Talk:Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

If this is meant to be an article about the Newsweek allegations and their repercussions, should it be given a more explicit title? Currently that's all it is. DJ Clayworth 18:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree with Clayworth. However, it's been reported in the news using the same expression. What title would it be? Cheers Svest 18:50, May 17, 2005 (UTC)Wiki me up™

I think that this page needs improvement in several areas. First, it seems incomplete. The bulk of the article describes events that have taken place within the last three years in one location (Gitmo), and the response in Afghanistan and other nearby countries. Surely there's more to this article. Moreover, given that the Newsweek story has been retracted, it perhaps shouldn't merit such prominent mention. The article is very thorough in referring to other recent news stories on these events, but given Newsweek's quick retraction, the information about this subject may change quickly over the next few days. NatusRoma 18:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Not sure I follow that. If Newsweek retracts a story, and a dozen other publications stand by their work, that means Newsweek is right? What, specifically, seems nonfactual about the other sources? I agree the first half could be expanded, though. BrandonYusufToropov 19:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

After re-reading what I wrote about other articles covering this topic, I think that you're right, it doesn't make any sense. I think that I was trying to suggest that similar articles might be similarly sourced and thus similarly prone to retraction, but that's quite a tenuous assumption. On another note, The new name of this article is definitely better. NatusRoma 03:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)



Points of view

  1. The desecrations did occur. Newsweek rightly publicized this fact, even if it couldn't prove it well enough to avoid a partial retraction
  2. The desecrations may have occured, or may not have occurred. Newsweek should have been more circumspect in its reporting. It should not have let the desire to scoop other media (or to embarass the Bush administration) trump its responsibility to avoid fueling riots.
  3. The desecrations did not occur. Newsweek should not have publicized an anonymous, unconfirmed allegation which was liable to trigger riots.

I think if we review that last couple of weeks of news stories, we'll find each of these POVs expressed in prominent places. Let's add this to the story, and make it balanced and neutral.

Before I started, it leaned way over to POV #1 as being objectively true, which is a form of endorsement Wikipedia is supposed to avoid. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:15, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I wrote some comments on this above. Should Wikipedia avoid "endorsing" the view that the earth is round, that the Holocaust happened, etc.? Didn't think so. I think Wikipedia should state what the known facts are and if there is a bias in the facts themselves (i.e. most of the facts point to POV #1 as being true) then that should be clear from the Wikipedia entry. The point is not to argue for a particular viewpoint but I don't think an encyclopedia should create false balance between POVs that are not equally likely. csloat 17:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Raza Academy

Members of Raza Academy, a Muslim organization, protest against the alleged desecration of Islam's holy book Quran at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo, in Bombay, India, Monday, May 16, 2005. Newsweek magazine has apologized for errors in a story that appeared in its May 9 edition, alleging that interrogators at the U.S. detention center had flushed one Quran down the toilet, saying it would re-examine the accusations, which sparked outrage and deadly protests in Afghanistan. [1]

NY TImes:riots cause 17 deaths

A brief article in the May 9 issue of the magazine said that American investigators had confirmed that interrogators at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had tried to rattle detainees by tossing a Koran down a toilet - an act that would horrify and incense Muslims. Widely distributed reports of Newsweek's assertion were followed by rioting in parts of the Muslim world that left at least 17 people dead. [2]

Afghanistan, Pakistan Angry at Newsweek

Afghanistan's government said Tuesday that Newsweek should be held responsible for damages caused by deadly anti-American demonstrations after the magazine alleged U.S. desecration of the Quran, and it suggested that foreign forces may have helped turn protests violent. Pakistan joined the international criticism of the magazine's article and said Newsweek's apology and retraction were "not enough." May 17, 12:19 PM (ET)

Punishable by ...

U.S. National Review: death is the penalty for desecrating a Koran in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Egypt is milder, there one would be sentenced to several years in prison under Article 161 of the penal code for "publicly insulting Islam," or perhaps Article 98, "inciting sectarian strife"; similar patterns are followed in more moderate Muslim countries. In Pakistan, Article 295-B of the penal code calls for life imprisonment for desecrating the Koran or any extract from it.
Al-Jazeerah: Insulting the Koran or the Prophet Muhammad is regarded as blasphemy and punishable by death in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

I've been unable to find confirmation of the claims re Saudi, Iran, etc, but the Pakistani article is easily locatable. Another matter is whether or not such provisions (particularly the death penalty) are actually enforced. See also ongoing talk on Talk:Qur'an. –Hajor 15:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. This info should be in the article. I'll do it, if you don't have the time... -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:04, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Go for it, tío; I'll get back to work. I'd still like to see a "smoking gun" quote from (eg) the Iranian criminal code; maybe I'll search again later. Cheers, –Hajor 16:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Article location

Why the move to Newsweek desecration controversy? I believe the previous title was better, because it explans what is being descrated (this title reads like it's Newsweek that is being descrated). The title should at least mention the Qur'an.

Also the article isn't only talking about Newsweek. As it says, there were other allegations before that - Newsweek just brought it to a head. Now we could split the newsweek story off from all the other allegations but that doesn't seem sensible. I propose that the article is moved back. (There are some double rediects left over from the move). DJ Clayworth 16:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Guantánamo Bay Qur'an desecration allegations/ claims/ controversy? Snappier than where it was before. I don't think the current newsweek location is the best choice, either. –Hajor 17:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree, the current title makes it sound like Newsweek is being desecrated. Let's move it somewhere better. Rhobite 17:16, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
We had discussed earlier that Guantánamo Bay Qur'an desecration allegations is the most adequate title! Svest 01:06, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
OK, I renamed the article. -- Toytoy 05:33, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
I also cleaned up the redirects. -- Toytoy 11:21, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, this is the best title so far. BrandonYusufToropov 17:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

desrecation section

shouldn't that be in its own article? qur'an desecration, paralleling the host desecration in the see alsos? Ok, not host desecration, since that treats the libel-myth (incorrectly, since there is also the issue of the legal history of actual host desecration in the middle ages), but flag desecration, then. dab (ᛏ) 10:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

  • An article about Qur'an desecration would include only the first paragraph without the Guantanamo stories. I mean preferably 2 articles instead of one. Cheers Svest 16:14, May 19, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™

Neo-Nazi defacement of a Jewish cemetery

I don't consider the picture relevant in the article. The picture can be posted in Neo-nazism or Anti-semitism. Svest 16:22, May 19, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™

A great example of what Wikipedia can do

I just wanted to commend the editors who've worked on this. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia so cool. Keep it up folks. PedanticallySpeaking 17:57, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Another war crime

Is there an article for it? -- Toytoy 09:13, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

I created Bagram torture and prisoner abuse (a stub) -- Toytoy 09:41, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005

Renamed again. Why? -- Toytoy 16:53, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I don't really like this new title. The alleged desecration events occured before 2005. And some new evidence may be publicized in years to come. Using the place name is a better choice. -- Toytoy 16:59, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
I totally agree with Toytoy. -- Svest 17:14, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
I agree and I also question the use of the word "controversy". The article should be about the actual actions and history, not about the controversy. That should be mentioned in the artice, but it is not the topic. -Willmcw 20:44, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why EdPoor keeps creating other articles and changing names of articles, from allegations, Newsweek, Guantanamo, Koran,etc...!!! Svest 21:00, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


Peace

Okay, I'll stop it. Clearly it's just bugging everyone.

And thanks, Brandon, for explaining your revert. I'm cool with that:

I reverted the page because you didn't say who the US critics were, who said the article was a "smoking gun," or where that quote came from.

