Jump to content

Talk:2005 Quran desecration controversy/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Untitled

A subpage to collaborate on a proposed /reorganization — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 12:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Muslim Leader Imran Khan?

Who is Imran Khan and whose leader is he? He's not my leader. Why is every no name categorized as a "Muslim Leader" by the Western media? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.57.220.124 (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ed and Brandon

Hate to do your work for you Ed, but please take this dispute between the two of you to your own talk pages.

Oh, I don't mind. I woulda done it myself, only Brandon seems to take umbrage at my page moves, text moves, refactorings, etc. Sometimes the food taste better when a different waiter puts the food on your plate. Thanks, Kizzle. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:43, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
No prob :) --kizzle 22:00, 19 June 2005 (UTC)

Wikepedia Desacration of 2005

How easily virtues becom vices. This article is exhibit A for why any entry with controversy in title is more likely to continue the controversy than explain it. There's not even the slightest attempt at arriving at consensus in either the article or the discussion. In my opinion this article, as well as the one about desecration of the koran by prisoners, deserve to be folded into the Camp Xray article.

Sounds like you have some creative input as to the direction of this article... you might want to be a bit more specific in what passages are "bad" (concensus is not a term generally used for the content of an article, but rather the process of editing the article). --kizzle 16:39, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
My probem is not with any one "passage" of this article, but with the article as a whole. I was very clear about what I thougth should be done with it. I feel the only reason it exists in this form is because its fans wish to have a smaller more like-minded audience to contend with. The spin-off of that sort of thing is further crap like Qur'an desecration by US detainees. IMO, this kind of stuff should be reserved for the Yahoo message boards. As far as consensus in the article goes, I see your point. However, when every sentence in the article begins with "many people claim that..." or "some argue that..." or "it is alleged that.." it indicates to me that nobody can think of anything to say that can be in anyway defended as a fact. In other words, a good article should try to present some generally agreed upon facts.
So far, the most specific you have been about changing this article is that it "deserve[s] to be folded into the Camp Xray article." If you disagree with the entire article, than surely it shouldn't be hard to start with a few specific passages and mention specifically what needs to be changed. All major changes in life start with a few small steps. --kizzle 21:00, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
I don't see what's so vague about folding the article into Camp XRay. If rec'd it for deletion, should I have to edit it as well? This article should simply give the who what when about the allegations and their substantiation. It's important information regarding the whole detention issue. Perhaps an account should go in the Newseek entry as well. However, this bulk of this entry is made up of citations from various "pundits" about who fault was it that there were riots in pakistan, etc. I mean look at his passage:
James Jaffer, an attorney working for the ACLU, was quoted by the New York Times as stating that errors in the Newsweek story had been used to discredit other investigative efforts conducted by his organization and other groups "that were not based on anonymous sources, but [on] government documents, reports written by FBI agents."
Jeez, this is all jsut speculation couched in quoting others. It's a bad enough practice in journalism (and part of the reason Newsweek got into this mess) but it has no place here. Like I said it only happens because the author can't personally vouch for a particular claim, but they desparately want to make it. So they just make the "neutral" observation that so-and-so beats his wife. I mean nobody can deny that that guy said John Kerry shot himself for a purple heart, right?
But again, my main objection to this article is that its (unintuitive) status as a separate entry outside of the main Camp Xray article, is itself merely an attempt for the author(s) to exercise their own strong biases about current events. Axamoto 00:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but that is ridiculous, Axamoto. This issue has been in the mass media all over the world, has been addressed by serious reporters as well as pundits and government spokespersons of all political stripes. This has nothing to do with anyone's "bias"; it is a real issue that has clearly established significance. Folding it into the Xray article is preposterous. First, the reports of Quran desecration are not just from Gitmo but also from US prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq. Second, the issues are different here. This is not just about gitmo but more generally about the way the US has chosen to fight the war on terror, and the public perception in the Muslim world about whether or not this is a "war against Islam." These are significant issues in their own right, beyond the issue of human rights and gitmo. Finally, your quote above disproves your own point. The quote specifically cites reports that were "not based on anonymous sources" and in fact confirmed by US government agencies. You cannot demand that an encyclopedia entry on a significant topic be deleted just because it raises issues uncomfortable for your own political perspective. --csloat 03:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I feel either you don't get my point, or we have fundamentally different ideas about what should be in an encyclopedia, or both. The fact that something appears in mass media does not suffice to make it worhty of an entry. Should we have an entry on "Jay Leno's Appearance at the Michael Jackson Trial"? It's sad to say that this event got almost as much coverage as the one at issue here.
Your admission that this article is really "about" something else is damning. As they say, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. How the US has fought the war on terror is (in the moral/political sense, which is what I assume you mean) is not a subject for encyclopedia entry, and the use of wikipedia to further some polemic against the war on terror is what offends me about this entry.
As far as my own political perspective goes, it's the exact opposite of what you seem to assume it is. Personally, I tend to be (a little) more disgusted by this kind of bs from people whose political values I share than from those on the other side. Also I feel a little odd arguing these points with someone who believes that an article they've never even read should be deleted.13:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)Axamoto
What the hell are you talking about? In what way is this article a polemic about the gwot? My point is that this event is about an important moment in the gwot, not that it is some kind of political platform. As for deleting the other article, I did read the article, and I think it should be deleted because it was created to make a point, which is against Wikipedia policy. I know that because I was part of the discussion on this page that led a user to create the article. If you think this issue is of the same significance as something Jay Leno did, you need your head examined. And you better re-read the article here if you think it is some kind of anti-American rant.--csloat 17:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What article about desecration by prisoners? If such an article exists it should probably be deleted. --csloat 17:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Qur'an desecration by US detainees by Ed Poor. -- Toytoy 19:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Axamoto, just out of curiosity, how long have you been a Wikipedian? And why the hesitation about signing your post (or, for that matter, creating your userpage)? Your comments will have more credibility here if you actually sign them with a valid username. BrandonYusufToropov 19:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Are you familiar with the expression ad hominem? I really don't see what my name or profile have to do with any of this. As for signing my post, I wasn't really aware I needed to. Suppose I were to give you my home phone number, would that satisfy your "curiosity" to the point where you might want to defend this lousy article? Please tell me why this matters to you so much. Use my talk page if you want.
Sure, I know what an ad hominem is, Axamoto -- and I hope you don't think I was guilty of this logical fallacy. I wasn't trying to attack anything you said by passing judgment on you as a person, just sharing a note that might help people from mistaking you for some other anonymous user (and thereby make more sense of your suggestions over time). I'm still not sure why you think the article is "lousy," but if you have specific ideas you'd like to share about how to improve it, it will be easier to tell who's talking if you sign your posts. BrandonYusufToropov 20:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yusuf, given the fact that you are currently in mediation on a page related to this topic, it might be a gesture of good faith to avoid edits here for a while. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:21, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely, Ed. Check the timestamps and you'll see I have been honoring our agreement. BrandonYusufToropov 02:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well this is certainly an odd gripe (or should we say "troll"). Are we even looking at the same article? You claim that the article is full of "some allege" or "some people claim" statements. Uh, actually no it isn't. Read it again if you don't believe me. You say that the bulk of the information comes from citations of pundits. Uh, actually no, except for two columnists (Ivins and mcarthy) it's not. The article quotes a couple of US generals, the White House, the Pentagon, the Red Cross etc. In contrast to the Jay Leno at Jackson's Trial story you talk about, 17 people died, a billion+ Muslims around the world were enraged, every news outlet in the world carried the story, a US Army general made an official report and the White House felt compelled to comment. If WP can have articles about characters that appear in individual Simpsons episodes, I see no reason why this article can't stand on its own. --Lee Hunter 14:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Uh, AND Anthony Romero and James Jaffer of ACLU, cited making observation that are pure opinion. But who's counting? Also, I don't see how the inclusion of only 2 columnists is somehow acceptable. But while I do see that I overstated the extent to which this entry relied on opinion, I feel it's still substantially infected with it, and I don't think that's accidental. I think it reflects the fact that the intention of most of the authors is to use this as part of either an indictment of how the US has conducted the war on terror or as a platform to vent their anger over the incidents. There are plenty of other places on the internet to do those things. I just don't think wikipedia is one of them.15:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)Axamoto 15:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see. So you're saying that senior executives of the American Civil Liberties Union (which is itself investigating Guantanamo) are just some random pundits and don't belong in an article about, er, the abuse of civil liberties by Americans at Guantanamo? I do agree with you about the comments from columnists though. The article would be better without both of those quotes and I'm going to remove them. But aside from that, I actually don't see how the article does anything more than report the accepted facts on a subject of clearly widespread interest. Whether it's an indictment of how the US has conducted the war on terror is an interesting question which I think we can leave to the reader to decide. --Lee Hunter 15:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said, in a news release, that "The United States government continues to turn a blind eye to mounting evidence of widespread abuse of detainees held in its custody."
This is clearly Anthony Romero's POV and was only included because it is being used as a proxy for the contibutor's POV. Simliarly,
James Jaffer, an attorney working for the ACLU, was quoted by the New York Times as stating that errors in the Newsweek story had been used to discredit other investigative efforts conducted by his organization and other groups "that were not based on anonymous sources, but [on] government documents, reports written by FBI agents."
This, in context, is conjecture. (And, btw, seems somewhat non-sensical. If these investigations had FBI documentation, in what sense were they discredited and by whom? ) It makes no difference to me if some third party to an event is a columnist or not. For the record I am myself a CCMOTAMCLU (a card-carrying member of...), and big fan of their work, and I feel the Camp Xray and the whole "detainee" phenomenon is one of the most egregious vioaltions of the priciples this country stands for. However, I feel the facts speak for themselves. Axamoto 23:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agree we should remove the two columnists. BrandonYusufToropov 15:39, 22 June 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Are there any points in the article which remain in dispute? If there is, please explain what it is so that it can be fixed. If not, the NPOV tag should be removed. --Lee Hunter 14:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will remove it; I believe this has been settled.--csloat 00:25, 21 June 2005 (UTC)

timeline

Who introduced this "timeline" structure and why? It is, IMO, not a great stylistic device, because it considerably weakens the narrative. -- Viajero | Talk 16:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree. At the very least the "earlier reports" section should be demoted to the end and recast as External Links. Part of the problem is that there has been a lot of bickering about certain details which I think has taken attention away from addressing the overall structure of the article. --Lee Hunter 17:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. I think the "earlier reports" section is important to establishing context for the controversy, which, though it blew up after Newsweek, had roots in reports that go back a couple of years. --csloat 17:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring the photo -- its removal was entirely unintentional. I was wondering why the top of the article looked so bare... -- Viajero | Talk 18:06, 21 June 2005 (UTC)

Ed has been kind enough to nominate me for an adminship

...which I think will go a long way toward resolving unproductive disputes on this page. Anyone who is interested in voting one way or the other is invited to the discussion here. BrandonYusufToropov 17:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strangest damn thing I ever saw. I voted for you, but I don't see how it will help resolve any disputes. --Lee Hunter 17:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You've got plenty of company. It certainly looks weird to a lot of people, probably a majority, but I thought it was a gentlemanly move on his part... seems unlikely to pass, but that's beside the point. Thanks again Ed for proposing this.
I do want to go on record here as saying that a) Ed made this nomination on his own, without either of us discussing it, b) it took me totally by surprise, and c) I was needlessly confrontational with him on this page and elsewhere, which escalated the dispute in an unproductive way. BrandonYusufToropov 17:07, 22 June 2005 (UTC)

Scope, again

This article concerns allegations of Qur'an desecration by United States Armed Forces personnel at the Guantánamo Bay prison camp.

