Jump to content

Talk:Dove World Outreach Center Quran-burning controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.225.23.211 (talk) at 12:06, 11 September 2010 (→‎This paragraph makes absolutely no sense: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Name

Proposal for a new article heading: International Burn a Qur'an Day Controversy. Peaceworld111 (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with a name change or your proposal in particular. __meco (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed rename it to mention controversy and use the Qur'an spelling, although Koran is a better spelling in my opinion, wiki uses Qur'an so we should. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another proposed name was just presented in the AfD discussion: 2010 Florida Qur'an-burning controversy. I like that one and I'm pretty sure it would assuage many of the people who are opposed to the article partly because the name it currently has would tend to give authority to the name which Pastor Jones and his group has chosen for the event. __meco (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not think the name matters and do not think it will be a factor in the AfD, most of the content I see is to merge the content back into Dove World Outreach Center or keep it as it's own article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name change (2010 Florida Qur'an-burning controversy) seems like a good idea. Should this nasty business become an annual event then it could be considered as a 'day', rather than a controversy, but it's the controversy that's notable at the moment. Soupy sautoy (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on AfD, please consider that the spelling on Jones's now worldwide-known trailer is the one used for the article now. So, although the article on the book has a different spelling, it might stay the same. (Cf. also sometimes transliterated as Quran, Kuran, Koran, from: Qur'an, so no inadequate spelling.) Just a thought FlammingoHey 18:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that 2010 Florida Qur'an-burning controversy is much better choice and might solve issues than many editors have with the current name. --Kmhkmh (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed i suggest making that change soon. It sounds as though the guy is going to make a statement cancelling it so this article will need to be named about the controversy. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with 2010 Florida Qur'an-burning controversy - the name shouldn't be whatever Jones came up with, but should be more descriptive.--A bit iffy (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah...I now see it's been called off. So...perhaps the article should be named 2010 Florida proposed Qur'an-burning controversy (though that is a bit long).--A bit iffy (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article to 2010 Florida Qur'an-burning controversy per this discussion and WP:Bold. Further changes can be still discussed. I would appreciate if somebody could go ahead now and change the lead section accordingly. IQinn (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of any of this highly complicated name change? Is the original title based on what the church calls it in any way complicated or ambiguous? Is there supposed to be Florida-based Koran-burnings in 2011 or 2012 that we currently need to disambiguate from? Does anyone outside of Wikipedia actually use this name?

Peter Isotalo 23:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good call IQinn. The previous name suggested an established international event. Nightw 05:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try that again: why has name of the article been changed from something that is widely recognized (outside of Wikipedia) to an artificial title that is considerably longer and more complicated? What was wrong with the popularly-known title? And why, if any of this is necessary, is "2010" in there?
Peter Isotalo 11:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why "Florida"? The great majority of Florida had nothing to do with this. Ditto for Gainesville. Why not Dove church Qur'an-burning controversy, or similar? -- Hoary (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because most casual readers will not remember the name of the church, only that it was an outfit located in Florida. __meco (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

