This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Early Quranic manuscripts article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zoedescoteaux. Peer reviewers: Mamasanogo81.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
It's titled "Early Quranic manuscripts" but the first section begins by citing Bukhari? Why? And why are "lost manuscripts" even listed? How about only listing the manuscripts we actually have, in reverse chronological order, i.e. the earliest manuscripts at the top, because thats what determines Order of Importance for the field, in general. And please, leave Bukhari out of it, this page should not be about what is claimed, but what is actually found and verified by academics as the title of the page suggests. Just keep it simple, and the page will grow, easy to follow for the reader and easy to edit for contributors. Thanks & Regards. Code16 ( talk) 14:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I moved the Tübingen manuscript to the "Kufic" section, as all the references at the time (included in this article) referred to the manuscript as written in Kufic. I have since found another reference in Turkish ( http://www.kuramer.org/m/169/167/tubingen-nushasi), which appears to state otherwise. What should be done in such a situation?
Also, to note, Eberhard Karls Universitat Tübingen, where the manuscript gets its name from, lists it as a "Kufisches (that is, "Kufic") Koranfragment", but it also states that it contains verses 17:37, to 36:57.. When it contains also 17:36, and part of 17:35..
I don't know Turkish, so if someone could look at the reference ( http://www.kuramer.org/m/169/167/tubingen-nushasi)? (Is it reputable, etc.). Thanks, Jahelistbro ( talk) 17:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
5, of the 6 manuscripts included in this article have articles.. So, for those, what should be included in this article? Jahelistbro ( talk) 23:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
A contention has arisen regarding the dating of parchments and a desire to 'date' the writings according to the animal skins. The confusion or misunderstanding is in understanding that animal skins predate any writing on them (since live animals are not written upon, but only those butchered and their flesh dried and prepared for writing upon them). The "assumption" is that the animals were butchered and prepared at the same time (moments before) the writings appeared on those dated skins. The assumption is misleading, because animal skins can be several years (and decades) old prior to them being written upon. This is the contention I aimed to make clear in a recent edit, and is now fully explained. -- HafizHanif ( talk) 17:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
A relatively insignificant and partisan figure: not one from serious academia. I'm surprised to see him repeatedly mentioned and quoted in the article. Not appropriate even as (rather, especially as) he's referencing other academics. Why not just quote from those academics directly instead of ibn warraq's opinioned summary of their conclusions?
It's sort of like quoting Dawkins on textual criticism of the Bible. Even if he were to make a valid point with reference to an academic, it would be strange to use the partisan public intellectual's name and words in such an article. 72.141.152.196 ( talk) 11:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
An overview table at the top with dating of the manuscripts and a short description could be nice. I might do it if/when I get time PolyCreator ( talk) 20:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)