I thought we agreed that the article also should cover allegations of Qur'an desecration by the detainees. The initial sentence contradicts that agreement.

We might indiacte, though, that most of the fuss has been about US personnel and their handling of the Koran, the power imbalance, the alleged anti-Muslim attitudes of the gov't, etc. But unless this article is intended to prove that the US more guilty of Koran desecration than the "captured enemy combatants", then to be consistent with the title the scope must be expanded to include all acts of Koran abuse at gitmo.

Or we could go back to having two articles

  1. Qur'an desecration by US military - a nice, big long one
  2. Qur'an desecration by US detainees - a relatively short one

You can have either one, but you can't exclude a POV merely because you don't like it. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 13:06, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you a zillion times, the article does and always did cover allegations of detainees abusing their Korans. It amazes me that you keep pretending that somehow this has been excluded from the article. Would you mind doing us all a favour and actually read the article? I've changed the opening line to be more open-ended, not that it makes much difference, but since it appears to be the only part of the article you actually bother to look at maybe it will make you happy. --Lee Hunter 13:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nag, nag, nag, nag, nag, nag, nag, ... Ed, you're so lovable. -- Toytoy 14:39, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Let's talk about the article - not about each other. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:50, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Ed, you promised to stop imposing your agenda on this page; yet you still continue to do it, without even bothering to read the page. This is not meant to "talk about you rather than the article" but to object to your claims about the article. --csloat 20:45, 22 June 2005 (UTC)
Who authorized you to strike through my words, Ed? [1] And when did you start to edit the article? You just don't want to stop, do you? -- Toytoy 22:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Pundits punted

I've removed both of the quotes from columnists (one left and one right wing) because, as axamoto points out above, having columnists spoon-feed their spin weakens the article. Interpretation of events should ideally be up to the reader based on the best presentation of the facts. It also gives a very US-centric slant to the article especially since there is no commentary from the Islamic world. --Lee Hunter 15:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think there should be some commentary from the Islamic world here. Including the opinions of others quoted is not wrong or NPOV, as long as Wikipedia isn't overtly endorsing the opinion. --csloat 20:27, 22 June 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Intro paragraph says:

This article concerns allegations of Qur'an desecration at the Guantánamo Bay prison camp. The matter came to international attention in April 2005 when Newsweek published an article suggesting that an unreleased U.S. government report had confirmed these incidents. The revelations sparked anti-U.S. demonstrations throughout the Islamic world, some of which turned violent. Although the magazine subsequently retracted the story, subsequent U.S. military investigations confirmed at least five cases of Qur'an desecration by US personnel at the base, and the affair turned the spotlight on earlier media reports of such actions.


  1. There is more than one "matter"
  2. The "incidents" referred to by the Newsweek story was only the US flushing claim
  3. Revelations implies that the US flushing claim is true - even though the article clearly shows further down that Newsweek retracted.
  4. Demonstrations were already planned - Newsweek didn't spark them (but may have fueled them)
  5. We need to clarify the point at which the demos turned violent. Who egged them on?
  6. Mishandling is not the same as desecration, according to Wikipedia Qur'an desecration article, last time I checked.
  7. Pentagon did not confirm US desecration - that's a conclusion drawn by Bush administration opponents: Pentagon confirmed "mishandling". Whether such mishandling constitutes "desecration" is a POV (i.e., somebody's conclusion)
  8. Intro leaves out confirmed report that Koran flushing attributed to US personnel was actually performed by detainees.

So the NPOV tag should stay. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:46, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

  1. No there's not. what other matter is there?
    • The matter of detainees performing Qur'an desecration. (unsigned by ed poor)
      • As noted below, that matter only arises in the context of the real matter, which is the US flushing. It is a subset. Again, how many times must we explain this to you? csloat 20:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. The Newsweek story started the big controversy, though the reports go back much further. What do you mean "only the US flushing claim"? As explained over and over, there are no other notable or relevant claims here. The claims of detainees flushing is a secondary claim that arose in response to the claim of US flushing. On it's own it is no more notable than a prisoner in Leavenworth flushing a bible.
  3. the US flushing claim is most likely true; it was reported from numerous sources in numerous places, not just gitmo, and has never been refuted. Newsweek did not retract the claim. They only retracted information about the sourcing of the claim. These things have been explained to you over and over Ed.
    • cslout: "Most likely true"? The only issues which the Pentagon admitted to fall far short of this level of abuse, and the urine and water ballooning are both clearly reported as unintentional, contrary to your blatent mischaracterization of these incidents (3 bullets below) as "a means of tormenting" detainees. (These incidents may not have been unintentional, but that is hardly a confirmation or an admission of guilt.) Saying that the Newsweek claim "has never been refuted" is a similarly useless claim. The existence of purple dinosaurs has never been refuted either, but in fact the article has been refuted: Newsweek claimed that a government report "confirmed" a toilet flushing incident involving a guard. The report has come out, in which the Pentagon has detailed each incident they claim knowledge of, and there is no confirmation, or even an accusation, of such an incident to be found. Furthermore, you cannot claim that Newsweek has never retracted their claim: They retracted the *entire* story, which includes Isikoff's discredited claim that was used by Islamic thugs as a good enough excuse to kill a few hundred people. Perhaps somebody should add a section discussing why the victims were targeted? Finally, captured Al Qaeda training manuals reportedly contain instructions to make false claims of torture and abuse if caught. (this is more than a claim, it should be verifiable) Isn't this claim (which is somehow missing from an article that thrives on them) somewhat relevant when evaluating remarkably similar accusations of detainees who are 1) suspected of involvement with Al Qaeda, 2) caught on battlefields in various parts of the world? If you're prepared to believe that the military is involved in a systematic conspiracy, then shouldn't we extend the same courtesy to their adversaries? 208.115.200.62 09:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)MBM
  1. You're right about the demonstrations. That should be made clear in the article but it is not an NPOV issue; just an accuracy issue.
  2. I don't think we can figure out exactly when the demos turned violent, but if you do, feel free to add it to the article.
  3. When a Quran is pissed on (even the Pentagon admits that one), kicked, flushed, etc. in front of a prisoner as a means of tormenting him, only a fool would not regard that as "desecration."
  1. There is no "confirmed report" that the flushing attributed to us personnel was carried out by detainees; what there is is a pentagon claim that detainees flushed a quran, and speculation by a newspaper that some detainee may have misinterpreted that as the guards doing the flushing. Frankly, it sounds like BS to me, but I have no problem reporting the claim and the speculation in context. I do have a problem with your claim that a "confirmed report" that the original desecration report was a mistake.

Ed once again, you are going against your pledge to lay off this page. I don't think anyone agrees with your attempts to set the agenda here. I realize you have turned over a new leaf by inviting BYT to be an editor and making nice on the Saddam/alQaeda page, but you're back to your old tricks here. If you are going to lay off this page, that means stop trying to shape the agenda in the discussion page, especially when your agenda has been refuted over and over by everyone else on this page. Read the rest of the article. The pentagon story of detainee abuse is there, in the proper context. Newsweek did not "retract" the claim, and there was independent corroboration of the claim from numerous sources in numerous places. It is clear that quran abuse most likely did occur. Nobody has really refuted it. And the very idea that if it doesn't exist in the pentagon's notes then it doesn't exist is completely bogus -- if I were tormenting a prisoner I don't think I would take meticulous notes on every mean thing I did to him.

  • csloat: Your strident denunciation of Ed's "agenda" lead the objective reader to question whether you understand the definition of the terms "confirmed", "retraction", "refutated", and "corroboration", or understand the difference between a "uncorroborated claim" and "demonstrable fact". You seem to have a talent for ignoring inconvenient facts even after others have pointed out why your leaps of logic are unwarranted. What other people think is irrelevant. Ed was and is demonstrably correct: this article is slanted and should be fixed.208.115.200.62 09:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC) MBM

In any case, I don't get why this is so hard for you to believe. Read this story (page down a bit) for an interesting report from a former US military officer about a training session as a POW in which the bible was kicked and desecrated in order to break down the people acting as POWs. It's clearly within their repertoire. --csloat 20:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


This issue is a contentious one, and there are bigger issues to deal with. Inasmuch as there remains a gap between what the Pentagon (implausibly) has put forward and what released detainees have reported, I can see the argument for an NPOV tag. I can't agree with it, but I can understand that a lot of people feel that way. So my vote is we put on the tag and thereby refer people to the talk page.
Flip side of this suggestion of mine: the article must focus on (reported) facts from relevant sources, and we're not going to get drawn into long drawn-out debates about whether the article is actually about Newsweek or some plot by detainees to desecrate their own scripture. Fair? BrandonYusufToropov 21:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"A lot of people" do not feel that way. Ed feels that way. He promised to stop messing with this page which makes me suspect bad faith -- and I say that because it is what I feel, not as a personal attack, and I hope Ed will not again threaten me with "administrative warnings" rather than responding to the arguments here. If others want to restore the npov tag, fine, but please let's stick to accuracy in these issues. I agree with you there BYT. --csloat 21:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  1. "Matter" clearly refers to the "allegations of Qur'an desecration" in the previous sentence. "Matter" is a perfectly acceptable word for a general reference to an incident or series of incidents by one or more parties.
  2. Read the sentence again. And then think about it a bit. This only explains how this mess came to international attention. Again we haven't said who did what at this point.
  3. Considering that some of the reports were confirmed by the US Army, "revelations" works fine.
  4. Where do you get the information that the demonstrations were planned (other than the Aghanistan demonstrations which apparently were about something else)
  5. For the rest of your points, I don't have anything to add beyond what csloat has written. --Lee Hunter 21:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, Ed, I will leave the NPOV tag so you don't threaten me again. I'd like to ask you to adhere to your original pledge to stop wasting everyone's time on this page. And I'd like to ask everyone else if there is anyone besides Ed Poor who agrees with his perspective on this. I suppose Axamoto might (though his claims are even more bizarre than Ed's). I really don't have time to continue this tit-for-tat. --csloat 21:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One more thing -- I think that someone needs to articulate clearly what is not NPOV about this article. The claim that detainee abuse must be included has been discussed, the claims are included, and the idea that it is the same as guard abuse has been soundly and repeatedly refuted without any counter argument. Ed simply keeps repeating his old argument that has been refuted endlessly. So it must be something else, but what that is is a mystery. I don't mind the NPOV tag staying but it will stay forever if nobody can articulate what is actually POV about the article. Once we determine why it is POV then we can make it more NPOV and then we can remove the tag. OK? --csloat 21:33, 22 June 2005 (UTC)

Sources

There's a difference between saying "a newspaper reported that X happened" and "according to a newspaper, prisoners said that X happened". It has to do with how much credence to give prisoners.

