The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was The result was revert move. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Arab slave trade → Islamic slave trade (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: /delete ] 

A redirect has been done without any discussion. I dont even think I have to waste time explaining the issue here. Arab is an ethnic group, Islam is a religion. Arabs come in many religions. Arab slave trade predates Islam. Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user who has made serveral redirects of this nature has now been blocked. I think the wiki policy is the problem, A new user can redirect entire content without any admin, or peer support. And now we need to put all this energy into undoing this unilaterial move by a known POV ethno-supremacist with issues with Muslims. See User_talk:Tamsier--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. The trade in question predates Islam & was practiced by pagans, Christians, Jews and Muslims alike. Even if Arabs had been entirely Muslim, they would still represent only a small fraction of Muslims. Middayexpress (talk) 09:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Move the article named Islamic slave trade back to Arab slave trade. This article was named Arab slave trade, until it was moved without discussion by User:Tamsier on 25 September at 06:09 (UTC). The article is actually about the Arab slave trade.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy move the article named 'Islamic slave trade' back to 'Arab slave trade'. Original page move failed WP:POINT. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy move article back to Arab slave trade - Maybe Islamic slave trade is the correct name (although I doubt it) but this should definitely be discussed first and the article should be rewritten. Right now, it is an article about the Arab slave trade. Whether Islamic slave trade should stay as a redirect, I don't have a strong opinion. —mako๛ 19:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a well developed article on Islamic views on Slavery, which matches Christian Views on Slavery.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that once the article has been moved back to Arab slave trade, Islamic slave trade should be a redirect to Islamic views on slavery.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert move, as above-This clearly was a bad move, by a now blocked user.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment-I've gone ahead and listed this move at WP:RM#Current requests.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who moved it still has it as Islamic slave trade despite the file name being Arab slave trade. Doesn't make sense.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be good now. Page just had to be purged.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.