Talk:The True Furqan

Thank you for starting this

I remember that some time ago, I think it was in February 2009, I saw a request for an article on this topic at Wikipedia: Village Pump for this article (the request was not mine - I did not have the knowledge to do this). Thank you for starting it. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Contributor

It is my wish that people will understand and explore the message of the True Furqan without being defensive or judgmental. Many have undertaken to pass judgment on the book without reading it nor attempting to understand its character. By elucidating some of the concepts and predications of the work, it is hoped that individuals will benefit from its sometimes cogent, often comforting, and frequent pages of warning directed to humanity.Frank777w (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing chapter-verse references and quotes

I think this is an interesting topic and there should be an article on it. But I don't think long lists of chapter/verse references belong in this article, nor do lengthy quotes from the book itself, unless they are used to demonstrate points about the book. And even then, a reference or quote or two per a point is fine; you don't need to reference or quote every single passage on it. --SJK (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of Text

SJK vandalized the text. He (or she) stated, "I don't think long lists of chapter/verse references belong in this article, nor do lengthy quotes from the book itself, unless they are used to demonstrate points about the book." The said items that I inserted in text do belong there to give clarity to the article and to explain the purpose, claims, and function of the True Furqan. Avoid subjective interpolation of views and censorship of the article, SJK. Also, I feel that what you did constitutes vandalism.Frank777w (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand what "vandalism" means in Wikipedia (or generally speaking). Removing text, is called editing. Its good, its important. When it is done arbitrarily and for no good reason, then it is vandalism, but when it is an attempt to improve the article by removal of excess content, that is editing. So I would suggest you not rush to accuse other people of vandalism. Similarly, it is not "censorship" or "subjective interpolation of views".

The article as it stands is a mess, and a large reason part of being a mess is excessive quoting and chapter/verse references. So I have removed them, and have just removed them again, in an attempt to improve the article. --SJK (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing information when you are not asked to do so can constitute vandalism. Why, SJK, don't you start a separate section? Don't remove text from the article, this is poor manners, and may be disturbing to many, who would perhaps like further, not just superficial information on the work, The True Furqan. Some people consider what you did, to be like a form of censorship, based on your feelings, "I don't think..." If you continue with what I consider to be inappropriate redacting, I may have to consult with appropriate authorities at Wikipedia. Again, start your own page, if you wish. I have spent hours of time and research to attempt to bring in a quality manner, information to people who may be interested. Your vandalism, SJK, does nothing, but censor information that may be useful to different people who are interested in the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank777w (talk • contribs) 22:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't understand how Wikipedia works. Removing text in good faith is not vandalism, and accusing an editor of vandalism for doing so is at best ignorant. Its not censorship based on feelings, its editing to try to improve the encyclopedic quality of the article. I have reverted your changes. --SJK (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of text after continued vandalism by SJK

SJK continues to vandalize and censor important information of the article. He has been asked to not damage the article any more, but declines to cease and desist. He should start his own article and respect the opinions of others. In part this is a maturity issue. Please, SJK, start your own article and stop vandalizing this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank777w (talk • contribs) 18:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Frank777w, how many times can I repeat myself? Good faith pruning of excessive information in articles is not vandalism or censorship, nor is it "disrespecting the opinions of others" or a "maturity issue". You seem to suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works -- articles do not belong to anyone, thus no one can "start your own article". This is not my article, nor is it your article, it belongs to the project as a whole. I would also request you cease your incivility. --SJK (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on The True Furqan and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: The edits made by SJK are not vandalism and are entirely appropriate. A Wikipedia article about a book must be to objectively describe the book and to objectively describe the comments, criticisms, and other reactions to the book, not to defend or promote the book or its contents. Notwithstanding the fact that the book and/or the reactions to the book may, I think, be notable, the text of the article and (especially) Frank777w's statement of the purpose of the article show clear promotional intent and the text of the article shows clear defensive intent as well. Before spending more time editing or defending this article, and becoming more frustrated when people change it (or, worse, when someone proposes it for deletion, for which it may well be at risk), Frank777w should carefully read What Wikipedia is not, especially (but not only) the WP:SOAPBOX section.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability concerns and proper focus of article

I think the topic of this article is notable. Evidence includes:

• Mention in a US State Department press release [1]
• 21 Google Books hits for "The True Furqan"
• 13 Google News Archive hits for the "The True Furqan"
• 11700 Google search hits (although most of these would not be reliable sources, and thus unreferenceable, it is still a good indication of notability)
• 8 Google scholar hits (mostly in Turkish or other Muslim-majority languages, which is unsurprising)

So I think we can conclude the topic of the article is notable, and the article should not be deleted on that basis.

