Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Birmingham Quran manuscript

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 08:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Birmingham Quran manuscript

[edit]
(
)
Close-up of the manuscript
Close-up of the manuscript

Created by Pigsonthewing (talk) and Cordless Larry (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 12:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC).

  • Article is recent and sufficiently large. Regarding the "In the news" talk, this article was rejected for ITN (several commenters felt it was more suitable for DYK), so there's no ITN usage conflict here.
The article is written neutrally (I fixed one small portion to follow more closely the policy of minimizing the use of Islamic titles / honorifics when referring to Muhammad). It contains sources (and inline citations of same). The hook is acceptably worded and is adequately substantiated via an inline citation to a source.
The image is from Commons, appears in the article, and looks OK in a small size.
The QPQ review checks out.
So I'm going to call this one Good To Go. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears that people are trying to attribute religious significance to this. The hook therefore requires care to avoid overstating the finding. The recent dating was of the parchment of the manuscript but it was common for these to be washed and reused with fresh writing later. The first hook does not make this clear so I suggest an alternative. Andrew D. (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I would like to suggest another hook, my suggestion conveys the message of ALT1 while it has another interesting message within:
  • ALT2 ... that the Birmingham Quran manuscript (pictured), dating back to muhammad's time, is said to prove that the Quran "has undergone little or no alteration?" Mhhossein (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • ALT3 ... that the newly discovered Birmingham Quran manuscript (pictured) comprises fragments of an ancient Quran that may date to near Muhammad's lifetime? E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    comment let's try to keep this accurate but still make it an exciting lede. Note that this is not a complete manuscript, and that radio carbon dating is not absolutely accurate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I have struck alts 1 and 2 as I think they are potentially misleading. ALT3 looks okay to me. Gatoclass (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: Could you please say what makes ALT2 seem misleading to you? Mhhossein (talk) 04:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the article, there is some dispute as to whether the date of the text on the parchment is the same as the date of the parchment itself. So I thought those two alts were misleading as they encourage conflation of the two. ALT3, on the other hand, does not. Gatoclass (talk) 06:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: Yes you are right, I had not payed attention to that. By the way, is there any way to include the point that the new finding proves the view that Quran "has undergone little or no alteration?" Mhhossein (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    • The comma needs to go away in ALT3. Also, a plural verb doesn't belong with a singular subject. Possibly replace "are fragments" with "comprises fragments" or "consists of fragments". — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the comma, thanks. I noticed the other problem yesterday but decided to come back to it later. "Comprises fragments" sounds okay to me, so I have substituted it. Gatoclass (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • ALT3 needs to be checked and, if appropriate, formally approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • After re-reading the article, I find this Good To Go with the current ALT3 hook. With all possible respect to Mhhossein, I cannot support making the hook say this manuscript proves the Quran has undergone little or no alteration; while this could very possibly be the case, as long as some reputable scholars argue that the parchment might have been erased and reused, the dating of the manuscript (as opposed to the parchment) is not indisputable at this time. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@Richwales: Yes, you are right. However, thanks for considering my suggestion. Hope to see the hook on the main page very soon. Mhhossein (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Birmingham_Quran_manuscript&oldid=678423542"