Jump to content

Talk:Rabaa massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Usaeedi (talk | contribs) at 05:52, 21 July 2014 (→Right of reply: Nationality of User:Usaeedi). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Change title

"Clashes" indicates two sides fighting more or less equally. Can we change this to "raids", a more one-sided term. My understanding is that military and police armed with firearms and tear gas attacked protesters armed with sticks and rocks. "Massacre" is probably too strong a word at this point because it does not seem to have been widely used in the press. Jehochman Talk 11:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's reports and videos of some of the protestors firing back with automatic weapons. Some of them were confiscated after their arrest. But they appear to have been a minority, and only responding to attacks by the security forces. "Raids" as a title fits. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add "14 AUgust 2013 Egyptian raids" as there will be repercussions of more violence TIED to this in the coming days in August, so we should clarify when it all began. Then the "aftermath" section can cover it. Also don't gorget the Aftermath of the coup page will also carry other details. So this separate event needs to indicate it happened on the 14th.(Lihaas (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
I agree, 'August 2013' suggest we are discussing a much wider angle here. So this should be renamed to August 2013 Egyptian 'clashes' or 'protest', which resulted in a raid in 14 august. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLNR (talk • contribs) 01:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest that the title needs to be changed to Rabaa Adawiyya Massacre. Calling it a 'dispersal' fits into the pro-coup (or 'it's not a coup')narrative that was widespread at the time. This is now widely described as a coup, and outside of Egypt, at this point, this event is now considered to have been a massacre. Importantly, the death total (at least 500 and probably close to a thousand demonstrators killed) places the event fairly high in any list of the bloodiest state massacres of civilian demonstrators in history. Calling it anything else is a clear violation of NPOV. CF: Sharpeville Massacre, Tlatelolco Massacre jackbrown (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions

With every WP page for a major world event, there's a rush to add a huge list of "World reactions". Invariably these reactions are non-committal and say little. "We feel bad for the loss of life blah blah blah". They add very little to the article, take up huge space, and say the same things over and over again. They should be summarized, with more space given to the most important.

The section for the USA's reaction should be given more prominence since they give 1.5 billion in aid to the military and have said that this is under review. That's actually something meaningful. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that countries near Egypt would count more than a country that does not even neighbor Egypt. Not to mention that focus on the aid might be non netural. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should most of them be erased or added to a new article just for reactions? ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 00:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can add the reactions by Countries to a new article just for them and leave the local reactions and major organizations like the UN. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, though I am afraid it might get deleted. The Reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting barely made it because it was considered an "exceptionally compelling case". Your call, but thanks for the reply. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 01:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then it looks like option B is the next idea. Leave only the ten to fifteen countries whose reactions are decided to be beneficial to the article or are important enough to remain. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't like having a "Reactions to" article for every single world event. It's very silly. We don't need full quotes from most of these countries reactions. We can simply summarize. What I propose:

  • Keep the reactions of Egypt's neighbors. Summarize their contents, don't always need full quotes.
  • Keep the reactions of the UN, and other major international bodies. Try to summarize and reduce size.
  • Keep USA's response, as they have close ties and give aid
  • For the other countries, simply say something like "Dozens of other countries, such as Germany, France and Sweden condemned the crackdown"
  • Possibly keep Bahrain's reaction, simply because I think it's the only one in support of the crackdown.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the two countries whose reactions were delivered via twitter. If they're not even going to bother releasing a professional official statement, I don't think it should be listed. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its blatantly POV to select what is notable. Its encylopaedic to mention what is cited to RS. That's for the reader to choose.
taking up space is irrelevant, it does not cross WP:Article size.
"I really don't like having a "Reactions to" article " See WP:IDONTLIKEIT and this fits in perfectly as its explicitly said that "I don't klike" and the user arbitrarily removesd reactions! AND "more prominence" is a POV-push. WP doesn't decide notability.!(Lihaas (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
  • I agree - the amount of space devoted to reactions in this article is ridiculous. It desperately needs trimmed. And no it is not "blatant POV" to decide to keep some and not others. It is a type of basic editorial judgement that is used in every article. IDONTLIKEIT is an essay about deletion discussions and has zip to do with article content. If you want to cite essay, WP:CRUFT is much more relevant here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree - most reactions are almost identical, as if everyone shop in the same gift shop for reaction cards. I think that most of them should be summarized.(or moved to sub page dealing with reactions).--PLNR (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Summarised or moved to a different pacge is okey (hence I did the edit test). Biut it IS blatant pov to selectively choose which reactions matter. Editorial judgement is that , POV. This is not a media out let to make judgements. You can write an article for media outlet in that case instead of an encyclopaedia.(Lihaas (talk) 10:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
I agree. I think you guys did a great job with gathering all the info, however most users skip huge lists and prefer an informative summary. --PLNR (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Background

