Talk:Birmingham Quran manuscript: Difference between revisions
→Where are the contents: Revised text referring to contents. Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Birmingham Quran manuscript/Archive 1) (bot |
||
(6 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk Header}} |
{{Talk Header}} |
||
{{Article history |
|||
⚫ | |||
|action1=GAN |
|||
⚫ | |||
|action1date=12:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | |||
|action1link=/GA1 |
|||
⚫ | |||
|action1result=failed |
|||
|currentstatus=FGAN |
|||
⚫ | |||
|topic=Philosophy and religion |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
{{FailedGA|12:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)|topic=Philosophy and religion|page=1}} |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
||
Line 18: | Line 27: | ||
{{archives|search=yes}} |
{{archives|search=yes}} |
||
== |
== Hahaha typical biased == |
||
⚫ | |||
"which corresponds with 95.4% confidence to the calendar years CE 568–645 when calibrated". I just want to note that the new calibration curve INTCAL20 released this year changes the range a little: CE 577–646. The most likely ranges (in total 68.3%) are 597–611 and 616–641. I'm not adding this as it can be considered OR until it is published. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 01:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | |||
:Let me figure a way to add this. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 13:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | The contents are important. This manuscript contains what is possibly the earliest attestation of full basmala. What do the sections talk about? Simply referring to ayat doesn’t help because of the need to go to non-Wikipedia sources to find out.[[Special:Contributions/74.96.7.2|74.96.7.2]] ([[User talk:74.96.7.2|talk]]) 23:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC) |
||
== Oldest? == |
|||
== Need to understand dating == |
|||
Dating only to 568, how is this the oldest in the world? The [[Dead Sea Scrolls]] are at least 500 years older. [[User:Rosengarten Zu Worms|Rosengarten Zu Worms]] ([[User talk:Rosengarten Zu Worms|talk]]) 11:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
: You have the [[Quran]] confused with the [[Bible]]. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 11:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
This article states, “They determined the radiocarbon date of the parchment to be 1465±21 years BP (before 1950), which corresponds with 95.4% confidence to the calendar years CE 568–645 when calibrated.” |
|||
== Hahaha typical biased == |
|||
Im quite a bit confused here and would appreciate clarification. If the radiocarbon is dating parchment to 1465 years BP (before 1950, + or - 21 years), that would give the parchment a date of 485CE (1950-1465 = 485CE, NOT 568), + or - 21 years. |
|||
⚫ | |||
Could someone help me out? What am I missing?? [[User:D2west26|D2west26]] ([[User talk:D2west26|talk]]) 00:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | |||
: {{Re|D2west26}} The "radiocarbon date" is determined solely by the carbon isotope ratio in the sample. In order to determine an actual range of years, it has to be adjusted by the known variations in the atmospheric isotope ratio in past years. This is explained at [[Radiocarbon calibration]]. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 04:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | The contents are important. This manuscript contains what is possibly the earliest attestation of full basmala. What do the sections talk about? Simply referring to ayat doesn’t help because of the need to go to non-Wikipedia sources to find out.[[Special:Contributions/74.96.7.2|74.96.7.2]] ([[User talk:74.96.7.2|talk]]) 23:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 19:17, 17 February 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Birmingham Quran manuscript article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 28 days |
Birmingham Quran manuscript was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 31, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the newly discovered Birmingham Quran manuscript (pictured) comprises fragments of an ancient Quran that may date to near Muhammad's lifetime? |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Hahaha typical biased
[edit]t alif (ألف). Arabic script at the time tended to not write out the silent alif.for non arabic speakers to read easier Allah hu Akbar you can stop Islam 82.20.80.153 (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Where are the contents
[edit]The contents are important. This manuscript contains what is possibly the earliest attestation of full basmala. What do the sections talk about? Simply referring to ayat doesn’t help because of the need to go to non-Wikipedia sources to find out.74.96.7.2 (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Need to understand dating
[edit]This article states, “They determined the radiocarbon date of the parchment to be 1465±21 years BP (before 1950), which corresponds with 95.4% confidence to the calendar years CE 568–645 when calibrated.”
Im quite a bit confused here and would appreciate clarification. If the radiocarbon is dating parchment to 1465 years BP (before 1950, + or - 21 years), that would give the parchment a date of 485CE (1950-1465 = 485CE, NOT 568), + or - 21 years.
Could someone help me out? What am I missing?? D2west26 (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- @D2west26: The "radiocarbon date" is determined solely by the carbon isotope ratio in the sample. In order to determine an actual range of years, it has to be adjusted by the known variations in the atmospheric isotope ratio in past years. This is explained at Radiocarbon calibration. Zerotalk 04:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- Wikipedia Did you know articles
- C-Class Islam-related articles
- Low-importance Islam-related articles
- C-Class Religious texts articles
- Unknown-importance Religious texts articles
- WikiProject Religious texts articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- C-Class West Midlands articles
- Unknown-importance West Midlands articles
- WikiProject West Midlands