However, the current version of the article is not very good. It's disorganized, and it spends far too much time quoting what this book says, rather than referring to the external views about.

This book is not notable for what it says, it is notable primarily for:

• the extent of the negative reaction it has created in the Muslim world, and
• the notice it has received among Christian missionaries (esp. those seeking to convert Muslims)

So the article should focus on what the above two groups think of it (Muslims and Christian missionaries), not on what the book happens to say. --SJK (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of True Furqan Article

TransporterMan states, "A Wikipedia article about a book must be to objectively describe the book and to objectively describe the comments, criticisms, and other reactions to the book, not to defend or promote the book or its contents." TransporterMan well-states the purpose of Wikipedia in his above statement. I would like to elucidate that I am trying to show both sides of the debate over the True Furqan, and thereby uphold the very idea that TransporterMan espouses. The True Furqan is considered possibly the most controversial book in the world today. For this reason, I include both Christian, and Muslim views on the work, not to mention other views such as that of the U.S. government, which denies any involvement. SJK provides some interesting statistics on "hits" on the book. It seems that individuals around the world want to understand what the book is about. It is not my interest nor intention in taking a position on the validity of the work, but rather presenting different religious and secular opinions, and then letting the reader examine for himself or herself some of the internal positions of the work, so they can make up their own mind on The True Furqan. I think the readers out there are generally intelligent and can draw their own conclusions. I don't feel it is operating in rectitude, nor is it sagacious that some are deleting what I feel is important information on the text. To me, again, with all due respect to those of different opinions, this deletion of some of the internal information of the True Furqan article in Wikipedia smacks of a form of censorship, and information control, namely that we may not trust people to digest information and to come up with their own opinions. SJK says, "and it [The True Furqan article] spends far too much time quoting what this book says, rather than referring to the external views about (sic)." I think all of the above is important to understanding the work. What people say, think, write, and act about the work is very important, as I believe SJK is predicating. However, what the book says is equally important. When the printing press was invented in the mid 1400s, information and knowledge exploded, for literature became more accessible to the masses, not to mention less expensive. Let us continue in the spirit of exploration of what is being said by the literature, not just interjecting our own positions, but let us allow the volume to speak to us inductively, without rushing to judgment, either way. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank777w (talk • contribs) 19:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Having had my attention directed here from WP:WQA, I have to agree with SJK that your version of the article violates countless Wikipedia policies. SJK's version may be less than perfect but it is far better, and I am going to revert back to it. Looie496 (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As do I. Let SJK make the changes (which are desperately needed) and then discuss what you feel needs to be added into the article on the talk page. Article's can always be rewritten, and we have all the time in the world to do so. However, this version of the article needs some major trimming. You should be more concerned about improving the quality of the article by attempting to fix its problems more than you should be concerned about preserving its existing form at all costs. So again, let the article be trimmed and work to improve it from there. Swarm^(Talk) 02:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on The True Furqan

Which is the best version of the article? The original version of the article, mostly the work of User:Frank777w; or the newer version, which is predominantly my attempt to significantly prune the original version? Can we reach a consensus on the best version of the article to use, and hopefully reach a community agreement to cease any attempts to revert to the other version? (That is not to say that the chosen version cannot be improved incrementally...) --SJK (talk) 08:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've fully protected the article for 1 week - there's a persistent dispute/edit war here. If a consensus is reached before protection expires, make a request at WP:RFUP. JamieS93^❤ 22:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Reasons Original Longer True Furqan Should be Accepted as Article

