Jump to content

Talk:History of slavery in the Muslim world/Archive 2

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

Usage of the term

There should be mention somewhere ("Africa and the Arab slave trade" is marked as unreferenced since 2006 and POV since 2007) of the fact that, at least in the context of 19th century Europe, the term "Arab slave trade" was a misnomer for what were primarily Swahili-speaking blacks. The association with the word Arab originated with Zanzibar (cf. Tippu Tip) and nearby areas. The first source that comes to mind off the top of my head is King Leopold's Ghost, which mentions how, particularly in the UK, the idea of "civilising" Africa went hand in hand with a sense of moral righteousness that the "Arab slave trade" had to be eliminated. Recognizance (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Latest edits from IP address

If you want to remove unsourced or biased statements in the article, that's fine. But adding more unsourced, biased statements merely because others are already present does not improve the article. Pirate Dan (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me make my position clear to the person at 98.88.37.26. First, while I believe that your edits were indeed POV, calling them in toto a rant was hasty and uncivil of me, and I apologize for that.

1. To say that only anti-Arab racists use the term "Arab slave trade" is simply unsupported; although bigots doubtless do use the term, you have not provided evidence that only bigots, or even primarily bigots, use it. 2. To say that slavery in the islamic world was not religiously motivated "in stark contrast to their Christian neighbors" is a very dubious statement, especially when no source is provided. It is clear from any of the articles on Wikipedia that medieval Christians and Muslims had very similar attitudes toward slavery, namely, that members of one's own faith should not be enslaved, but that members of other faiths could rightfully be enslaved. In the early modern period, the Christians began to justify slavery on racial grounds, even to the point of enslaving members of their own faith, while the Muslims continued to adhere to a policy of not enslaving Muslims. In neither case is there any sign of the "stark contrast" you mentioned, where Christian slavery was more religiously motivated than Muslim slavery. Until evidence is provided, I do not agree to such statements appearing in the article.

2. I know the Knights of Malta enslaved Turks, Berbers, and Arabs, but the number of a million surprises me; how could the very small organization of the Knights succeed in enslaving as many people or more than all the Barbary states combined managed to enslave from the 15th century to the 19th? The five million enslaved Jews and Muslims in Spain (close to half Spain's population!) is a bit tough to believe, too. But I'd be content to stick those claims with "Citation needed" tags for a little while rather than reverting them outright.

3. I have no objection to you removing the paragraph that ca lled medieval Arab geographers generally racist, or any of the other recent additions that I tagged "Citation needed." Unsourced material is liable to deletion at any time, so you're fully justified in removing those statements, or any others not properly sourced. Pirate Dan (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem: Turkish slavery

There certainly should be a place to discuss Turkish slavery practices, which I think are very improtant to Ottoman and world history. For example, I read in Jay Winik's The Great Upheaval that the prohibition on enslaving Muslims caused the Ottoman sultans to take concubines from non-Muslim countries, with the odd result that the powerful Queen Mother of the Sultan was most often born a Christian or pagan rather than a Muslim. (Kösem Sultan, for example, virtually ruled the Empire despite having been born the daughter of a Greek priest, although she apparently converted to Islam after being enslaved). Furthermore, the sultans needed eunuch slaves to guard their concubines, but Islamic law forbade the emasculation of a man, so the sultans bought the slaves through Christian Ethiopian intermediaries, who emasculated the slaves for them, thus avoiding the strictures of the religious law!

Surely there should be a place in Wikipedia for these matters. But Turkey/Anatolia are not a part of the "Arab world," so as the article's scope is currently defined, this sort of material does not belong here. Should we have a whole separate article just on Turkish/Ottoman slavery? Pirate Dan (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There is an article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_(Ottoman_Empire)
Zeeb (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I've created redirect pages for Turkish slavery and Ottoman slavery to lead to that article.
One other issue, though: at the moment Oriental slave trade redirects to Arab slave trade. Yet, the Ottoman sultans' slave dealings in Eastern Europe were just as "Oriental" as the Arabs', so a person searching for "Oriental slave trade" won't necessarily be interested just in the Arab world as opposed to Anatolia, the Balkans, or the Caucasus. So maybe we should change Oriental slave trade from a redirect page to a disambiguation page, with links to both Arab slave trade and Slavery (Ottoman Empire)? Pirate Dan (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Shell Money of the Slave Trade - the Money Cowrie

On this page you have a picture of cowries of various kinds (species) and say that cowries were used in the slave trade. this is correct but the picture is incorrect. Only one species was used: Cypraea moneta or the money cowrie. It was mainly traded from the Maldive Islands, back to Europe as ballast (to Amsterdam,)cleaned, trans-shipped in barrels, and sent back to the Gold and Slave coast in West Africa. There is an excellent book on this subject. "The Shell Money of the Slave Trade" by Hogendorn and Johnson. African Studies Series no 49 CUP 1986. ISBN 0 521 54110 7. There is a description of the cowrie on page 5. Hence the photo of all different cowries should be removed and you should find an image of the money cowrie, moneta.Zanzibar64 (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Was the money cowrie used in the Arab slave trade at all? My understanding, like in the story you cite, was that it was used for ballast in European ships, and that Europeans then traded it for slaves on the West African coast, without any Arabs necessarily being involved. Pirate Dan (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Male slaves being made eunuchs

I reverted the change that said male slaves were made eunuchs. It was unsourced.

My understanding is that Islamic religious law forbade the emasculation of men. While Turkish (not Arab) sultans did make use of African eunuch slaves, I believe these were purchased from Ethiopian Christians, who had no restrictions against the making of eunuchs and thus did the nasty operation on their slave captives themselves. I am not aware of any Arab participation in the Turkish-Ethiopian trade in eunuch slaves, and thus I can't acquiesce to it being put in the Arab slave trade article unless I see some good evidence. Pirate Dan (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence that it happened in Turkey or in Ethiopia is equally flimsy. Nevertheless, it should be included, but as a legend and with a warning as far as the truth on the whole story is concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.192.190.236 (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

BIAS is bias, Prejudice is prejudice

Aldux:: It makes no difference if this is a French feature article, i am saying that BIAS is Bias, and prejudice is prejudice. Do not allow the tags to be removed. This is an important discussion people need to read with regards to Islam and Slavery.

