Jump to content

Talk:History of Islam/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

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: Goldschmidt, Arthur (2002). A concise history of the Middle East. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. p. 84. ISBN 0-8133-3885-9.
  • 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)

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)

Merge/ Hist merge needed, also archive creation

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

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 [1] or [2]
" 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[3] 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.[4]


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)

Arman ad60's changes

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, @Arman ad60:, 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)

Sandbox

Hi I have edited the article in the sand box. I have devided the earlier empires into some smaller parts. Because they were too big to read. I have changed the classification as well.

I haven't written much myself in this article. I have only done some rearranging of the paragraphs. But yes I have added some new things in this article. I have written them based on the other articles about them in Wikipedia. But the language is mine. I have given the sources from there as well. I am mentioning some of the sources here.

1. Umar's conquest of Persia - this part is written based on this article Muslim conquest of Persia - reference no 29.

2. Uthman's conquest of Persia - based on - Muslim conquest of Persia - ref no 45.

3. Malik ( Umayyad emperor-House of Marwan ) against the rebel Abdallah - based on Abdul Malik - ref no 1 .

Is this all right?Arman ad60 (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This description is not clear enough to have a meaningful discussion. I would suggest you concentrate on specific issues one at a time, and if you're replacing large portions of text, please explain why the existing text can't be improved incrementally. Someone has put a good deal of effort into writing this text and we should all treat their work with respect. Eperoton (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
He refers to his sandbox version here - this is what he was asked to do. The existing version has many faults, and I suspect a large part of it is Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 or some such source, as ye olde vocabulary suggests. There is far too much caliph-by-caliph narrative, a fault the sandbox version repeats. That is much shorter, but over-simplified, unsophisticated, and not very well-written. We badly need a rewrite based on the best modern sources - the initial "Early sources" section gives a misleading impression of the article, the rest of which is not to this standard, with many references to questionable websites. Until this happens we should stick with the devil we know. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the explanation. I agree with your assessment. Eperoton (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

1. You said the article was over-simplified. Actually that is true. Because I have shortened the size of the sentences too much. Now I have restored the language of the article to it's earlier version.

2. You said there is far too much king-by-king description. You may have thought like that after seeing the Rashidun empire. Well there were only four emperors in the Rashidun empire. So the sections will be like that. And all the sections are not about king-by-king description. For example: The " Civil war " in the Rashidun empire and the last paragraphs of the Umayyad empire and Abbasid empire. And the other emperors are so important it is not possible to make the sections without them.

So what do you think about my current version?Arman ad60 (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

See the discussion above. Your new text certainly isn't good enough for a block replace. You would be much better advised trying to make incremental improvements until you are far more experienced. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, frankly I'd build up more experience, especially of using sources, on some less prominent articles. This one is understandably in the spotlight, though not enough so for much improvement to have happened. As I've said before, your version would be an improvement to https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Islam, Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The writing of the article cannot be bad because I haven't changed a single text in the original article. I am giving you word that I will not change any text in the article. But at least let me shorten the size of the earlier sections. I haven't seen such big sections in the entire website. Sections should not be so big like that. For example see the British empire, the Russian empire or the Mongol empire the sections are not actually big like it. This article is an exception in terms of size. So I am telling that at least let me shorten the size of the earlier sections.Arman ad60 (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking at your sandbox, this line jumps out right away: "Umar was a great warrior." This is your text and it's not encyclopedic writing. Eperoton (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia

Hi I have copied some materials from the other articles of Wikipedia. I have heard that it is allowed in Wikipedia. I am mentioning them here:

1. Umar's conquests : from --> Article Umar Section "Military expansion" .

2. Uthman's conquests : from --> Article Uthman Section "Military expansion" .

3. Muawiyah's conquests : from --> Article Muslim conquest of the Maghreb Setion "Second invasion" .

Will this be accepted?Arman ad60 (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia is allowed with attribution per WP:CWW, but I don't think the resulting text is good enough for a block replace. New problems with language and sourcing are added to old ones, while the abridgments over-simplify the logic of the original text and border on hagiography. I hope you realize that even accomplished Wikipedia editors would rarely (if ever) undertake an overhaul of a long and important article in one fell swoop. I think you're being over-ambitious. Eperoton (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Size of the sections

1. Hi I have removed any of my text left in this article. I think there will be no problem with the writings now.

2. Sources: I will give all the sources. My article has not been accepted yet. I will give all the sources when my article will be accepted.

3. The size of the early sections are too big in this article. The sections are usually not so big in the other articles of this website. My main point here is to reduce the size of the early sections.


Actually it is the fault of the early editors who have made this article. He has made this article with king by king description. So if I shorten the aricle there will be king by king description as well. I have devided all the empires into three sections and all the sections into three paragraphs. So there will be at least two or three kings in every section. I cannot do better than that.


