Talk:Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Islamic or Arab?
Should this article use "Islamic" or "Arab" as a qualifier? As far as I know, "Arab" refers to an ethnicity, and does not encompass Muslim culture as a whole (northern Africa is not "Arab", neither is Iran, nor Turkey). On the contrary "Islamic" refers to the Muslim realm as a whole. I think "Islamic civilization" is an expression which is extensively used. Does anybody have comments? PHG (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Arab would be too narrow, since there were plenty of Persians, Turks, and Africans involved. But isn't this covered in other articles already? Islamic science? Islamic Golden Age? Etc... Adam Bishop (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- "Islamic" is the most commonly used term to refer to the medieval Arabic/Persian/Turkish/Moorish civilization in academic literature. Since the consensus among everyone who has commented here agrees with the term "Islamic" being used rather than "Arab", I think I'll go ahead and remove the NPOV tag. Jagged 85 (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Systemic bias
Hello. There is reason to assume that user Jagged 85 does not actually reads what he writes and cites, but rather relies on a method of creating articles by copy and paste tidbits from all over WP and elsewhere. This combined with his consistent one-sidedness creates controversial contents. His Islamic Golden Age has also been critically regarded by other users. Before posting the same things twice, I would like to point at Islamic Golden Age#discussion for further discussion.
I have to stress that the problem of Jagged 85's articles cannot be fixed by punctual improvements. It is created by his C&P method, with which he creates more rapidly controversial contents which knowledgeable users can counter-check with the claimed sources. So please do not remove the neutrality tag. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, I am not the creator of this article, but did contribute to more than half of the article. I do of course use copy-and-paste quite often, but I only copy information from other articles which have been reliably-sourced and not under dispute. It would be more helpful if you could be more specific about what looks unreliable in the article (rather than commenting on the editor). I know you don't trust me, but that alone is not a good enough reason to condemn the article. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- And for your information, I do read the sources I cite. Most of the information I copy-and-paste between different articles are information which I myself added to Wikipedia in the first place. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dispute
Are there still outstanding issues with this article? Or can we remove the tags? If anyone has concerns, could you please provide details? Thanks, Elonka 07:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- There are still problems. One is the loose use of 'Islam' where 'Islamic civilization' would be better (e.g., in "Islam was not just a retransmitter" -- I hope I've cited that correctly; clear contradiction, such as "in Islamic Spain, particularly in Toledo (with Gerard of Cremone, 1114-1187, following the conquest of the city by the Spanish Christians in 1085)" -- since it had been conquered and assimilated into Castile, it was no longer "Islamic" Spain (which, in any case, is better referred to as Al-Andalus). Just two examples from a skim read. One of the authors cited (Hunayn ibn Ishaq) was a Christian -- and one of the most important of all translators into Arabic. From that point of view, 'Arabic civilization' may have something going for it, since it does not demean the efforts of Jews and Christians within a society dominated by Muslims.Hostiensis (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)