Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jumping cheese (talk | contribs) at 03:08, 2 January 2007 (→Cross referencing 'Piss Christ'' to ''2005 Qur'an desecration'' ...and categorization: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive1 Archive2 Archive3

Ed and Brandon

Hate to do your work for you Ed, but please take this dispute between the two of you to your own talk pages.

Oh, I don't mind. I woulda done it myself, only Brandon seems to take umbrage at my page moves, text moves, refactorings, etc. Sometimes the food taste better when a different waiter puts the food on your plate. Thanks, Kizzle. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:43, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

No prob :) --kizzle 22:00, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Wikepedia Desacration of 2005

How easily virtues becom vices. This article is exhibit A for why any entry with controversy in title is more likely to continue the controversy than explain it. There's not even the slightest attempt at arriving at consensus in either the article or the discussion. In my opinion this article, as well as the one about desecration of the koran by prisoners, deserve to be folded into the Camp Xray article.

Sounds like you have some creative input as to the direction of this article... you might want to be a bit more specific in what passages are "bad" (concensus is not a term generally used for the content of an article, but rather the process of editing the article). --kizzle 16:39, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

My probem is not with any one "passage" of this article, but with the article as a whole. I was very clear about what I thougth should be done with it. I feel the only reason it exists in this form is because its fans wish to have a smaller more like-minded audience to contend with. The spin-off of that sort of thing is further crap like Qur'an desecration by US detainees. IMO, this kind of stuff should be reserved for the Yahoo message boards. As far as consensus in the article goes, I see your point. However, when every sentence in the article begins with "many people claim that..." or "some argue that..." or "it is alleged that.." it indicates to me that nobody can think of anything to say that can be in anyway defended as a fact. In other words, a good article should try to present some generally agreed upon facts.

So far, the most specific you have been about changing this article is that it "deserve to be folded into the Camp Xray article." If you disagree with the entire article, than surely it shouldn't be hard to start with a few specific passages and mention specifically what needs to be changed. All major changes in life start with a few small steps. --kizzle 21:00, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what's so vague about folding the article into Camp XRay. If rec'd it for deletion, should I have to edit it as well? This article should simply give the who what when about the allegations and their substantiation. It's important information regarding the whole detention issue. Perhaps an account should go in the Newseek entry as well. However, this bulk of this entry is made up of citations from various "pundits" about who fault was it that there were riots in pakistan, etc. I mean look at his passage:

James Jaffer, an attorney working for the ACLU, was quoted by the New York Times as stating that errors in the Newsweek story had been used to discredit other investigative efforts conducted by his organization and other groups "that were not based on anonymous sources, but government documents, reports written by FBI agents."

Jeez, this is all jsut speculation couched in quoting others. It's a bad enough practice in journalism (and part of the reason Newsweek got into this mess) but it has no place here. Like I said it only happens because the author can't personally vouch for a particular claim, but they desparately want to make it. So they just make the "neutral" observation that so-and-so beats his wife. I mean nobody can deny that that guy said John Kerry shot himself for a purple heart, right?

But again, my main objection to this article is that its (unintuitive) status as a separate entry outside of the main Camp Xray article, is itself merely an attempt for the author(s) to exercise their own strong biases about current events. Axamoto 00:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is ridiculous, Axamoto. This issue has been in the mass media all over the world, has been addressed by serious reporters as well as pundits and government spokespersons of all political stripes. This has nothing to do with anyone's "bias"; it is a real issue that has clearly established significance. Folding it into the Xray article is preposterous. First, the reports of Quran desecration are not just from Gitmo but also from US prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq. Second, the issues are different here. This is not just about gitmo but more generally about the way the US has chosen to fight the war on terror, and the public perception in the Muslim world about whether or not this is a "war against Islam." These are significant issues in their own right, beyond the issue of human rights and gitmo. Finally, your quote above disproves your own point. The quote specifically cites reports that were "not based on anonymous sources" and in fact confirmed by US government agencies. You cannot demand that an encyclopedia entry on a significant topic be deleted just because it raises issues uncomfortable for your own political perspective. --csloat 03:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I feel either you don't get my point, or we have fundamentally different ideas about what should be in an encyclopedia, or both. The fact that something appears in mass media does not suffice to make it worhty of an entry. Should we have an entry on "Jay Leno's Appearance at the Michael Jackson Trial"? It's sad to say that this event got almost as much coverage as the one at issue here.

Your admission that this article is really "about" something else is damning. As they say, Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. How the US has fought the war on terror is (in the moral/political sense, which is what I assume you mean) is not a subject for encyclopedia entry, and the use of wikipedia to further some polemic against the war on terror is what offends me about this entry.

As far as my own political perspective goes, it's the exact opposite of what you seem to assume it is. Personally, I tend to be (a little) more disgusted by this kind of bs from people whose political values I share than from those on the other side. Also I feel a little odd arguing these points with someone who believes that an article they've never even read should be deleted.13:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)Axamoto

What the hell are you talking about? In what way is this article a polemic about the gwot? My point is that this event is about an important moment in the gwot, not that it is some kind of political platform. As for deleting the other article, I did read the article, and I think it should be deleted because it was created to make a point, which is against Misplaced Pages policy. I know that because I was part of the discussion on this page that led a user to create the article. If you think this issue is of the same significance as something Jay Leno did, you need your head examined. And you better re-read the article here if you think it is some kind of anti-American rant.--csloat 17:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What article about desecration by prisoners? If such an article exists it should probably be deleted. --csloat 17:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Qur'an desecration by US detainees by Ed Poor. -- Toytoy 19:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Axamoto, just out of curiosity, how long have you been a Wikipedian? And why the hesitation about signing your post (or, for that matter, creating your userpage)? Your comments will have more credibility here if you actually sign them with a valid username. BrandonYusufToropov 19:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the expression ad hominem? I really don't see what my name or profile have to do with any of this. As for signing my post, I wasn't really aware I needed to. Suppose I were to give you my home phone number, would that satisfy your "curiosity" to the point where you might want to defend this lousy article? Please tell me why this matters to you so much. Use my talk page if you want.

Sure, I know what an ad hominem is, Axamoto -- and I hope you don't think I was guilty of this logical fallacy. I wasn't trying to attack anything you said by passing judgment on you as a person, just sharing a note that might help people from mistaking you for some other anonymous user (and thereby make more sense of your suggestions over time). I'm still not sure why you think the article is "lousy," but if you have specific ideas you'd like to share about how to improve it, it will be easier to tell who's talking if you sign your posts. BrandonYusufToropov 20:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yusuf, given the fact that you are currently in mediation on a page related to this topic, it might be a gesture of good faith to avoid edits here for a while. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:21, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely, Ed. Check the timestamps and you'll see I have been honoring our agreement. BrandonYusufToropov 02:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Well this is certainly an odd gripe (or should we say "troll"). Are we even looking at the same article? You claim that the article is full of "some allege" or "some people claim" statements. Uh, actually no it isn't. Read it again if you don't believe me. You say that the bulk of the information comes from citations of pundits. Uh, actually no, except for two columnists (Ivins and mcarthy) it's not. The article quotes a couple of US generals, the White House, the Pentagon, the Red Cross etc. In contrast to the Jay Leno at Jackson's Trial story you talk about, 17 people died, a billion+ Muslims around the world were enraged, every news outlet in the world carried the story, a US Army general made an official report and the White House felt compelled to comment. If WP can have articles about characters that appear in individual Simpsons episodes, I see no reason why this article can't stand on its own. --Lee Hunter 14:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uh, AND Anthony Romero and James Jaffer of ACLU, cited making observation that are pure opinion. But who's counting? Also, I don't see how the inclusion of only 2 columnists is somehow acceptable. But while I do see that I overstated the extent to which this entry relied on opinion, I feel it's still substantially infected with it, and I don't think that's accidental. I think it reflects the fact that the intention of most of the authors is to use this as part of either an indictment of how the US has conducted the war on terror or as a platform to vent their anger over the incidents. There are plenty of other places on the internet to do those things. I just don't think wikipedia is one of them.15:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)Axamoto 15:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see. So you're saying that senior executives of the American Civil Liberties Union (which is itself investigating Guantanamo) are just some random pundits and don't belong in an article about, er, the abuse of civil liberties by Americans at Guantanamo? I do agree with you about the comments from columnists though. The article would be better without both of those quotes and I'm going to remove them. But aside from that, I actually don't see how the article does anything more than report the accepted facts on a subject of clearly widespread interest. Whether it's an indictment of how the US has conducted the war on terror is an interesting question which I think we can leave to the reader to decide. --Lee Hunter 15:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said, in a news release, that "The United States government continues to turn a blind eye to mounting evidence of widespread abuse of detainees held in its custody."