Can you shorten the article in any other way?Arman ad60 (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You're proposing to replace a text that's overly concentrated on political history with a skeletal political history. I don't think it's where this article needs to go. My preferred way to shorten or reorganize it would be to consult the most respected recent sources (some of them are already cited: New Cambridge History, Hourani, Lapidus, Oxford History) and incrementally improve the text to reflect the principle developments of political, social and cultural history based on recent scholarship and judicious editing. It's not a quick and easy task. Again, I think you would have a much better chance of getting consensus if you work incrementally, like almost everyone else around here. Eperoton (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


Well I dont think the original article is so good either. It also didn't mention any social or cultural things. It has also mentioned only the political incedents of the kings. So how can my article be worse than that one? On the contrary my article is shorter and far more organized. So what I am proposing here is that at least let my replace the earlier sections with my ones. I am not saying my edit is the best of all. But it is at least better than the previous one. Well if some one can improve the article by giving the social and cultural descriptions later they can do it. But let me at least shorten the size of the sections now. The size is the main problem here.Arman ad60 (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

There are certainly important points of social and cultural history that your version deletes. Don't you even read the text you replace? For some reason, multiple people are having trouble getting across a simple point about incremental editing to you. I can help you improve the article, but it has to be done incrementally, subsection by subsection, if not sentence by sentence. That's just how Wikipedia works. Work on the smallest span of text that allows logical reorganization each time, present your sources even if you don't format them as inline references yet, work to get consensus, learn from the discussion, and then apply what you have learned to the next span. We can't have a detailed discussion over 30 pages of text. Eperoton (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, I don't agree entirely. Given the existing text is not great, improvements section by section that are well-written and using excellent sources would probably not meet much opposition. But unfortunately yours aren't like that. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, sometimes a big change may pass with no objections, but when it doesn't, trying to get it through again as a whole isn't likely to work. Eperoton (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Correction

Ok then I am not going to do any major change in the article. I will start with some minor edits. There are some mistakes in the article which should be corrected. For example I am mentioning one of them: In the section "Islamic origins", in the last part, it is mentioned that Muhammad and his enemies signed a truce, but the actual wars haven't been mentioned. So I have entered some sentences there. Are my sentences correct?Arman ad60 (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad we're on the same page now. If you have a small-to-medium change (up to a few sentences), I think you should go ahead and make it directly in the article. If someone has objections, they'll revert and we'll discuss the objections here per WP:BRD. It's easier to see what you're changing that way. I have reservations about the specific addition you mentions. I don't think this is the right article to go into details of military history in the time of Muhammad, in part to avoid undue focus of political history, and in part because it's a very contentious topic extensively covered and debated in the article on Muhammad. I think this article should limits itself to general statements about the rise of Islam and possibly include a brief statement tying the controversy about historical reliability of the sources on this era to the "Early Sources" discussion. What do the others think? Eperoton (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
We want a shorter article, with the tangled narrative of the individual rulers left to the dynasty/period articles, and more well-sourced material on broader historical trends. That's a lot of work for anyone not very familiar with those sources. Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
@Arman ad60: I think you're adding some useful things at about the right level of generality, but I've reverted this edit for two reasons. First, any new additions we make have to be referenced with reliable sources (see WP:RS). Secondly, implying that Meccans initiated the conflict is a perennial topic of dispute around the article on Muhammad. Trust me, we don't want to import this dispute here or attract a crowd looking for a fight about the history of Islam. I'd like to propose an alternative version of these additions later today, including a more neutral statement on military matters. Eperoton (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
@Johnbod: Yeah, this is a tall order. I'm shocked by the quality of this article, and I"d like to help improve it. At least I have a number of major sources at my disposal. However, it will take time. We have to start with triage. Eperoton (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
While respecting your judgment on details the truce does need to be put in slightly more context than is currently there: as things stand the section doesn't really make sense unless you already know much of the background. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll start with those cues and work up a proposal tonight. Eperoton (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Islamic origins

@Eperoton and Johnbod: How can I give sources for those texts? I have added just few sentences. Well I dont think you have noticed my sandbox well. I have restored the original version of the article. I have "stopped the policy of copying from Wikipedia". I have only started some minor edits in my own language as you have told me. From now on everything I will enter will be my own language.

On sourcing, please consult WP:V: "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." Some of the details you've added are very well known, so if the lack of sourcing was the only issue, I would not have reverted them, but please keep sourcing requirements in mind. If you'd like others to look at your sandbox, please mention that explicitly (supplying a link to it would be a helpful extra step). I'm working on some edits that incorporate the additions you proposed. Eperoton (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jonathan: I have made some more changes. I am explaining my changes here. I think there are some incomplete sentences in the section. For example: it is mentioned that prophet Muhammad took flight to Medina but it is not mentioned why. Another thing is that prophet Muhammad signed a truce with his enemies but the actual wars haven't been mentioned. And yes I have added some more text behind the "truce". Is it ok now?Arman ad60 (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I've put up my proposal for the section. The first paragraph was adapted from something I put together for another article. For the other two, I was looking at Hourani and in a couple of instances shooting from the hip. I will consult other sources and provide sentence-level citations later. I will also write a brief tie-in with the Early Sources section. In the meantime, please let me know if you have any objections. Thanks. P.S. I'm mentioning the alms levy because we'll need to refer back to it when we mention Ridda wars later. Eperoton (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems good, although it pushes the size up again! Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the article it very long, but this section seems important enough to upgrade a notch or two above stub level. We should be able to cut pages of excessive detail from later sections. Eperoton (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Improving the article