  • Looks like the government has been warning protesters to disperse, for weeks.
  • Security officials in charge of riot police units said they had been given notice Sunday to prepare their forces to cordon off the Rabaah site and another protest across town near Cairo University in Giza. Reports emerged of units coming to Cairo from around the country to take part in the operation.
  • The security forces had planned to form cordons around the two sites as early as dawn Monday, allowing protesters to leave but preventing others from getting in, to minimize casualties before using water cannons and tear gas, officials told The Associated Press.
  • Two days before the raid, news leaked that police were going to cordon off access to the sit-in sites early Monday, protesters took to the streets by the tens of thousands, and many made their way into the protest camps.
  • After thousands streamed in and swelled the size of the sit-ins, however, security officials became concerned about the increased chance of bloodshed, and they decided not to move on the camps. "We were stunned by the masses" who came to the camps, one military official told the AP.
  • The Interior Ministry has depicted the encampments as a public danger, saying 11 bodies bearing signs of torture were found near both sites. Amnesty International has also reported that anti-Morsi protesters have been captured, beaten, subjected to electric shocks or stabbed. At least eight bodies have arrived at a morgue in Cairo bearing signs of torture, the human rights group said.
  • Protesters have been fortifying the sit-ins camps. In Rabaah, men with helmets, sticks and what appeared to be protective sports equipment guarded barricades made of sandbags, truck tires and bricks. They have also built three concrete waist-high barriers against armored vehicles.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=211244264 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLNR (talk • contribs) 02:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll

Hi everyone,

Someone should add the death toll which was given by the Ikhwan (2600 protesters killed) in the infobox. It may seem to you unrealistic, but if you want to be balanced and fair, you have to mention the two numbers.

Good bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.73.222.31 (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this has been done. -- Kndimov (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Military Conflict Infobox?

Why is there a military conflict infobox (right hand side) in this article? This is inappropriate given that there aren't two militaries opposed to each other, or even a guerilla group opposed to a military. Its a military opposing a political/religious group. In fact, this event resembles a massacre by most definitions although many news sources are choosing not to use this term. Massacre artciles don't have military infoboxes. But this is getting into another subject, article naming, which I don't want to address now. This box should be removed.

Whoever added the box, if you wish, please explain why you did so and how this conforms to practice in other wiki articles. Thank you.Furtfurt (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, consider it a civil conflict inforbox, but the idea is the same. Same informative purpose.(Lihaas (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
Upgraded the infobox to a civilian attack type one. I agree though that it's the same idea and information equally reaches the reader. Also, if you check the Halabja attacks aritcle you'll find the same thing and it's also better organized with a civil conflict infobox. Anyway, I hope you like it better that way.Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it work better, though it might be worth mentioning that the Death toll is from the 15th.--PLNR (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative namings

'Egyptian civil war' on the authority that ]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/16/egypt-coup-civil-war/2665313/ "Egypt fits the dictionary definition of a civil war, or a war between two geographical or political factions of the same nation"".HighIntellectual (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I moved comment above from another talk page). I don't see that reliable sources in general refer to this as a civil war, so I don't think Wikipedia should either. One statement that this is or may be a civil war is not enough, if most media don't refer to it as such. We should be somewhat careful here. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is already another section, dealing with title change, so I don't see why you decided to rename the article based on some loose definition, without any discussion/consensus, with this section being an after the fact thing. Also this current-event article, linked from Wikipedia main-page, so please revert and start an official vote for rename to gain consensus. --PLNR (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would also ask that you stop editing other pages with the purpose of preemptively calling it a civil war. If and only if this page name changes, the wikilinks to this page should do the same. And please do not rename this article three times without even inquiring as to why you are consistently being reverted and the page being move protected. 8ty3hree (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even IF Egypt has a vcivil war that would be another article with background info leading to this. The events are seperaevv.(Lihaas (talk) 05:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
The USA Today article basically says "Yes, you could call it a Civil War but it isn't, not really." Some source. Yintan  10:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Even HighIntellectual's cited source does not support their argument. They also seem to be uninterested in stopping or slowing their POV-pushing: they are continuing to make article content changes with the same goal in mind. -- Chronulator (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should be very conservative about using the term "civil war" based on the principle of plausibility. Just because one source talks about it as if it is a "civil war" that doesn't plausibly make the possible early stages of conflict a "civil war". In this case, the citation doesn't make it so. Crtew (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I cited, Al Jazeera MENTUOINED civil war, but only as a possibility(Lihaas (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Attack on journalists

In the newly created section 'Attack on journalists'[1]

Why do we need to list every journalist name/profession job resume and other irrelevant info to the August 2013 Egyptian raids?

