Talk:Dove World Outreach Center Quran-burning controversy/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

About 5:54 minutes into this 8:53 Youtube video.
Westboro Baptist Church Burns the Koran (Quran) and American Flag on Anniversary of 9/11/01
205.189.194.208 (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

They describe Terry Jones as a false prophet here.205.189.194.208 (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. I'm pretty sure this video was posted before September 11, and Phelps said that he'd already burned a Koran. I still haven't seen any coverage of whether he burned the flag and Koran on 12 noon 9/11 as promised. Maybe all the reporters really did stay home. No, wait, I just ran the search again, and, ta-da! [1] I guess it's time for another edit. Wnt (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

From that article:

"The fool in Florida one-upped them," Bunten said, referring to the Rev. Terry Jones, of the Dove Outreach Center church in Gainesville, Fla. "They were apparently tagging along on his idea, so the fellow in Florida had stolen the stage, so to speak."

The mayor said Westboro Baptist events are "kind of old hat now." [...]

"I thought it was awesome," Shirley Phelps-Roper said afterward. "It was another 14 on a scale of 10." [...]

Phelps-Roper questioned those who believed the church's event was being ignored, based on e-mail messages it had been receiving and the amount of online traffic it was generating.

"We get e-mails when things are happening here," she said. "We've had just a huge upsurge in e-mails. Plus, it's all over the Internet. It's all over Twitter." [...]

(my link, my emphasis) Yes, I suppose Wikipedia is duty-bound to help slake Fred's daughter's thirst for publicity. -- Hoary (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As screwed up as they are, the Westboro Baptist Church has become a well-recognized pawn in American free speech debates - they're right up there with Larry Flynt and the Ku Klux Klan when it comes to legal debates, I think. Wnt (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The folks at RW here seemed underwhelmed. It didn't seem public and indeed could have happened anytime anywhere. "Shirley Phelps-Roper?" Doesn't seem that the WBC has a problem with hyphenated names. As for Larry Flynt, he took a bullet for the cause of free speech. Phelps picks soft targets.206.130.174.42 (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It's really not a surprise from WBC, the entire world knows how crazy and hateful they are, so them burning the Qur'an isn't surprising... Dayofswords (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The page url is linked as "International Burn a Koran Day" The title of the page is "2010 Qur'an-burning controversy" It seems there is a bit of a discrepancy there.

Since the article talks about the Qur'ra'ran controversy, perhaps the URL should be changed as well?

I propose "In 2010 Holy Qur'ar'an descreated by American devil infidels"

Meishern (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

...

Have you seen

this core policy? –xeno^talk

15:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have Xeno, and I never make an edit without applying that standard. However, this is a talk page and your npov comment didn’t answer the title discrepancy which was the reason for my question. i wont bother pointing out that 98% of the article is pov against the event. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what URL you came through (i.e. internal or external), but the page is currently located at

International Burn a Koran Day), it will still show the same in the URL. This is simply how Mediawiki works. –xeno^talk

15:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, my mistake. I appologize. I came from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Burn_a_Koran_Day page, and saw the title of the url as such. Thats why I was surprised about the discrepancy. I withdraw my remarks made out of ignorance, not malice. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries - see Help:Redirect#How it appears to the user for more. –xeno^talk 15:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)~

Thanks. Wish there was a pdf file with all the nuances that I can flip through. ~I’ve been here 16 months, yet am still dense about lots of the intricacies. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There is

WP:A-Z. –xeno^talk

16:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

While it's too early to tell, it is possible that this article will be broken up into several sub-articles in the near future. It is possible that the original 9/11 "International Burn a Koran Day" will not be the most significant Koran-burning incident over the next few months, so we may wish to have most of this text there as one article, with a separate article about the broadening 2010 controversy. The reaction in the Kashmir, with 90 dead and an entire province under a brutal military curfew, is already far more significant in the absolute sense (though perhaps not in the number of news reports) than the original book burning, and some sources suggest it is not really that related. Even the Australian Koran joint roller has stirred up such a flurry of news that he would likely be notable on his own. For now, the article is not excessively large, and we seem able to fit all the information into it, but eventually we may want to split things out in WP:summary style. Wnt (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Well first of all it's extremely biased and a direct attack("American devil infidels"), Beginning an article with "In" is bad as it's not a story where you beginning with the setting. Also "Qur'ar'an" is not the correct spelling. Also to comment on the bias of the article being 98%, I think that is completely wrong. The reactions and comments from media and officials have been against the event and are just reported in the article, the support for the event has been extremely small in comparison of those against. nothing in the article said it was bad or good, it just quoted reactions and events during and followed. and as xeno said,

