Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Quran and science (second nomination)

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 (Not so) Speedy Keep - the proximity of the previous AFD and the nomination reason points to this being used for dispute resolution. If a particular editor is causing problems open an RfC - do not resubmit a recently closed AfD as it just wastes everybody's time. Yomangani^talk 23:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Quran and science

Blatant apology for Islam, repeated refusal to allow dissenting material Arrow740 20:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ibrahimfaisal, who is writing this article, refuses to allow basic scientific observations which contradict the Qur'an, or alternative explanations for verses in the Qur'an which Zakir Naik has tried to depict as presaging modern developments. As such this article is and will remain a blatant apology for Islam. Arrow740 20:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A second nomination within hours of the first discusion closing with an overwhelming Keep? No examples are provided at all for these charges. We don't delete articles because editors are, or are not, playing nicely with others if the topic merits it. There are other ways of handling this.

I think this "second" nomination is what's blatant — blatant vandalism. No change to original vote: Keep. MARussellPESE 20:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Speedy Delete: If you had been following the debate on this article's talk page and the previous deletion page you would know what I am referring to. I was fine with keeping the article until after the decision to keep the article was made Ibrahimfaisal completely changed it, removing almost all additions I had made.

He refuses to allow me to include an alternate explanation for the "7 worlds" line, he refuses to permit me to include the fact that a human ovum is necessary for conception and that man is never a clot of blood, and he refuses to allow any mention of the fact that ants do not communicate with the same level of complexity that humans do. He also ignored my request to include the fact that the Qur'an implies that the moon is farther from the earth than the stars are, and he also refused to include the fact that the Qur'an claims that mountains prevent earthquakes. He also refuses to mention the fact that the Qur'an depicts someone finding the muddy pool into which the sun sets. If there is a repeated and steadfast attempt to keep the article one-sided, is that not grounds for deletion? Arrow740 21:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep Itaqallah has convinced me that there are probably valid sources for this, and at this point I trust Ibrahaimfaisal to only advocate his point of view using sources for which an argument can be made. Arrow740 06:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. a discussion on this had recently concluded less than 18 hours ago, the decision on which was "Keep". there is little need to commence another AfD so soon afterwards, which is just disruption if anything. ITAQALLAH 22:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep as a bad faith nomination so soon after the previous one closed. If there's an editing dispute, there are many other ways to resolve it which don't involve renominating an article for deletion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• It would be nice if we could have a balanced article on this subject, but we can't. Like I said, I only started supporting deletion after Ibrahim completely changed it right after it was kept. Arrow740 22:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Well if people are actually going to be re-voting on this , I vote to speedy delete. In my opinion the article, as it stands does not meet Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards as it attempts to match highly ambiguous verses of the Qur'an with scientific principles and fails to do so

• Example Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe? equals Big Bang? I think not , Earth did not exist at the time of the big bang, and how are we to interpret the word heaven in this statement ? Sky? Universe? The big bang was not a separation of sky with Earth or Universe with Earth .
• Oh wait , I just noticed , while we are at it , the word "we" in "we made every living " implies a more than one , yet the tenets of Islam assert only one GOD, so right there is a contradiction in the Qur'an itself.

In summary this article should be filed under the topic of Wikipedia:Complete bollocks and has no place in Wikipedia--CltFn 23:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

wrt "we" comment jfyi: 'tis called royal plural. ITAQALLAH 00:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

