Talk:2005 Quran desecration controversy/Archive 1

message: __TOC__
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)
replies: text: 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)

message: #The desecrations did occur. Newsweek rightly publicized this fact, even if it couldn't prove it well enough to avoid a partial retraction
#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.
#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)
thread_title: Points of view

message: 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)
thread_title: desrecation section

message: 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)
thread_title:  This page needs update 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Use reason, people!

message: 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)
replies: text: 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   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 .  csloat 17:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Was it desecration?

message: * 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)
thread_title:  De we need a vote? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Key issue not mentioned

message: :"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)
thread_title: Who flushed what?

message: 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.
::* Clear? BrandonYusufToropov 18:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ed, this article is about facts 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Weight of counter-claim

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Divided as requested