Forum:Annotated Qu'ran

< Index | Site-related discussion

User Prick began to create an annotated Qu'ran on Rationalwiki. This was deleted by user Lily with the comment thread below.

We already have an annotated Bible and a discussion about it. Do we want an Annotated Qu'ran?

Comments below are cut from Prick's talk page.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Annotated Qu'ran

It is not part of RationalWiki's mission to annotate complete religious tomes so I'm going to have to delete those pages that you've added as it looks like spam. If you can make a case for commenting on the various books of the Qu'ran then please do so but a side-by side of the complete book is not what we are about although there may be some parts that could do with that treatment.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

well, I thought since you guys have the entire bible here that I'd help this site out a bit by uploading some other religious texts, though i guess if it's a waste of space or something sorry 'bout that Prick (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually he does have a point. We do have the entire bible to link to and comment on - though we didn't get very far with it. The Qu'ran would seem to be a logical extension. Though it's the type of project which should really have been debated first.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. It could be a worthwhile exercise. Especially given that very few of us actually know or have read the Qu'ran. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 08:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(ECx4) That's a fair point. However, apart from a few notes I can find no evidence that anyone has seriously considered that we annotate the complete Bible, especially when the Annotated Skeptic's Bible has already done it in more depth. Even hosting the Bible does not really fit in with our mission and I would even approve of its deletion. Much of the Qu'ran and the Bible is unremarkable prose which does not require comment. Articles on the indivdual books give more scope to analyse their messages. I'd even go further and suggest that the bible pages do not belong in RationalWiki namespace even if they were on mission. If you can make a case for why we should have the complete Qu'ran hosted here other than just "because we have the Bible" then please present it on Talk:Main Page. Otherwise why don't we host all the main religion's books? English language version are all easily available on the web if you are really interested.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's something we can have. If someone seems willing to put the legwork in, then I wouldn't be against it - Trent has said that our capacity, at least at the moment, is practically limitless, so there's no outright reason not to. Besides, I've not been very impressed with the SAB because it's always just short and picky. The few annotations from RW that I've seen, which provide a more in depth commentary rather than just going "OMG, minor contradiction!!" is a much better endeavor. SAB, to me, is more like a primary school teacher using thick red pen to circle the spelling errors in a school child's story book while never actually commenting much on the story. ^narchist 11:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Begin new discussion

Personally I'm in two minds about this. We don't use the bible one that much - though we could. Does the existence of the bible one justify the Qu'ran one?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This could both ways. Either we see the annotated Bible as superfluous to our needs, or it came become a project where we eventually annotate all the religious books. Add in the Book of Mormon and Bagavad Gita too. --PsyGremlin講話 10:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks that the AB project was really little more than a geeky programming exercise. However, if people really intend to make serious notes about either work then I would go for it. However, somehow I don't see this garnering much long term interest (c.f. Conservapedia Bible Project) because there isn't enough to justify every chapter & verse. Much better to only focus on the contentious bits. I think our focus has moved on a bit from analysis of ancient texts like trying to pick holes in Genesis or the flood stories. Also why RW name space?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If there's any particular points raised in connection with any particular section of Bible or Koran, then quote them, I see no need to wholesale import loads of medieval crap onto the wiki. 10:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There are whole books of the Bible that aren't worth a close analysis (by us at any rate). It'd be better to focus on: the first half of Genesis, the mosaic laws, some of the prophecies, the gospels and some of Paul's letters. Why do a close analysis of Ruth or the Psalms? Totnesmartin (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

ADD: Having read the Qu'ran, I couldn't help noticing that a lot of it is quite repetetive, with an almost Idée fixe feel at times, but written with great subtlety and depth as well. I fail to see how we (annotating it as amateurs) could do an analysis that anyone would want to read. We can't even finish 101 evidences, for goat's sake. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've often regarded the annotated bible as a good idea and hoped someone would get around to doing more on it at some point - I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough to do it myself. At the very least it's a handy place to keep it so there are easy links and searches. The Qu'ran pages would at least fulfill that same function. I was reading some of it when it was deleted. Having the pages on the site doesn't hurt it and might offer some small benefit. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm still dubious about that, unless we frame it a modern-day context - comparing the original text with the various ludicrous fatwae and fundamentalist communiqués that come out every so often. Islamic fundamentalism is something we barely look at, yet it's incredibly important. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC)It might be interesting to have as a reference for some of the more often quoted or discussed pieces of the book. Is it true that it says that the quickest/best way to ensure going to paradise is to die killing infidels? Is paradise really filled with wine and women? Does everybody (presumably male) get 60 virgins (or whatever number)? Does it include instructions about how and when to beat your wife (or wives)? I've heard all these and more. Are they true? Down to the translation?