This is clearly Anthony Romero's POV and was only included because it is being used as a proxy for the contibutor's POV. Simliarly,

James Jaffer, an attorney working for the ACLU, was quoted by the New York Times as stating that errors in the Newsweek story had been used to discredit other investigative efforts conducted by his organization and other groups "that were not based on anonymous sources, but government documents, reports written by FBI agents."

This, in context, is conjecture. (And, btw, seems somewhat non-sensical. If these investigations had FBI documentation, in what sense were they discredited and by whom? ) It makes no difference to me if some third party to an event is a columnist or not. For the record I am myself a CCMOTAMCLU (a card-carrying member of...), and big fan of their work, and I feel the Camp Xray and the whole "detainee" phenomenon is one of the most egregious vioaltions of the priciples this country stands for. However, I feel the facts speak for themselves. Axamoto 23:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agree we should remove the two columnists. BrandonYusufToropov 15:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Are there any points in the article which remain in dispute? If there is, please explain what it is so that it can be fixed. If not, the NPOV tag should be removed. --Lee Hunter 14:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will remove it; I believe this has been settled.--csloat 00:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

timeline

Who introduced this "timeline" structure and why? It is, IMO, not a great stylistic device, because it considerably weakens the narrative. -- Viajero | Talk 16:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree. At the very least the "earlier reports" section should be demoted to the end and recast as External Links. Part of the problem is that there has been a lot of bickering about certain details which I think has taken attention away from addressing the overall structure of the article. --Lee Hunter 17:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the "earlier reports" section is important to establishing context for the controversy, which, though it blew up after Newsweek, had roots in reports that go back a couple of years. --csloat 17:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the photo -- its removal was entirely unintentional. I was wondering why the top of the article looked so bare... -- Viajero | Talk 18:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ed has been kind enough to nominate me for an adminship

...which I think will go a long way toward resolving unproductive disputes on this page. Anyone who is interested in voting one way or the other is invited to the discussion here. BrandonYusufToropov 17:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strangest damn thing I ever saw. I voted for you, but I don't see how it will help resolve any disputes. --Lee Hunter 17:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You've got plenty of company. It certainly looks weird to a lot of people, probably a majority, but I thought it was a gentlemanly move on his part... seems unlikely to pass, but that's beside the point. Thanks again Ed for proposing this.

I do want to go on record here as saying that a) Ed made this nomination on his own, without either of us discussing it, b) it took me totally by surprise, and c) I was needlessly confrontational with him on this page and elsewhere, which escalated the dispute in an unproductive way. BrandonYusufToropov 17:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Scope, again

This article concerns allegations of Qur'an desecration by United States Armed Forces personnel at the Guantánamo Bay prison camp.

I thought we agreed that the article also should cover allegations of Qur'an desecration by the detainees. The initial sentence contradicts that agreement.

We might indiacte, though, that most of the fuss has been about US personnel and their handling of the Koran, the power imbalance, the alleged anti-Muslim attitudes of the gov't, etc. But unless this article is intended to prove that the US more guilty of Koran desecration than the "captured enemy combatants", then to be consistent with the title the scope must be expanded to include all acts of Koran abuse at gitmo.

Or we could go back to having two articles

1. Qur'an desecration by US military - a nice, big long one
2. Qur'an desecration by US detainees - a relatively short one

You can have either one, but you can't exclude a POV merely because you don't like it. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 13:06, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you a zillion times, the article does and always did cover allegations of detainees abusing their Korans. It amazes me that you keep pretending that somehow this has been excluded from the article. Would you mind doing us all a favour and actually read the article? I've changed the opening line to be more open-ended, not that it makes much difference, but since it appears to be the only part of the article you actually bother to look at maybe it will make you happy. --Lee Hunter 13:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nag, nag, nag, nag, nag, nag, nag, ... Ed, you're so lovable. -- Toytoy 14:39, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Let's talk about the article - not about each other. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:50, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, you promised to stop imposing your agenda on this page; yet you still continue to do it, without even bothering to read the page. This is not meant to "talk about you rather than the article" but to object to your claims about the article. --csloat 20:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who authorized you to strike through my words, Ed? And when did you start to edit the article? You just don't want to stop, do you? -- Toytoy 22:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Pundits punted

I've removed both of the quotes from columnists (one left and one right wing) because, as axamoto points out above, having columnists spoon-feed their spin weakens the article. Interpretation of events should ideally be up to the reader based on the best presentation of the facts. It also gives a very US-centric slant to the article especially since there is no commentary from the Islamic world. --Lee Hunter 15:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think there should be some commentary from the Islamic world here. Including the opinions of others quoted is not wrong or NPOV, as long as Misplaced Pages isn't overtly endorsing the opinion. --csloat 20:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Intro paragraph says:

This article concerns allegations of Qur'an desecration at the Guantánamo Bay prison camp. The matter came to international attention in April 2005 when Newsweek published an article suggesting that an unreleased U.S. government report had confirmed these incidents. The revelations sparked anti-U.S. demonstrations throughout the Islamic world, some of which turned violent. Although the magazine subsequently retracted the story, subsequent U.S. military investigations confirmed at least five cases of Qur'an desecration by US personnel at the base, and the affair turned the spotlight on earlier media reports of such actions.

1. There is more than one "matter"
2. The "incidents" referred to by the Newsweek story was only the US flushing claim
3. Revelations implies that the US flushing claim is true - even though the article clearly shows further down that Newsweek retracted.
4. Demonstrations were already planned - Newsweek didn't spark them (but may have fueled them)
5. We need to clarify the point at which the demos turned violent. Who egged them on?
6. Mishandling is not the same as desecration, according to Misplaced Pages Qur'an desecration article, last time I checked.
7. Pentagon did not confirm US desecration - that's a conclusion drawn by Bush administration opponents: Pentagon confirmed "mishandling". Whether such mishandling constitutes "desecration" is a POV (i.e., somebody's conclusion)
8. Intro leaves out confirmed report that Koran flushing attributed to US personnel was actually performed by detainees.

So the NPOV tag should stay. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:46, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

1. No there's not. what other matter is there?
   • The matter of detainees performing Qur'an desecration. (unsigned by ed poor)
     • As noted below, that matter only arises in the context of the real matter, which is the US flushing. It is a subset. Again, how many times must we explain this to you? csloat 20:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. The Newsweek story started the big controversy, though the reports go back much further. What do you mean "only the US flushing claim"? As explained over and over, there are no other notable or relevant claims here. The claims of detainees flushing is a secondary claim that arose in response to the claim of US flushing. On it's own it is no more notable than a prisoner in Leavenworth flushing a bible.
3. the US flushing claim is most likely true; it was reported from numerous sources in numerous places, not just gitmo, and has never been refuted. Newsweek did not retract the claim. They only retracted information about the sourcing of the claim. These things have been explained to you over and over Ed.
4. You're right about the demonstrations. That should be made clear in the article but it is not an NPOV issue; just an accuracy issue.
5. I don't think we can figure out exactly when the demos turned violent, but if you do, feel free to add it to the article.
6. When a Quran is pissed on (even the Pentagon admits that one), kicked, flushed, etc. in front of a prisoner as a means of tormenting him, only a fool would not regard that as "desecration."
7. There is no "confirmed report" that the flushing attributed to us personnel was carried out by detainees; what there is is a pentagon claim that detainees flushed a quran, and speculation by a newspaper that some detainee may have misinterpreted that as the guards doing the flushing. Frankly, it sounds like BS to me, but I have no problem reporting the claim and the speculation in context. I do have a problem with your claim that a "confirmed report" that the original desecration report was a mistake.

