Talk:Keith L. Moore

Untitled

Does not conform to NPOV. Requires presentation of several viewpoints. Needs to state Moore's viewpoint more clearly and then state some criticisms. Otherwise this is not an article that everyone can agree with.

--Dejo 03:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

find some academic criticism of Moore then. i removed the passage about the developing human book (taken from a less than credible article) because i checked a latter (seveth) edition, and Moore does nothing of the sort and not once does he mention Musallam, and Musallam's quote as given by the website (which is from Dunstan's work) has been gravely misinterpreted. that hippocrates "quote" was also removed as it is has nothing to do with "Keith Moore and the Quran" . ITAQALLAH 14:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Embryology in the Qur'an

The article reads pro-Islamic, the Discussion reads anti-Islamic. --FK65 18:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrong sources

Those sources should be removed : [1][2][3][4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcandli (talk • contribs) 17:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The four links are fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge Examiner (talk • contribs) 12:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed pointless text dump

Someone just copy and pasted a whole bunch of text from another website into this talk page for no particularly good reason. I have removed it because it was just clutering up this page. You can see the original edit here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keith_L._Moore&diff=64249944&oldid=58700496

151.197.28.239 00:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Macroscopic vs microscopic

Please don't change the embryological details unless you know something about embryology. The stages of development described are clearly macroscopic, and people will have known about them for as long as women have been having miscarriages. Kernow 21:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:LIVING - Living Person - removing WP:POV and WP:OR

I'm going to remove any reference to the Moore and the Quran plus the spurious links. This is about Moore and his works not interpreting his works. WP:LIVING applies very much here. I'll create Keith Moore and the Quran as a separate subpage for people to fight it out but no need to mess with this one. In his own right he seems notable BUT the fact that there is an Islamic edition of his book then unless you are certain Moore wrote that section and not the co-authors then it can't be added. I get doubts as to his engagemnet with the Quran when I read, http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/DGolden/touting_science.htm and I quote, "Prof. Moore sanctioned a special 1983 edition of his textbook, "The Developing Human," for the Islamic world, that was co-written by Mr. Zindani. It alternates chapters of standard science with Mr. Zindani's "Islamic additions" on the Quran.". Thus associating Moore with the Quran with respect to embryology seems to be WP:POV and/or WP:OR as reading on it seems that today he has little time for Quranic science. Remember he is a living person so WP:LIVING apples. The evidence seems to be that commenting on his work will be messy unless people directly quote which edition they have (I have neither so will only be detailing what is available e.g. ISBN numbers etc as listed on Barnes or Amazon etc and so won't be trying my hand in some WP:OR on what they contain) AND as I have mentioned with any co-authored work - they are certain he wrote that. The same would also apply to anything he says; reference to transcripts please: he may "regret" what he has said later (like many of us do) but at least we can accurately record where he said it. As an aside there is more story in the fact that there are Islamic editions; there probably is a new wikipage in Islamic versions of science and technology texts documenting the differences. Ttiotsw 08:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

err... what? Moore wrote an article in a journal, which he still cites today, about qur'an and embryology (you should already know this as i assume you have been following the developments on The Quran and science and its talk page). that itself establishes his view on this matter. the developing human: clinically oriented embryology with islamic additions is not the sole evidence for his views or the material he has actually written on the topic. ITAQALLAH 16:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

And I'm happy that we can link to the actual journal article but how people use that is a seperate question not related to what Moore thinks today on this matter. If we look at WP:LIVING especially "must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons" and then quoting the article by Daniel Golden for the WSJ "it's been 10 or 11 years since I was involved in the Quran." then my contention is that extending Islamic apologetics to his page would seem at odds with what Moore thinks today. What he has written for the Journal e.g. as found on http://www.islam101.com/science/embryo.html is an excellent example of use of truism, "The interpretation of the verses in the Qur'an referring to human development would not have been possible in the 7th century A.D., or even a hundred years ago. ". Obviously it would be an anachronism to interpret the verses in the Quran in the 7th Century AD with todays knowledge. There is a subtley here in what he says which I think people are missing. By all means record what he has written but having random sura and conjecture on his page without any clue as to how this ties into his views today is just too far for a living person unless he's on record as re-iterating or elaborating on his original early 80's views. Without that affirmation you're just taking what he has said out of the context of when he said it. Ttiotsw 16:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