Generally, newspapers are accorded a certair measure of reliability. The measure of reliability accorded to prisoners, however, varies widely. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Can you point to the specific sentence you would like to see changed? We can discuss that. In addition, please stop pretending all we have is one newspaper account of prisoners' accounts. Many of these items have been investigated by the Red Cross and the FBI as well. --csloat 22:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  1. I think I already changed it. Do you need a diff?
  2. I'm not "pretending" anything. I've asked you to stop making personal remarks.
  3. The article clearly recounts a dozen news accounts of prisoner complaints.
  4. The question of whether prisoner accounts are reliable should be mentioned in the article - not settled by contributors to Wikipedia. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:33, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
If you read the US Army report the question of prisoner reliability or newspaper reliability is not much of an issue as there was confirmation from the prison log books.--Lee Hunter 23:58, 22 June 2005 (UTC)

Scope of the article (3rd time)

Either the article is about ALL alleged Koran abuse at gitmo, or only about US alleged Koran abuse.

The degree to which various Commentators (outside of Wikipedia) give credence to, or care about, the alleged acts of desecration - is a matter to be described fairly and accurately within the article. It is not to be decided by partisans amoung us. No one cares what "my" POV is, for exmaple. Only wthat most people around the world think. And that is clearly divided into those who express outrage that the US (might have) desecretad the Koran as a part of interrogations and those who express outrage that Islamic detainees (might have) descrated the book they claim to rever. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:14, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

ED PLEASE. We have had this argument over and over and over. Please re-read the article itself, then please read the discussion -- all the archives please. Over and over we have said, and you have not responded to (other than repeating your original argument) the issue at stake here. The world is not talking about detainees desecrating their own holy books. It is no more an issue than if I take my Pentauch and throw it out the window. Nobody gives a rat's ass. But the world is talking about US guards destroying the qurans of their prisoners. Seriously, Ed, this is ridiculous. I think it is time to revisit the complaints lodged against you the last time. You resolved those complaints by offering to stay out of this discussion, and then you promptly jumped right back in. I am trying my best to assume good faith here, but you can see how this sort of behavior makes it difficult.--csloat 22:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I did not mean to say that The world is talking about detainees desecrating their own holy books. Rather, that (a) many if not most of the complaints about gitmo Koran abuse have highlighted US personell mishandling and even desecrating the Koran; as well as (b) some of the complaints - particularly those defending the US gov't - have highlighted detainee desecration. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
By the way, the number of times you assert something on a talk page or in an edit summary, has no bearing on the outcome of the discussion. Unresolved problems concerning the article need resolution in terms of NPOV policy. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:29, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
There are no "complaints" of detainee desecration. What there is is a Pentagon self-investigation that reported instances of detainee desecration. My point is simply that these have not been a significant controversy in their own right; they have only arisen as the Pentagon response to the Newsweek article. Thus they are a subset of the main issue. Does anyone besides Ed disagree with me on this?
The problem, Ed, is not the number of times this has been brought up, but rather the fact that each of those times you have refused to actually engage (or often to even acknowledge) the argument being made. Instead, you try to use your admin status to get me kicked off wikipedia. Why not engage the point here? Do you have a compelling response to the claims being made by me and everyone else here? --csloat 22:46, 22 June 2005 (UTC)
If I wanted you off, you'd be off already. That's not my goal. Besides, it's hardly cricket to use bad means to achieve a good end - as Yusuf would surely agree. What I want is a balanced article - not "fair and balanced" in the Fox News sense - but as in Wikipedia:NPOV. And you're going to help me do it. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 03:43, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Where are we now?

How is the official complaint going? Is the complaint over the rename dead in the water? I don't see the title being reverted. I don't see Ed step back during the "mediation". I don't see any mediation at all. I don't see anything happening. I see Ed around here every minute of the day. I see the Energizer rabbit hopping around here. -- Toytoy 22:33, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't understand wikipedia policy for dealing with problem users enough to understand what to do here, and I wish someone outside of this dispute would help us out. Ed has now complained about me and is trying to get me kicked off wikipedia. All this because I insist on accuracy here. He also doesn't even respond to the arguments made by others; he keeps reasserting his position. I do think the complaint process should be re-started.--csloat 22:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, we are free to rename the page anything we want.
  • I think we should discuss page moves before we make them.
  • It's possible someone may be in the minority with his/her opinion concerning the appropriateness of a given page name on which others agree, but that does not mean there is no consensus about a page move. Consensus does not mean unanimity.
  • If the consensus is that we should rename a page something that only an admin can rename it (because of past page renames), we should ask an admin for help. BrandonYusufToropov 22:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do think we have easily reached some sort of agreement over the revert of the title somewhere in the past. -- Toytoy 23:12, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)


Toytoy: It might not be a bad idea to repost the relevant discussion here for review and get a fresh round of hands about where we should go next. I've been hollering about discussing this stuff on the talk page to everyone who would listen for the past week or so. :) I know it's retracing old ground, but I think it would set a good precedent. What's your view? BrandonYusufToropov 23:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  1. Not trying to get csloat kicked off: he's welcome if he (a) supports NPOV policy and (b) avoids personal attacks.
  2. I don't care what this article is called, provided the title matches the scope. At the risk of repeating myself:
    • If the article is only about US-done abuse, rename it BUT then we must have another (perhaps smaller) article about detainee-done abuse
    • If the article is about ALL reported abuse, the neither the title nor the intro should imply that the scope of the article is limited to gov't abuse

<irony>To quote a certain other contributor, how many times do I have to explain this?</irony> (Sorry if that's getting too personal.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:22, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Ed, you asked that I be "immediately banned" from wikipedia; that sounds like you're trying to get me kicked off to me. But then you changed the page, so if you are no longer asking for me to be banned, it's unclear what your RfA is for. I am happy to support npov and avoid personal attacks as I always have, so I think we're in agreement there. I am not into discussing the title right now either. As for the scope of the article -- Ed the problem is not the number of times you keep re-stating this; it is the number of times you keep ignoring everyone else's response to this. Are you really demanding that someone explain this to you yet again???? --csloat 23:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Update - without comment, Ed has withdrawn his request that I be banned from wikipedia for disagreeing with him. I am glad to see that, and hopefully this is a sign that he has seen the light about continuing his heavy-handed attempt to impose his agenda on this page. Thank you Ed. --csloat 23:58, 22 June 2005 (UTC)

Requesting suggestions as to what this article should be called

Any ideas? BrandonYusufToropov 23:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Desecration of the Qur'an at Guantánamo Bay
    • This was exactly the last generally-accepted title before Ed's ill-mannered move. We may use a revert rather than just another rename. We shall not reware Ed by keeping his move untouched. If you don't like this name, let's discuss before making any further renames. By the way, Ed, please step back. When we reach the revert consensus, I'll request you to revert the article's title and fix all redirects. Be responsible. You're the admin here. I don't want to waste my life covering your fucking ass. -- Toytoy 23:46, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Qur'an desecration by U.S. guards in the war on terror? (or something similar)
    • This would help alleviate Ed Poor's constant insistence that the scope of the article be changed. If he wants to start a quran abuse by prisoners article again, let him, though it has been resoundingly rejected by the wikipedia community in a vote. we can use such a title and still mention the pentagon claims of abuse by prisoners here -- I do think it is relevant as a subset of this issue. --csloat 23:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd strongly suggest leaving it as is and revisiting the question in about six months time. This article has already been through an absurd number of changes in a short period of time for no particular reason other than what side of bed someone woke up on. The current title works well enough. Let's leave it for a bit.--Lee Hunter 23:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Even though we had previously built some agreement around Desecration of the Qur'an at ... I am inclined to agree with Lee. Only possible downside is that if people are still rioting in 2006 it's inaccurate, but I'm sure we will have found our way elsewhere by then. For now, stability seems like a good choice, and there's nothing actually wrong with the current title, so... BrandonYusufToropov 00:25, 23 June 2005 (UTC)
  • This is why I wanted it to refer somehow to the newsweek allegations in the title... we still can reference pre-newsweek articles, it focuses upon what was reported in newsweek, namely the US military desecrating the Qur'an, but it also allows us to include Ed's info, just not in the intro. --kizzle 04:32, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Tally (2/4/1)

Rename:

  1. kizzle [2]
  2. Toytoy 11:24, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Keep:

  1. BrandonYusufToropov 21:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. LeeHunter [3]
  3. Uncle Ed (talk) 03:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  4. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:21, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral:

  1. csloat (someone put me up on rename but I don't have a strong opinion about it at this time - at least not without a better title suggestion. Even though I suggested the title they linked; I am fine leaving this as it is for now.

Pentagon / conservative response

Add to intro:

  • The Pentagon later released reports alleging that in multiple cases prisoners had desecrated the Koran at the facility. []
  • One liberal and two conservative journalists speculated that the official may have mistaken the report of prisoner desecration for US personnel desecration. [] [] []

The empty [ ] bracket pairs are for references to news articles. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:20, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Please don't add this stuff to the intro or we might as well put the whole article in the intro. I believe we have been through this before.--csloat 19:46, 24 June 2005 (UTC)

Relevance and neutrality

Let's vote again, so it's clear. Should the article mention Pentagon or commentator claims that prisoners abused the Koran?

Let's not vote again; we already achieved consensus on this issue. The article should mention this, just not in the intro; can we please move on to other things now? --csloat 19:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mention

  1. Ed Poor

Omit

  1. Calton | Talk 14:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Toytoy 17:06, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral/undecided

  1. This is a poorly worded question. I'd say, yes the Pentagon claims should be mentioned but NOT in the intro. And adding "commentator claims" (see Krauthammer below) about anything is a ridiculous idea. --Lee Hunter 17:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. agree with Lee but I object to this entire vote. We have covered this ground over and over. Ed can we please move on? --csloat 19:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Krauthammer quote

I've removed the Krauthammer quote because it's just a columnist providing 'facts' without giving sources. It is certainly known that Al Qaeda members are told to claim torture when they are imprisoned [4] but I don't know where he's getting his information that they are trained to claim abuse of the Koran. I did a brief search on Google and couldn't find anything. If this can be confirmed by a real source I have no objection to it being included, although it would be better from the original source. --Lee Hunter 15:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also note that the US has itself confirmed that torture took place at Gitmo, so the Al Qaeda training manual is a bit of a moot point. [5] --Lee Hunter 17:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, a "UN source" claims that the US admitted torture at Gitmo. The US has not confirmed this. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 01:47, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
We could say:
  • According to an AFP news release, an un-named United Nations official asserted that the US has admitted torturing prisoners at gitmo.