wrt contradictions in the Quran, you can find some real ones in the talk pages for Muhammad or the article in question. Or just use a search engine. Arrow740 00:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You can't vote twice. You already voted to delete earlier. If you want to change that vote to speedy delete, then you should strike out your first vote. It helps the closing admin. - Lex 03:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking to me, you'll quickly see that there is only one bold "delete" under my name. Isn't that the only way to vote? Arrow740 06:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete As there appears to be no WP:ABSURD, allow me to call attention to WP:RS and WP:NOR, of which this article stands in egregious contempt. There is nothing here which warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia.Proabivouac 01:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment - That was largely the issue around which the first AfD revolved and a number of reliable sources were suggested. The fact that they have not been incorporated 18 hours after the previous one closed is perhaps less than surprising. If they haven't been incorporated sometime later - whether due to neglect or the intransigence of one or more editors - then we have more of an issue here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This may not be the correct way to view unsourced material; the reason for the failure to incorporate reliable sources may well be that they do not exist. I believe I saw Jimbo quoted as warning specifically against this line of reasoning, and may return to share this quote. I for one have never heard of any of these people, and am not clear that they are even notable, much less reliable. Faisal is more than welcome to work on this essay in his userspace and recreate it if and when there is something real here.Proabivouac 03:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

We may be talking at cross purposes here. There were a number of reliable sources suggested over the course of the original AfD, most of which have been sitting on the article's Talk page. Failure to incorporate same into the article in 18 hours is hardly a hanging offence, regardless of motivation. If the only thing that's preventing the incorporation of the sources suggested (and any others anyone can find) is the intransigence of a particular user, the problem is with the user, rather than the article and should be dealt with via other channels. Again, however, there's the time interval: I find it hard to believe that 18 hours of intransigence indicates a usage pattern that will continue ad infinitum. If it does, however, it's intransigence by the user rather than by the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep More than obvious and clear why. --Aminz 01:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid it's not. Try responding to something I said.Arrow740 02:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Changed my vote to Delete. I haven't been able to find even a single academic source either supporting or denying, or even explaining the issue of the Qur'an and Science. So, I think we should hold on till somebody publishes something on this topic. --Aminz 09:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC) changed to keep. explained below. --Aminz 07:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Speedy Keep - I'm not a deletionist regarding to an article. Give editors some time to develop. There are many stubs, future events/products, self-promoting, current events/issues, controversial issues and other articles in WP, which have a heavy POV. They only need time and other contributors who can give reliable sources to the article. — Indon (reply) — 01:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: After I saw the first debate that was only 18 hours ago, I changed my mind to speedy keep. The intention of the proposal is solely based on personal bias toward a certain religion. Thank you for Arrow740 for spamming me. — Indon (reply) — 01:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Seems like this debate was just held 18 hours ago. I can't imagine anything has changed since then to merit a reconsideration on this issue. --Alecmconroy 01:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: Arrow740 has been selectively spamming several user's talk page about this AfD. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5],[6], [7], [8]--Aminz 01:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Going through the first AfD, it appears to have been similarly spammed by the creator of the article, apparently without sanction, and to good effect. I find it difficult to blame Arrow470 for resorting to the same behavior (indeed, with the same defebse re Pablo Flores).Proabivouac 03:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If by "selective" you mean as per my selection, you are right. But I "spammed" a neutral person (pablo flores), people whose opinion I didn't know (Indon, alecmconroy, see above), and even told Ibrahimfaisal about it when he didn't weigh in. I even contacted someone I have had arguments with about these issues (Jimwae) and tried to contact another such, dab, but his talk page is protected. I'm honestly trying to have all kinds of people respond to this issue. Arrow740 02:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Arrow740 02:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Arrow740. Article is full off misrepresentations, falsehoods, and is purely propaganda. Article is non-informative. Article is non-encyclopediacal. Article is unscientific, and filled with bias. Delete!Green hornet 01:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

My vote is changed, see below for my usual long-winded explanation. Green hornet 20:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Green hornet, you are a sockpuppet. Do you have an special account for AfD? Too strange --Aminz 01:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Linking to his contributions page does not prove that he is a sock puppet. You should have a better tactic than just trying to say that everyone who disagrees with you is a sockpuppet (which seems to be your pattern). Too strange --Arrow740 02:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious to you that this entire article is original research? That at best it is a bunch of excerpts from a book written by a medical doctor, not an expert, which has not been published by a reputable publisher? Who are you trying to fool? Arrow740 02:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep This second AfD is inappropriate because it is so close to the first AfD and the first AfD closed as a keep. I have been in this thing since the first AfD I am trying to research the topic, since I am rather ignorant in this area, so I can make some meaningful edits. I feel that people who dislike the article should do the same and stop wasting time with these deletion debates. Ratherhaveaheart 03:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Any such edits have been repeatedly reverted. That's the only reason I think this article will always be worthless except to Muslims proselytizers such as Zakir Naik. Coincidentally the whole article is basically a rehashing of a speech he gave to a Canadian Muslim association, which is available on YouTube. Arrow740 03:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC

First I don't appreciate you nonchalantly saying the article is worthless and on the articles talk page refering to it as stupid. This is not WP:CIVIL. The article is not "worthless except to Muslims proselytizers," since I think it is worth and I am not a Muslim proselytizer. Second the edit reversions issue is not a problem with the article but perhaps a problem with an editor, so an AfD is inappropriate. I don't even know how to respond to your reference to the Zakir Naik speech since I think it is completely irrelevant where the inspiration for the article came from. Ratherhaveaheart 03:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Another Speedy Keep vote - bad faith nom. If you have issues with the editing they can be discussed on article talk; if necessary, flag it POV or OR, get an RfC, there are many things that can be done. The previous AfD discussion already decided the topic is worthy of inclusion. - Valarauka(T/C) 04:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The article is junk. Allow re-creation if it becomes a real article. Arbusto 06:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete User Arrow740's concerns are completely valid here. The article speaks for itself. Filled with unverified, tenuous at best links, heavily POV, I don't see how or why it should be rescued. I also find Amiz's allegation above of Arrow740's "selective spamming" laughable, as it's like the pot calling the kettle black.Nodekeeper 10:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep This article summarizes some of the notions which have been in Islamic community for a while now. And those who say that it doesn't have any scientific background, they better search with Google scholar: Quran and science. Cheers! --TruthSpreader^Talk 12:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. "Still, science currently does not support creationism." (Of course not, they are totally incompatible; science will never support creationism.) This sums up the tone of the whole article. Emeraude 12:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The note "Still, science currently does not support creationism." is added by the person who nominated the article for deletion. It is funny that you choose his edit to base the reason for delete. --- ابراهيم 12:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't me. Arrow740 17:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but only because this is way too soon for a second nomination. Back then I said I would re-nominate the article myself if its problems weren't addressed in due time, which would be in no less than a month I guess. The topic is huge and very difficult to work with in a NPOV manner. I suggest that Ibrahimfaisal (and other Muslim contributors) could silence the claims of POV pushing by reviewing and adding content based on non-Islamic sources which speak against the scientific validity of the Qur'an; each section should have a balanced coverage. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am increasingly busy with my studies and finding it very difficult to make the article good myself working alone. I will give it whatever free time I will have but I need your help. There are sources available I could list them for anyone interested in working on the article but I need some people who are willing to spend some time on it. Also I do not delete criticism unless it is added in good faith and in proper way. Some people are removing all the material and adding criticism like writing on talk_pages. That is not acceptable. So this is a general call for help if someone is listening. --- ابراهيم 18:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep per Pablo-flores. It almost meets criterion #5 for Speedy keep. Wait a while for things to change before re-nomming article. --Storkk 14:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment — Whatever the outcome of this process, this is a pretty wretched excuse for an essay. The later half of the article consists almost entirely of proof by analogy. I've seen similar apologist pieces for the Bible. — RJH (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Proabivouac did an excellent job of removing all of Faisal's original research (i.e. tenuous interpretations of the Quran) and leaving only Maurice Bucaille's (not that he's much better). Faisal promptly reverted all of it and whined about it here. It should be clear to everyone from the facile analogies and silly captions that this article is more like a book you would give little Muslim children in third grade than it is an encyclopedia article. Whatever the outcome of this vote, it should be clear to everyone that Faisal (and probably Aminz too) doesn't care about wikipedia rules, or refuses to understand them. Arrow740 18:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If you look above, you'll see that Aminz has changed his recommendation to Delete, having written, "I haven't been able to find even a single academic source either supporting or denying, or even explaining the issue of the Qur'an and Science. So, I think we should hold on till somebody publishes something on this topic."Proabivouac 19:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• I call everyone's attention to the Physiology section of this treatise. It says, the Quran says milk comes from cows, and it tastes good. It think we should add, just for the "science" component of this section, "And it's right! Milk is tasty!" Arrow740 21:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Read this http://www.islamvision.org/Physiology.asp . The verses says it comes from "which specific location" which is scientific and explained in number of articles (including above URL). --- ابراهيم 21:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

