Talk:Bush Administration changes official position on legitimacy of Qur'an desecration allegations

Add topic
Active discussions

June 2005Edit

This story is a legitamate news story, the title represents exactly what happened, Using previous Wikinews articles as sources is acceptable, and this story is in the early stages of development. NGerda 16:34, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

this article is garbageEdit

the tone and slant of this 'article' is clearly driven by the author's personal agenda and the content is not even factually correct. see the following link for some interesting related info that has somehow managed not to work its way into wikinews:

I agree with you. This kind of behavior harms the Wikinews' reputation and its only benefit is the increasement of the reputation of other blogs. Is Wikinews suffering of some kind of Indymedia effect? --Carlosar 22:16, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Regardless of what kind of publicity, or lack thereof this article creates, it is a Non Point of View journalistic piece. Please specify what exactly you disagree within the article. NGerda 23:09, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
The article has improved a little. I think that I will accept it as it is. --Carlosar 04:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Only the first paragraph of the article has been touched; we figured out that the title played tricks on everyone's minds. NGerda 04:34, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

From the CNN article (which is very misleading): "A U.S. military investigation into the mishandling of the Muslim holy book at the Guantanamo Bay prison for suspected terrorists has determined that detainees -- not U.S. soldiers -- attempted to flush the Quran down the toilet there.
"However, the report did find four confirmed incidents in which U.S. personnel at the base mishandled the Quran, including guards kicking a detainee's Quran; a guard's urine "splashed" a detainee and his holy book after coming through an air vent; and guards got in a water balloon fight that resulted in two detainees' Qurans getting wet."

This article is not garbageEdit

This article is fully and completely factual, and both sides of the story are represented. NGerda 21:04, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Reflects negatively on the projectEdit

Haven't visited the site in a couple of months and when I do this article is displayed as the top headline. It reflects very negatively on the entire project that this anti-Bush toned misleading headline (and I'm a pretty liberal anti-Bush Democrat) is what readers see when they visit the main page. Whatever happened to the principle of neutral point of view? The person who submitted this (and the person who put it prominently on the front page) should immediately be reviewed and their further involvement in the project questioned. This is the exact opposite of what Wikinews ideally should be. If I had time (and I really don't right now), I would like to get into specifics on word choice in the article and headline, using only wikinews sources, the fact that the headline is misleading as to the actual content of the article, etc. I'll try the site again in another 6 months and see if it's matured at all I guess.

This article is not Point of View, is completely factual, and represents all opposing views of the issue. NGerda 21:26, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
There is no doubt that the choice of words used is inflammatory and represents a distinct political agenda on behalf of the author. Please rewrite the article in a more proffessional tone. This is completely unacceptable on Wikinews. -Wolfrider
The whole point of Wikinews is for everyone to be able to spot errors and fix them. If you truly find the article's word choice annoying, try fixing sections and we can work from there. NGerda 23:29, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
After all, the article is simply snippets of information from various previous Wikinews articles on the issue. NGerda 23:30, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
I believe that the story is NPOV, in fact it is one of most balanced stories I have read about the topic.--Cspurrier 23:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The word "flip flop" is negative. I'm renaming this article to "Bush Administration changes position on legitimacy of Koran desecration allegations". Please update the Main Page to reflect the new title. Rhobite 23:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I used it to denote the irony of the situation. NGerda 23:41, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Pointing out perceived irony isn't Wikinews' job. Rhobite 23:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the article is not slanted; just our perceptions?Edit

I felt similar to others when I first viewed the article; but when I really read it, I see it is full of quotes like these:

  • White House spokesman Scott McClellan responded saying "the(Amnesty Intl) report's allegations were "ridiculous and unsupported by the facts. The United States is leading the way when it comes to protecting human rights and promoting human dignity"
  • President George W. Bush dismissed the human rights report as "absurd"
  • Brigadier-General Jay Hood; "The inquiry found no credible evidence that a member of the Joint Task Force at Guantanamo Bay ever flushed a Koran down a toilet"
  • US military they stress that "guards were usually "respectful" of the Koran."

Then I remembered an April article titled Immigration and asylum turn voters off UK Tories which created no complaints even though the headline may seem aggressive.

I think most westerners(like myself) have simply been programmed by things like the Dan Rather debacle to immediately view a mildly negative reference to the US government (e.g. "flip flop") as some sort of attack agenda.