Charles Krauthammer wrote:

"al Qaeda operatives are trained to charge torture when they are in detention, and specifically to charge abuse of the Koran to inflame fellow prisoners on the inside and potential sympathizers on the outside." [6]
Also it's worth keeping in mind that the quote from the al Qaeda encyclopedia has little bearing on many of the claims from prisoners since not everyone has actually read this thing. Many of the prisoners who complained about this were not even al Qaeda members.--csloat 19:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article

If anyone thinks the article is biased, please restore the NPOV tag. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2005 (UTC)

Pentagon counterclaims (1/4/1)

Something like:

  • Weeks later, the Pentagon issued a report blaming the Qur'an damage on detainees, and a Washington Post article said that the Newsweek story may have mixed up detainee Qur'an desecration with desecration by US personnel. []
Shame on you for this silly, if not mischievous, bit of obfuscation! As if the Pentagon report was only about blaming the detainees. I think it's high time a lock was put on this article (minus Ed's efforts to muddy the water)--Lee Hunter 18:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should be mentioned in the intro

  1. Ed Poor: Brings balance to the article

Should not be mentioned in the into

  1. Lee - "Pentagon claims should be mentioned but NOT in the intro" [7]
  2. csloat
  3. Toytoy June 28, 2005 16:13 (UTC) Keep on the good job, Ed.
  4. Wheeeee, this is fun. Lets keep voting on this over and over! --kizzle June 28, 2005 16:23 (UTC)

Neutral/undecided

  1. Abstain. Just want to reiterate that getting this kind of content into the intro was not what I was proposing (see below). That's been addressed (to death). Now, if I may -- a responsibly titled section building on the current piece about "US Military findings" or whatever it is, and retitled "Official response' or suchlike, would be a valuable addition to the article. I for one would like to see if the Administration is keeping its explanations straight, and would like some clarification on whether the official position is currently that this "did not" happen (that used to be the position, as I recall), or that there is "no credible evidence" that dunking Qur'ans in toilets happened. Please remember too that many many many people, not just Ed Poor, are inclined to want to hear the official explanation of these events. BrandonYusufToropov 28 June 2005 17:03 (UTC)

I know, we all hate polls. But they do tend to clarify things. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:00, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

It's not that we hate polls; just that you keep demanding that we have (basically) the same one over and over. It's also a little disconcerting to have you vote for me, even if it's the right vote. I'll go ahead and revert the changes that are problematic though I think you made some positive ones too. I'll be taking the pentagon PR out of the intro and also the BS claim that there was a "painstaking" inquiry. The inquiry was a few days long; it consisted of going through logs (as if instances of abuse were always logged; you think they have logs at abu ghraib that say "10:20 pm: made prisoners do a circle jerk and then piled them up naked"?). --csloat 17:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ed it's even more disconcerting to have you then erase my vote - I understand you were just responding to what I said above about you putting it in but you can just respond here rather than deleting it -- I even corrected the spelling which should have made it obvious that I was ok with the vote itself; it was just the move of you speaking for me (whether by inserting or deleting information) that I found disconcerting.

This is related to a problem I have had with you for a while now Ed -- you feel free to delete information that others put in. This is fine on the articles but not on the discussion page (and it is really troubling on the rfa page where you tried to get me kicked off wikipedia). On that page, when I responded to your arguments, you edited your own text to change the arguments -- without actually responding to mine -- to make it look like you had been arguing something different all along. Then when you were obviously losing the argument anyway, you erased the whole thing, including my arguments, without any comment about why this was happening. I assumed it meant you had a change of heart and decided to stop imposing your agenda on this page but obviously I was wrong. So what does it all mean? I don't know if wikipedia rules cover this anywhere but it seems to me that deleting information from discussion pages should be a no-no -- you can simply respond and add additional informaiton to the page, and if you change your mind about something, why not just add a note, "I changed my mind"? The deletions make things confusing.--csloat 20:06, 25 June 2005 (UTC)

Sources

We seem to have lost the web link to the original Newsweek report. You know, the main reason we even have this article? Would someone please put that back in. Readers will want to know whether it was Newsweek or "other sources" which said the military used "desecration" as part of its interrogation regime. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:32, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Here it is.--csloat 17:43, 25 June 2005 (UTC)
Thanks.

Torture campaign

  • "We know for certain that the United States has tortured five inmates to death. We know that 23 others have died in U.S. custody under suspicious circumstances. We know that torture has been practiced by almost every branch of the U.S. military in sites all over the world -- from Abu Ghraib to Tikrit, Mosul, Basra, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.
  • "We know that no incidents of abuse have been reported in regular internment facilities and that hundreds have occurred in prisons geared to getting intelligence. We know that thousands of men, women and children were grabbed almost at random from their homes in Baghdad, taken to Saddam's former torture palace and subjected to abuse, murder, beatings, semi-crucifixions and rape.
  • "All of this is detailed in the official reports. Andrew Sullivan, quoted by Molly Ivins. [8]

Retraction

  • "Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Quran abuse at Guantanamo Bay," Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker said in a statement issued Monday afternoon. CNN, May 16 [9]

International protests

the report sparked protests throughout the Islamic world and perhaps added fuel to pre-planned demonstrations in Afghanistan

I appreciate the distinction, Lee. Good catch. My version ignorantly blurred the distinction between the planned demos and the spontaneous ones. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2005 (UTC)

lack of balance

a Pentagon self-investigation that reported instances of detainee desecration

This ought to be in the introduction, perhaps amplified by

...was largely discounted as a tit-for-tat fabrication.

But we might mention somewhere that people tend to believe the Pentagon when it admits its own faults but routinely accuses them as lying when they charge others with faults. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:06, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think everyone but ed has decided, over and over again, that this item does not belong in the introduction. Ed has to this date not produced a single reason to justify this item's inclusion in the intro, has not responded to a single argument about it by others; instead, he has simply rephrased this demand over and over, demanded that we vote on it again and again, and, when he loses these arguments, he sends me administrative warnings for "personal attacks" and starts arbitration proceedings against me, while at the same time nominating another editor for adminship with whom he has had similar disputes. I have no intention of turning this into any kind of personal attack - I am sure Ed is doing all of this in good faith - but it appears to me that a better way of doing this is to make your case for the change you'd like to see, respond to critiques, and if you are unsuccessful in persuading folks towards a new consensus, accept the possibility that you may be wrong. --csloat 20:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't use consensus as a guide to matters of right and wrong, but I appreciate your newfound assumption of good faith. I regret now, undoing the "vote" thing; I thought you were complaining that i had misquoted you or something. Now I know better. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:14, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your assumption that my assumption of good faith is newfound. I have always assumed good faith; I have only been guilty of pointing out when I saw evidence that contradicted that assumption. If you don't respect consensus, then why do you call for votes at all? --csloat 21:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I take that part back. But I never said I didn't respect consensus, I'm only saying that it can't change wrong into right (or vice versa). For example, if a 51% majority or even a 98% near-unanamity of scientists or bureacrats selected by their countries to be on the United Nations climate panel say that the earth is (or is not) warming up too much due to greenhouse emissions - that will have no effect on the facts. An up vote won't increase temperature, and a down vote won't decrease it. Truth is truth, and voting doesn't affect it. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:35, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Of course, that point has no bearing whatsoever here, or does it? Perhaps I'm missing something?csloat 00:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I thought we had this taken care of with our landslide poll earlier. Ed, concensus can't change right into wrong, but you're missing what the point of concensus is. Concensus is trying to find what a majority of people define "right" as being in this case, as there is no absolute right. And while polls are informal and not taken to the letter of the law, you got significantly outvoted in this respect. Please kindly move on from this point, as putting this info in the intro is a clear "wrong" perceived by almost every editor on this page except for you. --kizzle 03:04, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
A minor quibble -- there may be some "absolute" right in respect to the issues under discussion, but that's for each of us to determine on our own, and Ed is, like all of us, free to express his opinions concerning what he believes that "right" viewpoint to be. There is, however, no inherently "right" or "wrong" way to write this article.There is only the best approach we can all come to an agreement on as objective. That's what consensus reflects, not ultimate moral conclusions, and at present, the feeling seems to be that Ed's suggestion is not appropriate for the introduction. (That's my feeling, too.)
Now the next question. Does Ed's point belong elsewhere, and if so, where? BrandonYusufToropov 14:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking maybe an official response section that covers what the official Pentagon reaction + report on the detainees' abusing the Qur'an as well. Just a thought. --kizzle 21:05, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • An "official response" section would, I think, be a good addition, though it should not be the main focus of the article or appear in the introduction. That would be like letting the White House write the lead on a story it would like to see disappear, and I don't think anyone believes that would be a good idea.
  • Please note that a fair percentage of American readers, at least, and perhaps a majority of American leaders, are inclined to follow Ed's lead and accept the Pentagon's explanation for these events over the accounts of recently released detainees.
  • I don't know why they are inclined to do that, but ... [Sorry, couldn't resist]  :)
  • So -- a paragraph summarizing the official explanation -- and clarifying, for instance, such points as whether the Pentagon still explicitly denies that any Qur'an was ever placed in a toilet by US personnel, as opposed to "finding no evidence" that this occurred, would, in my view, be a relevant and interesting addition to the article for most of the readers who encounter it.
  • Ed, do you feel like drafting a paragraph or two along these lines and posting it here for discussion, on the understanding that this new section 'should not be the main focus of the article and should not appear in the introduction?BrandonYusufToropov
This seems like a lot of trouble to go through just to please one editor whose opinion is totally at odds with mainstream media and scholarly accounts of this issue. As Lee points out below, we already have a paragraph the does the trick just fine (though it might be better to label it "Pentagon Response" rather than "detainee self-abuse" or whatever the hell it says now). I feel that the above is just bending over backwards to please Ed just because he is an administrator -- I don't think that's the idea behind having wikipedia admins, and I don't even think Ed would think that was a good idea. My view is that the pentagon claims are covered well as it is now, except perhaps for a change in the subtitle. --csloat 00:12, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The supposed detainee DOK is perfectly covered in the current version. It has its own section, it's visible from the top of the page(so anyone can see that it's there) and it does NOT belong in the intro. Prisoners doing weird shit is a daily occurence in every prison in the world. It's a "dog bites man" event. Completely uninteresting and non-notable. Guards doing weird shit to prisoners is (at least in theory) not how things are supposed to be in the civilized world. Man bites dog. Frankly, Ed is just rambling aimlessly when he suggests adding "people tend to believe the Pentagon when ...". This is just total blather. --Lee Hunter 15:09, 26 June 2005 (UTC)

Lee, do you have an issue date on that New Yorker piece?

Is it the current issue? BrandonYusufToropov 02:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Intro again

I have made two minor edits to the intro:

  1. broke 2nd paragraph into two parts
  2. Turned "Qu'ran desecration" into Qur'an desecration in what is now the 2rd paragraph

I marked this as "This is a minor edit", using the handy checkbox below the Edit summary.

Before I make a major edit, I'd like to touch base with you all. We haven't talked since the summer.

  • The Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005 captured international attention in April 2005 when Newsweek published an article which appeared to confirm several previous allegations that U.S. personnel at the Guantánamo Bay prison camp had damaged a copy of the Qur'an by putting it in a toilet in order to torment the prison's Muslim captives.

I want to say rather that:

  1. The Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005 concerns allegations that U.S. personnel at the Guantánamo Bay prison camp damaged a copy of the Qur'an by putting it in a toilet in order to torment the prison's Muslim captives.
  2. The matter captured international attention in April 2005 when Newsweek published an article which appeared to confirm several previous allegations.

I cannot in good conscience mark this as a "minor edit". And I could just go ahead and make it, but why stir up trouble? I'll wait a few days for comments first. Uncle Ed 18:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps "concerns" should be "concerned" but otherwise looks fine to me. --Lee Hunter 01:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
How about "focused on"? That implies that the central point was this accusation. And the Pentagon's rebuttal that the books in the toilet thing was enemy propanda would not be part of the "focus". It would be part of the controversy, but a peripheral part.
I'd also like to find out (but without doing any original research what proportions of Americans, Westerners or earthlings in general gave credence to the two main POVs: (1) that the US was desecrated the Qur'an as a matter of policy vs. (2) that prisoners were the ones doing this, and blaming this on the U.S.
If it's 99% believe the charges against the U.S. (POV #1), then I wouldn't want to exaggerate support for POV #2. But if it's a 90-10 split or anything closer than that, then we ought to report on the exact proportions of the split - or as close as we can determine them.
The last thing we'd want to do is simply assert that the allegations are true, right? Uncle Ed 16:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
But we don't make any such assertion. We say that the allegations are allegations and we report the claims that have been made by the detainees and by the US army. I don't understand the point of noting how many members of the public take one side or another. It doesn't have much bearing on the content of the article. --Lee Hunter 02:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

more on SERE connection

Someone should add this info.