seemingly, Moore still endorses what he wrote back then, as he provides it as a reference/suggested reading material in his recent embryology books. if your concern is about noting when he has said it also, that can easily be incorporated. yes, having a random surah not explicitly tied to what he has stated should not be here (though he has commented extensively on 39:6), but that does not mean his documented association with the Qur'an is not accurate. simply, replace the current surah with one on which his analysis has been provided and documented (as well as dated), such as in his latest edition of the mainstream version of "the developing human" where he makes some points on the qur'an (which i have quoted on the other article's talk page), or in the journal article (where one can state he said such and such in 1986). ITAQALLAH 16:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are to read his later works, he has rescinded his comments on the Quran, claiming that the Quran was a “high point” in an era where “growth of science was slow”, he then states how he currently interprets the Quran which is a far cry from what he used to do. 155.69.181.8 (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

OK - I'll be a bit more clearer why it needs to be very much focused simply on Moore and not any controversial subjects regarding embryology. Read this letter, http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_56lettersmoore.html and I'll extract the relevant section,

"But it is interesting that, according to Patricia Woolf in a paper presented in 1991 at a FIDIA research ethics conference at Georgetown, over 80% of the fraud formally determined by the OPRR to date was generated by physician researchers in the field of embryology." (The OPRR is now the Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP)). That letter was written contemporaneous to the references you wish to use for religious purposes so as I read it this field is a minefield. Irving has maintained her position on clarifying embryology terms (e.g. http://www.uffl.org/irving/irvlords.htm) especially with respect to use/misuse for political or religious reasons. Also notice in http://www.uffl.org/irving/irvone-act.htm the wording, "Crippled Conscience: Please! Those little "pre-embryo" things are just blobs of the mother's tissues, bunches of cells -- sort of like blood clots!...". I feel quite confident that for now there is enough concern to make sure that Moore's page ends up simply as a list of where he worked and works plus a reference list of his books and nothing more. The concern is not the science quality of what he writes but the non-scientific purposes to which they are misused and religious use counts as a misuse.Ttiotsw 04:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

it does not particularly bother me that much as it is a side issue and not an extremely significant part of Moore's academic history. if you feel it should be removed then i won't consider objecting at this moment in time. ITAQALLAH

Regardless of position on the current text, this article as it stands is practically unreadable. Add to that the fact that it clearly violates NPOV, as currently phrased at least, and as far as I can see has done so for the majority of recent revisions, and I have to recommend a thorough cleanup. TheToad42 (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone remove the sentence "He converted to Islam as he found a lot of scientific facts on Embryology in Quran" as this is bad English, factually wrong and has no substance or proof whatsoever? Muslims are already starting to quote this as a fact. In an interview 2002 with the Wall Street Journal he said: "it's been 10 or 11 years since I was involved in the Quran." Hardly a statement by a practising Muslim. So until there is some real proof that Moore converted from practising Christian to Muslim and that there are indeed scientific facts on embryology in the religious book called Koran I suggest taking that sentence down. WilliamBillyB (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources

[5] is not a reliable source. Find a more reliable source for the quotes.--Sefringle 02:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference 17 is not a reliable source https://www.answering-islam.org/ . the page says " Jesus, the Son of God The Bible describes true believers as God's children and people bent on evil as the Devil's" This type of sites should be used as references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashikurrahman.shad (talk • contribs) 11:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Moore and Qur'an

The following is from Encyclopaedia of the Qur’ãn - Science and the Qur’ãn:

In 1983, Keith Moore, the author of a textbook on embryology, published a third edition of his book under the auspices of the Committee on the Scientific Miracles of the Qur’an and Sunna, with “Islamic additions” by Abdul Majeed Azzindani, the first head of that Committee. The title of this new edition reads: The developing human: Clinically oriented embryology. With Islamic additions: Correlation studies with Qur’ãn and Hadith, by Abdul Majeed Azzindant

I believe this can be used to insert Moore's relation with the Qur'an in this article. Imad marie (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

We have this also:

Since the Quran predated microscopes, Moore, son of a Protestant clergyman, concluded that God had revealed the Quran to Muhammad. Moore has disseminated this view not only on Zindani’s videos but in many lectures, panel discussions and articles.

