systems, when in fact it is more heavily rooted in the mercantile system used in imperialist Europe and the guilds of Europe. I think it is a portion worth noting as it does relate to the way goods were transferred, but the article should do a better job of not giving undue weight to it. I don't think the entire article is unsubstantiated; after all, the majority of it is sourced. -Rosywounds (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is quite bad. The idea that cash cropping was invented by the Arabs is ludicrous, as are numerous other points. In addition, entire swaths are unrelated to agriculture at all. -116.232.129.38 (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"Pax Islamica"

Who is the source for this POV? There was no actual peace. Arrow740 (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

~~John M. Hobson (2004), The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation, pp. 29–30, Cambridge University Press.~~Bless sins (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Failed verification. Google books says the phrase does not occur the book. Arrow740 (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, try: Subhi Y. Labib (1969), "Capitalism in Medieval Islam", The Journal of Economic History 29 (1), pp. 79–96.

To be precise it's in first sentence of the third paragraph on page 80. The quote starts "In the early Middle ages as Pax Islamica was the foundation of an economic golden age..."

Check it out.Bless sins (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't so much a period of no war as a period when war didn't impact the lives of the average person all that much. Yes, there was warfare, but there wasn't the same general destruction of territories that disrupted Medieval Europe, Classical Greece, and so forth. Compare to "Pax Romana" or "Pax Britania," two periods of pretty much constant low-level warfare along the borders of the respective empires. --Raulpascal (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a Pax Islamica within the umma for quite a long spell. Further, regardless of border wars or even intermittant rebellions, the contrast with the preceding period of incessant Byzantine-Persian warfare throughout the Levant is marked. There are problems (some major) with this article, but this isn't one of them. -116.232.129.38 (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing

Arrow740 directed me here.[2] Yet there is no ongoing discussion about the article "Islamic Golden Age".Bless sins (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Splitting off maritime discoveries and trade

I was looking for a page on the history, routes, economics, etc, of (mainly) Muslim sea trade centered in the Indian Ocean. My impression was that Indian Ocean trade involved very large amounts of traffic and long distances. And that it had been vigorous since ancient times, before Islam, even if it only really boomed later and mainly under Muslim traders. It seemed like a topic worthy of its own page, but instead I found several pages on seemingly different topics containing sections or subsections on it. This page, for example, has a decent start under the "Age of discovery" section, but it struck me as odd to find it on a page about agriculture (I understand the connection between long-distance trade and agricultural revolution, but it still seems odd). There's another short subsection over at Islamic Golden Age#Economy. Wouldn't it be nice to have a page specifically on Muslim maritime history, especially in the Indian Ocean and its seas, and perhaps including pre-Islam history as well as non-Muslim penetrations (the Chinese, the Europeans in later times)? Maybe if I find the time I'll try to do it, starting with spinning off the content here and adding what I can. I'm not quite sure what such a page should be called -- "Maritime history of the Indian Ocean"? Or maybe a more limited "History of Muslim shipping in the Indian Ocean"? Ack.. Thoughts? Pfly (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. I originally moved the section here from the Islamic Golden Age article to show the important role played by explorers and sailors during the Muslim Agricultural Revolution. But now that you mention it, it would be better to create a seperate page on Muslim voyages and explorations. Jagged 85 (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Arrow704 has claimed that certain sources in the article are unreliable, so I am adding a section here to discuss this matter. Firstly, the Journal of the International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine is an internationally recognized academic health science journal,[3] so there is no question regarding its reliability. As for the MacTutor archive, it is an award-winning mathematics archive written by recognized mathematics professors. However, I do agree with you on a few of the other online sources, which I've now removed from the article, along with some previously unreferenced bits. Jagged 85 (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

See [4]. The International Society seems to be a partisan organization without any mainstream peer-review or reputable publisher. Further the MacTutor archive is a self-published website publisher by mathematicians, not historians. Arrow740 (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything for the website Arrow provided that would suggest that the journal is unreliable. MacTutor is hosted by a university is it not?Bless sins (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

massive distortion

"In 1551, after the decline of the golden age, the Egyptian engineer Taqi al-Din invented the first practical steam turbine as a prime mover for rotating a spit. This was the first time steam power was used to operate a practical machine or appliance. A similar steam turbine later appeared in Europe a century later, which eventually led to the steam engine and Industrial Revolution in 18th century Europe."

This section has been altered becuase it is extremely misleading. First thing the supposed steam turbine that Tarqi al-Din invented is not a real steam turbine by any modern definition. The sentence then goes on to say it was the first steam powered device used for a machine, even thoiugh Heron had developed the Aeolipile and used steam to open doors to a religious temple. Another major falw here is there is no evidence the device was built or used, which is what this section implies that it was used widely, which it clearly wasn't. Then it says that something similar appeared in europe and that led to the steam engine. Well the first steam engine was heron's device but neither heron's or tariq devices led to the steam enigine since the devices could not concentrate steam in any efficient was and neither could perform indusdtrial task. al Din invented a machine that essentially rotated food on a stick, there is no industrial application in that, its just a kabaab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.181.171 (talk) 09:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If other editors have questions about the validity of sources here, I suggest posting them to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for additional outside feedback. Dialectric (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Crops

Two issues with the crop lists mentioned in this article:

First, I noticed the term "eggplant" is used in the sections "Agricultural Innovations" and "Crops," and "aubergine" in the fourth bullet of “Advanced Agricultural Systems” and in “Economic and Social Reforms.” That should probably be edited for consistency.