Please, anyone who knows anything about SERE's does not talk about it. TDC 23:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Besides that, the SERE connection to the "torture narrative" is plain crazy. Just look at where that NY Times link goes to: "opinion."' If anything, the facts show that the military was trying to accomplish results without using torture.
LOL... read the essay, not just the category.-csloat 06:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
And if you read the essay, you'll see that once again a few soldiers who our military charged with crimes are attempting to spin the torture meme so as to mitigate their guilt. The writers of that piece seem more than happy to oblige. One funny thing about this is that DoD could have spared itself from a lot of this bad P.R. if it had simply swept all those crimes under the rug -- and yet they didn't. -- Randy2063 15:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"unconsciously pro-US"?

Ed, I am pro-US too, and even consciously so; I don't think that's the issue. I think the issue is bending over backwards to establish the pentagon report as the source of all truth, and to denigrate the reports from everywhere else. Why delete the number of pre-Newsweek reports? Why add your own editorializing to the pentagon conclusions? And why the bizarre /ref tag that eliminates part of the section here?--csloat 19:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I was afraid I had gone too far. By "Pro-US" point of view, I meant "favoring the viewpoint of the US government" ("pro-bush"?) not "loving America as a country". Sorry for the lack of clarity; I was trying to make a 2-word phrase mean more than it could possibly convey.
I don't think the Pentagon report should be established as the source of all truth, but rather balanced (say, 50-50?) against the reports from everywhere else. We might even add a "Controversy" section at the end (or maybe "public opinion"?) indicating what percent of people believed the 2 sides. Wikipedia certainly should not take one side's word over the other's.
Sorry about deleting number of pre-Newsweek reports. I didn't realize that was significant.
I'm unaware of "my own editorializing", please cut and paste that here so we can fix it (or agree that it's hopelessly biased).
If my /ref tag destroyed part of a section, that was a formatting error. I'll take a look and try to fix it. --Uncle Ed 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Didn't mean to jump on you, but you suggested that being in the military made you "pro-US," which suggested patriotism, not Bush partisanship. I'm glad you're willing to clarify that. The editorializing I perceived had to do with the scrawling on the Quran which you say in your edit summary could have been done by someone else -- is that in the pentagon report? It seems like an easy thing to check due to handwriting; it seems strange that the pentagon report would express doubt on the matter rather than investigating it. I'm not sure that the article was unbalanced before you made these changes (though I don't think they are mostly unreasonable, so again I apologize for jumping on you). The dozens of reports seemed to be something you thought was significant when you deleted it and then referred to it in your edit summaries; I'm glad you restored it. This sentence in the intro is a little problematic: "The Pentagon's report accused a prisoner of damaging a copy of the Qur'an by putting it in a toilet, which is what the Newsweek article had claimed had been done by U.S. personnel." How about stopping it after "toilet" and putting in "also" (i.e. "also accused a prisoner"). It may not seem that different, but we don't know the pentagon and newsweek referred to the same quran and the same toilet.csloat 20:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm running out of steam. I trust you to make that correction, Commodore. :-) --Uncle Ed 20:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Newsweek and US government

Start of paragraph:

On April 30, 2005 Newsweek magazine published an article claiming that an unnamed United States official had seen a government report supporting a "previously unreported" charge [1] of Qur'an (Koran) desecration at Camp X-Ray, a U.S. military detention facility in Guantánamo Bay.[10]

Cut:

It was alleged that U.S. interrogators had deliberately defaced the Qur'an as a tactic for intimidating Muslim detainees. The revelations provoked massive anti-U.S. demonstrations throughout the Islamic world, with at least 17 deaths during riots in Afghanistan.

The passage I cut has problems:

  1. It doesn't say WHO made the allegations: the writer of the Newsweek story personally, the official who supposedly say the gov't report, the report itself? Or was it people who read the Newsweek article and drew their own conclusions?
  2. Its reference to "revelations" implies actual uncovering of wrong-doing (i.e., deliberate Qur'an desecration by US personnel). Since the entire controversy hinges on whether the US did or did not do this, the word revelation would seem to pre-suppose this. It would be better to use a neutral word, such as "story" (referring to the Newsweek article) or "report" referring to the contents of the gov't report the official said he saw.

Suggested replacement:

  • The article went on to imply that U.S. interrogators had deliberately defaced the Qur'an as a tactic for intimidating Muslim detainees; or,
  • The official said that the report outlined a U.S. policy for interrogators to deliberate deface the Qur'an as a tactic for intimidating Muslim detainees; or,
  • Many readers took this as evidence that the U.S. had a policy for interrogators to deliberate deface the Qur'an as a tactic for intimidating Muslim detainees

And:

  • The prospect that U.S. personnel may have deliberately defaced the Qur'an provoked massive anti-U.S. demonstrations throughout the Islamic world, with at least 17 deaths during riots in Afghanistan.

How do other Wikipedia editors see it? --Uncle Ed 13:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Wow. Very nice edits, Ed. I'd be comfortable with third bullet ("Many readers took this as...") in your list; the final bullet ("The prospect that...") works fine for me too. Nice job. BYT 14:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're splitting hairs, Ed. I'd be ok with your changes if your grammar was better -- try "deliberately deface" for better results. But we should check if the Newsweek article actually says or implies this if we have questions. But in the end I don't see any problems with the original sentence you are replacing; in fact, I think the original was better. Your claim that this implies actual wrongdoing is a little strange; the wrongdoing has been pretty well confirmed by numerous detainees as well as at least one former gitmo official (and the actions are not that surprising, under the circumstances). But if we must temper such claims with weasel words, so be it. But why not similarly add weasel words to the other sentence? Instead of provoked, why not "may have contributed to"? Certainly these demonstrations were not focused exclusively on this one issue of quran-flushing. Or how about "are reported to have caused"? I think your changes may be starting us down a slippery slope.--csloat 18:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Piss Christ xref

I added a cross reference to the article on Piss Christ. this change was A) additive, B) minor and C) relevant, yet I have been blocked as a "vandal". This bullying is clearly illegitimate, so I'm going to replace the change and if you have a defensible dispute, please express it here without abusing the wiki system.

If you have been blocked and you are coming back under a different IP to continue reverting, you are the one abusing the wiki system. Perhaps you can explain why the heck you think this is necessary?--csloat 19:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
i wasn't aware that "nessesary" was the standard, and it isn't asserted as so anywhere i've seen. i do believe that two widely noted incidents wherein a religious item was desecrated or alleged to be desecrated with urine are relevant to one another. they thus merit cross-reference. maybe you can explain why you so agressively oppose this minor, relevant addition to the article.
in the meantime, since you have failed to justify the reversion, i am again replacing the cross-reference. i hope you can work in good faith and not lash out with another revert and block.
First, get a login. At the very least sign your posts with four tildes. Second, I didn't say there was any standard. This is the first time you've uttered a single word in favor of this change. You had made no justification for it in the edit summary or the talk page, and you were asked to numerous times. I don't "aggressively oppose" this change; it's just that this is the first time you've ever done anything to distinguish your change from vandalism.
That said, your argument is not persuasive to me. True, these two things have in common the holy book and the excretia. But that's it. One is an art piece; the other is a worldwide political controversy over torture techniques. The controversies have nothing to do with each other, and there is no published source that I am aware of even mentioning the two events in the same breath. Bringing them together in wikipedia is a form of WP:NOR. It's also a bit silly, since, nobody would come to this page looking for more information about Serrano or vice versa.--csloat 04:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
as i understand it, the only advantage of getting a login is that it would enable me to threaten and block other contributors. that sort of behavior is unappealing to me.
i don't, and i don't believe a reasonable person would, regard my addition of a single cross-reference to the bottom of the article as prima facie "vandalism", so it didn't occur to me that i should have defended it as such. i hadn't been able to locate where i was asked numerous times to provide justification in the conventional manner, but now i understand that the numerous wordless reverts were meant to communicate a request. you've reverted again after i've provided justification - what can i do for you?
clearly the two things, though sharing obvious basic elements, are not identical on a one-to-one basis. your characterization, "One is an art piece; the other is a worldwide political controversy over torture techniques," vividly presents the differing reaction each invokes within the same context. still, its not so to say that bringing the two together is original research. the connectedness hadn't occurred to me, in fact, before i had read the time article linked below. i've also located a piece published in the washington post also considering the two in relation to one another. i don't know what their use can be for the modest, relevant addition of a single cross-reference to the bottom of the article though. it would seem to make too much of it and a mess of the formatting.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1064449,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/07/AR2006020701253.html
If that's what you understand about wikipedia then you shouldn't be editing here. Learn about it before you dive in with contentious edits and vandalism. It doesn't matter whether you think your edit is vandalism, you should still be willing to explain it. There is an edit summary box where you can provide short explanations; the talk page is for longer discussions. The WaPo article compares piss christ to the Danish cartoons, which is a more apt comparison; it does not make the comparison you do here. The Time article does mention the piss christ and koran-flushing but it does not specifically relate the two events in a way that makes sense for this article. Seriously, if nobody would come to this article looking for piss christ information, and there is nothing in the article that suggests piss christ is a logical followup, the link doesn't belong here. Please do not restore it again.--csloat 08:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
i've begun the arbitration process to the best of my ability. it's dissapointing to see that you are unable to work in good faith on this matter. to whatever degree you are associated with the previous two auto-reverters notwithstanding, the precident merits 3RR.

Piss Christ Edit War

Please revert your change, Mr. Anon IP. You are gaming the 3RR and likely facing another block. You are refusing to engage in discussion over your tendentious change.--csloat 16:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

honestly, what is this nonsense? "i know you are but what am i?"