Jjfad, let me be clear: if you think that your opinion is enough for keeping that NPOV tag, the awnser is no. To this moment I have heard only propaganda: if you want to convince somebody that all the editors who made the French version were biased, as were those who supported the FA nomination, you'll have to do a lot better than that. I'll leave the tag here for a day or two, waiting for reasonable objections. After that, it will be removed. As for the image, it's here to stay, like it or not.--Aldux 15:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am watching the bove person and if they continue to wage racist wars on history i wil take action. WHO CARES ABOUT FA nomination. We must be clear on who these people are, werent their the colonizers and enslavers of Africa, isnt france a place that just banned the Muslim head-dress. Wake up man and live in the real world. Its one thing these racist come here and do their racist deeds but then they sell it to us as rightous and just. I suggest Aldux find another place to play. BIAS IS BIAS, it makes no difference if the King of France puts his stamp on it, this is not validity, the only valid thing is truth and honesty, and much of this work is dishonest and subverting Africa and Islamic history --Halaqah 10:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


Agreed @ Halaqah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.12.245 (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a neutral article

- The title should be changed, not only arabs or muslims were involved, it even says so in the opening paragraph, so why stick with "Arab Slave Trade". The "Atlantic slave trade" article is not called "European slave trade", even though the slave traders were pre-dominantly European, so why make an exception for this article. It was a big trade spanning 3 continents, and should be named accordingly. (ie. saharan slave trade),

- The "aims of the slave trade" is bias - it contains an unverified picture, refers to racist comments by Ibn Khaldun and . Al-Abshibi. What have they got to do with the article exactly? this is not a "racism in society", or "slavery and racism" article. There is no mentions of any racism in the Atlantic slave trade article, even though it is obvious there was a lot of racism going on during it. So why mention any tiny minority views of arabs during that period unless you wanted to create bias toward them.

- This was a wide spread trade, involving not only arabs, but also blacks, europeans and asians. Blacks sold and bought/acquired slaves, arabs did the same.

- Ibn Khaldun also wrote racist things about his own people (arabs), calling the arab nomads savages and lazy. So why mention his comments in a article about the saharan slave trade? He was not a slave-trader, nor a slave, he probably was not even in slave trading areas. Once again, i mention that there was NO mention of any racist thought or attitudes in the Atlantic slave trade article, but all this in one named Arab slave trade, it is clearly trying to portray arabs and Islam as racist bigots, which is completely contrary to muslim thought.

- I am not saying there was never any arab racism, indeed history has shown that there was racism by arabs, towards blacks, jews, persians and others. But there has also been racism by blacks towards arabs, persians towards arabs, jews towards arabs, jews towards blacks, blacks towards jews, it could go on and on. What I am saying is that if there was racism, it was not condoned by Islam (ie. racism between arabs, persians, blacks - all may be muslim but be racist to one another, even though it is against their religion.

- Furthermore, i am not saying "cover it up" as if racism never existed in arab culture or islamic society. i am saying put it in the right place. start a whole new page titled "arab racism" , or "racism and slavery" and put all the Ibn khaldun or al-abshibi quotes you can find. but since there is no racism mentioned in an article that is about trans-atlantic slavery (a trade fuelled by racist attitudes) it is not fair that you put a minority view of arabs in an article called "arab slave trade". As if to say that arabs only traded in blacks, when this is not true, europeans were taken as slaves as well as ethnic arabs. Furthermore black african kingdoms used arab slaves as well. Slavery was an ancient institution, Arabs were not the first to introduce it. Furthermore, Islam recognised slavery as an ancient institution/part of life, but called for gracious treatment of all slaves and encouraged emancipation (see Religion and Slavery article). Ofcourse sinning humans may not have uplifted these tenets and this would lead to bigotry and bad treatment of slaves. Again i am not saying ignore this, only put it in the right place, under the right title.

It's not my problem how the Atlantic slave trade article was built; there is no rule of reciprocity between articles in wikipedia. As I 've said a thousand times to you, this article is simply a translation of the French featured article, that has passed through a nomination process. You can't impose your opinions, especially when it is utterly alone. Arab slave trade is the name by far most used by the pubblic and scholars, while Oriental slave trade is hardly ever used; for this it has been selected, it's not up to me to say if common usage is right or wrong.--Aldux 11:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Aldux: - You are contradicting yourself, when the article was called "Islamic slave trade" you said that was the most used name and now it is changed to "Arab slave trade?" The point is to call it by the most accurate and non-bias name. Regarding the Atlantic slave trade, Africans, and African -americans hardly use "Atlantic slave trade" to describe it, but more likely in their native tongues "Maafa"/the Tragedy or the "black holocaust". So it is all relative what to "call" a specific event, so we should aim to call it by its geographical roots. In this case, - it is trans-Saharan slave trade, Eastern slave trade, Oriental slave trade, or something similar. You are the one imposing opinions, removing neutrality tags without even discussing anything.

The first thing you have to remember (and that you keep forgetting) is that I didn't write the article, but simply promoted its translation as part of a project to promote the translation of French featured history articles. I didn't even choose the name; only I noted that Islamic slave trade was more used than Oriental slave trade, that I also found highly eurocentric. As for trans-Saharan slave trade, while I would personally like it very much, but it is not coherent to the content, as an important part of the article deals with the Indian Ocean slave trade. Also, it is not up to wikipedia to correct eventual bias in scholarship; it's not up to me to decide if the title Arab slave trade is biased, simply it is by far the most used, and that's enough. A possibility would be to split the article, but you'll need to find an experienced editor for such a work, and I've got a lot to do on wiki now. As for the NPOV issue you have raised, I'm sorry but I insist: this article has been seen by many editors, French and English, and none except you have had problems with the quality of the article.--Aldux 11:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Aldux it seems as if you are trying to railroad the poster. This article is very biased and this talk page reads like you have your tail in between your legs with your tactics of skirting around his commentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.12.245 (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Modern

There isn't much on modern slavery in this article, permission to make a section on it near the bottom? 99.236.221.124 (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

slavery is an affront towards god

is slavery wrong no matter where,when,who or why,or like with most people,just when it's convenient for you?whether it was arab,ottoman or persian the muslim enslavement of non muslims was barbaric cruelty towards the human race and especially towards god.it was as heinous as the european christian slavetrade if not more.time to acknowledge,own up and apologize for over a thousand years of brutality.y'ah mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.190.51 (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Weird statement

However, ethnic prejudice among some elite Arabs was not limited to darker-skinned black people, but was also directed towards fairer-skinned "ruddy people" (including Persians, Turks and Europeans), while Arabs referred to themselves as "swarthy people".

