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)

The sentence most likely wasn't ever intended to explain why the books were burned; rather, why their burning was popularly perceived as "desecration" instead of "disposal" by those in the region. That's my take on it, at least, and assuming this inference is correct then the assertion would qualify as expository rather than accusatory.   — C M B J   05:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

hello! explain imediately how america invaded Afghanistan is opinion!!!138.217.148.97 (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, I have no opinion on the matter. I apologize if I have given the impression I am for or against anyone or any side. Some guy (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes or no, you said america invaded Afghanistan was opinion? If yes, are you trying to stir up hatred, yes or no?138.217.148.97 (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You are trying to stir up a politicl discussion. My original point was that this is not a place for political discussion. I have no interest in stirring up hatred, and in fact was trying to prevent hate-driven discussion from occuring. I have reverted several anti-Muslim attacks on the article and talk page. Some guy (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have now seen those, thankyou. You can understand my anger and misreading of what you said up there. This is not a joke or something to be talked about in a blase tone to so many people, the war and the desecration of our religon. Thankyou for understanding =) Also don't you dare accuse me of trying to stir up a political discussion138.217.148.97 (talk) 09:27, 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)

no, a protest is where you protest something, in this case the act of burning the qurans were protested.Lihaas (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

These were nationwide protests or demonstrations that turned into riots in which people began attacking government institutions and military bases. Thirty or more people died and 200 or so were injured and wounded. Lihaas is wrong here. By what standard these were not violent, Afghan? Watch these videos and decide for yourself if they were violent or not. In almost all areas of Afghanistan there were reports of casualties.--TAzimi (talk) 01:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I never mentioned anything about it not being violent. please re-read the above, i said in response to a query about protests that these are protests. even if VIOLENT protests, its still a protest.Lihaas (talk) 03:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Tags

the globalise and too few opinion tag has no reason. Not sure how to globalise since it already includes afghan and american reactions (the 2 counterparties). As for the latter, its even more vague cause we cant invent opinions. Im removing it pending explanation. (as the tags say "see talk page" and theres nothing here)Lihaas (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Reaction list note

there was consensus on one of the reactions pages a whileback (which i did not agree to (so im not pushing anything) but agreed it made sense) that non-govt official reactions include an * and multiple govt reactions are led by a :Lihaas (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced/unexplained OR

[1] titles dont go by strory lines, they are brief. ISAF is the umblrella organisation running the institutions. [2]. Its deceptive synthesis to attribute all to americans because bagram is run by ISAF with other nationalisities and ther is no evidence as who is responsible here. [3] Redundant, by precedence and otherwise. [4] unsourced readdition [5] unsourced ORLihaas (talk) 03:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edits, you don't own this article. Just add citation needed tags or type the claim in search. ISAF does not include all US soldiers in Afghanistan. Only about half of them are in ISAF, the other half are independent. The Bagram Airfield is run and controlled by US forces. Your problem is that you are labelling all US forces as ISAF which is incorrect. I'm very familiar with these things.--TAzimi (talk) 03:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Its not ownership to explain dubious additions and that to on an ITN page. Youve been warned before! Then cite what you say! otherwise its OR. Plenty of RS sources (vs. WP editors' opinions) say that forces at Bagram are NOT only US soldiers. (as our poorly sourced article on bagram states) till you have a source its OR! There is no source saying the burnings occurred at the hand of US soldies. Cite some other words then..."coalition forces as part of OEF"? Reverting tme and again after warnings without any explanation is not AGF! and read MOS. Furthermore i have duly explained everythign which you dint do to revert again. THERE are also other edits of yours that have been reverted by others such wikilinking and pov statements of speculation cited as quoted turuth, then there was a blind revert of everthing based on a few issues. (i explained each)

The source on the background section says: "The protests began after NATO troops recently burned Qurans " if you have any source that says it was specfically US troops then cite that. Its also a potential BLP violation to synthesise who burnt.

for the record: blind/unexplained revert, good remove of OR but synthesis of who is quoted per the source, good source and kept, npov loaded term, OR US allegation NOT in source and Allen's command of ISAF superceded that of the US, especially when theres no affirmation of US involvementLihaas (talk) 07:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What is dubious addition? It is well established that Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan was re-built and RUN by the United States military since 2001, it DOESN'T matter if some other NATO forces use it or visit the place. It is your job to find sources that prove otherwise. I don't no why this means so much to you. Some news reports may wrongly mention NATO because they don't know the details. In all the news reports not one of them mention of any other country besides the United States being involved in the Quran burning. Just because I'm a new editor doesn't mean that you can bully me around with bogus warnings on my talk, stop acting as if you are superior and you own the article. Your edits are POV and OR by trying to blame other NATO members for the action that was done by US soldiers. Thereofore, I must revert your nonsense.--TAzimi (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If that is well established then you should have a source to indicate so. It DOES matter if there is no source because it accuses US personnel when they may welll have nothing to do with it!. News reports may wrongly mention but they are RS as opposed to 00you or me! Find a report saying the US was responsible for the burning?! and sstop accusing per NPA! im asking you to read MOS as a new editor NOT accusing, because your edits like that of the subject title is not in accordance! is nots a storyline. I will not war with you...i will discuss in due course and in 24 hours if you expect your OWNed version to stand without discussion of the issues ive discussed (youve still only discussed one issue and reverted all) you will be reported and blocked!

