Talk:Relationship between the Quran and science/Archive 2

@Nafsadh, @Tauhidaerospace
First of all i don't quite see consensus but rather long list of complaints regarding the page. Second there cannot be a consensus to violate WP policies or skip writing a proper encyclopedic article. Almost none of the sources used in the now readded content is acceptable for WP standard (in particular not for contested content). I'm not going delete them again for now to avoid edit warring and I'll ask for a 3rd party expert/2nd opinions to review article. However personally I see right now no way how those sources can be kept, so I recommd you in the meantime to read WP policies carefully and thoroughly, in particular WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:Fringe.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

@Tauhidaerospace: The idea was not to post the deleted content on the talk page and readd it afterwards, but to get a consent here first which content and sources might be acceptable and possible readd after that.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, let people talk about the content before you delete. Double reverted blanking means there is no consensus to remove. Although each and every line of this article needs to be rewritten, we shall do it by progressive edit for improvement.
 * Science found in Qur'an - it is all about POV, so no need to discuss NPOV, if we gonna improve this article, all we have to is add the POVs. Coz it is a article which describes POVs about Scientific Qur'an. There is no possibility of WP:3O as 3 editors have already acted on it.
 * This article shall not have a High importance in Wiki-project Islam. It is not about Aqidah or shariah, and a Muslim might not give high importance to this article, nor other people.
 * Many are claiming that Qur'an have scientific notions and none can deny that, people are claiming so.
 * All I request is to avoid hurrying. -- nafSadh says so 19:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What "people are claiming" is irrelevant in WP unless they are notable and sourced claims, so far much of the article's content fails that and hence is likely tp be deleted after review. If you want to change that produce proper sources, that is publications by notable academic experts (ideally published in a peer reviewed journal or at least some reputable academic publisher).--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to make it absolutely clear that I disagree with the reverts by Tauhidaerospace      and Nafsadh. The claims of consensus (explicitly from me in one case) are false; both editors should be aware that there is no such consensus. I will be optimistic and say only that these two editors have made mistakes, which they should not repeat.

My position, as I put it in my reply to DW on my talk page, is ''I am fairly happy with the "expansion of the universe" bit, in the sense that I don't regard it as misleading (but even there, there are problems of course: it is basically OR. But in that it illuminates the way the source can be read differently, I think it is actually useful). The "black holes" stuff is complete junk, though'' and I would add, so is the continental drift bit. My own personal opinion is that I have no great problem with WP:OR as long as it is basically true, and not misleading. I would say that the expansion-of-the-universe stuff is like that. But it is also true that if anyone cares to remove it, citing our OR policy, then there can be no real objection to that, since it really is OR.