Ed once again, you are going against your pledge to lay off this page. I don't think anyone agrees with your attempts to set the agenda here. I realize you have turned over a new leaf by inviting BYT to be an editor and making nice on the Saddam/alQaeda page, but you're back to your old tricks here. If you are going to lay off this page, that means stop trying to shape the agenda in the discussion page, especially when your agenda has been refuted over and over by everyone else on this page. Read the rest of the article. The pentagon story of detainee abuse is there, in the proper context. Newsweek did not "retract" the claim, and there was independent corroboration of the claim from numerous sources in numerous places. It is clear that quran abuse most likely did occur. Nobody has really refuted it. And the very idea that if it doesn't exist in the pentagon's notes then it doesn't exist is completely bogus -- if I were tormenting a prisoner I don't think I would take meticulous notes on every mean thing I did to him.

In any case, I don't get why this is so hard for you to believe. Read this story (page down a bit) for an interesting report from a former US military officer about a training session as a POW in which the bible was kicked and desecrated in order to break down the people acting as POWs. It's clearly within their repertoire. --csloat 20:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This issue is a contentious one, and there are bigger issues to deal with. Inasmuch as there remains a gap between what the Pentagon (implausibly) has put forward and what released detainees have reported, I can see the argument for an NPOV tag. I can't agree with it, but I can understand that a lot of people feel that way. So my vote is we put on the tag and thereby refer people to the talk page.

Flip side of this suggestion of mine: the article must focus on (reported) facts from relevant sources, and we're not going to get drawn into long drawn-out debates about whether the article is actually about Newsweek or some plot by detainees to desecrate their own scripture. Fair? BrandonYusufToropov 21:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"A lot of people" do not feel that way. Ed feels that way. He promised to stop messing with this page which makes me suspect bad faith -- and I say that because it is what I feel, not as a personal attack, and I hope Ed will not again threaten me with "administrative warnings" rather than responding to the arguments here. If others want to restore the npov tag, fine, but please let's stick to accuracy in these issues. I agree with you there BYT. --csloat 21:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. "Matter" clearly refers to the "allegations of Qur'an desecration" in the previous sentence. "Matter" is a perfectly acceptable word for a general reference to an incident or series of incidents by one or more parties.
2. Read the sentence again. And then think about it a bit. This only explains how this mess came to international attention. Again we haven't said who did what at this point.
3. Considering that some of the reports were confirmed by the US Army, "revelations" works fine.
4. Where do you get the information that the demonstrations were planned (other than the Aghanistan demonstrations which apparently were about something else)
5. For the rest of your points, I don't have anything to add beyond what csloat has written. --Lee Hunter 21:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, Ed, I will leave the NPOV tag so you don't threaten me again. I'd like to ask you to adhere to your original pledge to stop wasting everyone's time on this page. And I'd like to ask everyone else if there is anyone besides Ed Poor who agrees with his perspective on this. I suppose Axamoto might (though his claims are even more bizarre than Ed's). I really don't have time to continue this tit-for-tat. --csloat 21:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One more thing -- I think that someone needs to articulate clearly what is not NPOV about this article. The claim that detainee abuse must be included has been discussed, the claims are included, and the idea that it is the same as guard abuse has been soundly and repeatedly refuted without any counter argument. Ed simply keeps repeating his old argument that has been refuted endlessly. So it must be something else, but what that is is a mystery. I don't mind the NPOV tag staying but it will stay forever if nobody can articulate what is actually POV about the article. Once we determine why it is POV then we can make it more NPOV and then we can remove the tag. OK? --csloat 21:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sources

There's a difference between saying "a newspaper reported that X happened" and "according to a newspaper, prisoners said that X happened". It has to do with how much credence to give prisoners.

Generally, newspapers are accorded a certair measure of reliability. The measure of reliability accorded to prisoners, however, varies widely. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Can you point to the specific sentence you would like to see changed? We can discuss that. In addition, please stop pretending all we have is one newspaper account of prisoners' accounts. Many of these items have been investigated by the Red Cross and the FBI as well. --csloat 22:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. I think I already changed it. Do you need a diff?
2. I'm not "pretending" anything. I've asked you to stop making personal remarks.
3. The article clearly recounts a dozen news accounts of prisoner complaints.
4. The question of whether prisoner accounts are reliable should be mentioned in the article - not settled by contributors to Misplaced Pages. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:33, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

If you read the US Army report the question of prisoner reliability or newspaper reliability is not much of an issue as there was confirmation from the prison log books.--Lee Hunter 23:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Scope of the article (3rd time)

Either the article is about ALL alleged Koran abuse at gitmo, or only about US alleged Koran abuse.

The degree to which various Commentators (outside of Misplaced Pages) give credence to, or care about, the alleged acts of desecration - is a matter to be described fairly and accurately within the article. It is not to be decided by partisans amoung us. No one cares what "my" POV is, for exmaple. Only wthat most people around the world think. And that is clearly divided into those who express outrage that the US (might have) desecretad the Koran as a part of interrogations and those who express outrage that Islamic detainees (might have) descrated the book they claim to rever. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:14, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

ED PLEASE. We have had this argument over and over and over. Please re-read the article itself, then please read the discussion -- all the archives please. Over and over we have said, and you have not responded to (other than repeating your original argument) the issue at stake here. The world is not talking about detainees desecrating their own holy books. It is no more an issue than if I take my Pentauch and throw it out the window. Nobody gives a rat's ass. But the world is talking about US guards destroying the qurans of their prisoners. Seriously, Ed, this is ridiculous. I think it is time to revisit the complaints lodged against you the last time. You resolved those complaints by offering to stay out of this discussion, and then you promptly jumped right back in. I am trying my best to assume good faith here, but you can see how this sort of behavior makes it difficult.--csloat 22:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I did not mean to say that The world is talking about detainees desecrating their own holy books. Rather, that (a) many if not most of the complaints about gitmo Koran abuse have highlighted US personell mishandling and even desecrating the Koran; as well as (b) some of the complaints - particularly those defending the US gov't - have highlighted detainee desecration. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the number of times you assert something on a talk page or in an edit summary, has no bearing on the outcome of the discussion. Unresolved problems concerning the article need resolution in terms of NPOV policy. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:29, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

There are no "complaints" of detainee desecration. What there is is a Pentagon self-investigation that reported instances of detainee desecration. My point is simply that these have not been a significant controversy in their own right; they have only arisen as the Pentagon response to the Newsweek article. Thus they are a subset of the main issue. Does anyone besides Ed disagree with me on this?

The problem, Ed, is not the number of times this has been brought up, but rather the fact that each of those times you have refused to actually engage (or often to even acknowledge) the argument being made. Instead, you try to use your admin status to get me kicked off wikipedia. Why not engage the point here? Do you have a compelling response to the claims being made by me and everyone else here? --csloat 22:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If I wanted you off, you'd be off already. That's not my goal. Besides, it's hardly cricket to use bad means to achieve a good end - as Yusuf would surely agree. What I want is a balanced article - not "fair and balanced" in the Fox News sense - but as in Misplaced Pages:NPOV. And you're going to help me do it. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 03:43, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Where are we now?

How is the official complaint going? Is the complaint over the rename dead in the water? I don't see the title being reverted. I don't see Ed step back during the "mediation". I don't see any mediation at all. I don't see anything happening. I see Ed around here every minute of the day. I see the Energizer rabbit hopping around here. -- Toytoy 22:33, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't understand wikipedia policy for dealing with problem users enough to understand what to do here, and I wish someone outside of this dispute would help us out. Ed has now complained about me and is trying to get me kicked off wikipedia. All this because I insist on accuracy here. He also doesn't even respond to the arguments made by others; he keeps reasserting his position. I do think the complaint process should be re-started.--csloat 22:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• As I understand it, we are free to rename the page anything we want.

• I think we should discuss page moves before we make them.

• It's possible someone may be in the minority with his/her opinion concerning the appropriateness of a given page name on which others agree, but that does not mean there is no consensus about a page move. Consensus does not mean unanimity.

• If the consensus is that we should rename a page something that only an admin can rename it (because of past page renames), we should ask an admin for help. BrandonYusufToropov 22:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do think we have easily reached some sort of agreement over the revert of the title somewhere in the past. -- Toytoy 23:12, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Toytoy: It might not be a bad idea to repost the relevant discussion here for review and get a fresh round of hands about where we should go next. I've been hollering about discussing this stuff on the talk page to everyone who would listen for the past week or so. :) I know it's retracing old ground, but I think it would set a good precedent. What's your view? BrandonYusufToropov 23:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. Not trying to get csloat kicked off: he's welcome if he (a) supports NPOV policy and (b) avoids personal attacks.
2. I don't care what this article is called, provided the title matches the scope. At the risk of repeating myself:
   • If the article is only about US-done abuse, rename it BUT then we must have another (perhaps smaller) article about detainee-done abuse
   • If the article is about ALL reported abuse, the neither the title nor the intro should imply that the scope of the article is limited to gov't abuse

<irony>To quote a certain other contributor, how many times do I have to explain this?</irony> (Sorry if that's getting too personal.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:22, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Ed, you asked that I be "immediately banned" from wikipedia; that sounds like you're trying to get me kicked off to me. But then you changed the page, so if you are no longer asking for me to be banned, it's unclear what your RfA is for. I am happy to support npov and avoid personal attacks as I always have, so I think we're in agreement there. I am not into discussing the title right now either. As for the scope of the article -- Ed the problem is not the number of times you keep re-stating this; it is the number of times you keep ignoring everyone else's response to this. Are you really demanding that someone explain this to you yet again???? --csloat 23:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Update - without comment, Ed has withdrawn his request that I be banned from wikipedia for disagreeing with him. I am glad to see that, and hopefully this is a sign that he has seen the light about continuing his heavy-handed attempt to impose his agenda on this page. Thank you Ed. --csloat 23:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Requesting suggestions as to what this article should be called

Any ideas? BrandonYusufToropov 23:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Desecration of the Qur'an at Guantánamo Bay
  • This was exactly the last generally-accepted title before Ed's ill-mannered move. We may use a revert rather than just another rename. We shall not reware Ed by keeping his move untouched. If you don't like this name, let's discuss before making any further renames. By the way, Ed, please step back. When we reach the revert consensus, I'll request you to revert the article's title and fix all redirects. Be responsible. You're the admin here. I don't want to waste my life covering your fucking ass. -- Toytoy 23:46, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Qur'an desecration by U.S. guards in the war on terror? (or something similar)
  • This would help alleviate Ed Poor's constant insistence that the scope of the article be changed. If he wants to start a quran abuse by prisoners article again, let him, though it has been resoundingly rejected by the wikipedia community in a vote. we can use such a title and still mention the pentagon claims of abuse by prisoners here -- I do think it is relevant as a subset of this issue. --csloat 23:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I'd strongly suggest leaving it as is and revisiting the question in about six months time. This article has already been through an absurd number of changes in a short period of time for no particular reason other than what side of bed someone woke up on. The current title works well enough. Let's leave it for a bit.--Lee Hunter 23:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Even though we had previously built some agreement around Desecration of the Qur'an at ... I am inclined to agree with Lee. Only possible downside is that if people are still rioting in 2006 it's inaccurate, but I'm sure we will have found our way elsewhere by then. For now, stability seems like a good choice, and there's nothing actually wrong with the current title, so... BrandonYusufToropov 00:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• This is why I wanted it to refer somehow to the newsweek allegations in the title... we still can reference pre-newsweek articles, it focuses upon what was reported in newsweek, namely the US military desecrating the Qur'an, but it also allows us to include Ed's info, just not in the intro. --kizzle 04:32, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Tally (2/4/1)

Rename:

1. kizzle
2. Toytoy 11:24, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Keep:

1. BrandonYusufToropov 21:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. LeeHunter
3. Uncle Ed (talk) 03:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
4. – Quadell 14:21, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral:

1. csloat (someone put me up on rename but I don't have a strong opinion about it at this time - at least not without a better title suggestion. Even though I suggested the title they linked; I am fine leaving this as it is for now.

Pentagon / conservative response

Add to intro:

• The Pentagon later released reports alleging that in multiple cases prisoners had desecrated the Koran at the facility.
• One liberal and two conservative journalists speculated that the official may have mistaken the report of prisoner desecration for US personnel desecration.

The empty bracket pairs are for references to news articles. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:20, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Please don't add this stuff to the intro or we might as well put the whole article in the intro. I believe we have been through this before.--csloat 19:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Relevance and neutrality

Let's vote again, so it's clear. Should the article mention Pentagon or commentator claims that prisoners abused the Koran?

Let's not vote again; we already achieved consensus on this issue. The article should mention this, just not in the intro; can we please move on to other things now? --csloat 19:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mention

1. Ed Poor

Omit

1. Calton | Talk 14:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. Toytoy 17:06, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral/undecided

1. This is a poorly worded question. I'd say, yes the Pentagon claims should be mentioned but NOT in the intro. And adding "commentator claims" (see Krauthammer below) about anything is a ridiculous idea. --Lee Hunter 17:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. agree with Lee but I object to this entire vote. We have covered this ground over and over. Ed can we please move on? --csloat 19:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Krauthammer quote

I've removed the Krauthammer quote because it's just a columnist providing 'facts' without giving sources. It is certainly known that Al Qaeda members are told to claim torture when they are imprisoned but I don't know where he's getting his information that they are trained to claim abuse of the Koran. I did a brief search on Google and couldn't find anything. If this can be confirmed by a real source I have no objection to it being included, although it would be better from the original source. --Lee Hunter 15:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also note that the US has itself confirmed that torture took place at Gitmo, so the Al Qaeda training manual is a bit of a moot point. --Lee Hunter 17:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, a "UN source" claims that the US admitted torture at Gitmo. The US has not confirmed this. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 01:47, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

We could say:

• According to an AFP news release, an un-named United Nations official asserted that the US has admitted torturing prisoners at gitmo.

Charles Krauthammer wrote:

"al Qaeda operatives are trained to charge torture when they are in detention, and specifically to charge abuse of the Koran to inflame fellow prisoners on the inside and potential sympathizers on the outside."

Also it's worth keeping in mind that the quote from the al Qaeda encyclopedia has little bearing on many of the claims from prisoners since not everyone has actually read this thing. Many of the prisoners who complained about this were not even al Qaeda members.--csloat 19:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article

If anyone thinks the article is biased, please restore the NPOV tag. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:52, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Pentagon counterclaims (1/4/1)

Something like:

• Weeks later, the Pentagon issued a report blaming the Qur'an damage on detainees, and a Washington Post article said that the Newsweek story may have mixed up detainee Qur'an desecration with desecration by US personnel.

Shame on you for this silly, if not mischievous, bit of obfuscation! As if the Pentagon report was only about blaming the detainees. I think it's high time a lock was put on this article (minus Ed's efforts to muddy the water)--Lee Hunter 18:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should be mentioned in the intro

1. Ed Poor: Brings balance to the article

Should not be mentioned in the into

1. Lee - "Pentagon claims should be mentioned but NOT in the intro"
2. csloat
3. Toytoy June 28, 2005 16:13 (UTC) Keep on the good job, Ed.
4. Wheeeee, this is fun. Lets keep voting on this over and over! --kizzle June 28, 2005 16:23 (UTC)

Neutral/undecided

1. Abstain. Just want to reiterate that getting this kind of content into the intro was not what I was proposing (see below). That's been addressed (to death). Now, if I may -- a responsibly titled section building on the current piece about "US Military findings" or whatever it is, and retitled "Official response' or suchlike, would be a valuable addition to the article. I for one would like to see if the Administration is keeping its explanations straight, and would like some clarification on whether the official position is currently that this "did not" happen (that used to be the position, as I recall), or that there is "no credible evidence" that dunking Qur'ans in toilets happened. Please remember too that many many many people, not just Ed Poor, are inclined to want to hear the official explanation of these events. BrandonYusufToropov 28 June 2005 17:03 (UTC)

I know, we all hate polls. But they do tend to clarify things. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:00, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

It's not that we hate polls; just that you keep demanding that we have (basically) the same one over and over. It's also a little disconcerting to have you vote for me, even if it's the right vote. I'll go ahead and revert the changes that are problematic though I think you made some positive ones too. I'll be taking the pentagon PR out of the intro and also the BS claim that there was a "painstaking" inquiry. The inquiry was a few days long; it consisted of going through logs (as if instances of abuse were always logged; you think they have logs at abu ghraib that say "10:20 pm: made prisoners do a circle jerk and then piled them up naked"?). --csloat 17:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ed it's even more disconcerting to have you then erase my vote - I understand you were just responding to what I said above about you putting it in but you can just respond here rather than deleting it -- I even corrected the spelling which should have made it obvious that I was ok with the vote itself; it was just the move of you speaking for me (whether by inserting or deleting information) that I found disconcerting.

This is related to a problem I have had with you for a while now Ed -- you feel free to delete information that others put in. This is fine on the articles but not on the discussion page (and it is really troubling on the rfa page where you tried to get me kicked off wikipedia). On that page, when I responded to your arguments, you edited your own text to change the arguments -- without actually responding to mine -- to make it look like you had been arguing something different all along. Then when you were obviously losing the argument anyway, you erased the whole thing, including my arguments, without any comment about why this was happening. I assumed it meant you had a change of heart and decided to stop imposing your agenda on this page but obviously I was wrong. So what does it all mean? I don't know if wikipedia rules cover this anywhere but it seems to me that deleting information from discussion pages should be a no-no -- you can simply respond and add additional informaiton to the page, and if you change your mind about something, why not just add a note, "I changed my mind"? The deletions make things confusing.--csloat 20:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sources

We seem to have lost the web link to the original Newsweek report. You know, the main reason we even have this article? Would someone please put that back in. Readers will want to know whether it was Newsweek or "other sources" which said the military used "desecration" as part of its interrogation regime. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:32, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Here it is.--csloat 17:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks.

Torture campaign

• "We know for certain that the United States has tortured five inmates to death. We know that 23 others have died in U.S. custody under suspicious circumstances. We know that torture has been practiced by almost every branch of the U.S. military in sites all over the world -- from Abu Ghraib to Tikrit, Mosul, Basra, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.
• "We know that no incidents of abuse have been reported in regular internment facilities and that hundreds have occurred in prisons geared to getting intelligence. We know that thousands of men, women and children were grabbed almost at random from their homes in Baghdad, taken to Saddam's former torture palace and subjected to abuse, murder, beatings, semi-crucifixions and rape.
• "All of this is detailed in the official reports. Andrew Sullivan, quoted by Molly Ivins.

Retraction

• "Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Quran abuse at Guantanamo Bay," Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker said in a statement issued Monday afternoon. CNN, May 16

International protests

the report sparked protests throughout the Islamic world and perhaps added fuel to pre-planned demonstrations in Afghanistan

I appreciate the distinction, Lee. Good catch. My version ignorantly blurred the distinction between the planned demos and the spontaneous ones. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:46, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

lack of balance

a Pentagon self-investigation that reported instances of detainee desecration

This ought to be in the introduction, perhaps amplified by

...was largely discounted as a tit-for-tat fabrication.

But we might mention somewhere that people tend to believe the Pentagon when it admits its own faults but routinely accuses them as lying when they charge others with faults. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:06, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think everyone but ed has decided, over and over again, that this item does not belong in the introduction. Ed has to this date not produced a single reason to justify this item's inclusion in the intro, has not responded to a single argument about it by others; instead, he has simply rephrased this demand over and over, demanded that we vote on it again and again, and, when he loses these arguments, he sends me administrative warnings for "personal attacks" and starts arbitration proceedings against me, while at the same time nominating another editor for adminship with whom he has had similar disputes. I have no intention of turning this into any kind of personal attack - I am sure Ed is doing all of this in good faith - but it appears to me that a better way of doing this is to make your case for the change you'd like to see, respond to critiques, and if you are unsuccessful in persuading folks towards a new consensus, accept the possibility that you may be wrong. --csloat 20:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't use consensus as a guide to matters of right and wrong, but I appreciate your newfound assumption of good faith. I regret now, undoing the "vote" thing; I thought you were complaining that i had misquoted you or something. Now I know better. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:14, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your assumption that my assumption of good faith is newfound. I have always assumed good faith; I have only been guilty of pointing out when I saw evidence that contradicted that assumption. If you don't respect consensus, then why do you call for votes at all? --csloat 21:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I take that part back. But I never said I didn't respect consensus, I'm only saying that it can't change wrong into right (or vice versa). For example, if a 51% majority or even a 98% near-unanamity of scientists or bureacrats selected by their countries to be on the United Nations climate panel say that the earth is (or is not) warming up too much due to greenhouse emissions - that will have no effect on the facts. An up vote won't increase temperature, and a down vote won't decrease it. Truth is truth, and voting doesn't affect it. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:35, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Of course, that point has no bearing whatsoever here, or does it? Perhaps I'm missing something?csloat 00:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thought we had this taken care of with our landslide poll earlier. Ed, concensus can't change right into wrong, but you're missing what the point of concensus is. Concensus is trying to find what a majority of people define "right" as being in this case, as there is no absolute right. And while polls are informal and not taken to the letter of the law, you got significantly outvoted in this respect. Please kindly move on from this point, as putting this info in the intro is a clear "wrong" perceived by almost every editor on this page except for you. --kizzle 03:04, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

A minor quibble -- there may be some "absolute" right in respect to the issues under discussion, but that's for each of us to determine on our own, and Ed is, like all of us, free to express his opinions concerning what he believes that "right" viewpoint to be. There is, however, no inherently "right" or "wrong" way to write this article.There is only the best approach we can all come to an agreement on as objective. That's what consensus reflects, not ultimate moral conclusions, and at present, the feeling seems to be that Ed's suggestion is not appropriate for the introduction. (That's my feeling, too.)

Now the next question. Does Ed's point belong elsewhere, and if so, where? BrandonYusufToropov 14:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking maybe an official response section that covers what the official Pentagon reaction + report on the detainees' abusing the Qur'an as well. Just a thought. --kizzle 21:05, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• An "official response" section would, I think, be a good addition, though it should not be the main focus of the article or appear in the introduction. That would be like letting the White House write the lead on a story it would like to see disappear, and I don't think anyone believes that would be a good idea.

• Please note that a fair percentage of American readers, at least, and perhaps a majority of American leaders, are inclined to follow Ed's lead and accept the Pentagon's explanation for these events over the accounts of recently released detainees.

• I don't know why they are inclined to do that, but ...  :)

• So -- a paragraph summarizing the official explanation -- and clarifying, for instance, such points as whether the Pentagon still explicitly denies that any Qur'an was ever placed in a toilet by US personnel, as opposed to "finding no evidence" that this occurred, would, in my view, be a relevant and interesting addition to the article for most of the readers who encounter it.

• Ed, do you feel like drafting a paragraph or two along these lines and posting it here for discussion, on the understanding that this new section 'should not be the main focus of the article and should not appear in the introduction?BrandonYusufToropov

This seems like a lot of trouble to go through just to please one editor whose opinion is totally at odds with mainstream media and scholarly accounts of this issue. As Lee points out below, we already have a paragraph the does the trick just fine (though it might be better to label it "Pentagon Response" rather than "detainee self-abuse" or whatever the hell it says now). I feel that the above is just bending over backwards to please Ed just because he is an administrator -- I don't think that's the idea behind having wikipedia admins, and I don't even think Ed would think that was a good idea. My view is that the pentagon claims are covered well as it is now, except perhaps for a change in the subtitle. --csloat 00:12, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The supposed detainee DOK is perfectly covered in the current version. It has its own section, it's visible from the top of the page(so anyone can see that it's there) and it does NOT belong in the intro. Prisoners doing weird shit is a daily occurence in every prison in the world. It's a "dog bites man" event. Completely uninteresting and non-notable. Guards doing weird shit to prisoners is (at least in theory) not how things are supposed to be in the civilized world. Man bites dog. Frankly, Ed is just rambling aimlessly when he suggests adding "people tend to believe the Pentagon when ...". This is just total blather. --Lee Hunter 15:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lee, do you have an issue date on that New Yorker piece?

Is it the current issue? BrandonYusufToropov 02:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay Resort - An exploration of accusations, by Jesse Nickles

• "Guantanamo Bay Resort" commentary on conditions by Jesse Nickles

Intro again

I have made two minor edits to the intro:

1. broke 2nd paragraph into two parts
2. Turned "Qu'ran desecration" into Qur'an desecration in what is now the 2rd paragraph

I marked this as "This is a minor edit", using the handy checkbox below the Edit summary.

Before I make a major edit, I'd like to touch base with you all. We haven't talked since the summer.

• The Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005 captured international attention in April 2005 when Newsweek published an article which appeared to confirm several previous allegations that U.S. personnel at the Guantánamo Bay prison camp had damaged a copy of the Qur'an by putting it in a toilet in order to torment the prison's Muslim captives.

I want to say rather that:

1. The Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005 concerns allegations that U.S. personnel at the Guantánamo Bay prison camp damaged a copy of the Qur'an by putting it in a toilet in order to torment the prison's Muslim captives.
2. The matter captured international attention in April 2005 when Newsweek published an article which appeared to confirm several previous allegations.

I cannot in good conscience mark this as a "minor edit". And I could just go ahead and make it, but why stir up trouble? I'll wait a few days for comments first. Uncle Ed 18:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps "concerns" should be "concerned" but otherwise looks fine to me. --Lee Hunter 01:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

How about "focused on"? That implies that the central point was this accusation. And the Pentagon's rebuttal that the books in the toilet thing was enemy propanda would not be part of the "focus". It would be part of the controversy, but a peripheral part.

I'd also like to find out (but without doing any original research what proportions of Americans, Westerners or earthlings in general gave credence to the two main POVs: (1) that the US was desecrated the Qur'an as a matter of policy vs. (2) that prisoners were the ones doing this, and blaming this on the U.S.

If it's 99% believe the charges against the U.S. (POV #1), then I wouldn't want to exaggerate support for POV #2. But if it's a 90-10 split or anything closer than that, then we ought to report on the exact proportions of the split - or as close as we can determine them.

The last thing we'd want to do is simply assert that the allegations are true, right? Uncle Ed 16:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

But we don't make any such assertion. We say that the allegations are allegations and we report the claims that have been made by the detainees and by the US army. I don't understand the point of noting how many members of the public take one side or another. It doesn't have much bearing on the content of the article. --Lee Hunter 02:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

more on SERE connection

Someone should add this info.

Please, anyone who knows anything about SERE's does not talk about it. TDC 23:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Besides that, the SERE connection to the "torture narrative" is plain crazy. Just look at where that NY Times link goes to: "opinion."' If anything, the facts show that the military was trying to accomplish results without using torture.

LOL... read the essay, not just the category.-csloat 06:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

And if you read the essay, you'll see that once again a few soldiers who our military charged with crimes are attempting to spin the torture meme so as to mitigate their guilt. The writers of that piece seem more than happy to oblige. One funny thing about this is that DoD could have spared itself from a lot of this bad P.R. if it had simply swept all those crimes under the rug -- and yet they didn't. -- Randy2063 15:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"unconsciously pro-US"?

Ed, I am pro-US too, and even consciously so; I don't think that's the issue. I think the issue is bending over backwards to establish the pentagon report as the source of all truth, and to denigrate the reports from everywhere else. Why delete the number of pre-Newsweek reports? Why add your own editorializing to the pentagon conclusions? And why the bizarre /ref tag that eliminates part of the section here?--csloat 19:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I was afraid I had gone too far. By "Pro-US" point of view, I meant "favoring the viewpoint of the US government" ("pro-bush"?) not "loving America as a country". Sorry for the lack of clarity; I was trying to make a 2-word phrase mean more than it could possibly convey.

I don't think the Pentagon report should be established as the source of all truth, but rather balanced (say, 50-50?) against the reports from everywhere else. We might even add a "Controversy" section at the end (or maybe "public opinion"?) indicating what percent of people believed the 2 sides. Misplaced Pages certainly should not take one side's word over the other's.

Sorry about deleting number of pre-Newsweek reports. I didn't realize that was significant.

• Number restored. --Uncle Ed 20:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm unaware of "my own editorializing", please cut and paste that here so we can fix it (or agree that it's hopelessly biased).

If my /ref tag destroyed part of a section, that was a formatting error. I'll take a look and try to fix it. --Uncle Ed 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• ref tag fixed. --Uncle Ed 20:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Didn't mean to jump on you, but you suggested that being in the military made you "pro-US," which suggested patriotism, not Bush partisanship. I'm glad you're willing to clarify that. The editorializing I perceived had to do with the scrawling on the Quran which you say in your edit summary could have been done by someone else -- is that in the pentagon report? It seems like an easy thing to check due to handwriting; it seems strange that the pentagon report would express doubt on the matter rather than investigating it. I'm not sure that the article was unbalanced before you made these changes (though I don't think they are mostly unreasonable, so again I apologize for jumping on you). The dozens of reports seemed to be something you thought was significant when you deleted it and then referred to it in your edit summaries; I'm glad you restored it. This sentence in the intro is a little problematic: "The Pentagon's report accused a prisoner of damaging a copy of the Qur'an by putting it in a toilet, which is what the Newsweek article had claimed had been done by U.S. personnel." How about stopping it after "toilet" and putting in "also" (i.e. "also accused a prisoner"). It may not seem that different, but we don't know the pentagon and newsweek referred to the same quran and the same toilet.csloat 20:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm running out of steam. I trust you to make that correction, Commodore. :-) --Uncle Ed 20:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Newsweek and US government

Start of paragraph:

On April 30, 2005 Newsweek magazine published an article claiming that an unnamed United States official had seen a government report supporting a "previously unreported" charge of Qur'an (Koran) desecration at Camp X-Ray, a U.S. military detention facility in Guantánamo Bay.

Cut:

It was alleged that U.S. interrogators had deliberately defaced the Qur'an as a tactic for intimidating Muslim detainees. The revelations provoked massive anti-U.S. demonstrations throughout the Islamic world, with at least 17 deaths during riots in Afghanistan.

The passage I cut has problems:

1. It doesn't say WHO made the allegations: the writer of the Newsweek story personally, the official who supposedly say the gov't report, the report itself? Or was it people who read the Newsweek article and drew their own conclusions?
2. Its reference to "revelations" implies actual uncovering of wrong-doing (i.e., deliberate Qur'an desecration by US personnel). Since the entire controversy hinges on whether the US did or did not do this, the word revelation would seem to pre-suppose this. It would be better to use a neutral word, such as "story" (referring to the Newsweek article) or "report" referring to the contents of the gov't report the official said he saw.

Suggested replacement:

• The article went on to imply that U.S. interrogators had deliberately defaced the Qur'an as a tactic for intimidating Muslim detainees; or,
• The official said that the report outlined a U.S. policy for interrogators to deliberate deface the Qur'an as a tactic for intimidating Muslim detainees; or,
• Many readers took this as evidence that the U.S. had a policy for interrogators to deliberate deface the Qur'an as a tactic for intimidating Muslim detainees

And:

• The prospect that U.S. personnel may have deliberately defaced the Qur'an provoked massive anti-U.S. demonstrations throughout the Islamic world, with at least 17 deaths during riots in Afghanistan.

How do other Misplaced Pages editors see it? --Uncle Ed 13:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Very nice edits, Ed. I'd be comfortable with third bullet ("Many readers took this as...") in your list; the final bullet ("The prospect that...") works fine for me too. Nice job. BYT 14:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're splitting hairs, Ed. I'd be ok with your changes if your grammar was better -- try "deliberately deface" for better results. But we should check if the Newsweek article actually says or implies this if we have questions. But in the end I don't see any problems with the original sentence you are replacing; in fact, I think the original was better. Your claim that this implies actual wrongdoing is a little strange; the wrongdoing has been pretty well confirmed by numerous detainees as well as at least one former gitmo official (and the actions are not that surprising, under the circumstances). But if we must temper such claims with weasel words, so be it. But why not similarly add weasel words to the other sentence? Instead of provoked, why not "may have contributed to"? Certainly these demonstrations were not focused exclusively on this one issue of quran-flushing. Or how about "are reported to have caused"? I think your changes may be starting us down a slippery slope.--csloat 18:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Piss Christ xref

I added a cross reference to the article on Piss Christ. this change was A) additive, B) minor and C) relevant, yet I have been blocked as a "vandal". This bullying is clearly illegitimate, so I'm going to replace the change and if you have a defensible dispute, please express it here without abusing the wiki system.

If you have been blocked and you are coming back under a different IP to continue reverting, you are the one abusing the wiki system. Perhaps you can explain why the heck you think this is necessary?--csloat 19:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

i wasn't aware that "nessesary" was the standard, and it isn't asserted as so anywhere i've seen. i do believe that two widely noted incidents wherein a religious item was desecrated or alleged to be desecrated with urine are relevant to one another. they thus merit cross-reference. maybe you can explain why you so agressively oppose this minor, relevant addition to the article.

in the meantime, since you have failed to justify the reversion, i am again replacing the cross-reference. i hope you can work in good faith and not lash out with another revert and block.

First, get a login. At the very least sign your posts with four tildes. Second, I didn't say there was any standard. This is the first time you've uttered a single word in favor of this change. You had made no justification for it in the edit summary or the talk page, and you were asked to numerous times. I don't "aggressively oppose" this change; it's just that this is the first time you've ever done anything to distinguish your change from vandalism.

That said, your argument is not persuasive to me. True, these two things have in common the holy book and the excretia. But that's it. One is an art piece; the other is a worldwide political controversy over torture techniques. The controversies have nothing to do with each other, and there is no published source that I am aware of even mentioning the two events in the same breath. Bringing them together in wikipedia is a form of WP:NOR. It's also a bit silly, since, nobody would come to this page looking for more information about Serrano or vice versa.--csloat 04:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

as i understand it, the only advantage of getting a login is that it would enable me to threaten and block other contributors. that sort of behavior is unappealing to me.

i don't, and i don't believe a reasonable person would, regard my addition of a single cross-reference to the bottom of the article as prima facie "vandalism", so it didn't occur to me that i should have defended it as such. i hadn't been able to locate where i was asked numerous times to provide justification in the conventional manner, but now i understand that the numerous wordless reverts were meant to communicate a request. you've reverted again after i've provided justification - what can i do for you?

clearly the two things, though sharing obvious basic elements, are not identical on a one-to-one basis. your characterization, "One is an art piece; the other is a worldwide political controversy over torture techniques," vividly presents the differing reaction each invokes within the same context. still, its not so to say that bringing the two together is original research. the connectedness hadn't occurred to me, in fact, before i had read the time article linked below. i've also located a piece published in the washington post also considering the two in relation to one another. i don't know what their use can be for the modest, relevant addition of a single cross-reference to the bottom of the article though. it would seem to make too much of it and a mess of the formatting.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1064449,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/07/AR2006020701253.html

If that's what you understand about wikipedia then you shouldn't be editing here. Learn about it before you dive in with contentious edits and vandalism. It doesn't matter whether you think your edit is vandalism, you should still be willing to explain it. There is an edit summary box where you can provide short explanations; the talk page is for longer discussions. The WaPo article compares piss christ to the Danish cartoons, which is a more apt comparison; it does not make the comparison you do here. The Time article does mention the piss christ and koran-flushing but it does not specifically relate the two events in a way that makes sense for this article. Seriously, if nobody would come to this article looking for piss christ information, and there is nothing in the article that suggests piss christ is a logical followup, the link doesn't belong here. Please do not restore it again.--csloat 08:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

i've begun the arbitration process to the best of my ability. it's dissapointing to see that you are unable to work in good faith on this matter. to whatever degree you are associated with the previous two auto-reverters notwithstanding, the precident merits 3RR.

Piss Christ Edit War

Please revert your change, Mr. Anon IP. You are gaming the 3RR and likely facing another block. You are refusing to engage in discussion over your tendentious change.--csloat 16:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

honestly, what is this nonsense? "i know you are but what am i?"

What is "reasonable" about putting a reference to an art exhibit in an article about torture? AQn art exhibit that is nowhere mentioned in the article? Isarig, please see the above discussion and participate in it rather than joining in this petty revert war. Thanks. csloat 00:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I read the above discussion, and I find the arguments in favor of the inclusion of the x-ref convincing. There is similarity between the two events (desecration of religious symbols) and between the public outcry that ensued. Conversely, I don;t find your vehement refusal to allow this x-ref to be based on anything other than personal preference. Isarig 01:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

its now clear what the problem is. you misunderstand what the article is which we are editing. it is titled the "quran desecration controversy". it is about a controversy involving the desecration (by urine, and originally immersion in urine prior to the facts being known) of a quran, which is a holy book. all three of these top-level criteria, and a couple of second-order qualties are also definative of the "piss christ controversy," which was a controversy involving the desecration (by immersion in urine) of a holy symbol, the crucifix. to say that there is no notable similarity tbetween the two is axiomaticly unreasonable. your position is perpendicular to reasonable.

you've described this revert war as petty. i agree, and i wish there were some explaination for your white-knuckled zeal in this. i don't care to try to read your mind in this. i will note that are approiaching a violation of 3RR with absolutely no reasonable grounds beneath your feet.

The article is titled "Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005". It describes the specific controversy surrounding the use of Quran desecration as a means of tormenting prisoners. Please re-read the discussion above. If you think this has anything at all to do with "piss christ", please write a paragraph explaining what the heck it actually has to do with this and put it in the article. Isarig, you simply stalked me here because of our controversy on another article; it's clear you don't have any idea what any of this is about. If you wish to participate, respond to the arguments above, or, as I urged the anon to do, write a paragraph explaining why this is relevant and stick it in the article. Otherwise it looks like a totally irrelevant reference. Nobody in their right mind would come to this article expecting to learn about piss christ, or vice versa. This entire discussion is utterly absurd. csloat 01:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

this is interesting...

"If you think this has anything at all to do with "piss christ", please write a paragraph explaining what the heck it actually has to do with this and put it in the article."

i suppose i could clip the thirty words i just wrote and put those in the article, but wouldn't that be fifteen times as "disruptive" as the modest addition of a solitary cross-reference at the foot? if you are too irrational to deal constructively with me on the small matter before us, can it be said that this suggestion is being offered with sincerity?

I am being sincere. If you can write a reasonable explanation of this, citing sources (read WP:NOR and WP:RS) that directly relate the two incidents, indicating what the heck they have to do with one another, then put it in the article. The reference as it is seems totally out of place. It trivializes this article and it makes it look like a joke. Can you imagine such a reference in a printed Encyclopedia? Come on. But if you can, back up your words and write it up; cite reliable sources and substantitate the point. Put it in the article and if you are right it will stay in. Otherwise you are just being disruptive. csloat 01:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

lol!

csloat - "I am being sincere. ...Put it in the article and if you are right it will stay in."

also csloat - "either way, your "piss christ" edit to the quran article will continue to be deleted by myself and others..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.175.216.90 (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Umm, yeah. I'm talking about two different things there, obviously. It will stay in if it is sourced, relevant, and encyclopedic. As you have it now, it will not stay in. Happy new year. csloat 02:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

cheers! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.175.216.90 (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

jumping cheese, et al

do you have any sort of explaination for your revert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.216.90 (talk • contribs)

Yay! A section just for me! I'm flattered.
Anyways, I agree with the other registered Wikipedians. What does "Piss Christ" have anything to do with the page?!? It might be remotely related, but hardly worthy of mentioning in the see also section. If "Piss Christ" is included, might as well include a whole mess of other links that are remotely related to the page. Jumping cheese 11:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Cross referencing 'Piss Christ to 2005 Qur'an desecration ...and categorization

I agree there is a connection between the two controversial desecrations, but there are significant dissimilarities.

Remember, too, that consensus is a fundamental core policy of Misplaced Pages, a policy which Jimbo Wales has insisted is, and will be, an unshakeable inherent part of Misplaced Pages.

The very idea that that the controversy exists, and that there is not an agreement on whether to link Piss Christ to 2005 Qur'an desecration shows clearly that there is not a consensus, and I believe it unlikely that a consensus could be reached on this.

Edit wars of this type are generally unending: Neither including nor excluding the link is likely to be approved widely enough to become a clear consensus.

Another solution may be necessary, avoiding the question of consensus:

I think the issue could be satisfactorily resolved by connecting the two articles via an indisputably relevant cross ref, such as Desecration. That article could use some expansion anyway... perhaps writing a few paragraphs there about notable desecrations and reactions to them? I am certain nobody would object to linking to the article Desecration to and from both Piss Christ and Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005, and anyone should approve of an expansion to the article.

The deal is that the 2005 Qur'an desecration is an act related to the torture and deliberate humiliation of a prisoner, and Piss Christ is a work of art by an artist, intending to make an artistic statement, to provoke a reaction in the context of what is and what is not art, what is allowable as art, the meaning of the concept of sacred... an attempt in other words to explore the concept of sanctity and the concept of what is permissable as artistic expression.

To engender more communication and understanding in other words.

This is a marked contrast to the intentional mis-use of a sacred symbol as a means to harm another human (assuming that it was not as has been claimed simply an accident in which case there is still marked dissimilarity: accidental vs intentional desecration) in the Qu'ran incident. One may say that art is intended to advance human culture and knowledge, but that torture and intentional humiliation have the opposite intent and/or effect.

In short, the two are dissimilar enough that some, or many, may object to a direct cross-reference.

Yet the two do share a distinct connection, in that there were very strong worldwide reactions to both.

Those who do not think the two are directly related might not object to linking to both articles from a more generic article, and/or to placing both articles, as well as the Desecration article into a category such as Category:Desecration. Bear in mind though, that a category is very likely to be deleted if it does not have at least one parent category (ie, the category itself is a member of another category) and several articles as members of that category.

I know that once one has entered into an argument, in which they were certain they were right, that it is often hard to see the other side, but that is precisely what an advocate does, or attempts to do. It seems to me that it is simply the case that there is a disagreement over the inclusion or exclusion of the link, and that no consensus is likely regardless of how long the discussion continues.

I feel it would be fruitless, and a waste of community resources to attempt to reach a consensus for or against inclusion of a direct cross-reference between the 2 articles in question. User:Pedant 11:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pedant and Jumpingcheese. I reverted but then reverted back because that would have been 4 reverts in 24 hrs... But I still support removing the ridiculously unrelated link from the article. I can't believe anyone in their right mind would defend the addition. I see Isarig defending it but it is obvious the only reason he is defending it is because I oppose it -- he stalked me here because of a dispute on the Juan Cole article. It's his right to do so, I suppose, but it is entirely uncivil. Whatever his reasons, however, my position is simple -- if this link is to be related to this article, someone must present a rational argument as to how it is related and must back up that argument with a WP:RS explicitly making the direct connection. Nobody has done so, so the link is WP:NOR and must be deleted. Simply saying that the two both deal with holy books and excretia is absolutely ridiculous. First of all, there is no mention of urine in this article -- only toilet water. Second of all, one is an art piece while the other is a method used to torment captive prisoners in the war on terror. The two are totally unrelated. If you want to put a link to "piss christ" under the Desecration article that is fine, but this is not a general article about Quran desecration -- it is about a specific event in the war on terrorism. I don't know who this anon is who started this nonsense or why he is doing it but I think he should stop, and that this article should be protected against anon edits. If he wants to continue this nonsensical argument, let him at least get a login. With junk like this going on it's no wonder many people refuse to take wikipedia seriously. csloat 22:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You are encouraged, yet again, to review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Implying that those who defend the link between the two articles are not "in their right mind" is a clear violation of both. The rational argument for the inclusion of the x-ref is simple, and has already been presented : Both incidents are similar, in that they involve the desecration of religions symbols, with a resulting public outcry. It is thus reasonable to link them, and many sources outside WP have done so. Please cease your uncompromising and stubborn refusal to see anyone's position but your own on this. Isarig 22:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Your one source (not "many") does not explicitly link the two. Simply mentioning the two in the same article is not the same as making a rational argument linking the two. I have explained two specific reasons above (and many more in previous debates on this ridiculous nonsense) why the link does not belong here and you have not addressed them. I have even agreed to a compromise solution suggested by Pedant, which you have ignored. The incidents are not "similar" despite your claim that they are. Face it, you are wrong on this. The link goes, and I will continue to maintain that this debate is complete nonsense, despite your threats concerning Misplaced Pages policies. csloat 22:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have linked one source, but there are many simialr ones. You're a big boy and can probably use Google as well as I can to find them. The article explicitly linked these two incidents, contrasting the Christian reaction to "Piss Jesus" to the Muslim reaction to the Quran desecration. The incidents are similar, as other editors have noted, and your assertions that you are right and others are wrong is not an argument. If you continue to insult editors the way you have been carrying on, you will be blocked. Isarig 00:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a breath everyone. No one is right or wrong. However, inclusion of the "Piss Christ" link is really stretching on what is relevant to the article. Jumping cheese 02:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That's your POV, and I respect it - but realize that that's all it is - your POV. Just asserting that the link is "really stretching" what is relevant to the article is no better than csloat's assertion that he's right and everybody else is wrong (or as he politely puts it not "in their right mind"). Isarig 02:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That is your POV, Isarig. Stop threatening me -- it is entirely uncivil of you. Unfortunately for you, your POV is incorrect. These two things have nothing to do with each other, and your continual assertion that they do is neither persuasive nor helpful. If you are incapable of writing a paragraph that states in a NPOV manner what the direct link is between these two unrelated things, and supporting that direct link with a direct reference to a WP:RS (not just some opinion piece that happens to mention the reactions to the two events, but something directly linking them in categorical terms), you are engaged in WP:NOR. If we need to take this to RfC it's fine by me. As I've stated, the link you're asserting is ridiculous. csloat 03:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

POV NPOV...we sound like nerds. =)
Anyways, look at what article link to the "Piss Christ" page. Not really pages that are related to "Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005". Jumping cheese 03:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Among the previously unreported cases, sources tell NEWSWEEK: interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet and led a detainee around with a collar and dog leash.