Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Muslims


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Delete. With the consensus clearly leaning towards deletion, and beacuse we already have Islamic economics in the world. Fram (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Economic history of the Muslims
AfDs related to this article: Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Christians Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Muslims 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Created as a joke, basically: a parody of Economic history of the Jews. See that AfD for further context. Note that Islamic economics in the world already exists. This is essentially a POV WP:content fork of that, intended to highlight the slave trade. Note also that every paragraph but the lead is simply a summary of an existing WP article. 28bytes (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete and link forever to Economic history of the Jews. A brilliant little parody written for us Wikipedia volunteers, it would seem. Carrite (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Stricken. I've got this completely wrong. Carrite (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Stubify content coatrack to slavery There might actually be a good article possible on Muslims and Economics - but the initial section is not it.   The topic is notable for sure - but it needs substantial editing to get close. Collect (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and Stubify May have been created as a joke, but Muslim Economic History is a notable topic and given the right attention this could turn into a valuable article. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to note, Islamic economics in the world does already exist, as does Early social changes under Islam. Both have the advantage of not using the somewhat pejorative "the Muslims" in their title. 28bytes (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I missed that one for some reason. Also, I did not know "Muslims" was a pejorative. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Muslims" isn't pejorative, but "the Muslims", "the Jews", "the blacks", etc. can be seen that way, especially when used as an article title. "Islamic", "Jewish", etc. work much better as neutral article titles. 28bytes (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I see now. That makes sense. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks like we already have an article on this exact topic. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Deletearticle was made for a point, plus that point is lost completely since the article already exists under a different title. Passionless   -Talk  07:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge slavery content. POV is not just about hyperbole to emphasize bad things, it is also using euphemisms to diminish bad things and worse, ignoring them. There is a connection between economics and slavery. Agree with 28bytes, with the slight distinction that 'the X' adds unnecessary distance to the subject. It is not wrong or bad, just colder than it has to be. 'Muslim economic history' would add dignity without removing facts. Anarchangel (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator is violating WP:AGF and WP:NPA by attacking the creation of this article (by me). It is highly offensive to call it a "joke" when it conforms to all WP standards of WP:CITE; WP:RS and WP:NPOV. See Economic history of the Jews as an example of this genre of articles. This article was nominated for deletion withing 24 hours of its creation without any serious effort at discussing it. Tens of thousands of WP articles have been created this way. The article is a serious WP:STUB with many WP:RS. The nominator is requested to note WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and to withdraw this hasty nomination. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * IZAK you still maintain a "delete" comment for the Jewish entry, yet you create these and argue to keep them? You are in violation of WP:POINT and every comment like the above that you make furthers that violation.  Please stop.Griswaldo (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Griswaldo, you are clearly violating WP:AGF, or for some reason you just dislike this topic on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and feel that picking on me instead is more productive. Please re-read everything I wrote on that AfD, and you will clearly see that I strongly recommended that that article be renamed as Jewish views on economics as per all articles in Category:Jewish views, making my "Delete" vote there conditional. As it stands that other article is too biased but the ones I created are all within WP:NPOV and are just stubs that need improvement and are not the last word on the subject by any means, as you can see from the "Keep" votes here. I would have been happy to discuss renaming this article too but I was left no option since it was nominated for deletion within 24 hours of its creation as a stub. IZAK (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * See related AfDs: Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews and Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Christians. