Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic place names in America

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic place names in America

Islamic place names in America (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete. Quite apart from the obvious unencyclopaedic purpose of this article- to promote what can only be an extreme minority viewpoint even among Muslim communities, namely that Islam had a presence in the Americas pre-Columbus- this article is misconceived as well as misinformed. Islam is a religion not a language, and it is no more sensible to claim that placenames are etymologically "Islamic" than it would be to claim they are Christian, Jewish, Taoist, Animist or whatever. The cited "source" drawn upon for the article hardly seems to be (and is not represented as) a credible one for this 'research', and as such the contents are indicative of OR. cjllw | TALK 09:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - as per reasons given.Maunus 11:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the source claims there were mosques and Islamic schools in America pre-Columbus. A highly improbable and definitely non-notable view.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I note that he establishes source and argues rationally. Are you accusing the initial author/editor of bad faith ? -- Simon Cursitor 15:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

He does not argue, and certainly not rationally, he presents clearly controversial research by one fringe researcher as uncontradicted fact. He doesn't establish that the placenames are either "islamic" or even that they are precolumbian (there is a town called Hell does that prove diabolical presence in preocolumbian ameria?) And he doesn't cite any complementary sources or accepted etymologies. If not exactly bad faith (which I might be inclined to think) the page is definitely pushing a bizarre and non-notable POV in a non encyclopedic manner.Maunus 15:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the one source doesn't check out at all. it's a totally different article. I also might like to remind you of WP:AAGF, assume the assumption of good faith. If we're going a theory this wild, then it needs to prove itself notable by several sources. As of now, it has 0. Patstuart^talk|edits 15:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. MER-C 13:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete soapboxing. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, non notable view voldemortuet 16:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OR Dragomiloff 18:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete really bizarre soapboxing GabrielF 01:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete weird - unless we can provide the names of each of the aliens at Area 51 (is this comment uncivil?) Patstuart^talk|edits 14:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, clearly a fringe view held by a few individuals. Abstrakt 18:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NeoJustin 22:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Wait a minute! Hey, guys wait a minute! First of all, WP:NPOV states:

by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority

Also

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article

Considering that we have Flat Earth, this clearly shows that this article could very well exist. As for NPOV and other editoria issues as "presenting theories as facts" and such, those are not grounds for afd, its only grounds for editing. Regarding sources, the given article indeed is about this topic. I also missed it, but if you scroll down a bit to the First Immigrants of the New World section, you will see it. Also, in that article they make claims of notability for those holding that view. A small example:

Barry Fell (1917 - 1994), British-born and distinguished Harvard professor of marine biology, wrote "Saga America" one year after his retirement in 1980, which proves the existence of Muslims in America.

Also:

Salih Yucel began to search for the traces of lost Islam in the United States just after his appointment to Redfern Mosque in Sydney, Australia, as a religious official, 14 years after his graduation from Ankara University‘s Faculty of Theology.

So the article is clearly sourced and makes claims of notability. So far, the above disscussion (this is not a vote) has been regarding this being a minority view and having NPOV issues, and i have referred to policy and precedence to prove that those are not grounds for deleting. And i have showed that the article is indeed sourced, makes claims of minority scholarship and is not a hoax. What arguments for deleting remain? --Striver 17:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither Fell nor Yucel are reliable sources (Feel was a marine biologist dabbling in the esoteric, Yucel is a moslem religious specialist, neither are hisorians nor are their theories even discussed by historians, this does indeed constitute a very small minority view - probably more people believe the earth is flat). None of the claims of references are verifiable the way they are quoted, and if they were verifiable it would only be in nonreliable sources. You haven't really shown anything with your lawyerism. Maunus 23:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

lawyerism? Is that an insult? They are not RS? Is that relevant? Are you arguing that the guys that view the earth to be flat are RS? C'mon. Or are you maybe arguing that they do not exist? "probably more people believe the earth is flat". Is that your view? Any support of it? I have a hard time believing that. --Striver 01:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• My only problem is that I don't see any case for this being a notable minority POV. IMHO, it looks more like the discertation that some Harvard professor believed, and decided to put on Wikipedia. Can you find sources that talk about how this movement has a following? If so, please do add them to the article, and clean the thing up so it doesn't look like it's being presented as factual, but rather, a small group of people hold the belief. -Patstuart^talk|edits 02:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?t=19225
• http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/sequoyah1.htm
• http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/mamerica.html
• http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/africanm.htm
• http://muslimwikipedia.com/mw/index.php/Native_Americans_and_Islam

That should be enough to establish a tiny minority. Now, could you please provide me with one (1) Harvard scholar that views the earth to be flat?--Striver 04:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Listcruft. Wikipedia ain't for stuff made up in school one day. — Rickyrab | Talk 21:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh... sorry? How is that relevant to the works of a Harvard professor?--Striver 23:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless the Harvard professor has a notable following, we can't include every work that a Harvard professor has done, especially without noting that it's a fringe work. Once this place names thing becomes a notable movement, with many followers, then include it. Otherwise, it's just a few people. I should have phrased correctly above, BTW; tiny minority probably isn't enough. Please show that there is a decent belief for this, and I'll change my "vote". -Patstuart^talk|edits 06:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, which Harvard Professor? Barry Fell? Despite what the messageboard linked to proclaims, he has nothing whatsover to do with the contents of this list, nor anything really to do with 'establishing' pre-Columbian Islamic presence in the Americas. That source is quite evidently bandying his name about in a misguided attempt to associate some academic credentials behind all this. While Prof. Fell did indeed make a number of claims to have identified petroglyphs in the Americas as having non-American origins, such as in North African and (mainly) Celtic (Ogham) scripts, his ideas in this regard are assessed by the academic community as being outlandish, eccentric and are not seriously contemplated. He did not AFAIK ever claim or set out to claim Islamic presence, though.

