Talk:Quran desecration

Title of the page is wrong and should simply be Koran burning

The title of the page fails to follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view guidelines. Desecration implies that it is sacred and that is adopting a particular point of view. Many people view that there is nothing that is sacred particuarly a fictional historical text. From the OED desecration, n. The action of desecrating, deprivation of sacred or hallowed character, profanation; also, desecrated condition.

Hence the title should simply describe the act. Koran Burning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2040:7F:2:59C:EF75:4BB7:A693 (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There has been no reply so I will assume we can either change this or go to a vote 81.228.127.197 (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Untitled

Cut from article:

alleged and later confirmed deliberate desecration of the Qur'an

What was confirmed was "mishandling". Whether or not that constitutes "deliberate desecration" is POV. The whole issue is discussed at length in the article on Qur'an desecration by US guards (see also Qur'an desecration by US detainees). -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:12, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

history?

The idea of merging these articles is a bit silly -- obviously, the Quran was desecrated before 2005, and that is not the only instance of such desecration being discussed or being significant. I don't think they should be merged, and I do think the history section should be expanded. csloat 04:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have modified the account of the St Ethelburga incident, which I have personal knowledge of. The account given previously seems to have been written by the person who made the accusations. Liskeardziz (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The desecration allegation stands in relation to St Ethelburga's Centre. That allegation was made is simply a historical fact, and questions around unethical behaviour which prompted the concern remain unresolved by any Islamic juridical authority, because the other party have refused such Islamic juridical judgement. The previous editor appears to be a collaborator with St Ethelburga's.--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

With no prejudice toward any parties involved, I've removed this section on grounds of absence of reliably sourced third-party citation. I can find no reference to it except on clearly partisan websites, and certainly there are none findable via NewsBank (the UK newspaper archive). No proper sources: it doesn't go in. (And, of course, personal knowledge is out per WP:NOR). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

removing misleading sentence

I'm removing the misleading sentence "The Pentagon accused the prisoners of Qur'an desecration as well." The reason is that it is misleading and incomplete and unreferenced. The main article on the 2005 incident much more clearly and accurately summarizes the pentagon report, which was not an "accusation of desecration," and which found instances of mishandling the quran on both sides of the prison wall. If someone wants to summarize that report here too, I don't think it's necessary, but it can certainly be done more accurately and completely -- whoever does so should take the five minutes or so necessary to read (and cite!) some news reports about the Pentagon report. Thanks. csloat 03:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added the needed reference, and described the Pentagon report more accurately. Isarig 04:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Christianah Oluwatoyin Oluwasesin incident

i removed Christianah Oluwatoyin Oluwasesin incident because:

1. canada free press is not a reliable source
2. this is small not notable incident, Christians in most Islamic countries can touch Quran or enter mosques without any harm done to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imad marie (talk • contribs) 08:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

1. I've added another source.

2. Yes its a notable incident thats why it appears in the news. It involves desecration of the Quran (thus relevant to the article), it was reported widely in the media by others, including Reuters. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding another highly biased source is not an improvement, and the article on the incident itself should be removed since it referenced by a number of highly dubious and low-quality sources. I looked at the link you put up saying the story has been "reported widely". So what? Rumors have that tendency. A story like this does not stay out of the mainstream media. Show me one instance of mainstream coverage where the story is independently confirmed, and I'll agree with you. Otherwise, it has no place here, and I'm removing it.Chiraldecay (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you that Christianah Oluwatoyin Oluwasesin was lynched for "desecrating" the Holy Qur'an. Have a look at my rewrite. - Regards, Ankimai (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Florida church plans to burn Qur'an books on September 11, 2010

Link: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/23/religious-leaders-speak-out-against-international-burn-a-quran-day-2/

I will update the article if and after the event takes place.

-- Gabi S. (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a relevant link in this article. ;-) 205.189.194.208 (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

2012 Protests

They should be greatly expanded upon, the article does not mention the effects of the Quran Burning — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.68.69 (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Terry Jones, 2012

Terry Joned Burned a Koran again on April 28, 2012. Should that be included in the article? 214.13.69.132 (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Booby-trapped Quran bombs

These get mentioned in the news occasionally. Do they count as desecration? Worth a mention at all? Equinox ◑ 19:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Status of desecrating translations

I think the article should be more clear that translations are not the Quran and thus do not need to be treated with the same reverence. My worry is someone reading a translation and doing something ordinary like putting it on the floor could be accused of disrespecting the religion when they are not. My (secular) Islam teacher explained this when passing out the books, but I don't have a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:989:4401:3830:0:0:0:CBE7 (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Find a source and we’ll put it Oxenfording (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

2020 Sweden riots

Let us update. Zezen (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Original vs. translation

The lead sentence emphasizes that Quran desecration is about the original Arabic form. The picture shows the burning of an English translation. This is contradictory, so, what goes? St.nerol (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• It is a bit inconsistent. However, the article is about Quran desecration, and the picture does show a Quran being desecrated. It's an adequate illustration, but if a more 'accurate' one can be found I agree it should be changed. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 19:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent incident should be included in § 2020–present Sweden

The recent incident in Stockholm where that man burns the Quran should be included in § 2020–present Sweden. It's notable. The Old Macintosh (talk) 08:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I just checked. It's already there. Oh, well, nevermind. The Old Macintosh (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)