What is "reasonable" about putting a reference to an art exhibit in an article about torture? AQn art exhibit that is nowhere mentioned in the article? Isarig, please see the above discussion and participate in it rather than joining in this petty revert war. Thanks. csloat 00:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I read the above discussion, and I find the arguments in favor of the inclusion of the x-ref convincing. There is similarity between the two events (desecration of religious symbols) and between the public outcry that ensued. Conversely, I don;t find your vehement refusal to allow this x-ref to be based on anything other than personal preference. Isarig 01:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
its now clear what the problem is. you misunderstand what the article is which we are editing. it is titled the "quran desecration controversy". it is about a controversy involving the desecration (by urine, and originally immersion in urine prior to the facts being known) of a quran, which is a holy book. all three of these top-level criteria, and a couple of second-order qualties are also definative of the "piss christ controversy," which was a controversy involving the desecration (by immersion in urine) of a holy symbol, the crucifix. to say that there is no notable similarity tbetween the two is axiomaticly unreasonable. your position is perpendicular to reasonable.
you've described this revert war as petty. i agree, and i wish there were some explaination for your white-knuckled zeal in this. i don't care to try to read your mind in this. i will note that are approiaching a violation of 3RR with absolutely no reasonable grounds beneath your feet.
The article is titled "Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005". It describes the specific controversy surrounding the use of Quran desecration as a means of tormenting prisoners. Please re-read the discussion above. If you think this has anything at all to do with "piss christ", please write a paragraph explaining what the heck it actually has to do with this and put it in the article. Isarig, you simply stalked me here because of our controversy on another article; it's clear you don't have any idea what any of this is about. If you wish to participate, respond to the arguments above, or, as I urged the anon to do, write a paragraph explaining why this is relevant and stick it in the article. Otherwise it looks like a totally irrelevant reference. Nobody in their right mind would come to this article expecting to learn about piss christ, or vice versa. This entire discussion is utterly absurd. csloat 01:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
this is interesting...
"If you think this has anything at all to do with "piss christ", please write a paragraph explaining what the heck it actually has to do with this and put it in the article."
i suppose i could clip the thirty words i just wrote and put those in the article, but wouldn't that be fifteen times as "disruptive" as the modest addition of a solitary cross-reference at the foot? if you are too irrational to deal constructively with me on the small matter before us, can it be said that this suggestion is being offered with sincerity?
I am being sincere. If you can write a reasonable explanation of this, citing sources (read WP:NOR and WP:RS) that directly relate the two incidents, indicating what the heck they have to do with one another, then put it in the article. The reference as it is seems totally out of place. It trivializes this article and it makes it look like a joke. Can you imagine such a reference in a printed Encyclopedia? Come on. But if you can, back up your words and write it up; cite reliable sources and substantitate the point. Put it in the article and if you are right it will stay in. Otherwise you are just being disruptive. csloat 01:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
lol!
csloat - "I am being sincere. ...Put it in the article and if you are right it will stay in."
also csloat - "either way, your "piss christ" edit to the quran article will continue to be deleted by myself and others..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.175.216.90 (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
Umm, yeah. I'm talking about two different things there, obviously. It will stay in if it is sourced, relevant, and encyclopedic. As you have it now, it will not stay in. Happy new year. csloat 02:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
cheers! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.175.216.90 (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

jumping cheese, et al

do you have any sort of explaination for your revert? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.216.90 (talk • contribs)

Yay! A section just for me! I'm flattered.
Anyways, I agree with the other registered Wikipedians. What does "Piss Christ" have anything to do with the page?!? It might be remotely related, but hardly worthy of mentioning in the see also section. If "Piss Christ" is included, might as well include a whole mess of other links that are remotely related to the page. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 11:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Cross referencing Piss Christ to 2005 Qur'an desecration ...and categorization

I agree there is a connection between the two controversial desecrations, but there are significant dissimilarities.

Remember, too, that consensus is a fundamental core policy of Wikipedia, a policy which Jimbo Wales has insisted is, and will be, an unshakeable inherent part of Wikipedia.

The very idea that that the controversy exists, and that there is not an agreement on whether to link Piss Christ to 2005 Qur'an desecration shows clearly that there is not a consensus, and I believe it unlikely that a consensus could be reached on this.

Edit wars of this type are generally unending: Neither including nor excluding the link is likely to be approved widely enough to become a clear consensus.

Another solution may be necessary, avoiding the question of consensus:

I think the issue could be satisfactorily resolved by connecting the two articles via an indisputably relevant cross ref, such as Desecration. That article could use some expansion anyway... perhaps writing a few paragraphs there about notable desecrations and reactions to them? I am certain nobody would object to linking to the article Desecration to and from both Piss Christ and Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005, and anyone should approve of an expansion to the article.

The deal is that the 2005 Qur'an desecration is an act related to the torture and deliberate humiliation of a prisoner, and Piss Christ is a work of art by an artist, intending to make an artistic statement, to provoke a reaction in the context of what is and what is not art, what is allowable as art, the meaning of the concept of sacred... an attempt in other words to explore the concept of sanctity and the concept of what is permissable as artistic expression.

To engender more communication and understanding in other words.

This is a marked contrast to the intentional mis-use of a sacred symbol as a means to harm another human (assuming that it was not as has been claimed simply an accident in which case there is still marked dissimilarity: accidental vs intentional desecration) in the Qu'ran incident. One may say that art is intended to advance human culture and knowledge, but that torture and intentional humiliation have the opposite intent and/or effect.

In short, the two are dissimilar enough that some, or many, may object to a direct cross-reference.

Yet the two do share a distinct connection, in that there were very strong worldwide reactions to both.

Those who do not think the two are directly related might not object to linking to both articles from a more generic article, and/or to placing both articles, as well as the Desecration article into a category such as Category:Desecration. Bear in mind though, that a category is very likely to be deleted if it does not have at least one parent category (ie, the category itself is a member of another category) and several articles as members of that category.

I know that once one has entered into an argument, in which they were certain they were right, that it is often hard to see the other side, but that is precisely what an advocate does, or attempts to do. It seems to me that it is simply the case that there is a disagreement over the inclusion or exclusion of the link, and that no consensus is likely regardless of how long the discussion continues.

I feel it would be fruitless, and a waste of community resources to attempt to reach a consensus for or against inclusion of a direct cross-reference between the 2 articles in question. User:Pedant 11:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pedant and Jumpingcheese. I reverted but then reverted back because that would have been 4 reverts in 24 hrs... But I still support removing the ridiculously unrelated link from the article. I can't believe anyone in their right mind would defend the addition. I see Isarig defending it but it is obvious the only reason he is defending it is because I oppose it -- he stalked me here because of a dispute on the Juan Cole article. It's his right to do so, I suppose, but it is entirely uncivil. Whatever his reasons, however, my position is simple -- if this link is to be related to this article, someone must present a rational argument as to how it is related and must back up that argument with a WP:RS explicitly making the direct connection. Nobody has done so, so the link is WP:NOR and must be deleted. Simply saying that the two both deal with holy books and excretia is absolutely ridiculous. First of all, there is no mention of urine in this article -- only toilet water. Second of all, one is an art piece while the other is a method used to torment captive prisoners in the war on terror. The two are totally unrelated. If you want to put a link to "piss christ" under the Desecration article that is fine, but this is not a general article about Quran desecration -- it is about a specific event in the war on terrorism. I don't know who this anon is who started this nonsense or why he is doing it but I think he should stop, and that this article should be protected against anon edits. If he wants to continue this nonsensical argument, let him at least get a login. With junk like this going on it's no wonder many people refuse to take wikipedia seriously. csloat 22:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
You are encouraged, yet again, to review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Implying that those who defend the link between the two articles are not "in their right mind" is a clear violation of both. The rational argument for the inclusion of the x-ref is simple, and has already been presented : Both incidents are similar, in that they involve the desecration of religions symbols, with a resulting public outcry. It is thus reasonable to link them, and many sources outside WP have done so. Please cease your uncompromising and stubborn refusal to see anyone's position but your own on this. Isarig 22:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Your one source (not "many") does not explicitly link the two. Simply mentioning the two in the same article is not the same as making a rational argument linking the two. I have explained two specific reasons above (and many more in previous debates on this ridiculous nonsense) why the link does not belong here and you have not addressed them. I have even agreed to a compromise solution suggested by Pedant, which you have ignored. The incidents are not "similar" despite your claim that they are. Face it, you are wrong on this. The link goes, and I will continue to maintain that this debate is complete nonsense, despite your threats concerning Wikipedia policies. csloat 22:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I have linked one source, but there are many simialr ones. You're a big boy and can probably use Google as well as I can to find them. The article explicitly linked these two incidents, contrasting the Christian reaction to "Piss Jesus" to the Muslim reaction to the Quran desecration. The incidents are similar, as other editors have noted, and your assertions that you are right and others are wrong is not an argument. If you continue to insult editors the way you have been carrying on, you will be blocked. Isarig 00:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a breath everyone. No one is right or wrong. However, inclusion of the "Piss Christ" link is really stretching on what is relevant to the article. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 02:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That's your POV, and I respect it - but realize that that's all it is - your POV. Just asserting that the link is "really stretching" what is relevant to the article is no better than csloat's assertion that he's right and everybody else is wrong (or as he politely puts it not "in their right mind"). Isarig 02:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
That is your POV, Isarig. Stop threatening me -- it is entirely uncivil of you. Unfortunately for you, your POV is incorrect. These two things have nothing to do with each other, and your continual assertion that they do is neither persuasive nor helpful. If you are incapable of writing a paragraph that states in a NPOV manner what the direct link is between these two unrelated things, and supporting that direct link with a direct reference to a WP:RS (not just some opinion piece that happens to mention the reactions to the two events, but something directly linking them in categorical terms), you are engaged in WP:NOR. If we need to take this to RfC it's fine by me. As I've stated, the link you're asserting is ridiculous. csloat 03:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
POV NPOV...we sound like nerds. =)
Anyways, look at what article link to the "Piss Christ" page.[11] Not really pages that are related to "Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005". Jumping cheese Cont@ct 03:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

RfC

I am starting an RfC on this page since Isarig and the anon editor are intransigent about it. To be clear -- I believe the Piss Christ reference should not be included on this page. First, they are not related. Piss Christ is an art exhibit. This page is about a tactic used by American servicemen to humiliate Muslim prisoners in the global war on terrorism. The only relation asserted by those defending the link is that they both involve desecration of religious items -- the Muslim holy book dropped in a toilet (among other means of desecration described here) is somehow the same in Isarig's mind as the crucifix submerged in a glass beaker full of urine. While superficially there may be some similarity here, there is no more similarity than there is in the case of other instances of religious desecration, for example, Chillul Hashem, which I do not see either Isarig or the anon editor insisting on a link to here. Nor are they insisting on links to more directly related instances of Bible desecration. It is my feeling that the only reason that "piss christ" is being linked here is to trivialize this article. (In this light, it is rather telling that neither Isarig nor the anon are going to the Piss Christ article and inserting a link back to this one!) I have made this point a number of times and Isarig and the anon refuse to reply to it.

The fact is, nobody in their right mind would come to this article expecting to read about the Piss christ. The only way I could see such a link being legitimate is if they were willing to write a paragraph indicating a direct link between the two things and backing up whatever claim they make about it with a WP:RS directly commenting on the link. Isarig found an article that mentions that the outcry over the piss christ was different from the outcry over the desecration of the quran at gitmo -- rather absurdly, he uses that article as the basis for claiming the two things belong in the same category. I have a hard time believing he is serious about any of this, to be honest.