This statement is weird since Persians are darker than Arabs. Somebody needs to check the source to see if it really says so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.220.100 (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Persians are not darker than Arabs... 99.236.221.124 (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • northern persians and north arabs are caucasoids..south persians and south arabs in the present day assimilated very blood of females black slaves in the indic ocean (islamic middle ages)..! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.202.144 (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Arab Views of Black people

Now it takes up a very large percentage of the total Article, WHY? Is this not Arab slave trade or is it Arabs views of Black people?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the French source of this article?

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traite_Musulmane --Jahsonic 16:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

oops, sorry, I found it here http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traite_musulmane

It's interesting to note that the French article explains - for example (there are many other examples of the same missing information) - that the slaves received in Arab countries were often originally captured by Europeans, whereas this information doesn't seem to be present in the English article. If the French article was the original, it looks like the English version was edited to add bias.

86.66.139.197 (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Robert Davis

This article and several other Wikipedia articles cite a single source - an article about a book by Robert Davis - for figures of "over a million" European slaves taken by Barbary pirates. Yet the article itself says Davis' figures are orders of magnitude higher than *all* other sources. In other words, the only figures given here are "over a million", while the cited source itself says that figures of "a few thousand" or "tens of thousand" are used by all other "previous" historians. This is obvious cherry picking, probably for political reasons.

86.66.139.197 (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Using the same source article (at least as a starting point until other sources can be found), which says, "Most previously estimated slave counts have thus tended to be in the thousands, or at most in the tens of thousands. Davis, by contrast, has calculated that between 1 million and 1.25 million European Christians were captured and forced to work in North Africa from the 16th to 18th centuries.", wikipedia could say that "estimates vary from thousands to over a million".

Comments?

86.66.139.197 (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Davis's is the only systematic study of the number of European slaves taken by the Barbary states, and is the only scholarly estimate available of the number of slaves taken in the trade as a whole. Ian Blanchard has endorsed his conclusions, while David Earle thinks his methods are flawed but does not suggest that the figure is wrong or that another figure is more accurate. See here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/mar/11/highereducation.books
In sum, it's not cherry-picking, because it's the only cherry in the orchard. The cherry might be rotten, though, and so an addition like "although some experts doubt the accuracy of this figure" might be appropriate.
We also need to be sure it's clear that the Barbary corsairs weren't all Arabs (many were Turks, Berbers, or even renegade Greeks and Britons), so there's a limited overlap between the subject of this article and the subject of Davis's work. Pirate Dan (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits about Coptic participation in the slave trade

I don't see the relevance of the recent edits about the Coptic participation in the slave trade. Copts were not Arabs, were they? And the sources only appear to mention trade with the Turks, not the Arabs. What's the connection here with the Arab slave trade? Pirate Dan (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeing no response, I've deleted the section on the Coptic-Turkish slave trade. The Copts suggests that they are descendants of the original, pre-Arab Egyptians, and are not, or at least not necessarily, Arabs. Since the material was properly sourced, I would be happy to see it added back in IF some connection with the Arab slave trade is shown. Pirate Dan (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems relevant to me. Its in the right part of the world. Hard to say if they were "arabs" but can't hurt as long as we say what the sources say. Not like we're gonna hurt any Coptic feelings. Richmondian (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

impact of the trade

Section is needed on the impact of the Arab slave trade on Africa etc. What did it mean in development terms, With The Turks, with the Swahili coast, with North Africa etc. populations of Africans in Iraq, etc. genealogy, etc.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Shii new editors to this page use talk page and no edit war over point

Edit war over a very specific section is un productive and un wiki. See the policy at the top of this document. You come hear a target one statement. Nothing else, never been here before. You have not used the talk page just first say "Buying a domain" ok, clearly there is more on those two different sites listed as references that "buying a domain", Pambazuka News is a completely different source. now the argument is RS. A threshold which has escaped the rest of the article. Nit picking content and dropping RS is very easy to do. Why not go and bring the content that makes it unreliable. Considerable wars have went into creating balance from all perspectives, some have been editing here for YEARS. Do not rmv any reference content unless you bring it to the talk page first. Having issues with content doesn't mean you can take it out. Esp if you are not familar with the topic and the reason why it is there. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Move from Arab slave trade

Why was there no discussion or consensus before moving this page from Arab slave trade to Islamic slave trade?

I can see some basis for not wanting to discuss the Arab slave trade in isolation from the Muslim Turks and Berbers, since they tended to trade slaves to each other throughout the Ottoman Empire. But I think it's misleading to call this the "Islamic slave trade," since that would suggest that all Muslims, inclusing Iranians, Afghans, and even Indonesians, all participated in some kind of common slave trade, and that isn't true. It would be like calling the Atlantic slave trade the "Christian slave trade"; the Atlantic slave trade was carried on overwhelmingly by Christians, yes, but there were lots of other Christians who weren't involved.

Thus, if we're going to move the page, I think Middle Eastern slave trade or something similar would be better.Pirate Dan (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You point is crystal clear, there is no debate. See the issue,[[1]] it was done by a vandal POV editor, problem is how easy it was for him to do it, yet we should have been able to automatically undo it. The editor has been blocked. User_talk:Tamsier--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


Totally agree. One thing is religion and other thing is people. Islam has nothing to do with slaving people. One more thing, is not the same talking about slaving in the 1st century AC than in the XIX century AC, please be serious with history leaving our now day reality, values, context, etc. In Greek there were slaves, but was totally different. In Old Egypt too, but is an other thing.

