Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Quran and science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Quran and science

The subject of the article fails WP:NPOV--it is an attempt to correlate parts of the Qur'ān with the current paradigm of scientific thought. Fails WP:OR as well. It is interesting, certainly, but it does not belong in an encyclopedia. If it can be salvaged, I'm all for it--however, I think the idea of selectively correlating parts of a text (while ignoring those bits that don't correspond well) cannot adhere to NPOV. -- Merope Talk 21:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I have changed my mind regarding the article. I believe that, should it implement reliable sources and address both aspects of the issue (as Science and the Bible does), it will be an excellent and interesting contribution to the project. It will have to be developed beyond the collection of quotes it currently hosts, but I no longer believe it is a candidate for deletion. Keep. -- Merope Talk 14:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

 :: The article Science and the Bible should also be deleted? Read the introduction of the article that I am creating where it claims that everything in Quran is scientific or correct scientifically?? Secondly I am still expanding it and not yet finished with it. Any comments on its contents will be too early. Let me complete it and then you can delete it. Thats way you will also have more fun with your deletion. BTW I feel some people so biased that they "mark" the article with non-neutral/disputed tag (that says see "talk page") when I just named it and nothing significant was in it . I had seen the talk page it was also blanked at that time :). Now it is nominated for deletion when I am still expanding it. However, I love those people as they encourage me and push me for being better Muslim and do more research about my religion. Thank you. --- ابراهيم 21:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Science and the Bible examines both correspondences, errors and consistencies. It also contains citations from reliable sources indicating that people other than the author have done inquiry into the field. If this article were formatted in this way, I would not have nominated it. -- Merope Talk 22:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
This article will be much better than that. If it servive for few days. However you must kill it early (very first day). --- ابراهيم 22:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Deletion discussions typically last five days, and you are encouraged to continue editing in that time. -- Merope Talk 22:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I am a PhD student and have to work 12 hours a day. You do not set deadline for me. I decline to work under your deadlines. Go delete it and be happy. --- ابراهيم 23:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The five-day deadline is non-negotiable. I'm sure you're busy, as many other editors are, but the response of the deletion process is given after five days, no matter what. --Nehwyn 13:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional delete. The article will need the same kinds of citations that Science and the Bible has. As it currently stands, there's no indication that this is anything but Original Research. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 21:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I might have lower standards than other contributors here, but the fact that there are now sources added (on the Talk page, which is a start towards incorporating them in the article) is good enough for me. Keep therefore, and with any luck it'll start to look better soon. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 06:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Most of the thing are either from Quran or from corresponding wikipedia science article. Hence most of them are referenced, rest of them are commonly know fact. Now let see your claim is true this article is not referenced. Tell me there are many articles exist in wikipeda with a special tag saying "references/citations need". Why not delete all those dozens of articles? --- ابراهيم 21:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I think you've misinterpreted me. The citations in this article at the moment are from the Qur'an and that's perfectly ok, since we need the text there as it is. There are also explanations of the scientific processes involved. What the Science and the Bible article has as well as these is a collection of sources where scientists and theologians have examined the compatibility of the two things. This article (at the moment), doesn't. I'm not saying that such sources don't exist, I'm just saying that they're not here at the moment. Without them, it looks more like original research. For example, which "Scientists say that before the galaxies in the Universe were formed, celestial matter was initially in the form of huge gaseous matter or clouds." Likewise, I was under the distinct impression that some planets orbit the sun in an elliptical manner rather than the "rounded course", so a citation would need to be provided here, and so on. In relation to the argument that there are other articles which don't cite sources, the fact that a series of articles of a certain type exist isn't a reason in favour of keeping any particular article of that type. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 22:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