Reasons: not MOS, and NON VIOLENT riots?ignoring accomodation on ISAF adding redundant double and "young afghan"? vague/pov when the protester quoted is 60sourced removal with reinsertion of unsourcd previous removed OR of pakistani accusation ?(though unexplained removal and dodgy) then other removal of tags without reason as OR (with editor history)legitimate but WTF afer his addition of US personnellegitimate, should be remove too\good editmispelled and ISAF ignored comment without discussion or reasonWTF?Lihaas (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Everything I added is properly sourced and if you find a minor mistake like the one with the age of the protester, JUST CORRECT IT like the other good faith editors. This is not something to whine about. But, looking at what you type, it shows that you are here for only one thing and that is POV-pushing and to get other editors blocked just because they oppose your POV-filled edits. I'm from Afghanistan and I'm very familiar with the foreign soldiers in my country, I know where each NATO country controls. Bagram is an American-built air base and an American-controlled territory. As of now, ALL sources seem to indicate that ONLY Americans (not other NATO soldiers) were involved in this Koran burning act and ONLY American soldiers (not any other NATO soldiers) were killed, and ONLY American officials apologized for it. Do you even bother to read these sources? Take a look at this one Afghan Protests Over the Burning of Korans at a U.S. Base Escalate by the New York Times, which states: "... preliminary investigation showed that "American soldiers had burned four copies of the Holy Koran"... The Koran-burning episode offered support for Mr. Karzai's argument that the Afghan government should take over the American-run detention center in Parwan, where more than 3,000 suspected insurgents are housed... " If you're not familiar with the topic I suggest you go find another article to edit. Thanks.--TAzimi (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

When you have Americans (non-Afghans) working inside Afghanistan's government ministry it must be written as "2 Americans working inside the Afghan Ministry of Interior", any other way is confusing to the general readers.--TAzimi (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

@Lihass, dude, #1 is supported by the source. #2 is explicity supported by the source. The actual article refers to the base as a US-base at least two times, not an ISAF base. Calling it anything else is not supported by the source, so US base is correct. #3, adds in one word only, it's more precise in that fashion. #4, your absolutely right, the source dosen't support that Karzai was "saddened" or any other remarks from his spokesman(spokesperson) and finally, #5, yep, that's completely unsourced and sh ould be removed.

@-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 17:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

your resort to NPA accusations is not helping you.

You have also elucidated your COI which doesnt help, especially when the excesses are unsourced and claimed as factual.

To your 1-issue at hand: ALL the sources do NOT say ONLY americans were involved. ONLY americans were not killed, so were Afghans. As soldiers yes it is but that doesnt mean theyre responsible. ONLY american apologies is correct though and was never an issue. The source cited said what i quoted. Further the "american-run" does NOT equate to American ONLY presence of all activities. See hthis rightfull edit "nothing is clear without a source"

No idea what you are talking about on the govt ministry, please clarify.

And for the nth time learn WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA n addition t WP:MOS

Further: a protester is not notable whatever his age isgood and sourcedto REPEAT - what is a non-violent riot?redundant as explained and "protests" is better than "protesting" because it mentions nothing to do with those doing the actionvague + inconsistent use of US and american, also "Mahmood Khan" no mentioned as MP, source only says he is a rep, not whether MP or provincial/regional -- use edit summaries, especially for controversial edits

@Kosh: 1. which part? ISAF? the subject title was not mos. if former then okey. 2. deceptive though...how about "US-run ISAF..." but either way. also that source also says Allen is NATO (ie- ISAF) commander. 4. Its implicit that the interior min in Afghanistan is Afghan. 4/5. agreed.

@TAzimi: if 4 is sourced to that site then CITE it...its completely OR otherwise. we can tag it with "better source" in the interim but at least theres somethingLihaas (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is based on what RSs say, not based on truth. If all sources say Bagram is US air base then we report it as US base, NOT ISAF base because I've never heard such thing before.--TAzimi (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Umm, read the article on bagram if youve "never heard that" OTHER personnel were/are present

and if you have a source then by ALL means change itLihaas (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you guys that notability applies to articles, not article contents. Please stop removing sourced information from reliable sources, such as the statement by the protestor. I'm not editing it back in, I don't want to get involved in an edit war, someone else do it. — MK (^t/_c) 00:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)