Finally, I have accepted a compromise solution here, which is that Isarig can insert his beloved piss christ link on the general desecration article, which could also link here. If they are related to each other, it is through the general concept of desecration, not in any direct way. And again it is telling that Isarig has not bothered to make such a link. I can't believe such a ridiculous point is controversial at all, but since it is, I am asking for comment from the outside world. csloat 03:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Isarig - please stop the disruptive editing. Leave the disputed link off the page until you get a consensus to put it in. In the meantime, you might do some work on a paragraph actually explaining the link in terms that don't violate WP:NOR -- post the paragraph here and if the consensus is in your favor we could put it in the article. csloat 04:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My editing is no more disruptive than your unrelenting deletions of that link. Leave it in until you get a consensus to remove it. In the meantime, you might do some work expalining why Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (2006) is relevant, but Piss Christ isn't. Or why Bagram torture and prisoner abuse is relevant but this one isn't. Or why Religious intolerance is relevant, but Piss Christ isn't. Isarig 04:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The burden of proof has not been met for including piss christ; it stays out until you get some kind of consensus to put it in. It is telling that you won't write a sentence or two justifying the connection to put in the article (since you know it would be WP:NOR) and it is also telling that you refuse to posit a single reason why this link improves the article in any way. csloat 18:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I just removed the link. It just doesn't belong. (IMHO) 1) piss christ, as offensive as it might be, was artistic expression, not an intent to harass POW's. 2)The artist was raised a strict Catholic so his reasoning and justification for using this imagery is completely different than if a non Christian created the work and displayed it in a non Christian majority country. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 05:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome the POV that "It just doesn't belong", but that's not an argument. If "It just doesn't belong" because it was not an intent to harass POWs, how does the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (2006) belong? was that an attempt to harass POWs? How about Religious intolerance? Is that, too, an attempt to harass POWs? The artist's reasoning is nice and all, but has diddly squat to do with the fact that it was as offensive to many Christians as the alleged Quran desecrations were to Muslims. Isarig
The cartoon controvesy IS an example of religious intolerance and both directly relate to the differences, and tensions between Muslim and Christian cultures in a post 9/11 world. Piss Christ was from an era when Reagan was referring to radical Islamists like bin Laden as 'allies' and 'Freedom Fighters' just cause they opposed the Commies. Those were different times, my friend. FYI, I just Googled 'Piss Christ' the vast majority of the crticism at the time seemed to be over the NEA funding. I didn't find any criticism from Falwell, Robertson et al. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
It's good to see we're off the "harassing POW's" as the reason why Piss Christ is irrelevant, and on to the acknowledgement this is an article about religious intolerance. As the refernce I've provided shows, many people do see the cartoon controvesy as an example of religious intolerance which is equivalent to the religious intolerance of the Piss Christ exhibit, and the WP article on PC links to the cartoon controversy, as well. I don't see what the "Reagan Era" has to do with anything (other than providing you with a soapbox to mouth off your politcal convictions). Religious intolerance is as old as religion itself - it did not begin post-9/11. Isarig 19:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you going to list every example of religious intolerance here? I didn't think so. csloat 19:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to list the ones I think are relevant, not the ones you apporve of. Isarig
So where is your list? csloat 21:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind taking out the links to the cartoon controversy too, since that's not quite relevant either. But piss christ definitely stays out. It has, as Isarig so eloquently put it, diddly squat to do with the war on terror. csloat 18:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is not about "the war on terror". It is about an alleged case of Qur'an desecration, and is related to religious intolerance, in general. Isarig 19:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
This is about a case of Quran desecration that occurred as part of the war on terror. It is not about religious intolerance in general. csloat 19:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
It is your POV that this is a part of the WOT. You are welcome to it, but keep it out of our encyclopedia. Neither the cartoon controversy nor the generic Religious intolerance links have anything to do with the WoT, and they're clearly as appropriate links as Piss Christ. Isarig 19:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
That's not my POV; it's a fact. It took place at Guantanamo bay and it took place with terrorism suspects. I can't believe you're being serious at all anymore. Respond to the arguments I presented above or say nothing -- all you're doing now is disrupting things. I'm going to go ahead and remove the cartoon stuff too.csloat 19:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
many things take place at Guantanamo bay , many of them with terrorism suspects. I'm sure the suspects are being fed halal meat - that doesn't make Halal an article related to the WoT. I have responded to your arguments, by showing you sources that related the two incidents directly. Please stop your politically motivated disruption of this page. Isarig 19:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to start the Halal meat controversy of 2007 article as soon as you find the relevant information on that controversy. You are the one disrupting this page, though I won't speculate on your motivations; I'll thank you not to attack mine. You have not shown "sources" relating the two incidents directly -- you have shown one source that indicates that the two incidents are different. You've had your say, Isarig; please stop repeating yourself and allow others to engage the conversation. csloat 21:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The source I have shown says the incidents are simialr in their intolerance, and remarked on ho wdiffernt the agrieved party behaved. It related them directly. stop your disruption of this page. Isarig 21:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
If what you say is true, you should have no problem writing a paragraph explaining this point in a manner that is not OR. I've asked you to several times and you have refused. Please stop your disruption of this page. csloat 21:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not one of your students that you assign homework to. There is no requirement that "See Also" links be introduced with paragraphs in the article. I've explainef how the two articles are related, and have shown a source that supports this. More than enough to overcome your stubborn disruption. Isarig 21:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Please stop using my occupation to personally attack me. You have not explained anything; you've simply repeated yourself. Please re-read my arguments above (at the beginning of this section) and respond specifically to them. Or don't -- but then stop insisting on disrupting this page. Thanks. csloat 21:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm nt attacking you, I'm explaining to you why your demands are unreasonable in this forum. I've read your arguments, and addressed them. Please stop your disruptio s and your personal attacks. Isarig 21:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting way out of hand. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 22:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If "Piss Christ" is included, Ecce Homo, To Mega Therion, and Strelnikoff Mary of Help of Brezje controversy should also be included, as noted in the "Piss Christ" article. However, none of them are really related to this article. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 22:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. And Chillul Hashem. As I've said, such stuff belongs in the general desecration article, not in this specific article. Isarig's arguments make it clear that the only relation is the general issue of defamation and the offense it provokes. I find it telling that he has not once bothered to edit the defamation article. csloat 22:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
If you want to add these additonal links, I certaibnly won't object to them being included. Isarig 22:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
You're missing the point. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 22:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't think I am. Isarig 22:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
More than a few far-right pundits did write or talk about the difference in reactions to these two dissimilar incidents in a blatant attempt to do some 'Christian Chest Thumping' and to insult Arabs, Muslims and Islam -and to further attack liberals, as usual. Maybe the Islamaphobic response from the far-right should be described? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 23:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The motivation of critics are entirely irrelevant, as is their alleged political affiliation. I strongly suggest you review WP:SOAP. Isarig 23:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey all, let's try and get this resolved! Some of this is me repeating stuff, but...bear with me.

The issue: To include, or not to include a link to Piss Christ in the See Also section of this article. My understanding of See Also sections: They are there to provide links to articles of a similar nature/on a similar theme with some prominent similarity that would mean its contents would be of relevance to a user.

This article is about an incident which occurred, of religious desecration that was orchestrated to torment prisoners. Piss Christ is an article about an artwork depicting a crucifix suspended in the artist's urine.

Firstly, there are similarities, as all parties have pointed out. These being: desecration of a religious symbol, the use of urine during these desecrations and protests against them. Therefore, it is fair, if we look at the purpose of See Also sections, to make a case for linking the two.

There are also differences. The key difference here is in the purpose of the Piss Christ being created, and the purpose behind the Qur'an's desecration. Clearly the intentions here were different - the artist did not intend, in my interpretation, to torment his audience with his work, although he undoubtedly knew it would offend some people. The Qur'an desecration was an example of deliberate tormenting of prisoners - this was not about free speech, it was about deliberately offending a group of people. There is also a significant time-gap between the Piss Christ being exhibited and the desecration occurring - of sixteen years.

What needs to be weighed up is the similarities between the two articles v. the differences. Yes, they are on a similar theme. However, is there some specific aspect to the Piss Christ that would make it of particular relevance to someone wishing to learn more about the background to the Qur'an's desecration?

So far, I believe the only connections that have been made are that
:::a) they both offended a lot of people and
:::b) they both involve religion
:::c) they both involve urine

My own opinion is that whilst there is a definite argument for including them together in a list of acts of religious desecration, or of the use of urine during desecrations, if I was interested in learning more about the background to the Qur'an desecration of 2005, I would not find what I needed in an article regarding a piece of artwork involving a different religion's symbols being desecrated that was created sixteen years previously and involved none of the participants.

I would also like to add that I believe it is unfair to regard the original addition of this link as vandalism. All editors are entitled to their own opinion, and Wikipedia is about compromise and collaboration. However, the best way to solve an issue is not to continually revert each other, but to make a case for ones self - you are more likely to be listened to.

What do people think? Jammy Simpson | Talk | 01:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Two comments: First, you're right about the vandalism. I regarded it as vandalism originally because it was added without comment by an anon user and there was no obvious relation to me. It still seems to be an attempt to gratuitously use an obscenity on this article rather than an honest attempt to add something relevant to the discussion. Second, these do not have "urine" in common, as I pointed out above. The main claim is dropping a quran in the toilet, not putting it in urine (however, the pentagon report does claim that a guard's urine "came through an air vent," whatever that means). That link seems to me tenuous at best. I totally agree with you that piss chirst might be relevant to the general article on desecration, but it is simply not relevant to this article at all. csloat 03:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I would agree the urine link is very fragile. It is, however, if we are to believe the Pentagon, a common theme. As for assuming it was an obscenity...assume good faith!! :) Jammy Simpson | Talk | 04:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Csloat that the apparent reason for the inclusion of Piss Christ is to trivialize the article. If the inclusion were casual, there would have been no ensuing edit war over it. It is certainly not necessary to the article. --MaplePorter 15:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
How does it trivialize the article? Isarig 16:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I'm User:.V., responding to this RfC. I've read the arguments here, and it baffles me that Piss Christ can be realistically compared to the article. Sure, they both offended people and involved religion. But so does about a million other things. Piss Christ was a piece of art (which may or may not truly contain piss, for the record.) Dropping a Qu'ran in a toilet to harass a prisoner is hardly comparable. I see two weak similarities, and a myriad of differences. So I suppose my recommendation would be to remove the Piss Christ reference. .V. 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Simply asserting that the two are hardly comprable is not an argument. Both acts (or rather, allegations of acts, as "flushing the Quran" was never shown to be true) humiliated and angered a ceratain target, due to religious beliefs. Why aren't they comprable? Isarig 23:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with V. Too much of a difference. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 23:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Isarig, consider why we use comparisons. We use them to illustrate a concept by means of another, perhaps more familiar one. The comparison example, though, needs to be "on point" -- it needs to be similar in scope to the incident in question. However, if the criterion we're using to select an example is so wide as to encompass countless instances, the criteria must be made more narrow so that a precise example could be found. Over the course of human history, people have been angered by acts against (or perceived to be against) a particular religion millions of times. If such a loose criterion is used, there's no point in making the comparison. It becomes meaningless.
The broad scope of the criteria is only the first problem. The second is that the "Piss Christ" and this incident are inherently different when it comes to circumstances. Piss Christ could be considered offensive, and indeed, it widely is. But it is not patently offensive, as whether to be offended is an interpretation. Tossing a holy book into a toilet, though, is patently offensive no matter where you go. That is only one of the various differences in this case.
So in short, not only is the criteria so wide as to be meaningless, but the actual details of the two events are not comparable past that one incredibly broad thread. .V. 00:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Another way to go

Look at how much discussion has happened regarding Piss Christ -- to link or not to link? issue. If this effort had been exerted on expanding the article : Desecration, it would be a fine article and not so stubbly, but no, oh no, we argue about Piss Christ. I propose the following: if you feel compelled to argue on either side of the Piss Christ issue, you certainly feel strongly about and have some knowledge and reference material suitable for expanding desecration into a fine article. Please think about writing as much there as here, and see if the issue fixes itself. We are colleagues and not opponents, let us behave as such. Amen. User:Pedant 05:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved, as far as I can tell; the RfC led to outside input, which seems to have been decisively in favor of removing the link, and the users who were seemingly trolling this page seem to have backed off. I agree the desecration article could be expanded, and perhaps the piss-christers could explain the relevance of their link over there if they actually think it is meaningful (though my guess is that they won't, to be honest). csloat 05:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Make Newsweek retraction more prominent

It seems odd that the fact that Newsweek retracted the article that started the entire embroglio isn't mentioned in the lead paragraph. In my mind, this issue is notable primarily because of the foreign reaction to the Newsweek article (e.g. 17 deaths in Afghanistan). However, referencing the Newsweek claim in the first paragraph, without mentioning that the claims were retracted, falsely implies a greater weight to these claims than is justified. I'm going to alter the lead paragraph to reflect this. Ronnotel 05:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me. User:Pedant 05:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Intro Paragraph (Again)

I corrected the factual mistatement which was recently added to the intro paragraph. The final sentence stated:

"In 2007, the American Civil Liberties Union, suing under the Freedom of Information Act, secured the release of a 2002 FBI report that appeared to confirm the initial account of desecration."

