Talk:Maurice Bucaille

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? 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.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

[edit] Comments added by an anonymous editor at the top of the article

These comments belong here. They're reprinted without any bias toward endorsing them or otherwise:

This article fails to have a neutral Point of View - and lacks citations for key statements.

Eg, Despite googling for an hour, I can find no support that he ever did address the French Academy of Medicine - their own website is silent on the subject.

Nor is any detail given as to his role at the University of Paris - the University has many parts, and it's not clear whether his role was important or not (was he just involved in routine medicine care of students?)

BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Asorbonne.fr+%22Maurice+Bucaille
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aac-paris.fr+%22Maurice+Bucaille

no result. --tickle me 03:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.tempemasjid.com/maurice/frcont15.htm

Full copy of the Quran and Modern science book. I find at least some of the arguments to be rather compelling.Taharqa 02:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critisism

Does this paragraph belong here oor on the section about his book? Why is this considered critisism?

Bucaille not only suggests that Islam is not incompatible with modern science - he also claims that many contemporary developments are predicted in Quranic prophecies : he claims, for example, that the Qur'an predicted space travel 1400 years ago.212.122.233.234 13:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


^^Also, what's up with the "crude Islamic propaganda" remark? Seems worded in your own way (who ever wrote it) and in pretty harsh terms.. In addition, I don't see that claim as being criticism either, is this so far-fetched by its self?Taharqa 17:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A lot of this criticism content from the newly inserted material will have to be trimmed. Very little of it actually discusses "Bucaillism" itself. ITAQALLAH 20:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The criticism concerns both the book itself and the concept of Bucaillism expanded on elsewhere --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
No. Some of the sources mention neither Bucaille's book nor "Bucaillism". In fact, most of it is a response "to general claims of prophesy from the Quran." To link them in here is original research. ITAQALLAH 20:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion pasted from Talk:Bucailleism

[edit] Discussion pasted from Talk:The relation between Islam and science

[edit] What to do? WP:UNDUE and proposed fork article

Should we spin off a new article on Bucailleism - since it is such a big issue in the Muslim world - and put all the information on (alleged) scientific facts found in Quran in it? We could restore the list of (alleged) scientific facts found in Quran that was deleted earlier so that the criticism section won't be WP:UNDUE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoogaLouie (talk • contribs) 18:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to create a new article, but the section on the tenets of Bucailleism would have to be sourced to reliable sources. Arrow740 (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there are sufficient reliable sources using this neologism or explaining it in any great detail to justify an article on the topic. Just my opinion. ITAQALLAH 23:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
If the article is Scientific facts believed to be supported by the Qur'an or similar wording, i.e. not claiming the facts were or were not actually proven to be predicted by the Quran, all we would need for sources is some of the Bucailleist web sites or books or what ever, agreed? --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The reason the current criticism section poses a WP:UNDUE issue is because instead of directly commenting on specific examples it transforms into a discourse about the apparently suspect methods of "Bucailleists" (If we're referring to Zindani, then let's please just use his name), as if that's even central to the topic. I think it does little other than poison the well. ITAQALLAH 00:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hearing no objections I'm going to start an article on Bucailleism and shorten the criticism section. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I made a post on Jan 9 23:35 UTC related to this (the second reply to your comment). ITAQALLAH 21:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
If people don't like the term Bucailleism, we can change it to something like List of alleged Qur'an scientific miracles, but it is a big controversial subject, a natural for a wikipedia article.
I hope my trimming down of the criticism answers your complaints about undue. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by Bucailleism and what you intend to write in the new article, if you are willing to list the claimed miracles there is already an article doing that (Imad marie (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC))
Definition: Bucailleism, the belief that "the Qur'an prophesied the Big Bang theory, space travel and other contemporary scientific breakthroughs," --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I created a page that lists the alleged miracles. List of Qur'an scientific miracles (Imad marie (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC))
We'd need a more NPOV sounding name. If believers object to Bucailleism how about Scientific facts allegedly supported by the Qur'an or Scientific facts believed to be supported by the Qur'an or hopefully something shorter. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
How about (List of alleged Qur'an scientific miracles)? and I think this section must not list ALL the alleged miracles, just the miracles that were claimed by the most known and credible sources (Imad marie (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Complaints about fork article