President Obamas comments

Even the president has given extensive comments on the matter in an interview for Goodmorning America. [1] BritishWatcher (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've used your link and added Obama's statements to the article. __meco (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But not exactly. You wrote, "for burning books," but President Obama actually said, "for public burning." The full paragraph from the story is "The U.S. leader said the situation was frustrating but there was little that could be done according to the law to confront the minister, other than citing him under local measures against public burning. "My understanding is that he can be cited for public burning," Obama said. "But that's the extent of the laws that we have available to us."" http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE68820G20100909?sp=true The ordinance referred to by the Gainesville city fire chief makes fires within city limits illegal without a permit, and Jones stated that that statement was "just politics." The significance of the difference is that there is no specific city law against burning holy texts or even ordinary books. However, I will leave it to others to make an actual edit if you agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.25.164 (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC) President Obama also said, ""The idea that we would burn the sacred text of someone else's religion is contrary to what this nation stands for, contrary to what this nation was founded on," he said. "My hope is that this individual prays on it and refrains from doing it." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11265335 This echoed a statement on September 8 by evangelist Franklin Graham “It’s never right to deface or destroy sacred texts or writings of other religions even if you don’t agree with them,” Mr. Graham said. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/us/09brfs-ANOTHERVOICE_BRF.html?ref=terry_jones_pastor as well as this statement "The leader of the world’s Anglicans, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, also added his voice to the condemnation. In a message to mark the end of the holy month of Ramadan, he said “the threat to desecrate scriptures is deeply deplorable and to be strongly condemned by all people.”" http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/world/10react.html?ref=terry_jones_pastor&pagewanted=all . In a BBC article, it is pointed out that the US First Amendment rights protect burning texts considered sacred, unless they are deliberate hate crimes directed against persons (even though the FBI visited Jones to advise against the burning) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11254419. However, in a news conference September 9 televised locally, Jones said (I can't find a transcript) that the US military had burned Bibles in Afghanistan to prevent them from being given to Afghans. (There has been no discussion I can find to this incident of burning sacred texts.) Links to the CNN report about this incident don't work now, but perhaps Jones read the report here: http://www.worthynews.com/5740-outrage-over-us-military-bible-burnings-in-afghanistan . According to that report, the Bibles were burned instead of being returned to the donating church (and so just sent back by other means) because the military did not wish the conflict to be seen as Christians against Islam in general, and that there were regulations against US soldiers proselytizing. In this case, it is not clear whether Jones intended revenge, or just to make a statement that others did not consider burning the Bible to be deplorable, but that he did. If this can be documented, it should be added to the article, as major news media apparently have ignored reporting it.[reply]

Furthermore, a section should then be added to detail motives and reasons Jones has given for his actions at various times, quoting him directly, instead of reporting on others' speculations, such as that he is "crazy," in need of money, a publicity hound, or that there is no religious motive behind them, but that Christianity and Islam are both non-violent and it is only extremists to blame for conflicts. For example, it should be made clear the chronology of Jones stating that the Koran was "wrong," that it was later refuted by the Bible, that it was "evil," and only later connected to the mosque in New York. At the same time, it might be well to note that the protests in Afghanistan against the burning may well have been also in response to Merkel's honoring of the freedom of speech enjoyed by the Danish cartoonist, linked to the Koran burning as intolerant, by Muslims who might not honor such tolerance themselves. As it is now, the article is confusing, one-sided, and makes it very difficult to understand the underlying issues and needs more editing and documentation than I can provide now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.25.164 (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've made a minor correction with respect to the first point you raise about the mentioning of public burnings contra book burning. The rest of what you write is important and should be acted upon by editors of this article. For some reason I seam to be rather lonely in making substantive contributions to this article. Which is both strange and regrettable. I have limited opportunity to edit currently, so unless more people become willing to step up to the task of developing this article, these important issues may not be dealt with adequately in the short-term perspective. __meco (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Jones, pastor

This article has been created, but has no meaningful content (IMO), so I've been bold and redirected it here. However, some of the edits to it are a BLP minefield. Recommend it gets locked too. Lugnuts (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that opinion. Jones may very well, for all his past activities, be an individual that meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies and although the creator of the now redirected stub had failed to provide the necessary references to reliable sources, that doesn't mean a more earnest and qualified effort won't succeed in bringing about a biographical article which will stand against any AfD challenges sure to come. Sooner or later some major mainstream news outlet is going to profile him and then we will in any case have what we need to make the article stick. __meco (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
   Clearly you are unacquainted with the very fundamental and very well-established guideline Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event, in whose light that opinion is nonsensical and unresponsive to Lugnuts. TJ is for clearly notable, for now, only for one event (and, as Lugnuts appears to understand, an AfD proposal would be a red herring). No one is entitled to the presumption you seek, of a 2nd cause of notability (named or not); rather, lack of a second cause in the article creates a presumption of no more than one cause, pending evidence of an independent 2nd cause. If and when he becomes notable for something that doesn't fit smoothly into the accompanying article -- note coverage of additional info "in a profile" or backgrounder does not, as you seem to suggest, imply notability of other events mentioned there -- make a case at that time, here, as an argument for converting the currently needed Rdr back to a (new) article.
   Any form of protection would currently be premature, as the Rdr has been overwritten by an article only once. I'm restoring the Rdr (and merging any pertinent missing info) with links to this section. If an article gets recreated without convincing evidence of a 2nd source of notability, revert to the Rdr and at least copy any pertinent new info onto this talk page; if it happens repeatedly, state here why protection is needed, and if you stay unsatisfied, ask a specific admin (not me) for protection.
--Jerzy•t 21:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
   For anyone who's confused: by "this article", Lugnuts means not the accompanying article 2010 Florida Qur'an-burning controversy, but Terry Jones, pastor, which earlier today was appropriately renamed Terry Jones (pastor).
--Jerzy•t 21:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Bio-facts)