Second, how about one list, probably at the end of the article, of crops that were either introduced or made more widespread by this Agricultural Revolution?

Sorry to bring these points up and not do the edits myself, but I'm at work and currently unable to do so. --Raulpascal (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Splitting, again

I really like this article; it is a great first point of contact for good sources on the economy of the Islamic world. However, I do think it should be split into Agriculture in the Islamic Golden Age and Industry in the Islamic Golden Age. There is enough to say about both sides and it will be easy to cross-reference one article from the other. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Arab is not the same as Muslim!

These advances were made in spite of religion, not because of it! Giving credit to a delusional superstitious cult instead of legitimate science is an insult to the greatest thinkers of both the Middle East and Europe. It's also bigoted and suggestive that Muslim fanaticism is an inherent part of Middle Eastern culture. It isn't. Wikipedia has betrayed its commitment to creating a rational, secular encyclopedia if it doesn't disinfect itself of this vile intolerance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.39.184 (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh, while there might be some disagreements above, the only vile intolerance is being introduced by you. If anything, the article should skew away from a limited Arab focus towards a larger conception of the Muslim community as it was that community (albeit originally ruled by Arabs) that was responsible for the developments cited by the article. While some Arabs do indeed happen to be Christian, Jew, or even Druze, it was the Muslim expansion that created a (fairly) unified state extending from the Iberian peninsula to the Indus. That unified state was what permitted the cultural exchange (again arguing against a focus on Arab exceptionalism) that permitted these advances. -116.232.129.38 (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with the last user. I think he is right historically. The opinion of the first user might be influenced by the role of Catholicism in Europe. The values and pratices of Islam would seem to be a little different. Debresser (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, most Muslims are not Arabs. For example, Indonesia is the most highly populated Muslim country in the world. Moreover, if you look into Muslim philosophy and Islamic economics (see Maxime Rodinson's "Islam and Capitalism"), not to speak of Sharia, you will find that it is fairly based upon the well-being of the community, as for example the Quran forgids Usury (like Judaism). Teetotaler 6 December, 2009

Some serious cutting

After having worked extensively on the problem of overlinking in both this article and the article Inventions of the Islamic Golden Age, I've noticed that

Chemical industries subsection is

not directly pertinent to this article
completely covert by the other article (and the article Alchemy and chemistry in Islam)

Other technologies subsection, the same.

These subsections I deleted.

Mechanical technology subsection is relevant, but has been dealt with extensively in the other article.
Industrial milling subsection, the same.

These subsections I cut down to the essentials. Debresser (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The section on the so-called Capitalist market economy is largely unrelated to the proposal of an agricultural revolution, and thus pure WP:synthesis. This is also partly true of "Water management technological complex", which, although certainly relevant for the topic, is not discussed by Lucas under the premise of any agricultural revolution taking place. Subsections like "earth science" and "environmental philosophy" have evidently little place here, too. In sum, the article appears to consist in large parts of a seemingly random selection of references. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed those topics which are talked through as being connected to the "Muslim Agricultural Revolution", even though the original sources do in fact not refer in their discussion to such a event, since this is classical WP:synthesis :

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[5] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

These are "Capitalist Market Economy" and "Age of discovery". Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Life expectancy claims

See discussion at Talk:Islamic Golden Age#Claims on life expectancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syncategoremata (talk • contribs) 12:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Rename of this Article

I suggest this article be renamed 'Arab Agricultural Revolution' as that is the term used in Watson's original article, and is the most cited in Google Scholar and WorldCat. I don't have Jstor access at present but expect that it would generate similar results. Here is the breakdown. If a strong case is made, either 2. or 3. would also make sense as a valid title for the article, but the current term appears to have the least scholarly currency:

1."Arab Agricultural Revolution" 65 sources, the most cites, and the term used in Watson's original article
2."Medieval green revolution:" appears in 38 sources in google scholar
3."Islamic Agricultural Revolution" 30 sources in google scholar, most of which appear scholarly
4."Islamic Green Revolution" in 9 sources most non-scholarly. The few scholarly sources are cited less than 5 times each.
5."Muslim Agricultural Revolution" appears in only 9 sources in google scholar, and none in worldcat. None of the google scholar citations for this term are from published works of history scholarship or peer-reviewed journals, and at least 3 of them are from, or quote, the problematic Foundation for Science, Technology and Civilization (FSTC).

Dialectric (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe it was first named 1., but then someone from the PC front thought it would be more inclusive to rename it to 5. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to rename the article to "Arab Agricultural Revolution". When I originally created this article back in 2007, I was unsure what to name it. The only two terms I was familiar with was "Arab Agricultural Revolution" and "Muslim Agricultural Revolution", so I went with the most inclusive one "Muslim Agricultural Revolution", which would include other ethnic groups involved, such as the Persians, Berbers, Turks, Andalusians, etc. However, the term "Arab Agricultural Revolution" is clearly the most common term for the period, regardless of how correct or incorrect it may be, thus I updated the lead to indicate this a month or two ago. In other words, feel free to go ahead and rename it to "Arab Agicultural Revolution". Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Time for attention?