BoogaLouie, you have ignored ITAQALLAH's and mine comments and created the new article. first you used unreliable resources in the new article content. second you created a new article when there are old articles talking about the same subject (Imad marie (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC))

I must protest. What unreliable resources?
This article is a classic case of one aspect - whether the Quran predicts scientific discovery - overwhelming other issues - the development of science in Islam, the philosophy of science in Islam, etc. It is a natural for a new article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoogaLouie (talk • contribs) 20:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
There are a great many Islamic websites alluding to the predictive miracles of the Quran (and Sunna). I venture to say most Islamic websites talking about Islam and science talk about the predictive etc., maybe almost all websites. Most of this article is or was about Bucailleism, not general issues of Islam and Science, especially before I started editing it. A google search for
International Conference on Scientific Miracles in the Holy Qur’an
yields 54,800 hits.
PS, I have added the sources from your article that is up for deletion to Bucailleism.
Itaqallah, upon rereading your comment I see you are opposed to the Bucailleism article (although not very passionately it sounds like), not just the name Bucailleism. I hope that having deleted from this article the issue of "the apparently suspect methods of `Bucailleists`" gathering endorsements of Western scientists, (those alleged endorsements often given much prominence on Bucailleists websites), you aren't now in favor of deleting an article where the issue is discussed more appropriately. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, have a look at WP:NEO. I'm concerned that, barring this one discussion in this 'Strange Bedfellows' article, that this neologism hasn't received substantial discussion in other reliable source material (and I mean the word itself as opposed to the notion of science+Islam). ITAQALLAH 21:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm also not comfortable with how Bucailleism is being used as a placeholder for any material associated with Islam and science by people not necessarily associated with Bucaille or Zindani. ITAQALLAH 21:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Defense of Bucailleism article title

Bucailleism, is nice and concise - one word and specific.
The obvious alternative, Allegations of Scientific Signs in the Quran and Sunnah is

  1. long
  2. uses the word "allegation" which in English usage carries the connotation of accusations of wrong-doing, as in "alleged murderer," something I don't think Muslims would find appropriate in connection with divine miracles in general or the Quran in particular. This could be changed to "belief in", but I don't think that has a wikipedia precident
  3. Too vague. What are "scientific signs" or "miracles"? The miracles or signs are not "scientific," the alleged miracles are the predictions of scientific facts. Muslims who have been brought up with these teaching know immediately what it refers to, non-Muslims do not. To be accurate the title should be something like Allegations of Scientific Facts Predicted by the Quran and Sunnah --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't the place to popularise neologisms. Discussing any claim of scientific miracle under the umbrella of Bucailleism is also original research, and it poisons the well. There's many title alternatives we may consider, but the issue is whether or not we should have an article discussing this neologism specifically as its topic. ITAQALLAH 16:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of "Scientific facts allegedly found in the Qur'an"

A major part of the article - itemizing some of the major claims of bucailleism - was deleted by Yahel Guhan on the ground that the "entire section consists of unrelaible sources and original research."

The sources are not cited as proof that the Scientific facts are found in the Qur'an, they are cited as Bucailleist claims. They balance the criticism section which now has references to claims that were deleted. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Quotation marks

Question from anon: Why are these quotation marks so ubiquotus whenever the editor happens to disagree with the portrayed? It looks belittleling in this manner, lets either keep them for all articles or...)

This is a very controversial subject with some editors watching the article very carefully for anything they do not like. The quotes are to indicate this is a quote of the source - When Science Teaching Becomes A Subversive Activity By Pervez Hoodbhoy - not to suggest skepticism or disagreement. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bucaille died in 1998 ?

According to the (horribly written) Bucaille article in German wikipedia, Bucaille died in 1998.

Any confirmation ? Giordaano (talk) 06:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times is a reliable source. Why should its comment on the "Mummies of the Pharaohs" be deleted ? please, discuss before proceding to deletions .Giordaano (talk) 06:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)