For Jones background, a Cape Girardeau (Missouri) history blog has an early history of Jones that mentions he was in the same graduating class as Rush Limbaugh... http://www.capecentralhigh.com/students/koran-burn-terry-jones-rush-limbaugh/. It has been referenced by USA Today, Huffington Post and a number of other news outlets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.141.95.20 (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   WP's verification standards are more stringent than theirs (bcz WP:NOT#JOURNALISM), and instead compiles verifiable established knowledge. If they offer no verifiable 2nd source, our prohibition of blogs applies notwithstanding their interest.
--Jerzy•t 21:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs an image

Anyone have an image of a burning quran we can add?--Otterathome (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. That hardly seems appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just as appropriate as having File:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png in Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.--Otterathome (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Getting worked up about pictures of Mohammad is far more silly than getting worked up by pictures of a burning religious book. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Eraserhead1; a picture of the pastor would be more appropriate. Saebvn (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone would have such an image... plus any book burning picture would due as you probably can't tell what exact book it was, but it still isn't needed here as the concept of a book burning being a book on fire is hopefully simple enough for people to figure out. but no, no image of any book on fire is needed here. Dayofswords (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. There is no such thing as an article needing "an image"; rather, sometimes an article has a weakness that can be remedied by a specific image. Images are part of WP's repertoire bcz some images (e.g. virtually all the many images at Diode bridge) convey relevant information that is inefficient to convey by other means. Aside from the completely obvious, an image of a public figure provides the means for a reader to form their own opinion about what kind of persona a particular person chooses to present to the public, and often a headshot provides some users quicker (and even more certain) confirmation about which Terry Jones's article they've reached. You can't grasp the crucial nuances of Guernica or the Danish cartoon without seeing the image, but i don't think i'm offending against AGF by attributing the existence of this section to at least one of shooting from the hip, unawareness of nuance, or global cluelessness.
--Jerzy•t 18:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Event canceled

US pastor Terry Jones cancels Koran burning --91.19.126.127 (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed this needs to be added although its cancelation is not as clear as originally thought as its been linked to the ground zero mosque being moved, something the organisers have denied will happen. Sadly this article needs to be seriously updated, its missing a lot of information. Of course if some of us did not have to waste our time on the silly AFD more time could have been spent adding to the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Forgive me if I edited this incorrectly, but I just wanted to ask the question, "what reason did my addition get so speedily removed?". We are dealing with a *very* hotly divisive topic, and somehow along the way, the CC feed was compromised. It painted a *very* bad pall against Muslims, and an even worse one for whomever actually tossed the "adolf hitler" comment into the feed. I'd included the inline citation to the explicit transcript, so there is at least one source for this, and my guess is that more will pop up as it becomes "newsworthy".

I'll not raise a fuss, but I figured it was just one more touchpoint for this very touchy topic. Thank you RennaissanceWarfare (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)RennaissanceWarfare[reply]

Seems like there is some confusion as to if the burning is actually canceled now, the guy seems to have thought that he had a promise the Muslim center would be moved from close to ground zero and has now been told that is not the case and he is being reported as reconsidering calling it back on, this is the basic problem with articles like this, we are not breaking news reporters. Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

looks like the event is on again Pastor says Quran-burning suspended, not canceled.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "suspended" is neither on nor off! It can be like being blocked "indefinitely" from editing WP, which just means that no automatic end date has been set.
--Jerzy•t 01:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 Dies In Afghan Protest Over Quran Burning

[2], [3], [4] Some more sources from a protest that i think has not been covered yet. IQinn (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done A new section has been added to the article using these sources for reference. __meco (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mystified

