Talk:Gerd R. Puin

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Islam: Muslim scholars

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Muslim scholars task force.

Untitled

I think it was CltFn who had edited this article to say that it disproved the divine origin of the Qur'an. That's his belief; WP should not be used to state that as a fact. CltFn also exaggerated the extent of the divergences between the Sana'a texts and the currently accepted Cairo text. Puin's academic article describes only minor variations in wording and sura order. No sweeping conclusions should be drawn on the basis of preliminary results. Let's wait for the book. Zora 05:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly an exageration , the Sanaa fragments that Gerd Puin photographed and collected clearly show revisions over time.--CltFn 04:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You state your own conclusions to why previous verses existed on the same fragments as fact. I could easily replace it with "due to scarcity of writing material, many parchments were reused over and over" pushing my own conclusions to the reader as facts. Please keep your own conclusions to yourself, write the facts and leave the conclusions to the reader. mistknight 10:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear statement

The last sentence of this article says the Puin has clarified the apparent contradiction between two statements; however, it leaves out HOW. I can't read German; can someone look at the article and figure it out? 00:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Qur'an in the House of Manuscript in Sana'a should be merged with the relevant section from this article, since their topic is 100% identical. Azate 21:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Azate. The topic is not 100% identical. PLease see my comments on the talk page for the (newly renamed) Sana'a manuscripts article. Stroika 08:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, this biography shall be merged to Sana'a manuscripts. That was his only significant work, before veering to the fringes. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

POV

I don't think that somone who said " That is why Muslims are afraid " is objective and can be called "the world's foremost authority on Qur'anic paleography " therefor I added POV tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dy yol (talk • contribs) 21:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the fragment "the world's foremost" is deleted, as well as the texts that needed a citation since 2008, we can delete the tags above the article.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction

I undid the destruction done to the article by anonymous use IP 41.191.59.246 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWaldo (talk • contribs) 18:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of evidence

If you are going to claim that Puir and others "prov[ed] that the text was still in flux," you need to cite at least some evidence that they did this. They *argue* it was in flux: what is the evidentiary basis of that argument? The fact that they discovered an ancient palimpsest with Quran verses? Ok, what about that palimpsest is substantially different from the 21st century Quran?

Is it simply enough for Wikipedia that an argument has been made that the Quran was a fluid text? Is there no need to even *discuss* why scholars claim that, and why other scholars argue differently? 2603:7081:1401:D44F:F5CE:2B7A:66FB:3635 (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]