I shall be meek as a lamb from now on. (And gosh, I hope that's not an unclean animal or something, I mean no offense guys. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:41, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Ed, there's nothing wrong. No big deals. It just made us going crazy; which article to edit, which article to keep, etc... Cheers Svest 23:26, May 27, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™

Ed Poor's talk page

This conversation was originally posted on Ed Poor's talk page. He moved it to Talk:Koran desecration controversy. I now move it here. I don't have much time today. So I'll revisit his reply later. -- Toytoy 23:22, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  1. 00:27, May 28, 2005 (hist) (New) Talk:Guantánamo Bay Qur'an desecration allegations (Talk:Guantánamo Bay Qur'an desecration allegations moved to Talk:Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005)
  2. 00:27, May 28, 2005 (hist) (New) Guantánamo Bay Qur'an desecration allegations (Guantánamo Bay Qur'an desecration allegations moved to Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005)
Ed, why did you move it? -- Toytoy 17:08, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

There have been two types of Koran desecration alleged at Guantanamo:

  • mishandling by foreign inmates, like ripping pages out
  • mishandling by US personnel - includinrg hearsay and rumors about the "toilet incident"

I think the best place to describe the controversy over all this is at Koran desecration controversy

The other titles have tended to imply:

  • that the US *is* guilty
  • that only the US has been accused
  • that Newsweek reported the truth - and this has no role in stirring up the controversy (since like Wikipedia they are merely a neutral reporter

We need a broad enough article title to give us space for inclusion of all POVs about this, including:

  • that Newsweek erred ethically by printing an unsubstantiated, single-source, confidential report
  • that inmates deliberately spread rumors, to get attention or stir up trouble (as reported in today's NY Times (although I guessed this from the start)
  • that inmates themselves have mistreated the Koran - which is either desecration or should be contrasted with it

Clear enough? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:56, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • that the US *is* guilty

Yes, I think the answer is yes. The wars were initiated by the U.S. Gitmo concentration camps are owned and operated solely by the U.S. The detainees are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. They were not visited by the Red Cross or Red Crescent until last summer. They cannot see a lawyer. Some of them are even kids. There are also some "Ghost detainees" unknown to anyone other than the U.S. Many of them have nothing to do with Saddam Hussein or bin Laden. So who's to blame? John Paul II? Velociraptors? Attila the Hun?

  • that only the US has been accused

I thought Madame Curie wasn't involved with it, ... Last time I checked, she's still dead ...

  • that Newsweek erred ethically by printing an unsubstantiated, single-source, confidential report

How about the other reports before and after Newsweek?

  • that inmates deliberately spread rumors, to get attention or stir up trouble (as reported in today's NY Times (although I guessed this from the start)

They beg U.S. solders to catch them and send them to a tropical paradise. If only they are frequently visited by the Red Crescent and other human rights workers. I mean Geneva Conventions.

  • that inmates themselves have mistreated the Koran

So what? If I am behind the bars and I tear up my clothing. It's my fault. But if tomorrow the warden comes to my cell and pokes a itsy-bitsy hole on my T-shirt, THAT'S HIS/HER FAULT. If one interrogator flushed down a copy of Qu'ran on Cuban soil, that's sort of crime. So far we can be relatively sure someone over there in uniform had done something wrong based on publicized U.S. official documents and multiple U.S. and U.K. reports.

I suggest that we rename this article back to its former descriptive title. -- Toytoy 01:14, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Does anyone else prefer the current title? BrandonYusufToropov 01:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Which title? Svest 01:50, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Back to Guantánamo Bay Qur'an desecration allegations? Please. –Hajor 02:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC) (exits stage left, singing Con los pobres de la tierra / Quiero yo mi suerte echar / El arroyo de la sierra / Me complace más que el mar)
    • Guantánamo Bay Qur'an desecration allegations would mean that if there'd be another desecration allegations somewhere else, we'd have another article. Keeping the title we're having now would mean that any other allegation would be added here. We must decide on this basis I think. I am not sure what to decide myself. But I'd support the majority, as I tend always to do. De qué se trata la canción, Hajor? Cheers Svest 02:21, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • You have been listening to Guantanamera, a musical adapatation of one of Cuban independence hero José Martí's best-beloved poems... Ok, if this level of consensus holds and the article's still here later, I'll move it, ok? (I'm in a bit of rush to do the double redirects and that at the moment.) –Hajor 13:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, if they send detainees to the International Space Station and flush their Qu'rans into space, we'll start an article called International Space Station Qur'an desecration allegations. That's pretty logical.
It takes an admin to revert the name back to Guantánamo Bay Qur'an desecration allegations. But we can rename it to "Guantánamo Bay Qur'an desecration investigations". Please do not create the link if you want to rename this article. By investigations, there can be the U.S. official investigation and other non-official ones. And allegations shall be used as an intro. Personally. I'd prefer to get an admin and revert the name. -- Toytoy 03:36, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
Me too. BrandonYusufToropov 11:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Same applies to me. Agreed. Cheers -- Svest 20:23, May 28, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Moved. Insane number of redirects. –Hajor 23:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Thank you! -- Toytoy 00:06, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

These are not "allegations", this happened

maybe if people here actually understood the real meaning of the words "alleged" and "allegations", it means "without any proof". This clearly happened as even the government agencies are admitting it. Revolución 03:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not precisely---the legal definitions that Google picks up all include the phrases "expects to prove", "is ready to prove", or variants on these. It just seems like it means something different to me; perhaps I'm just picking up some connotation of the word. grendel|khan 04:41, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

This page needs update

We shall rewrite the intro section to include latest known facts. Sorry, I don't have the time right now. -- My true identity: The Depth-Challenged Throat 16:38, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. Also: I have on my to-do list (lengthy, but never ignored entirely) to build a timeline for this page. In haste, BrandonYusufToropov 16:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why does this merit a separate entry?

I don't understand why this is not simply part of the entry on Camp X-Ray. Can anyone tell me what the principle being invoked is?

The principle is simply that people create the articles that they want to create. If people want to zoom in on one aspect of a larger article that's what WP is for. It's a little awkward because the story is now forked into at least half a dozen articles. Newsweek, Michael Isikoff, Guantanamo etc. but obviously enough people see it as important in its own right. --Lee Hunter 02:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm hoping you misunderstood the question. The fact that the entry exists at all is testimony to the fact that someone thought it should, so I was able to figure that part out myself. But this isn't just fingerpainting; there is an editorial process at WP that involves attempting to justify one's decisions to other members of the community. In this case, what I'm asking is, can someone justify why this deserves a separate entry. Because it looks very, very awkward to me. Obviously, enough people (1) see this as a question worthy of discussion. That's what the Talk Pages are for.


I think a few merges are in order to discourage spin-offs. Btw Lee Hunter, good job reverting POV comments from the article.--EatAlbertaBeef 03:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The term "desecration" is POV

As has been discussed on flag desecration, the term "desecration" is quite POV. We should still use it where it's the common term, but as is done there, should take pains to distance ourselves from it, as we're using it only because it's the common term, not because Wikipedia is many any judgment that the items in question (be they flag or Quran) are actually legitimately "sacred". --Delirium 04:30, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

That's silly. The items are considered sacred; it doesn't matter if we actually believe they are sacred. It is enough that many people consider them sacred, certainly enough to consider their destruction to be "desecration." The term is not unduly POV the way it is used for either the flag or the Quran.
In addition, the term is only used where there seems to be clear intent to make a statement about destroying the item's sacred-ness. A flag burned to put it to rest is not considered desecration, nor is wearing flag pants or throwing away a flagpole toothpick. The issue here is that the destruction of the "sacred" item is an attempt to undermine what the item stands for - whether that is America (in the case of the flag) or Islam. So the term is entirely appropriate in this context whether or not you believe in Islam or in the sacred nature of any holy book.--csloat 04:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Since I don't consider either the flag or Quran holy, I wouldn't consider abusing them to be "desecration". It's entirely dependent on a subjective judgment. For example, some people consider logging to be "tree desecration". --Delirium 05:16, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Nobody considers logging "tree desecration." Opposition to logging has nothing to do with presumed sacredness of trees, and even if it did, nobody logs in order to piss off tree-worshippers. When you burn the American flag you are intentionally challenging the "sacred" status that it has for many people. Same when you piss on the Quran. It doesn't matter if you consider it holy; the point is the desecrator believes that the witness considers it holy.--csloat 06:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about changing it to "abuse"? Although the entire US news establishment keeps calling it "mishandling", as if reading from the same script. RickK 04:56, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