One verse specifies this "specific location" as "From within their bodies", the other gives, "coming from a conjunction between the contents of the intestine and the blood." I imagine most scientists would concur with the first assertion; not so sure about the second…Proabivouac 21:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep for same reasons as the recent AfD. The article needs to be reformed to something more akin to Science and the Bible. As it stands it's original research but come on it's only been a few days since last AfD. (I'd like to point out I'm completely unbiased in that I'm an atheist so no Christian crusader here; all derivative Abrahamic religions are equally wrong regarding science). Arrow740 needs to understand that it is part of Islam's reformation and Enlightenment for Muslims to go through the exercise in futility of showing the correlation between the Quran and Science. To me it is a template for what is not science so let them play with pseudoscience as eventually (and it will be a number of generations) they will realise the gap between what is faith and what is science can't be closed. This is what happened to Judaism, to Christianity and will happen to Islam. Odd as it may seem the scientific truth is only found in things which we can falsify and faith is not falsifiable. They need to make a call on the faith or reason dichotomy. Sometime in the next 600 years please ideally !. Ttiotsw 23:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There he goes again with his "dichotomy". But as to the recent AfD, since then at least one of the people behind this article (Aminz), having made a good faith effort to find sources, has come to the conclusion that there is no academic source for any of this material, pro or con. He quite reasonably suggested that we wait until such sources surface before proceeding with the article. Arrow740 08:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

that would be an inaccurate observation. ITAQALLAH 12:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, she had told me her views about sources on my talk page even BEFORE this AFD. Hence your assumption that she looked after this AFD and changed her mind might not be true. --- ابراهيم 14:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It is inaccurate that Aminz came to that conclusion? See above. Also I meant since the previous AfD, but she might have written that on your talk page before it closed, I don't know. As regarding the sources itaqallah found, one is Maurice Bucaille's book, one appears to be published by the Saudi government (it is probably propaganda), and the third, Peter Hodgson's book, actually claims that Muslims go too far "by attempting to find detailed adumbrations of scientific knowledge there [in the Quran]]". It discusses Muslim scientists, and does not go into any of the wonderful detail that Ibrahimfaisal has. So keep looking, and read what you link to next time. Arrow740 23:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

no, i think Aminz's observation is inaccurate, read the comment in context of what you said. first: show me where i linked to Bucaille's book. i didn't. second, do you see where it says Bridgeview, Illinois? thirdly, Hodgson discusses the issue of Qur'an and Science, his own opinions of it, as well as notable Muslim opinions on it. that is certainly material which can be included in the article, esp. in the first three sections, and proves that the topic of qur'an and science is notable to merit inclusion in contrary to your claim that that "there is no academic source for any of this material, pro or con". so maybe it is you who needs to read a little more closely before rushing to respond with aggressive rhetoric. ITAQALLAH 23:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You linked this list as proof that there are sources. However the list contains: Bucaille's book; a book only owned by one library in the western world (if the website is accurate. you yourself indicated that you could not get a hold of it on faisal's talk page); a book called Islam Questions and Answers, which doesn't appear to be immediately relevant; and not much else. Regarding Hodgson's book, he does not address what Faisal is trying to address with this article, which is the subject of coincidences between science and the Quran. He doesn't address the other side either, which this article should address. Regarding the book that I suspect to be Saudi propaganda. Publisher: Makkah, Saudi Arabia ; Bridgeview, Ill. : Islamic Academy for Scientific Research, 1990. The fact that there is a front company in the US does not give the Saudi publisher and legitimacy; Saudi spends loads of oil money in the US funding mosques and Dawah, so their involvement in publishing here is to be expected. And if the website you linked to is accurate this book is owned by exactly two libraries in the West. Arrow740 00:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

