Talk:History of Islam/Archive 2

Proposed merge with Early scholars of Islam
Both articles contain useful information based on reliable sources, but there is definite overlap. Andrew327 18:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete "Salafi and the Safavid"
The section entitled "Salafi and the Safavid" contains some of the worst writing I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I would say it was argumentative, rather than neutral, if I could understand the point it was trying to make. In any event, it is essentially unsourced (the two footnotes were clearly afterthoughts; of them begins a page cite then trails off). The title doesn't really describe what it is about (perhaps nothing could).

In any event, it does not really belong in this article because it doesn't describe anything of a historical nature. I realize that the modern history part of this article needs much beefing up, but this piece doesn't add anything.

Does anyone want to defend this section before I delete it?AnthroMimus (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in History of Islam
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of Islam's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "gold84": From Tabaristan:  From Islamic Golden Age: Goldschmidt 84-86 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Article masquerades unhistorical "beliefs" as history
This is the kind of article through which Wikipedia looses considerable credibility. When articles contain the word "history" in their very title, readers should have the right to expect that at a minimum, it is about history. Yet within the first few sentences of the article we read:

"Though it is held by non-Muslims to have originated in Mecca and Medina, Muslims believe that the religion of Islam has been present since the time of the prophet Adam. Muslims believe that prophets Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, among others, were all Islamic prophets....."

Non-Muslims hold that position because of the historical and archaeological records, while the entirely unhistorical Muslim "beliefs" cited have nothing to do with history but rather spring from Islamic so-called "tradition", that was created and put to the pen in the 7th to 10th centuries AD without reference to any actual historical record that preceded the 5th century AD. Let alone that there is not a shred of scriptural, historical or archaeological evidence that supports the geographical impossibility of Islamic tradition regarding persons from thousands of years before Muhammad. Those "beliefs" should be moved to an article titled something more like "What Muslims Believe" or "Islamic Tradition" rather than presented to masquerade as history. If someone disagrees then the burden is on them to present some historical and archaeological evidence that supports Islam's antihistorical "beliefs". PeterWaldo (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Arman ad60's changes

 * @Arman ad60 - Please DON'T start a new section every time you add a new comment! Johnbod (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Abbasid empire
Hi is it necessary to give so much description of the Abbasid empire?There are too many sections discussed here for the abbasid empire.For example-The Golden Abbasids,The Middle Abbasids and the Lower Abbasids.I think there is no need for discussion of so many parts of one empire.And the Abbasid empire was not of much importance.The Rashidun empire and the Umayyad empire had already created this empire by massive expansion.The Abbasids just inherited this and ruled it for some days.So dont you think the entire description of the Abbasid empire should be placed into one section?Arman ad60 (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Maps
Hi there was no map in this article.But this is a historic article.That is why I have included the maps of some of the major empires here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arman ad60 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Shortened article
I Have shortened the article. Removed some unnecessary sections like: major periods and early sources. Shortened some sections like: City-states and The Abbasids. And obviously improved the writing.Arman ad60 (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this assessment. Materialscientist (talk) 04:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Me too. The article was taken from 197K to 33K, with edit summaries like (in a later attempt) "The Almohad empire has been removed.Because it was not so important in Islamic history." All timelines etc were removed. The article may be too long, but this is not the way to do it. I'm far from sure that the claim "And obviously improved the writing" is justified. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi there is some problem in this article. I am mentioning some of them. The Abbasid period was obviously not the golden age of Islam.It was the Rashidun empire and the Umayyad empire who have done all the expansions for Islam.The Abbasid empire was an empire of no such importance.They did not conquer any new land.They just ruled for some days and then left.

The Abbasid emperors did not survive for so long.They only ruled for 100 years.And at the later period the Abbasid caliphs did not have any power as well.They were merely like some puppets in others' hand .They were like some popes.So there is no need for such huge description for that empire.For example the golden Abbasids, the middle Abbasids and the lower Abbasids, actually the Abbasid emperors did not have any power at that period.