"I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." Well, how do you define "sex" you guys? In this case, I find "desecration" is the appropriate word that we shall use. By the way, I had not have sex with Monica Lewinsky either. Did you? -- My true identity: The Depth-Challenged Throat 05:21, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
By the way, don't forget to discuss. Last time, Ed Poor did a miserable move without asking others. I don't think we shall repeat his mistakes. -- My true identity: The Depth-Challenged Throat 05:27, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
"Desecration" is more accurate than "abuse." If soldiers "abused" copies of Catcher in the Rye, we would have a very different issue here. It is Quran "desecration" because it involves actions whose precise purpose is to assault a "sacred" text. It doesn't matter if you or I or the US Army "believe" it is sacred; it just matters that the text is considered sacred and the person taking a piss on it knows that it is considered sacred.--csloat 06:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Only wish to point out, for those who are seriously uncertain about the appropriateness of this term, that many (and perhaps most) practicing Muslims consider the kind of disrespect to the Qur'an that has been reported to be a graver insult and a far more serious problem than the practices revealed by the release of the infamous Abu Ghraib photos.
The point is that soldiers were showing disrespect to an object held sacred. By definition, the person showing this disrespect wouldn't hold it sacred in the first place; the fact that the person who did the insulting wouldn't use the term "desecration" is irrelevant. BrandonYusufToropov 11:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Impeach Bush link

I've removed this link as the connection is extremely weak. More like spam than a legit cross reference. --Lee Hunter 11:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually I've removed a couple of more links. I don't see what rascism, hate speech or religious imperialism has to do with this specific article. These links seem to have been inserted for the purpose of making some kind of editorial comment. --Lee Hunter 14:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Adding commentary by means of partisan links is not appropriate. BrandonYusufToropov 14:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Currently, it's partisan and I have to say so. The case asainst Geoerge W. Bush's leadership is not solidified at this moment. -- Toytoy 14:22, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Whoops, misread your comment. I have to agree with the removal of these links.--EatAlbertaBeef 15:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Use reason, people!

Look, it's just a book. It's not like they tried to flush Allah or Mohammed or whatever. It's just writing on some paper. Sure you think it's "holy" or whatnot, but that doesn't change the facts of the issue. If they're all in arms about this they need to seriously rethink their devotion--it's gone off kilter. They're venerating the *book* when they should be venerating *god*. The Book and God are not one and the same. I don't mistake the American Flag for people, nor do I mistake your average phonebook for an entire city of people.

Son, anyone can go to an Islamic town and shit on their copies of Qu'ran. Fact is, none of you have the gut. However, some soldiers in a concentration camp are just too happy to do this. They have all the weapons money can buy. Their subjects are mostly poor farmers kidnapped from the other end of the world. And they have done something to those defenseless and innocent people. That's the difference.
So far I haven't seen Muslim mobs going to the U.S., bring home shiploads of U.S. taxpayers, send them to a black jail and rip their Bibles apart. If this occurs to you, tell me it's just a book.
Anyone who could enter your bedroom and piss on your linen in front of your whole family can take your miserable life in no time. Do you like my explaination? -- [[User:Toytoy|Toytoy]19:24, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
The Book and god may not be the same to you, but it does to hundreds of thousands of people. It's called symbolism. --EatAlbertaBeef 22:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree entirely. This is about what Muslims think, not about what some random anonymous Wikipedia editor thinks. If I desecrated your beloved Holy Bible, I very much doubt you would brush it off with "it's just a book". — JIP | Talk 13:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nice rework on the intro...

Many thanks, Viajero. BrandonYusufToropov 22:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The new intro is much more logical now. I like it. -- Toytoy 00:09, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Yet another move

I'm moving this, for what seems like the 4th or 5th time for NPOV reasons. You can't say desecration without committing Wikipedia to endorsing the POV that it occurred. So we have to say "Allegations of" and then discuss who believes in those allegations and why.

I'm going to lock the page from further moves - although with over 450 admins, that probably won't make a difference.

Just try to understand the difference between "it is a fact" and "everyone I know says so". -- Uncle Ed (talk) 01:22, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Again, again, again, again and again ... -- Toytoy 01:54, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
By the way, you may want to clean up the redirects, Mr. Rename. -- Toytoy 01:57, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand this. Would you have a page on the Alleged Holocaust or Allegations that gravity exists? It's pretty clear that Quran desecration has been both substantiated and even admitted by every party involved, including the US military. I understand Wikipedia attempts to stay NPOV, but would you have Wikipedia remain NPOV about the question of whether the earth is flat? This is the third time I've made this argument on this page, and it has not yet been answered. Why do you want "allegations" in the title of something that is beyond "alleged"? --csloat 02:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, please don't mention the Holocaust. It's the sacred cow. I don't want anyone to call me or anyone around here a Holocaust denier. For the record, I believe in the Holocaust, I believe 6 million or more Jews were killed by the Nazis, I believe Adolf Hitler was responsible, I believe in the State of Israel. I am just a poor Chinese with hair on my head (and I wear no wristband). So please don't get me wrong. No, I am absolutely not a denier. There is not a single one here. -- Toytoy 03:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
I never accused anyone of denying the holocaust; I simply said that insisting on the word "allegations" when something is this well established would be similar to using that word in reference to the holocaust (or, better, gravity, since there are fewer people who deny gravity than the holocaust). --csloat 03:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can we write neutrally about this?

As Delirium pointed out, desecration is a loaded word. Its use implies that certain ways of treating a "holy book" are an offense. The encyclopedia should rather say that some people took offense.

That is responded to above. Yes desecration is "loaded," if by that you mean it is not empty of meaning. But it is also the most accurate and most appropriate term in context. Read and respond to this point above; I don't think I should have to make the arguments here again. --csloat 11:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed my point. I mean that the Wikipedia should not assert either: (a) that the reported US mishandling did indeed occur; or (b) that such mishandling is desecration. Rather, it should say that A accused the US of desecration, and B said he mishandled the book (or saw C do so, and that Q regards such treatment of the book as desecration. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:45, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Except both things should be asserted by Wikipedia. It did occur, and it is clearly desecration, as explained above. You're not responding to the arguments here; you're just reasserting your refuted position. If you want to attribute and source each claim of desecration that is fine with me; that is just further detail. There is no evidence or claims that quran desecration did not occur.csloat 17:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Second, and ever more important, the article is about the consequences of the reports of "desecration". The credit given to a prisoner's story of flushing were used by advocates as an excuse to get revenge by killing people.

It's not just a prisoner's story; there are multiple independent sources of this information and now those sources even include the Pentagon. This article is not just about the consequences or it would be called "the consequences of Quran desecration" or something of the sort.csloat 11:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you think that "multiple independent sources" means that the story must be true, fine. Just mention an advocate (outside of the Wikipedia) who argues that since there are multiple independent sources he concludes that the information must be true.
I didn't say that the article is (or should be) only about the consequences, what are you getting at? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:49, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
It's not just that there are multiple independent sources but also that there are no sources to the contrary! Yes I think it's quite clear that incidents occurred; everyone involved has admitted that such incidents happened; and we have independent reports from many people who had nothing to do with each other and thus could not have realistically concocted the story. Why are you insisting on arguing this point? Do you actually believe that Quran desecration did not occur, in spite of multiple sources of information and no info to the contrary, in spite of the Pentagon admitting it themselves??csloat 11:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the article should assert that Quran desecration did not occur; sorry if I gave that impression. Rather, I think the Wikipedia should not take a stand on the controversial issue of whether or not US personnel desecrated the Koran (either accidentally, on their own initiative, or as directed by US policy). Clear enough now?
Also, you have mentioned more than once "multiple independent sources". Why don't we put this POV in the article, in a form like The Washington Post argues that since there have been multiple independent sources for the abuse allegations, there can be no more doubt that they are true.
Your conclusion about people who had nothing to do with each other and thus could not have realistically concocted the story ignores the report (in a liberal newsweekly, no less!) that an Al Qaeda training manual counsels prisoners to concoct stories of torture. If they would make false accusations of such magnitude, why wouldn't they make up stuff that merely causes riots? (Please help me figure out how to mention this in the article, without making Wikipedia seem to endorse my personal POV.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 12:03, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
The "Al Qaeda training manual" theory is irrelevant. First, you implied these non-POWs were trained by Al Qaeda. Second, you implied the actual officially-confirmed desecration accounts are ignorable. Ed, IMO, you're abusing your admin power. Please undo your job and step back. Thank you. -- Toytoy 12:27, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
The claim of people desecrating their own korans is also irrelevant. And I know you're not stupid enough to not see this yourself -- it's a red herring. The issue people are concerned with worldwide, especially Muslims, is American guards abusing the quran in order to humiliate prisoners by insulting their religion. If 15 prisoners destroyed their own qurans that really has no bearing on it one way or another. It's just a way to take the heat off the guards who, you'll notice, are actually in charge at the prison. As for the al Qaeda manual stuff, Toytoy is right, there is no evidence at all this story is made up or even that the prisoners reporting it had read the manual.csloat 17:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, the article should make it clear who's accusing whom of mishandling the Koran - and WHY. Does the article mention the guards' reports that one prisoner started the flushing rumor to stir up trouble, or that a manual the prisoners had followed advised them to file false complaints of "torture"? That's the whole credibility issue.