@Eperoton: I will thank you very much that you have edited the article for yourself. You have showed your great generocity in changing the article. Your writing is very good and of high quality as well. My English is not so good. There will be mistakes in every two or three sentences I write. So I don't think I should write in the article for myself. If there is a problem in some parts of of the article I will mention it and then you will edit it. Mr. Eperoton, can you go this way?Arman ad60 (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. My ability to contribute is subject to "real life" constraints, but when I'm ready to tackle a section, I would certainly welcome your comments on problems with the old and new text. What does everything think about the highest priorities? I was going to add a couple of sentences about Abu Bakr and the Ridda wars and then look into the Umayyads. The forest there is getting seriously lost for the trees. Eperoton (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Various Arman points

Abu Bakr was actually the first caliph of Islam. But he did not rule for a long time, only for two years. But there was a war during his reign which is very important in the history of islam. It is knows as the Ridda war. Many tribes of Arabia revolted against the Muslims and there were some false prophets as well. There was some glimpse given at the end of the section "Islamic Origins". But I think it should be discussed in the section Early empire.Arman ad60 (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Why? Mud hut was correct, and what is a "welfare estate"? It's welfare state. I note that your last edit changed " took flight in the Hijra, moving to Medina." to "Muhammad and his followers took a flight in Medina". "A flight" normally means using a plane, what you should have written is "took flight to". It now reads " Muhammad took flight to the city of Yathrib (subsequently called Medina) where he was joined by his followers.[19] Later generations would count this event, known as the hijra, as the start of the Islamic era.[20]" which is correct grammatically although I don't know if his followers went with him or followed him. Doug Weller (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
My wording on hijra was deliberate. Muhammad took flight accompanied only by Abu Bakr. The rest of his followers came there on other occasions, either from Mecca or from Ethiopia, where they had taken refuge earlier. Eperoton (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • 1. In the first sentence it is mentioned that Umar built cities like Basra and many canals and irrigation networks. I think the sentence will be like Umar built cities like Basra, Kufa and Fustat.

2. I have changed the "mud hut" because it is mentioned that Umar lived in a mud hut which did not have any door. It is not possible that a house will not have any door. That is why I changed it that way.

3. "Bayt al-Mal" doesn't mean the welfare state. It was actualy an institution of wealth. The Arabic word Bayt al-Mal means treasury of wealth or institution of wealth. For details I will tell you to see the article Bayt al-Mal. Arman ad60 (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing impossible about a house without a door. You may be thinking of a doorway, although even then a house without a doorway would only be unusual rather than impossible. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Again, mud hut is the correct terminology in English. As you see, we have an article on it. You were the one who changed established the "first welfare state" to "established the first welfare estate" - my point was that the word "estate" was wrong. Doug Weller (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • In the section "Fatimid empire", the second, third and fourth paragraph, I think they have been repeated in the next section "Fatimid caliphs" as well. There is virtually no text in the section "Fatimid caliphs".Arman ad60 (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Please don't start a new section every time you have a point, given that you are having a lot of points. And each section should have a unique name, so they can be linked to. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @eperoton: The Fatimid empire became a caliphate after they conquered Egypt. Thus started a new phase of the empire. I think we can give some description of this foundation of the caliphate and also some description of the caliphs.Arman ad60 (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
@Arman ad60: I'm not sure who you mean by "they", but the Fatimid section is certainly disorganized and poorly sourced. I'm not ready to work on it yet, but perhaps someone else would like to step in. P.S. If you want to know how to do a @ reply with ping, look at the code of this reply here. Eperoton (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

The removal of material with an edit summary "Removed humiliating part of Timur"[5] looks like a violation of our WP:NPOV policy. The text removed was " Hisinvasions were equally destructive, sacking Bagdhad, Damascus, Delhi and many other cities, with enormous loss of life. Timur had attacked areas still recovering from the Black Death, which may have killed one third of the population of the Middle East. The plague began in China, and reached Alexandria in Egypt in 1347, spreading over the following years to most Islamic areas. The combination of the plague and the wars left the Middle Eastern Islamic world in a seriously weakened position.". I'll ask User:Arman ad60 to explain. I've just warned him about WP:3RR, something all editors need to remember. Doug Weller (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I know you are concerned about the version where I have made the mistake. It is very difficult to use the Wikipedia codes. Well I am giving you my word that from now on I will be careful about it and this kind of mistake will not happen anymore.

Timur was a muslim emperor. What Timur had done was a war strategy that had been followed by the Mongols as psychological warfare, so that the enemies don't dare to resist. Many other emperors had done it. Timur was a famous Muuslim emperor and the way he has been villified in this article is not acceptable at all. I think actually this is a violation of NPOV. I have only removed those things from the article which violates NPOV and are biased against the Muslims. So please don't revert my edit.Arman ad60 (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly how is this a violation of NPOV? It's a significant viewpoint - unless you are saying that no one holds it. Doug Weller (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Idiosyncratic periodization

The division of Islamic history into city state, imperial, universal, etc periods has near zero acceptance in the field, as far as I can tell, and is in part simply bizarre (what city states? how is the age of the "gunpowder empires" a fragmentation period?) Unless there are objections, I will replace it with a more traditional periodization scheme. Eperoton (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to draw a timeline of dynasties and structure the article in a more traditional way. Eperoton (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Africa