This article looks to be mostly Jagged, with some corrections. Time for some attention? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Stubbed, see ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. The refs are a mess at the moment, I'll fix those up William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Economic Implication

This is a fairly well written article, but I think that there needs to be more talk about the specifics of how these crops and new methods pf irrigation actually were helpful. Just as an example in Spain there were many different implications that came with this agricultural revolution. With all of the new crops being bought to the Iberian peninsula people were living longer and the mortality rate decreased. This led to a period of great prosperity and an economic boom. This economic boom can be directly related to the Agricultural revolution and I think that it bears mentioning. Voitik2 (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Book

Watson promised book is not cited could someone check it out? Watson, Andrew M. (2008-07-10). Agricultural Innovation in the Early Islamic World: The Diffusion of Crops and Farming Techniques, 700-1100. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521068833. Retrieved 17 May 2011. J8079s (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A more critical look Horden, Peregrine; Purcell, Nicholas (2000). The corrupting sea: a study of Mediterranean history. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 589–. ISBN 9780631218906. Retrieved 17 May 2011. J8079s (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

More than a year has passed and still no readers of Watsons' book? Watson has a chapter here: Sweeney, Del (1995). Agriculture in the Middle Ages: technology, practice, and representation. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 9780812232820. Retrieved 15 August 2012. entitled 4. Arab and European Agriculture in the Middle Ages: A Case of Restricted Diffusion Pg62 available at http://www.questia.com/library/6839701/agriculture-in-the-middle-ages-technology-practice in it Watson says, in essence, that the "revolution" retreats with little or no impact on European agriculture.

I think heavy de-linking this article is in order. J8079s (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you clarify? Do you think this article has too many links in it, or to it? The former easy to fix, the latter will take some time. Along this line, given the contested nature of the revolution, I'm not sure that it should be linked in the agriculture template. Dialectric (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

De-linking the template is exactly what I had in mind. There is room on Wikipedia for articles on Agricultural practices in Foo but to use Watson as a source someone will have to read the book. what we have now is a couple of book reviews of books that nobody has read. J8079s (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Summary at Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe

Hi, I've tried to paraphrase and summarise this article at Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe#Technology. Previously the paragraph had been a (Jagged) uncritical use of Watson.
However I've been hampered by the fact that I can't access Watson, Decker, or even the reviews. Could somebody please have a look at what I've done and make sure it's a fair summary of the academic debate and there aren't any glaring errors? Thanks, merlin --Merlinme (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

This doesn't look like "original research " to me. Dialectric, would you mind explaining? Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

A number of the numbered references aren't actually references, just elaborations on a point, should instead be classified as unreferenced notes. The the 6th reference, about the mango, has no related article, and is clearly original research. Calling Clifford A. Wright (who has no wikipedia article), 'a highly respected historian of Mediterranean food' without referencing that claim is original research. Describing his work on the artichoke 'definitive' without citation is original research. Giving this work precedence over Decker's work, which was cited in the restored version, is likewise original research. None of the few actual references added in the anon edits have page numbers - they could be included in the article, but are not strong enough to justify the removal of the old, referenced content. Dialectric (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Politically correct ideology and apology.

The voice follows the politically correct ideology.

The books quoted in this wikipedia voice argue about the introduction of new cultures in restricted areas in islamic world. But the quotes are taken out of context, manipulated and expanded on the basis of a political idea to appear as secondary the consequences of the general decline of agriculture. From Umayyad period to the Abbasid period there has been a considerable increase in desertification, decline of agriculture in favor of pastoralism. The cities of the Decapolis today are in an arid area. In North Africa and the Middle East, Roman and Byzantine sites are under meters of sediment eroded from the hills once cultivated. Today Cyrenaica is a wasteland ... and the Umayyad palaces are in the desert.

Fortunately, some mention is made in paragraph "opposing view" that it should be the main text rather appendix.

--217.133.5.107 (talk) 09:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Post scriptum: Soon we will find that in wikipedia: The steamboat was invented in indus valley civilisation. Galileo and Newton were telepathically inspired by mathematicians of the Kerala school. Vitruvius knew the techniques of the Australian Aborigines. With some books to support these thesis .... indeed, all the informations are on the same level and have the same value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.133.5.107 (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

If you read the article history, you will see that it has gone back and forth between having a majority of content in support of, and then critical of, the idea of an Arab agricultural revolution. WP:Fringe provides guidelines for putting emphasis on widely supported views over fringe ones, but on this subject, there appears to be ongoing debate among scholars with no clear consensus. If you check some of the sources and find that they are misrepresented here, or you want to add more reliable references critical of the 'revolution' hypothesis, you are welcome to do so.Dialectric (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

If anything, this page is a testimony to the wiki system working out just fine, in the long run. The article was posted by a prolific troll, and sure, it stood unchallenged for almost three years, not many people are experts in the medieval history of agriculture. But once the troll had been caught, the community painstakingly went after his contribution and cleaned it up. What we are left with now is an unremarkable but factual article about an unremarkable paper written in 1974. Also, the thing is in the open now, the wiki has now been immunized to renewed WP:UNDUE touting of this concept. This is how the internet learns, the thing was buried in a paper archive before it was brought up here, now it can be researched online, complete with the process of review it got here on Wikipedia.