IMO, it should provide the amount of dead and statements at the bottom that there was violation of 'freedom of press' and or 'human rights' and relevant examples/info summarized. --PLNR (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your commentary in the summary of edits suggests that you want to set out the 4 journalists deaths in proportion to over 600 deaths by space, which would mean you would measure the section 4/600. You couldn't have been serious or have thought that summary out much. The killing of journalists was a significant part of what happened on Wednesday morning. It doesn't detract in anyway from the huge loss of life or the changed political situation in Egypt. Still, the killing of journalists is a violation of international law. There are many articles about journalists who have been killed across many countries in Wikipedia. And it is more than reasonable to assume that there are going to be some readers who come to this article only for this one reason. Your desire to trim has had some beneficial results, but when you start taking out elements of importance that readers will want to know about, then I think that's problematic. My edits throughout Wikipedia are pretty much devoted to this area, and I know the subject matter very well and Wikipedia policy. Crtew (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comment in the summary was to put thing into perspective, hinting that amount of detail may not be notable to the the topic at hand.(as opposed to one of many other articles about journalists in Wikipedia) Can you answer the specific question I asked. How is a complete list of journalist name/profession job resume (and other irrelevant info), of every journalists killed, inured and detained is relevant/notable to this article and not a violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL? --PLNR (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For every genre of information there are going to be expected data that pertains to the subject matter. You may take a look at the websites for the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ.org), Reporters Without Borders (RSF.org), or others, and all of them will include the name, position, medium and outlet at a minimum. For example, photographers are particularly vulnerable as they are very close to the action in most situations. It's important to know if the person is a native or a foreign correspondent. Native journalists are far more likely to be killed. And experience matters, too. When somebody with the experience of a Marie Colvin or an Yves Debay is killed in Syria, that's important as it is a key indicator of the level of danger in a particular situation. As for the others, you're looking at people killed an injured shot in the head and back and feet, and that indicates targeting. Furthermore, the information here doesn't even come close to a resume or a memorial as the context of their inclusion is clearly laid out. This was the day on which the most journalists in Egypt have been killed since at least 1992. That is going to be significant. The legal/human rights ramifications of what the military has done is still unknown, but the deaths, injuries and detention of journalists would play an important role in any future situation. Crtew (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not CPJ.org, RSF.org or some article on Wikipedia that discuss journalist. This is about 'August 2013 Egyptian raids' and you seem to have danced around my question. Unless you can show notability/relevance of that listing per Wikipedia standard, it has no place on this article --PLNR (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say this was those sites, but I pointed them out to you so that you could see that the type of information you seem to question as a standard, and Wikipedia has similar genre standards for different types of articles (e.g. the release dates of albums for music is similar to Allmusic.com, blah, blah blah, 1000s of other examples). All of those listed were victims on Wednesday with the exception of 1 journalist who puts the total killed so far into perspective. I've already pointed you to the notability statement and it's cited. Policy pointers: WP:Author and WP:SIGCOV.Crtew (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nationalist and the outlet the journalist worked for is pertinent and as such elucidates who was targeted, what perspevctive, etc.(Lihaas (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
Does that mean you support this article as is? Also do you have any source to suggest that they were targeted as opposed to getting shot? Because from the videos I seen the police was very "liberal" with returning fire, they didn't seem like professionals, at least one guy were emptying clips on auto without even a hint of aiming(however, its possible that he was shooting at the air to scare the people)--PLNR (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if not targeted their presence within the protesters showed who went there. I don't see any pro-govt mouthpieces in there, for exambple(Lihaas (talk) 06:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
Well targeted or not targeted its for sources to decide. The main question was about the amount of details is necessary, why its important to know how many years a reporter worked insome news agency or how "the 1000th journalist recorded killed world wide by the CPJ since 1992." in anyway relevant to the topic, and initially he even put a spouse info...
I haven't done anything with the section, because honestly I don't have time to trim it, but the moment we find a better summary IMO it should be liberally trimmed.--PLNR (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited clearly says that the organization attributed believes journalists were "targeted". There is no such source for "what I saw on TV" even if your viewing experience were to contradict what is said.Crtew (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When reverting changes please add useful comments