That's irrelevant; there have been numerous independently confirmed sources of information including a Gitmo translater and the Pentagon itself. csloat 11:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand why the credibility issue is irrelevant. Are you assuming that whatever the Pentagon "concedes" is true (while simultaneously asserting that nothing it says in its defense could be true)? Anyway, that's POV that needs to be sourced (see above). -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:52, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Well it has a hell of a higher likelihood of being true. It's not a POV to say the Pentagon concedes it is true. Who asserted that nothing they said is true? The pentagon conceded this last week - sources on this are easy to find if you insist on one; go for it. But don't just erase it.csloat 11:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good point. Let's clarify in the article what precisely the Pentagon concedes: did they admit (1) that they have a "policy to desecrate the Koran"? (2) that some US personnel on their own chose deliberately to "desecrate" the Koran? (3) that some US personnel "mishandled" the Koran but have been admonished?
What specifically don't you want me to "just erase"? I'm following the NPOV guidelines. I've erased nothing. I've moved the biased text to talk, as it says. I know it's a long page, but it's about 1/2 way down. I can quote the section if you wish. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 12:09, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
I think it is speculation whether or not this was part of a systemic policy, though I think it is obvious. You just erased, for example, the intro that referred to US abuse of the Quran rather than prisoner abuse of their own qurans -- you're changing the focus of the whole article. You're trying to insert POV comments disguised as NPOV -- NPOV does not mean phony "balance" between viewpoints when the preponderance of evidence suggests one is true.csloat 17:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who should we believe, people captured in the heat of battle carrying weapons (and who hate the US because it opposes terrorism and dictatorship and police states), or the men guarding them? (Don't answer that, it was rhetorical!)

Wikipedia should not, by its article titles or article text, take sides in controversies like this. There is no controversy on the shape of the earth, so W calls it round. There is not much of a controversy about Hitler, so W articles for the most part say the genocide of 6 million Jews and 5 million others happened (but there's a lengthy article on holocaust denial because many fans of dictatorship and police states - many of them Islamic - advocate an opposing view of the facts).

This is not a controversy at all; nobody in their right mind denies this happened anymore. There was some denial at the beginning when the newsweek story broke but this story has been confirmed over and over again since then; it is hard to see quran desecration (and religious abuse more generally) as anything but systematic. But whether or not it is systematic is a different question -- the question at hand is whether it occurred, and we can see from multiple sources of information that some quran desecration did occur at Gitmo as well as in other places.csloat 11:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Which are you saying: (a) that there's no question that "it" occured, or (b) that there is a question whether it occurred? (A quick read of the above paragraph makes it look like you're saying both. Please clarify.)
Do you see denial followed by confirmation as definitive proof? Okay, that's your POV. Now please source this argument, otherwise it must be left out as "orginal research". -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:55, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Are you being intentionally obtuse? The Pentagon admits they have seen evidence of abuse. If you think it's possible that the Pentagon and the prisoners saw Qurans abused but there's still a chance it was just a collective hallucination, whatever. I don't think there's any question quran abuse occurred. If you can produce credible sources claiming it didn't happen, and refuting the evidence that it did specifically, you might have a point, but you can't.csloat 12:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'll answer that, after you address my questions above. Cheers. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 12:12, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Which question didn't I answer? Again, is your claim that this is all some kind of collective fantasy?csloat 17:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

W might be better if it did take sides on matters of fact and value. If it condemned terrorism, torture, religious intolerance as evils. But I hardly think it could continue as an open wiki if it did so.

I don't think there's any question of Wikipedia arguing that torture or terrorism is "good." But it's not the place for declamation against evil. But when dealing in questions of fact, especially when such questions have been substantially settled, it should definitely describe reality as it is rather than try to preserve some phony sense of balance.csloat 11:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The best defense is a good offense, they say, in American football. So people who like murder and stealing and rape always accuse others of these things to deflect attention from their own misdeeds. For Wikipedia to continue to operate properly, it must "stick to its guns" and apply the NPOV policy, or it would be overwhelmed by false reports.

Please recall the dictum, describe all disputes fairly. This means that the article must not take the side of the White House and the Pentagon (which says it's all made up or over-blown) nor the side of the detainees and their sympathizers (who say it's all true, and a US gov't plot, etc.)

This is where you are simply wrong. The White House and Pentagon no longer claim it's all made up. They try to diminish the significance of the issue, which we can report here, fine, but they no longer attempt to refute the substantive claim that Quran abuse did occur -- in fact, the Pentagon is the source of some notes which confirm it.csloat 11:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We MUST step back from the controversy, even if we personally lend credence to one of these sides, and "write for the enemy". We must describe what they charge, and how they feel about it, and the consequences in the larger world of those who may lend credence to the charges.

Both the Pentagon and the detainees accuse each other of Qur'an-mishandling. So that should be in the article. But the article should not - at any point - assume that one side's charges are true. It should not read like an expose or an editorial. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:06, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

As I said, there is no controversy here. The Pentagon agrees that Quran abuse by guards occurred. I think the story of the prisoner who supposedly flushed a quran himself is kind of silly, but you can include it if you like. Either way it does not mitigate in any way the evidence of Quran abuse by guards.csloat 11:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please show a source for "admission of Koran abuse". I want to check whether what they admitted to was "abuse" or "mishandling". This is like the distinction between mass murder and genocide. We all know and agree that mass murders took place in Rwanda. The number of killings and the identity of the killers was never a matter of debate. However, the application of the trigger word genocide was the KEY POINT. There are international treaties requiring goverments to act, when charges of genocide" are invoked and gain credibility.

Some people advocate the point of view that (a) US personnel (b) under orders to do so (c) mishandled the Qur'an (d) in a way which constitutes "abuse" or "desecration" - leading to various anti-US conclusions.

All I'm saying is that the Wikipedia should neither endorse or oppose this point of view. There's a policy about this at Wikipedia:POV, for your reference. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:53, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

What the hell is the difference between "abuse" and "mishandling"? Pissing on the Quran is desecration. Throwing it in the toilet, kicking it, throwing it on the ground, etc., this is all desecration and the people doing it know it is desecration whether or not they themselves believe it is "sacred". The point is not that they are hurting the poor book; the point is they are using their degradation of the book to humiliate the prisoners who believe the book is sacred. Again, I ask, are you being intentionally obtuse here?csloat 17:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Was it desecration?

Cut from into:

Although the magazine retracted the story afterwards, subsequent U.S. military investigations confirmed cases of Qur'an desecration by US personnel at the base.

This is the nail in the coffin. The article concludes:

  • that desecration did occur
  • that US personnel did it

There's no mention in the intro (except what I put in yesterday, which is rather not supported further down yet) of the Koran abuse which the detainees themselzes did. The unspokon assumptions of the article are:

  • if any US official or guard says that Americans abused the Koran, we can believe them
  • nothing the Bush administration or the Pentagon says about detainees mishandling the Koran could possibly be true

But this is all anti-US POV. So unless Wikipedia is going to depart from its NPOV policy and adopt anti-American sentiment instead, then it all has to be sourced.