WP:NPOV isn't followed in your purposed title Dayofswords (talk

) 09:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Meishern is a jovial fellow (note all the cheering), and has a distinctive way, which I have previously encountered, of attempting humor. Ignore. -- Hoary (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The section containing information of the Kashmir deaths is way too extensive on covering issues and background not related to the Qur'an burning controversy. __

In doing so, please expand the abbreviations "SDM", "SDPO", "BDO" (or link to their respective articles). –xeno^talk 15:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I took out that detail, as it now isn't even the biggest burning. I think that some of the other "background not related" is essential, however. To put it bluntly, for purposes of illustration only, many Americans are going to read the short news story of this violence and say "ha ha, look at all those religious fanatic morons killing each other because somebody here wanted to burn a stupid book". It's only when you look at the broader issue and see that this is an ongoing separatist movement with the government treating the populace like an enemy, with many shot dead and serious issues of starvation by curfew to consider, that the deeper roots of their anger become apparent. It's like a science article that discusses how much the Moon heats the Earth - you have to talk about how much the Sun heats the Earth to put it into perspective. Wnt (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. This paragraph goes into great detail about the current situation in Kashmir which obviously has only tangential relevance to the subject of this article. I think we should briefly mention the deaths and that they occurred in connection with demonstrations that were organized to protest the Qur'an burnings in the U.S., and then inform that there is an underlying backdrop which would dictate that the Qur'an burnings were a mere trigger and that the political situation in this region is generally extremely tense, and we would then refer readers to the appropriate article on that instead of making any attempt at presenting the actualities of the Kashmir problems whatsoever. __

talk

) 09:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I just found the article 2010 Kashmir unrest, which looks like a usable main article for summary-style devolution of some of this information. Wnt (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that article has since turned into a war zone (which I suppose is not surprising), and it's hard to find any trace of what I put there at the moment... Wnt (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

As this talk page is getting long I've enabled 20 day/5 threads minimum auto-archiving. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't there some group that was going to do a big terrorism if this thing went off as planned? Few have discussed the motive a guy might have to rip one off like this, especially when all the search engines are bumping the story for their own reasons.

69.254.213.117 (talk) 09:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Arkhamite

1. Added a quote from an AFP news wire source contrasting the length of "jury" deliberation (are we calling that a real jury or is my addition of quotation marks acceptable? I fear possibly not, please feel free to remove the quotation marks and bracket.) with the 52-min longer soaking in kerosene to make sure that the book would burn properly.

2. Changed the wording from "As a result" to "In response," seeing as how burning a book anywhere in the world does not necessarily result in UN personnel getting killed everywhere. Rather, the killing of non-book-burning-related personnel is a political response or possibly effect. Imho the attack and beheading is notable enough for its own page. 5 people who may or may not have heard of the book burning lost their lives due to (take your pick) A) religious intolerance, B) freedom of speech issues or C) misguided hatred.

Shouldn't this article be moved to "Qur'an-burning controversy", since it persists into 2011? Especially with the recent violent demonstrations in Afghanistan, I don't think it should be labelled as a 2010 event. InverseHypercube (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the article should be about Pastor Terry Jones now that he is bigger than the 2010 incident. The 2010 and 2011 incidents are different not continuations. Jones also had some other incidents protesting homosexuality. Geo8rge (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur with George8. Lets start off this article

talk

07:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting changing this article to be about Pastor Terry or forking a separate one? I am in favour of having two different articles: one for the Qur'an controversy and one for Pastor Terry. He is not the only one involved in the controversy, and being such a major controversy, I think it deserves its own article. I was merely suggesting the renaming of the article to "Qur'an-burning controversy", as it is proving to be not confined to 2010. Does any one have any objection to this, or should I request the move? InverseHypercube (talk) 08:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be about Terry Jones. I just asked HJ mictehll to unlock the redirect for Terry Jones in order to start the article. We should have an RfC for the move

talk

08:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion the article should be called Terry Jones Qur'an-burning controversy. Terry Jones (pastor) is not notable enough to have his own biographical article. His Qur'an burning is indisputably very notable. Victor Victoria (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

To answer the question directly, I think moving to just "Qur'an-burning controversy" is a little too vague. Anybody can burn a Qur'an. This article is about Terry Jones burning a Qur'an. Victor Victoria (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that this is 100% Pastor Jones, as Dove has other participants such as Pastor Sapp. What might be best giving Pastor Jones his own article, or combining his bio info with Dove World Outreach Center, and then renaming this article Dove World Outreach Center Koran Burnings, to differentiate it from all the other Koran burnings.69.122.93.13 (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

How about "Dove World Qur'an-burning controversy"? InverseHypercube (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's not just Terry Jones the individual. Ideally the article should be "Dove World Outreach Center Qur'an-burning controversy", but that's too long. I can go with "Dove World Qur'an-burning controversy". Victor Victoria (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,716409,00.html mentioned in http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/florida-pastor-says-koran-burning-still-on/ covered in wikipedia Dove Church article but is not here. --Javaweb (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Recently someone has unsuccessfully attempted to reorganize this article with the result that the lead began as a bio about Terry Jones, bio about Terry Jones. (the ed. was not Skizzik, btw)

I have re-written the lead removing the "mosque at ground zero" as a motivation for the proposed 9/11 Qur'an burning as this theory is

Sorry guys, this is a POV. To actually say the burning resultet in the attack, is to accept the world as the fanatics wants to give it to you. It takes away the free will of the people doing the attack: it makes it seem as their response was as forced as they want others to believe it was. This is the old story about causality.

And it is wrong. Damned wrong.

I think you have a point in that the article should not seem to accept that B follows as a perfectly natural consequence of event A. You allude to free-will in one aspect but from a slighly different direction one wonders if such fanatics have free-will as such, e.g they are angry that anyone should say or write that their holy book encourages violence and they express this indignation by killing other human beings! Religious fanaticism and free-will don't go together. ma'at (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You know, I could burn a dozen bibles right now and nothing would ever happen to me. We are so terrified to admit that there are serious problems in parts of the Muslim world. Killing people because some paper was burned, that's certainly a "religion of peace".

68.10.91.104 (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It keeps getting dumbed down. It now says "...angered at Jones' burning of a Qur'an". Of course, this people wasn't there, and didn't watch it live on TV or anything. When this people only have second- or third hand accounts, it's not the principal event that makes them angry. They probably don't even know how the principal event unfolded, they have only gotten propaganda-versions of it- and propaganda-versions are notorious for their lack of credibility. So, they must have been stirred up in a more complex way than this. From what I have read, they were agitated by their imams at the Friday prayer. This also means they could have been agitated by something else if the agitators had wanted to, meaning the burning in itself hardly is the issue here. Anyhow, "angered at Jones' burning of a Qur'an" is, again, wrong.

Greswik (talk

) 07:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

He's planning on protesting at the

• http://www.nae.net/news-and-events/469-press-release-nae-urges-cancellation-of-planned-quran-burning
  • In Dove World Outreach Center on 2011-03-17 15:27:58, 404 Not Found
  • In
    2010 Qur'an-burning controversy
    on 2011-06-18 15:24:54, 404 Not Found

--

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_re_us/quran_burning
  • In Dove World Outreach Center on 2011-03-17 15:27:59, 404 Not Found
  • In
    2010 Qur'an-burning controversy
    on 2011-06-18 15:25:06, 404 Not Found

--

I have seen this spelled different ways on Wikipedia. Which one is correct or are they both correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEWY CHEATEM AND HOWE (talk • contribs) 08:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If you look it up in dictionary, it's "Koran". This is the traditional spelling, what everyone used until about 20 years ago. "Quran" is AP style, which is followed by the most of the media. Here is an explanation. Kauffner (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Article has too many sources that are not Reliable, per Wikipedia. These include personal blogs, personal YouTube videos, and similar content. In addition, even if an incident or person is covered by a Reliable Source, the encyclopedia article should be summarizing material, not reporting every quote like a newspaper. The article spends too much time repeating what people said, rather than focusing on an understandable summary of events and perspective on them. Every small protest/hate action in the US or other places does not need an individual accounting with quotes and names, but can be summarized in a category. Similarly, every state leader's comment on the incidents does not need to be listed. The content is out of proportion to what took place and gives UNDUE weight to minority activists. The article seems confused about what the controversy was: the intentional desecration by several people of a book known to be sacred to other cultures, or how the media covered the protesters and helped create international incidents by their coverage?Parkwells (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100803204743/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com:80/world/us/Florida-church-plans-to-burn-Quran-on-9/11-anniversary/articleshow/6242137.cms to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Florida-church-plans-to-burn-Quran-on-9/11-anniversary/articleshow/6242137.cms
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100920204331/http://www.nypost.com:80/p/news/national/fla_pastor_who_threatened_bill_burn_iGqtFvetBpUVvqlzp3JF3M to http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/fla_pastor_who_threatened_bill_burn_iGqtFvetBpUVvqlzp3JF3M

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110714162355/http://neighbornewspapers.com/stories/Dove-Church-Plans-to-Burn-Quran-Ahmadi-Muslims-Protest,162870?content_source=&category_id=6&search_filter=&event_mode=&event_ts_from=&list_type=&order_by=&order_sort=&content_class=&sub_type=&town_id=&page= to http://neighbornewspapers.com/stories/Dove-Church-Plans-to-Burn-Quran-Ahmadi-Muslims-Protest,162870?content_source=&category_id=6&search_filter=&event_mode=&event_ts_from=&list_type=&order_by=&order_sort=&content_class=&sub_type=&town_id=&page=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—