If one follows the link to the ACLU's report excerpt, one finds no such confirmation or even appearance of a confirmation. A confirmation would involve government agency or some other reputable source with knowledge of the alleged incidents officially concluding that these events had occurred, or supporting documentation, like a disciplary report on a guard for the act, or a medical report for the alleged beating. Instead, they find the excerpt from a detainee's interview in which he makes a number of explosive claims immediately after declaring that "Personally, he has nothing against the United States". If you actually open up the scanned pdf of the document, you discover that he also makes a number of statements which an objective person would interpret as the statements of an avowed jihadist which belie the ambivalence toward the U.S. that the ACLU (an advocacy group) saw fit to highlight. To be clear, the statements the ACLU highlights are unsubstatiated claims written up by an FBI agent as part of an interview. There is no judgement by the agent or any other government entity as to their veracity.

Accordingly, I changed the statement to:

In 2007, the American Civil Liberties Union, suing under the Freedom of Information Act, secured the release of a 2002 FBI report containing a detainee's accusation of ill-treatment, including throwing a Qur'an into a toilet. This accusation has been repeated on several occasions by other detainees since 2002.

I added the last sentence even though it makes the next paragraph slightly repetitive because I believe it puts into context the fact that this claim is really one of many that several detainees have made in the past.

Frankly, I think the entire portion from "In 2007..." should be removed. I assume the sentence was only put there because its author believed it to be an important development in the story. Once this "smoking gun" is examined, it becomes clear that all the ACLU really "discovered" is yet another unsubstantiated claim which is nearly identical to prior allegations which have been repeated by the mainstream media in the past. i.e., There is nothing about this particular report that represents a significant development, so why should it be in the intro paragraph? 208.115.200.62 11:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)MBM

Sounds alright I guess. Nice research and examination of the sources. =) Jumping cheese Cont@ct 09:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with your edit, MBM, but I do have a problem with the somewhat hysterical abuse you dished out above in response to a post from over a year ago. Please do not berate other users. Thanks. csloat 11:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Who did what

  • Myers said at the Pentagon briefing Thursday the military was looking into the allegations. He said investigators had so far been unable to confirm a "toilet incident, except for one case, a log entry, which they still have to confirm, where a detainee was reported by a guard to be ripping pages out of a Quran and putting [them] in the toilet to stop it up as a protest. But not where the U.S. did it." [12]

If I recall correctly, someone removed all references to prisoners desecrated the Koran, on the ground that "no reason was given as to why they might do this". Well, here's a reference that gives a reason.

I would like to reorganize this article as follows:

  • Reports surfaced that American interrogators (or guards) did something offensive to the Koran
    • Something that amounts to desecration, a capital offense in parts of the Islamic world
  • Many people believed the report for various reasons:
    • The claim had been made so many times, by so many people, that it must be true
    • Some people think Americans or their government are disrespectful of Islam
  • Some people repeated the report, as if it represented a confirmation or proof or confession
  • Publicizing the claim overseas led to riots
    • Around 10 or 20 people died
    • Some amount of property was destroyed or damaged
    • Governments did (or did not) arrest or try rioters who killed people
    • How about suits for property losses?
  • Newsweek retracted the claim (at least in part), and apologized
  • The Pentagon investigated and made a public report
    • They said any American damage or disrespect to a Qu'ran was minor or accidental
    • They said an Islamic prisoner did the thing which Newsweek said an American did
      • Note that for a Muslim to do this amounts to desecration

Commodore Sloat, you have been watching this article closely. How do you feel about this proposal? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think there are severe POV problems when we portray the desecration as something that never occurred and to discount or delete all reports of it (including those by human rights organizations) and highlight the Pentagon report as the final truth of the matter. I also think there's a lot in the current version that the above sketch has removed. So I'm not likely to support the above proposal. csloat (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way, it is incorrect to state that someone removed references to prisoners mishandling the quran -- that is still mentioned a couple of times in the article. csloat (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Commodore. I'm glad we had this discussion. It saves me the trouble of making edits, and you the trouble of reverting them. ;-)

I don't want to portray the desecration as something that never occurred. Perhaps we can agree to describe its occurrence as controversial:

  1. US did it, according to X
  2. A prisoner did it, according to Y
  3. Never happened, according to Z (if any)

I don't want to portray the Pentagon report as final truth. After all, it could simply be US government spin.

And thanks for correcting my memory: I did not take the time to read the entire article but had only read the intro and was relying on my faulty (!) memory. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the best thing is to report who said what, as the current article appears to do well. I'm not sure it's occurrence is truly "controversial" given that the Pentagon is the only source of the claim that the US didn't do it, and there are many independent sources (including reports filed with the FBI and human rights organizations) claiming that they did. Some may find that to be evidence of controversy while others may not -- best just to say "Newsweek said X; Amnesty Intl said Y; the Pentagon said Z; FBI documented A, B, C"; etc. I really think the current article organization is just fine in telling that story. Do you think there's a particular problem with the page as it is that needs to be addressed with a reorganization? csloat (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, perhaps nothing as drastic as that. I liked your most recent tweak of the intro:
  • Newsweek's report that the "allegation ... had been confirmed by government sources."
This leaves it as on open question, neither endorsing nor doubting the report.
Maybe we need to make it more clear that everyone but the Pentagon believed the Newsweek story, and that no one but the Pentagon is floating the "spin" that the only desecrator was an Islamic prisoner.
I don't know what the latest Wikipedia guidelines are about using the word controversy. If ten people accuse you, and only your boss says your innocent, is that a "dispute", "disagreement", "controversy" or any other kind of A vs. B situation? Or can we just say that you probably did it and discount the defense as self-serving? I find it hard to understand what NPOV says about this sort of thing.
But I like the idea of listing (1) the complainants, (2) the agencies which endorsed or investigated the claims, and (2) the defenders or deniers. Then anyone reading the story can make up their own mind, possibly based on how much they trust the various sources. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
That sounds about right; I think that's what the article does now. I don't know that there ever was a guideline about the word "controversy," but I think it's best to let a 3rd party make that judgement rather than Wikipedia. So if we have references to the "controversy" over whether inmates defaced their own korans, we could probably use that, but it feels POV to declare it a controversy ourselves. And I don't think this is a problem in the article, but your post seems to imply that this allegation is just coming from Newsweek -- in fact there were several reports before the newsweek article. csloat (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please people -- avoid inline references!

I just went through this article, trying to fix all the inline references.

I couldn't, because half a dozen of them weren't had already expired.

A source remains a reliable source, even after it has expired, if the person who put it in originally took an extra minute to supply the other details, likt the title, author, publisher, and date of publication.

So, don't use inline links!

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The manchester manual

The article repeated, as if it were an established fact, that the manchester manual taught its readers to lie about being tortured. After reading this claim a bunch of times, I downloaded it, and read the passage about what to do in captivity.

IMO Bush Presidency spin-doctors are deliberately misinterpreting this document, trusting that readers won't bother to download it and read it for themselves.

Actually, the manual tells readers to seek a medical examination prior to capture, to provide a "before" picture. Arguably, this is the exact opposite of what they should do if they were going to lie about torture. This document was written prior to 9-11, when if potential readers of the manual were captured they would be captured by countries known to make routine use of torture.

IMO the manual is not instructing it readers to lie about torture. Rather the manual assumes its readers will face torture.

So, I modified this passage. I think my modification restores neutrality.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Image nominated for deletion

This image, used in this article has been nominated for deletion, but the editor failed to place a notice here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 00:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Section outside the scope of article

The section titled "Independant Findings" appears to be outside the scope of this article. According to the section, the interrogator did nothing to the Koran. Granted, after that he would not have been able to touch a Koran until he bathed or he would be descecrating the book. But it's too much of a stretch to say that makes the interrogator desecrating the Koran. So I removed it as outside the scope of the article. It appears to be nothing more than an inflammatory entry with no probative value. JimZDP (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Creighton Lovelace with Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005

I propose we merge Creighton Lovelace into this article Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005 based on:

  • Creighton Lovelace is not notable per Wikipedia guidelines WP:BIO and fulfills the criteria for WP:ONEEVENT: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted" and "Cover the event, not the person".
  • The sign that Lovelace and his church displayed saying "The Koran needs to be flushed" was actually a reaction to this desecration controversy, and thus would be more fitting as a section of this article.
  • After removing details about Lovelace who has no independent notability, what is left is a couple of short paragraphs documenting the sign they placed, which is not enough to warrant its own article and should be merged here.

My proposal is to merge the information about the sign that Lovelace displayed into this article, while removing the unnecessary details about Lovelace.  LinguistAtLarge  18:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As there doesn't appear to be strong consensus to merge, I've removed the merge tags. –xenotalk 14:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Half the Article about toilets

Are there any other examples of desecrating the Koran other than flushing it in the toilet? Because pretty much every part of this article is about flushing the Koran down the toilet, so maybe it should be renamed "Koran Toilet Desecration" or we could stop mentioning it so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.191.173 (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, but you really have to read carefully to find out that, in fact, no Quran was actually "flushed down a toilet", and that the initial report was basically a hoax. This, at least, should be a bit more plain to the reader. I'm going to edit the article, but before I do, does anyone have any reasons why I shouldn't?BuboTitan (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Can't find this one yet. The ACLU has a bad habit of tossing things into the memory hole. Either they still think this is 1995 or they like the memory hole a lot.
I'm reminded of this.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This is "In Gitmo" by Amy Davidson, The New Yorker, July 11, 2005 but I cannot find it online.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed this one. -- Randy2063 (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed this one. -- Randy2063 (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed this one. It's "The Experiment" by Jane Mayer. -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed -- Randy2063 (talk) 03:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This was apparently only a copy from the original SOUTHCOM press release. It's gone, but the editor archived the link, and that still works. If nobody else gets to it, I'll move the links around later when I have time. -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It's okay. Same situation as in Dead link 3 above. -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It's okay. Same as in Dead link 3 and Dead link 4. -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion. - GTBacchus(talk) 23:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

2005 Qur'an desecration controversy → 2005 Quran desecration controversy –

Quran moves
All speedily moved. NW (Talk) 21:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
  1. ^ Among the previously unreported cases, sources tell NEWSWEEK: interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet and led a detainee around with a collar and dog leash. [14]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2005_Quran_desecration_controversy/Archive_4&oldid=1073869059"