Also: First of all, let people talk about the content before you delete: no: this is completely wrong. New material that is contentious, particularly where there are strong grounds for believing that it violates policy, should be removed. N is no newbie, and should be fully ware of this William M. Connolley (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit summaries, ref to Dr. Connolley, blanking by previously banned blocked user - all lead me to a act to revert and wait for a talk.
 * This page is very new, some (or most) materials are not properly sourced. From top to down, this article needs proper rewrite.
 * This article is all about POV, no non-Muslim need to agree with these claims. But these are popular claims amongst Muslims. So we must open this article telling that all context presented here are mostly Muslim POVs and claims only. Again, as it is new article we can allow some time to provided more reliable sources. Some cited sources are regarded reliable to Muslims. So just blanking them is not acceptable to some contribuotors. It is quite evident that, Qur'anic texts can be translated to some scientific findings; but most of these relations are only made by Islamic scholars and Islamic evangelists.
 * I have editorial POVs and belief POVs, they do not always coincide.
 * I reverted on ground of edit summaries, ref to Dr. Connolley. ref to WMC is not quite truthful. So, WMC might remove contents about which he has strong objection. But I'm afraid his recent edits on Islam related articles arose much controversies. -- nafSadh says so 21:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In cases of dispute it helps to consult the discussion page of the article rather than the version history only. The discussion page clearly shows a whole nunch of issues and no consent whatsoever regarding the disputed content with insufficient sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk was not so clear whatsoever & I assumed good faith on T's summery. And my intention of revert blank was to avoid hurry and talk. See! I did not add any material, but reverted huge blanking of text. Sometimes I feel it necessary to keep disputed material while we discuss on it. Do not take nothing personally plz. -- nafSadh says so 22:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious that the material added by Tauhidaerospace is OR and non-reliable so how can people justify reverting it in? Or are they disputing whether it violates policy? The editors arguing to keep the material need to show how it satisfies our policies. nafSadh's claim that there was a consensus to add the material is clearly nonsense. The reasons he/she gives to "act to revert and wait for a talk" didn't seem to have been based on policies, whereas the edit they reverted did (RS, NOR). Incidentally, what does "blanking by previously banned user" mean? These terms have specific meanings and I'm not sure they were used properly here. What's happening here is that poor quality stuff is being added, it gets removed, and then people are reverting it back in and posting walls of text irrelevant to our policies, never bothering to address the issues. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Connor has his point, but this revert is already been resolved.
 * I assumed good faith on T's summery as T is an active contributor, T noted that, the removing editor was blocked from edit for a while, so I could not keep faith on the removing editor. Again, when WMC & Adamrce agreed upon something, it seems like disputes been resolved. I think last version by WMC can reasonably be kept and additive contributions can proceed.
 * “I think we need not talk no more about the gross reversion done by me, inspired by much enthusiastic T, coz it may become much bitter if not already had been.” -- nafSadh says so 06:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You should stop making excuses for your poor behaviour. You are responsible for material you re-add William M. Connolley (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But repeated question on same old re-add, about which I already admitted, forces me to ans the same thing. I apologize again for that re-add and ask not to bring this too forward. I hope none of you have personal vendetta on me!
 * This discussion is already very awkward, and I'm about to stop making any further comment on this section. -- nafSadh says so 07:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I see I managed to accidentally restore the expansion of space section. Oh well, never mind, it might be an acceptable compromise William M. Connolley (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

POV article in thi page explains about its deletion. It has been a recurrent issue so pointing nose at each other wont solve the matter. At William M. Connolley and  Christopher Connor they did not acknowledge the truth that the complete deletion of expansion of universe without informing the editors was not correct, however As we all now that it takes lot of time and energy to research and produce a relevant material. Tauhidaerospace (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed some added stuff about how the meaning really truely is "expanding". This won't do. We know that the first has a number of alternative translations. Attempting to say it has only one translation (the one you want) is POV and unacceptable).

@T: At William M. Connolley and  Christopher Connor they did not acknowledge the truth that the complete deletion of expansion of universe without informing the editors was not correct: I can't parse that sentence I'm afraid. But I'm guessing you're trying to say I agree with you. I don't. Please stop putting words into my mouth William M. Connolley (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

@W the way you deleted my hours of work seems like you are acting on your sentiments. I'm trying to improve the article. if you can find an argument regarding it please add instead of deleting the whole work. Article is already very small compred to Bible and science and other religious book ralting to science. If we dont have a good intention we cannot improve expand wiki can we? regarding reliable source- I have even given the google book link of books from recognized person mentioned in see also like Maurice Bucaille and Stephen Hawkings. I'll be providing another strong reliable source to support that I have made the article look neutral. Tauhidaerospace (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:OR again. You can't use primary sources to prove a point, and you can't add sources that don't discuss the Qur'an to argue a point about the Qur'an. You can do this in an essay, journal article, or book, but not here. Your sources must specifically discuss the Qur'an. I'm sorry that your hard work is being reverted (just now by me), but it doesn't comply with our core policies. Dougweller (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @T: hours of work: it doesn't matter how long it took you to do it; it matters how good it was. It isn't good. It will get deleted again if you re-introduce it. Please listen to the people talking to you if you don't want your work to be wasted. very small compred to Bible and science: this comparison is irrelevant. good intention: indeed; please see WP:AGF. Just because you disgree with people doesn't make then bad people - yes? reliable source - you haven't understood the policy. Otherwise, you wouldn't be introducing quotes from Hawking that are reliable, but completely beside the point William M. Connolley (talk) 07:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Tags
This is still a pretty dreadful article. We have whole sections which are original research based on primary sources, eg Embryology and 'Expansion of the Universe'. It clearly does not include all significant points of view, thus violating NPOV. It's bad. Dougweller (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with you, Doug. The article seems to be going from bad to worse. And I'm still not sure what the topic actually is. That Muslims are finding texts in the Qur'an that they read as presaging the findings of modern science may be a notable phenomenon. I'm not sure what kind of sources would cover the phenomenon best. This wouldn't be the right title for such an article, and I'm not sure what would be. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The start of the article says See Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts for the belief that the Qur'an scriptural foreknowledge prophesied scientific theories and discoveries - known as Ijaz al-Qur'an. Given that, it isn't really clear what is left for this article to be about. Over-enthusiastic additions of dubious material isn't going to help; I think they need to be reverted out. This certainly isn't the place to repeat, in badly formatted and confused way, parts of the expansion-of-the-universe article William M. Connolley (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * More over that "preamble" seems to fail an proper outside view already. An article of a "true believer" describing the predictions that Qur'an might have made "for real" has no place in WP.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

