Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:06, 24 June 2005

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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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 (3/4/0)

Rename:

1. csloat
2. kizzle
3. 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:

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)

Relevance and neutrality

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

Mention

1. Ed Poor

Omit

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

Neutral/undecided

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)

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."