The final step will now be to ask ourselves if a random paper written in 1974 deserves its own page on Wikipedia. Probably it does not, and the whole thing should probably just become a brief paragraph in an article on the medieval history of agriculture. Nevertheless, this is now just a problem of WP:NOTE and proper arrangement of topics within Wikipedia guidelines, it has ceased to be an actual source of misinformation, it no longer have any urgency. In the end, agenda-driven trolls like Jagged 85 are the secret of Wikipedia's success, because they force the community to research and assess obscure topics people would never have bothered to look into on their own. --dab (𒁳) 14:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Arab Agricultural Revolution

The Wikipedia article on the Arab agricultural revolution, as it first appeared, was based heavily on Michael Decker’s 2009 article in the Journal of World History (an on-line journal). It seems very probable that Decker was also the author of the Wikipedia article. In its original state the entire thrust of the Wikipedia article was to destroy the argument put forward by Watson in two preliminary articles (which were the only citations of Watson’s work) and in his 1983 book (Agricultural Innovation in the Early-Islamic World, published by CUP). The articles used were in fact published conference papers reporting on work in progress. The 1983 book was not mentioned until a later revision of the Wikipedia article, and even then it clearly was not used by the author.

The original Wikipedia article contained many mistakes of different kinds, quite a few of which have been corrected over the years. Some, however, remain and should be removed if the article is to stand. Here are some of the areas needing revision.

1. There is still some reliance on the work of E. Ashtor, an Israeli scholar who held that the Arabs accomplished nothing during their time in power over a rather large part of the world. Rather they ushered in a long period of decline. Few today would agree with Ashtor’s criticisms of Watson’s work . In fact Ahstor’s conclusions are based on tax records which are far from complete, reliable or comparable.

2. The Wikipedia article argues that all the irrigation techniques used to grow the new crops were widely used in ancient times. Watson makes this very point but explains that (a) in the three centuries leading up to the Islamic conquest of the 7th and early-8th centuries the use of these techniques declined markedly; and (b) that in the early -Islamic period these techniques were much more widely distributed by the Arabs and could be used in new combinations in order to increase markedly the area of irrigated agriculture, as well as the intensity and period of irrigation. These advances allowed the cultivation of some of the new crops , which, since they were of tropical or semi-tropical origin, had to be grown in the summer season; through most of the early-Islamic world, the summer was a time of prolonged drought and intensive irrigation was needed.

3. The Wikipedia article argues that durum, cotton, rice and sorghum were widely grown in the pre-Islamic Roman and Sasanian Empires. On the matter of durum wheat, It is possible that the author is right and Watson was wrong, though the subject is still under debate. On the other crops the Wikipedia article is clearly wrong, as follows. (A) Cotton. As Watson points out, the cultivation of the perennial tree-cotton had probably spread from India into parts of the Arabian peninsula and the warmer parts of East Africa in pre-Islamic times. But the cotton mentioned in the Edict of Diocletian and the moderately large quantities of cotton cloth found in pre-Islamic Egypt were almost certainly of Indian origin. To spread through the Islamic world, and most especially into regions with non-tropical climates, a new type of cotton plant had to be developed . This was annual cotton which , with irrigation, could mature in the summer months before it was killed off in the colder winter season. Although almost nothing is known about the diffusion of this new cotton plant, by the 10th century it was found growing in almost every part of the Islamic world. (B) Rice. In his book, Watson discusses in some detail the appearance of rice cultivation in pre-Islamic Persia and Mesopotamia, as well as – possibly – the Jordan Valley. It was the accomplishment of the Islamic world to diffuse it widely to the West and probably also to intensify its cultivation in the East. (C) Sorghum. Watson discusses in considerable detail the available evidence for a diffusion of this crop into the lands which were to become the Islamic world. As he shows, none of this evidence is in any way convincing.

If the above mistakes were corrected , there would be little or nothing to support the thrust of the Wikipedia article that Watson’s argument is wrong. Clearly, what is needed is a new article with a different point of view rather than still more corrections to the existing article.

A seemingly fair-minded appraisal of Watson’s work appeared recently in the December 2014 issue of the Journal of Economic History (Vol. 74, pp 1205-1220). It is by Professor Paolo Squatriti of the Department of History at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. The title is “Of Seeds, Seasons and Seas: Andrew Watson’s Medieval Agrarian Revolution Forty Years Later”. Perhaps he could be invited to write a new article on the subject for Wikipedia. His e-mail address is pasqua@umich.edu. Or possibly Andrew Watson, now retired from the University of Toronto, could be persuaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerfriaz (talk • contribs) 12:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou. Given what you say, a rewrite is certainly required, though in general Wikipedia does not invite experts to write articles. I'd add that the article (like every article) should focus the topic named in its title, rather than on recent controversies. The emphasis throughout should be on what happened, cited to the most reliable authorities, with brief footnotes or suitable cautions ("may have been...") where facts are uncertain. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

A thoughtful analysis. Chiswick Chap is certainly correct that Wikipedia does not request assistance from experts, and rather ties itself in knots to apply a one-size-fits-all approach to any possibility of conflict of interest. See, for example, Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. I hope that it will be possible to turn the text around into something more balanced and informative (pages related to agriculture have generally been neglected, but that may be changing). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Rogerfriaz for pointing out new RS sources. Do you have sources that support your position that 'few today would agree with Ashtor’s criticisms of Watson’s work'?Dialectric (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

He only appeared on WP that once, so a reply from him may be unlikely, perhaps. However I added one such source already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Campopiano source? Dialectric (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I'm working on Squatriti now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I have just read Campopiano and don't see that it contradicts Ashtor; in fact, the paper cites Ashtor's work a number of times. His only explicit criticism is that Ashtor's work lacks 'an extensive analysis of the elements of land tenure and tax administration', which is tied to his position that a thorough analysis of agricultural production would also include study of food prices and wages.Dialectric (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if there are studies that show that there was a sudden population growth in al-Andalus and a corresponding improvement of the health of the people, as evidenced by a quality as the length of skeletons.