Imad marie (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a highly sensitive area as Moore is extensively used as primary evidence by Muslims when looking for "scientific miracles" in the Koran. The 3rd edition of his book The Developing Human contains changes by a Muslim, who removed all scientific pages which go against creation by a god and inserted religious texts from the Koran as well as excerpts from the Sayings of Muhammad, the Hadith. This 3rd edition is not available anywhere in the world except some select Islamic states (http://www.onlineislamicstore.com/b6147.html) Abul Qasim Publishing House, Saudi Arabia, 1983, ISBN 0721664925.

The subsequent editions of the same book go back to the normal description:

Growth of science was slow during the medieval period, and few high points of embryologic investigation undertaken during this time are known to us. It is cited in the Quran (seventh century ad), the Holy Book of the Muslims, that human beings are produced from a mixture of secretions from the male and female. Several references are made to the creation of a human being from a nutfa (small drop). It also states that the resulting organism settles in the womb like a seed, 6 days after its beginning. Reference is also made to the leechlike appearance of the early embryo. Later the embryo is said to resemble a "chewed substance."

Saunders; 8 edition (September 5, 2007), ISBN-13: 978-1416037064

This shows that Moore's previous statements on embryology in the Koran were not based on serious science, but merely the result of patronage by Al Zindani. Moore's CV also does not reflect any involvement with Islam, the Koran or any "Islamic embryology". It also omits mentioning the 3rd edition of his most successful book, The Developing Human. His lecture in Saudi Arabia or any activity in Islamic countries is not there. He has not replied to contact attempts and we have only one single statement from an interview attempt, where he admits not being involved in the Koran for 10 or 11 years. Strange if he were a practising Muslim.

My suggestion is to include only verifiable facts with their sources and leave out any kind of religious propaganda. WilliamBillyB (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamBillyB (talk • contribs) 06:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed the section "Embryology and the Qur'an" as the "The Journal of the Islamic Medical Association" is not considered to be a reliable publisher to articles attributed to a living person according to WP:IRS and WP:BLPSPS. Knowledge Examiner —Preceding undated comment added 12:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

Is there any way of stopping people smuggling religion into these pages on this person? There are so many sections where people can post their propaganda when it comes to embryology in the Koran. This is a page on a medical doctor, not someone who wrote predominantly on religion. I removed the sentence on what Moore is supposed to have said, which links back to an Islamic religion page and not a verified source on Prof. Moore.WilliamBillyB (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Removed the "A Scientist’s Interpretation of References to Embryology in the Qur’an Keith L. Moore, Ph.D., F.I.A.C." source as it does not comply with WP:OFFLINE. Removed the YouTube video because it is considered as a self-published media [6] WP:YOUTUBE WP:SPS and cannot be attributed to a living person according to WP:BLPSPS. Removed the sentence of the dispute of the statements of Moore as it will be irrelevant after removal of the previously mentioned sources. Knowledge Examiner (talk) 09:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have semi-protected this article for two weeks. This means that IP's cannot edit it for that period. I do not intend for my action to be interpreted as an approval of one side vs. the other. Everyone (including IP's, who should still be able to edit this talk page) needs to engage in a calm discussion, focussing on the relevant Wikipedia policies, and seeking outside assistance if necessary as outlined in the dispute resolution policy. Richwales (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem in dispute with registered users as when they edit without discussing on the talk page, I can send them notes on their talk pages and we can discuss. But the main problem is with unregistered users as they keep disruptive editing from many different IP's with no way of discussing changes. It seems that no one from those who add the paragraphs in different styles is interested in discussing this on the talk page for years. They just keep adding it over and over for religious reasons while others keep adding paragraphs containing replies to them also for religious reasons turning the page into a site for religious war not a biography of a living person. Knowledge Examiner (talk) 03:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy allows people, in general, to edit without registering or logging in. So we can't discriminate against editors solely because they are unregistered IP's. At the same time, it is recognized that a much higher percentage of disruptive editing activity comes from IP's as opposed to registered users — hence the availability of semi-protection.

I would strongly encourage people to discuss the material in question and come up with a solution in keeping with the NPOV policy. This could possibly result in the disputed material being added back to the article, but in some less prominent way (possibly in a separate "Religious views" or "Personal views" section, and trimmed down to lessen emphasis).