WHO says that the US reports of American book mishandling are true?

WHO says that the way the book was handled constitutes "desecration"?

And since the topic of the article is "Qur'an desecration at Guantánamo Bay", other questions are relevant (unless we change the title to American desecration of the Koran):

Who ELSE mishandled the Koran at Gitmo? (Or, to be precise, what other reports are there that non-Americans mishandled the Koran?)

Does this treatment of the book (by prisoners) constitute "desecration"? (Who says so?)

In sum, there's a difference between a web page which accuses one side of ethical violations, and an even-handed, conclusion-ducking neutral article which fairly describes the dispute which the two sides are having. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:22, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

It seems as if you've been under a rock for a couple weeks. The Pentagon has admited that there was Quran abuse and that it was by US soldiers, not by "non-Americans" (there was only one very silly report about a prisoner supposedly flushing his own Quran to try to keep it away from the Americans, or tearing it up, the story was not clear) but it is not clear why you think it should be here; it has nothing to do with the issue other than as a distraction which is why it was released to the press to begin with.
As far as "desecration" goes; again, that is handled above. Desecration is the most precise and appropriate word, whether or not you personally believe the quran is sacred is irrelevant. csloat 11:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Apparently you feel that the Pentagon has asserted:

  1. that US personnel abused the Koran at Gitmo
  2. that no prisoners at Gitmo abused the Koran there

Am I hearing you right? Do you want this info in the article? If so, please provide a source - preferably a direct quotation from a Pentagon spokesman.

  • General Wayne D. Armstrong ended his official report, entitled "The Koran at Gitmo" with the following declaration: US personnel in several cases abused the Koran, a book which they knew all the detainees held holy. I find no credence whatsoever in reports that the prisoners themselves mishandled the Koran at Gitmo; that is pure hogwash."

All I'm asking for is clarity and proper sourcing. This is not a newspaper editorial. It's an encyclopedia. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 12:23, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I have not heard of General Armstrong or that quote before. The Hood material that you quote from gives specifics - the quran was pissed on, kicked, thrown on the floor, obscenities written in it, etc. The many allegations indicate this was clearly done to humiliate prisoners through degrading their faith. Here are the prisoner reports themselves. The stuff about prisoners abusing their own qurans is hogwash; it may have happened but in case you didn't know, the guards, not the prisoners, are actually in charge of a prison. It is telling that the Pentagon won't show the log reports that supposedly show 15 incidents to the public [3] The whole premise of Hood and other military spokespersons that it didn't happen if there wasn't a confirmed log entry about it is also pretty absurd. By the way, the FBI report also confirms that US guards desecrated the quran [4]. csloat 17:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Was Newsweek right after all?

Cut from article:

Newsweek's alleged sourcing problems notwithstanding, there were in fact over a dozen pre-Newsweek reports of the allegations.

Now look at with loaded words highlighted:

Newsweek's alleged sourcing problems notwithstanding, there were in fact over a dozen pre-Newsweek reports of the allegations.
  1. Newsweek had no problems with sourcing; that's only an "allegation" - by the obviously corrupt, self-serving Bush Administration
  2. Even if they did have problems ("notwithstanding"), the facts show that... ("in fact")
  3. If the allegations are reported multiple times ("over a dozen"), each additional "report" makes the allegations more true.

Is there anyone here who regards the above-excised text as neutral? It sounds rather like an argument asserting that the Newsweek report really was true.

Go get a blog, don't put this kind of argumentation in a Wikipedia article. Or else quote an advocate:

  • Mr. James T. Pickles of Tehran University said Friday that the Newsweek story should not be doubted, as it comes on the heels of dozens of similar accusations over the post couple of years. "The sheer number of complaints carries weight in my mind," he said.

But please don't use the W for your own advocacy. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:41, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)\

"Alleged sourcing problems" - ok; find a different way to say it, or change it to "There were in fact over a dozen pre-Newsweek reports." "Over a dozen" is not POV; it is a number. There is no need for an "argument asserting the Newsweek report really was true" -- because there is no real argument asserting that the report was false! That is where your points just seem obtuse. The only problem with the Newsweek article was a minor sourcing issue - the claim would not be published in a report that Newsweek claimed it would be published in. There has been little controversy at best over whether quran abuse actually occurred (the toilet incident aside).
As far as whether the sheer number of reports of abuse carries weight, that is a separate point best left to the wikipedia reader. That claim is not made in the article that I am aware of; you infer it in order to make it into a straw man.csloat 11:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I moved that bit of text here, because it seemed to be expressing the POV that even if the recent Newsweek article was retracted (partially, and under pressure) that does not negate the truth of all the previous reports. This amounts to an assertion that the previous reports were true, which is what the article must not say. Rather, it must say that X uses Y to argue in favor of Z.
The way the article had was: Y, therefore Z. That's not neutral. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
I think your arguments are ridiculous. There was never any evidence contradicting the previous (pre-Newsweek) reports; it is not up to Wikipedia to imply or suggest that they are false when they were never even disputed!! You are again being intentionally obtuse, pretending stupidity in order to push your POV as if it was NPOV.csloat 17:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

De we need a vote?

  • I do not agree with Ed Poor's rename. Please revert, Ed. Thank you. -- Toytoy 12:22, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Me too, obviously. I think a vote might be in order here. csloat 17:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Key issue not mentioned

Li'r pointed out something which (surprise!) I actually agree with:

The issue here is that the destruction of the "sacred" item is an attempt to undermine what the item stands for

If this is true, then we should mention it in the article.

  • The outrageous thing about the way guards and interragotrs handled the detainees' holy books was that it was a deliberate, orchestrated attempt to undermine Islam.

This point of view (see Wikipedia:POV) should be sourced and included in the article, because it bears on the deadly riots which ensued.

Oh, and don't forget to put in the Pentagon denial of this intent. I think they said they only wanted to "rattle the detainees enough to make them inform on each other" - that is, to get actionable intelligence to capture or defeat terrorists who are opposed to the stated US policy of (among other things) religious tolerance. Ah, the irony of that would be delicious - if we can describe it neutrally. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:43, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Presumably if they murdered one group of detainees in order to "rattle" other detainees who were forced to watch the killings, that would be okay, too, inasmuch as that action would, under your logic, also (eventually) promote religious tolerance? BrandonYusufToropov 15:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, some people think that way, I suppose. But that's more an Islamic POV than an American one, as I'm sure you know. The percent of Iraqi government officials who supported torture and murder to gain confessions (when Saddam was in power) is much higher than the similar percentage of any recent US administration.

Or were you trying to make a reductio ad absurdum?

Anyway, this talk page is not a blog. I'm talking about improving the article. Which means making it conform to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Describing all points of view related to a controversy is part of that, if you'd like to help.

I'm looking for sources which variously assert or deny that it was US policy to mishandle the Qur'an on purpose - for the effect it might have on detainees or any other reason. Can anyone on this talk page supply this info?

How can you in one breath compare this incident to Saddam's tortures while at the same time complaining that somoeone else is making a reductio ad absurdum? I agree if you have evidence that it was US policy to do this it should go in; but the article does not make that claim. What is clear and obvious is that several guards did this in unrelated incidents - not just at gitmo by the way - and that such a pattern is significant. You don't write obscenities in someone else's holy book and not realize you are engaged in desecration, even if you don't know the word.csloat 17:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Better intro?

I replaced the following:

This article concerns allegations of Qur'an desecration reported to have occurred at the Guantánamo Bay prison camp. Many of the allegations have come from prisoners accusing United States Armed Forces personnel of this offense, and The Pentagon has since confirmed the allegations. They have also made a tangential claim that there were 15 instances of Qur'an (Koran) abuse committed by prisoners.

With:

Allegations of Qur'an desecration at Guantánamo Bay have been made by the United States against prisoners in 15 documented instances. One of these involves an attempt to flush the Qur'an down a toilet and to blame this on US personell.
These allegations come on the heels of a Newsweek article (later retracted) which published a claimed sighting by a US official (not named) of an unreleased report which would prove conclusively that US personnel had desecrated the Koran. After anti-US demonstrations harping on this report led to over a dozen rioting deaths, some media critics blamed Newsweek.
Critics of US foreign policy and US prisoner treatment standards continued to assert their belief in retracted allegations, arguing that later Pentagon admissions of some mishandling of the book amounted to "abuse" or even "desecration".