Also, one has to check if there wasn't a general Europe-wide increase in population numbers, - in particular in the unoccupied, christian northern half of Spain - so as to weed out possible confounding parameters, like the climate in Europa as a whole. May be there was a general increase in the quality of agricultural techniques in Europe, in the period 700 - 1100 [1]

The article quotes archaeozoologist Simon Davis, who gives as evidence for an agricultural revolution, an increase in the size of the sheep in Portugal. This is ridiculous: we want to know how the 'size' of humans increased in Spain! Also, this might merely be coincidental; one wouldn't want to ascribe an increase in size and population numbers of elephants in Africa to advanced Arab techniques!

According to the wiki-article, Andrew Watson in his paper, "recalled the Belgian economic historian Henri Pirenne's 1939 view of the way that a seventh century Islamic maritime power in the Mediterranean had prevented Europe from trading there.[7]" But Pirenne's thesis has been thoroughly destroyed in the greatest detail by his critics: "(...) economic historians can draw no sharp line between Merovingian and Carolingian times as regards contacts with the East", [2], p. 77.

[1] Catherine Vera, Un monde sans innovation?, in Nicolas Weill-Parot, Véronique Sales (dir.) (2017), Le vrai visage du Moyen Âge. Au-dela des idées Reçues. p. 270-271.

"On observe également ce phénomène dans le cas des moulins hydrauliques. À l'epoque carolingienne, un réseau très dense de moulins à blé a pu être reconstitué; ils sont disposés de telle sorte que l'accès en soit aisé pour les paysans (...) Marc Bloch l'a bien souligné dès 1935: si le moulin n'est pas une invention médiévale, sa diffusion dans ces proportions est incontestablement une innovation du Moyen Âge."

That is, even in Carolingian times, in Western Europe, mills constituted a dense network. And according to Marc Bloch, even if the mill wasn't invented in Medieval Western-Europe, its proliferation certainly was its innovation.

[2] Lynn White, Jr (1962), Medieval Technology & Social Change.--Gerard1453 (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. What seems to be going on here is that you are thinking as a scholar might, and drawing conclusions from assembled statements and facts from elsewhere. We are however not allowed to do this on Wikipedia, where the activity is called original research (WP:OR). It may help to state what a good article on Wikipedia is meant to do: to cover the main points of a topic from reliable sources, preferring secondary reviews to primary sources though making use of those where they are relevant (as Watson's work is in this case). Thus, our role as editors is to reflect what Watson proposed, and what authorities have written about those proposals. It may be useful to recall, therefore, that articles report the verifiable history of a topic, not what we personally may suspect to be the 'truth' about it. The article does exactly this, reporting Watson's thesis, setting it in context, describing the historical reaction to it, and summarizing how more recent scholars have come to view it. That's pretty much all we can do. For example, you discuss Pirenne as if the article relied on his views; but it doesn't: it cites Squatriti to say that Watson was in a way echoing Pirenne, and that's the limit of what we can say, as anything more would be "OR". If this feels very different from academic research, that's because it is: this is an encyclopedia not a research lab. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Article naming

Should the article be titled "Arab Agricultural Revolution theory" or something like that? Giving it the Arab Agricultural Revolution title implies that the primary topic is a historical event or a revolution (compare with the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution), while in reality the article is talking about a theory proposing a revolution might or might not actually happen, and the academic debate around it (whether there's such a revolution is hotly debated). This also agrees with the secondary sources cited in the article. For example, the Squatriti (2014) source used the term like "hypothesized Arab transformation", "Watson thesis" to describe it, and use quotation marks around the term "Arab Agricultural Revolution", indicating that the "revolution" is still a hypothesis. HaEr48 (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

No, Arab Agricultural Revolution is the name in wide usage and it is pure WP:OR to attempt to put a construction such as "theory" upon it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

For something that is nominally about a "historical" event, this page reads more like a discussion of someone's paper instead of an encyclopedic description. I wholeheartedly agree with HaEr48 that the title is a misnomer for its content. I'd move it to The Arab Agricultural Revolution and Its Diffusion and put it in Category:Academic journal articles. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I've stated up front that this is a conjectured historical event, which sets it in context; the debate has been on whether the conjecture matched reality, and it's fair to say that in large measure scholars now agree that it does. The direction of the article has thus been slightly altered to emphasise the importance of the connection to reality. That was always implied but it's probably clearer now that it's been made explicit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Article move

SilkTork Multiple editors objected to the simple Arab Agricultural Revolution name. For laymen, it's misleading because the article is about a thesis or a theory, not about a revolution. For example, see #Article naming above and the last GA review where the renaming was requested as part of the GA review. SilkTork, I know you have your reason for the move, please discuss it in a Wikipedia:Requested move to see where the consensus is, and in the meantime let's not change the status quo. HaEr48 (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi HaEr48. Sorry I had intended to get in touch with you regarding this matter, but got distracted in real life. Anyway, please see WP:BRD. You were bold in moving a topic with a known name to something you devised. I have reverted. At this point it is you who needs to open a discussion as the onus is on you to show that your chosen name is appropriate. And as the name is non standard you need to get consensus for it. To do that you need to provide evidence from reliable sources of such a name as "Arab Agricultural Revolution thesis" (apart from the Wikipedia mirrors which are now copying that error). We name articles after the common name as found in reliable sources. This topic is commonly known as Arab Agricultural Revolution. See [5], so under our policy - "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources" - that is what we should call it, unless there is a compelling policy based reason why not. I'm not clear on why you feel that a topic known as Arab Agricultural Revolution should have "thesis" appended to it, and which policy reason applies here. SilkTork (talk)

@SilkTork: I was about to point you to WP:BRD. You were the one who boldly moved the page at [6]. I then reverted at [7]. As per BRD, the onus should be on you now to start a discussion find consensus after this revert, but instead you re-reverted [8]. Please undo your last move and let's start a move discussion. HaEr48 (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm firmly with SilkTork on this: the topic, in all the sources, is simply AAR, and it's the thing under discussion. We cautiously describe it as a conjectured event, though it's now rather well supported, but an event it is either way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

But the thing is the article is not about AAR itself. Most of the article isn't about what the revolution was, what was being invented, or things like that, but it is concerned about Watson's paper, and how other academics reacted to it. But please while we discuss, let's revert the contested move first, as per WP:BRD. HaEr48 (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

HaEr48 - I saw your comment above and assumed you had made the move. I now see that the move was made by the 2nd GA reviewer, so I apologise for assuming you had done that. You are correct, as you didn't make the move, you were not the one who was bold. Vanamonde made the move, with the reluctant agreement of Chiswick Chap, so there is some consensus for it. The move, however, is erroneous as there is no such topic as "Arab Agricultural Revolution thesis". This article was created in 2007 as Muslim Agricultural Revolution, as that is one of the terms used - others used are: Medieval green revolution, Islamic Agricultural Revolution, Saracenic Agricultural Revolution, and Islamic Green Revolution. A discussion was held in 2010, and it was agreed to move the article to Arab Agricultural Revolution as that is the most common name used in reliable sources: [9]. While this article is at "Arab Agricultural Revolution thesis", there are a number of Wikipedia mirrors copying it, and thus creating a false title. There are legitimate alternative titles that we can use - any of those I have mentioned above have been used by scholars to discuss this topic, so while we debating this issue, can we agree to at least place the article under an appropriate name rather than one that Wikipedia has invented, and which puts a non neutral slant on the topic that is against policy and can bring criticism to Wikipedia if the media wish to pay attention to this. We can open a RM discussion, but while we are holding that discussion, lets use a proper, neutral term for the article that is not against policy. By appending "thesis" to the title, Wikipedia is taking a viewpoint that the Arab Agricultural Revolution did not happen. We do not, after all, append "thesis" to British Agricultural Revolution, even though that theory is increasingly contested. That is the way with such broad historical events - there is ongoing research which continually adds to our knowledge, and challenges and questions which test our assumptions. If we renamed the Evolution article Evolution theory, or the Creationism article Creation theory, we would be moving away from our neutral stance and taking a viewpoint. That is what we have done here. So, let's keep it safe and keep it nice, and call it Arab Agricultural Revolution for now, as the most widely used term, while we debate among ourselves over the next few weeks which title is the most appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@SilkTork: British Agricultural Revolution exactly illustrate why I'm objecting. This article isn't analogous to that one. The BAR article talks about "Major developments and innovations": crop rotations, the Dutch slough, enclosure, seed planting, etc. It is an article about the revolution. In contrast, this article isn't about the revolution at all. It doesn't talk about major innovations, but instead talk about "Watson's thesis", "reception", "early scepticism", "acceptance", in other words they are about the the paper and what the academia thought about it rather than the revolution. If this article was framed around the actual revolution, e.g. like what the article looked like in its past. then I agree that it should be titled AAR, but this article is much more about the thesis than the revolution. I believe this also the reason why HyperGaruda (above) and Vanamonde93 in the GA review objected to calling it just "AAR", and why I think a RM or some other open discussion is needed so that neutral parties can weigh in. HaEr48 (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. I think we're sort of talking over each other's shoulders, and not agreeing. What we do agree is that there should be a discussion. What you want to do is hold the discussion while the title is Arab Agricultural Revolution thesis, what I want to do is hold the discussion while the title is at something more neutral. I would accept any of the names by which this topic is known, though feel that as Arab Agricultural Revolution is the most widely used one, and is neutral, that we should hold it under that title, so the internet doesn't get too warped with Wikipedia mirrors copying the title "Arab Agricultural Revolution thesis". That term didn't exist until it was created here on Wikipedia. Can we agree to name it after the original title of Watson's publication while the matter is considered under a RM discussion? The title was "The Arab Agricultural Revolution and Its Diffusion, 700–1100". We would normally title an article on a publication after the title of the publication. So, while the matter is more broadly discussed, can we move it to The Arab Agricultural Revolution and its Diffusion, 700–1100? SilkTork (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@SilkTork: I don't mind naming it after the title of the publication. It's clearly the name of a publication or a theory and so, not misleading like (IMO) Arab Agricultural Revolution. Thanks for the suggestion. HaEr48 (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

As long as the article is discussing the paper instead of the subject of said paper, I agree with the proposed move the article to the paper's title, The Arab Agricultural Revolution and its Diffusion, 700–1100. Just don't forget to add {{italic title}} to the top, as is customary for articles about works and publications. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll move it to The Arab Agricultural Revolution and its Diffusion, 700–1100, and then open a wider discussion on moving it back to Arab Agricultural Revolution. SilkTork (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 3 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The Arab Agricultural Revolution and its Diffusion, 700–1100 → Arab Agricultural Revolution – The short and simple reason for moving the title to Arab Agricultural Revolution is because that is the most common name for this topic as used by reliable sources.