Also what does it say about creation? The flood? Slavery? Was Allah just as violently vindictive as God? A lot of potentially interesting things.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed Bob, but that doesn't mean we should host it. Quran.com does a much better job. We have agreed in the past that we shouldn't tackle certain topics in depth as Wikipedia is often a better resource.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a very weak argument. If you remove from RW all articles that aren't covered better elsewhere you end up with WIGO CP, Poe's Law and parts of funspace. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No it's not.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Infant-level retorts don't help your case either. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Your point is extremely facetious. RationalWiki has a lot of stuff which is covered differently to other places. And obviously you didn't get the joke in my reply. Do you need smileys with everything?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I understood your attempt at humour but didn't think it was successful. And "differently" does not mean "as well as" or "better than". In any case, you're now arguing against your own point. If the desire is to cover material differently, why did you delete the Qu'ran pages rather than letting people cover them differently? I'm also getting annoyed at people deleting content because they don't like it rather than discussing it first. Since at least one person thought it was useful, it was incorrect to delete it without consulting more widely. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of the Qu'ran material is entirely non-annotable. It might have even been interesting to even see one page that is "annotated". It was being published by a new user with the dubious name of Prick. It looked like an attempt to spam us with the Qu'ran. I would be interested to know how you think we could annotate the Qu'ran in a useful on-mission way that couldn't be done better by selecting pertinent passages in an encompassing article.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this project is a good idea. Lily has failed to provide any sort of good logical arguments against it. Islam should not be treated any less harsh then Christianity. --Onion ^Hi! :) 13:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, Onion I expect to see you adding copiously to all our annotated Bible/Qu'ran articles. I am not suggesting that any religion receives preferential treatment but annotating the whole text is a ridiculous way to go about it. We have articles on the individual Bible books which are in the RW style, there is no reason that the Qu'ran could not be treated int the same way.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well. Yes I think, else conservatives can start whining "see, see, the liberuls only attack Christianity!11" etc. The problem is that this site: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ has done a much better job with either (as well as the book of Mormon). There is only so much sceptic energy & workhours to go around so we might as well put them towards creating something new rather than replicating what already exists. Considering that our Bible doesn't seem that annotated I'd say get rid of them both. Sen (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Lilly is right with her alternative suggestion: Instead of hosting the entire book with very few notes (like we do with the bible), why not just pull out noteworthy sections and annotate them? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Because there's no way of pulling out everything that everybody will see as noteworthy in one sitting.

I agree that the "Guide to..." articles on the different books of the bible are the best way of describing / commenting on the different sections, but it's better to have a copy of the book in question on the site so there's no danger of URL changes or other problems with external links. Hence the need for a copy of the books too. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I must admit that I, for one, have no idea what the "noteworthy" sections of the Qu'ran are.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Bob, you are probably better off with a printed copy rather than hundreds of very short wiki pages. Also there are several English language versions of the Qu'ran with different interpretations. From what I have read of the Qu'ran it is more mystical and poetical than the story-telling of much of the Bible.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There are several ways of dividing the Qu'ran. It's true that there are 114 chapters but it can also be divided into 30 "sections", which are all of roughly similar length for ease of reading and memorisation. (I admit - all this came from Google, but I used several sources). There's no reason why RW couldn't go by section rather than chapter if it decided to host the text. Having never read more than a tiny fraction, I can't comment on Lily's description of it as "mystical and poetical", but most of the sources I've seen describe it along WP's lines as "The Qur'an recounts stories of many of the people and events recounted in Jewish and Christian sacred books". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe these guys would have some ideas? Ex-Christians and two a penny but ex-Muslims seem to a bit harder to turn up.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)