Talk:Greco-Islamic tradition

Untitled
Here's quote from page 154 of Lois N. Magner's book:

"During the period from about 1450 to 1700, the Greco-Islamic tradition was replaced by modern science."

Contrast this with what the article says: "The Greco-Islamic tradition refers to the knowledge and methods adopted and utilized by Europeans during the years 1450 to 1700 from the Islamic culture of the middle ages and the Greek culture of ancient times, much of which was preserved by generations of Islamic scholars." (my emphasis) It wasn't being "adopted and utilized", it was being replaced. This is in any case merely a passing mention and does not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (per WP:NOTE).

Likewise A History of Chinese Mathematics mentions this 'tradition' in passing, but in the context of its influence on Chinese astronomy and algebra. Neither source verifies the article text (and the first directly contradicts it). HrafnTalkStalk 04:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Policy violations
[Moved from User talk:Hrafn ]
 * Any reasonable editor would agree that I make a good faith effort to improve the article Greco-Islamic tradition per your suggestions. And think your reaction here is hostile due to our recent past history. The fact that you have recently responded to me with hostile comments (in bold no less) such as "Bullshit", "put up or shut up"  are evidence of baith faith (by general uniformity of guidelines see [Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#discussion]).   Therefore, I believe your actions and views in regards to my most recent edits are hostile and bad faith. I believe that reverting them back is the right thing to do, so please don't revert them again, as I wish to avoid edit warring. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Policies that this article violates:
 * 1) WP:NOTE -- no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" -- just a couple of passing mentions. If we made articles for every pair of words a few authors decided to hyphenate, wikipedia would be swamped in poorly sourced stubs on obscure combinations.
 * 2) WP:NOTDICDEF -- even were this information verifiable and/or notable, it merely defines what it explicitly calls a "term", making it merely a dictionary definition
 * 3) WP:OR: because none of the cited sources make this definition, you are merely inferring them (i.e. WP:SYNTH from very thin pickings in the sources.

Neither WP:AGF nor WP:IMPERFECT is a defence against these violations. HrafnTalkStalk 14:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

[My response to behavioral accusations moved to User talk:Firefly322 HrafnTalkStalk 15:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)]

Greco-Islamic vs Islamic
Is it clear that Greco-Islamic science/Greco-Islamic medicine are used by the sources in a manner differentiable from 'Islamic science/Islamic medicine plus its Greek forbears' or 'Islamic science/Islamic medicine emphasising its Greek foundation'? Given that these two topics already have their own articles, it is unclear that there is much fallow ground to be ploughed here -- let alone that it should be centred broadly on the 'Greco-Islamic tradition' (which would appear to attempt to envelop both those articles plus Greek philosophy). HrafnTalkStalk 16:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it, the best way of handling this would be a disambiguation page, e.g.: