Talk:2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests

NGOs

NGOs are non-governmental organisation not good/bad, agreeable/disagreeable or profit/non-profit. In that vein the organisation is a NGO instead of the vague "others" which could include ALL reactions. Of course if there is a psecific word (like on som epage that have MNC's, etc) then we can use that, but not sure which fits in. People maybe tempted to use WTA but thats the perspective/povLihaas (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

First, learn to type. Second, watch your rude edit summaries. Third, since the taliban has functioned as the Afghan government, they are not an NGO, it's a mischaracterization and shows ignorance on your part.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly comment on CONTENT do not resort to NPA. Secondl a nongovernmental organisation is one which is NOT in government or recognised as such (which recognises hem as such). Shows "ignorance" Secondly this was on discussion and ignored yet reverted so consensus firs then revert! (vs. allegeing RUDE summaries, NPAS are not polite)

Alternatively we can merge them to domestic. shoul dbe a better accomodation. Ill do thatLihaas (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Where is the specific copyright violation, so we can remove it? ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 22:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The tag has since been removed. There were multiple copvios throughout the article. I think most were removed. -- Luke (Talk) 01:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Reason

Is there a known reason why the Qurans were burned? It would be nice if this was covered in the article. Some guy (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The page on Quran desecration says that burning is a proper method of disposal. Yet this page says that burning = Quran desecration. Something is not being fully explained here. I would appreciate it if this were fixed by someone who knows what they are talking about. 210.168.252.236 (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, as a member of the Islamic faith I can help you here. You see, it is alright for a Muslim to burn a copy of the Quran, ONLY IF necesary, for example, it it a tattered and worn copy or it contains errors or mistakes. However, this must be done within accordance to Islamic principles. No Kafir may harm a Quran in any way, be it physical or spiritual or verbal. Also America invaded, so you can clearly see why the Afghan people feel racially violated and are so angry, this is completely understandable. Hope this helps138.217.148.97 (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. However, please be very careful with your wording, this is not a place to discuss politics, and statements such as your second to last sentence can lead to heated arguments. Wikipedia is not a soap box. Some guy (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing here but a pertinent editorial question and a reasonable response with supporting information. False positive for soapboxing?   — C M B J   13:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, no soapboxing, a question was answered, but it shoul dbe at the refdesk.Lihaas (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Can't even so much say that it necessarily should be at the refdesk, since it's about ambiguous content that can evidently construe itself as contradictory to other articles.   — C M B J   23:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

What the above editor has stated is not soapboxing. Some Guy, are you still around? Come back and place your Soapboxing comments on the latest bit of mouthing off by an American, expletives and all! See Obummer apologizing immediately below. Amandajm (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The "America invaded" sentence has nothing to do with the queston of why the books were burned, so it is not supporting information, it's merely giving an opinion, and with sensitive topics such as this can lead to arguments, and in fact sparked a hate-based anti-Muslim response which I deleted. Let me be clear I have no opinion either way on the subject, I'd just like to prevent racially-motivated disagreements. Some guy (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Changes to introduction

I have changed the introduction to a more encyclopedic form that states what the topic is, not someone's perception of what the cause was.

The statement that the protests were "caused" by the burning of the Quran is not accurate, in terms of "cause and effect". It is not the burning itself that was the cause. The cause is the strong feelings that have been generated as a result of the perception that this act comprises "desecration". It is fairly plain that the act was not intended to be a desecration. It is also clear that the US official who ordered the destruction of these books should have been aware of the offence that was implied in the action.

In response to the explanation given above re the "appropriate disposal of Qurans" it appears that if there had been agreement that these particular volumes were "desecrated" by the addition of inflammatory material, and if it was agreed that the use of these particular volumes to communicate messages not compatible (in the eyes of local religious leaders) with the teachings of the Quran, then these books could, in fact, have been burnt by any Muslim person who was employed to do it, and who performed the burning in a manner deemed appropriate by local or religious custom.

The questions are:

• In the Islamic view, had these volumes already been desecrated by the additions that had been made to them for an inappropriate an inflammatory purpose?
• In the Islamic view, was the defacing of the Qurans with political intent, an offence? (It can hardly be argued that it was done in ignorance of Islamic practice)
• In the Islamic view, was the destruction of the Qurans, in fact, appropriate, in the light of their desecration by the additions, but inappropriately carried out?
• In the Islamic view, would the destruction have been deemed appropriate, if appropriately performed?
• In the Islamic view, was this "desecration" by burning committed as a deliberate offence, or was it done in ignorance of Islamic practice?

I also must ask: how is it possible that people working in the US intelligence in Afghanistan, who are presumably responsible for investigating whatever communication was in these particular volumes, could be so ignorant of Islamic custom regarding Desecration of the Quran?

Amandajm (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Again on the topic of soapboxing, this is not the proper place to debate what US personel "should have been" aware of. The purpose of the article is to convey well-sourced factual information to the reader. Without direct statements from notable experts on Islamic culture/religion, we can't answer these questions in the article, and the talk page would not be an appropriate place to debate them. Some guy (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There are two sources in the article addressing this, and probably more will be forthcoming over the next few days. — MK (^t/_c) 02:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Protest??

In the title it says 2012 Afghanistan Quran Burning Protests, however, these are not protests but demonstrations. A protest is where you attempt to stop something from happening or something that has already happened. ETC, a government bringing in a new law that people don't like.

This is a demonstration, where people are actively pursuing justice to those US troops that burned the Quran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.192.240 (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)