Talk:Corpus Coranicum

Quranic manuscript page
This is NO "Quranic manuscript page", it is not a part of Quanic codex, but a calligraphy leave with Quranic text. Please use a picture from a page of a (fragemtary) codex. 94.222.7.212 (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Revert

 * Qur'an Gateway provides a commercial database of textual variants of the Quran - How is this line even relevant except promotion of a website? Why are we sourcing the line to the website itself? There are multiple institutes working upon digitizing Quran folios etc. - what is so special about this website? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed the entire paragraph, as it was totally unrelated to the topic. Veverve (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks..... TrangaBellam (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Since Charfi's is apparently the first critical historical edition of Quran, it is a tremendous feat — where are the reviews? I expect to see at-least a dozen in peer-reviewed academic literature; sadly, even one is too much of an ask. It has been three years since publication — how many scholars cited the work? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion on Charfi is not relevant to the topic of the article anyway. Veverve (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Restructure and update
Hello everyone, As I’ve recently done with the German page, I want to generally update and expand on the project’s description and its achievements over the past few years, seeing that it’s been a while since there were any bigger changes on this site. Please have a look at the corresponding German page and discussion if you’re interested. I’d like to keep most of what’s already in the article but give it a few new categories, change some things around, and add some specifics regarding the methods used in the project’s research as well as recent developments.

I propose following changes:
 * Introduction: slightly misleading as the project is an online publication which encompasses four main research areas, none of which is a standard critical edition (although that’s a by-product if you will). instead: Name the research areas
 * errors: it is led by two researchers, funded until 2024
 * Goals and methodology: I would like to keep most sentences but split them in different categories, arranged by research area that fall in line with the databases of the project. Rename the overall section “Research units and methodology”
 * minor correction+rearrange: Although Bergsträsser’s photographs are an important part of the project’s source material, its complete collection has significantly grown and now consists of far more than these
 * new section after research units: “Project history”
 * add also: general remarks on previous research in Western Quranic studies
 * new subcategories: “Research aids” and “Publication”. Both categories should properly highlight the fact that this project does not only produce printed publications (even though it does, which should be reflected in a bibliography), but its main focus is its website which is published as open access
 * “Student Humanities Laboratory” this section should be deleted or moved to another article. Though Yvonne Pauly works at BBAW, she has never held a position within Corpus Coranicum but instead in the “Schülerlabor Geisteswissenschaften” (transl. “Student Humanities Laboratory”) which is a distinct project. At most this section could be moved into a new category maybe titled “Cooperations” but then it shouldn’t stand completely alone as the project has many different cooperations with institutions all over the world
 * new section: “Luxenberg Debate” I’d like to add a few sentences on the project’s handling of the Luxenberg theses (full controversy can obviously be seen on the site)
 * instead of “Controversy” I suggest “Schirrmacher-Controversy” seeing as the paragraphs mostly refer to his newspaper article. The last paragraph could be separated and expanded to more accurately reflect on the role of Corpus Coranicum as a ‘project for Westerners’

As I am a non-native English speaker I cooperated with a native speaker whilst preparing the additions. Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. Bertitus (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * As to the recent changes after my big edits: I have begun to implement solutions for the criticism, esp. the 'unsourced' tags. In some cases I will continue to do so and also add explanations for what I'm doing and why I am chosing to do so. Please do not hestitate to correct me in the process.
 * The only bigger issue with the current version is, I think, the section now called "Cultural Understanding". This is a misleading heading because it implies that the Corpus Coranicum project tries to fester understanding between now existing cultures. The actual - and sourcable - goal is to understand the cultural surrounding of Muhammad and his followers in the 7th century. To this aim, texts from roughly the same time period and geographical locations as Muhammad's community are analysed. The heading I picked, "Texts from the World of the Quran", was not an arbitrary choice but is the name of the database given by the project itself. As the other headings in this section are also the names of the respective databases, I think the name "Texts from the World of the Quran" should stay. Bertitus (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The heading I picked, "Texts from the World of the Quran", was not an arbitrary choice but is the name of the database given by the project itself. As the other headings in this section are also the names of the respective databases, I think the name "Texts from the World of the Quran" should stay.
 * But those titles are nonsensical and unclear on the WP article. Veverve (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Nonetheless "Cultural Understanding" is misleading in my opinion. What do you think about "Historical context"? That way, the paragraph could cite the name of the database as a given name not in the heading but in the first or second sentence. The rest of the paragraph could stay more or less the same as it explains the concept quite well, I think. Bertitus (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)