so Bucaille's book isn't "one" of the "sources" i "found", is it, Arrow? it's on a list, along with other notable books. "not much else"? try going through the several pages, a notable book pops up once in a while. don't forget the other books i mentioned which you did not comment on. "a book only owned by one library in the western world", a lot of books on that site which are notable or even reliable contain no library info at all. the categorising is, understandably incomplete, and your conclusion may be untrue. Hodgson's analysis is entirely relevant here, in the light of Aminz's objection ("I haven't been able to find even a single academic source either supporting or denying, or even explaining the issue of the Qur'an and Science"), unless you misunderstood what he said. Moore's book is also notable, and again his analysis is certainly relevant here. ITAQALLAH 00:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And what is Bucaille's area of expertise?Proabivouac 00:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

in what way is Bucaille relevant to what i have stated? ITAQALLAH 00:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't care who wrote it, if a book (Moore's book) is only published by the Saudi government it's worthless. I don't know about the Journal of the Islamic Medical Association, though. I would say that if something is on a list you are citing as proof of your point then yes, you found it. I entirely agree with that sentence of Hodgson's that I quoted, however by my standards it should not be included in the article, as he does not try to justify his opinion. However by the standards of this article it should be featured quite prominently. I will reiterate that if his book were to be used for any article that article would be called "Muslim science", as he does not attempt the point by point correlating that Ibrahimfaisal has been doing, and in fact dismisses it, as we should do.

Would you support removing quotes from Bucaille's book? You keep distancing yourself from it. It is not reliable. It is published by American Trust Publications, which is owned by the North American Islamic Trust, not an academic publisher, and probably financed by the Saudi government.

Why don't you just make a list for us of sources you think are relevant? Arrow740 01:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

whether you "care" or not is irrelevant, what matters is if it is suitable for use on wikipedia, and it is. again, your "standards" are not relevant here. so you are saying i "found" 300+ publications? why then focus on Bucaille to the exclusion of the rest, including some that i explicitly mentioned from the list? you are clearly trying to shift the discussion by introducing red herrings, as you seem to do frequently. the issue was about whether there are actual sources which even discuss the topic of the qur'an and science, and there are. accusations of saudi govt backing are pretty meaningless, pointless, and merely an attempt to poison the well. i am not distancing myself from Bucaille, you keep trying to misrepresent my position by making it a debate about Bucaille, as you clearly feel more confident about criticising it than you do backing up claims that there is "no academic source", which is exactly what this particular discussion is about. ITAQALLAH 13:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine. But besides stuff by Moore there is nothing. Why not just write an article called "The Quran and Embyrology?" Arrow740 15:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not comfortable revoting on an AfD resubmitted so soon. But I will say this: the article is shamefully POV and OR. Pascal.Tesson 00:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep This article is under construction. Give it some time to get more references. --Truthpedia 15:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep; Overhaul There is potential with the article, based on the title alone. But, the article is currently in a terrible state. What we have right now is a collection of verses juxtaposed with scientific facts, many of which do not relate to their respective verses. Citing Blessed is He Who made the constellations in the heavens and made therein a lamp and a shining moon as a prophecy of the fact that moonlight is a reflection from sunlight seems quite dubious; the connection is a far stretch. These juxtapositions throughout the article are presented in a manner that is not encyclopedic and neutral, but rather a manner that appears to imply that the Qur'an is a scientific marvel. We, as an encyclopedia, should be trying to avoid the appearance of promoting one holy book over all others as well as trying to source interpretations of holy texts. These issues can be resolved without deleting the article, however, and so I'm sticking to a weak keep; overhaul. -- tariqabjotu 20:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Nominator is bullying. --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Can we please hold off the speedy statements? The article does not fit any of the terms of speedy keeping (no, the nominator is not nominating the article on a regular basis; (s)he didn't even participate in the last AfD debate meaning this second nomination could just be coincidence). Likewise, the article does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion either. -- tariqabjotu 03:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