        • About science I am copying most of the things from wikipedia other articles. BTW rounded does not mean perfext circle or ellipse. In rounded both are covered. It is just commonly known fact. I know because it is about Islam so I have to find references about commonly known fact. I also know that you cannot even wait for references for few hours or days. TELL ME that if "Science and the Bible" was in its current shape during very first few hours? Go and see its history. Oh I forget current article is about Islam not about Bible so it should be perfact from 1st minute.--- ابراهيم 22:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • First of all, please understand that no one is attacking you nor the Islamic faith. Secondly, I believe you are still mistaken as to BigHaz's meaning: it is not the science that needs citations, but the correlations between science and the Qur'ān. I could go through the Upanishads and correlate sections of it to scientific thought, but that would be original research. Unless you have evidence that people other than yourself have made these correllations, it fails one of WP's primary guidelines. If you read the Science and the Bible article, all the arguments presented have been published in scholarly works, not contributed by Wikipedia editors. I understand that you say it is a work in progress, but perhaps it should be moved to your personal sandbox until you've brought it up to Wikipedia's standards. -- Merope Talk 22:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
* There are many books written in that subject. However, it is not possible for me (being a human) to cite them all with one movement of my finger. You can search Amazon and other books site for them. How can I cite those books and give reference in just few hours. You are just like the person who visit factory and after seeing tire says "This thing will not work, distroy it". If person like you exist in the world we never have any cars. --- ابراهيم 23:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Nobody's saying that you need to do this in a few hours. AfDs run for about 5 days, which is frequently more than enough time for someone to add sources like this. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 23:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I want to see where this article goes, actually. Let's give it a fair chance. --Nehwyn 21:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
As a further addition to my thoughts on the matter, I do have to note that there's quite too much original research in this at the moment. And the fact that it will hopefully get better in the future is not a valid argument: when an article is posted, it should be eligible from the moment it is posted, not at some undetermined time in the future. I'm not saying "exhaustive", just eligible. --Nehwyn 13:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is an apology, a defense of Islam. Wikipedia however is an encyclopedia, a record of what people believe, it's not for inviting people to convert to Islam. Now if this article instead listed those arguments that have been used in Muslim apologetics, that would be fine. This article isn't built along those lines, though. Dr Zak 22:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article does not give any opinions. It tell what Quran (with refrence to Quran meaning) says and then what science says (with reference to corresponding wikipedia article). The article is not yet done. --- ابراهيم 22:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Can you please delete it. I will try to work on it at my user space and will post it back after making it much mature. I will try to give both sides view and everything will have reference. At the moment they have started an edit war and adding their own comments. For example -- Ant cannot speak "ARABIC" (just 100% their own comments - like talk page). I already have much less time to work on the article and cannot afford it at the moment. Can some guide me that how can this article be deleted? Danke schoen!--- ابراهيم 08:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Same as Nehwyn, I'd like to see where this goes. It has only been through about 5 hours of editing. Looking forward to a great article. Cheers! zephyr2k 23:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep With a simple google search I found at least a dozen references (which I have added to the article talk page) for the correlation between Quran and science. This article definately has value and I look forward to seeing it developed more. Ratherhaveaheart 23:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    •  : See I have to work on other things too and do not get lots of free time to work on wikipedia. In order to improve the article I want to do following two things. Firstly, I will ask some other people in wikipedia to contribute (as they are good in this subject). Secondly, I will issue books from library. However, it depends that when I will have free time again (may be after a week). Lastly, I think when more people will know about the article then it will improve significantly. Because few will add criticism and other will defend it with references at the end we will have a healthy article (that what is wikipedia about). This all CANNOT be done in 5 or 10 days under the hanging sword of article-deletion deadline. --- ابراهيم 00:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd say, either nominate Science and the Bible for deletion, or get sources for this. Keep Danny Lilithborne 01:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Although there are different views on what the Qur'an states about various scientific principles, this article will probably cover them in time. This AfD nomination was made much too soon. BhaiSaab talk 01:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: As it stands now the article is an apology of Islam. It's a good thing that you invite other people to work on it, and the work already done is a good basis. However, you know (or by now you should know) what the rules are. There's nothing forbidding you from working on a preliminary acceptable version of the article outside Wikipedia, or in your own userspace. I'd be happy to help, but the article is original research (your own ellaboration) and I'm not familiar with any reference works that could be used in this case. For now, no vote, but I'm afraid the article cannot stand as it is now, as it violates policies that are at the core of Wikipedia. If it does get deleted, you still have the right to ask that a copy of the text be restored outside of article space for your own use, so you can eventually make it conformant to WP policies and re-create it.
