User talk:Prick

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Prick! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Prick. Blue (pester) 01:07, 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. --PsyGremlinHable! 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 have started a Forum thread on this here. Future comments would be better made there.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)