I wish my fellow contributors would discuss their changes before making reversions, as I (usually) do. Or at least move the offending text to talk. It's not possible to carry on a debate via edit summaries. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:15, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yes I noticed you made that change. I changed it to something more appropriate for this article. If you want a separate article on Allegations that some gitmo prisoners may have been clumsy with their own qurans feel free, but that is tangential at best in the context of this article.--csloat 17:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Have I missed something? Is this an article only about US abuse of the Koran at Gitmo? Like the "Iran Bodycount Project" is only about civilian victims of US military action - not about Iraqi-under-Saddam government action? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:50, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
This article is about (in my estimation) the controversy surrounding Quran desecration by US guards at Gitmo and other prisons run by the US. Abuse by random Muslims of their own Qurans is not of any interest to anyone. Abuse by the US (who claims not to be waging war against Islam in its war on terror) in the context of prisoner interrogations is of interest; so much interest in fact that people believe riots were caused by the knowledge that it occurred. Again, this is obvious; you are just acting like you don't understand in order to make a point.--csloat 19:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who flushed what?

"It is also possible that Newsweek reporters relied too much on an uncertain source, or that the magazine confused the story with (confirmed) reports that prisoners themselves used Korans to block toilets as a form of protest."

If I intended to use this article as pro-US propaganda, I would put the above quote in the intro. What do you think? Would that be neutral, or would I be POV-pushing? Any thoughts, Brandon, LIU? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:32, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I don't care if every man, woman and ... penguins in Saudi Arabia picks up a copy of Qu'ran and toss it into the toilet. I don't care.
The U.S. has no right to do this to an unarmed and helpless non-POW. It's abuse. That's the only issue. You may call this Anti-Americanism or WTF, this is something you cannot change. You're acting not like an admin in this case, aren't you? -- Toytoy 17:34, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Last I heard, the only confirmed cases of flushing the Koran in Gitmo were by prisoners (source: Washington Post) - so what are you talking about? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:48, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Please share your definition of "confirmed" with us Ed. I suspect you mean "alleged by General Hood." There are several confirmed instances of Quran abuse (not just flushing!) by American guards if you read the Red Cross report, the ACLU report, the interviews with prisoners, the book written by the former gitmo translator, etc. You insist that the only such reports are by prisoners because it is convenient to your POV to ignore everything else. It's insulting to everyone's intelligence here; please stop it. --csloat 19:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ed, this article is about facts

Frankly I am getting heartily sick of your constant appeals to (imagined or actual) pro- or anti-American points of view on this subject.

What you consider to be pro-American or anti-American is, and has always been, utterly irrelevant to this conversation.

Your thoughts on what constitutes acceptable Americanism might be relevant to your own talk page, but here it is somehow both tedious and McCarthyesque, which is quite an accomplishment.

Stick to verifiable facts and we'll have actual discussions about this, okay? Otherwise I'm tuning out. Peace,

Your blue-state pal,

BYT

Following a red herring, eh? I already clarified that "anti-American" in anti-American sentiment does not mean "dead set against everything America stands for". I did not mean to imply that any POV discussed on this talk page - let alone in the article - was or was not "acceptable Americanism". I'm dismayed that a published writer (of a didactic book, yet) could even think this - let alone impute this to me without even asking first. Such a remark makes it hard for me to, uh, well never mind that.
Ironically, all I've spoken about has related to the problem of verifying facts, yet you offer to tune out unless I do what?
I could really use your help on this article, since you know more about Islam than I do. Okay, that's like saying a tiger is larger than a kitten: I've already admitted I'm an idiot about Islam. Please fill in the gaps in my knowledge. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:56, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


  • Dude.
  • I mean-- Dude, with respect.
  • I asked you a question to test the validity of a principle you had put forward, presumably because you wanted to put it in the article -- namely that the ultimate ends (you believe) an interrogator is pursuing justifies the means (desecrating a Qur'an) he or she uses to pursue that.
  • When I posed that question, a legitimate one in my view, you didn't address it, but ducked the question. That's certainly your prerogative, but you didn't just duck it, you ducked it by questioning my patriotism. I quote:
  • But that's more an Islamic POV than an American one, as I'm sure you know.
  • With respect, we weren't talking about America or American points of view. We were talking about whether the end justifies the means. Somehow, though, you keep managing to bring Americanism, or the lack of same, into the discussion. What we were talking about has nothing to do with this false Islamic/American dichotomy you've set up, but since you know I'm not going to deny being a Muslim, you must figure it's an effective way to change the subject.
  • It would be one thing if you were doing this for the first time, Ed, but you've questioned my patriotism along these lines in the past, and then apologized for it, and now you're picking up exactly where you left off.
  • So I'm telling you, clearly and in such a way that you can't possibly misunderstand what I'm saying, that I'm sick of it.
  • If you really would like to collaborate on articles like the one before us, and if you'd really like to share what we each know about the subject at hand, then stop throwing those kinds of insulting diversions around, diversions based, not on what we're talking about, but on whether what I've just said matches (your impression of) an American way of looking at the issue. Somebody keeps throwing that into it, and I know it isn't me, so I guess it must be you. Please stop. Please stick to the subject at hand. Then we will be able to have a civil discussion about these kinds of issues, if that's important to you.

Scope of article

From an edit summary:

nice try. The prisoners' alleged abuse of their own Qurans is tangential at best; a red herring. There have been no "retractions" of the claims at stake here.

Is this article about Koran desecration in general - or only about US desecration? Based purely on the title and the first sentence, I assumed it was a general article. Not a sub-topic which covered only alleged US abuse. Please clarify. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:56, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

The allegations being referred to in the title refer to Newsweek's allegations that the US desecrated the Koran. Glad to clarify :) --kizzle 18:34, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Please don't vandalize my comments in the future. Thank you. --kizzle 19:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Prisoners abusing koran is not notable

There's been an attempt to focus the opening on how prisoners abused their Korans. This is a very idiosyncratic take on the story, to say the least. Whatever an individual prisoner did to his Koran is only a very minor side issue and has nothing at all to do with why this has gained international attention and become a notable event. I don't think that aspect even belongs in the opening paragraph at all. To try and make it the focal point of the article is simply bizaare. --Lee Hunter 18:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm only trying to write about the topic named in the article's title. The title doesn't say anything about restricting the topic only to what the jailors did. If that was the intended focus of the article, I have missed something. Was it misnamed?
Would it be notable if (as the Washington Post asserted) the un-named US official who said he saw a damning report actually saw a report about a prisoner trying to flush his holy book? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:54, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Then you're an idiot for taking the title absolutely literally without thinking that maybe, possibly, the collection of words are more than the exact literal word-for-word interpretations themselves. What, do we need to name this article Allegations by Newsweek et al. of Prisoner Abuse Committed By The United States of America Through Desecrating The Qu'ran in or about the areas of Guantanamo Bay within the period of 2005 in order to refer to the Newsweek allegations? The allegations being described in the title are of prisoner abuse, not the other way around. Even if we were to include this information, it DEFINETELY should not be in the intro, as it is an extremely tertiary subject to the meat of the article. --kizzle 19:00, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
LOL, yes, that's a clear enough title. Thanks.
But how is mishandling the Koran related to prisoner abuse? I thought it was the offense against Islam that everyone is up in arms about. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:04, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
How is a muslim prisoner abusing his own Qu'ran getting "everyone up in arms"? --kizzle 20:49, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Once again you're (Ed) pretending to not get it in order to push your point. Mishandling the quran was used as a way to abuse prisoners. That has people upset because it confirms the view of many Islamists that the US is at war not with terrorism but with Islam itself. It is a public relations nightmare for the US. This is the issue. Please stop making us spell it out for you. --csloat 20:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And why the f would a prisoner flush his own Qu'ran down the toilet? --kizzle 19:00, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  1. To have something to blame the US on?
  2. As a "form of protest" (Washington Post)? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:06, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Don't you think the worldwide interest might have something to do with the fact that the most powerful nation on earth is holding a bunch of guys (most of whom are probably illiterate peasants) in a jail a million miles from home without legal recourse or access to their families and then doing everything they can short of pushing bamboo shoots up the fingernails to crush their spirits? Really, who cares what these poor frightened schmucks do with their Korans? Aside from which, it's not up to us to say what's notable. The world is talking about what the US did with Korans, not about what the prisoners did with Korans. --Lee Hunter 19:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, when the nation doing that was Iraq, it certainly attracted the attention of much of the civilized world. The US and UK spearheaded the assault on Saddam, thus bringing an end to goverment-condoned torture there. I've got a book on my shelf published by the New York Times right around the time of the First Gulf War that details the kidnappings, tortures, etc. perpetrated by Hussein to perpetuate his police state. Are you against dictatorship in general, or just against US policy? (And more to the point, what do position do want the Wikipedia to take on those?) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:09, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
The difference is that government-condoned torture was an ex post facto justification, it was the (lack of) weapons of mass destruction and an immediate (non-)threat that got us into war. I'd like to rewind to 2001 after the 9/11 attacks and see Bush try to sell Iraq by "bringing democracy to a torture-practicing (*cough*...Abu Ghraib...*cough*) dictatorship". In addition, "Are you against dictatorship in general, or just against US policy" leaves no middle ground, thus I choose to reject either of your alternatives. I, personally, am against being lied to in order to get us into war. Regardless, I believe Wikipedia should not take a position or side in such matters or in any example, as to do so would be the very antithesis of what Wikipedia is trying to accomplish. --kizzle 20:43, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Another article needed?