The longer explanation involves a study of the article history, and the issues surrounding its development. The article was created in Oct 2007 by the now banned User:Jagged 85. Jagged 85 was banned for poor use of sources in Arab related articles, creating some doubts about the veracity and neutralness of the content he added. The article was created under the title Muslim Agricultural Revolution, then moved to Arab Agricultural Revolution in 2010 as being the term most used in reliable sources. Other terms for this topic are Medieval Green Revolution, Islamic Agricultural Revolution, Islamic Green Revolution, and Saracenic Agricultural Revolution, which have either been used for the article title, or used as redirects. Because of the doubts regarding Jagged 85's use of sources, his version (which is occasionally linked to in discussions, as being a more comprehensive cover of the topic) was stubbed in 2011 as being unreliable. In 2016 Chiswick Chap tidied up the article and took it through two GA reviews, in the course of which questions were raised about the focus of the article and the appropriateness of the title. The argument being that as the article is now mainly about a 1975 paper on the topic by Andrew Watson which is titled "The Arab Agricultural Revolution and its Diffusion, 700–1100", that the article should be termed Arab Agricultural Revolution thesis - this title was reverted by myself back to the Arab Agricultural Revolution title as being the common title used in sources, while "Arab Agricultural Revolution thesis" was a Wikipedia construct only, and was non-neutral. Discussion above shows that there is agreement that there should be a wider discussion on the most appropriate title - in the meantime the current title has been chosen as it is the full title of the original paper, and is neutral. The reason for the move request is that the topic of the article is (and should be) the Arab Agricultural Revolution itself, rather than one paper on the topic, especially as the notion of an Arab Agricultural Revolution pre-dates Watson's work - indeed, he was building on previous writers. This 2003 paper by Ruggles is a useful indicator of the thoughts that had previously gone into the topic before Watson. Additionally, there have been further papers on the topic, such as Ruggles "Botany and the Agricultural Revolution", and Decker's 2009 paper "Plants and Progress: Rethinking the Islamic Agricultural Revolution". SilkTork (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment I'm not likely to be able to participate in a lengthy discussion here, so this comment is going to have to stand for itself. When I insisted, at the GA review, that the article be retitled to Arab Agricultural Revolution thesis, it was not because I felt that the thesis was not well supported (It seems to be) but because the article was a discussion of the history of this scientific theory (and I use "theory" here in the formal rather than colloquial sense) rather than of its contents. So far as I can see, this is still more or less the case; this article discusses evidence for this transformation in agriculture, and not the transformation itself. Therefore, I cannot support the proposed title at this time. If the article were substantively rewritten, I could support it; but I honestly don't see why this article needs to change. It's a perfectly valid topic, which just leaves room for a different article to examine this agricultural transformation. I am fairly indifferent to whether the title is "AAR thesis", "AAR theory", "AAR conjecture", or an equivalent which makes it clear what the topic of this page is. The current title is clunky, but still better than just AAR, IMHO. Vanamonde (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: I think comparisons between this article and Evolution are inaccurate, for the reasons outlined above. A far better analogue is, for instance, Evidence of common descent, and the existence of an article of this title does not imply that the theory of common descent is not true. Vanamonde (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment. If your goal is to get an article about the AAR itself, perhaps it is easier to just "hijack" the redirect Arab Agricultural Revolution and turn that into a separate article, limiting the content to a neutral description rather than a debate about which scholar is right or wrong. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose at this time - I fully agree with Vanamonde93. Furthermore, I don't dispute SilkTork and Chiswick Chap's assertions that "Arab Agricultural Revolution" is "the most common name ... used by reliable sources" for the events in the 8th to the 13th century. The problem is that this article doesn't have those events as its main subject, but rather a paper (or several papers) and the academic debate surrounding it. Therefore the name AAR IMO is misleading. Imagine if someone took the article British Agricultural Revolution, remove the entire "Major developments and innovations" and "British agriculture 1800–1900" sections, and replaced them with content about someone's paper and some academic debate about the topic, IMO it wouldn't be right to call the resulting article "British Agricultural Revolution" anymore, since it ceased being about the events themselves. That's more or less what happened to this article. I also agree with Vanamonde that it doesn't really matter whether it's titled '"AAR thesis", "AAR theory", "AAR conjecture", or an equivalent which makes it clear what the topic of this page is,' and that the current title is somewhat more awkward than the AAR thesis title, but it's much better than simply calling it AAR. HaEr48 (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Support per Chiswick Chap's recent edits which made the AAR title appropriate. Since the scope is changed, maybe the GA criteria needs to be evaluated again, but that's a different matter.