The problem most of us are having is that the actual facts; when brought forward un-diluted(as they are in this this article), are so blatant in their own right; the tendancy is to charge the messenger with being biased. Paulrevere2005 23:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Paulrevere2005. NGerda 23:45, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

The expression "flip flop" has a negative connotation. It may be an accurate description of the Bush administration's reaction, but there is a more neutral way of saying it. Rhobite 23:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right. But I think the original title set a tone for the article. One that was slanted. It reads better now.--Wolfrider 23:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This just goes to show that two words in a title can make a whole article seem not what it is. NGerda 23:50, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Original reporting?Edit

Can the author who put up the "original reporting" tag please explain it? Andrew pmk 02:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I put it there because the article is original, that is, it doesn't appear anywhere else; and the research was compiled by me from Wikinews sources. Therefore, it is original reporting. NGerda 02:41, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Original reporting on Wikinews refers to contact by Wikinews writers with primary sources or eyewitness accounts from Wikinews writers. It does not refer to the assemblage of secondary sources (though that is still a useful activity). For that reason, I'm removing the original reporting tag. Pingswept 18:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I never did think much of the Original Reporting template, even though I've used it myself. Seems to me it detracts from, rather than adds to, a news story. -Edbrown05 18:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's almost pompous, although I don't think anyone really intends that. -Edbrown05 18:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think it exists because of the "no original research" rule at Wikipedia. Wikinews allows writers to assert facts without any other sources to corroborate their statements; Wikipedia does not. I think the intended use is to alert readers that they are reading assertions that haven't been corroborated by external source. I don't see it as adding to or detracting from a story-- it's just a flag to let readers know where the facts of the story came from. Pingswept 19:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am starting to lose faith in Wikipedia after seeing this article. I stopped looking at CNN, MSNBC, Reuters, and AP after sensing the bias in reporting. Now I refer to the headlines displayed in Wikipedia to see what is taking place. Today, after seeing this article and having had difficulty tracing the source or the author, I am feeling betrayed by Wikipedia to having succumb to the level of other biased media news. This will definately affect the way I view articles in Wikipedia, not to mention my monetary contribution to website. I am very very disappointed.

Sam an American Arab living in Virginia.

I assure you, if you really read the entire article, you will realize that there is absolutely no bias. Part of the beauty of Wikinews is that if you spot bias, it takes seconds to fix it. I invite you to please prove me wrong if I am wrong, and fix the bias you refer to. NGerda 04:11, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Sam of Virginia,
This is Wikinews, not Wikipedia. Feel free to lose faith in Wikinews, but don't condemn Wikipedia for our crimes. Also, remember that we're all volunteers. You can fix the bias as easily as I can, so stop being so disappointed and get to work. Pingswept 18:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

biased my assEdit

this article is not biased at all. it seems like for some, anything short of bowing down to our fearless leaders constitutes "bias."

(P.S. sometimes, i urinate on the new testament...but i swear, every time i do it, its an accident.)--Something 05:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with 50% of what he said <points up>. NGerda 07:03, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Has it occured to you that Wikinews contributers are not only Americans? YOUR fearless leaders are not our fearless leaders. Typical. And the original wording of the article did constitute a non-neutral POV but since it has been altered to a more professional tone I withdraw my objections. --Wolfrider 13:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, only the title and first paragraph have been editorially touched. NGerda 17:52, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Biased national reportingEdit

Why is it that every single news outlet in the United States uses the term "mishandled" instead of "abused"/ It's more than a little suspicious, as if they're all reading off of a prepared text. RickK 00:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think Wikinews is taking a hit in readership for the 'handling' of this news piece --> see awareness statistics. I logged on last nite to see this article and others, that upon first impression, left me with the feeling that USA is being bashed.
I symphathize with the 'prepared text' notion, but I don't sympathize with persons or news organizations that offend me. -Edbrown05 00:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am seriously glad Slowking Man took the time to write Amnesty International doesn't "know for sure" about Guantanamo abuses -Edbrown05 00:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edit request - disambiguationEdit


Please disambiguate the white house link to US White House. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

My interpretation of the existing category is that it's the building. The Executive Office of the POTUS, we don't have a category for atm. --Pi zero (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguated to Executive Office. [24Cr][talk] 22:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Return to "Bush Administration changes official position on legitimacy of Qur'an desecration allegations" page.