Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychology in medieval Islam


 * 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   keep. -- Cirt (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Psychology in medieval Islam

 * – ( View AfD View log )

As it says, This article has been shortened from a longer article which misused sources. (part of the Jagged85 mess). But probably this article is retrofitting the term "psychology" to a situation where it didn't really exist. As such whatever content it may have probably belongs elsewhere. See the "AFD?" sections and around on the article talk page. William M. Connolley (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Find out if they want it as a section of philosophy of mind (which has similar sections for other religions).— S Marshall T/C 10:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete As William says, the use of "psychology" is anachronistic and presentist. This would be better as a section in History of psychology. Famousdog (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ... isn't that an argument in favour of my recommendation?— S Marshall T/C 11:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To a large extent the "History of psychology" is "Philosophy of mind" so a subsection on both pages would be appropriate. Famousdog (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per this discussion, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an article with the following title: "Arabic and Islamic Psychology and Philosophy of Mind". Just because the article has been stubbed, and there are not enough people interested in the material to quickly rebuild it, does not mean the subject does not deserve its own article. Islam refers to a civilization as well as a religion. We are discussing the work of Islamic scientists and doctors, not (necessarily) religious scholars and imams. -Aquib (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Science is secular and transcends cultural, religious and political boundaries and the ethnicity and beliefs (or non-beliefs) of the scientists themselves. Associating the pursuit of knowledge with a religion or ethnic group is completely ridiculous and religio-politically motivated. Categorising scientific endeavour with the belief (or non-belief) or the ethnicity of long-dead scientists who pursued it is unethical and logically flawed (just look at the fight over whether Ibn al-Haytham shoud be referred to as Arab, Persian, Iraqi or Muslim. If you tried to describe the theory of evolution as "Christian biology" or "British biology" (because of the cultural background of its proponents) you'd be laughed clean off the internet. I reaffirm my previous opinion that we should delete this article and move the content to History of psychology or Philosophy of mind. It is "Jaggedism" of the worst sort. Famousdog (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply To recycle your words, medieval Islamic science was secular and transcended cultural, religious and political boundaries and the ethnicity and beliefs (or non-beliefs) of the scientists themselves.
 * Yes, therefore your proposed title is wrong, as it boxes in our shared scientific heritage. Famousdog (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't like putting science history in its cultural context, you are in the minority. Claiming science in the name of humanity is a subtle attempt to perpetuate the myth it is a western phenomena. It is also an orientalist perspective which is no longer widely supported. -Aquib (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mind inventions, theories and discoveries being put in historical and cultural context at all. But I object to loaded religious terms being applied to work that is entirely irreligious (not anti-religious, irreligious). To classify science done in a particular region of the world at a particular time as "Islamic" because the dominant cultural force was Islam, is wrong-headed in the extreme. Again, I have to come back to the example of the theory of evolution - it was developed by a man who at one point trained to be a priest, and the dominant cultural force in Britain at that point was Christianity. But the theory of evolution is not "Christian science", is it? Hmm, perhaps you think it is - well, it isn't. To use an "Islamic" example, Ibn al-Haytham's Book of optics does not espouse a particularly "Islamic" type of optics, it is simply "optics". References to the great men (and women) of science, and their discoveries, can be made without recourse to their (assumed) religion. If you want to claim these discoveries and inventions in the name of Islam then I want to see incontrovertable evidence that all these great thinkers were actually religious and their work was somehow an expression of their faith. Otherwise, the title is oxymoronic. Finally, your claim that this is some type of conspiracy by westerners and orientalist simply assumes bad faith. Famousdog (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This article is one in a series on Science in medieval Islam. The name of the article is consistent with those other articles in the series. There is plenty of good material that has been stubbed along with the bad. This is an attempt to annihilate the article history so it cannot be recovered. -Aquib (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the titles of all the other articles - applying a loaded religious term to scientific work - are equally wrong. Famousdog (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The conclusion on the talk page was "stub and rework". In its present state the article is just a stub but the material is certainly there for a more detailed account, perhaps under a different title. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The stubbing has nothing to do with this AfD. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep There seems to be enough material and sources to justify an article. I find the article a bit unsatisfying.  I don't feel that I really know anything about the topic after having read it. But still seems to be a notable enough subject. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Medieval Islamic Psychology - it's not a great start, but this is a notable topic. The current title is a bit ambiguous, because it could be taken to refer to psychology of religion as applied to medieval Islam. --Anthem of joy (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator: presentism and anachronistic use of the term psychology. Psychology as a scientifi discipline in its own right originated with Sigmund Freud in the late 19th century. Earlier, rudimentary, disconnected and unelaborated psychological observations may well be summarized as pre-history in psychology-related articles, but fall clearly below the threshold of having an article of its own. I am aware that some secondary sources on the medieval philosophy of the mind use the term psychology, but this is an anachronism which should not outweigh the vast majority of psychological literature which does not do this. We have to give preference to the standard opinion of psychologists, not the minority view of some scholars on medieval Islamic philosophy. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Scientific psychology predates Freud (and his approach was borderline pseudoscience anyway). It started with Psychophysics in the 1830s (as evidenced by the fact that certain persons (namely Khaleefa, 1999) have tried to claim psychophysics - and therefore psychology - in the name of Islam). Famousdog (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, that covers the article's name. What about the article's subject? Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the article's subject? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Far as I can tell, it seems to be the history of the philosophy of mind in the middle east. That's too fine-grained a topic for its own article, but Wikipedia ought to cover it somewhere as a subheading in one of our broader-scope articles.— S Marshall  T/C 16:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to Philosophy of mind in medieval Islam (or similar) and merge into Philosophy of mind (or another suitable article). This is a topic that I believe quite capable of supporting its own article - unfortunately, the article as it stands contains a couple of sentences that would belong in the lede to such and article, a couple that would belong (somewhat rewritten and suitably balanced) in a Modern commentary section and none of the material that would need to come in between (which should be written to reflect what the thinkers concerned thought they were doing, not with either the very questionable presentism of Jagged 85 or the less comprehensively questionable presentism of the team who have been scouring out after him). I haven't got the time even to start the work that would be necessary for this - if anyone else has the time and competence to do this, I might be induced to change my vote to (rename and) keep. PWilkinson (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Merge into nafs? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd support that. Famousdog (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, this article is a stub, with plenty of available material. I would also suggest keeping "psychology" in the name for two reasons. First, it is common to refer to philosophical/Aristotelian psychology as just "psychology", even in Wikipedia articles such as Aristotle. Second, medieval Islamic physicians have also developed a form of psychology used for treating patients, or what the Encyclopedia of Islam calls "practical psychology" (entry: al-Musabbiḥī). This second meaning of psychology, which includes for example treatises on Music therapy, should not be described as "philosophy of mind". Wiqi( 55 ) 10:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But "Aristotelian psychology" isn't referred to as "Pagan psychology" and according to your second argument, "psychiatry in medieval Islam" would be better... Famousdog (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, do not rename – per Wiqi. --Lambiam 01:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: The Stanford Encyclopaedia is an authoritative source and has an article by the name "Arabic and Islamic Psychology and Philosophy of Mind". Therefore keep and perhaps rename to "Psychology and philosophy of mind in medieval Islam". Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I see by the edit history it was once a long and detailed article and that there was a discussion on another page to make it a stub, the discussion being filled with a long list of trivial arguments about the title that fail to address the importance of the content of this history. I do not see any arguments about notability here, so obviously it is just a matter of finding a suitable title. 24.5.17.115 (talk) 11:33, 18 May 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.