Wikipedia

Talk:2005 Quran desecration controversy/Archive 3

< Talk:2005 Quran desecration controversy
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Redirects should be okay now

... and title reflects something close to reality. Strongly encourage formal admin abuse complaint here. Who do I talk to? BrandonYusufToropov

Here are a few links:
I think we really have to file a complaint. -- Toytoy 01:56, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Doing so now. Many thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 01:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I changed your external links to internal ones. And I also placed your complaints in individual sections. Otherwise, as the page grows up, it will become cluttered. I did not change anything that's substantial. Sorry I done that without your consent. It has to be done quickly otherwise the page would become cluttered and difficult to manage very quickly. -- Toytoy 02:38, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
No problem, agree with these changes. BrandonYusufToropov 02:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I also changed the links to pinpoint the sections you created. Otherwise, I'll be a long road to reach the discussion. -- Toytoy 02:47, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think, de-adminship cannot be proposed right now. You ask for de-adminship only after you win the case. It is too early to raise this issue at this moment. -- Toytoy 02:47, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I also find it too early to file the case. We may ask for an injunction against Ed Poor right now (what we don't want immediately, e.g. bar Ed Poor from making any substantial changes). We also need to work out a generally agreed remidial measure (what do we want if we win). Then we file the case to the arbitration committee. I don't know much about Wikipedia's inhouse rules. But in the real world, going to arbitration takes one mutually accepted arbitrator and one hired arbitrator for each side. I'll check the rules. -- Toytoy 02:59, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
We also need to work out the evidence. It's tedious to list all renames done by Ed Poor and others. And we also need to point out which ones are generally agreed and which ones are unilateral and generally disagreed. The point is, Ed Poor usually did it without asking anyone else. He also created countless double or triple redirects. I asked him politely to fix them at least. He seemed to ignore the requests. His reckless and irresponsible behavior not only bring chaos to the Wikipedia online community but also made Wikipedia more difficult to use. Let's gather evidence. Make a list. -- Toytoy 03:13, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Remedial requests

Here are my proposed requests. -- Toytoy 03:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Remedial request: Revert the article's name

  • I propose that we revert the articles name to "Desecration of the Qur'an at Guantánamo Bay" which has always been generally agreed. -- Toytoy 03:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Remedial request: Contents

  • I propose that this article shall be focused on Qur'an desecration done by U.S. personnels. Reason: self-initiated desecration should not be counted. That's irrelevant. People commit suicide everyday. We only prosecute homicides. -- Toytoy 03:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: Match contents with article name

Either:

  • Focus the article on Qur'an desecration done by U.S. personnel and revert the name accordingly; or,
  • Expand the scope of the article to include all Qur'an desecration done by anyone at Gitmo, and continue to call it Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 12:55, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Complaint 1: Administrators' noticeboard

First complaint against Ed Poor filed here -- please add your comments if you agree with what I've written. BrandonYusufToropov 02:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Complaint 2: Arbitration Committee

Second complaint against Ed Poor filed here -- please add your comments if you agree with what I've written. BrandonYusufToropov 02:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BYT, I understand your concerns, but your "filings" seem to be going a bit berserk just now. The proper place to request arbitration is WP:RFAr (read the instructions!), not on the page about the arbcom. dab (ᛏ) 07:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Complaint 3: Requests for de-adminship

Third complaint against Ed Poor filed here -- please add your comments if you agree with what I've written. BrandonYusufToropov 02:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is too early now to request de-adminship right now. Maybe we shall request for a suspension of admin power (by Wikipedia) or consented withdraw from this subject (by Ed Poor himself). -- Toytoy 02:52, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
There are rules (Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Old proposal#Step 1: Petition) that we should follow:
In order to prevent abuse of this process, it is desirable that the request have wide agreement. Before a vote can begin on this page, the requestor must provide proof of this general agreement. At least ten users must be in agreement that a vote is necessary by signing a petition within the space of one week.
Let's not moving so fast. Study the rules. Collect evidence. Draft an initial complaint. Request for injunction. Workout the remedy. Ask for people to join. -- Toytoy 03:23, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
BYT, you cannot "request de-adminship". That proposal was turned down. The only way somebody can be de-adminned is by an arbcom decision (and, of course, you can be emergency de-adminned temporarily for going on a vandalism spree, but not for edit-warring) dab (ᛏ) 07:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
ToyToy, I have withdrawn from the subject, on Ta Bu's advice. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 12:48, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
You dropped the bomb and now you're going away? Would you please kindly revert the article's title back to "Desecration of the Qur'an at Guantánamo Bay" before you step away? Thank you again, Ed. -- Toytoy 17:39, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Why me? Can't you do it? I thought any signed-in user could move pages. Is it an admin-only function? (Sorry, it's been so long since I was made an admin that I forget what it's like not to be one. Page protect, user block, and page delete is all I can remember.

I will gladly move (or move back) and finish the clean up, on 2 conditions: (1) We all agree on the name of the topic; and (2) We all agree on the scope of the topic. And I'm not really particular about the precise wording of the topic name, as long as the scope of the article matches the name of the article.

  • "Desecration controversy" would seem to include any Koran abuse, even by Muslims mutilating their own copy.
  • "Desecration by US military" (Brandon's idea at one point) would seem to limit the scope - requiring a sidebar article on "desecration by detainees" - but that article is headed for a speedy delete right now.

There are two ideas which the gitmo team have consistently tried to omit from Wikipedia articles:

  1. that detainees rather than US military may have done the worst of the Koran desecration
  2. that detainees might deliberatly make up stories to get the US military in trouble.
I haven't been following this article all that closely but I haven't seen any objections to mentioning the allegations that detainees defaced Korans. It's in the article now and, as far as I've noticed, has never been in much question. What's objectionable is the continuing attempt to exactly equate the two circumstances, as if a cop kicking a homeless person were no more notable than a homeless person kicking another homeless person. It might in some way morally equivalent but it sure as heck isn't equally notable. One is charged by society to serve and protect and so it's very significant when that trust is broken.
As for the point that detainees might deliberately make up stories. It's not terribly significant given that the US military appears to have taken this into consideration in their investigation and the allegations have been corroborated by other information like log books and other military personnel. However it is duly noted in the article. --Lee Hunter 21:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As long as these ideas (POV of a Washington Post writer, as well as some conservative columnists) are recognized as being a valid part of a unified article, then I'll support having one article - but it will have to have a general enough title, one which does not imply that all the mishandling was by the US. I think the current title (chosen by Neutrality) does that.

If Brandon, ToyToy and others agree to this (and will withdraw the suggestion that I stay away from this topic), I will be happy to help. Failing that, I'm staying away as I promised Ta Bu. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:57, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Complaint 4: Resolving disputes

Fourth complaint against Ed Poor filed here -- please add your comments if you agree with what I've written. BrandonYusufToropov 02:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BYT, your proper course of action will be:
  1. are you claiming Ed abused admin privileges? go to WP:RFC#Use_of_administrator_privileges.
  2. are you claiming Ed misbehaved as an editor (personal attacks, edit warring vel sim.)? go to WP:RFC#General_user_conduct or try WP:M first
  3. do you just want a community opinion on the moves? try WP:RFC#Article_title_disputes, and to cool things down, try WP:RFP
  4. only if the problem persists after RFC and / or mediation should you request arbitration against Ed.
dab (ᛏ) 08:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Renamed again

The current title du jour is: "Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005". Ed Poor or Neutrality changed the name. I am not sure. Anyway, the history now becomes too complex for me to comprehend. Someone did it without asking anyone. The double redirects are also not cleaned up. -- Toytoy 05:11, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

It was renamed by User:Neutrality [1]
  • 12:35, Jun 15, 2005 (hist) (New) Talk:Qur'an desecration by US military (Talk:Qur'an desecration by US military moved to Talk:Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005) (top)
  • 12:35, Jun 15, 2005 (hist) (New) Qur'an desecration by US military (Qur'an desecration by US military moved to Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005) (top)
For the record, the title du jour has been rejected before and the rename has not been discussed. -- Toytoy 05:14, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

History of renames

This history of rename is currently incomplete and unchecked, data is collected from each involved user's edit history:

  • Ed Poor [2]
  • BrandonYusufToropov [3]
  • Neutrality [4]

Currently, this page has 19 redirects. Some of them were created to help people find this page (lowercase, alternate spelling, single/plural). Some of them were crearted by renames.

