Talk:Gerd R. Puin

message: I think it was CltFn who had edited this article to say that it disproved the divine origin of the Qur'an. That's his belief; WP should not be used to state that as a fact. CltFn also exaggerated the extent of the divergences between the Sana'a texts and the currently accepted Cairo text. Puin's academic article describes only minor variations in wording and sura order. No sweeping conclusions should be drawn on the basis of preliminary results. Let's wait for the book. Zora 05:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly an exageration , the Sanaa fragments that Gerd Puin photographed  and collected clearly show revisions over time.--CltFn 04:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You state your own conclusions to why previous verses existed on the same fragments as fact. I could easily replace it with "due to scarcity of writing material, many parchments were reused over and over" pushing my own conclusions to the reader as facts. Please keep your own conclusions to yourself, write the facts and leave the conclusions to the reader. mistknight 10:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The last sentence of this article says the Puin has clarified the apparent contradiction between two statements; however, it leaves out HOW.  I can't read German; can someone look at the article and figure it out?  00:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear statement 

message: Qur'an in the House of Manuscript in Sana'a should be merged with the relevant section from this article, since their topic is 100% identical. Azate 21:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Azate. The topic is not 100% identical. PLease see my comments on the talk page for the (newly renamed) Sana'a manuscripts article. Stroika 08:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything, this biography shall be merged to Sana'a manuscripts. That was his only significant work, before veering to the fringes. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I don't think that somone who said " That is why Muslims are afraid " is objective and can be called "the world's foremost authority on Qur'anic paleography " therefor I added POV tag.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dy yol (talk • contribs) 21:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As the fragment "the world's foremost" is deleted, as well as the texts that needed a citation since 2008, we can delete the tags above the article.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I undid the destruction done to the article by anonymous use IP 41.191.59.246  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWaldo (talk • contribs) 18:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destruction 

message: If you are going to claim that Puir and others "prov[ed] that the text was still in flux," you need to cite at least some evidence that they did this. They *argue* it was in flux: what is the evidentiary basis of that argument? The fact that they discovered an ancient palimpsest with Quran verses? Ok, what about that palimpsest is substantially different from the 21st century Quran?
Is it simply enough for Wikipedia that an argument has been made that the Quran was a fluid text? Is there no need to even *discuss*  why scholars claim that, and why other scholars argue differently? 2603:7081:1401:D44F:F5CE:2B7A:66FB:3635 (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of evidence