A couple of contributors have said recently that the scope of this article was intended, all along, to be limited to US abuse of the Koran. My understanding of the title as referring to (or possibly covering) any and all Koran abuse at Gitmo was called (at best) idiotic.

So I created Qur'an desecration at Guantánamo Bay to discuss the other allegations - which one contributor called "tangential".

I'm still assuming that all the contributors who have written on this talk page are devoted to the NPOV policy of this web site. But if it turns out that some of them are pushing a POV instead, I might have to ask the arbcom to step in. (There would be no point in Mediation, because that requires good faith on both sides. And before you try the old "I'm shocked that you could insult me like that" ploy, remember I said "if". -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:34, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ed you have a lot of nerve accusing others of bad faith when you keep pretending to be an idiot here in order to push your pov. How many times does the obvious need to be explained to you? The tangential allegations do not merit a second article. They arose as an obvious PR ploy by the Pentagon to respond to the Newsweek fallout. They should be included in one sentence in this article -- not in the intro and certainly not as something that implicitly "balances out" the charges against the US. There's no need for a separate article and there's no need for more than a few words on the topic because it is a red herring attempting to distract attention away from the charges of US abuse of the Quran. As another user noted; you are proposing a malicious fork, and it is really disingenuous for you to then threaten others with reports of bad faith. --csloat 21:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Better names for the 2 articles

The titles of the 2 articles are so similar, that I'm afraid someone as "idiotic" as me might get confused. And none of us here wants to confuse the reader, right?

So let's come up with some titles that will disambiguate the two topics:

  • US abuse of the Koran
  • Detainee abuse of the Koran

I'll wait for a while, and then make the consensus move. Or if no consensus develops, maybe I'll just pick something myself. Maybe toytoy has some ideas, though. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:44, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

For the amount of information you have on prisoner desecration, I don't think it warrants a sub-article. Just make a subsection off this page. Also, keep your original speculation out of it and simply report the facts. --kizzle 20:51, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Your article is a mischievous fork. On that basis I've submitted it to VFD. --Lee Hunter 20:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which do you all want:

  1. mention of the Pentagon reports that prisoners tried to flush pages of the Koran down a toilet here, or
  2. mention of those reports in another article?

Until this is clarified, I think I better make a companion article. Otherwise an edit war may arise, with some contributors deleting the Pentagon's claims on the grounds that it's "out of scope". No harm, it can always be merged in later if a consensus develops. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:55, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I want mention of the Pentagon reports not in the intro paragraph, as it is not essential to the subject (Newsweek allegations) being discussed. --kizzle 20:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Has it been clarified that the scope of this article is limited to the Newsweek allegations of US Koran abuse? I think it's just the opposite. There's an RFD for the companion article I created, on the grounds that there should NOT be 2 different articles.

Please, no more moving of Pentagon POV on detainee abuse of Koran until it's clarified whether:

  1. it all goes in one general article about ALL abuses of the Koran at Gitmo, or
  2. it gets divided into 2 separate articles, one of which focuses only on US abuse of Koran at Gitmo

If I didn't know better, I'd think someone was trying to game the system. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:11, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I have repeated this several times. This article can contain the information which you seek to include, just not in the intro paragraph as it is not essential nor descriptive of the title subject, which refers to the Newsweek allegations. This does not mean it cannot include your info, but that it doesn't belong in the intro. --kizzle 21:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

don't play dumb

You have several people telling you to stop pushing the prisoner end of Qur'an desecration into the intro paragraph... this has been explained several times in the above text. This article is not about prisoner abuse of their own Qur'ans, as this is not what sparked controversy. It is the U.S. abusing the Qur'ans which represents to some that the U.S. is abusing the Islam faith itself. The claims by the Pentagon of prisoners abusing their own Qur'ans is entirely tertiary to the subject being discussed in the article (this text might sound familliar, I've said it before). --kizzle 21:11, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. Either the detainee desecration belongs here, or in the vfd'd side article. Unless you agree it should go only in the side article - and say so on the vfd page, I can only conclude that (a) you tacitly agree it should go here or (b) you don't want that POV in the Wikipedia at all.
The NPOV policy requires all major (or significant) POVs to be described by the article. Do you, or do you not agree with this policy? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:25, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. And pay attention to what i'm saying: You have several people telling you to stop pushing the prisoner end of Qur'an desecration into the intro paragraph. Is that clear? --kizzle 21:29, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

You needn't shout. And the number of people "telling me" to hide POV which they disagree with is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a democracy: we don't vote on what the right POV is. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:35, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I am not trying to tell you to hide your POV, I'm saying that it does not logically belong in an introductory paragraph of an article with a different subject. --kizzle 21:48, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hang on a moment. Have you read Wikipedia:Neutral Point Of View? This is not a blog or an opinion board. My POV is not at issue here, and neither is anyone else's here.

The only POVs we're supposed to be talking about are those published by notable sources. Like the Pentagon or Newsweek or Washington Post.

If there are people here trying to get their POV into the article, they are working at cross-purposes to the aims of Wikipedia. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, "your POV" was referring to the passage which you have assumed responsibility for including in the article that others find issue with. So, I am not trying to "hide POV which I disagree with"... I am merely saying it is inappropriate to include in the introductory paragraph of an article with a different subject. --kizzle 22:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Weight of counter-claim

From an Edit summary:

more accurate but still lame - could use help with this one. But it's false to pretend that the claim that one prisoner abused the quran somehow erases the claims against US guards.

Who's being false? The Pentagon? If that's what you mean, then this is an excellent point and should be sourced:

  • Who says that the Pentagon is arguing that the claim of one prisoner abusing the Qur'an "erases" the claims against US guards?

We might also dig up:

  • Who says that no matter how many prisoners abused their Korans, it DOESN'T erase, nullify, or make up for the US doing it.
  • Somebody probably also said that it's worse for the US to do it.