User Lihaas reverted my edits with a comment "WTF do you think the tag is there for??!!!!" . I removed the section because it had uncited, unverified statements. Please when you add something especially on a topic that is a current event only add things with references. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theres no rule on that. Tags exist to get other editors to add to it
Anyway, statement in question is now sorted(Lihaas (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Participant in the raids.

There have been several changes to the infobox side1, in the last day, please discuss them here instead of editing warring there.

Personally, I support the current variant, since raids wasn't against some coalition or organization, it was a police raid of the 'supporters of ousted President Mohamed Morsi' protest camps. As for its supporters its widest and most quoted supporter was the MB. --PLNR (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with adding the Anti-Coup Alliance as a supporters per source provided[2]. However, I think its stupid to put the 'Affiliated parties' that comprise the Alliance its supporters, this is not about who support the Anti-Coup Alliance, this is not about the greater political conflict in Egypt, this is about the two raids on August. To which the police and protesters were part of.(Which is consistent with all sources on the article) Protesters which where supported by the 'Muslim Bortherhood', the 'Anti-Coup Alliance' etc...--PLNR (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref[1] is a very recent reference showing that the National Coalition for Supporting Legitimacy are the current organizers and supports for the running demonstrations. Other many references can be added if needed.
  • I believe that showing that the MB are the only supporting organization is misleading information.
  • We should keep the information, especially if there are many supporting references.
  • Also it's worth mentioning that the raids were against the NCSL, and not only MB. This is clear from the response of NCSL as cited in [1].
(Mazidan (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  1. ^ a b National Coalition to Support Legitimacy calls for new Friday of Rage, 16 August 2013, retrieved 19 August 2013
National Coalition for Supporting Legitimacy is an old name, and the new one is Anti-Coup Alliance, which should be used. I second the opinion of keeping all the supporting parties listed. (ZP12KL (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
For the sake of completeness, Muslims Brotherhood should be added to the "Supported by" list of side1. (ZP12KL (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
I think it's OK to add MB to the list.
(Mazidan (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]


You reference doesn't show that the protest camps were organized by NCSL, only that it supports the idea/message. In fact it specifically refers to the protest camps as Pro-Morsi:
The National Coalition to Support Legitimacy (NCSL) called for a “million-man march of rage” to denounce what it described as the “violent campaign” security forces launched against protesters calling for the reinstatement of ousted president Mohamed Morsi.
Violent clashes reigned over Egypt’s streets after Central Security Forces forcibly dispersed the two pro-Morsi sit-ins in Cairo at Rabaa Al-Adaweya and Al-Nahda square on Wednesday.
Which is both consistent with every other source on this article, our lead and what I suggest. That that side1 are protesters side2 Security forces.--PLNR (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