By the way coming back to the XIX century, what about all the people who negotiated with slaves, they were part of the trade too (Dutch, Portuguese, English, Spanish). We could talk about the tribes that worked for traffickers killing other black races people. I see evil intent in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.62.137.161 (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Tippu Tippi

This man was, according to the writer of the text, half-Arab and is a lot later than the date suggested as the beginning of the Arab involvement in the slave trade (650). It really makes no sense to try to distinguish, by way of apologia, between 'cultural' and 'racial' (whatever this word is supposed to mean when applied to human beings) Arabs. Pamour (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Quote origin

There is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab and for a non-Arab over an Arab, nor for the white over the black nor for black over the white except in piety.

— Prophet Muhammad

Can anyone please tell me where this quote comes from? I know it's from a Dutch book but I can't seem to find it anywhere in the Hadith and I'm seriously beginning to doubt it's even in there somewhere. Just quoting another that would quote the hadiths isn't correct, you have to find the direct source in the hadith, otherwise it can just be a forgery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.85.135 (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

arabslavetrade.com

African Holocaust Society is a website only--their organization is the website. They do not publish based on merit but on race. Here is their policy: "Can Non-Africans Join You? No, they cannot because African Holocaust society was specifically created to address the global race imbalance where representation of Africans is concerned. This does not mean non-Africans have not made significant contributions which are valid, it is more to repair an imbalance in representation. It would be self-defeating to pose this issue and then repeat the dilemma by having non-African content in our organization. ..." The African Holocaust Society is not recognized as a reliable source. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Jason Let me first thank you for sharing your views with us. We are not concerned with their about page but with the content of the page called Arabslavetrade. Your above quote actually completely smashes the accusation of racism. There admission policies are part of affirmative action or as they say in South Africa Black economic Empowerment. None of those have been washed out as racist. Now I have a reference from a leading Arab news paper Al Akhbar Al Akhbar is pretty big deal. The other issue is the comment has multiply sources.from many diverse RS. The other issues is it is an opinion which is used to balance the nature of a controversy. The person is more than qualified to comment on numbers and politics of study. So all of those references do mean something. Our edits cannot be our own judgement of RACIST, or else i would go and delete most of this article. --Inayity (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The author in Al Akhbar expresses admiration for the website. But a passing journalistic reference hardly establishes the website as notable. Are there scholarly citations of the articles published by the African Holocaust Society? While the editorial policy raises serious questions on the process of publication, the website itself doesn't seem to be recognized in the literature. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
None of that changes the fact or gives the right to delete the content wholesale. further more per google search WP:GOOGLE it is pretty notable. Actually no 2 after this page we are on. So there is no escaping all these combinations of factors. And my main issue is there are at least 5 reference to the opinion from multi-sources. The Journal Of Black Studies published minorities only, so to does the Islamic institutions papers, that is neither here nor there. In a nutshell the content does not fringe or violate Npov or anything like that. the criteria for an opinion which does not require "recognized in literature". (whose literature is that?)--Inayity (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Here is a book using it as a resource from 1/2 way around the world.African American History Day by Day: --Inayity (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh My I found more [http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=africanholocaust.net Amazon references to the site which is no2 in google]- So recognized in literture is satisfied, google notability satisfied, is it racist, clearly not (satisfied)And here is a Google scholar search Race Rights Reparations: Exploring a Reparations Framework for Addressing Trade Inequality--Inayity (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The first book is published on the vanity press iUniverse. The second is a self-published book on the indie CreateSpace: Independent Publishing Platform. The third is published on lulu.com whose motto is “Self publish your own book ... fast, easy, and free.” Jason from nyc (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The citations used to support the two sentences that starts with "Owen Alik Shahadah ... guesswork" are #31, 32, 33. Citation 32 and 33 are the same and they don't support the claim the slavery was a "trickle trade" prior to the 19th century. It's not clear why this article is cited; perhaps you can explain this. #31 is from the self-published website of the author and its notability is questionable. You added an article that includes a discussion of Shahadah and his website (#30). That should be used on his wiki page article. It doesn't contribute to the question of a limited Arab slave trade. Overall, I don't see a published article in a notable journal that supports the points made in those two sentences. I'm sure there are notable writers who question the magnitude and perhaps I'll try to remember where I read a review of such a scholar. Such a view, if indeed supported by notable references, is important to include. I just don't see these two sentence supported by notable research. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I will look at the references in detail but I see nothing there called self-published. If trickle trade is a problem i think I saw it also in John Hundwick and Eve's book Slavery in Lands of Islam. every time i show you something you come with something else. First it was Fringe (certainly not), then Racist (the opposite), no mention in liturature (now google scholar is not good enough). It is an opinion, not a fact. Opinions are allowed. And it is a very valid opinion b/c those numbers range from 10 million to 200 million, something is wrong with someone in there. Yes or no? So the threshold of inclusion is good. the statement is NPOV. And it balances the section by bring up a serious concern of political motivation. Look at the discrepancy of the numbers. How does Lovejoy get these figures and the other guy 10 times?--Inayity (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Red Herring, What worries me is the utter neglect of the article and sections which are terrible written,See Arab views of African. it is strange the threshold being applied to one opinion.--Inayity (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Inayity: judging by the ad hominum nature of your overreactions to every point Jason brings up I have to ask: are you somehow personally biased here? Why do you answer questions about the website using pronouns like "we" and "us"? Are you connected with it in some capacity? Like Jason I also find these sources inadequate. He is right about the 2 citations you recently added. They are duplicate and read as book reviews, adding nothing to the relevant question. That leaves us with the web site itself which I find difficult to believe is a neutral reliable source. I think the relevant section is unsubstantiated, polemic in nature, and Jason was right in his good faith removal of it. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Let me request you follow wikipedia protocol and stay away from me w your strange and deductions.WP:AGF I believe i have already replied to his objections within the limits of wikipedia. and I forgot HeinOnline is a reliable scholarly journal which cites the same site in question. --Inayity (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe you're established the website as reliable. I've been too busy to respond but the burden of proof is on those inserting the source. Cited in self-published vanity-press books isn't impressive. The material is questionable due to a lack of reliable sources. It should be deleted. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Trickle Trade or Not?

