Talk:Quran

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education assignment: Graphic Design History[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 12 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Xoxomira (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Xoxomira (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Academic research section[edit]

The chapter contains a long paragraph on the birmingham manuscript. The opinions written on the single-page manuscript are exaggerated, and while these opinions are transferred to Wikipedia, the impression is given that the findings beyond what is expressed in the source have completely trashed the opinions of historians who are called revisionists.

I think revisionist views on the history of the Quran should be summarized here and it should be explained which of these views are invalidated by new findings. NGC 628 (talk) 08:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see little to no reason, to add the revisionist school until it is at least taken serious by Islamic Research. -VenusFeuerFalle

Already discussed on Talk:Islam#Revisionist_school. Zsohl(Talk) 11:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the "revisionist" label,
Regarding some of my contributions, my contributions were withdrawn due to a labeling that I did not encounter in my other contributions, and I was warned not to include the views of the revisionists without discussion. My opinions on this are as follows:
1-These people did not label themselves this way, others classified them this way.
2-The information given by these people cannot be devalued by this labeling. As long as they have encyclopedic value, these opinions should be given without exaggeration in the relevant sections.
3- Group domination should not be established over Islam and related articles solely due to this labeling and other possible religious concerns. My feeling is that some of these articles are dominated by a group that does not allow even clear errors to be corrected, as I did on this section.NGC 628 (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about the label, it is about the lack of relevance in academic discourse (See: WP:RSUW). It could be worth to be mentioned in an article about the early history of Islam, or something similar, however, not in main articles. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are not talking about a club with identities or memberships here. We're talking about other people's labeling and classifying a group of researchers. If this helps understanding, good. Their devaluation is no different from racism. Each contribution should be evaluated for encyclopedic value, necessity and source reliability. labelings should be avoided. NGC 628 (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this discussion leads to nowhere. Comparing racism to academic success/evaluations doesn't help either. Notability isn't determined by one's liking or preference, but derives from the guidlines (WP:N). I also have the feeling I already linked all the relevant guidlines about a month ago. "Neutral point of view" was already lifted by "undue weight" and now additionally by "notablitiy". Consider also WP:PROMOTION; that Wikipedia does not push fringe theories to the public by displaying them along with more relevant ideas. The issue with the "revisionist school" is, that it has not been shown to be relevant and it will not gain relevance by simply advocating it hard enough on a talkpage. Either there is evidence that the revisionist school (or however you want to call it) is more than a fringe theory or there is nothing more to talk about. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the principles expressed here. A multiple contribution should not be withdrawn entire and labeling should be avoided. The article cannot be structured on extreme theories, and such an effort should not be allowed, but I think that a structure where only conventional information is given and even a small indication of different (It is also open to debate which information will be fringe on which subject) views is considered "too much" cannot be a free encyclopedia. NGC 628 (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting knowlodge[edit]

"The Shīa believe that the Quran was gathered and compiled by Muhammad during his lifetime, rather than being compiled by Uthman ibn Affan. There are other differences in the way Shias interpret the text. According to Shia, Ali ibn Abi Talib (d. 661) compiled a complete version of the Quran shortly after Muhammad's death." Which one correct? NGC 628 (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General page layout[edit]

I think the content of this article should be brought forward (before its place in the Islamic society). I also think that the "Relationship with other literature" section is closer to the content, not with the criticisms.NGC 628 (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Encouragement for the sciences[edit]

A carelessly written, possibly unnecessarily long chapter using a single sourceNGC 628 (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of bias in ‘history’[edit]

I am supposing the removal of

The final verse of the Quran was revealed on the 18th of the Islamic month of Dhu al-Hijjah in the year 10 A.H., a date that roughly corresponds to February or March 632. The verse was revealed after the Prophet finished delivering his sermon at Ghadir Khumm.’

It is unreferenced and is not written from an unbiased and historical perspective; assuming the supernatural. It should be rewritten removing the factual presentation of ‘revealed’. MightyPoof (talk) 10:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quran&oldid=1217837794"