We need sources for all of this. Anyone who is pushing their own POV about this is either unaware of NPOV policy or - well, I'm not going to say it because I don't believe in trading insult for insult. But if they know it's against NPOV policy, I wish they'd stop. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:51, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Answer this. Knowing that this article was created to discuss the Newsweek allegations of guards desecrating the Qur'an at Guantanamo Bay, what is the main reason why you want the fact that prisoners did it as well in the introductory paragraph? Is it essential to understand the Newsweek allegations that this article refers to? If so, why? What is the importance of the prisoners abusing their Qur'ans as well as the guards beyond simple logical inclusion in a literal interpretation of the title? Please answer all the questions. --kizzle 22:12, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know that. In fact, I was told just the opposite. That the article was not only about the Newsweek allegations. I tried to write an article limited to that, but the other contributors didn't want this. I went along with them, of course, to be polite.
But then it seemed that the article took a dark turn. It began assuming that the Newsweek allegations were true. At this point, the thrust of the article changed (and has pretty much remained). It's been about the (presumed true) US abuse of the Koran.
This presents 2 problems. First, as should be obvious, it presumes the truth of something which is a matter of controversy. Some people even trotted out the old "flat earth" comparison, as if the flushing by US were as firmly established as the sphericity of the earth.
Second, it rules out the possibility that a prisoner (or prisoners) made up the story to cause trouble. (Interestingly, I had stopped reading the news for a while when the idea occurred to me, so strictly speaking I made an error by bringing it up. I'm not psychic, but a couple days later the Pentagon and White House begain saying just that.) Anyway, the POV that prisoners (1) made up the story or (2) did the desecration themselves or (3) both, should be somewhere in the Wikipedia.
So it either should all go in one article, or we need two distinct articles that reference each other. Either way is fine with me. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:23, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
The issue here is simple. The claim about the prisoners should not be presented as having the same significance as the claim about the guards. It does not need a distinct article; it should be a minor point in this article. The W should make it clear that the claim about the guards has been consistently made for years by several sources whereas the claim about the prisoners was only made by the pentagon as a response to the bad PR provoked by the Newsweek story. It's not an issue whether we believe the pentagon or not. That doesn't matter; what matters is articulating the facts and the context for those facts. In this case we have substantiation of quran desecration from many sources going back to 2002, while you have a relatively unexplained charge, without substantiation, submitted by a US official in the heat of media pressure to explain quran abuse following the newsweek story. These are the facts that should be included in the section where this item is mentioned, and that section should not be the introduction.--csloat 22:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As far as assuming the newsweek allegations are true, that is unnecessary. What is necessary is that the W articulate that there have been many substantiated reports, not just from newsweek, going back a few years, and that none of them -- not even the newsweek reports -- have been substantively refuted. --csloat 22:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why people are angry

From earlier talk:

This article is about (in my estimation) the controversy surrounding Quran desecration by US guards at Gitmo and other prisons run by the US. Abuse by random Muslims of their own Qurans is not of any interest to anyone. Abuse by the US (who claims not to be waging war against Islam in its war on terror) in the context of prisoner interrogations is of interest; so much interest in fact that people believe riots were caused by the knowledge that it occurred.

If I understand correctly, you're saying:

  1. the scope of this article should be only the US abuse of the Koran; or,
  2. the Wikipedia should not mention anywhere the Muslim prisoners' abuse of the Qur'an; or,
  3. both 1 and 2

Further, you are saying that anti-US POV is fueled by the belief that the US is waging war on the Muslim religion.

Am I getting any of this right? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

No, you're not, and I can only conclude you're doing that on purpose. The Wikipedia should mention the alleged prisoner mishandling but it should not make it the central focus of the introduction. Stop pretending you don't understand and stop threatening people on Wikipedia.--csloat 22:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Almost right. Changes in bold below:
This article is about (in my estimation) the controversy surrounding Quran desecration by US guards at Gitmo and other prisons run by the US. Abuse by random Muslims of their own Qurans is not of any primary interest to anyone. Abuse by the US (who claims not to be waging war against Islam in its war on terror) in the context of prisoner interrogations is of interest; so much interest in fact that people believe riots were caused by the knowledge that it occurred.
  1. the scope of this article should be only the US abuse of the Koran; or,
  2. the Wikipedia should not mention anywhere the Muslim prisoners' abuse of the Qur'an
The correct answer is:
  1. the scope of this article should primarily be about the US abuse of the Koran; or,
  2. the Wikipedia should not significantly mention the Muslim prisoners' abuse of the Qur'an.
Further, you are saying that anti-US POV is fueled by the belief that the US is waging war on the Muslim religion.
That conclusion is non-essential to the debate at hand, which is the level of prominence this information should be given.
Does that clear things up? --kizzle 22:22, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

this is a mess

Is there anybody besides Ed who believes this article should be about something other than the controversy surrounding quran desecration by US guards? The comment at the top is bogus -- there are not "some" who say that it should be about "prisoner abuse of the quran"; there is only one, and he has been soundly refuted by everyone else in this discussion. Apparently he is an administrator here, so instead of refuting the arguments, he threatens me in my user page. I have not been making personal attacks, and my sugggestions on this article are reasonable, and backed up by others who have participated in the discussion. The article as it stands is a joke. It will continue to be a joke while Ed maintains this fiction that we must balance claims of quran abuse by guards -- (multiple independently sourced, going back several years and admitted by the Pentagon as well as in many cases logged in Pentagon records) -- with claims of quran abuse by prisoners (which all come from the pentagon, and they refuse to release the log entries that supposedly support these claims, and there have been no independent confirmations of these claims, and only one of the 15 with any detail at all). Now please Ed if you wish to continue this, please respond to the arguments rather than whining in my user page that I am personally attacking you. I don't know you and I have no personal attacks for you. I am just dealing with the information you have been putting here.--csloat 23:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, except even if the claims of Qur'an abuse by prisoners were as substantial as the claims of the guards abusing the Qur'an, it is not the cause nor an integral component of the controversy that exists today which is why this page was created in the first place. If a prisoner flushes his own Qur'an down the toilet, its not newsworthy (if you disagre, say why). If a guard flushes a prisoner's Quar'an down the toilet, than it is a significant piece of news. To say that the former should be given equal treatment to the latter is ludicrous. --kizzle 23:20, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, great title: Qur'an desecration by US guards. I like it because it's short and to the point. Would you please mention this at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Qur'an desecration at Guantánamo Bay, so the folks there will realize that it's not a fork but necessary because the consensus here is to mention only US abuse.
Then we can change the sidebar article Qur'an desecration by US detainees.
Unless your object is to exclude all mention of detainee desecration - a clear NPOV violation since it would make the Wikipedia one-sided. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:42, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
When we talk about rape. We do not count other incidents of consented sex. I don't care if the victim had been fucked by sex partners or whatever that's handy, that's totally irrelevant. The point is consent. The point is duress. The point is brute force. And that's my fucking day-and-night visible POV. -- Toytoy 01:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Ed, for the 15th time, we are not excluding all mention of detainee desecration, we are simply not placing it in the intro section of the article. I don't know how many times I have to say this before it sinks through that we're not removing the info. --kizzle 01:14, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Divided as requested

Okay, I cleaned it all up. Since the consensus is that this article should only be about US abuse, I'm even taking this out:

There are also some reports of Qur'an desecration by the detainees themselves, included a "confirmed" report that a detainee attempted to stuff pages of the Koran down a toilet. (Washington Post)

Now there are two articles, disambiguated at Allegations of Qur'an desecration.

When and if it's decided to merge the 2 articles, please pay careful attention to keeping the scope of the article in line with the title.

Ed. (Assuming this is Ed I'm talking to.) Two items.
  • Apology accepted. Thanks for the nice note on your talk page.
  • Do us all a favor and stop renaming this !@#$%^&* article to suit your latest rhetorical whim, okay? This is really really getting out of hand, and I am considering filing some kind of formal complaint about it. 00:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Formal complaint. Agreed. By the way, clean up the redirects, Ed. -- Toytoy 00:55, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Seriously. Discussion is still at hand, and you keep mentioning concensus has been reached, umm no dude it hasn't, look at this talk page and see the disagreements that haven't been remedied. --kizzle 01:03, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

We need to report admin abuse in this case. I mean it seriously. -- Toytoy 01:08, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

There should not be two articles. Any article on detainees abusing their own korans is a candidate for deletion as being non-notable and irrelevant. This point has been explained over and over on this page by various people. The claim should be mentioned in this article because it was made by the Pentagon after the newsweek article as a PR ploy. It is therefore notable only in that context, and Wikipedia should list it as such. It should not be raised to the level of paralleling the abuse by the guards, which is what Ed keeps trying to do.--csloat 03:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)