Actually the Rashidun and Umayyad empires are considered as the Golden age of Islam.On the contrary the Abbasid empire is considered as the era of decline for islam.Because Islam started to collapse after that.

Well some Iraqi man must have written this article.He might have written this article for his patriotism.But this is really looking very childish and awkward.Those people who know history of Islam will laugh at this.So please this should be changed.

Another thing.This article is divided into some huge sections.The second section is universal period and the third section is fragmanted period.This is also not right because the islamic world disintegrated just after the Abbasid empire.All the Muslim countries after the Abbasid empire mentioned here were independent countries.So that also belong to the fragmanted period.So there is nothing called universal period and fragmanted period.And the classification is not right either.

So what I am saying is that there is no need to give so much description for the Abbasid empire.The article should not be divided by universal period or fragmanted period or vast sections like that. I Propose All the empires should be described in some seperate sections.Arman ad60 (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The concept of the Islamic Golden Age is not about conquest or expansion at all. The article is too sprawling, and often contains material that is not in other "main" articles. The way to deal with that is carefully to move material, merging it to other articles, and perhaps starting new ones. The Abbasid Caliphate lasted over 500 years (before the Egyptian period), which is not "some days"! And the far western empires should be covered, even if they are a long way from Bangladesh. Reducing the article by 85% just by cutting is not the way. These are very highly-viewed articles, and changes need to be made slowly and carefully, ideally with improved sourcing. By the way, your shortest version could be merged to the Simple English wiki article. Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I have removed all the parts after World War I. Because World war I is considered the end of islamic history. There is no need of the descriptions of all the countries of the modern world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arman ad60 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I Have reorganized all the sections. Well the way they are divided in some vast sections I think it is not right. Because the middle part is obviously not the universal period. All the countries after the Abbasid empire were acually independent. So they can be classified as fragmanted countries as well. Rather I have organized all the empires in some different sections.Arman ad60 (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Removed the Persian and Cairo Abbasids. The Abbasids did not have any power at that time. They were vassal under the Persians and the Egyptians. The Abbasid empire had fallen in 945 when it was captured by the Buyids. The section of the Abbasid empire has become too much big. Some important other empires are missing in this article. So I think I will place here such empires like the Almoravid empire and Seljuk empire. Arman ad60 (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The islamic civilization has collapsed. The Muslim world today is divided into many small countries. So giving the description of them will look very awkward. So I have removed them from the article. Please dont revert the entire article. Talk with me about it first.Arman ad60 (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi I have changed this article. I have changed the classification and improved writing. I have removed some empires and added some empires. I am not finished yet. I am going to remove some awkward tables and pictures and going to replace them with quality tables and pictures. Please dont revert my edit. If you have any problem with my edit then talk here first.Arman ad60 (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It doesn't appear that the writing has been improved; A lot of sourced content has been removed without thorough explanation or consensus, and in its place you've added unsourced text--is this original research or a copyright violation? There's also a claim that Islamic history ended at a certain point, and as a result much here has been deleted. Are there multiple reliable sources to support this? In all, it's highly unusual to undertake sweeping evisceration of a high profile article, without gaining the support of other knowledgeable editors. You've also removed others' comments from this talk page, not a good sign in a theater that requires editors to work in concert. More input is surely required. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. One particular serious consideration with an article like this, which has so far as I can tell quite a few subarticles, is the correct application of WP:SS. I believe despite your comment above that the burden is rather on you,, to seek and receive consensus for your changes before making them. That is, basically, what the talk page is for. If further wholesale changes are made without receiving such consensus, there is a very real chance that such actions may be considered a basis for at least some form of sanctions and possibly result in some form of at least temporary protection to this page. John Carter (talk) 03:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there consensus for the changes that have already been made to the article?
Honestly, I would have to say, that speaking at least for myself, the answer is no. Other opinions? John Carter (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No here, as well. It appears that the revisions and removal of content have been made primarily with WP:IDON'TLIKEIT as a rationale. Well, I don't much care for all the chronological charts, either, but going into an established article and removing not only the graphics but a mass of sourced content, presumably arrived at through the contributions of multiple editors over a substantial amount of time, doesn't wash. Johnbod offered a good oversight above, but was ignored. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If there were specific reason for some of the changes made, I would clearly be more than willing to see and consider those reasons. But without such reasons given, I would have to say that it might be best to revert back a few edits and allow for individual discussion of the changes. John Carter (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