Why is there this tidal wave of public denunciation from inside the U.S.? My sense is that forum posters don't care or even support the protest, and strong expressions of opposition to Christianity have long been accepted. Practically every Koran sold to non-Muslims in this country is going to get desecrated one way or another - usually the reader is some undergraduate who's going to keep it propped open to the current page under his bed and get grease stains on it from his pork sausage pizza, before tossing it in the recycle bin at the end of the term to be reincarnated as toilet paper. I don't understand this official disconnect from reality. Wnt (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its through fear. One must not offend the religion of Islam. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the news networks are the s--t disturbers. Anways, this 'discussion' belongs at blogs. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright... now it gets weirder. Someone just burned a Koran for this event and put it up on YouTube.[5] But the media don't mention it. How do they decide whose Koran-burning matters and whose doesn't? Wnt (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see anything weird about this. Individual acts are selcomd newsworthy. People damage or disfigure copies of the Bible all the time. First, there is a distinction between an individual act, and a collective act. Second, there is a distinction between a privat act and a public act. Why would anyone expect individual private acts to ecome the objct of news attention? And why would anyone be surprised that a public collective act would atract a lof of atention?
And this act is especially newsworthy given that the US still has a large military presense in Iraq and is fighting a war in Afghanistan. The US's ability to conduct these wars depends on the support of Pakistan, the second most populous Muslim country, and Saudi Arabia, one of the most important Muslim countries. When George Bush origianlly condemned the 9/11 bombings, he made it clear that the terrorist attacks did not represent Islam but were the acvts of extremists, So for 9 years US foreign policy has depended on making it clear that the was is not against "Islam;" that Islam is not the enemy. This church was planing a collective, public act that is meant either to suggst that Islam has all along been the enemy, o to make Islam the enemy. Either way it contradicts an undermines US forein policy at a particularly disfficult time (US withdrawl of combat troops from Iraq). As Petreus has made clear, the book burning would endanger US troops. Surely he is not excusing anyone who fires on US troops. Acts can have multiple causes. He certainly is saying that the members of this church would bear some responsibility. And they know it. They know that making the efort to burn copies of the Koran will endanger the lives of US soldiers. So this is among other things an act of violence against US troops. That a bunch of Americans would do ANYTHING that endangers the lives of US soldiers is very much newsworthy. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're in the age of YouTube & Reality TV, therefore nothing is surprising or weird. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media Coverage Controversy?

It seems like at this point there is enough discussion of this in the media to merit a mention here. The point being raised is whether the extensive media coverage given to the event in fact exacerbated the situation by enabling a small local event to turn into an international controversy. Various media organizations appear to be addressing this - the New York Times has an article discussing it, some TV networks have said they wouldn't show visuals of the Koran burning, etc. It would be great if someone could write this up into something coherent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.193.54 (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is basically how it works, it's happened with hundreds of other stories. it's a Streisand effect-like thing, minus the censorship. it happened to octo-mom, balloon boy, etc. and i assume there is a term for it (exponential attention via media?). it just happens and should probably be in Mass media than here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayofswords (talk • contribs) 01:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done and be WP:Bold to add more. add the link to the streisand effect if you feel its related.Lihaas (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As "a term for ... exponential attention via media", i assume you mean what used to be quaintly (but precisely) called "exponentially growing attention", and i'd suggest "media feeding frenzy".
--Jerzy•t 06:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Florida"

Why is this called the "Florida" Qur'an-burning controversy, as if the state of Florida has some part in it? --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't 'Florida' or the now 'United States' simply be dropped from the title? Location has nothing to do with it as we can see it is an world wide event. 24.74.125.30 (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Id agree with dropping Florida. This is clearly the only notable Qur'an burning controversy in 2010 so far. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but where it occurs matters. If it occurs in Israel, France, or Florida, it matters. Florida National Guard units are currently in Afghanistan. Now, for all we know most states oppose the burning, and most states's oldiers oppose the burning. Maybe even most people in Florida ar opposed. But where this occurs matters. It is notable that the people who wish to burn the Joran are not New Yorkers, and the fact that it is being burned in Florida (as opposed to say Brazil or S. Africa) will likely have consequences for soldiers in Afghanistan. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you support the insert of Florida so that Muslims can correctly identify which soldiers to kill? --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
wow what a strange comment. The fact Florida National Guard units are currently in Afghanistan is all the more reason to remove Florida from the title which im glad to see has been done. This is a global controversy, the actual place the book burning is going to take place really is pretty irrelevant for the title. September 11 attacks for example makes no mention of the USA. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
few things. 1. how does removing "Florida" from the title protect anyone when Florida is the 20th-ish word, not that hard to find out.... 2. the sept 11 attacks page has United States as the 20th-ish word too. 3. William S. Saturn, thats a straw man agrument, so it's not valid... while i feel florida in the title doesnt add to and and shouldnt be there, the whole protection thing(or Security through obscurity as it seems to be) is not a logical concern. Dayofswords (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question I asked above is exactly how I interpreted Slrubenstein's comments. There is no argument being made, just a request for clarification.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biography of Terry Jones

