Talk:Keith L. Moore
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
Does not conform to NPOV. Requires presentation of several viewpoints. Needs to state Moore's viewpoint more clearly and then state some criticisms. Otherwise this is not an article that everyone can agree with.
--Dejo 03:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- find some academic criticism of Moore then. i removed the passage about the developing human book (taken from a less than credible article) because i checked a latter (seveth) edition, and Moore does nothing of the sort and not once does he mention Musallam, and Musallam's quote as given by the website (which is from Dunstan's work) has been gravely misinterpreted. that hippocrates "quote" was also removed as it is has nothing to do with "Keith Moore and the Quran" . ITAQALLAH 14:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Embryology in the Qur'an
The article reads pro-Islamic, the Discussion reads anti-Islamic. --FK65 18:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Removed pointless text dump
Someone just copy and pasted a whole bunch of text from another website into this talk page for no particularly good reason. I have removed it because it was just clutering up this page. You can see the original edit here:
151.197.28.239 00:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Macroscopic vs microscopic
Please don't change the embryological details unless you know something about embryology. The stages of development described are clearly macroscopic, and people will have known about them for as long as women have been having miscarriages. Kernow 21:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:LIVING - Living Person - removing WP:POV and WP:OR
I'm going to remove any reference to the Moore and the Quran plus the spurious links. This is about Moore and his works not interpreting his works. WP:LIVING applies very much here. I'll create Keith Moore and the Quran as a separate subpage for people to fight it out but no need to mess with this one. In his own right he seems notable BUT the fact that there is an Islamic edition of his book then unless you are certain Moore wrote that section and not the co-authors then it can't be added. I get doubts as to his engagemnet with the Quran when I read, http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/DGolden/touting_science.htm and I quote, "Prof. Moore sanctioned a special 1983 edition of his textbook, "The Developing Human," for the Islamic world, that was co-written by Mr. Zindani. It alternates chapters of standard science with Mr. Zindani's "Islamic additions" on the Quran.". Thus associating Moore with the Quran with respect to embryology seems to be WP:POV and/or WP:OR as reading on it seems that today he has little time for Quranic science. Remember he is a living person so WP:LIVING apples. The evidence seems to be that commenting on his work will be messy unless people directly quote which edition they have (I have neither so will only be detailing what is available e.g. ISBN numbers etc as listed on Barnes or Amazon etc and so won't be trying my hand in some WP:OR on what they contain) AND as I have mentioned with any co-authored work - they are certain he wrote that. The same would also apply to anything he says; reference to transcripts please: he may "regret" what he has said later (like many of us do) but at least we can accurately record where he said it. As an aside there is more story in the fact that there are Islamic editions; there probably is a new wikipage in Islamic versions of science and technology texts documenting the differences. Ttiotsw 08:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- err... what? Moore wrote an article in a journal, which he still cites today, about qur'an and embryology (you should already know this as i assume you have been following the developments on The Quran and science and its talk page). that itself establishes his view on this matter. the developing human: clinically oriented embryology with islamic additions is not the sole evidence for his views or the material he has actually written on the topic. ITAQALLAH 16:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- And I'm happy that we can link to the actual journal article but how people use that is a seperate question not related to what Moore thinks today on this matter. If we look at WP:LIVING especially "must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons" and then quoting the article by Daniel Golden for the WSJ "it's been 10 or 11 years since I was involved in the Quran." then my contention is that extending Islamic apologetics to his page would seem at odds with what Moore thinks today. What he has written for the Journal e.g. as found on http://www.islam101.com/science/embryo.html is an excellent example of use of truism, "The interpretation of the verses in the Qur'an referring to human development would not have been possible in the 7th century A.D., or even a hundred years ago. ". Obviously it would be an anachronism to interpret the verses in the Quran in the 7th Century AD with todays knowledge. There is a subtley here in what he says which I think people are missing. By all means record what he has written but having random sura and conjecture on his page without any clue as to how this ties into his views today is just too far for a living person unless he's on record as re-iterating or elaborating on his original early 80's views. Without that affirmation you're just taking what he has said out of the context of when he said it. Ttiotsw 16:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- seemingly, Moore still endorses what he wrote back then, as he provides it as a reference/suggested reading material in his recent embryology books. if your concern is about noting when he has said it also, that can easily be incorporated. yes, having a random surah not explicitly tied to what he has stated should not be here (though he has commented extensively on 39:6), but that does not mean his documented association with the Qur'an is not accurate. simply, replace the current surah with one on which his analysis has been provided and documented (as well as dated), such as in his latest edition of the mainstream version of "the developing human" where he makes some points on the qur'an (which i have quoted on the other article's talk page), or in the journal article (where one can state he said such and such in 1986). ITAQALLAH 16:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- OK - I'll be a bit more clearer why it needs to be very much focused simply on Moore and not any controversial subjects regarding embryology. Read this letter, http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_56lettersmoore.html and I'll extract the relevant section,
"But it is interesting that, according to Patricia Woolf in a paper presented in 1991 at a FIDIA research ethics conference at Georgetown, over 80% of the fraud formally determined by the OPRR to date was generated by physician researchers in the field of embryology." (The OPRR is now the Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP)). That letter was written contemporaneous to the references you wish to use for religious purposes so as I read it this field is a minefield. Irving has maintained her position on clarifying embryology terms (e.g. http://www.uffl.org/irving/irvlords.htm) especially with respect to use/misuse for political or religious reasons. Also notice in http://www.uffl.org/irving/irvone-act.htm the wording, "Crippled Conscience: Please! Those little "pre-embryo" things are just blobs of the mother's tissues, bunches of cells -- sort of like blood clots!...". I feel quite confident that for now there is enough concern to make sure that Moore's page ends up simply as a list of where he worked and works plus a reference list of his books and nothing more. The concern is not the science quality of what he writes but the non-scientific purposes to which they are misused and religious use counts as a misuse.Ttiotsw 04:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
it does not particularly bother me that much as it is a side issue and not an extremely significant part of Moore's academic history. if you feel it should be removed then i won't consider objecting at this moment in time. ITAQALLAH
[edit] Reliable sources
[1] is not a reliable source. Find a more reliable source for the quotes.--Sefringle 02:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Moore and Qur'an
The following is from Encyclopaedia of the Qur’ãn - Science and the Qur’ãn:
In 1983, Keith Moore, the author of a textbook on embryology, published a third edition of his book under the auspices of the Committee on the Scientific Miracles of the Qur’an and Sunna, with “Islamic additions” by Abdul Majeed Azzindani, the first head of that Committee. The title of this new edition reads: The developing human: Clinically oriented embryology. With Islamic additions: Correlation studies with Qur’ãn and Hadith, by Abdul Majeed Azzindant
I believe this can be used to insert Moore's relation with the Qur'an in this article. Imad marie (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- We have this also:
- Since the Quran predated microscopes, Moore, son of a Protestant clergyman, concluded that God had revealed the Quran to Muhammad. Moore has disseminated this view not only on Zindani’s videos but in many lectures, panel discussions and articles.
- Imad marie (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