I think the section "Africa" should be improved. I think we should give description of some particular empires in Africa. I think the African people are being ignored in this article.Arman ad60 (talk) 10:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I have done some change in the section "Other regions". I have created two section from this, Islam in Africa and Islam in East Asia. The rest that is Al-Andalus is something like a holy war like Crusades or the Mongol wars. So it should remain in that place.Arman ad60 (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I have removed Turkey from Modern age. Because the first world war, Ottoman partition and Kemalist secularism everything has been precisely described in the section Ottoman partition. So I dont think there is any need of that small part after the section Ottoman partition.Arman ad60 (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Images

1. Morocco was a part of the Fatimid empire. Please read the article carefully: 

Abdullāh al-Mahdi's control soon extended over all of central Maghreb, an area consisting of the modern countries of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya, which he ruled from Mahdia, his capital in Tunisia.

2. The Mamluks were famous for protecting the Muslims from the Mongol Ilkhanate. So the map should be like that. The earlier map was not clear and half of the Mamluk empire was not shown.Arman ad60 (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Mongol invasions

I have removed Timur from the section Mongol invasions because Timur was a Muslim emperor. He emerged far more later after the Mongol conversion. He had no connection with the Mongol invasion of Islam. His war was actually a war of the Turkish people against the Persians. But this section is only about the wars between the Muslims and Mongols. So I think Timur is not relevant in this article at all.

I have removed some texts from the "Mamluk sultanate". Because I think the Mamluk section was incomplete. There was the description of the Bahri Mamluks but not description of the Burji Mamluks. I think this was looking a little bit awkward.

So I think my edit was right.Arman ad60 (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Even if it's a coincidence that you wanted to delete this text for a different reason earlier, how would your argument justify removal of the content rather than placing it under a different section heading? The section was titled "Mongol invasions and states" and I agree that "Mongol state" is not the best term, so I'll change the headings. Does that address your concern? Eperoton (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I dont like the thing that Timur tortured his own Muslim people. I dont know why is it necessary to give the description of his torture in this section. Timur is considered as a great hero of Islam and he gave birth to the biggest power of Islam before the rise of the Ottomans.

Who was Timur? Was he a non-muslim guy at first and then accepted Islam? Please clearify it to me.Arman ad60 (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here likes Timur's behavior towards Muslims or other peoples, but the scholarly consensus supports the text in the article both in terms of accuracy and notability. Wikipedia policy is to reflect mainstream academic views and not "patriotic history". If you'd like to resume our dispute on this point, you should start by addressing our comments at the end of the "Edit warring" section above. I don't understand the last line in your reply. Eperoton (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Arman ad60: Please read WP:BRD carefully, stop edit warring, and self-revert this incoherently explained and destructive edit [[6]]. After I reverted your addition, it was up to you to start a discussion of it in talk. The vision of Islam going back to Abraham belongs to an article about Islamic doctrine. As the scope definition at the top of the article clearly states: "This article is about the history of Islam as a culture and polity." Eperoton (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't see any problem with that part. It is the definition of Islam. Everyone should know what is Islam before they come to know the history of Islam. And that part is needed for the table "Lineage of the prophets" beside it. The original article was made by this way.Arman ad60 (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
@Arman ad60: Step one: please self-revert your penultimate edit which wiped out old content and recent changes that had nothing to do with your addition or edit description. Then we can talk about it. Eperoton (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Mr. Eperoton, with due respect, I haven't changed much from your article. I have just changed few sentences from your version. If you have any problem with any part of my edit, please tell me and then I will remove it.Arman ad60 (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
@Arman ad60: First, you have wiped out two unrelated paragraphs and several copy edits. Secondly, I urge you to read WP:BRD carefully. When someone reverts your edit, you don't revert again until a consensus is reached on the disputed point. That goes both for your addition about Islam and the part about Timur. Please self-revert. Eperoton (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • OK I am doing the discussions here. I am telling that you should at least correct the part of Timur. He was a famous Muslim emperor. This kind of negative depiction of him is not acceptable in an encyclopedia. So at least change the part of Timur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arman ad60 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
You want us to censor the negative things that Timur did, eg his sack of Baghdad followed by a massacre? Should we censor Timur as well? Doug Weller (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the restore, Doug. Of course, if someone disagrees with my other changes to the lead, they're free to take action on that.

On the subject of the doctrinal addition, per WP:LEAD the lead should summarize the contents of the article. Since the article is about Islam as civilization, it has virtually no coverage of Islam as religion, so expounding doctrinal issues in the lead would be against policy. If a reader wants to learn about Islamic doctrine, they will follow the link to Islam. One of my goals with the lead changes was to make immediately clear what the article is about and make the link to Islam prominent in the first sentence.