I am trying to find a source for the word trickle trade other than the one used in the section controversies. I am sure I saw it somewhere in the work of [http://www.amazon.com/African-Diaspora-Mediterranean-Princeton-Series/dp/1558762752/ref=sr_1_sc_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1355849851&sr=1-3-spell&keywords=John+Hundwick Eve Troutman]. Either way this site which has a entire list of sources shows that prior to the 19th century the trade was of low impact on African. True or False. ? So the statement of a trickle trade is not controversial. Here is a good comparison link.Trickle trade per the sources--Inayity (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The link above, "Trickle trade per the sources", is the used by Shahadah on his website. It refers to data from the book by Roland Segal, which is a neutral reliable source. Thus, I replaced the tertiary source that is questionable with a secondary source which is respected by you (above), Shahadah, the New York Times, and others. It also is listed in Further Reading at the end of our article by other editors. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The sources quote Segal estimating between 11.5M-14M. Which is not equal to the Christian slave trade number. Revision? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I thought I saw a source saying it was comparable. Since I don't see it in the references, I have removed the comparison. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

This is unbelievable

How can you say that I have not shown any reasonable objections. I am saying that:

- The Quran, which ALL muslims follow, explicitly calls for gracious treatment of slaves, and encourages emancipation

- So there were racist arabs, this does not mean they were Muslim, more likely businessmen trading in slaves.

- There were MANY racist Christian/European views on Africans. But these were completely left out of the Atlantic Slave trade article, so why mention a tiny minority view of arabs at those times in the Islamic Slave Trade article unless you want to create bias towards them.

- Repeating the discussion::

"I am saying that although Ibn Khaldun might have like to call himself a muslim, or was vaguely familiar with Islamic concepts, he was not a muslim, because his beliefs contradicted with Islam. In reality, he was a racist arab who stereotyped people based on their ethnicity (ie. Sterotype of arab nomads being savage, lazy, and blacks being animistic).

And no i didn't do a poll on the attitude of arabs, and neither did you, nor anyone else, and until you DO or find out some other way to PROVE that these attitudes were widespread ( WHICH AS I SAID, they WEREN't, as they are completely UN-ISLAMIC.) or any of the other crap you've been saying, back off and stop trying to pin labels on people, and blame arabs or muslims for all the worlds problems"

You must PROVE the attitudes were widespread, which they weren't (explained above) before you put things like that in.

- ALSO, in the article it says:

“Scholarly Muslims invoked the racial supremacy of white people, based on the story of Noah's curse in the Old Testament, and interpreted this passage (Genesis IX 20-27) to mean that black people were the accursed descendants of Canaan's father Ham, who had seen Noah naked. Blacks were thus considered "inferior" and "destined" to be slaves”


THE ABOVE SENTENCE IS A LIE AND UNTRUE

The holy book of Islam is the Quran, not the Old testament where this passage about Noah is, so it is Christians who hold these racist views, not muslims (see Religion and Slavery article). Why would scholarly muslims read from the Old Testament, when the most recent revealed words of God, unchanged, had been passed to them in the form of the Quran.

- ibn Khaldun was ONE man, one arab, his viewpoint did not reflect upon all arab society at the time, and certainly not upon the view islam had on slavery,

Ibn Khaldun wrote racist things about arabs themselves, calling them savages and lazy (albeit the nomads), and he WaS an arab! He seems like a racist at heart, talking about blacks that way, and also his own people (the arab nomads- bedouin). So it is not fair to say arab society had the same viewpoint, the Quran specifically says all men were created equal in the eyes of god.

- Finally, there are plenty of other admins that would be willing to hear my case. Don't think that you can print lies and propaganda and get away with it. Don't think that this will go away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjfad (talk • contribs) 09:21, 18 May 2006‎ (UTC)

Ibn Khaldun is not a true Scotsman. 24.144.14.100 (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Reorganization of Slavery in Africa articles

Because of a lot of overlap in content and some large missing holes in various issues, I started a discussion about clearly developing a plan for the content on the various Africa-slavery related pages. Please contribute at the discussion at Talk:Slavery in Africa#Reorganization of Slavery in Africa articles. Please focus discussion at that page. Thank you. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This page is full of rubbish

The reference for Arabs supporting African slavery based on Aristotle's teaching goes to Aristotle teaching itself? It also gives no dates for this and presents it with the appearance that it is modern.

We see misquotes attributed to the Talmud saying that the curse of Ham was black skin, we see Arab identity claimed to not be an old concept which again is false, we see a quote from Al-Jahiz claiming that black people are superior (which is another mistranslation: "mufakharat" is geared more towards "pride" than "superiority") and the claim that he called Arabs "white" which is wrong: the Arabs at that stage considered themselves to be "black" according to Al Jahiz' paper (however there are various shades mentioned from "Aswad" meaning black, to "Asmar tokh", and "Asmar fatih" light brown), and he mentions that it would never be said that the Arab was "red" (meaning white). And then we move to another Al-Jahiz quote, this time saying that black people are inferior and lack intelligence?

There needs to be some significant revision to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by STEVENJ0HNS 1 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I have added a Dubious tag and will look into this source. It seems like the source is saying something and others are extracting what they want from it. ref editorializing. Inayity (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable Source

Am I am looking at the debate, and looking at R.S which is something which has a procedure for establishing. It is not my say so vs. Jasons say so. The criteria of RS also depends on the topic. So something maybe a RS for one thing, but not a RS for another thing. Unfortunately i do not watch these pages, but from the prior debate only opinions were offered. Now when a site is used in journals, in major international press as a source for this topic that carries some weight. But again, that was explained away. It is not if we like it or not.ref to clear other issues I see a lot of citations to colorq which has no author (yet it clearly is not a problem). More info on WP:RELY --Inayity (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The reliability of the estimates of numbers may not be the best but at least this is scholarly work.

Carroll, Rory, and Africa correspondent. “New Book Reopens Old Arguments about Slave Raids on Europe.” The Guardian. Accessed October 14, 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/mar/11/highereducation.books.