Instead, the sole source behind this "research" seems to be a rather obscure figure associated with a mosque in inner Sydney, Australia, with absolutely no demonstration of any credentials, of any kind, whatsoever. This source is reportedly (and reportedly since we've only the word of the original messageboard poster to go by) claiming that not only are these localities in some sense "Islamic" -and per my nominating comments this makes no linguistic sense- ,but also that these localities had these names already, ie before European settlement came along, and thus the "proof" that there was Islamic presence pre-Columbus.

So we are being asked to believe that, for example, Medina, Washington is so named because that is what it was called long before European settlers ever got there. However, even cursory research will show that in this case the township was only established in the late 19th C., and the town's historical society gives a rather different account has to how its name came about- to quote: "A community meeting was held and three women were appointed to select a name for the community. Mrs. Flora Beloti’s choice was the name selected. She had decided on the name “Medeena”, after a popular Arabian city." (and this was in 1891, not 1291).

Clearly, it and presumably the other Medinas in the US were named after the original in Saudi Arabia, but not by any Muslims who were there pre-1492.--cjllw | TALK 07:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes Barry Fell conducted a very large study of west african and north african muslims linguistic roots in the Americas before Columbus. This is detailed in his book Saga America

"Dr. Barry Fell (Harvard University) introduced in his book Saga America - 1980 solid scientific evidence supporting the arrival, centuries before Columbus, of Muslims from North and West Africa. Dr. Fell discovered the existence of Muslim schools at Valley of Fire, Allan Springs, Logomarsino, Keyhole Canyon, Washoe and Hickison Summit Pass (Nevada), Mesa Verde (Colorado), Mimbres Valley (New Mexico) and Tipper Canoe (Indiana) dating back to 700-800 CE. Engraved on rocks in the old western US, he found texts, diagrams and charts representing the last surviving fragments of what was once a system of schools - at both an elementary and higher levels. The language of instruction was North African Arabic written with old Kufic Arabic script. The subjects of instruction included writing, reading, arithmetic, religion, history, geography, mathematics, astronomy and sea navigation. The descendants of the Muslim visitors of North America are members of the present Iroquois, Algonquin, Anasazi, Hohokam and Olmec native people. " And it was this Harvard research that formed the backdrop to further work of the rather obscure figure as you put its work 62.129.121.63 13:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... you are arguing regarding the truth factor of the groups theory, and that is actually irrelevant to this article. However, if what you say regarding notability is true, then i am less inclined to champion it's inclusion.--Striver 11:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The Academic discourse on pre columbian prescence of muslims in America is quite established . It is a shame that so many wikipedians are unaware of this recent acedmic historical research. Here are some books that cover the research in some depth

• Amir Nashid Ali Muhammad Muslims in America - Seven Centuries of History ISBN 0-915957-75-2
• Muslims in American History - A forgotten legacy Jerald F Dirks ISBN 1-59008-044-0
• Deeper Roots Dr. Abdul Hakim Quick
• Sylvian diouf "slaves of Allah"

What Wikipedians need to appreciate is that this acedemic research is relatively new spanning just 50 years. I have yet to see a barrage of reliable acedemic source that refutes these new findings, as these discourses are becoming increasingly acceptable amonst reputable Historians. 62.129.121.63 12:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. If this was a simple List of Islamic place names in America, without the WP:OR, I wouldn't have an objection. --Dual Freq 12:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep given the highlighted precidence of wikipedia minority viewpoints, given the clear wiki policy, given the irrefutable proof of the existance of a minority acedemic viewpoint from reputable harvard scholars, and writers on the existance of Muslims in the USA pre Columbus. And given that this particular list (as part of a whole series of articles) is built upon Harvard acedemics studies there is no other choice but to keep the article.

