Talk:2005 Quran desecration controversy/Archive 2

Vote on article scope

I'm calling BS on these votes.

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

• csloat

Vote as many times as you like (feel free to add extra ballot items). Put other people's names where you think they belong - but once they confirm their vote, don't move it, of course!

Only one article about specific reported recent incidents of Koran desecration, strictly limited to those attributed to the US military and its contractors

• ToyToy
• Brandon
• csloat

And that should be the only article: no seperate article on detainees abusing the Koran

• ToyToy

Wikipedia should have an article on specific incidents of Koran desecration which is not limited to US military, i.e., includes detainees, etc.

• fizzle, uh you mean kizzle 18:17, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) ?
• csloat

But only if it's not prominent (i.e., must be excluded from introductory paragraphs

• Oppose: -- Uncle Ed (talk)

Desecration done by detainees can be in any article about Koran desecration

• Agree: -- Uncle Ed (talk)

We can split Koran desecration articles into one devoted to US personnel accused of it, and another focussing on detainees doing it

• Agree: -- Uncle Ed (talk)

Vote on article POV

Wikipedia should endorse the POV that Koran abuse by captors is worse than abuse by detainees

• Oppose: This is such an obvious violation of NPOV policy that 100-0 in favor would not justify it. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:10, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

Discussion of vote

Must voting be logical?

If someone votes in mutually exclusive categories, does this mean they don't care which ballot item gets picked? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:53, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Should voting be used to make a point?

I can't find it now but I believe that Wikipedia has a category of vandalism/POV-pushing that involves creating Wikipedia entries just to make a point. I feel that this is what Ed is now doing with the voting. Is that just my personal POV here or do others feel the same way?csloat 17:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In other words, you refuse to vote? Then I suppose it's okay for the rest of us to ignore your wishes.

It's hilarious: first you guys profess to be upset because I ignore consensus, but then when I announce a poll to discover the consensus you boycott it. Sounds like you just want to have it all your own way, regardless of what site policy is. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:10, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)