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep both but rename one. It's not appropriate to use wikipedia to perpetuate creaky anti-Jewish stereotyping. If you've already got "Islamic economics in the world", then change the other one to "Jewish economics in the world" for the sake of consistency and fairness. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I personally see some similarities here to what happened in this case, but leave it up to other editors to decide if the it's the same thing going on here.  In that case, a group of editors tried to get the article Allegations of Israeli Apartheid deleted by creating several other articles such as Allegations of Brazilian Apartheid, Allegations of American Apartheid, etc. Cla68 (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Cla: There is no "conspiracy" going on here and no other editors have been involved in my decision to expand an important topic in a WP:NPOV reliable manner, as well as the new Category:Economic history by religious and ethnic group. Stop conflating and mixing up separate topics. The term "Apartheid" is a specific and pejorative word, while Economic history is a legitimate field of study. IZAK (talk) 05:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, please see also. Cla68 (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. This seems "POINTy" and slapdash - obviously it omits major basics, and I'm not sure for example why it has a section on Islam and slavery and the Arab slave trade, for example.  The difference between this and economic history of the Jews is that Jews do struggle with strong anti-Semitic economic stereotypes, blaming them for everything from capitalism to communism (and oddly enough, with no one anyone on the spectrum seeming willing to give them any special thanks).  I think that the Jewish article should be split up to address outside perceptions, Jewish philosophy, and objective data all separately, and the same may apply here - I think it's the confounding of these three that really tends to offend people.  But in the final analysis, even this article, contentious scrap as it is, could survive under a half dozen tags until someone saw fit to update it into a more reasonable exploration of important issues. Wnt (talk) 05:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is little more than a coatrack and an example of original research by synthesis, obviously created as a counterpart to/retaliation for the equally bad Economic history of the Jews. Prioryman (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This is an interesting set of articles because it demonstrates the ease wigh which Wikipeida can be used for special pleading. the article Islamic economics in the world, which I noticed only after beginning ot expand Economic history of the Muslims is a notable case.  A long and well-sourced article, the ordinary person coming to the page would very likely accept it at face value, not knowing that it paints a kind of Sunday-school version of economics and Islam.  All sunshine, and very little light thrown on any negative aspects of the economic history in Islam, of which the history of all systems is filled.  Economic history of the Jews is almost the opposite of Islamic economics in the world.  Also a long and well-sourced article, it insidiously directs the reader by innuendo and omission to a sinister interpretation of the relationship between Jews and money.  History on Wikipedia is very unlike physics or chemistry on Wikipedia.  Too many history articles are mere special pleading and well-sourced polemics.   If all three of these articles stay, the Christian and Muslim articles will certainly need  long sections on kidnapping and piracy as historic and economically enterprising Christian and Muslim economic institutions.I.Casaubon (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very interesting read. It is useful for comparing how the "economic history" of christians, and jews differs from that of the muslims. That is the purpose of Wikipedia, isn't it?--Therexbanner (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as a POV fork of Islamic economics in the world. I really liked the claim that this article satisfies WP:NPOV. The most informative part is simply a copy&paste version of content from Islamic banking; the remainder claims that the economic history of Muslims consists of slavery, piracy and plunder. That's NPOV? Really? One probably might write an article on this topic, but this isn't even the beginning of such an article. Huon (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, sufficiently sourced, neutral, interesting comparative material. Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - The topic is highly notable. I understand that the article was created to prove a point, but in my firm view the editor in question has actually merely served to prove the opposite. In fact, in my view, the case for an economic/financial history of the Jews is actually very much stronger, since the Jews, unlike the Muslims, are also an ethnic group/tribe/race/culture (depending on viewpoint) and are clearly not just a religious grouping, and whilst there can be atheistic Jews there is no such thing as an atheistic Muslim. This topic is notable: . Period.