It is unfortunate that many of the editors on wikipedia are unaware of this important and recent acedemic study of the history of Muslims in America pre Columbus 62.129.121.63 14:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment given the above list of academic books, i stand by my keep. Howerver, the article needs to be sourced and to state that it a new and minority held view.--Striver 15:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Article is flawed with soapboxing. Per the Handbook of Texas, the origin of the name Medina in Texas comes from Spanish background [1] for the river (Pedro Medina), with the county getting its name from the river [2], and Medina, Texas in this same region [3]. This is probably not the only error of this article. Therefore, Delete. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 21:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I read the article it is fails WP:RS, [[WP:N] and WP:NOR. It is a fringe theory that needs to mentioned somwhere else as a mere line item in an article about place names in the USA but does not deserve an article.RaveenS 23:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Just awful... - crz crztalk 23:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The following professors also support the evidence of pre african (islamic) presence in America pre Columbus
• Harvard Professor Leo Wiener
• Ivan Van Sertima
• Cheikh Anta Diop
• Michael Bradley

These scholars contend that long before the arrival of the Spanish, Africans were already trading with, warring with, and inter-mixing with the native peoples of the Western Hemisphere [4] 81.178.99.202 23:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Mormon Muslims? Actually, learn to read. That is exactly what the article does not say. It says "from 1502 to 1900." — coelacan talk — 23:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment / replies:
  • - 62.129.121.63: on the contrary, it is your comments which give the appearance of unfamiliarity with the current standing of pre-Columbian historical research. To say "...these discourses are becoming increasingly acceptable amonst reputable Historians" is demonstrably false, at best misleading. Any readings done outside of the same material you have quoted (which is spammed and duplicated across a number of afrocentrist and other miscellaneous messageboards) -say, any peer-reviewed academic journal, Archaeology, Science, etc- would show that these ideas have no acceptance by mainstream historians.
  • - Striver,81.178.99.202- while some of these sources may indeed have held or still hold positions in academia -Fell, van Sertima, Wiener- to generally describe what they have written on these subjects as "reputable/academic works or studies" would be misleading. Their publications cited have not undergone any peer-reviewed academic process (which is what "academic publication" means), but instead are popularly published and are no more deserving of an 'academic' label than other well-known fringe/pseudoscientific writers like Erich von Daniken and Zecharia Sitchin.--cjllw | TALK 02:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Then call them "kooko theories" or whatever, i don't care what you call them. And rewrite to that effect. But this article meets the inclusion terms given by the Flat Earth Society. Being a mainstream science is demonstrably not a inclusion threshold. --Striver 04:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, According to user:striver and user:62.129.121.63 above explaination. Mak82hyd 02:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep -- it is clear that this is a researched theory, rather than an ephemeral hoax; also Keep because most of the delete arguments are based on either exclusionism, or resistance to the challenge this article represents to "mainstream" Fundamentalist Christian WASP so-called scholarship -- SockpuppetSamuelson
• further comment and clarification: if it is not already clear, it should be noted that the likes of Fell, van Sertima, Diop, Wiener, et al are not the direct or indirect sources for the claims made in this particular article- namely, that a number of "Islamic-sounding" placenames in the Americas have those names because they were called that by some supposed Islamic presence pre-Columbus. While these folks have indeed published works which postulate pre-Columbian African or Islamic presence, they are only mentioned by the messageboard site this material is taken from as being sources which are supportive of the general concept, and not the specific claim. There is no demonstration that any of these "academics" have made the connection on these placenames in their works. At all. The only attributed source for the claim on which this article is based -that all the Medina etc placenames in US are "Islamic"- is the Redfern mosque attendee Salih Yucel, and furthermore we only have the messageboard poster's word for it. Frankly, this is a very poor demonstration of any notable, "researched theory", and on the face of it is barely distinguishable from a hoax. "Fundamentalist Christian WASP so-called scholarship" has absolutely nothing to do with this either.--cjllw | TALK 09:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete some fringe theories are notable. This one is not per lack of reliable sources describing it. Eluchil404 10:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• reply to CJLL Firstly lets not denegrate Yucel as the Redfern Mosque Attendee, as he was a Doctorate student At Harvard and one of his professors was Harvard Professor Fell. His research referenced and detailed these half a dozen harvard and other notable academics works on the subjects. As yet You have failed to produce ANY evidence that the Acedemic circles reject these theories or that it is widespread, or that the research did not undergo Peer review. Yet the arguments for the inclusion of this article have consistantly give sound references of the Harvard historians support of this field of study.

p.s If you read the article that was referenced it says

However this all acedemic as it is abundantly clear that this is a acedemic viewpoint that is backed up by half a dozen Harvard Professors as well as other Acedemics, and is contained in several Acedemic Books (which have been listed). And since the precedence and policy of Wikipedia is NOT to exlude minority positions your arguments are moot 62.129.121.63 11:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It is most certainly not clear. It is not our task to prove that the viewpoints haven't undergone peer reiew. It is the task of the article creator to refer to reliable sources something which he fails to do. Even if fivehundred harvard proffessos think the theory is sound it is of no importance untill one of them publishes a book about it or an artcile in a peerreviewed journal. The article links to a message board not to any artciles or books. Also being an academic doesn't mean that thei viewpoint hold any leverage at all - the are biologists and theologists not historians. Their statements about history or linguistics hold about as much value as bold claims I might make about quantum physics. Maunus 11:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I still await the peer-reviewed book from the Flat Earth Society.--Striver 11:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I could accept List of Arabic place names in the United States. As for the theory about pre-Columbian Islamic influence, it could be covered in the Barry Fell article, or in a stand-alone article that reports on the theory without adopting it. JamesMLane t c 17:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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