Mr. Kissane (SJK), writing above, believes the shorter version should be accepted. However I respectfully feel that his version is greatly eviscerated, and holds only about 10% of the text of my original, longer version of the True Furqan article, and therefore I believe my version should be the accepted article. I feel SJK's version would do the readers a disservice and prevent them from accessing more important information, for the following reasons. When I wrote most of the original, longer article, The True Furqan, I wanted to accomplish three things. Before I elucidate that, let me say, I purchased, then read the book two times, cover to cover, in English (sorry, can't read Arabic, although I wish I could). Next, I spent literally hours examining the text of the book, and trying to present this information to the Wikipedia reader, so that one could make his or her own opinions. Obviously, the whole book could not be put in the article. The True Furqan is already available complete version, on line. One: I wished to present information explaining what the book was. Who supposedly wrote it? Where did it allegedly come from? When was it said to be written? From where? Why was the work done? The second purpose behind my version of the article was to show in a hopefully unbiased manner, the greatly divergent opinions that exist concerning The True Furqan. Many Islamic believers had strong opinions against the book. Their views should be heard. Some felt the book was written by spies, or agents. In addition, some were claiming the US or Israeli governments of being behind the writing of the True Furqan. The American government of course strongly denies any involvement, whatsoever, in the writing or distribution of the book. On the other side of the coin, a number of Christian people, missionaries, and a few converts to Christianity, etc., had favourable feelings about the True Furqan. What are religious people saying about it? Secular views? Governmental? Again, I felt that these issues needed to be shared with the reader, for the purpose of showing the great controversy that surrounds one of the most controversial books possibly ever written. Finally, it was my wish to open up the internal structure of The True Furqan for the reader. The reason for this was to allow the readers to see "up close and personal" what the work seems to be predicating. What message does the book appear to be conveying. Again, I feel it is important to let the reader decide for himself or herself whether the book merits further interest. I try to not take sides in the article in Wikipedia, as to the validity of The True Furqan, so as to attempt to maintain an article hopefully free of bias. I inserted a few suras or chapters of The True Furqan, in order to allow the reader to get a feel for the book. If Mr. Kissane's version of the True Furqan is accepted, I feel that readers will be missing out on some very important information. I also feel this will do Wikipedia a disservice. SJK says that my origional version is too long. Based on what? There are many articles in Wikipedia that are far longer than my article's version. To repeat, I feel that my longer, origional version will more successfully help the readers to have more information concerning views, controversies, and the structure of The True Furqan than SJK's much shorter version, where he cuts out much of my information, namely the greater part of it. Is Wikipedia a site where one just gets little snippets of information? I feel it is a place where one can go to possibly acquire more extensive facts and opinions. To say once more, let us believe in the intelligence of the reader, that they should be able to have access to information, and to draw their own conclusions, by providing sufficient information for them. Frank777wFrank777w (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You may want to read over the WP:NORpolicy, and also familiarize yourself with WP:PSTS. Any analytic, explanatory "interpretation" of a book needs a secondary source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe take a little closer look at the article, as there are plenty of primary and secondary sources that are referenced in the article. Frank777wFrank777w (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

One wrote that edit warring was transpiring. However, see Wikipedia's, 3RR- "Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues." It is my position that the longer, original True Furqan article should not be just erased. One should not try to provoke 3RR into taking effect.Frank777w (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Frank, I think I see where the problem is. You wrote that your personal objective for the article or "Purpose of article" is that "individuals will benefit from (the book's) sometimes cogent, often comforting, and frequent pages of warning directed to humanity". That's called soapboxing and is something we as editors are not allowed to engage in. Among other things, we're not allowed to editorialize about a book we read twice, or choose passages that we personally feel will be meaningful to readers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Louie, What I truly want is that all sides of the debate over the True Furqan are shared. I want the Muslim, Christian, extremist, as well as government views to be shown. I tried to go deeply into the issue and to give someone a good view of the controversies of the work, as well as some of the internal structure of the work, without taking sides as I think you are trying to say is necessary for any editor. Thank you for your views. I continue to believe that at least some of the further information from my longer article version should be included, again, I think readers deserve more than what they're receiving from the article now. Right now, I think the article The True Furqan is too simple, and not explanatory enough. If anything, I just hope that the editors who hold the power of redaction will at least make the article more complex than in its edited state now. Anyway, thanks for your information and comments. Frank777w —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank777w (talk • contribs) 19:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we can all come together to make an agreed version that adds some more information, but is not as long as my original version. Any ideas? Frank777wFrank777w (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