  1. Allegations of Koran desecration at Guantanemo Bay (helper redirect)
  2. Allegation of Qur'an desecration at Guantánamo Bay
  3. Allegations of Qur'an desecration at Guantanemo Bay (helper redirect)
  4. Allegations of Qur'an desecration at Guantánamo Bay
  5. Allegations of Koran desecration (rename)
  6. Desecration of the Qur'an at Guantánamo Bay
  7. Guantanamo bay quran desecration allegations (helper redirect)
  8. Guantanamo Bay Quran desecration allegations (helper redirect)
  9. Guantanamo Bay Koran desecration allegations (helper redirect)
  10. Guantanamo Bay Qur'an desecration allegations
  11. Guantánamo Bay Qur'an desecration allegations (rename)
  12. Gitmo qur'an desecration allegations (helper redirect)
  13. Gitmo Qur'an desecration allegations (helper redirect)
  14. Newsweek desecration controversy (rename)
  15. Koran desecration controversy (helper redirect)
  16. Koran desecration controversy of 2005 (helper redirect)
  17. Qur'an desecration controversy (helper redirect)
  18. Qur'an desecration by US guards
  19. Qur'an desecration by US military

Here's an incomplete list of past renames. There were some unlisted earlier renames.

  • [gap]
  • 13:29, May 19, 2005 Newsweek desecration controversy moved to Guantánamo Bay Qur'an desecration allegations (Toytoy)
    • 07:40, May 25, 2005 Allegations of Koran desecration moved to Allegations of Qur'an desecration (RickK) Rename of a redirect, I guess. -- Toytoy 07:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • 11:47, Jun 5, 2005 Guantánamo Bay Qur'an desecration allegations moved to Desecration of the Qur'an at Guantánamo Bay (Revolución)
    • 11:49, Jun 5, 2005 Guantánamo Bay Qur'an desecration allegations moved to Guantanamo Bay Qur'an desecration allegations (Slowking Man) Create another redirect. -- Toytoy 07:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • 09:16, Jun 14, 2005 Desecration of the Qur'an at Guantánamo Bay moved to Allegation of Qur'an desecration at Guantánamo Bay (Ed Poor)
  • 09:19, Jun 14, 2005 Allegation of Qur'an desecration at Guantánamo Bay moved to Allegations of Qur'an desecration at Guantánamo Bay (Ed Poor)
  • 07:53, Jun 15, 2005 Allegations of Qur'an desecration at Guantánamo Bay moved to Qur'an desecration by US guards (Ed Poor)
  • 09:40, Jun 15, 2005 Qur'an desecration by US guards moved to Qur'an desecration by US military (BrandonYusufToropov)
  • 12:35, Jun 15, 2005 Qur'an desecration by US military moved to Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005

More to come. -- Toytoy 07:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

There is apparently a campaign to keep people from reading this article by renaming it frequently

Neutrality, any comments? BrandonYusufToropov 12:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's been more than 12 hours since they renamed the article and left its double and triple redirects untouched. I hate to guess other people's intention, but this kind of drive-by-shooting rename did create sort of chaos that prevents people from visiting this page. By the way, what was the earliest name of this article? I can't remember it. -- Toytoy 17:20, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Stop the madness!!!!!

There was absolutely nothing even resembling concensus to rename this page. We went from trying to explain to Ed that the information about the detainees should be included, just not prominently featured in the intro paragraph, and then everything went haywire. Just because you have admin privileges does not mean you can do what you like without attempting to gain concensus. You didn't even listen to us, go read through the archive about how many times we said "NOT IN THE INTRO PARAGRAPH" and you replied "So you don't want it on the page at all? Fine! I'm creating a new page!"... I estimate its about 15 times. And while you might be an admin, Ed, it doesn't mean that you have a better understanding of NPOV than any of us regular editors. NPOV is like enlightenment, you strive to be NPOV but no one truly is, and just because the pope is the pope, doesn't mean he has a connection to God better than the average Catholic. So don't lecture us about NPOV everytime we disagree with you, as we have similar complaints about your NPOV compliance in inserting the text you want in the intro paragraph.

Regardless, the page should be moved back to its original position, or a vote should be held to choose between the top 3 names, rather than a trigger-happy admin unilaterally choosing the name-du-jour. --kizzle 16:49, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to the undoing of Neutrality's page move. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:02, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

New/Agreed title + scope for pre-vote

Feel free to add yours here.--kizzle 22:18, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • This way, we can *focus* on the US military desecration but *also* include Ed's info about the detainees themselves.--kizzle 22:18, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Newsweek definitely does not belong in the title. The reports came from many sources including the Red Cross and the US military and were reported earlier in other publications. Aside from which it was not Newsweek that actually made "allegations" - they were made by others (detainees, Red Cross etc.) and reported by Newsweek. --Lee Hunter 23:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This would not stop us from including the Pentagon's info about the detainees destroying their own qurans; it is certainly relevant when describing the fallout. I don't like the idea of restricting it to Newsweek -- the Newsweek story was important, but it was one of many charges going back to 2002.--csloat 22:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Just listing it as Newsweek doesn't restrict us to not mention previous coverage, but it is Newsweek's article that created the current controversy. Just my 2 cents :) --kizzle 22:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is what drives me nuts about the concerted campaign to rename this thing so frequently ... as we emerge from the debris, old issues that had been addressed a long time ago get hashed out all over again. I think that may actually have been the intent of some of the drunken referees, now relegeated to the bleachers and belching on people in the stands.
  • This article is not about Newsweek. It is about abuse of the Qur'an by the US military. You don't rename Watergate as Washington post allegations of misdeeds by the Nixon administration. It's a joke. BrandonYusufToropov 15:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, all right, then. Let's put it to a vote: should this article only be about US military abuse of the Koran, or should it include detainee abuse as well? (I'll put the vote section at top: I think that's the convention.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Ed this is the kind of thing I am talking about below (the uncle ed make up your mind section). Why are you trying to force a vote on an issue that has already been discussed to death and we are left with a clear consensus? Everyone agrees that the abuse by detainees belongs in the article, just not in the intro. If you're supposedly staying out of this, don't make us waste more time voting on something we've already discussed. And if you don't agree with the consensus view, please acknowledge and discuss it directly rather than pretend this is a vote between those who would mention abuse by detainees and those who won't.--csloat 17:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This was the last generally-accepted title before the move. We may revert to that title. -- Toytoy 22:40, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • I would have to agree with its use. Its the least confusing and discourages spin-off articles. The average person doesn't read an article and flip out if the title doesn't perfectly accuratly represent the topic down to the tiniest detail. --EatAlbertaBeef 22:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this title allows detainees abusing their own qur'ans to be featured much more prominent, as technically it does fit within the title's scope, which IMHO is not nearly as significant as the military's abuse. --kizzle 22:50, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
I have no problem with this title but I'd prefer to keep the current one just because it doesn't make that much difference and the changes are getting out of hand.--Lee Hunter 23:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is so we can reach concensus on the scope of the article and avoid future conflicts due to an ambiguous scope. --kizzle 23:13, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • This seems like the most sensible name to me. -Sean Curtin 01:06, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem with this title is that it is limited to gitmo -- it seems like too much to have similar articles about every prison where such reports have come (I believe there have been some from Afghanistan as well as Iraq).-csloat 17:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

csloat and kizzle, I quoted you in a side comment to Lee Hunter, which raises two questions: (1) Have I represented your meaning to satisfaction? (2) Are you going to agree to let the "desecration controversy" article include claims of (and POVs about) detainee desecration of the Qur'an? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 01:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

(1) - Yes, as long as the remedy is not the complete excise of the detainees desecration but rather that it does not belong in the intro paragraph.
(2) - Yes, as long as its not in the intro paragraph.
--kizzle 01:36, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
I have never said that claims of "detainee desecration" don't belong in this article, only that they are not parallel the claims of abuse by guards, and that they do not belong in the opening paragraph. I also noted they were made only in reaction to the claims against the guards. Why must you keep making us re-explain this?csloat 17:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for intro

How about a multiple-paragraph intro like:

  1. The Qur'an desecration controversy came to the fore when Islamic demonstrators turned violent in reaction to a report in Newsweek alleging that US military personnel at Gitmo had intentionally desecrated the Holy Qur'an. Around 16 people were killed in rioting in Afghanistan, etc. Under strong White House pressure, Newsweek retracted its story, saying that the un-named US official who said he had seen a documentary evidence of a Koran flushed down a toilet by US personnel was no longer so sure of what he saw.
  2. The Pentagon eventually released a report on Qur'an abuse at gitmo, saying that US personnel had "mishandled" the holy books (one a contractor whom they let go) in 5 documented instances, but firmly denying the toilet story. In response to the allegations, they referenced a report detailing over a dozen instances in which prisoners themselves damaged Korans, including multiple cases of prisoners placing the Koran (or pages of it) in a toilet.
  3. An article in the Washington Post (Newsweek's sister publicatian) suggested that the official had perhaps mistaken a report of Koran abuse by a detainee with Koran abuse by US military.

This is neutral: it does not say the Pentagon was right, or wrong. It doesn't say Newsweek was right or wrong. (It does report a washington post speculation that Newsweek's report was based on an error, however that POV is properly attributed to the Post.)

But as an intro, it does NOT bury mention of detainee desecration as deep as some here have suggested. Anyway, I promised Ta Bu. So I ain't touching the article, just lurking here in talk. Cheers. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Better yet, don't say that

demonstrations turned violent in in the wake of a report in Newsweek (or anything like that)

because no one had even noticed these reports until 5 days later when Khan in Pakistan brandished them / referred to them, in a blatant attempt to stir up the local populace.

I personally think - although surely no one here is terribly interested in my personal observations? - that the White House press office made a mistake. They shouldn't have blamed Newsweek as much as Khan. It was not the US press but some politician in Pakistan who tried to stir people up.

Who was it who said we don't go after (...) but we prosecute murderers? (Maybe toytoy) In most of the United States, it's against the law to start a riot. Brandon, what does the Islamic law say about stirring people up, provoking them, etc. in such a way that homicide is a result? Surely the Qur'an says something about peace and violence. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)


Wait! Don't answer that, unless it's relevant to improving the article. This is not a blog. Are any of the points of view (now archived) we've discussed on this talk page relevant to the article? Relevant POVs should be put into the article, right? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:27, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Actually I do mind, but since it's marked in bold, it's clear that kizzle wrote it. That's all the GFDL requires.

Which reminds me: several people have said that the Pontagon "only brought out the stories of prisoner desecration" after the accusations of US desecration - THEREFORE they're just making it up to take the blame off themselves (paraphrasing, of course, but I've got the gist of it, haven't I?). So we should quote a columnist, religions leader, politician, et al., who maintains this - in the article. Something like:

  • Politicians, religious leaders and much of the general public dismiss the Pentagon counter-claims out of hand.
  • They're just saying that to take the heat off themselves, said Imam D. Rugs at Capret Univesity (Cairo). [obviously, fill in the silly name and org with a real one - no disrespect intended, I always use zany sample text]

And don't forget to balance the anti-Pentagon POV with:

  • Max Boot [5]; and/or,
  • Michelle Malkin [6]

Maybe we're getting somewhere, now. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:52, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think they're making it up, and I doubt we could quote someone who would say the same thing, but I think that the timing of the response is essential to the response itself. The reader needs to know the order of events, which is simply accurately describing the situation, which we don't need to quote. Not every single phrase in an article represents a POV. --kizzle 03:27, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Ed Make Up Your Mind

Are you staying out of this or not? Once again you are imposing your agenda here. Everyone has discussed the story of the 15 detainees. We will not leave it out of the article. If you are going to help rewrite this in good faith fine but if you are going to leave, please do so. What you're doing now is the worst of both worlds.

I do not think the Pentagon detainee abuse story deserves to be in the intro. As everyone has pointed out again and again in this discussion, it is not relevant to the story here. It can be put later in the story (not "buried"; how do you "bury" something in less than 2500 words?) because it is relevant that the Pentagon's reaction was to make this claim. --csloat 03:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ek - squeeze me? How is commenting on a talk page in any sense of the word imposing an agenda? What part of I'm staying out of this until invited back don't you understand?
I haven't touched a gitmo page in days. When and if you guys want me on the team, please leave a note at my talk page. Until then, I'm just cheering from the sidelines. Like any fan at a football game, I'm free to offer advice to the players, officials, etc. - as long as I stay off the playing field. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 13:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
The whole problem everyone had with you stemmed mostly from your comments here on the discussion page. You have been trying to force your agenda on us -- to blow the pentagon PR story out of proportion. You keep bringing it up and you don't listen or respond to counter-arguments. Then you make complain that everyone but you is POV. Then when we reply you make threats and issue administrative warnings. I thought you were removing yourself from trying to influence this page. If you're staying out, please do. If you are going to participate, please do so in a manner that is civil (which includes listening to others, not just telling us what you think). But this "I'm withdrawing, but I'm going to sit here on the discussion page and tell you how to reorganize the page" -- well, it's no different than reorganizing it yourself (actually, it's worse, since you expect us to do the actual rewriting to satisfy your agenda). --csloat 17:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I really think we shall move on with the formal complaint process instead of wasting our lives answering all these distractive votes and arguments initiated by Ed. There is no light at the end of the tunnel. Either we bail out or we listen to Ed's endless pentagon-shaped preaching. Let's solve it at the arbcom. The rename blunder hasn't been solved. -- Toytoy 02:49, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think we need to take such drastic actions... everyone makes mistakes, and I think the initial renaming spree was a clear violation, but Ed has since calmed down and only discussed in the comments section... if even after a clear concensus as demonstrated by the below vote, Ed continues to force this change in the intro, then I see a cause, but for now I think things are getting back to normal, lets just all move on :) --kizzle 20:23, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Yep. It's important to recognize that some of what's been posted on this page is simply trolling for the sake of keeping the discussion going. --Lee Hunter 20:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have requested mediation in response to Ed Poor's disruption of this page for the period between approx May 19 and June 14

  • He is himself a member of the mediation committee.
  • In transferrring my complaint to the talk page, he "happened" to delete more than half of my complaint, and offered his personal critique against what remained.
  • In short, he failed to recuse himself from this matter. Those who believe he should recuse himself from this discussion may perhaps wish to say so [here]. BrandonYusufToropov 20:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More POV

Everyone agrees that:

  • Islamic demonstrators turned violent in reaction to a report in Newsweek

I have yet to hear anything here or elsewhere suggesting that the killings were utterly unrelated to the Newsweek-reported "flushing allegation".

    • Have you read the article? However, in a press release issued by the United States Department of State on May 12, General Richard B. Myers said the Newsweek story was not a chief cause of the riots: "He has been told that the Jalalabad, Afghanistan, rioting was related more to the ongoing political reconciliation process in Afghanistan than anything else."
      • Of course I read that. I wonder what made the Bush administration change its tack on that. At first, they were blaming Newsweek quite sternly. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:54, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • I think it was Hamid Karzi telling the Bush Administration that the demonstrations were planned before the newsweek story came out that led to the change in the Bush position.--csloat 17:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some people have suggested that:

  • The Pentagon's decision to release reports of detainees flushing / mutilationg their own (Pentagon-supplied?) Korans was in reaction to the Newsweek report
  • It was a tit-for-tat thing.
  • It was only a PR ploy.
  • It should be dismissed, because they obviously concocted it to get themselves out of trouble.

Have I presented all these points of view accurately and fairly? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 13:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

1 is correct. 2, 3, and 4 constitute spoon feeding. --kizzle 16:34, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Well, no. You seem to be trying to bolster the fiction that the rest of us don't want this mentioned in the article whereas over and over and over again people have said that there's no problem having it in the article. There is an objection to your attempt to present it as somehow exactly equivalent to the abuse by guards. --Lee Hunter 13:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The notion that the confirmed detainee desecration is equivalent to (or worse than) abuse by US personnel is not mine but that of conservative columnist Michelle Malkin, et al.
My own opinion (since you ask) is that NO ONE SHOULD DESECRATE SCRIPTURE. This principle, henceforth to be known as Uncle Ed's rule of reverence for world scripture is to be posted on every page on the Web.
We understand its not your notion, but the mere fact that it originates from Michelle Malkin does not mean a priori that it should be included with the level of prominence you insist it should. --kizzle 16:34, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Noone should desecrate scripture, fair enough, Ed (though I thought you said it wasn't desecration?) Also, noone should crap on someone else's lawn. But if someone does it, that does not merit a Wikipedia entry. If someone craps on the White House lawn, however, that may be significant enough to merit such an entry. Does this help clear it up? --csloat 17:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not sure what "it" refers to. Shall I go back and re-read Qur'an desecration? Okay, I will. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:12, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I read it. It's a hard call, and kind of subjective, but I'd say that if a Muslim pisses on his Koran, rips pages out of it, or places the book or pages from it into a toilet then this might constitute desecration. But if a non-Muslim picked it up in a non-reverent frame of mind it wouldn't be desecration. Deliberately kicking it, or stepping on it (by a non-Muslim) should be avoided, but technically it doesn't look like desecration. Of course, I'm only citing Wikipedia as a source here.
So what the Pentagon said its personnel did does not then meet the Wikipedia definition of descration, while what they said the detainees did does meet the definition.
Based on that, wouldn't you agree that an article whose scope includes desecration of the Koran ought to give prominence to Muslims descrating it? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:18, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
No, they both meet the definition of desecration. The difference is the subsequent affect each action had on the world, thus causing one to be far more significant than the other, and thus the article should reflect that. I repeat: We understand its not your notion, but the mere fact that it originates from Michelle Malkin does not mean a priori that it should be included with the level of prominence you insist it should. And why prima facie does the fact that Muslims are desecrating their own Qur'ans warrant prominence? --kizzle 18:25, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Nicely done, Ed. You responded to the parenthetical comment and completely avoided the substance of the discussion, making a big deal out of the difference between kicking a Quran and pissing on it. The rest of the point - the important point - is the difference between a guard doing it and a prisoner doing it. It doesn't matter to me whether one counts as "desecration" but rather whether one stirs up a worldwide controversy. Again, see my analogy about the lawn.csloat 18:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Or to put it another way, the prison guards and interrogators are links in an explicit, well-defined, chain of command that stretches all the way from Gitmo to the White House. Each level is, to some extent, responsible for the actions of the persons below. The persons at the bottom are only supposed to act in accordance with instructions from the top. When that doesn't happen and hapless individuals are abused (see Abu Ghraib or Rodney King) it is news. The actions of detainees, good or bad, are not generally noteworthy. The proof is that, other than a handful of US conservative apologists, the world is talking about what the guard's did. It's not an encyclopedia's job to tell the world that they're missing the real story. --Lee Hunter 19:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Simplified Vote

Should this article contain the information about detainees abusing their own Qur'ans?

Yes

--kizzle 18:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
--BrandonYusufToropov 18:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
--csloat 18:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) BUT ONLY if it is NOT put in the intro.
--Lee Hunter 19:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) (with csloat's caveat)
-- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Requirement: Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that they did it and they did it deliberately. This article deals with torture. I can dump my car. You have no right to jail me and scratch it in front of me against my will so to intimidate me. -- Toytoy 02:42, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

No

If this information is to be included, should it be in the intro paragraphs?

Yes

-- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

No

--kizzle 18:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
--BrandonYusufToropov 18:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
--csloat 18:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
--Lee Hunter 19:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-- Toytoy 02:42, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

just to get straight

Ed, so you don't think the info about detainees abusing their own Qur'an should be in this article at all, but if its going in, its going in right at the top? --kizzle 18:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe I only noticed my error now. Guess it goes to show that even a genius like me can misread a talk page. It's fixed now, I think. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
We all make mistakes :) --kizzle 02:23, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)


Geneva convention

Lee said:

the prison guards and interrogators are links in an explicit, well-defined, chain of command that stretches all the way from Gitmo to the White House. Each level is, to some extent, responsible for the actions of the persons below. The persons at the bottom are only supposed to act in accordance with instructions from the top. When that doesn't happen and hapless individuals are abused (see Abu Ghraib or Rodney King) it is news. The actions of detainees, good or bad, are not generally noteworthy.

I guess this means the Geneva convention doesn't apply to the gitmo detainees, because no country is responsible for them. Considering how well the US is treating them, three meals a day, access to the Red Cross, even distributing Korans (to those who want them), why all the fuss over 5 minor incidents of mishandling?

I understand the concepts of command responsibility and chain of command. But do you think a commander should be executed for a capital crime committed by one of his subordinates who disobeys orders? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:26, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

3 meals a day, access to the Red Cross, reading Korans, its like a Holiday Inn! --kizzle 02:29, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
How can you joke about men who are being tortured? Oh, right. We all know that the rough interrogation tactics authorized by Rumsfeld are nothing like genuine torture.
It is rather Islamic countries who torture and murder their captives. The thing that distinguishes the civilized countries from the rest of the world is their refusal to employ the "End justifies the means" defense. (I'm still not clear on why Brandon could for a moment entertain the notion that I believed the end justifies the means. He explained it to me, but I'm wondering how he could have misunderstood my remarks so badly.)
And if this preaching is off topic, then what *is* the topic? Half you guys say one thing then turn around and say the opposite when it suits you (detainee Koran abuse mustn't - then may - be included in the article). Gimme a break! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:59, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • I entertained the notion that you believed the end justifies the means because you defended, on this page, the practice of guards' desecrating the Qur'an on the grounds that they were only "rattling" them by doing so, in an attempt to produce actionable intelligence about terrorists who opposed values like religious tolerance. You saw delicious irony in this supposed process, and seemed resigned, although only in a state of severe melancholy, to the fact that you wouldn't be able to bolt this piece of editorializing into the article.
  • Since you appeared to believe that desecrating the Qur'an was justifiable if it held the potential of delivering actionalble intelligence in this way, I asked you if you believed that murdering one group of detainees while another group watched would be similarly justifiable, on the theory that this, too, might "rattle" people enough to deliver actionable intelligence about terrorists.
  • You dodged the question in an offensive way for which you later apologized. I still wouldn't mind hearing your answer to this question, though. BrandonYusufToropov 12:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't recall saying that. Can you post a diff or paste my exact words? (I've written so much this week that I might have misremembered writing that; I ever called Kizzle fizzle a few times, by accident.)
(1) My opinion is irrelevant to building a good article, but since you insist: (2) No one should desecrate hos own, or another's, scripture. (2a) I hardly think actionable intelligence is likely to result from abusing a Koran in front of terrorists, and if I were the general in charge I would forbid it. (2b) Check the article to see what the top gitmo guy's policy was / is on that; or if it's not there, please google and add it. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Here is what you wrote, Ed, verbatim. I'm getting a little tired of looking these things up for you:
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)




My comment was a sarcastic response to your description of the prisoners' condition at gitmo: Considering how well the US is treating them, three meals a day, access to the Red Cross, even distributing Korans (to those who want them), why all the fuss over 5 minor incidents of mishandling?. Hope that clears things up. :) --kizzle 04:04, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
I was answering your sarcasm in kind. No problem. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:15, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor's philosophy

This really isn't the best place to discuss Ed's philosophies about the Geneva convention, even though I may think they are totally wrong-headed. Look, the reason this is an issue is because the world's news services, political leaders, and organizers have decided it is an important issue. So it really doesn't matter if we all suddenly agree with Ed that prisoner abuse of korans is as bad as guard abuse of korans; the fact is that the world is not talking about prisoner abuse of korans. Also the voting makes clear how the participants in this discussion feel about the issue; I don't see the shifting of opinions that Ed claims to see. Ultimately the argument may be interesting about whether or not what happened at gitmo was a big human rights violation or if gitmo is like a holiday inn. But the outcome of that argument is totally irrrelevant to the wikipedia entry which should be about the controversy. Even if we agree with Ed that gitmo is one big vacation, we still have a duty to report the controversy accurately.--csloat 19:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I applaud your suggestions that we report the controversy accurately. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:27, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Brandon wrote:

  • you appeared to believe that desecrating the Qur'an was justifiable if it held the potential of delivering actionalble intelligence

Amazingly, he also quoted my retort to that:

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.

I'm going to paste my retort again, with the important words in bold:

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.

Brandon - Dude - with respect:

Please tell me something that will convince me that you understand the difference between:

  1. me pointing out that some folks I never met THOUGHT THEY HAD A RIGHT to do something, and
  2. me saying that I ALSO THINK THEY HAD A RIGHT to do that

I still do not recall ever saying that they were right. In fact, for what it's worth, I do not have an opinion on that question. I'm just not sure whether such a thing would be right or wrong.

Understand now?

But why is my opinion so important that you would chase me all over Wikipedia to shake it out of me? Aren't we all here to write neutral articles? (Not articles which take sides.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)


Scope of this talk page

Is there anyone but me and Brandon who is interested of his and my on-going debates? Should we take it elsewhere? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:00, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ya, if you guys could archive and take it off this page, that'd be nice. I think the main dispute about the detainees info has been solved. --kizzle 01:34, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, can I ask why you're deleting/editing my posts on this page?

Curious, BrandonYusufToropov 23:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which ones? Can you show me a diff? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:58, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, by posts (plural) you were only referring to this one, right? [7]
It's called refactoring. Complaints about how I'm personally treating you aren't related to the scope of this talk page, which is pretty much limited to how we can improve the gitmo articles. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:03, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Gotcha. I should certainly have written "post," instead of "posts."
Only what happens if I've previously raised, on numerous occasions and on this very talk page, the fact that I've lodged a series of formal complaints against you for disrupting the main page, thereby lowering its quality? Surely remarks related to those formal complaints are relevant to the topic how we can improve this article, yes?
Forget whether I mind if you delete my material; how relevant could that be? Given the frequency with which you're cutting my talk-page entries both here and [here], I'm practically used to it by now. The real question should be whether or not what you're cutting connects to topics people are pursuing in their efforts to improve the page.
Do you plan on deleting every reference I made earlier to the fact that I have brought formal complaints against you? Wouldn't that seem a little bit excessive? BrandonYusufToropov 00:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You know, a lot of that actually makes sense. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 03:01, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Except that being a newbie you don't know how it all works. You've only been a Muslim for what? 2 years? And a Wikipedian for a lot less than that. (1) Review Wikipedia:NPOV, our mandatory policy page about writing neutral and unbiased prose. (2) Read Wikipedia:Point of view, which is about how to include and describe POV, even when you personally do not agree with it. (3) Follow the instructions about dispute resolution - don't skip steps, that's why just about everyone is ignoring you. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 03:07, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2005_Quran_desecration_controversy/Archive_3&oldid=452273355"