Talk:What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur'an
Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur'an was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 13, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This redirect 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 redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
I don't quite see how this article is deemed to not be neutral. The book itself may not be neutral in that it clearly favors the Chrisitan perspective, and the article indicates that - but a book with an opinion is different than a wikipedia article written about a book with an opinion. I think the neutrality flag should come off. Anyone have an issue with that? If so, please explain as I am at a loss to see it. The Real Serena JoyTalk 20:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of issues with the sources. Firstly, the majority of the article text uses the book itself as a source for it. Secondly, almost the entire section on the reception is from Christian (apparently evangelical) sources. Unsurprisingly all of these sources praise the book for its criticism. We have no Muslim responses, no evaluation of it from a secular perspective. If the book has only received coverage within the evangelical community then I wonder if it meets the WP:NOTABILITY criterion.VRtalk 06:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I only use the book as a source in the "Summary" section, and it is a common practice on other Wikipedia book articles. Yes, most of the reviews are from the evangelical community but it does not mean that the book does not worth to have its own article on Wikipedia; these reviews also provide criticism to the book, in case you were not aware of that. Yes, you are right that there is no Muslim review in this article, for there is no Muslim review to the book existing on the Internet. Is there any problem with it? I have revised the "Reception" section to get more neutralised, please take a look. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"these reviews also provide criticism to the book" what exactly is this criticism? That the book, which is already critical of Islam, was not critical enough? For example, according to the article, Wu criticizes White for "endorsing the official Islamic 'chronology'".VRtalk 07:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: I have tried my best. Well, the book—I should have admitted, before—lacks academic/scholarly reviews. Maybe, redirecting it will close this case. Do you agree with that? If yes, then I will immediately redirect this article to James White (theologian). —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let someone else chime in here and see what they say. To me a book about Islam that has completely escaped notice of the entire Islamic studies field doesn't seem notable, but maybe I'm wrong. So lets wait for more opinions. Thanks for taking the time to engage with me.VRtalk 07:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent Agreed. I note that the support comes from the sources you’d expect. I note that “Influence” is published by the Assemblies of God. Wes Bredenhof is a Creationist.[1]. Jimmy Butts was a Masters student when he wrote that and I see no evidence it was properly published except on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. To cap it off, Colborne is self-published.[2]. Never going to get GA and I’d argue not following NPOV. Doug Wellertalk 18:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