{undent} If your edits are based on reliable third party sources they won't be reverted. OR and SYNTH and interpretation and unreliable sources are inappropriate for this project. Simonm223 (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Frank, I don't think anyone has a problem with you expanding the current version of the article, provided that: (1) we use the current short version as the base to expand, rather than reverting to the original version; (2) you need to focus on secondary sources rather than primary sources. What this means is that, substantial quotes from The True Furqan itself do not belong in this article. But if you can find reliable third-party sources, quote from them. Some suggestions on places you might be able to find these: books.google.com, scholar.google.com, Google News Archives. You could even start by checking some of the references already there (e.g. the Guardian article, the American Thinker article), and add pertinent points from those to the article. In particular, I think it would be nice to have some more referenced information about the book (who wrote it, who distributes it, when/where did they start doing so, when did the controversy about it erupt). --SJK (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, a "simple" article isn't a bad thing. I think the article in its present state does a good job of distilling the essentials from the sources given. If additional reliable sources arise, we can use them to add to it. However pasting entire chapters of the book into the article goes against our copyvio policies and is of no value, except possibly to those seeking visibility for the book in order to fulfill evangelical religious aims. I would even revise the link ("The True Furqan, available to read online") to read as a link rather than as a promotional come-on. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Taking into account the majority of opinion to remove internal references to text, I did so. Hopefully, this current version is acceptable. Please comment if otherwise. I will continue to go through the article to try to see that it is free from bias, and to cite more references. Thank you,Frank777w (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Frank, your version is riddled with editorial asides and original research such as "Logically, one could reasonably conclude Israel wouldn't have helped support The True Furqan, either, for the following reasons. Most residents of Israel are Jewish, so it is unlikely that the Israeli government would fabricate a book that promotes Jesus and Christianity." As Wikipedia editors, we're not allowed to insert our own personal conclusions into an article, even though they may seem like common sense. I'm asking you again to please read and try to understand our encyclopedia's policies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Louie, I went in and took out the "logically..." part, do you have a suggestion to reword this? Why don't you reword it in a fair and balanced way. Thank you for your input.Frank777w (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments on Frank777w's latest version

Frank, some comments on your latest version:

1. I don't know why you moved the ISBN number before the title, stylistically its supposed to go after the book title.
2. The section "Availability of The True Furqan" is not required. That's what the ISBN number is for, you click the ISBN number, it takes you to links to find booksellers that you can buy the book from, or libraries which have it in their collections.
3. The caveat in that section "Religiously and politically restricted nations do not allow the work, and possession of the same may invite threats, confiscation, punishment, incarceration, or more serious consequences", while certainly true, has two problems (1) you don't have a reference for it (although you can probably find one); (2) worded as a caveat, its not very encyclopedic in tone. To get a more encyclopedic tone, try to talk in objective, third-person terms, rather than directly addressing the reader's situation.
4. I think you don't understand how referencing works on Wikipedia... rather than using external links directly in the article text, you are supposed to put the links inside <ref> tags... I see you have removed the <ref> tags and put the external links back. Then a number appears at the point of reference, and the reference appears in the references section at the end of the article. Also, you should at least include a title in the reference, e.g. <ref>[http://www.example.com Example's page on The True Furqan]</ref>, rather than using an untitled link.
5. You have too many headings, there is really no need for headings in an article of this length. Also, it is best to avoid headings like "Positive views" or "Criticisms". Rather than segregating positive and negative views to separate sections, you should try to work them in together, e.g. John Doe says "This is wonderful", but Jane Doe complains that "I don't like this". That way, you link the positive and negative views together into the same sentence/paragraph, rather than splitting them out.
6. Some statements you have added are unreferenced, e.g. the section "The True Furqan is a book that internally claims to be divinely inspired by God, or Allah as the real Quran. The true Furqan asserts that Jesus is the light of the world, and the only hope for salvation and forgiveness." You need a reference for that. Ideally, you should find a reliable secondary source saying that, although if you can find somewhere in the book that clearly states it (without requiring interpretation), that would be better than nothing.
7. You have sections which are original research, which present arguments without reference to a third party source which makes them. One section which does this is when you argue that The True Furqan does not plagiarise the Quran, and also when you argue that Israel is unlikely to be behind the book. The issue here is not whether the arguments you make are right; rather the issue is that someone has to make them in a reliable source (a newspaper, magazine, academic journal, published book, etc.), before they can be included in the article

Based on the above considerations, I am reverting, since there are too many problems (as noted above) to easily fix without reverting. However, please go ahead and try again, taking into account the above. --SJK (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

New version

OK, I have now padded it out with some more points, but I have tried to be very careful in only making points that could be sourced somewhere. --SJK (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Much improved. Sourcing independent thought on this subject is difficult. I see that Christian sources opinion is polarized opposite the opinion from Islamic sources, so we may want to carefully attribute ("According to...." "X says...") for each. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Who is Mustafa al-Bakri?