If there is no way to create a proper encyclopedic article out of this, there is still the remedy of an AfD, that might be considered.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think boldly merge this article and the Bible one into Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts, which already covers the topic. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea! Even after some recent heavy pruning, the article still contains a lot of commentary by primary sources (SYNTH). Johnuniq (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed all sources from the bbc link and replaced with Zakir Naik statement and also added an argument from Dr William Campbell against Naik POV on expansion of universe I'm also working on the movement of mountains . Tauhidaerospace (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your recent revert remains unacceptable. So, I think the best course is indeed to merge this article; it probably won't solve T's desire to add in appropriate material, but at least the problem will be in only one place. William M. Connolley (talk) 09:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that this page is on the watchlist of a number of "Islamic" editors. It is regrettable that they are behaving irresponsibly by making no attempt to talk to T and restrain his enthusiasm somewhat William M. Connolley (talk) 09:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * revised expansion of universe with sec sources, NPOV and reliable sources mentioned in this discussion I hope now we can have a consensus . Tauhidaerospace (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We already have a consensus, of all editors except for you, that your edits are inappropriate. Have you read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT yet? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

W doesnt seem to understand that he is repeatedly bringing a book which is not cited properly He is not trying to improve rather to make it worse. Accordin to WP:RSN doubtreligion.blogspot.com is not a RS. You are again bringing it back. We already had a consensus about it. Tauhidaerospace (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the 3rd time you have reverted so I'm reverting again. and please go through WP:RSN and read about it. Tauhidaerospace (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Avoid edit war!
I'm afraid that, one or some editors are engaged in edit war. Plz avoid repetitively adding disputed context and try resolve via talk. »  nafSadh did say 09:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, you've noticed? Well done. But you need to address yourself to T directly, I think William M. Connolley (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to avoid PA ;-)
 * But you may notify him. If he continues doing such edits, I'm afraid, it may lead to a WQA »  nafSadh did say 10:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do your homework - like a quick glance at his talk page. He has been notified numerous times William M. Connolley (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep he is notified. But, those are pretty new and I was just checking in. I can do homework when I am not at work :S. when at work, sometimes I just give a quick look on discussions only. Anyway, he has not done anymore edit since this talk started. Lets see if he decides to read WP policy pages. »  nafSadh did say 14:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

== Please Provide your constructive critisism regarding this further edited version so that this could be sorted then added into the article ==

Impovements made:

1) New argument added from a debate between Naik and Campbell arguments from wiki removed.

2)BBC link has been removed and replaced with another source.

3)The Book which is not properly cited- An Illusion of Harmony: Science and Religion in Islam has been corrected.

4)Article has been thoroughly revised and [WP:NPOV] [WP:WEIGHT] has been considered properly. Tauhidaerospace (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you must have realized by now that for whatever reason your notion of an encyclopedic article and of reliable sources clearly differs from most other editors here. So instead of wasting your time by adding stuff deeming unacceptable to others again and again, you should discuss content and sources here first and only add them to article after somewhat of a consent is reached here, in particular an consent that content and sources are in line with WP policies.
 * You also need to be aware that some content that is important to you simply might not belong into WP, there's nothing wrong with that nor is it a judgement on the value of your content, it simply means WP is wrong place for it. There are plenty of other places on the internet where you can publish such content instead, but for publishing it in WP it needs to be in line with WP policies & goals otherwise it is a no-go.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is full of unsuitable sources and not even a good starting point for expansion. Sorry. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * mentioned version, although factual, is not suitable to be in Wikipedia, they are over-detailed, have OR and poor sources. Context from this version (Naik's POV, Bucaille etc) can be abridged if to add. OR shall not be in WP. Prose style, prose writing needs to be improved. We shall remember WP is not a place of posting original research. »  nafSadh  did say 18:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Another way to present the material
This is an interesting article, and the subject is notable. It describes a social phenomenon going on among Muslims, where Quran/science parallels are being noted. I have seen many interesting clips and links for myself on Facebook and Youtube. It is a question of belief, not fact. Whether it can be proven scientifically to the satisfaction of all parties is doubtful, there are too many skeptics.

But this should be an article describing the social or religious phenomenon, with some acceptable sources to back it up. Those would probably be mainstream newspaper articles or peer-reviewed journal articles. The key is to report the social phenomenon, and the claims, from that perspective.

This may take time, but it can be done. The main problem is this social phenomenon is not well reported in the English speaking world. English articles from Muslim countries must be reports on the social phenomenon, not attempts to establish the scientific validity of the claims. If the claims are approached from a scientific point of view, with scientific sources, there will be challenges to every sentence in the article.

There is no need to establish the validity of the scientific claims, they are notable and can be reported, as they are the beliefs of a large number of people. This is a religious article, not a science article. For a parallel, I suggest looking at Creationism and seeing how that article is handled.

This piece is more along the lines of a source that would be useful, but it only mentions it (and slams it) in passing. It does, however, establish the notability of the subject, and justify the existence of a Wikipedia article.

Presenting the material in this way should allow for the inclusion of all related claims and material in the article. I'd like to help, but I am busy with other articles at the moment.

Aquib (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think before working further on this article we need to do something:
 * define scope of the article
 * define the structure of article
 * define rule for inclusion of material in this article.
 * It is pretty controversial how Qur'an coincides with scientific theories and notable scope of this article might be the contemporary Muslim thought spectrum of Scientific Qur'an and such. Brief of indications and metaphors about science extracted from Qur'an which are claimed by several identifiable sources can be mentioned; but no commentary or detail shall be included. POVs regarding these from Muslims and non-Muslims, Qur'an experts, scientists, philosophers, evangelists can be mentioned.
 * I think we can open a project page or something that can be helpful in defining scope and structure of this article. »  nafSadh did say 15:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * More importantly the article needs to written from an outside view, i.e. it needs to report what some notable islamic scholars (or other notable scholars) consider as prediction of the Qur'an regarding scientific discoveries (using intext contribution). It cannot be written in quasi factual formulation without intext attribution as you might do it for (uncontroversial) aricles. It is also not possible for WP editors to interprete various Qur'an lines themselves, but rather they simply have to stick to describing how some notable scholar interpretes these lines. If there's no notable scholar available for the various claims, they most likely cannot be included (see WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS).--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As always, the sources are the key. I suggest if the sources can be found and vetted first, the article will be much easier to write. It would seem a project page could be helpful. -Aquib (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have found Encyclopedia of religion and science a very good source. we can extract useful information relating to this article. I have extracted some after reading a part more work can be done. Tauhidaerospace (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I know that most of the insertions here were extremely crappy, but I suggest to actually tag them instead of massive deletions (and insertion). Other old materials that were previously discussed were removed too. The article's header is already tagged with dispute, so we should hopefully be able to work it out together, instead of reverting each-other without giving a chance to improve the content. I'm not justifying the massive insertion, also. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground.   ~ AdvertAdam   talk  08:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't quite see why we should have "extremely crappy" text in the article. Heavily disputed (and badly done) additions should be discussed, agreed, and knocked into shape on the talk page first. It would be helpful if you could advise T of that William M. Connolley (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My message was mostly for him and I sent him a private message now :). Sorry I didn't help-out on this mess, but I'm stuck with two bias editors on a bunch of articles, going through endless discussions over and over again. They're wasting all of my time, but I couldn't find any solutions. I'll try to keep an eye here.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  08:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

WP: NPOV
My greater concern is for the creditibility of wikidepidia; the reason is For example '''when an atheist have his first glance at Qur'an and Science and Science and the Bible. the difference he would notice is that the Bible and science after 5 pages doesnt even have Criticism for consistency section while the Qur'an and science does'''. This does not meet WP:NPOV and Wikipedia's quality standards. Every one is not an expert in every field. Maybe a wiki project can be started. My intention is to improve an article which is relatively already very small thus improving Wikipedia creditability. Tauhidaerospace (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

[I've moved a pile of talk that closely replicates the talk in the other place, to the other place. Having exactly the same argument in two places is ridiculous. Can people please show a bit of TP discipline William M. Connolley (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)]


 * The discussion was not about the content of the other article but about the content of this article. If Tauhidaerospace wants to address the question of what should be in the other article he may do on that talk page, even if he uses similar language. But my comments were about this article, with only a few remarks about the comparison. It is not in fact "the same argument". It is proper to discuss the content of the other article on the relevant page, even if a comparison is made with this one, but this is the page for discussing the content of this article. What would really be absurd would be to move that discussion there - which, it seems to me, is what you have just done. Paul B (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree, but I'm not going to bother fight about it William M. Connolley (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about content

 * I'm sorry, this is just nonsense. If there is any NPOV issue with this article, it has nothing to do with the issue you raise which is completely irrelevant.  As for "Wikipedia's quality standards", what exactly are you talking about?  Your attempted additions signally fail to meet WP:RS which is a pretty fundamental "quality standard".  How do you suppose that breaking one of the most important rules of Wikipedia somehow improves compliance with its "quality standards"?  Whatever your intention, you appear to be doing your level best to reduce the quality of this article.  Instead of continuing to try and re-insert that which has been shown to you by several different editors to be against policy and consensus, why don't you take some time to study and understand the rules of Wikipedia first. -  Nick Thorne  talk  03:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It's true that criticism sections are generally discouraged, but that's because criticism should ideally be integrated into the body of the article. It may not always be possible to do this if there are not sources refuting or rebutting specific claims. If the criticism is a general one concerning evidence, methods etc, then it could reasonably be in a specifiic section. In the Science and the Bible article virually every paragraph contains detailed criticism of claims made on behalf of Biblical 'science'. So Tauhidaerospace's claims of bias are not only untrue they are the opposite of the truth. Tauhidaerospace does not even appear to have read Science and the Bible. As for this article, IMO a good article on this subject would summarise statements made about science in the Quran and by commentators on the Quran. It would then go on to summarise the "scientific miracle" arguments. Some of these are notable and are often repeated - such as the embryo argument. Others are being invented all the time, as Islamic apologists take passages and read them in ways to fit modern science. Most of these seem to me to be transparently spurious: like the moving mountains argument, which blatantly twists the obvious meaning of the text, which is that even apparently permanent things are ultimately transitory. If that's a miraculous anticipation of modern science, so is Shakespeare's The Tempest. The expansion of the universe argument also involves blatant cherry picking "Verse [51:47] says in one translation "And the sky was built by Us with might; and indeed We are the expanders." Yes, but other translations simply say that we (ie God speaking) created the expanse: "With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of space"; "And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample". The translations which shift to the present-tense active "expanding" were only made in the late-twentieth century after the expansion of space became scientifically accepted. The text in the Tauhidaerospace version does not even mention this fact but simply dissembles.

But of course we also need to determine what are notable arguments. They need to be given, discussed and disputed. That would truly be NPOV. That means the counter-arguments should also be added with parallel quality sources per WP:PARITY. Paul B (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Mr Barlow. virually every paragraph doesnot contains detailed criticism of claims made on behalf of Biblical 'science'. So Mr Barlow's claims of bias are not only untrue they are the opposite of the truth. Please refer to Talk:Science_and_the_Bible. Next point The translation by YUSUFALI: "With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace". He was born in the late 19th century and his translation was made in early 20th century So before the expansion of space became scientifically accepted. The text that Mr Barlow states above does not even mention this fact.


