Talk:Blue Quran
 | A fact from Blue Quran appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 May 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 7 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jbdbz. Peer reviewers: Anikatnyc.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Restructuring this page?[edit]
Hi everyone,
It seems that this page has fallen into a little bit of disrepair :( I was reading over it, and I think there are two changes we could make to start revamping this article.
1. The lead section pushes off how famous this manuscript until the second sentence, and prioritizes some of the discussion around its origin. I think its important that we instead introduce the manuscript, give its possible dating, mention its fame, then give the line about its form, then discuss its location of origin (those last two could be flipped, wdyt?). 2. We should put the form section above the history section. I know that sounds weird, but right now a major problem with our history section is that it references a lot of the physical characteristics of the manuscript. If we put the form section first, then we can streamline the history section and let it flow into the controversy of origin section.
Let me know what you think! -- Melinasr (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Melinasr: Hi and welcome! These suggestions seem good: in particular, the History section is loaded with information that isn't about the history of the Blue Quran but could be in other sections, and the history and provenance belong closer together. The lead paragraph is a bit short, so putting in more basic descriptive information about the manuscript would be an improvement. The existing text is quite well-referenced, but if you find other reliable sources about the Blue Quran, please summarise them in the relevant section of the article. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
About that quote 2013 unquote Sotheby's auction[edit]
1. Ding dong the link is dead! The one to CanvasGuide, 500 strikes once again. Easy enough to fix. Oh, and artdaily.org article helpfully informs us that the $40M sale was two auctions, namely:
"A Princely Collection: Treasures from the Islamic World", 05.10.2010, L10225, 91 lots;
"Arts of the Islamic World", 06.10.2010, L10223, 245 lots.
And helpfully informs us that the folio was lot 7 of the former, estimate was £200k-300k but it was sold for £529,250.
2. Only at this point Sotheby's archive is less than helpful. It does not show lot 7. Jumps from lot 5 straight to lot 8. Both are, as one might expect, Koran folios, kufic script. Not one lot in the auction is "Koran, gold kufic script, blue vellum". Not a single one. Obviously enough, we are not allowed to know just which folio would it have been.
As far as I know, in the last few years, Sotheby's sold following Blue Koran's pages:
12.10.2004, The Cow 187-192, est. £40k-60k, goes for £72k;
24.09.2007, The Cow 74-81, est. £70k-90k, goes for £180k;
04.10.2011, The Cow 267-273, est. £200k-300k, goes for £277k;
05.10.2010, unknown folio, est. £200k-300k, goes for £530k - or does it?;
22.04.2015, The Women 12-17, est. £300k-400k, goes for £365k (previously sold on 26.04.2012, at Christie's, for 241k).
3. My guess? Someone managed to lose their cool. Or something else goes on. Unless someone opposes, I'll change the link in question and add a note. 83.9.213.25 (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Blue Qur'an. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521150609/http://www.akdn.org/Museum/detail.asp?artifactid=1081 to http://www.akdn.org/museum/detail.asp?artifactid=1081
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130606012248/http://ca.iqna.ir/fr/news_detail.php?ProdID=988510 to http://ca.iqna.ir/fr/news_detail.php?ProdID=988510
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
New mass edits[edit]
Hi everyone,
Just wanted to update you on some edits I made. Some of it was streamlining what the article already had (cutting back duplicate/dead sources, removing repeated info, reorganizing sections), but I did do substantial work. Most importantly, I added quite a lot to the form section, as I detailed some more technical aspects of the manuscript based on some more recent work from Cheryl Porter and Susan Whitfield. Additionally, I more clearly laid out the three main theories for the origin of the manuscript using the sources we already had, plus a fantastic summary of the literature from Emily Neumeier, which has been cited in some more recent literature. Please take a look at the edits and let me know what you think!
Oh, and for the sake of transparency: here is the link to my sandbox if you want to look at my revision history.
Melinasr (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Add. Info to "Form": Erasure of Folios[edit]
Hello everyone,
I would like to suggest an edit or rather additional information for the 'Form' section. As I am new I'd like to check first if you think that would be fine. Info: Several of the folios of the Blue Coran have been cleared of the gold script, sometimes just parts were erased, in some cases a whole page. The reason is mostly unknown. Ref.: [1] About the source: It is a scientific online edition of the Quran and surrounding resources with original content by German Academy of Sciences and Humanities. The project is called 'Corpus Coranicum', the author of the specific article is a well known scholar (Marcus Fraser). Thank you! CaramelDiamant (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Arts of the Islamic World[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 12 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eng215 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Leonfitz1779, Emschec22, Anonnamoose 29, Shakedownstreet120, Dylanaunon, Marah23.
— Assignment last updated by ProfTern (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Islamic Arts of the Book[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 April 2021 and 26 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Melinasr (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mbuyer2, Reindeer.and.sloth.
— Assignment last updated by TroublingMoo (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)