This is at WP:ANI
With a statement that the editor will only listen to Muslims. Doug Weller (talk) 05:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Missed the fact there is a thread on the article and another started by an editor. Doug Weller (talk) 06:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Earliest sources
I restored that before I did the major revert. This should never have been removed. Doug Weller (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Copying from other articles
This can't be done without attribution so I've reverted to before the major changes were made. Doug Weller (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have not copied it from anywhere. I did not give the sources because it needs time. It is very difficult to type so many things at the same time. Well I think it was not right to change the entire article altogether.Arman ad60 (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * How can you possibly claim you didn't copy it from anywhere- the text "In foreign relations, the Ilkhanate's conversion to Islam had little to no effect on its hostility towards other Muslim states," and more is copied from Ilkhanate.


 * "Ozbeg's administration unified the monetary and weight systems and introduced a single currency called the Pools." and more came from a copyright website. qaraqalpaq.com/histgolden.htm


 * "The origins of the Almoravid movement lay in the foundation by Abdullah of a small, militant sect that abided by a strict interpretation of Maliki Islamic law." and quite a bit more comes either from or


 * " A sure sign of Byzantine desperation was the appeal of Alexius I Comnenus to his enemy the Pope for aid" and more is from Christianity in the 11th century.


 * "Shirkuh's nephew and successor Saladin, eventually rejected Nur ad-Din's control." is from Zengid dynasty.


 * "Saladin ordered some of the captives to be treated humanely. Some of the captives were beheaded, including all 200 of the Knights Templar and Hospitaller military orders." can be found here which is also the source of other text. (Caveat - some of this material I've cited has been copied more than once on the web so the actual source only Arman knows).


 * "In foreign relations, the Ilkhanate's conversion to Islam had little to no effect on its hostility towards other Muslim states" - again from Ilkhanate although I see it elsewhere as well.


 * "Yet he had also established a strong administration at Saray led by a chancellor or vizier with the power to manage the Khanate in the absence of the Khan and resolve issues without consulting the ulus emirs." from karakalpak.com/histgolden.html  - the source of other material including my first quote above.


 * "The soldiers were drawn more from settled people rather than nomadic warriors. It was like the armies of Rome that Marius had created – an army whose loyalty was to its commander. Timur's army found glory in Timur's reputation as a great warrior. This formidable army Timur set out to conquer the world." I'm not sure where this came from, but it's in this 2002 blog post.


 * I've just wasted half an hour of my life on this and am stopping now. I'm sure there's more. Doug Weller (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes I have written it based on various articles of different websites. I had to gather the informations from there. History is a very difficult subject, there are dates, names, incedents and so many things. You have to somewhat memorize all those things. So when you will write your article you will always find some similarities. It is very difficult to write those informative things in your own language. Well if that is the case then I will try to write the article in my own language later.Arman ad60 (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge/ Hist merge needed, also archive creation

 * At 09:50, 1 August 2006‎ User:Irishpunktom moved History of Islam to Muslim History at the same time
 * at the same time they moved Talk:History of Islam to Talk:Muslim History
 * at 12:31, 6 August 2006‎ User:The Anome moved Muslim History to Muslim history but didn't  move the talk page
 * at 05:26, 11 August 2006‎ User:Jmabel moved Talk:Muslim History to Talk:Muslim history to catch up
 * At 00:08, 4 July 2011‎ User:Koavf moved Muslim history to History of Islam but didn't move the talk page.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC).