Talk:2005 Quran desecration controversy/Archive 2

message: ===I'm calling BS on these votes.===  
Someone put my name in multiple places.  It wasn't me.  The consensus that has clearly developed is not even clearly articulated here.  The "But only if it's not prominent" category is closest, but the wording is BS -- the issue is not "prominence" but significance.  If you think Uncle Ed should stop trying to impose his agenda on this page by manipulating the discussion page put your name here.  --csloat 17:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote on article scope 

message: Someone put my name in multiple places.  It wasn't me.  The consensus that has clearly developed is not even clearly articulated here.  The "But only if it's not prominent" category is closest, but the wording is BS -- the issue is not "prominence" but significance.  If you think Uncle Ed should stop trying to impose his agenda on this page by manipulating the discussion page put your name here.  --csloat 17:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm calling BS on these votes.

message: ===Wikipedia should endorse the POV that Koran abuse by captors is worse than abuse by detainees===
*Oppose: This is such an obvious violation of NPOV policy that 100-0 in favor would not justify it. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:10, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
*The wording of this claim is bogus.  Nobody is asking Wikipedia to endorse any POV about how bad the abuse is.  The point here is that there has been no controversy arising from detainee abuse of their own qurans, therefore it is not notable.  There has been no outrage and it probably is not even desecration.  The problem is that guards did it in order to torment the detainees, and in doing so, they give the perception to the world that the US war on terrorism is actually a war against Islam.  That's why this is such a big deal, Ed, and it is tedious to keep explaining it.  Either deal forthrightly with the arguments made here or back off completely like you said you would do.  On top of all this, the claims of detainees abusing their own books only came in reaction to the reaction to the newsweek story.  Therefore it is a subset of the issues discussed on this page at best.  Again, it is tedious to keep explaining this to you.--csloat 17:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote on article POV

message: *Oppose: This is such an obvious violation of NPOV policy that 100-0 in favor would not justify it. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:10, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
*The wording of this claim is bogus.  Nobody is asking Wikipedia to endorse any POV about how bad the abuse is.  The point here is that there has been no controversy arising from detainee abuse of their own qurans, therefore it is not notable.  There has been no outrage and it probably is not even desecration.  The problem is that guards did it in order to torment the detainees, and in doing so, they give the perception to the world that the US war on terrorism is actually a war against Islam.  That's why this is such a big deal, Ed, and it is tedious to keep explaining it.  Either deal forthrightly with the arguments made here or back off completely like you said you would do.  On top of all this, the claims of detainees abusing their own books only came in reaction to the reaction to the newsweek story.  Therefore it is a subset of the issues discussed on this page at best.  Again, it is tedious to keep explaining this to you.--csloat 17:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia should endorse the POV that Koran abuse by captors is worse than abuse by detainees