If IP's refuse to discuss the matter and instead continue editing disruptively after the current semi-protection expires, I (or presumably other admins) would be willing to try a longer semi-protection. Indefinite semi-protection is generally allowed only after a series of shorter (albeit increasing) periods of semi-protection have failed to solve the problem — something which hasn't happened yet (as best I can tell, I'm the first admin to put any protection on this article). Richwales (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Would someone kindly attempt to rewrite the content that's been removed? I see little to no problem with it where neutrality is concerned. Sure, the information is a little controversial (Muslims like to use the work of Keith Moore to 'validate' their Qur'an), but the "pro-Islam" information on Moore is generally very clear and well-written. The final point (that the validity of Moore's claims has been disputed) is, IMO, 100% necessary in order to maintain credibility. If the sources relating to this point aren't great...let's find some better sources. It should be glaringly obvious that there is strong debate over this sort of thing in the scientific community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.185.243 (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not in the content itself and for myself I share your view about the neutrality of the paragraphs. But the problem is in the sources themselves I identified in my main comment. The sources do not comply with Wikipedia standards as I mentioned before and since this is a biography of a living person I deleted the content first and then discussed instead of the contrary. Knowledge Examiner (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to assist in the hunt for better sources? Perhaps we can find someone/some people to aid us? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.185.243 (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I already searched the internet for all possible sources talking about Keith Moore when I re-wrote the page and didn't find any reliable sources about this issue except for religious sources. It seems from the discussion in this section that this problem has been going on for years with no one able to find reliable sources, so I removed the paragraphs until someone can find a reliable source. Knowledge Examiner (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you think of The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology by Keith Moore and T. V. N. Persaud? It appears this book has at least one passing reference to the Quran. I also found some references to an article reportedly by Moore called "Highlights of Human Embryology in the Koran and the Hadith" — though I wasn't able to find the article itself online. I do agree that most of the Google hits I managed to find just now were of self-published web sites or blogs (not usable unless one or more of them were written by Moore himself, which doesn't appear to be the case). I'm also intrigued by the various YouTube hits claiming to be recordings of Moore talking about his beliefs — though unless Moore himself had actually uploaded one or more of these, I don't think they qualify as usable per Wikipedia policy. Richwales (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that we can't infer what Dr. Moore believes or believes-not, but the continues removal of anything related to this topic and attacking newbies is highly disruptive. None of this content, weather referenced or not, stayed here more than 2-3 months. ~ AdvertAdam ^on-mobile

AdvertAdam, I think we would better say that the continuous addition of poorly cited contents and self-published material is highly disruptive. I do not think we attack newbies, we are just trying to encourage them to discuss first before adding poorly cited contents and self-published material to a biography of living person. Knowledge Examiner (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Richwales, in the book The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 8th edition, 2007, ISBN: 978-1416037064, a whole section called "HISTORICAL GLEANINGS" in the first chapter "Introduction to the Developing Human" was dedicated to talking about embryology in history which included embryology in Egyptian civilization, Indian civilization, Greek philosphy, religious books like Talmud and Quran, Renaissance, .. etc. The exact text written about Quran is as follows

“ Growth of science was slow during the medieval period, and few high points of embryologic investigation undertaken during this time are known to us. It is cited in the Quran (seventh century ad), the Holy Book of the Muslims, that human beings are produced from a mixture of secretions from the male and female. Several references are made to the creation of a human being from a nutfa (small drop). It also states that the resulting organism settles in the womb like a seed, 6 days after its beginning. Reference is also made to the leechlike appearance of the early embryo. Later the embryo is said to resemble a "chewed substance." ”

This contradicts what Moore is claimed to be saying in the video about the Quran knowing about the Zygote. It also didn't claim anything about the Quran statement of any advanced knowledge in embryology. I also didn't find any necessity that we should only single out Quran or even the whole historical section in this book to be mentioned on the author page in Wikipedia. The right place for such contents should be Islam and science. Knowledge Examiner (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm confirming, again, that there is no rational to dispute an academic text-book, his "... third editions with Islamic additions," just because it's not available in the west. It's mostly used in Islamic countries, because that's where they teach Islam. ~ AdvertAdam ^on-mobile 04:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:SCHOLARSHIP the book "The Developing Human .. with Islamic additions" is not an academic book as the guideline states "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars". Instead it fits more the self-published criteria in WP:SPS stating "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.". Knowledge Examiner (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

