Talk:Quran desecration

message: The title of the page fails to follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view guidelines.  Desecration implies that it is sacred and that is adopting a particular point of view.  Many people view that there is nothing that is sacred particuarly a fictional historical text.  From the OED
desecration, n.
The action of desecrating, deprivation of sacred or hallowed character, profanation; also, desecrated condition.
Hence the title should simply describe the act.  Koran Burning.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2040:7F:2:59C:EF75:4BB7:A693 (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been no reply so I will assume we can either change this or go to a vote 81.228.127.197 (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of the page is wrong and should simply be Koran burning 

message: The idea of merging these articles is a bit silly -- obviously, the Quran was desecrated before 2005, and that is not the only instance of such desecration being discussed or being significant.  I don't think they should be merged, and I do think the history section should be expanded. csloat 04:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With no prejudice toward any parties involved, I've removed this section on grounds of absence of reliably sourced third-party citation. I can find no reference to it except on clearly partisan websites, and certainly there are none findable via NewsBank (the UK newspaper archive). No proper sources: it doesn't go in. (And, of course, personal knowledge is out per WP:NOR). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  history? 

message: I'm removing the misleading sentence "The Pentagon accused the prisoners of Qur'an desecration as well."  The reason is that it is misleading and incomplete and unreferenced.  The main article on the 2005 incident much more clearly and accurately summarizes the pentagon report, which was not an "accusation of desecration," and which found instances of mishandling the quran on both sides of the prison wall.  If someone wants to summarize that report here too, I don't think it's necessary, but it can certainly be done more accurately and completely -- whoever does so should take the five minutes or so necessary to read (and cite!) some news reports about the Pentagon report.  Thanks.  csloat 03:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the needed reference, and described the Pentagon report more accurately. Isarig 04:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: removing misleading sentence

message: Link: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/23/religious-leaders-speak-out-against-international-burn-a-quran-day-2/
I will update the article if and after the event takes place.
-- Gabi S. (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a relevant link in this article. ;-) 205.189.194.208 (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Florida church plans to burn Qur'an books on September 11, 2010 

message: They should be greatly expanded upon, the article does not mention the effects of the Quran Burning  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.68.69 (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  2012 Protests 

message: Terry Joned Burned a Koran again on April 28, 2012.  Should that be included in the article?  214.13.69.132 (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terry Jones, 2012 

message: These get mentioned in the news occasionally. Do they count as desecration? Worth a mention at all? Equinox ◑ 19:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Booby-trapped Quran bombs 

message: I think the article should be more clear that translations are not the Quran and thus do not need to be treated with the same reverence. My worry is someone reading a translation and doing something ordinary like putting it on the floor could be accused of disrespecting the religion when they are not. My (secular) Islam teacher explained this when passing out the books, but I don't have a source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:989:4401:3830:0:0:0:CBE7 (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a source and we’ll put it Oxenfording (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of desecrating translations 

message: Let us update. Zezen (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2020 Sweden riots]] 

message: The lead sentence emphasizes that Quran desecration is about the original Arabic form. The picture shows the burning of an English translation. This is contradictory, so, what goes? St.nerol (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original vs. translation 

message: The recent incident in Stockholm where that man burns the Quran should be included in § 2020–present Sweden. It's notable. The Old Macintosh (talk) 08:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, wait, I just checked. It's already there. Oh, well, nevermind. The Old Macintosh (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent incident should be included in § 2020–present Sweden