Hi Zahida2013! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of tafsir works, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of tafsir works, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL" error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Thanks for your contributions to The meaning of the Qur'an. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources and it needs more sources to establish notability.
Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.
In Islamic attitudes towards science, you wrote about Maurice Bucaille and cited his own personal observation in his own book. It wasn't even a commentary about Islamic attitudes, it was just about his own view that doesn't claim to be representative of Islamic attitudes, as far as I could tell. That is why I deemed it a primary source. In any case, after you've been reverted twice, if you really want this in the article, the WP:BURDEN is on you to gain consensus for it on the talk page.
@Anachronist Bucaille book available online and it was a blockbuster. it wasn't personal views but researcher with physician in man creation embryo . he even got a French award in embryology. who is Taner? is he higher than Bucaille? Zahida2013 (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can read the article on Taner Edis yourself. He is a scholar, while Bucailles isn't (being a physician isn't the same). There are no levels of notability; either a person is notable or not.
The fact that a book was well received is irrelevant. It's still better to use secondary sources that discuss the Bucaillist viewpoint than to reference the primary source.
Zahida2013, you need to look up what a primary source is. You cannot analyze primary sources yourself. Doing so is original research. That's why you need a secondary source, e.g an author who analyzes Bucaille's work. You've already been given one above. You added another source here, but it doesn't mention either the Quran or Bucaille. It's a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. You combined two sources to reach a conclusion that isn't there. Please refrain from doing that. StephenMacky1 (talk) 06:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i presented the scientific REVIEW! study 2022 by the father of that clay life theory that shows that the scientific Clay life theory was started in 1940 before Mr Bucaille studied medicine and have reported conformity of Bible and by proxy Quran Dust /clay origin of life statements to that scientific new discovery known to him or any student of medicine in his time! Zahida2013 (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
in medicine and medical school basic medical sciences like biophysics and biochemistry is all about essentiality of water to life and how organic compounds become biochemical compounds.clay theory states that any given biochemical could not have happened in nature first without! being assembled in clay silicate orifices that make them all allo spatial ( the bullet proof evidence of clay because only clay crystals aka silica or silicate make allo reaction in nature) but this theory in its simpler form started in 1940 and been popular ever since, defeating RNA life theory because even RNA first in nature without silicate AKA clay ( regardless of evolution or creation theories) Zahida2013 (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my point. The problem is not with the source, but with your use of it. Since it does not mention the Quran or Bucaille, it cannot be used. The topic is "Islamic attitudes towards science", so the sources have to be about that topic. Also Bucaille's book appears to be self-published, so it definitely requires secondary sources for analysis. Apart from that, his claims about the Quran and science haven't gained any credence in mainstream science. Theologians are distinct from scientists. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@StephenMacky1 Bucaille book was a blockbuster published in German and 12 languages. obviously not self published. publishers made large sums of money from publishing that book. Bucaille was awarded 2 highest level ( French noble equivalent) awards in history of Egypt and middle east and in medicine. his first books were blockbusters too. his main interest was the validity of the bible stories of Moses and creation and in later books he added Quran. why would France give him such honored awards?!.
he is authority. you can just query " cling"
into his book at way back machine to see what he said that the droplet transform into clinger (below naked eye vision) is a new discovery confirmed circa 1972.
Keith Moore also detailed more on same issue of droplet to clinger phase.
As for clay as origin of life theory he also mentioned the dust/ clay as new scientific discovery where I presented the review article that describe the history of clay life theory started with Bernal 1947, so to confirm correctedness of Bucaille statement. :
"in our view, the most promising theory to explain the origin of life is centered around the interaction of active sites on clay mineral surfaces with simple organic molecules. This idea was first introduced by Cairns-Smith in 1966
Kloprogge JTT, Hartman H. Clays and the Origin of Life: The Experiments. Life (Basel). 2022 Feb 9;12(2):259. doi: 10.3390/life12020259. PMID: 35207546; PMCID: PMC8880559.
and
| title = Clays And The Origin Of Life: The Experiments
A book being popular does not necessarily mean that it was scientific. The reason why Bucaille's source is scrutinized is because his claims have been scrutinized by other reliable sources (like sources by Taner Edis, Helaine Selin and etc). Even Moore's claims weren't exempt from scrutiny. I'd advise you to start a thread on Talk:Islamic attitudes towards science, so that other editors can share their opinion too. As it was pointed out to you already, you are obliged to try to gain consensus about the content there. The content about Bucaille can potentially be returned with a reliable secondary source, but it has to conform to NPOV. StephenMacky1 (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@StephenMacky1 Bucaille is way higher than Taner. did Taner get high awards like Bucaille? to criticize Bucaille somebody needs to be higher than Bucaille in medicine , middle eastern history, scripture ( Hebrew and Arabic). Bucaille have studied those in school. Taner does not have educational credentials nor awards nor highly read published works near Bucaille. To criticize a physician malpractice in court the judge have to choose somebody higher in knowledge credentials and years of experience than that physician. Zahida2013 (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Make your case on the article's talk page. These arguments do not appear to be convincing. By the way, I'm not opposed to including content about Bucaille, but it has to be accompanied with secondary sources and the wording has to conform to NPOV. By the way you should really check WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. A source's reliability on Wikipedia is not determined by the popularity of a source, the number of awards the author has and etc. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@StephenMacky1 since Bucaille was the first to connect those Quran verses to latest scientific discoveries, it is unfair to cite someone who made the connection after him such as Dr Keith Moore and other NIH Pub med hub studies
like:
Moore, Keith (1986). "A Interpretation of References to Embryology in the Qur'an". journal of Islamic medical association of North America ::::::::::::. 18 (1). doi:10.5915/18-1-8693. 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. We can interpret them now because the science of modern Embryology affords us new understanding.{{cite journal}}: line feed character in |journal= at position 57 (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
are these two secondary sources acceptable to you?
NIH national institute of health hub online for authoritative Research ( not editorial) cited Bucaille, M for over 50 articles see online pubmed. however Mr Taner is a teacher in a third grade university public school, has no published studies in any field in NIH hub.
he is a Turkish man specialist in physics far away from Arabic Hebrew languages and scriptures medicine embryology and history . Mr Bucaille does. Zahida2013 (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ancient Egyptian race controversy. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Here's your original suggested text: [1]. You then made these three reverts in the past 24 hours: [2][3][4]. One more and you will have crossed the bright red line of four reverts. But please remember that 4RR is just a bright red line, and that any amount of edit warring can be considered disruptive. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Generalrelative encyclopedia and knowledge should not be dependant on consensus of unknown wiki editors of unknown backgrounds but on sound scientific references peer reviewed like Schuenemman study 2017 that added 2 previous DNA studies to their scientific analysis. so all DNA studies confirmed their conclusions. I added my grievance of arbitrary complete removal of my contribution of multiple secondary sources. Zahida2013 (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that's how you feel, you are free to start your own online encyclopedia. But we have core policies here, which include WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS. I will note, however, that even your own source doesn't agree with you. The authors are in fact very careful to discuss the limitations of their study, and fully recognize that there is much geographical, chronological, and sociological diversity in ancient Egypt which their results simply cannot inform us about. Generalrelative (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Generalrelative my contribution only reported info taken verbatim from the citations I included ( the study itself Schuenemman 2017, the report by max blanck website who made the study, another study from Nature journal, and Parabon. Zahida2013 (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also started a topic at the page talk but you did not respond there or the others chosing to argue me on my talk page instead of the article talk page!?
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Zahida2013. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The meaning of the Qur'an, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