In these new references [1][2][3], and many others we can see that the NCSl were the voice and the organizers of all the demonstrations. So it's completely misleading to describe the protesters as MB only (as previously edited). Also it's not fair if we don't mention the organizers of the demonstrations, especially if there are many references. More references can be cited if needed. (Mazidan (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  1. ^ Pro-Morsi coalition claims protesters are being threatened, 15 July 2013, retrieved 20 August 2013
  2. ^ Egypt’s Anti-Coup Alliance promises more protests, 19 Augusy 2013, retrieved 20 August 2013 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ Egypt: global outcry steps up pressure on US to suspend aid to military, 15 Augusy 2013, retrieved 20 August 2013 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
First, please provide bare links, so we can easily check them. Second, please provide the quotes from those links that in your opinion makes it a NCSl protest camp, as opposed to camp of protesters/families who may or may not be political affiliated other in their support for Morsi(as they are being described everywhere). Because all I see is statements by NSCL supporting the protesters, one of many more similar statement voiced by the Muslim brotherhood.--PLNR (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I still believe that we should keep all the supporting parties listed, after adding the Muslims Brotherhood. (ZP12KL (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
The first question is why the 'Anti-Coup Alliance' should be listed as the side in the raid as opposed to a supporting party. The second question is why list all its members, it's like listing all the departments in the Egyptian police force that took part i.e. unnecessary spam and only hinder our ability to gain useful information.--PLNR (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Anti-Coup Alliance should be listed because it's side1, according to the cited references. Anti-Coup Alliance is a group of various organization, and mentioning only one or two of them is illusive. Of course this is completely different from departments of a single organization (eg. Police). ZP12KL (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What cited references? so far every single source on the article regards the raids as the police vs Pro-morsi supporters. As for 'Anti-Coup Alliance', I am still waiting for Mazidan to provide details, where in his sources it says what he claims it says.--PLNR (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear, our decisions of what to be listed should not be based on personal opinions and own beliefs. This is not a page from a personal diary, but rather one that is accessed by many in order to gain information about the raid event. So please stick with the information presented in the SOURCES. THIS IS NOT A PLACE FOR PERSONAL OPINIONS. I can see that the sources clearly cites the different parties. The parties are not subgroups of a main entity, but rather completely different parties of different ideologies,managements and supporters. So in order to achieve clarity, as well as credibility (which is one of the main cornerstones at Wikipedia), it is imperative to clearly point out all of the different parties. Needless to mention the wide spectrum of readers of Wikipedia who are nearly unaware of the internal political fabric of Egypt, that will be highly misled by mentioning only one of the dozen supporting parties (Tashfen (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
I completely agree, we should go about sources. To achieve credibility I am looking for a source that doesn't state that this is the police vs Pro-Morsi protesters. Because tight it seem that people confuse the article about the raids, with one about the political conflict and making some original research.--PLNR (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • In [3] (June 28, 2013): "Prominent Islamist parties and groups have announced the formation of the “National Coalition to Support Legitimacy,” whose members will attend Friday protests at Rabaa Al-Adaweya square"
  • This shows that NCSL are protesting from day one in Rabaa camp
  • It also shows the members of the alliance "Members of the coalition include the Building and Development Party, FJP, the New Labour Party, Fadila Party, Islah Party, Al-Tawheed Al-Araby Party, Al-Watan, Al-Wasat, Islamist Party, Al-Asala, Al-Shaab, the Coalition of the Union for Arab Tribes in Egypt, The Federation of Professional Syndicates, the General Syndicate for Egypt’s Farmers, Al-Azhar University Students’ Union, and the Union for Street Vendors, among other."
  • In [4] (August 16, 2013): "The National Coalition to Support Legitimacy (NCSL) called for a “million-man march of rage” to denounce what it described as the “violent campaign” security forces launched against protesters calling for the reinstatement of ousted president Mohamed Morsi."
  • The reference shows that NCSL continue to be the organizers of the demonstrations even after the end of Rabaa camp.
  • In [5] (14 August 2013): "The pro-Morsi Anti-Coup alliance alleged security forces used live ammunition, but the Interior Ministry, which is in charge of the police, said its forces only used tear gas and that they came under fire from the camp"
  • The reference clearly shows that the Pro-Morsi are the Anti-coupe alliance (NCSL).
  • In [6] ( July 15, 2013) "Pro-Morsi coalition claims protesters are being threatened. The National Coalition to Support Legitimacy said in a statement that army leaflets contained threats/"
  • Which stress on the fact that the pro-Morsi supporters and voice are the NSCL
  • In [7] (15 August 2013): "The National Alliance to Support Legitimacy had called on "all Egyptian people" to take to the streets "to stop the massacre" after police attacked its two sit-ins in Cairo's Nahda and Rabaa al-Adawiya squares early on Wednesday."
  • Another reference shows that the organizers are the NCSL
  • In [8] (20 August 2013): "The Anti-Coup Alliance in Egypt has pledged to hold more protests despite a fatal crackdown by security forces on supporters of ousted President Mohamed Morsi."
  • Another reference shows that the NCSL are the organizers all the time.
  • Still there are many references shows that Pro-Morsi are the NCSL. Therefore, stating that the supporters are MB or a subgroup of the NCSL is misleading.
  • The summary box subtitle (by design) is: Parties to the civil conflict. The box is designed to include the parties of the conflict, which should be included in it, not in another article.
  • In conclusion, the references shows that the organizers of the demonstrations by side1 are NCSL (Pro-Morsi), which should be included in the summary box. To include any unaffiliated protester, we can add something like "and other Pro-Morsi supporters".
  • Finally, I'd like to thank (Tashfen) for making the conversation point more clear: "Needless to mention the wide spectrum of readers of Wikipedia who are nearly unaware of the internal political fabric of Egypt, that will be highly misled by mentioning only one of the dozen supporting parties"
(Mazidan (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
All I see is a long list of WP:OR, nothing that clearly states that the police raid was against NCSL, only that they support the protesters. In contrast every source on the main page, as well as our lead clearly state what that this was a police raid vs Pro-morsi protesters. (you'd argument might hold for the 2013 political violence where its government against lets say NCSL members)
Expanding on your Original Research:
  1. "This shows that NCSL are protesting from day one in Rabaa camp" - No, it says that its members attended the protest, not that they were the only ones who attended it or that they established the protest camp.
