Talk:Keith L. Moore

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Those sources should be removed :
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcandli (talk • contribs) 17:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed pointless text dump 

message: 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)
thread_title: Macroscopic vs microscopic

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  WP:LIVING - Living Person  - removing WP:POV and WP:OR 

message: is not a reliable source. Find a more reliable source for the quotes.--Sefringle 02:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable sources

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion