Talk:The Qur'an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English

Book-cover reviews
per WP:BRD, you should have opened a discussion here at the talk page after reverted your bold removal. That being said, I agree with your argument that book-cover reviews are not reliable, and should be either explicitly attributed to the book cover (as you did in your last edit) or left out entirely. Moreover, even if we could properly source the reviews to the place where they were published, it would be WP:UNDUE to fully quote them rather than to just mention them. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 18:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable time and effort in trying to resolve this dispute. I agree with your suggestion about attributing book cover reviews to the book cover. Sorry for any inconvenience anyway. Best regards.--TheEagle107 (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , in that case, why did you restore the full reviews? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * GenericUserName57, your addition is not from a WP:RS. Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * (courtesy pinging ) @TrangaBellam: I believe that Islam & Science, now called Journal of Islamic Sciences (see its website) is a reliable source. See, for example, its citations in Google Scholar . Yes, it seems to be written from a religionist Islamic perspective, but both its editor (Muzaffar Iqbal) and its authors (among whom one finds the likes of Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Syed Nomanul Haq ) sure have the necessary scholarly credentials. Restoring the info on the review accordingly. ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 19:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)