I've merged the article here for now, as someone decided to get his blanked version of Terry Jones (pastor) protected (rather than go thru the normal WP:AfD process). I still think there's enough for an independent article. -- Kendrick7talk 21:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It would be ideal for organizational purposes to create the separate article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kendrick7, you are lying now, That is not what happened as several Two admins have stated that is not what happened. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not call other editors liars.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPADE Allows me to be frank when some one is well aware of such facts. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, User:Weaponbb7 is in violation of the policy WP:CIV, from which SPADE would not protect them even if SPADE were a guideline, rather than just some editor's personal essay: its nutshell version is
This page in a nutshell: It's okay to call a spade a spade – to speak plainly – but remember to remain civil, and to stay focused on improving the encyclopedia.
--Jerzy•t 22:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the guy is cleary now notable enough for his own Biography page. He has got more media attention these past few days than many with articles get in their entire lives. BritishWatcher (talk)
Wikipedia admins have protected the page to prevent WP:BLP issues Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That ignores what it takes to get a bio article: no matter the volume of attention, individuals do not attain WP:notability in a single event, which this still is.
--Jerzy•t 22:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There has been enough biographical reporting about terry jones in reputable surces which is not related to the koran issue, i.e. we have what it takes to write biography. Having biographies for people who are mainly notable only for a single event is not that uncommon in WP as long as the event is important enough and there is enough biographical material available, which goes beyond that single event.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The concern was BLP policy trumps the Guideline of WP:NOTE as anyone who works the "Folk devil" articles as It will almost be impossible to write a NPOV BLP. The BLP issues are massive. Consideirng the Version that was changed to a redirect contained my count of 3 BLP violations though all perfectly verifiable should be cautionary to anyone. The person is not independently notable yet outside this event Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no BLP issue if you write a biography based on reputable sources. The potential that people might abuse the article for POV-pushing or slander is of course possible maybe even likely, but that is true for any (existing) biography of notable "notorious" living people. In other words is no argument for not writing a biography but just that it will have to watched like all those other biographies. If can only merge the biography into the event article if there is not a lot of additional biographical information separate from the single notable event and as i said before we already have enough (npov) biographical material not being tied to that event. More over Terry Jones already managed that his one single event is turning already into several, since he has tied his name to the "ground zero mosque"-controvery as well. I really don't see how WP can treat the overall situation adequately without providing a biography.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to do the merge, or rather overwrite with a Rdr to the accompanying article, after making clear above at #Terry Jones, pastor why it must be an Rdr and AfD would be a pointless exercise.
--Jerzy•t 22:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree; he is notable enough, and the info would be better in a seperate article. -download ׀ sign! 02:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Jones belongs in a separate biographic article. There has been enough biographical material published about him by now.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NAME: 2010 United States Qur'an-burning controversy

I propose 2010 United States Qur'an-burning controversy. it's the most accurate and clear. These are only being burned or threatened by Americans in the United States. Truth And Relative Dissention In Space (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That user did "21:31, 10 September 2010 (moved 2010 Qur'an-burning controversy to 2010 United States Qur'an-burning controversy over redirect: They are only being burned in the United States. This title is more accurate and encyclopediac.)"
Oppose- where, other than the United States were there any similar notable Qur'an burning controversies in 2010?--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. That level of precision is unnecessary. I've moved it back. If further incidents of Qur'an burning occur we can worry about precision then. TFOWR 22:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user did "22:11, 10 September 2010 ... (moved 2010 United States Qur'an-burning controversy to 2010 Qur'an-burning controversy over redirect: No need for that level of precision)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzy (talk • contribs)
      • Indeed, hence my comment "I moved it back". In addition to the linked reason given, I take the view that moving it while a discussion was ongoing was entirely inappropriate. (I also take the view that the current title is poor, but that's by-the-by). TFOWR 23:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed. The controversial issue has gone global- [6]. As such, it need not be assigned an arbitrary national value.