 * But of course we also need to determine what are notable arguments. I am not an arabic translator but i can refer to notable persons like Dr Zakir Naik who has memorized the quran Bible and other religious text and alway speaks in context. He doesnt even have a single line in this article. Counter arguments should be taken too that would truly be NPOV. thus yes I agree that means the counter-arguments should also be added with parallel quality sources per WP:PARITY. Tauhidaerospace (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In fact the discussion on that page does show that virtually every paragraph contains criticism and that the talk-page editors think it should contain more criticism, or rather that it should remove unsourced or badly sourced claims for biblical accuracy - which is exactly what is being said here. The Yusufali passage you quote says nothing whatever about expansion: "With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace". If you are claiming that the word "pace" refers to expansion then evidently you are unaware that this is a website writer's mistake. It's just a transcription typo for "space", which has then been copied across other websites. Perhaps you could explain why Zakir Naik should have a presence on this page. Paul B (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I do agree that the embryology section does not have any argument but relevant argument could be brought in here. Zakir Naik numerous  relation between Science and Quran could be brought in here for ex-

Cosmology (as section) -SHAPE OF THE EARTH IS SPHERICAL -Monnlight is reflected light -THE SUN WILL EXTINGUISH -INTERSTELLAR MATTER HYDROLOGY -THE WATER CYCLE

OCEANOLOGY BARRIER BETWEEN SWEET AND SALT WATERS -DARKNESS IN DEPTHS OF OCEAN Botany    FRUITS HAVE MALE AND FEMALE EVERYTHING MADE IN PAIRS Zoology THE BEE AND ITS SKILL LIFESTYLE AND COMMUNICATION OF ANTS []

Every one of these could be brought into counter arguments from the famous debate in 2000. The references which could be brought are:The Qur'an and the Bible in the Light of History [ ] and Science and  Naik's most-cited debates was with William Campbell in Chicago in April 2000 on the topic of "The Qur'an and the Bible: In the Light of Science" [ ]. If we could include even a few on this article with counter arguments I think we could remove the critism section and this could be a way  to bring the articles  into a more closely-related (equivalent) form. Tauhidaerospace (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

New addition to intro: rv: why
This was added:


 * Quranic translations are based on human dictions, as most Arabic terms have a wide range of meanings. As an example, most English translations of The Romans chapter in the Quran states, "Certainly, the Romans will be defeated. In the nearest land". That was the only logical translation before the science era, considering that the Roman-Persian war&mdash;when Romans were defeated then recaptured Jerusalem&mdash;was near Mecca. Geologists proved that the Dead Sea region&mdash;the defense point of Jerusalem where the battle occurred&mdash;is the lowest elevation on earth. Concluding, the Quran was actually pointing to the lowest land instead of the inferred nearest land, as all dictionaries translate the same Arabic word "أدنى" to lowest, too. 

I don't like it, I'm afraid. The problem is that it is attempting to say that foreknowledge really exists (if only you're prepared to translate it properly). Since this is the point at issue, it can't be asserted in the introduction.

The idea of pointing out that different translations exist is fair enough, we just need a better example. How about the "expansion of the universe" one? Also, we should point out (I'm sure I've seen this somewhere on wiki) that Muslims consider the Quran to be the WoG, but only in Arabic (or whatever it is that is believed, I don't know for sure) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Lowest land
 * I was called away before I could save the following; I have joined it to the new section. Johnuniq (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

A added a paragraph to the lead to the effect that a certain passage was traditionally translated as "In the nearest land". However, science has subsequently shown that the land in question is the lowest land on Earth, and the original passage is therefore more accurately translated as "In the lowest land" (and the original Arabic word is translated as "lowest" in dictionaries). The unstated conclusion is that the passage reveals extraordinary scientific knowledge.