On the subject of Timur, here's what a quick check of major sources turns up: 

 Taking Chinggis Khan as a model, Timur offered a choice of submission with safety or complete destruction. [...] His campaigns included displays of spactacular ferocity, sparingly used, and almost always intentional. The ravages of his army were considerable but frequently followed by the restoration of agriculture. Encyclopedia of Islam 2nd ed (Brill) "Timur Lang" 

 While it has been demonstrated that Temur's treatment of the towns he captured was generally motivated by a desire to extract booty or ransom money, there can be no doubt that his use of terror tactics, such as wholesale slaughter of civilian populations and the erection of towers of decapitated heads, was meant not only to deter popular resistance but also to enhance his image as a neo Mongol conqueror. The New Cambridge History of Islam. vol 3, p. 177

 While Timur's capital, Samarqand, became a cosmopolitan imperial city that flourished as never before, Iran and Iraq suffered devastation at a greater degree than that caused by the Mongols. [...] Timur's conquests also consciously aimed to restore the Mongol Empire, and the deliberate devastation that accompanied them was a conscious imitation of the Mongol onslaught. Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia (Routledge) "Tamerlane, or Timur"

 Timur's ceaseless conquests were accompanied by a level of brutality matched only by Chinggis Khan himself. At Isfahan his troops dispatched some 70,000 defenders, while at Delhi his soldiers are reported to have systematically killed 100,000 Indians. etc (Lost Enlightenment: Central Asia's Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane by S. Frederick Starr, Princeton University Press) For more see: [[7]]

The conclusions I draw from this are as follows: 1) Timur's atrocities were indeed a methodical imitation of Mongol "psychological warfare", as Arman suggests; 2) Their characterization in the disputed text seems to reflect mainstream scholarly view; 3) They are considered to be in their own class together with Chinggis Khan's, and hence they are a notable feature of Timur's career, rather than something that's common practice among emperors. Eperoton (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree with that. I have plenty of other sources that say the same. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • well in that case I think you should give description of the other Mongol khanates like the Golden Horde, the Ilkhanate and the Chagatai Khanate as well. They were the real "Turco-Mongol states". They were more important than Timur's empire. Timur's description has got 80% of the section which I think is not right.

I think you should focus on Timur's warfare rather than his attrocities. In doing that you are undermining his achievements. You can discuss those things in the article of Timur.Arman ad60 (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the other successor states are underrepresented. I can look into that when I'm ready to work on this part. I've replaced some text on Timur with a summary of the sources above, including positive aspects. If other achievements of Timur or his empire are not given due weight, we can mention them too. Eperoton (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes ultimately the three Mongol khanates: the Golden Horde, Ilkhanate and the Chagatai khanate accepted Islam. But later they were weakened by fighting with each other and were fragmanted into some smaller countries. Then Timur emerged, united all the small counties and gave birth to a big power. You can describe it that way.Arman ad60 (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Modern age

I have done some change in the section "Modern age". I am explaining:

I have shortened the section. Because I think the section is too much big. All the other sections of this article are comprised of three sub-sections. But this section has five sub-sections which is not right. The modern age is the smallest span of time (1900-2000) but this section is the biggest section of the article which I think is not right. That is why I have shortened the section and brought it to equal size with the other sections.

  • There is no need of the section "Iranian revolution". Because there were Islamic revolutions in many other countries; for example the Islamic revolution in Saudi Arabia, Muammar Gaddafi in Lybia, Omar al Bashir in Sudan and many other places like Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen. So this is not right to give the description of only the Iranian revolution here.
  • There is no need of the section "Nationalist movement of India". Because there were nationalist movements in other places too, for example Egypt,Algeria,Nigeria and Indonesia. So only the description of the Pakistani movement is not right.
  • I think there is nothing called oil politics. It is a geo-political thing. I think the description of oil politics is looking a little bit odd here.

So I have combined all the throse things into one section and created a new section called "Other Islamic affairs".Arman ad60 (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Arman, Really I wish you'd just stop! Not of these edits are improvements, and this has been going on for months & people have lost patience with arguing everything out with you. Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Abbasid empire redux

I have removed later parts of the Abbasid empire. I think those things are completely unnecessary in this article. I think it is not necessary to give the entire description of the Abbasid golden age in this article. I have removed the materials according to the law: Wikipedia:Content removal. The law says you can remove any material, if you can explain the logic correctly. And, it doesn't say that you have to add something to replace the removed materials.

I am explaining: The Abbasid empire was not very important in the history of Islam. It was smaller than the Umayyad empire also. The Abbasid empire did not survive for so long. The empire was founded in 750, it lost Persia to the Saffarids in 861, and Saudi Arabia to the Qarmatians in 899. And thereafter the empire became a very small region, like this ( See this map ). So I dont think there is any need of so much description of an empire which is not very important.

Yes there was something like a cultural revolution during this empire. But that doesn't mean you have to give the entire description of those things. There are other articles like Islamic Golden Age and Abbasid caliphate, you can have enough information about that from those articles.