  2. "The reference shows that NCSL continue to be the organizers of the demonstrations even after the end of Rabaa camp" - many called for demonstrations after the clashes, from the Muslim Brotherhood to several non Muslim liberal organization. Does that makes them all side1 in the raids came before?
  3. "The pro-Morsi Anti-Coup alliance" - doesn't shows that "Pro-Morsi are the Anti-coupe" but that 'Anti-Coup alliance' is pro-Morsi. Learn basic logic.
I can goo on but I see no point, you have no case. --PLNR (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references clearly shows that the NCSL were the organizers for the camp, however it's impossible to find a reference states that all the protesters are NCSL members, because this is not true.
  • By the way, even not all the protesters were pro-Morsi. Some of them were Pro-Democracy (eg. some of the 6th of April youth movement members).
  • If you have references for other organizations in side1 camp, we should add them to the "Parties to the civil conflict", but of course not removing the current ones.
  • In your latest edit (PLNR) for this section in the summary you kept only MB as appears for the history. And (Lihaas) commented to you "cut down list PER PLNR, though other usesr disagrees. We cant leave it blank, so what solution?". However, you commented to me " ... instead of warring with Lihaas here.", as if (Lihaas) was the person trying to cut-down the list. I hope you are not trying to force your own point of view.
  • Again, mentioning only MB or part of the NCSL is complicity misleading. This section in the summary are designed to add "Parties to the civil conflict", so they should be added. Also we can mention that there were non-affiliated people beside the organizers if necessary.
  • I found your phrase (PLNR) "Learn basic logic" some how offensive.
Thanks (Mazidan (talk) 06:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
I don't see any new references, only a new claim that the references "clearly" shows something, after I just explained why your previous assumption of what you references "clearly" showed was wrong(and violation of WP:OR).
So to sum it up you still have no sources to back up your claim, as opposed to every source on the article that backs the security force vs pro-morsi camp.(which is consistent with whole article). Furthermore you state: "even not all the protesters were pro-Morsi. Some of them were Pro-Democracy" - I can agree with later part, not all porters were members of NCSL (Islamist coalition), but everyone were pro-Morsi reinstatement, or at least enough so that every source on this article call them this way.
Also, I never said that we need to mention only MB or only parts of NCSL. Only that you should keep to the sources and we need to infobox to be both informative and be readable. Also "Parties to the civil conflict" is part of whatever silly infobox name that was picked ;)
As for you claims about me pushing. So far you have been trying to 'replace' official death toll with MB larger estimate(instead of adding). Then over a span of day you warred over this entry reverting this line many times instead of discussing, and when you guys couldn't keep to a consensus with lihaas and I reverted it to previous day consensus asking you reach consensus on the talk page, you violated WP:BRD reinserting your variant making your "arguments" in the edit summery. So please no persecution complexes, simply make do with valid sources/argument. --PLNR (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where this "argument" is going with one side presenting evidences and the other side just keeps refuting them without presenting sources from his own side. As far as I understand, a source that clearly and plainly states that the supporters of the NCSL were part of the Rabaa sit-ins will end this discussion !!!
In source [9] published in Alarabia English (20 Aug 2013), it is stated that "The sit-ins included more than just Muslim Brotherhood (MB) members, and even more than just the supporters of the pro-Mursi coalition (the National Coalition for the Support of Legitimacy)". I cannot find a clearer way of rephrasing this statement to make it more comprehensible... The sit-ins contained MB supporters, NCSL supporters and more. (the author of the article, published in Alarabia English, is a Senior Lecturer in Middle East Politics and Security Studies at the University of Exeter).
This second source [10] in Alahram English (The number one official journal in Egypt) (12 Aug 2013) states that "Morsi supporters — namely the Muslim Brotherhood and its Islamist allies — have been staging sit-ins at Nasr City's Rabaa Al-Adawiya Mosque and in Giza's Nahda Square, as well as daily rallies demanding Morsi's reinstatement, following his ouster on 3 July." So again, the ones who were in sit-ins at Rabaa against who the raids (Which are the main topic of this wikipage) were performed were not formed only from MB, but rather from several groups including the MB. So for the sake of completeness, comprehensiveness and integrity, let's write all the supporting parties and let's not exclude any of them. If any side wants to object he should present credible sources, otherwise, let's not drag out this discussion further.(Tashfen (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Finally someone who can make a good sourced and explained argument, with which I coincendently can agree with. It is what I have been saying from the start, that there is no source stating that NSCL is the sole organizer like Mazidan tries to peg, but one of several. Thus my objection with
Replacing: "Pro-Morsi protesters: details..."
With current "National Coalition for Supporting Legitimacy: details..."
Which is contrast to every source in the article, including one quoted above. My second unrelated objection is about the details. Everything that sourced goes, but we should also be concerned with readability. I seen only NCSL specifically mentioned(in sources and article), so i don't see why we need to list every single member of the coalition. At worst say something like "NCSL-coalition of x member" (member are listed inside), which doesn't detract anything but makes the list more readable.--PLNR (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
>Based on the above discussion, I think that the following solution should satisfy the different sides,
Side1:
Anti-Coupe sit-ins including:
  • Unaffiliated protesters [11]
(ZP12KL (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Looks fine to me. the list is simple, clear and comprehensive. Just to make it well cited kindly add the sources that me and PLNR agreed upon in my last post.
I think instead of "sit-ins including", it might be "sit-ins participants".
This should appeal to everyone... Thanks everyone (Tashfen (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
No it's not. It's the same as before, "Anti-Coupe alliance" is another name for NCSL. Also 'sit-ins' make it sound as if the location was an active side. Here is my suggestion(per objection 1).
Pro-Morsi protesters:
  • Unaffiliated protesters [12]
Though I prefer this(per objection 2), I see no reason to list all of NCSL members.(as far as I seen none of them were mentioned in the articles or related sources, only NCSL as a whole).
Pro-Morsi protesters:
It is as informative(even more so to anyone outside of Egypt) and will be far more readable in the small confines of the infobox.--PLNR (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I think that the first suggestion by PLNR should satisfy all the sides. If everyone is OK with it we should just go and update the page.(Mazidan (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
That's great, I'll go on and update it. Thank you everybody. (ZP12KL (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]