People need to know that Moore's work on embryology and the Qur'an is not accepted by the scientific community. Most people who're accessing Moore's page are doing so in order to check out claims they've heard stating that the Qur'an gives an accurate account on the manner in which the human embryo develops. I'm sorry to sound like I'm 'hating on' Islam, but Wikipedia should be providing answers to people who're undecided on whether or not controversial work like this should be taken seriously, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.185.243 (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

We cannot add any information on Wikipedia specially on a biography of a living person unless they are published in reliable sources. These are the guidelines of Wikipedia and that is what Wikipedia gets its reputation from. If people did not find information on Wikipedia, they will simply know that there are no reliable sources published it. Knowledge Examiner (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Is someone going to say and more importantly do something about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.29.143 (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the the page is in its best form now according to the available reliable sources. We do not need any changes unless we got any new reliable sources. Knowledge Examiner (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I would dispute what you are saying. As mentioned earlier, perhaps the main reason Moore is 'noteworthy' enough for a Wikipedia page is because of his work on Islam. Something is wrong if his work on Islam is not even mentioned on this page, I'd say. I'm not sure what you meant by part of the comment you posted on my talk page: "Removed the YouTube video because it is considered as a self-published media"; this video had already been removed by myself in the revision you were commenting on! You are right about the current state of the "A scientist's interpretation of..." source, however. I've changed this a little. I cannot see what would be wrong with the source now. It has been published in an Islamic academic journal. Details of its location within the said journal are specified. Finally: In the latest revision, the inclusion of the sentence regarding general scientific consensus on Moore's work remains wholly appropriate. Indeed, without the sentence, I'd say this paragraph would be anything but neutral!

I am guessing you don't have a problem with the writing itself, but with the sources? There now remain only two sources used in the 'controversial' part of the article. One source (Moore's writing, published in an established journal) is used twice in my revision. The other source (a book from William Campbell) illustrates the fact that Moore's work on Islam is, by no means, universally accepted by scientists. I cannot see a problem with either of these sources at this stage. User:surlyduff50 (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

At this point, I would suggest that an effort be made to improve the newly supplied material, rather than continue to invoke WP:BLP against it — unless there is significant reason to believe the material is false or materially misleading. The reason there are stricter rules for material in a BLP is to respect people's privacy and avoid sensationalism or libel; it doesn't seem to me that this sort of thing is an issue here, and I question whether it's proper to (mis?)apply the BLP rules to create an unreasonably high bar in this case. If people still believe this material is inadequately sourced and does not belong, I would strongly suggest discussing the matter at WP:BLPN rather than continuing what could be deemed an edit war. — Richwales (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear surlyduff50, dear Richwales, in last June I removed the same statements about Moore and the Quran after checking out the previous sources as you may see in the section.

“ Removed the section "Embryology and the Qur'an" as the "The Journal of the Islamic Medical Association" is not considered to be a reliable publisher to articles attributed to a living person according to WP:IRS and WP:BLPSPS. Knowledge Examiner —Preceding undated comment added 12:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC). ”

First, I should note that the next statement in the disputed paragraph never appeared in the religious article in the journal which you can check at [7]

“ Moore affirms that Qur'anic statements regarding human development make it clear that the book is of divine origin, concluding: "This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of God or Allah." ”

Now let us check if the first source "The Journal of the Islamic Medical Association" is really a reliable source according to Wikipedia guidelines. WP:IRS states that

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

The Journal of the Islamic Medical Association of North America has no such reputation. WP:SCHOLARSHIP states that

Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.

The Journal of the Islamic Medical Association of North America focus and scope casts a lot of doubt that it exists for promoting a religious view

The Journal of the Islamic Medical Association of North America (JIMA) publishes original research articles, review articles, updates and case reports, articles dealing with medical ethics in general and Islamic medical ethics in particular and articles dealing with Islamic medicine and the history of medicine, particularly the contributions of Muslim physicians, both ancient and contemporary.

— [8]

WP:SCHOLARSHIP states that

One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context.

The Journal of the Islamic Medical Association of North America has no scholarly citations in citation indexes and I found only references on Google Scholar to the "Islamic Medical Association of North America" being taken as an authority for the religious views of Muslims in north America not an authority for any other kind of studies even Islamic studies. This means that care and caution should be taken before using this kind of sources beside that their statements should be taken only as to represent their views. Biographies of living persons represent the most articles on Wikipedia that should be taken with care and caution. Furthermore, if we know that the article in question which was published in this journal states that

This statement is from Sura 23: 13. The drop or nutfa has been interpreted as the sperm or spermatozoon, but a more meaningful interpretation would be the zygote which divides to form a blastocyst which is implanted in the uterus ("a place of rest").