You may be concerned about the size of the article, because I have removed a huge part of the article. But this article is still bigger than the British empire or Russian empire. But yes, if someone wants to add something here they can, but at least you should remove the unnecessary parts first and bring the article into a normal shape. This is really looking very awkward here. So I think you should allow this edit.Arman ad60 (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Arman ad60: Twenty minutes after you said you were going to "add something within a minute", and when nothing substantial had been added, I reverted your mass removal from the article. You may not remove sourced content representing almost 20% of the article (about 36,000 characters) without identifying and discussing your proposed changes here. That means a discussion; not just stating you're about to remove vast amounts of content and you think "[we] should allow this edit". General Ization Talk 23:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
@Arman ad60: Please allow me to remind you of the comment made above just last November, in which similar mass removal by you without consensus (concerning the very same section of the article) was discussed (emphasis added): "... the burden is rather on you, @Arman ad60:, 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)". It appears to me you are treading on very thin ice. (It is made even thinner, by the way, when you remove other editors' comments from Talk pages without a valid reason to do so.) General Ization Talk 23:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Look I have made my edit according to this article, Wikipedia:Content removal. It is said in the introduction that I can remove any material from the article if I can explain my logics correctly. Concensus is only needed when I don't give my reasons. I think I am right on my logic.Arman ad60 (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Quoting Wikipedia:Content removal: "If there is any doubt the removal may be controversial, or if it has been restored following a previous removal, it should be discussed on the page's talk page prior to removal." You certainly must know by now that the changes you are making are controversial (and, in fact, any changes to this particular article have the potential to be controversial). That guidance mostly pertains to content that is unsourced, clearly inaccurate, or redundant with another article. The fact that you as an editor think that "The Abbasid empire was not very important in the history of Islam" isn't one of the criteria discussed at that page. General Ization Talk 00:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
And again I emphasize: "discussed" doesn't mean just that you state your intentions and then act on them. It means that you wait to act on them until a consensus is established. General Ization Talk 00:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
There was nothing wrong with the bold initial changes, nor with revert of them, or the discussion afterwards. That is how Wikipedia works the process is called "Bold, Revert, Discuss" - it allows uncontentious changes to be made without discussion, and prevents contentious changes from being made without consensus. In this case consensus for the changes was not achieved. You should therefore not make them again. You should also now know that similar changes are likely to be contentious and hence start with a discussion on the talk page. Pinging @Doug Weller: who may have a better take on the content issue than I. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC).
Looking at the content argument, you seem to be saying that the Abbasids weren't very good at the empire building (or maintaining) business, and possibly not that good at Islam either, and thus do not deserve much coverage. I don't find this argument convincing. The gradual decline of the Caliphate until the final abandoning of the title relatively recently is an important part of world history, as is the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC).
  • OK I want a consensus for my edit. I have shortened the size of the section "Abbasid empire", see my version here.

I have explained my logics above. I am mentioning them once again here:

The Abbasid empire was smaller than the Umayyad empire. The Umayyad empire had a glorious history of military expansion. They conquered North Africa, Spain and Central Asia. The Umayyad empire was still powerful during it's fall. The Abbasids came to power by a political revolution. But they could not even unite the entire Muslim world, they lost the provinces of Morocco and Spain. Many people blame them for the disintegration of the Pan-Islamic empire.

The Abbasid empire did not survive for so long as it looks like. The Abbasid empire was founded in 750 and it was completely disintegrated within 900 CE ( See this map ). Then the Buyids captured the capital Baghdad itself in 945. After the Buyids the Abbasids became vassals of the Seljuk empire. Then the Abbasids became independent for a short period of time during the reign of the Khwarazmian empire. Then the Mongols conquered this land in 1258. After that the Abbasids became vassals of the Mamluks of Egypt ( 1258-1517 ).

So the problem here is that the Abbasid empire was not so big and it is not right to give such huge description of that empire. If you compare with the other empires like the Rashidun empire and the Umayyad empire this is really looking very awkward. It is like you have given 60% or 70% description of Belgium or Switzerland in the history of Europe. So I think the size of the Abbasid empire should be reduced and bring it to a normal shape.Arman ad60 (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This section is not just about the Abbasid dynasty, but also the other dynasties which pledged nominal allegiance to them -- in short the entire history of their caliphate. That's not to say that the section shouldn't be improved, but I don't find the argument based on importance convincing. Eperoton (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, but the section doesn't mention anything about the other empires of that period. Please read the section carefully, It only gives king by king description of the later Abbasids who had no power at all. I have already given a map ( see this ). Half of the section gives description of those later Abbasids which doesn't make any sense. And obviously what is the most important thing, a small empire like this doesn't deserve such vast description.Arman ad60 (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
It certainly mentions them, though briefly, so by your argument you should be expanding the section, not abridging it. If you're proposing abridging the caliph-by-caliph narrative, then that's what you should be describing here. Make is easy for other editors to review and accept your edits. Break them into smallest possible steps. If the steps are major, use the talk page to explain them, and that means describing what you're doing: removing, adding, compressing, reordering, writing, copying, etc. Eperoton (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • It is not possible to abridge the section the way you have said. Because the section doesn't give enough description of the other empires rather than few sentences. So I want to remove the entire part of the later Abbasids like I have done in my version. I think you should allow it, because if you look at the size of the Umayyad empire, the Abbasid empire dosen't deserve such huge description.Arman ad60 (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Editors here have already spent a good deal of time reviewing your earlier major changes and explaining why they didn't accept them. The burden is now on you to convince them that they should invest more effort into it. If you aren't willing to describe your changes in detail, you can't expect other editors to undertake that effort yet again. Eperoton (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I have already explained my reasons. "The Abbasid empire is smaller than the Umayyad empire", so it doesn't deserve such huge description. I don't understand why don't you understand this thing.