Comment: As noted above, I've moved the article back to "2010 Qur'an-burning controversy". I've done this without prejudice to any future move (indeed, I take no strong view on the article's title) because:

  • I regard it as inappropriate to move the article while a move discussion in ongoing;
  • there's no immediate need to disambiguate, so no need to move until the discussion is resolved;
  • and there is apparent strong consensus for this title.

I'm conscious that I am effectively wheel-warring with another admin, for which I apologise, and note that I have no objection to any admin action I take being over-turned should they feel it is appropriate. As regards the move, I'd suggest that if there is a feeling that the article should be moved, then that should be handled through Wikipedia:Requested moves. TFOWR 00:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

move to International Burn a Koran Day dont know why this was moved to "2010 burning controversy" instead of the proper name of "International Burn a Koran Day" Everybody Draw Mohammed Day was not removed or renames to "Mohammed drawing controversy day" and wikipedia is not here to create news. the event is called as such and should belisted as such.Lihaas (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DWIP, I already stated in then article, that the title leads to misguide, and such as you're comparing titles, I 'm comparing the independence day with this title. The difference is, that the independence day is an official day, which is recognized by the state, constitution while on the other hand "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" is an artificially created day by small group of people in facebook. Userpd (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
whos disrupting wikipedia to illustrate a point. if "Everybody draw..." is an "articifially created day by a small group" then one can easily say the same as this. I dont understand what you said about independence day, but the putting "international" in the title is not misguidign anything because it is the proper noun term as established that created this controversy. In that case the drawing Muhammed days could be entitled" 2010 Muhammed controversy" or somethign of the sort.Lihaas (talk) 09:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE from Dove World Outreach Center

A "mergeto" tag was placed on Dove World Outreach Center, with a discussion link pointing here. So I put a "mergefrom" tag on this article and created this section for discussion. I am personally neutral, but I note that a significant number of responses to this article's AfD supported a merge of some sort. My feeling is that the controversy is notable but the DWOC isn't, gaining notoriety only by association with the controversy, so it would probably be best to merge that here, rather than merge anything there. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oppose the 2 are vastly different. This was one such publicity stunt for a 50 man church, and there have been others. God knows therell probably be more. at any rate, the church probably does other things to apart from this. (soup kitchens? prayer fests?)Lihaas (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge'. "Too big" to fit? Look around, there are a lot of encyclopedic articles that are big enough. Besides, Dove World Outreach Center has become famous purely with thanks to this exact controversy. So merge, and put redirection. Userpd (talk) 09:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - The Dove world outreach center clearly has some other issues although not as notable as this incident. Best to keep the separate article there, and put the biography of the pastor on that page rather than here. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Dove World Outreach Center, and shorten. Lists of which people have protested the stunt, along with direct quotations of what they said, is newspaper material and can be condensed into a few paragraphs. The story about a small congregation making a row has already received far more attention than it deserves in the media. I do not buy the argument that Wikipedia is compelled to follow the hype just because the hype produces abundant source material; Wikipedia makes its own decisions on what it covers. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - Per BritishWatcher - Both articles seem WP:NOTABLE enough to stand on their own. NickCT (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canceled

CNN - Breaking news: Pastor Terry Jones says plans to burn Quran canceled: "We will definitely not burn the Quran... not today, not ever." 212.23.105.176 (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph makes absolutely no sense

Protests have ensued against the church in places such as Indonesia.[33] However, when death threats directed against Jones were mailed to The Gainesville Sun in a letter postmarked from Johnstown, Pa.,[34] the American Muslim Association of North America issued a statement signed by 15 imams including Ahmed Al Mehdawi of the Islamic Center of Gainesville condemning the death threats.[35]

3 different things going on (Indonesian protests, death threats mailed from a town, and 15 imams writing that letter)

1 what do Indonesian protests have to do with the rest of this paragraph?

2 why does line 2 begin with however, when the sentence has nothing to do with the previous one.

3. why would the AMA of North American issue a statement of response when all it says was the the town a letter had been sent to, never connecting with the AMA

4 how are any of these 3 stories even remotely related?

Seriously, this is LAUGHABLE

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dove_World_Outreach_Center_Quran-burning_controversy&oldid=384187395"