Davis, Robert C. “Counting European Slaves on the Barbary Coast.” Past & Present, no. 172 (August 1, 2001): 87–124. 

available here http://www.jstor.org/stable/3600777

Baepler, Paul. White Slaves, African Masters: An Anthology of American Barbary Captivity Narratives. University of Chicago Press, 1999. here http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=R7kQRyrh2YoC&oi=fnd&pg=PP12&dq=Christian+Slaves,+Muslim+Masters:+White+Slavery+in+the+Mediterranean,+the+Barbary+Coast+and+Italy&ots=xNjLneuTYs&sig=stGGA9kqcAGVOOeO4V4bAjpi-ZU#v=onepage&q&f=false

Davis, R 2003 Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500-1800 http://tanfen.pixub.com/christian-slaves-muslim-masters-white-slavery-in-the-mediterranean-the-barbary-coast-and-italy-1500-1800-by-robert-c-davis.pdf

from first ref "However David Earle, author of The Corsairs of Malta and Barbary and The Pirate Wars, said that Prof Davis may have erred in extrapolating from 1580-1680 because that was the most intense slaving period: "His figures sound a bit dodgy and I think he may be exaggerating."

Dr Earle also cautioned that the picture was clouded by the fact the corsairs also seized non-Christian whites from eastern Europe and black people from west Africa. "I wouldn't hazard a guess about the total."

According to one estimate, 7,000 English people were abducted between 1622-1644, many of them ships' crews and passengers. But the corsairs also landed on unguarded beaches, often at night, to snatch the unwary.

Almost all the inhabitants of the village of Baltimore, in Ireland, were captured in 1631, and there were other raids in Devon and Cornwall.

Reverend Devereux Spratt recorded being captured by "Algerines" while crossing the Irish sea from Cork to England in April 1641 and in 1661 Samuel Pepys wrote about two men, Captain Mootham and Mr Dawes, who were also abducted.

Last year it was announced that one of the richest treasure wrecks found off the coast of Devon was a 16th-century Barbary ship en route to catch English slaves.

Although the black Africans enslaved and shipped to North and South America over four centuries outnumbered Prof Davis's estimates of white European taken to Africa by 12-1, it is probable they shared the same grim conditions. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by YakbutterT (talk • contribs) 21:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is called Arab slave trade

With regard to Arab conquest, this article is not actually about Islam and Slavery although there is a natural overlap. the article is also not titled Muslim Slave trade, as Arabs come in many religions. Now historians use both Arab and Muslim conquest to describe the Arab conquest. I think since the article is discussing Arab slave trade that Arab conquest be used. I am not sure how something could be disrespectful to Jews and Christians when both Jews and Christians were pretty active in the slave trade, before Islam. might be disrespectful to the victims to exclude any of the three. On the issue of motives it is clear from Bernard Lewis that it was an Arab conquest, because not all Muslims were part of it, or profited from it, it was --like all other conquest--for Arab national gain (just like the Greeks and Romans before). It was Arab vs the non-Arab. Lewis--Inayity (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia RS needs a Talk page to establish

Wikipedia RS needs a Talk page to establish what is RS and what is not. An editor just deleted Al-Jazerra saying it failed WP:RS, and not much more. So vague deletion of sourced content went under the weight of one editors sole criteria of what was RS outside of the WP:TALK, they then edit warred and said to Read RS: Here is what RS says. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page., well it was reverted TWICE, so there is doubt. Yet no talk. But the editor is citing Wikipedia rules while ignoring them. Ironic. Discuss reason for why content was deleted or it will be reverted.--Inayity (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

This discussion was going on about Al Jazeera And despite a talk page discussion it was removed. I am looking for it and it is gone. It is better we discuss these things as they relate to WP:NEWSORG. I have replaced it with a specialist in Somali history but feel that another source is needed. What is key to me (at least) is the statement is 100% valid, then why remove it, just get a source.--Inayity (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

A new something (minus one African voice)

Paul Bairoch suggests a figure of 25 million African people subjected to the Arab slave trade, as against 11 million that arrived in the Americas from the transatlantic slave trade.I see again we get the alarmist numbers with the Arabs, and the opposite with the Atlantic slave trade. in all of this not one African is heard. Now Paul is comparing arrivals in the Americas (at their lowest) (As Zuberi noted about Curtin) to Arabs impact at it highest. Every single source is an alarmist number, except one. --Inayity (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

"Curse of Ham" rubbish,

"Curse of Ham" rubbish (yes it is rubbish that belief), what was wrong with the sources given? Why not change the tone as opposed to delete the entire thing if Wikipedia's voice is being used. --Inayity (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Because it is a fringe theory, "rubbish" as we both agree, and warrants removal per WP:UNDUE. ("If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.") This is an antisemitic fringe theory. The ancillary article is Curse of Ham. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I will look at the parent article. But this statement Racial distinction between humankind with reference to the sons of Noah is found in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of rabbinic writings that dates back to the sixth centuryand books like The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism. So I like to avoid the political term antisemitic, and just deal with exactly what is the problem. If it is true, and supported by Reliable Source then Wikipedia is not a censor for any race, religion or ideology no matter how much it stings. So we need to be clear on the rationale for removal. I dont know this specific theme well enough but have read something which suggest Arabs inherited this "curse of ham" thing from the Jews they lived with esp in Islamic Spain.--Inayity (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
That Goldenberg book is not utilized as a reference in the article. That is the kind of source that is needed. There's actually a multitude of problems with this section "Historical and geographical context": a great deal of it is original research, synthesis, and the writing, especially the beginning of the section, is especially problematic. I'm removing the OR from this section. If you disagree, we can bring this to an RfC. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I tried to keep as much as I could. Frankly so much of what remains is original research that probably the entire section should go and should be started from scratch, utilizing the Goldenberg book that you cited and others that make the connections between views of race and slavery, assuming the Goldenberg book does so. I've left a note at the Curse of Ham talk page, as the editors there have already cited Goldenberg's work, and would probably have access to that and other relevant literature. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I somehow suspect Goldenberg does not make that connection, I am guessing he is probably making the reverse connection, that Arabs-- And not Jews, influenced the curse of Ham in Jewish literature. (not the other way around). I am saying this because I vaguely recall reading a Jewish author specifically address this in Islamic Spain. (but dont quote me). The section was a problem, but the influence of Arab attitudes still is valid just need a source that says so, preferably a multitude of sources to offset bias. --Inayity (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Whatever. I have not read Goldenberg's book so I don't know what it says, but the title implies that it makes a connection between the slave trade and other factors. We need sources, not Wikipedia editors, to draw such connection. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