— [9]

while Moore did not cite his own published statements about this interpretation favored by him in his well known book and instead states that

Growth of science was slow during the medieval period, and few high points of embryologic investigation undertaken during this time are known to us. It is cited in the Quran (seventh century ad), the Holy Book of the Muslims, that human beings are produced from a mixture of secretions from the male and female. Several references are made to the creation of a human being from a nutfa (small drop). It also states that the resulting organism settles in the womb like a seed, 6 days after its beginning. Reference is also made to the leechlike appearance of the early embryo. Later the embryo is said to resemble a "chewed substance."

— Keith L. Moore, T.V.N. Persaud, Chapter 1 - HISTORICAL GLEANINGS - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 8th edition, 2007, ISBN: 978-1416037064

Now let us check if the second source "The Qur'an and the Bible in the Light of History & Science" is really a reliable source according to Wikipedia guidelines. WP:USERG states

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.

According to this guideline the book is not acceptable, because it is self-published not peer-reviewed publication or academic book. Furthermore, the guideline states

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer

This makes it clear that even if Campbell is a well-known professional researcher, - which he is not neither in Embryology nor in Islamic or historical studies - his book should never be used as third-party sources about living persons.

Finally, I would like to remind you of the guideline Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources

Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space.

Sorry for the inconvenience but I felt that you need to know the result of my research about the reliability of the disputed contents. I will be waiting for your replies. Knowledge Examiner (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Knowledge Examiner: You're obviously looking into this in great detail, which is great, but have a think again about this point Richwales made:

At this point, I would suggest that an effort be made to improve the newly supplied material, rather than continue to invoke WP:BLP against it — unless there is significant reason to believe the material is false or materially misleading.

In my opinion, I would say that there is little to no reason to believe that this page's contents (or the material it is sourced from) are misleading. As Richwales has stated, the BLP rules you are considering are in place to prevent false information creeping into articles. I'm arguing less for the case that the Journal of the Islamic Medical Association source is perfect (it's not!), but rather, for the case that the source is fit for purpose within the context of the article; the point the source is trying to get across is simply that Moore has produced work concluding that Islam is of divine origin. It's hardly a hotly contested issue.

As for the guidelines you've cited against the Campbell source:

Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space.

The key word here is contentious. It (should) go without saying that Moore's work is not accepted by most scientists. Again, whilst the source is not 'ideal', it fits its purpose - to illustrate the fact that there is debate over this sort of work. A basic 'tenet' of Wikipedia is to not 'oversource' points lacking contention. We shouldn't make a mountain out of a molehill here. User:surlyduff50 (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I have noted this dispute at WP:BLPN, in hopes of getting more input on the matter. — Richwales (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this is the best to be done for now, although I think I am not the only one convinced that the disputed contents are added against the guidelines as you can see from the talk page and the history :) Knowledge Examiner (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear surlyduff50, Wikipedia guidelines are there so that we d o not need to judge sources according to our opinions or beliefs, instead WP:V states

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

So if the guidelines state that it is not reliable while any editor believe that it is really true. The guidelines for verifiability applies not what we believe to be true. This should be applied to any article, and we should be more careful and strict when we deal with biographies of living persons. If you think that the guidelines are missing a point in its current form by forcing Wikipedia to ignore rumors - religious propaganda in our case - about living persons, then you should work on changing the guidelines not simply challenging them. Although i got your point and partly agree with you but this is not the place to discuss the efficiency of the guidelines. Knowledge Examiner (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not feel the article is clear enough on the fact that Moore's work would not be taken seriously by the majority of people 'in the know' where embryology is concerned. I feel something needs to be added to the page, simply for the sake of highlighting to the reader the fact that they should, at least, approach Moore's work with a little scepticism. PZ Myers is an embryologist who hotly contests Moore's work on the Qur'an and Embryology. I am proposing use of the following as a source on this page:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/11/islamic_apologetics_in_the_int.php

Granted, it's from a blog, although it is a respectable blog. It appears to fall within Wikipedia's constraints on use of a blog as a source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources

Anyone: would this be suitable, perhaps with a rephrased 'final sentence'? User:surlyduff50 (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Before we end up in an editwar, I would like to comment on the edits/reverts done by User:surlyduff50 at 14:45, 14 January 2012:

• To begin with, Moore's article A Scientist’s Interpretation of References to Embryology in the Qur’an which can be found here has no sentence that says: "This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of God or Allah." However, when I deleted this unjust claim, User:surlyduff50 reverts it back, and deletes the given link as well. However, the "messenger of Allah"-quote can be found here, but for some reason this website was not seen WP:RS by Surlyduff.
  