Well I want to say here something, if someone adds some ill-written or irrelevant materials in this article, what will you do? Won't you remove those things? Consider it something like that. Someone has entered some inaccurate and irrelevant things in the article and I want to remove them.

And I want to remove those things according to this law ( Irrelevant information ). The description of every single king of the Later Abbasid period, who did not have any power at all, is unacceptable in this article. I think you experienced editors will understand this thing.Arman ad60 (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Well the problem with this section is, it doesn't give enough description of the regional powers in the later Abbasid periods. "Islamic world during the Abbasid caliphate", if that is what this section meant to be, it hasn't been described that way. If you read the section thoroughly you will realize that it doesn't give enough description of the contemporary Muslim empires. Rather it focuses on various political events of the later Abbasid caliphs. Ultimately the section will look like a vast description of an empire which was not so big and the regional powers are ignored. So, tell me what do about that.Arman ad60 (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I've already given you my recommendation about providing a detailed description of your proposed edit (what you're doing in your edit rather than simply why you're doing it). Eperoton (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • OK I have made my edit in my sand box ( Please see this ). I have tried to create a new section "Regional powers". I cannot do better than that; because those are the only texts I have found about the regional powers. So, please tell me, what do you think about that.Arman ad60 (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Let me make a third (and final) attempt to explain my recommendation. Other editors need to assess whether your changes are constructive and compliant with WP policy. To do that, they need to see exactly what those changes are. Your block replace was so wide-ranging that it's impossible to make heads or tails of it by looking at the diff. You can't expect other editors to manually track down every passage and figure out what happened to it, and given your past history on this page, you can't expect them to accept your edits without a thorough review. Hence, if you want to convince other editors to accept your edits, I suggest laying out a detailed description of them here. Mark old and new passages by their first and last words and note what you're doing to each passage: removing, adding, compressing, reordering, writing, copying, etc. I would not make this recommendation if other editors were joining this discussion in support of your block replacement, but so far you haven't gathered any support for it. Eperoton (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

OK I have reorganized the article in my sandbox. I think there is no other better way to improve the section. Because, like I have said before, The section is too much big considering the size of the Abbadid empire. And the section doesn't look like a "Golden age" either. Because the other empires haven't been described in this section.And it doesn't also describe the expansion of Islam otherwards. So ultimately the section looks like an oversize section, whose content doesn't make any sense.

I want to remove those parts, because, I think no one will ever improve those parts. The article was at this condition even 5 years ago ( See this ), not only the section Abbasid Caliphate, but also the sections, Africa, Asia and the Mongol empires. So I don't think what wasn't improved for five years will be improved in the next two or three years. And there are other reasons. Many people doesn't know English well as well. And it is very difficult to edit the articles in Wikipedia as well. So many people don't even try to write in the Wikipedia. So what I am saying here is that, let my shorten the section and at least let me give the article a normal shape.Arman ad60 (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  • OK, I have edited the article once again (See my sandbox ). I have brought the sections "Asia" and "Africa" above. Because this section probably discusses of the expansion of Islam. During this period the Muslims began to expand all over the world and became bigger than the Christian and Buddhist civilization. That is why this era is called the "The Golden Age". I have changed the name of the section to "Regional Caliphates and expansion of Islam" . Because, at this period, the Pan-Islamic state was disintegrated and Islam started to expand based on some smaller caliphates.

I have moved the section "Crusades" in the later period, and placed them besides the sections "Spain" and "Mongol invasions". Because these sections mostly discuss of the wars of Islam against other races.

So what do you think about this edit?Arman ad60 (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with that change in section structure. Sections 3-7 present pre-modern developments in the Middle East in chronological order. Sections 8-10 present regional developments elsewhere. Eperoton (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


  • No that is not right. Islam entered those regions in the very early period, contemporary with the Abbasid caliphate and Fatimid caliphate. I am giving some examples:

Maghreb: Idrisids-> 788, Almoravid dynasty-> 1040, Almohad dynasty-> 1121.

Horn of Africa: Warsangali Sultanate ->1218

India: Delhi Sultanate -> 1206

And so on.

And if you dont give the expansion of Islam how can you call it the Golden Age?Arman ad60 (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

  • OK, I have changed the names of the later periods as: early period, middle period and later period. Is it alright now?

See my Sandbox.Arman ad60 (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a common way to organize pre-modern Islamic history, used e.g. by the Cambridge History of Islam. Developments in the "central lands" are treated concurrently, period by period. Developments in other lands are treated separately, region by region. Eperoton (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I have done some more change in the article ( See my Sandbox ). I have §moved all the parts up to Caliph Al-Mutawakkil in the section High Abbasid Caliphs up in the section Golden Abbasid Caliphs. Because those parts also belong to the Golden Abbasid period. The Abbasid empire didn't start to disintegrate yet. The Tahirid kingdom was still a province of the Abbasid empire. It was not an independent country. It was still a vassal state of the Abbasid empire. So I think this part should be included in the Golden Abbasid period.Arman ad60 (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, I want to restore the edit I made in my earlier version ( See my Sandbox ). I dont understand, why don't you accept my edit. I have explained earlier, I am explaining here once again:

The Abbasid empire was smaller than the Umayyad empire. It was founded in 750, in 945 the Buyids captured the capital Baghdad itself. Thereafter the Abbasids were mainly vassals of the Persians and Egyptians.