Aren't there some problems with this paragraph? First, the WP:LEAD should be a summary of material already in the article. Second, doesn't the para need a secondary source that makes the point (currently, it looks like WP:SYNTH)? Third, I would think WP:REDFLAG would apply (multiple secondary sources are needed) because the claim is pretty extreme: why wouldn't local people recognize that the land in question is "lowest" compared with surrounding areas, and why wouldn't that justify the "lowest" description? This looks like finding facts that match the text since there is no reason to think the original text was attempting to literally describe the land as the lowest in the world (if it were making that point, why wouldn't it say so more clearly, and what relevance would it have to the event described?). Johnuniq (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a little detail, William, about this example. When Arabic speakers read the verse, they just consider a land that the Romans where defeated in. It's hard to understand the exact meaning so readers don't pay attention to every-single-word, just like the Aramaic and Hebrew Bibles. Same as Hagar in Genesis: One translation considers her a sex-slave; another say a wife; and another say concubine. That's a big difference, so picking the word was based on tradition and research, not translation. The translation I used here was recent, from the 80s, but it still said nearest; which doesn't make sense.
 * It's important for the readers to understand that the different translations aren't switching words to make it sound better, as you assumed in the expansion thingy. I suggested this example for the introduction, as it's easy to understand; considering it an opening to improve the article. Maybe I need to rephrase it, but what do you think of this citation?     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  10:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Adamrce. Adamrce had tried to improve the article maybe Johnuniq could have added some secondary sources rather than supporting to deleting the whole work. I see the work of adamrce from  very reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tauhidaerospace (talk • contribs)