Well, ~~since AAR is obviously not going to happen "at this time" — and by the way,~~ we plainly need to move that way eventually, I ~~shall add~~have added evidence from other authors — then at least we need a less klunky title. "AAR thesis" wasn't great but all the others, including the current windbag of a title, are worse. ~~Let's put it back to how Vanamonde had it please.~~ Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment. There is a notable topic of Arab Agricultural Revolution, and this article was (and to my mind still is) about that topic. The argument being put forward is that the article is currently more about the paper "The Arab Agricultural Revolution and its Diffusion, 700–1100", and so the article title should be changed to reflect that, and a new article created for Arab Agricultural Revolution. The problem with that, is that the article contributions history is for Arab Agricultural Revolution, and pretty much all the incoming links from other articles are for Arab Agricultural Revolution (I arrived here from Malta where the topic is linked (not the paper), because it is known (not a theory) that the Arabs brought plants and irrigation to Malta).[10] If the consensus is that the current article is more about the paper than the topic, then the appropriate solution would be to roll this article back to before Chiswick Chap started editing it, move the title back to Arab Agricultural Revolution, and create a new article for The Arab Agricultural Revolution and its Diffusion, 700–1100, moving the current contents (and contributions history) to that, along with the GA reviews and outcome. I'm not sure we need to be that drastic, as if the general consensus is that Chiswick Chap has taken this article too far away from the original scope of the topic, the other option is less drastic: edit the article to restore what people feel is an appropriate balance. Changing an article title to meet the changed scope of an article is not an appropriate solution. I am especially uncomfortable given the sensitive nature of this material, that it could appear to some that Wikipedia is playing down the significance of what is termed the Arab Agricultural Revolution. I'm not suggesting that any editors here are doing that intentionally, but that is how this situation could be read. SilkTork (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

That does not correctly represent what has happened. I am continuing to develop the article, with focus on the actual historic events in the Medieval period, and indeed added material of that kind recently; I am awaiting delivery of a book now. It is not true that I have taken the article away from focus on the events, as you will immediately see if you look at how the article was before I began work on it. I do hope you will withdraw the charge, which is baseless and could be damaging. The GA reviewer insisted on a change of title as you know, but all the facts and sources in the article as it was in early 2016 remain in place, generally greatly expanded too. Indeed, if you go back to 2014 when the article was longer, you will not find a significant change in the article's direction either. I think the best course now is to leave the name as "AAR thesis" until such time as the article contains sufficient material on the history to make it clear to everyone that the "thesis" can be dropped. It's already the case that the article makes clear that Watson didn't invent the AAR, but we are where we are. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I have worked with you before Chiswick, and I have respect for your integrity, so I am not intentionally accusing you of anything inappropriate - if you feel that I am, I do apologise. Indeed, I don't think anyone is doing anything inappropriate - it's just that folks are seeing this in different ways. This happens. I am asserting that the article is about the topic rather than the paper. Others are saying that either we should append "theory" or "thesis" to the title, or change it to the name of Watson's paper. I don't see it as appropriate to change the title. However, Wikipedia works by consensus, and if the consensus of opinion is that the article is about the paper, or that the Arab Agricultural Revolution didn't happen so the title should reflect that, then we have to look at ways of addressing the situation within policy and best practise, and I have offered some solutions. I am also indicating that this is a sensitive topic, and that we should be aware of that as we consider the issues. Whatever happens though, we cannot change the title back to Arab Agricultural Revolution thesis, as that term only exists here on Wikipedia, and is assuming a non-neutral viewpoint. If that term was in common use, that would be different. But as it is not, if we use it we are in effect coming down on the side of the view that the topic is dubious. It would be the same as if the common term was "Arab Agricultural Revolution thesis", and nobody used "Arab Agricultural Revolution", but we decided to, then we would be making a statement that we believed it actually did happen. We must keep titles neutral and follow what reliable sources say. SilkTork (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it would help a lot for refocussing the article (and decreasing its WP:NOTJOURNAL/WP:NOTESSAY nature) if the in-text attributions would be pruned. See WP:INTEXT for suggestions. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@SilkTork: To be clear, I've absolutely no objections to any modifications you make to the history, to make that match the title(s). All I'm saying is that the title should match the content. The current content is a perfectly valid article, and I see no reason to modify it to fit the AAR title; that seems to me to be a tail wagging a dog. Vanamonde (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 - have you seen the recent changes to the article? Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have both added a significant number of new sources, images, and text, and recast the article to show more of the medieval revolution and less of Watson and his reception. It is not possible to avoid historiography completely, but I've put it in its place (at the end). There really isn't much doubt among scholars that some kind of revolution happened in the agriculture specially of al-Andalus. I am still working on the article but I hope its shape is now clearer to everyone. The current Watson-centric title is now not at all appropriate, even if it once was. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment. Why is it italicised and why is it capitalised? I can't see much ground for either, no matter what the article title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

At the time, the article was more of a discussion of a certain paper, according to several editors including me. That is why the article recently adopted the paper's title, including the italics as is common for books and other publications. Chiswick Chap has now done a great job making the article focus more on the actual AAR and pushing the academic debate to the background, so I now support moving the page back to the original Arab Agricultural Revolution. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. I support Arab Agricultural Revolution. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I would now support the page being moved to Arab Agricultural Revolution, thanks to the work done by Chiswick Chap. I do think some sort of review process (a new GAN, or a PR) is now necessary, as the structure and content has changed a lot; primarily to ascertain that the prose is clear to a person without previous knowledge of this topic. Vanamonde (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll put it in for PR as soon as the article has been move, if someone could do the honours. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Labor?

The article does not mention who provided the labor for the large-scale agriculture of this period. Large-scale Roman agriculture, which preceded this period, relied to a large extent on slaves captured in raids in other lands. Large farms did not depend on the local population to provide the workforce. Similar situations arose both before and after. Was this also the case in Al-andaluz and North Africa? Phytism (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

None of the sources I have seen discussed the matter, so it will rest there unless someone publishes on the topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a good question. Was there serfdom in the Islamic world? Or something similar? LastDodo (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Good or no, this page is Not a Forum for discussion of the area; any attempt to address it without sources which specifically mention both labour and the AAR would be Original Research. All we can do is await the publication of scholarly research. If you come across a paper that addresses the question, we can cite it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)