that the nominator knew of the previous AfD, as he participated extensively in the article and on the talk page as anon while the first AfD was taking place. also, he says (above), "I was fine with keeping the article until after the decision to keep the article was made Ibrahimfaisal completely changed it, removing almost all additions I had made."- so his main reason for the filing a second AfD was a content dispute, which i don't believe is a legit. reason for an AfD (esp. less than a day after the prev one which he was aware of), and why i also feel that a s. keep is justified. ITAQALLAH 15:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep This article or section is currently in the middle of an expansion or major revamping. --Islamic 05:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: Meaning no disrespect to any particular user, there is an unmistakable correlation between religous persuasion and recommendations on this issue of an article which alleges that the sacred scripture of this religion may be proved to be the words of God himself by references to contemporary science. Furthermore, it it clear that users of this persuasion significantly outnumber those who don't share it on the majority of matters related to this subject, certainly including this AfD. It is difficult to see how, in these circumstances, Wikipedia's consensus-based procedural policies can be expected to yield encyclopedic results. The possibility of a vigorous open-minded non-predetermined debate is, with only a few exceptions, almost entirely absent here. I strongly urge you to consider the precedent that would be set by the "community"-based retention of articles like this one. Without a change in approach, or the involvement of a large number of editors who aren't particularly interested in these subjects (but how, when RfC's are nearly useless?), it is virtually guaranteed that we shall see a good deal more of the same. Please take a long hard look at this article and ask if this is the direction we should be taking; no gentle recommendations to follow source policies in the future will speak nearly as loudly as the fact that this nonsense was allowed to continue without check or sanction.Proabivouac 06:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Your "correlation" claim is entirely false: If you'd look at the comments, A large number of editors have voted Speedy Keep or Keep on the basis of the nomination itself being way too early after the previous AfD closed, with no bearing whatsoever on their religious inclinations. Or are you supposing that MARussellPESE, BigHaz, Indon, Alecmconroy, Ratherhaveaheart, Pablo D. Flores, Storkk, Ttiotsw and Irishpunktom are all Muslim? Really now. - Valarauka(T/C) 07:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

At least three of the editors you've named are in fact Muslims. The correlation is not, however, that non-Muslim editors "vote" as a bloc - they do not, as you observe - but that every Muslim editor has "voted" to keep (though one subsequently changed his mind). 100% is a non-random and notable correlation, or would you disagree?Proabivouac 07:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok. That correlation does exist, I agree, but I don't see how that makes the votes suspect, unless you're assuming bad faith on the parts of all the Muslim editors involved. I personally agree with most of the objections regarding OR, etc., and I think that removing them all to a subpage is a good first step; however, the fact is that the "Quran/Science" debate itself does exist, and is a valid topic for Wikipedia. The fact that the article isn't up to par yet isn't grounds for deletion, as was amply demonstrated in the previous AfD. - Valarauka(T/C) 07:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Re good faith, Take a look at some of the usernames we see here, Truthspreader, Truthpedia, Islami…They've not attempted to desceive you, have they? If you nurture the possibility that they mean to be neutral, it is not their bad faith that is to blame. Similarly, consult the userpage and contribution history of the editor who created this article. They are admirably upfront about why they participate; no assumption of "bad faith" is warranted or necessary.