The US State Department identifies Mustafa al-Bakri as editor/publisher of al-Usuq, and author of that particular statement now quoted in article. Who is this person? Some other sources on the Internet identify him as an Egyptian MP, from the Islamist opposition. I would think an MP, in any country, would be notable enough to deserve an article. We have an article on a Ali Sayyid Muhamed Mustafa al-Bakri, a member of al-Qaeda, although I suspect these are two different people. --SJK (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

LuckyLouie's recent edits

On the whole I think these are good, but I have two questions:

1. Why remove the ISBN number? It's very useful, since Special:Booksources links it to booksellers and library catalogues where you can find it.

Thanks SJK. Our articles on the The Bible, The Koran and even books by Robert Ludlum don't put an ISBN in the lead sentence. I could not find the rule on ISBN placement in WP:MOS, so I took it out. (Perhaps we need a basic infobox?)- LuckyLouie (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Where does the attribution of Dr. Ray Register as a "former Christian missonary" come from? Obviously from reading the article he is, or was, a Christian missionary, but I don't see where it says he is not one any longer.

I Googled up a bio on Register (that I can't find now) that refers to his missionary career as in the past, however if you can't locate this either, leave it out. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

--SJK (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Add a reference to the book and put the ISBN in there. They shouldn't appear in the body except in a bibliography or further reading section. Definitely not in the lead. Verbal chat 15:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This version looks better then before, thanks to all who have contributed to make the article better. The information is improved. Best wishes.Frank777w (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, per Verbal's suggestion above I have moved the ISBN to a <ref> tag. I like LuckyLouie's idea of an infobox even better, but don't know off the top of my head how to make one. --SJK (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I added a generic infobox. Info on printings done after 1999 can be added within the box if needed. I was going to wiki-link "Baptist News" but could find nothing on them. I wonder if the cited source meant Baptist Press? I also wonder if the lengthy exposition of "the challenge of the Q'uran" with three separate cited verses is needed. It seems like several words and a link would be enough. But these are small peeves, I think the article turned out well. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "Baptist News" is the same thing as Baptist Press. Note the start of the article - "SACRAMENTO, Calif. (BP)" -- BP = Baptist Press. Unfortunately, I can't find this article on their own website, only copies of it elsewhere. I am assuming the article actually is genuine, and simply that Baptist Press has deleted it from their website because its over 10 years old. I moved the expansion on the location of the Quran's challenge to a <ref>, hopefully that addresses your concern. --SJK (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I moved the link to the online version from "External Links" to the infobox. I deleted the "External Links" section, since it tends to attract links to random websites over time. But actually I'm not sure where to but the link in the infobox, it would be nice if there was a clearer way to indicate it (e.g. a url parameter). I have raised the issue on Template talk:Infobox book. --SJK (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Religious hoaxes

GCarty added this article to Category:Religious hoaxes. I have reverted that because I don't believe it is accurate. This is not a hoax, because the authors of it have never claimed any false origin for it. They have not claimed, for example, that it is some ancient manuscript they found, etc. They have been quite honest that it is their own creation, they haven't even claimed for it any kind of scriptural status (i.e. God revealed this to me), just that it is their attempt to state their own Christian beliefs in language similar to the Quran. SJK (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Remove clause regarding Lifson article

I removed the clause:

but says that some Muslims are offended by the book because they feel that the work mocks Islam and tries to deceive Muslims into accepting The True Furqan

Reading the Lifson article it is referring to, "The most controversial book you never heard of" - he certainly makes clear that many Muslims are offended by the book, but I can't find him mentioning those two specific reasons - that it "mocks Islam" and that it "tries to deceive Muslims". No doubt many Muslims do indeed feel that way about this book, but it is not in the source cited. The source cited notes that many Muslims take offence, does not explore the specific reasons why they are so offended. (If anything, it insinuates the offence taken is an instance of double standards.) ZackMartin (talk) 20:13, 30 July 201

This Book "The True Furqan" is not fake. its book of God, revealed by Mr.Bab in 1844 to 1850 in Iran, In Bahai religion, Bab is the messenger of God, and is the same who called as a " promised on" from all religion. Bab revealed many verses, and these verses are just like Quran. This book was hidden and now its time to explore it.