 * Disputed content is factual but shall not be in LEAD, instead make an new section and put it there. I strongly recommend the inclusion of this text (but not in lead, lead shall have a summery of article's center point of discussion). »  nafSadh did say 11:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Guys, Johnuniq made a respectful logical comment, as I wasn't using secondary sources to all of my edit (and he didn't revert my insertion). I'm just trying to discuss the source I provided here, if it's enough to close the dispute. William is the one who makes mass-deletions to whatever he disagrees with. Tauhidaerospace, please sign your comments :p     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  11:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Johnuniq, it's not talking about a lowest land (as an area), like the shore is lower than a hill. We're talking about the lowest land on earth 1400 years ago. Of course that can't be seen by eye, nor with any super-duper technologies. It was only pictured by satellites to know such a thing.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  12:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with AdvertAdam's last edit and summery. T needs to be more careful on Talk and edit :p »  nafSadh did say 12:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD is the usual way: you're free to make bold edits, but if people disagree, you shouldn't revert the same material back in again, especially when people have made a good case that it is basically SYN and OR. The idea that this example is easy to understand is wrong: I can assure you that it is far from easy to understand William M. Connolley (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Also... this new text has simply been copied in from Qur%27an. It would have been more honest to say that. In which case, there is no need to repeat it here William M. Connolley (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Copying it from there has nothing to do with honesty, sir. I'm the one who added it there, lol. I meant easy-to-understand as something that is not complicated, instead of arguing on creation or the expansion of the skies (The tone of the expansion seems like translators were manipulating with words to make it sound scientifically, which is inaccurate).     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  20:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The text itself is very hard to understand. Why would the ancients have any trouble in knowing that the Dead Sea was low-lying? That doesn't need modern science to understand. The whole para sounds garbled to me William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * To understand the context one needs to look at the tafsir. Its worth noting that theres a wikipedia article based on a hadith based on this ayah. See: Hadith of the prediction in Sura al-Rum Pass a Method   talk  19:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Passamethod has linked a very good relation. I read the tafsir of this ayat it also has non muslim counter arguments too. Now we could relate some material from it and add advert adams edit. Tauhidaerospace (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If you are saying that the original edit cannot be understood without further context, then I agree. But that isn't a comment in favour of the edit, for from it. The article you point to seems to suffer from the usual OR/SYN/hopefulness and needs attention, though. As I said already, that the Dead Sea was low would have been known already William M. Connolley (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved Kilo T 17:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Qur& → Quran and science – As Qu'ran was recently moved to Quran by consensus, it makes sense to move this too for consistency. The move discussion for that page was at Talk:Quran -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Makes sense to be consistent. All articles in Category:Qur'an (and the category itself) should probably be renamed as well. Assuming this RM is successful, a bulk nomination of the rest of those articles would probably make sense. Jenks24 (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, I thought if this one went through after the Quran one did, then that should hopefully be enough for a non-contentious move of the others -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There are ongoing discussions at the main page and we will likely be moving it back to Qur'an as this is the most authoritative spelling. Abdullajh (talk) 04:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I went to Talk:Quran to have a look at the ongoing discussions and, to be frank, you, Abdullajh, are the only one there arguing for the page to be moved back and everyone else who has commented after the conclusion of the RM has disagreed with you. Jenks24 (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * support - consistency William M. Connolley (talk) 07:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: This should be an uncontroversial request. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 17:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: certainly not uncontroversial. Qur'an is the accepted spelling. Abdullajh (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This contention was discredited in the main Quran article discussion. Quigley (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This was not "discredited". Rather some confused editors such as yourself insist on using a highly non-standard spelling. This should be resolved soon when editors begin to do their research. I hope to post some background reading on the topic soon. Best. Abdullajh (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Editors have already done their research, and the relevant Wikipedia policies point to the Quran standard. You've already made clear that for changing the spelling is that you find the lack of apostrophe hateful somehow; not for a divergence from any authoritative standard, so editors should anticipate cherry-picked sources that do not reflect the broad measure of scholarly opinion. Quigley (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please be aware there's apparently a poll in preparation at Talk:Quran to move Quran back to Qur'an. My only real interest is consistency, so whichever way it goes, both (and other articles) should use the same spelling -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Makes the spelling here consistent with that of the main article. Googling suggests is a more common spelling than . It is quite rare to put an apostrophe in the middle of a word in a Wiki title, both in general and even for other transliterated Arabic names. Kauffner (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose: see the comment above regarding moving  the "Quran" article back to  "Qu'ran". For my views on  the mattter, please see my comments at: Talk:Quran. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: This is not, as Abdullajh and John Hill seem to think, a poll on Qur'an versus Quran. That was already resolved in the main article, in favor of Quran. Since no new arguments were introduced that are unique to "Quran and science", the customary Wikipedia (and common English) spelling of Quran should be used. Wikipedia has too many absurd article formations, like 2010 Qur'an burning controversy, that defy common usage and the spelling used in the sources of the article, simply because the main article was named Qur'an, so people thought the apostrophe, a function of the POV pushing of a minority, was the proper name. Quigley (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you not think, then, that Xi'an should be changed to "Xian"? John Hill (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The apostrophe in Xi'an has a practical purpose in English: it signifies to the reader that the city is to be pronounced with two syllables: "Xi" and "an", as opposed to one, "Xian". Besides, I don't think "Xian" was ever used in English, because before the Hanyu Pinyin "Xi'an" the postal map spelling was Sian, and the Wade-Giles spelling Hsi-An. The apostrophe in Qur'an is a signal for a sound that does not occur in its English language pronunciation; only in its Arabic language pronunciation, so it is not useful for a general English-language encyclopedia. Quigley (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Qur'an is the standard authoritative spelling. Some editors here seem to be confused and have not done their research. Abdullajh (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The only research that has been done in this discussion has been done by the pro-Quran camp. Your continued assertions that "Qur'an is the standard authoritative spelling" mean nothing without sources that say so explicitly (and then they would have to be reviewed by their applicability to Wikipedia policy). Quigley (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as what the "standard authorities" say, Oxford, Merriam-Webster and Chicago Manual of Style all give "Koran". The AP Styleguide gives "Quran". Britannica uses systematic Arabic transliteration across the board and therefore gives "Qurʾān". Kauffner (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Editors should be aware of the Journal of Qur'anic Studies, currently the most authoritative journal for peer-reviewed English scholarship on the Qur'an. Respectfully, Abdullajh (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Moreover in a broad sense, standard usage is very clearly in favor of "Qur'an" over "Quran" especially in the past 20 years with wide margins: Usage in published texts between 1900 and present. Abdullajh (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Who was using "Qur'an" in 1900? Everyone was using "Koran" until quite recently. Koran + Quran will give you more results than "Qur'an" for every time period. Kauffner (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * IMPORTANT ! as the basis of this RM is renaming Qur'an → Quran, this request shall be paused until RM poll in Talk:Quran ends. -- nafSadh did say 15:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support As long as Qur'an stays where it is. Marcus   Qwertyus   02:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.