User talk:Alfred Russel

Hello good start on the Kroner. But link the videos as references if they are available. Also add the verse that is claimed to be miraculous. Or is it the case that Kroner never heard of any verse? Saggy (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2014 (PDT)

The videos are already linked as references at the bottom of the Kroner article. I have left out the verses because the article is about Zindani's manipulation of the views of scientist so I want to avoid diverting the subject towards whether or not the Quran actually says what Zindani claimed. The important thing is that the scientists who allegedly confirmed the divine origin of the Quran did no such thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfred Russel (talk • contribs) (Remember to sign your comments)

Looks like the date of the conference is 1979. He says it in the video and from google links. We can just use the year even if the full date isnt available.

I'm also wondering about the verse. If its known what verse it is, maybe it can be mentioned in brief? Up to you though. That could be worked on later too. --Axius (talk | contribs) 17:51, 5 August 2014 (PDT)

The problem with this, apart from distracting the reader from the deception itself, is that we have no idea what the entirety of the verses/hadiths presented to them were. The only one's we are told about are the ones which were vague enough to not be outright incorrect and from which they were able to extract sound bites. By listing the only information we have it is easy to give the false impression that these people were only given a small collection of information, when in fact they were given lots of information and in most cases told Sheikh Zindani the information was outright contradictory to reality. It also wouldn't reflect Sheikh Zindani's approach of modifying the interpretation of the Arabic each time an objection was raised, so we wouldn't even get the verse/hadith text exactly as it was presented to the scientists. (See Pete Palmer page when complete for a description of this process).

Ok. I see so its not known what was presented to them. Thats interesting. The fact the people who made this propaganda up did not list the 'evidence' itself for the public, shows they knew the public would not see the evidence as being strong.

I read a few things around page 36 of that book. It was funny that they called this scientist 'evasive' many times. I will try to download a PDF of the book.

There's some info on Wikipedia about the scientists' denials that would be repeated here. I havent looked at it closely though but I'll check later. --Axius (talk | contribs) 04:40, 6 August 2014 (PDT)

Correct, and if you watch the Pete Palmer interview he describes how Zindani spent two or three days constantly altering the meaning of the Arabic words in order to make it match reality. Each time Mr Palmer would point out an error Zindani would alter the translation and ask if it is more correct. Once the whole collection of scientists are written up I will outline the process on the main page, along with quotes from the interviews indicating where I learned of each step. --Alfred Russel

Good going. But I think there should be a more specific name for the series than "scientists." Also sign comments using "~" 4 times and tell me if you know any other languages. Saggy (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2014 (PDT)

I think we are going with Commission_on_Scientific_Signs_in_the_Quran_and_Sunnah because that was the name of the original project. I only speak English Alfred Russel (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2014 (PDT)

I renamed it now to that and added the menu system on the right of the pages. --Axius (talk | contribs) 18:22, 6 August 2014 (PDT)

I think the most appropriate title for this series would be "This is the Truth", because that is what it is actually about, not the "Commission on Scientific Signs in the Quran and Sunnah". It also makes sense because that name is too long for any sub pages. For example, the page on Alfred Kroner would be titled, "Commission on Scientific Signs in the Quran and Sunnah: Alfred Kroner," which looks ridiculous. With the new title it would be, "This is the Truth: Alfred Kroner," which is shorter and makes more sense. The separate pages can't be named after the scientists' names alone because, for example, there is already a page about Dr. Keith Moore (Dr. Keith Moore and the "Islamic Additions"). Of course it is fine to have two pages on the same individual because they cover different issues and Dr. Keith Moore and the "Islamic Additions" and "This is the Truth: Keith Moore" can be linked via a hub page called, "Keith Moore". I also think Alfred Russel had the right idea about the videos. They are already linked as references so including them randomly in pages only breaks them up and takes the focus away from the actual article and onto something that has nothing to do with WikiIslam (i.e. someone else's YouTube videos). Ideally anything of importance in these videos should be conveyed through the text of the page and the videos should be confined to the references/external links and maybe even its own page titled, "This is the Truth: Videos". And lol Saggy there has to be a better way of finding out what languages an editor speaks, without ordering them to tell you. --Sahab (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2014 (PDT)