Comment 2: The above observation by Danny Lilithborne is simply not a valid argument. "If you delete this, why don't you delete that" is possibly the single most posted opinion in AfD, but it never works, and it only messes up the process. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment I'm very aware of that. However, I think it works in this case. Deleting an article that just needs citations and clean-up to be encyclopedic is not appropriate, and deleting this but leaving the Bible article conveys a clear double-standard. Danny Lilithborne 01:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment. There is a very clear difference between the two articles, though: one examines the relationship between science and scripture (both correllations and discrepencies), and one selectively interprets passages in scripture to show that they are in agreement with scientific thought. If we were drawing analogies, this would be similar to an article about Creationism that only listed verses that could be interpreted to agree with scientific finding. The fact that the creator has stated within this AFD that the article "claims that everything in Quran is scientific or correct scientifically" further adds to the article's underlying POViness. -- Merope Talk 02:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment "I said "WHERE" it claims that everything in Quran is scientific or correct scientifically?." It had a different meaning then what you have understand. --- ابراهيم 09:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment So put a POV tag on it. It's not like the creator owns the article. Danny Lilithborne 02:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep As it stands, this article needs a lot of work, however, in principle, I can't find a reason to object to it other than it will be difficult to do properly. However, it is not necessarily impossible to do so, and I'd prefer to wait at least a month, see if it gets anywhere close to the Bible article. FrozenPurpleCube 02:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Must DELETE POV and the original research. Better place on Islampedia.Opiner 03:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The subject matter is very interesting, and it need not be an apology of religion, as long as it shows divergences as well as consistencies. At present, the article only mentions consistencies (with the macroscopic exception that I added), so I do agree there is a big POV going on here, and quite a lot of original research too. --Nehwyn 13:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Then its time to make it the STUB not to keep whats there waiting for source. Can I just write whatever propaganda I want, you say unsourced, but give him time? Keep article is fine but in a stub.Opiner 23:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: If such things are in Qur'an that can be related to science, that should be present in the encyclopedia. But it would be better if a few references can be added from some books. TruthSpreaderTalk 05:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - No reason to delete --Irishpunktom\talk 11:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article is a good proof for Infinite monkey theorem.--nids(♂) 09:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Sure but the monkey creating the garbage not the Shakespeare. This article is the propaganda of Islam pure and simple.Opiner 09:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • In order to assume good faith we call it an apology, or non-neutral POV. That can be fixed, potentially. I am going to tag the article, so others can work on fixing it. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep To early for an afd, topic is encyclopedic, try doing a google search. Afd is not the place to address editorial issues.--Striver 11:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks like almost everyone who show up here are Muslims asked by Ibrahimfaisal![1] So no way to delete ANY article because he just ask all his religion friends.Opiner 23:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • For the record, I'm an atheist, and if this article isn't up to good standards in a couple of months, I'll nominate it for deletion myself. But you'd better stop messing up the discussion. You haven't contributed at all to this or to the article. Keep, by the way. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm a Bahá'í who actually is not too fond of Islam. But I am far less fond of religious bias and definitely not fond of random accusations. Might want to keep your suspicions to yourself next time. Danny Lilithborne 02:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • In the last few AfD's I have participated in this same argument is put forward "the other side is just having his friends come and help him". First I think there should be more faith in the WP Community. Lots of people contribute to these debates, many people who just want to help improve WP and have no connection what so ever to the article in question. Furthermore it is an ad hoc attack to focus on the personalities of the contributors rather than the substance of the debate. I personally peruse the AfD's and participate at on anything that catches my eye. When generalities are made about the contributors of a debate that do not apply to me at all, I feel a bit insulted. Ratherhaveaheart 16:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