=

Sweeping changes removing content

I revert your changes, and you put them back with a rationale of your own. I see you contacted me on my talk page (that is good). The criteria is NOTABLE. Not so-called scholarly. arabslavetrade is written by an African who is well known for this topic, the opinions there are notable. typos are not a criteria for removing a ref as even BBC has typos and if Myjewishlearning.com is a valid reference then ethnic based sites are also valid. The criteria of wikipedia does not fit your rational which was initially (unscholarly), there is nothing unscholarly about Owen Alik Shahadah, moreover those opinions are very important to balance and diverse representation of this topic (which as it stands is lacking). Now Britianica you said we cannot ref to it. Where is that mentioned (i could be wrong) but it is used acrosss Wikipedia usage]. Here is how many times it is used on Wikipedia. I guess this reference got missed Jewish Encyclopedia. Lastly let me add something, My primary background is in slave related topics, to the point where I would have to say I am an expert on Wikipedia in Racism and Slavery. This is a topic i know, I have read most of these books, and am aware of the topic. And before I came here this article was in good shape, with all these references. Now what you have done is not in the betterment of the article because diverse perspectives are now gone. --Inayity (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Inayity First of all let me say that even a common person can have a lot of info about a topic. That does not make them NOTABLE. Second Arabslavetrade.com does not cite any original research at all. Now about Britannica Encyclopedia, just read the wiki article Encyclopaedia Britannica Online and you'll know it can be edited like a wiki. Not only that most of its content is locked and isn't visible without a purchase. So I don't see how does it even fit to be used as a source. Also I don't see why you say that you an expert like I am supposed to agree with you that whatever you say will be true and your edits are supposed to be better than mine. Please don't display arrogance. You are not an authority over here that everyone is supposed to agree with. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Also remember BBC is a news website actually. Not only that it does not cite any original research at all and most of its content is always copy-paste. And it's not a scholarly source. Sites like that shouldn't be used. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
No, you not suppose to agree with me, but please have the basic respect to know there is a massive difference between ME, a person very familiar with these topics, who edit multiple pages on slavery as an expert with a PhD from Temple University stationed at a University in South Africa. So i know my stuff, w/o blowing my own horn. So when I read Arab slave.com or any source I am 100% confident that the person who won a UNESCO award for work on Slavery has been notable in independent African communities, speaks on Al-Jazerra and BBC on slavery is notable to be included. But that is not where it ends. And You keep saying there are no original sources. What that tells me is you have not really looked at that page. Not only does the site cite all the major historians (Lewis, Shareef, Mazrui, Thronton, Ralph Austen, Segal and Lovejoy, Diop, Felipe de Alencastro , Blacks in Antiquity: Ethiopians in the Greco-Roman Experience , on and on (i am copying and pasting from the cite) it goes through ALL the primary sources dealing with the Arab slave trade,TARIKH AS-SUDAN (translated by Muhammad Shareef 2003),Al-Masudi (died 957),Ya'qubi (9th century),Ibn Battuta,

Al-Maqrizi (died in 1442),Leo Africanus (died circa 1548),Rifa'a el-Tahtawi (1801–1873) (direct copy and paste from a section on historical sources. did I mention he worked on a translation of Tariq Ul Sudan with Muhammad Shareef? Certainly not the "common man" but what is important to me is diverse representations of critical information which make this article BETTER. Let me take a few notable scholarly statement and show you what I mean. Shahadah brings some fresh and critical incites 1. trade trickled with a 19th century peak (no scholar would disagree but he gives it the fullest treatment). 2. The relationship between Slavery in Africa, Slavery in the Atlantic AND the Arab slave trade (profound treatment). 3. The issue of Islam and slavery-- very authentic treatment and he cites Bernard Lewis and many others. 4. the great issue of numbers where he states No one knows how many, and he goes into Why. i.e. Paucity of sources (which he list). 5. Direct interviews embedded with people like the late great Ali Mazrui no place anywhere offers us that. This is a perspective from an African Muslim which adds balance. See my comments about the numbers below. And I forgot this one last point read Arab-African Ties: Severing History and see which author and article is interviewed for a Major Arab publication Al-Akhbar--Inayity (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me Inayity, but I wonder why on your talk page, you made this statement "No use the Harvard and Jewish Encyclopedia". It seems to that by using the word "Jewish Encyclopedia" you are deliberately trying to mock my Jewish heritage. Did I ever say you cannot "use sources by African authors". I only said that you should simply not add a source just because you think "African voices" should be there too. Neot only that it is completely unecessary and not needed, it is also a sign of biased editing. Not only that I am starting to think you are trying to hijack this article and trying to impose your opinion. While you claim to be "expereinced" you may not know that the lead section of an article is a summary and doesn't require any sources if that information is already mentioned in the rest of the article. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Now you have just violated WP:AGF, good day to you.--Inayity (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

ArabSlaveTrade.com is both valid and neutral. Omo Obatalá (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: No editor is mocking your "Jewish" heritage. An argument could be made that you, claiming to be Jewish, using Jewish Encyclopedia as a source is bias; so please assume good faith in the future and it would be appreciated if you wouldn't make obvious racially charged discriminatory remarks. Omo Obatalá (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Omo Obatalá: So you mean to say because I am a Jew I will be biased in favour of Jewish Encyclopedia. Mr Obo this is clearly a personal opinion on your part which by the way isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Also the thing to note is that I never used Jewish Encyclopedia as a source. I don't support using Jewish Encyclopedia just as I don't support using Britannia Encyclopedia. Your argument that since I am Jewish I would use Jewish Encyclopedia is complete foolishness and crap. You can be reported for such comments. I think it is you who is being biased here. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
@KahnJohn27: I am saying that Wikipedia has a strict policy regarding WP:NPOV and does not tolerate WP:COI. Any additional comments unrelated to the article belongs on a user talk page, not an article talk page. Omo Obatalá (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Blind Tag bombing entire article Does not help