"that the article isn't up to par yet…" - "yet" is projection of a future outcome we've no reason to believe will ever exist. Such logic can support the retention of most anything on the grounds that reliable sources don't exist yet, when in fact this article should never have been created without them.Proabivouac 08:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I just said: The 'yet' issue was already decided in the previous AfD. The question is, why are we here again, so soon? - Valarauka(T/C) 08:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Look at the sources they're using. Aside from Keith Moore, who is being misrepresented (12 years after he published the piece they're quoting he endorsed the view that Muhammad got it all from Galen, who lived 400 years previously), the authors are not worthy of being quoted in an encyclopedia, especially on such a sensitive topic. Arrow740 07:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

is Moore being represented? aside from the statement in his bio article which is unsourced and could easily have been a misrepresentation, do you have any solid sources for this? can you tell us what exactly he says? page #? edition? ITAQALLAH 13:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll have it by Friday. And the statement in his bio article is no doubt taken from here [9]. Arrow740 15:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Proabivouac has had a tendency from his very first edit (27 September 2006) to baselessly accuse Muslim editors of meatpuppetry and involvement in a massive cabalistic conspiracy. these are, of course, totally unfounded. the problem i see is when he chooses to dismiss the mass spamming of Arrow740. to say the least, i find his constant accusations unacceptable and distasteful, and if he is interested in working with Muslim editors he must first stop demonizing them. ITAQALLAH 13:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Must DELETE it is POV and the original research.Opiner 07:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I like that you've copied your vote from the old AfD without even noticing the changes in the article. - Valarauka(T/C) 08:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it's quite amusing and it's not more trashy than the rest of the Islam-apologetic articles around here. --Cyp.

• I have changed my vote to keep. I explained it above. Arrow740 06:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Itaqallah provided sources including one written by by Mehdi Golshani and published by Binghamton University press. Golshani, whom I've personally heard of him, was graduated from UC Berkeley and is the winner of several awards. Good job Itaqallah. I change my vote to keep. --Aminz 07:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep this is a perfect example of AFD being used as dispute resolution. AFD is not WP:RFM. No valid argument for deletion has been provided, and to relist less than a day after the prior AFD is a clear attempt to game the system. Close this afd and block the person who started it for WP:POINT.  ALKIVAR™ 11:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. This renomination, made within 24 hours of the first, is disruptive plain and simple. Take your issues to dispute resolution as suggested by Alkivar or fix up the article yourself. Silensor 18:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep already, per Alkivar - what a waste of time. Sandstein 09:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I changed my vote while writing out these thoughts: I might be leaning towards changing my vote to keep as some of the edits have addressed some of the problems. I do not think its fair to say that this is a waste of time since the debate has definately improved the article in ways that might not otherwise have been accomplished. AfD often force a editor to take charge of the situation to improve an article that they want to see kept. I really feel like there should be an expansion of the criticism portion. I want to see an even balance between alleged proofs and alleged disproofs. I would like to see lots of references for both sides. I imagine that some of the references for each side could be the same as for Creationism in general even though much of the lit on that more directly addresses Christian claims. I think it would be nice to expand the article to include extra-Quranic sources such as the Peak of Eloquence. Perhaps then the title Quran and Science would be inaccurate though. Someone else can deal with that. No one's argument has affected my possible vote, but I am seeing an article that is sincerely trying to opt a less POV style, and incorporate more references. My main concerns are mainly the alleged history of revert wars to keep criticism out (please allow all sides into this article, otherwise it is not encyclopedic) as well as the extensive original research and unverifiabilty and non-notability of references used in the article as it stood when I first made my vote. I'm also sore about the lack of civility of Aminz to me, but that has nothing to do with the article. There is a general lack of civility here, and it is on both sides. You should not harshly criticize someone who renominates for AfD even if it is soon, since the renom was in good faith, made valid points and caused vast improvement on the article. OK I'm changing to keep so that I can see how it turns out. But I think we should keep an eye on it, and bring it to the crucible again in a month's time IF it doesn't continue to improve. Godspeed! Green hornet 20:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You write as if you are not a sockpuppet. Your accound has less than 60 edits, but yet at least 80% of them are AfD votes. Why don't you vote using your regular account? It is not only you, Proabivouac is also a sockpuppet. How is it: I create 10 accounts and switch among them for every now and then. --Aminz 21:30, 16 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.