* Comment: I only asked them to contribute in the article and not asked them to vote here. I even continue asking same people to contributing in the article even after their vote here. Only three people vote here after I ask them to contribute (you can find their ratio from total votes). I even ask Pablo-flores to contribute. I never know him before here; he is not my old friend. Furthermore, it makes no sense to ask people to vote because it will inform those people too who will vote against you. I am more intelligent than that. --- ابراهيم 19:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Ibrahimfaisal's source would appear to be this deeply misleading speech by Zakir Naik, which he posted to several user talk pages prior to the creation of the article, but is uncited in the article. I can't say how Mr. Naik feels about this, but it looks like plagiarism if not also a copyright violation. A check at the creators' contribution history shows that several of the votes above were indeed solicited from editors who had no prior involvement with the article, but which Ibrahimfaisal had reason to believe would be favorable to the notion advanced in the article. It is not only uncited, but essentially false in its exegesis (and, in a few cases, translation) of the passages in question.Observation Post 05:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC) — Observation Post (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
This book does not agree with you. --Striver 12:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
*Comment I had only posted Zakir Naik video on one person page and it was many days before creating article. Can you point the other pages where I have posted it or confess that you are not telling truth? Most the translations of Quran are from famous three translators and are well-cited. --- ابراهيم 06:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. i find it rather strange that an editor would participate on this AfD with only his third edit, the two prior to it being to remove redlinks from his/her user and talk page. ITAQALLAH 20:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Duly noted. I've added the {{spa}} tag. -- Merope Talk 20:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — but fix. All of the empty sub-sections should be removed until something is ready to go in.
There is a problem with analyzing scripture in that the meaning is not always clear. It could really use sources, especially when it is drawing a conclusion between a particular scientific fact and an particular reading of the Quran.
This is not an apologia. Pointing out correlations between scripture and science in not by definition apologetic. Such correlations do not validate the veracity of either side.
The obverse is not true. Religious beliefs that run counter to science are nothing more than superstition. Scientific conclusions about theological points represent nothing more than the hubris of scientists making the a priori assumption that the entirety of experience must fit into a materialistic model. MARussellPESE 15:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 05:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep retaining the option of revisiting the article in 30 days to see if there is sufficient improvement to justify its remaining. Badbilltucker 22:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The topic of "Quran and science" has been addressed by many Muslim academics. Books on the topic are carried in most Islamic book stores. As long as they are used as sources, and those sources are properly cited, the article is legitimate and notable. ImKidding 16:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)This user's fourth edit
  • Delete. Appalling pseudo-science, either based on WP:OR or sourced contravening WP:RS. It makes both the concept of Islamic sciences (that did have glorious times ...1000 years ago) and WP a laughing stock. Al-Kindi or Alhazen would shudder in disgust confronted with this demeaning obscurantism. --tickle me 01:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep As it stands today it deviates considerably from the approach taken by the Science_and_the_Bible article. There are a number of related articles WRT the bible e.g, Bible_scientific_foreknowledge and Biblical_inerrancy both of which should be templates for any similar examination of Islamic doctrine (or rather Islamic apologetics). I've looked at the article and I'm really worried it'll just keep poping up as an AfD if the edits taking place stay in the same style. Though I may seem anti- my first approach to arguments are through reason. It should also be renamed to Science and the Quran to be consistent with the approach taken with the Bible. Islamics must realise; the world have been-there-done-that with respect to infallible-word-of-god-and-science (TM). There is nothing new being argued here. Ttiotsw 09:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Nowaday many researches are directed toward that field in which correlation between science and holy books take place so we should give the place for such an article that may be an interesting one and it like the approach taken by Science_and_the_Bible article but any theory in this article should be strenghted by a reference .Delengar 12:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Move This article should be moved to a book page The Bible, The Qur'an and Science as the article gives "French born Saudi royal physician" Maurice Bucaille 's book as a source for these theories. I might mention that the arguments listed on the page as so preposterous as to hardly be worth refuting, for example the line where it says the "heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them" allegedly refering to the Big Bang. Do we need to even mention that that Earth did not exist at the time of the Big Bang.--CltFn 04:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
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 (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.