I have just seen how many tags just added to this article? No discussion is ongoing which identified all of these issues with this article. Just because one section has a problem, then you tag that, and discuss that. If there is no rationale for the tag on the entire article, then it does not belong per WP:TAGGING totally unconstructive in helping the issues under discussion. See see WP:OVERTAGGING. No tag can be placed on an entire article without a detailed rationale of why it is deserving. If OR, then please show us. If Synth, discuss. Just picking every tag known to Wikipedia and dropping it on an article will not do. And you have already removed the contentious material. --Inayity (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the problems with the article, both in the text that removed and remain, are quite self-evident. We have entire blocks of text, even after pruning, that lack sourcing of any kind, or are sourced to a primary source. But I'll go through and see if I went overboard. My problem is that we really have no sources that draw the connection between the "background" and the slave trade. We need that. We don't need Wikipedia editors making that connection. But, again, I will review the tagging. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Layout and weight

There is no hard and fast rule for how this kind of article should be organized, but I think that a chronological approach is best, such as in Slavery in the Spanish New World colonies. Instead the article is written backwards, beginning with how this is a new discipline, and then working its way in arbitrary fashion through the subject matter in a manner that is POV. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It is always good to have fresh eyes, but the article in my opinion as someone familiar with the topic is relatively pretty good. Order is sometimes a problem, not just for wikipedia but for many books. Discussing the scope is important because unlike Atlantic Trade this one has most of its history unknown to us. The section on Arab perception of Africans after your comments did seem to be tangent from an encyclopedic POV. With that gone I think the main issues are gone.--Inayity (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

About www.arabslavetrade.com

I think this source violates WP:POV policy, the author seems to have religious and political bias, and is not written in an academic way. Rupert loup (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Removed. Self-published source. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Arab slave trade is discussed above. If Rupert Loup is deleting it because of Bias then it is an invalid argument as no such bias is proven or claimed by the feeling of an editor. What religious and political bias is that. The citations used in show no bias. And if African Muslims are excluded from discussing slavery in Africa then we are confirming the systematic racism that only allows religious groups such as ADL, authors such as Segal and Bernard Lewis, yet these sources are not considered biased. Wikipedia has no criteria that ONLY ACADEMIC articles are to be included (if that was even true), am Jared Diamond and Bart Ehrman and most of Chomsky are not written in Academic voice? They are first person "I used to stay in Papua New Guinea.." nor does wikipedia discuss BIAS, the article have to be NPOV. But what source is NPOV? Bernard Lewis, Segal, and all the other White only authors who are mainly Christian or Jewish? none of them. If the issue is "academic way" that is due to what criteria on wikipedia? What does that mean? Arab slave trade is not a self-published source, how did you arrive at that? because it is black? it means self-published? I think this is the real issue. The author is an established writer on Arab slave trade as confirmed by Al-Jazerra and Al-Akbar. The only Black Pov on this entire page.
SELF PUBLISHED: WP:USESPS - AHS has articles by many leading African academics including people like Hakim Adi, --Invalid argument! It is obviously not a BLOG
WP:POV How is that? Because it is Black and not White? because according to WP:BALANCE that is how you establish WP:POV but the editor is talking about Religious agenda, but has a different criteria for everyone else. I find this very shocking. Bernard Lewis is used here who is a know Zionist and as Edward Said said an Orientalist, with an agenda. Yet he is NPOV? How is that.?--Inayity (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:EL and the criteria here are you using that when you deleted it as an EL? What I am showing in the above arguments is editors who simply have a WP:IDONTLIKE and will pick policy at random to take out Black Muslims independent sources. And if you read the To-Do list we supposed to add MORE diversity from different cultural and political perspectives not keep it lillyWhite and Western.
So How can a veteran editor call something WP:SELFPUBLISHED? That is such an easy thing to check. It is like calling Human rights watch Self-published. But when I checked I knew I recognized the general personality mind made up and warring against Policy]--Inayity (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
You should keep your ad hominems in check and not assume anything, because you don't know me. At first glance that website is self-published, and as such it is not a reliable source. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
You were using that website as a source, and the content was rendered in Wikipedia's voice, and not attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Self published sources can be used, if written by experts in the field, but you have to attribute the opinion and not declare their opinions as fact. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Non Academic?

Due to the nature of the Arab slave trade, it is impossible to precisely estimate actual numbers of slaves traded. How is this statement Non-Academic, Violation of NPOV and Self-published? Not one single citation used here is in dispute . Again see previous TALK PAGE. So why is it cited in citation Is it not a resource Also? with videos and interviews, U c I already know from previous encounters when someone has a deeper issue they will pull anything out of their hat to say what they want. If Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabia are saying this is the expert piece, and even Google search confirms it. What is the real issue? I just read the first two pages I am struggling to see the issue. As an African Muslim also, I think I would like to see such experts and their opinion included in teh slave trade that affects Black people. Who is Bernard Lewis and White Americans to be the solo voice on such a controversial topic? So go ahead and DELETE IT! --Inayity (talk) 06:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you please lower your tone, and relax a bit? See WP:OWN. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
See also WP:NOTADVOCATE - Cwobeel (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Also please don't shout, shouting doesn't make your statements true and it's annoying. The author seems to have anti-christian, anti-judaism and anti-western bias. I have no problem with him having that view and that he want to express it. But he mix history with his views, and made statements as a fact with no reliable sources making the article questionable, others expressed concern about this before and, how I see it, is that there is no consensus about the web's reliability. It shouldn't be use in Wikipedia, there are other africans authors with better acknowledgement (by reliable african and international institutions) that addressed the issue and published books and reports about this. Rupert loup (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
This has been litigated already in 2012. This website is not a reliable source for anything but their own views. You can start an article about that website if there are reliable sources that discusses the website and its views. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Also note that I don't have an opinion on the subject of this article, one way or another. Just that the website is ultimately not a WP:RS, and should not be used. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_189#arabslavetrade.com. Please do not restore content sourced to that site until we have a determination about suitability of that source.- Cwobeel (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion thread is now at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Owen 'Alik Shahadah, please comment there so we can get a final consensus. Rupert Loup (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world/Archive_2&oldid=1166560969"