 * The content of the article is, of course, biased and requires tidy up, the removal of some content and the insertion of much balancing content.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to add to my earlier comment that I do feel that the title should be changed to 'Islamic economic history', per the majority of sources.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And that would differ from the already existing Islamic economics in the world how?Griswaldo (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * One (should be) a broad topic overview, one a historical narrative focused article, like we have Economy of the People's Republic of China and Economic history of the People's Republic of China. They may be some slight overlap but this can certainly be reduced. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The China example is apples and oranges. None of these articles are comparable in any way to an article on the economy of a nation-state.Griswaldo (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really, the example could just as easily have been Harvard University and History of Harvard University. It is very common to have an overview article for a topic and then a separate history article.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per the same Use Common Sense argument I presented at Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews. —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews. This page was created as a counter-WP:POINT of the Jewish article.  I believe there is a viable topic here, but it is already being covered in an existing entry.  Even if there wasn't I'd say delete and start from scratch since this article is just as tainted as the Jewish one.Griswaldo (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep' I don't see why you have a vendetta against these articles, each culture has its own history with money. LiteralKa (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Who has a vendetta? Please note that Islamic economics in the world already exists, that the nominator clearly stated this in the nomination, and no one is arguing that it shouldn't exist.  This particular article was created to prove a point, not to further knowledge.  The creator didn't even do enough research to figure out that the other article was already in place.Griswaldo (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep and rename to Economic history of the Arab world Reason is, Discussion of the Arab world and its history is an encyclopedic topic. I and other editors have now made this into a reasonable article on this topic, albeit with room for expansion. Islamic economics in the world is a pretty big topic. It probably makes more sense for economic history articles to focus on coherent topics, and Economic history of the Arab world is a long overdue companion to Economic history of Europe, Economic history of Africa, Economic history of Britain, Economic history of France, etc. Economic history of Germany is a particularly good model. The since unified German state is not much more than a century old, and the article does a reasonably good job of covering such topics as guilds, the rural economy and peasants, and the development of towns that were similar across the German world, just as many economic institutions have been similar across the Arab world.I.Casaubon (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete/userfy. First, I had a hard time finding a WP:RS that even attempts to cover such a vast topic. There are books on the econ history of various parts of the Muslim world in different epochs. I've added a fair number of them to further reading. This article could be written based on those so that it's an actual economic history instead of a parody collection of summaries from other articles. In its current form the article largely duplicates the one on Islamic economics in the world with a negative spin. Finally, I found one source that attempts to cover the topic as a whole: Unfortunately, its treatment of the topic is nothing resembling this article. So, I conclude that the only solution is to WP:Blow it up and start over. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. Content is already covered by Islamic economics in the world. 18:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge Stricken. content into Islamic economics in the world. Reason is that there are some important topics covered and sourced in the article under discussion that are now missing in the target article.  For example, the Jizya,  on mnon-pagan, non-Muslim peoples living under Muslim rule, had a significant role in the early centuries in supporting the Arab occupiers as a militarized upper class ruling large Christian populations in the former Roman Empire in the Near East and North Africa.I.Casaubon (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You have made only one trivial edit to the article since my comment above . Nothing of substance has changed. The article is absolutely unsuitable as Economic history of the Arab world as you propose. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the substantive edits that I made last week. Particularly about waqf.I.Casaubon (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete What's good about this appears to be a redundant copy of Islamic economics in the world and Islamic banking; the rest of this is just an attack page, created in a WP:POINTy attempt to mimic Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews. No worthwhile content not elsewhere duplicated, hence a WP:POVFORK. Suggest that Islamic economics in the world might be redirected to by this title after deletion. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This article as it now stands in fact contains a large number of sections and a good deal of material not found in Islamic economics in the world.I.Casaubon (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Economic history of the Arab world I lifted the salvagable material form the article under discussion here and made a start on fresh article, Economic history of the Arab world.I.Casaubon (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe, unless someone expanded it, those are just copy-pastes from other articles. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete We don't need content forks, especially ones as bad as this. Swiftly cobbled together to make a point about the now defunct "Economic history of the Jews" page, this should just as swiftly be deleted. --Folantin (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Important point Whole sentences - indeed, whole paragraphs - of this article appear to be copied and pasted from other Wikipedia articles without attribution to the original authors. My understanding is that this is not compliant with Wikipedia policy. It also means the article is a redundant content fork of material available elsewhere. --Folantin (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to existing economics article, and move the slavery sections to its own article (unless such an article exists, and then just delete those sections outright)  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  00:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Those sections are just exact copy-pastes of paragraphs from Islam and slavery and Arab slave trade. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - As with Economic history of the Jews, there is a valid encyclopedic topic here. The comment above that a more proper construct should be Economic history of the Arab world is a good one. Unlike the ill-fated Economic history of the Jews, this is a keep-and-improve situation here, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Delete - Holy crap, I'm just gonna give up... Okay, third time is a charm here: Economic history of the Arab world takes care of the key information in this article, which had some sort of POINTy origin related to the ill-fated Economic history of the Jews piece. Carrite (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * delete per Carrite and Adam Cuerden. This article seems to be an incarnation of content forking and POINT. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article is a pointy coatrack that was created by copying much of another deleted article, using synthesis.
 * Delete deja vu all over again. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.