• The second discussed point is the sentence It is also widely considered to have taken such a stance with respect to the Qur'an for personal financial gain after being offered (and taken) a faculty position at King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah, followed by two references. User:surlyduff50 deleted this, as "We cannot verify any claim of 'money-hunting.'" The remark is true, but the dicussed sentence doesn't claim that. It just says that it is considered that Moore took his stance for financial gain; not that it is a fact. I could imagine that the word widely could be deleted, but we can still say that it is considered that Moore wrote what he wrote for financial gain.
  
• Finally, I took the part in 2002 Moore declined to be interviewed by the Wall Street Journal directly from the source. It doesn't violate WP:WEASEL, for as far as I can see. Thus, I do not see why it had to be changed. Furthermore, User:surlyduff50 edited it to Moore chose not to be interviewed by the Wall Street Journal on the subject of his earlier work on Islam, thus suggesting that there would be some later work, which there is not.
  

I hope that someone will look at these matters, so that they can be solved before an editwar will start. Otherwise, I will revert Surlyduffs edits next week, and we wil see what happens next.Jeff5102 (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

---

To begin with, Moore's article A Scientist’s Interpretation of References to Embryology in the Qur’an which can be found here has no sentence that says: "This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of God or Allah

Indeed, this quote has been taken from a conference Moore participated in in Cairo.

However, when I deleted this unjust claim, User:surlyduff50 reverts it back, and deletes the given link as well.

It is not unjust to attribute a quote from 'Person X' to 'Person X'. The reference wasn't deleted for that reason.

However, the "messenger of Allah"-quote can be found here, but for some reason this website was not seen WP:RS by Surlyduff.

That article is biased to the core, and probably not needed to validate the "Messenger of Allah" quote, given that we can cite a video with a Moore interview taken at the conference itself (entitled This Is The Truth) as evidence. I could be (and probably am!) wrong, so probably best to get several opinions here, if you truly feel the article needs to stay on the page.

The remark is true, but the discussed sentence doesn't claim that. It just says that it is considered that Moore took his stance for financial gain

Moore is considered by some (including myself!) to've taken his stance for financial gain. Ryan Giggs was considered by some to've been a closeted homosexual. Doesn't mean it's relevant to a biographical article. Surely we should seek to err on the side of caution here, in true Wiki-fashion? :)

Finally, I took the part in 2002 Moore declined to be interviewed by the Wall Street Journal directly from the source. It doesn't violate WP:WEASEL, for as far as I can see.

It doesn't - not at all! :) That was just me rewording in my usual obsessive way! Sorry about that - I just thought it sounded a tad more fluent!

Furthermore, User:surlyduff50 edited it to Moore chose not to be interviewed by the Wall Street Journal on the subject of his earlier work on Islam, thus suggesting that there would be some later work, which there is not.

True that! Surlyduff50 (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2012 (GMT)

Sorry, but the video This Is The Truth was already regarded an unreliable source in 2006 (see above), thus maybe you can look for something more reliable.

Furthermore, I do not know the link between Ryan Giggs's football qualities and being a closeted homosexual, while I do see the link between Prof. Moore making controversial statements and the reason why he might be doing them. Maybe, if you can explain how Ryan Giggs's closeted homosexuality is related to his football skills, while it STILL isn't relevant to his biographical article, we can exclude the issue of Moore and his perceived monetary gain here. Jeff5102 (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Bad sources

This website https://www.answering-islam.org/ is not a reputable source, it's a known hate speech website that spreads fabrications against Islam. The statement can be reinstated if a more direct reputable source to that quote is found and verified. 74.90.233.230 (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Then you should also at least be honest and state that Keith Moore has now changed his mind on the subject.

If you don’t, then your Dawah intentions are made clear. 155.69.181.8 (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Keith Moore frsm.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)