Is there really any need for such vast description of such a small empire? I have already explained all my logics; You have only said you need a consensus, but you haven't yet given your reasons, why you support the later parts of the Abbasid empire. Please can you explain your logics here?Arman ad60 (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Asia and Africa

I have done some change in the sections "Asia" and "Africa" ( see my sandbox ). I think the descriptions in those sections are very much sprawled and unorganized. I am explaining:

The sections "Horn of Africa" and "Great lakes" don't speak of any empires. They only give descriptions of advent of the religion Islam in different regions.

And the section Southeast Asia is too much big, while the section China is too much small. I think the sections cannot remain in the encyclopedia in this condition.Arman ad60 (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not they describe empires, those sections contain relevant, sourced information. They should be improved rather than deleted. Eperoton (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes that is right. But those sections were at this condition for the last five years ( see this version of 2011 ). Many people commented on this matter in the talk page, but no body has changed them. I think no body will change the sections ever as well. So, tell me what can we do about that?Arman ad60 (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Things get improved on WP when someone who has the desire, ability and time to make the improvements comes along. All three are required. Often it takes years for that to happen. I'm planning to work on most parts of this article myself in due time. Eperoton (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Dab

Dabs arent desired to hide information as if our readers just arent capable of grasping the name of [[Abu Talib ibn Abd al-Muttalib. How does this "make the text more readable and concise", we dont dumb down when it comes to our maths articles and I fail to see why we should heren?A dab is anactive thing and so needs to be justified. And the dab doesnt anyway make things more readable, it confuses the readers who is left wondering what on earth an article about "influential uncle"might contain. I hope user Eperoton isnt going to start following me around when I undab links,I only ever do so when I find the links confusingand unhelpful, as was certainly the case here. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

What else can an article linked to the phrase "influential uncle" contain except a biography of the person in question? His relationship to Muhammad and his influence are relevant to the narrative, but giving his name unnecessarily encumbers the text, whose goal is to summarize vast amounts of material within a very short space. Eperoton (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The MOS discourages this approach: see WP:EGG. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how WP:EGG is relevant here. It's about linking a phrase corresponding to a broader notion to an article about a more specific notion. "Influential uncle" (or maybe "his influential uncle") and "Abu Talib ibn Abd al-Muttalib" refer to the same entity. I'm not aware of a guideline limiting linking of biographical articles to names. I think it's helpful to link biographical articles for all persons discussed in the article, but I don't see how it would be helpful here to spell out names of people who are mentioned only once and whose significance in the narrative is determined by their relationship to another person and/or their post (governor of X, his vizier, etc). By the way, let's respect WP:BRD and maintain an established revision until we reach a consensus. Eperoton (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
See the longer discussion at WP:EASTEREGG. This case is entirely analogous to the Bombay Explosion example discussed there. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
That's not a good analogy because there were many "earlier disasters" and the vagueness of the term (probably) hides important details. It is analogous to the next example "a war launched in 1763 by a loose confederation of elements of Native American tribes," and the guideline in not requiring to specify its name for the link. Eperoton (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The case is entirely analogous: Muhammad had many uncles, and "in a print version, there is no link to select, and the reference is lost". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
How does that distinguish between the two examples or bear on the policy? The rationale of WP:EASTEREGG is not to create links "that require the reader to open them before understanding what's going on". Muhammad's influential uncle whose death prompted the hijra, like the loose confederation of tribes which launched the war of 1763, are descriptions which provide the details relevant to the narrative and which would easily allow the reader of a book to identify the referent in a more detailed source. The reference to "an earlier disaster" does not. Understand, I'd like to work toward a mutually acceptable solution, but I need a valid policy-based objection or a comprehensible pragmatic concern to work with. Eperoton (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
We appear to be stuck in mutual incomprehension with little hope of progress. However your recent edit is ideal, so the point may well be moot. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I suspect the issue of linking without naming will come up elsewhere in this article as it evolves, but we can set the dispute aside for now. Eperoton (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Map

Hi, I have changed the map of the Abbasid caliphate. Because the map given here is wrong. If you look at the map, the Aghlabid kingdom has not been shown as a part of the Abbasid empire, which I think is wrong. I have done one more thing. I have removed the map of the regional powers to a later section. To this section "Rise of regional powers." I think the map is more relevant there.Hector 2016 (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on History of Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

english sentences

use farther, Further in sentence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.183.240.50 (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

S

. Zafi 2005 (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Earliest source al-Tabari?

How is the work of al-Tabari "the most important historiographical source for the origins of Islam"? How about Ibn Ishaq's biography of the prophet in the 8th century? Is it less important? Less reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:5D07:E706:EDA9:CE9D:47DF:39D8 (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Meaning of Early / Middle / Late Islamic period

What do the terms Early / Middle / Late Islamic period mean? How are they defined? When do they start and end? They show up in articles about Jordan for instance, but I cannot find a periodisation offering the basic meaning.

I will post this also on other relevant pages. The discussion should be held at Talk:Timeline of Islamic history (so not here). Thanks. Arminden (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Islam/Archive_3&oldid=1187257527"