Actually, I support the Fitzcarmalan variant, it address all of my objection and IMO offers a better infobox variant for this event.(Which up until now was part of the 'whatever silly infobox name' we picked).--PLNR (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about this one?
Pro-Morsi demonstrators:

Why should we mention all parties on a list? This is after all a different type of infobox. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzcarmalan, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya is already included as its political party Building and Development Party, and I didn't think there is a need to redundantly repeat it. Especially, this will open the way to do it with all the other parties. Thanks (Mazidan (talk) 07:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
So is the Muslim Brotherhood which is represented by the Freedom and Justice Party..
Al Gama'a is a historically-important and major Islamist movement in Egypt along with the Brotherhood and the Salafist movement, and all three differ tactically but have a main ideology which is Islamism (political Islam). Any party in the Anti-Coup Alliance is linked to at least one of the 3 big Islamic movements. Even the so-called "Arab Unification Party" composed by some clerics but mostly by members of the Islamic Labour Party which allied once with the Brotherhood and attempted to do the same several times later. I don't see the damage of mentioning it since it's a special case..Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MB were included since the references talking about the raids mentioned them explicitly as a major Pro-Morsi supporter, beside the NCSL. This is not the case for Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya.
Ex.: in Ref. [14] by (Tashfen): "The sit-ins contained MB supporters, NCSL supporters and more." (Mazidan (talk) 10:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
My point was that it represents 2 political parties (1 directly and the other indirectly) in the coalition and its members were securing the entrances to Raba'a square. However, Al Gama'a is nothing compared to the MB in popularity even though they ARE extremely popular. It's nothing worth an argument really so forget about them..
It's all about shortening the target list anyway because it's a different type of infobox. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I see no reason whatsoever to list all the members of the NCSL coalition, this adds nothing to the article. The only thing resembling an argument for its inclusion was the vague "for the sake of completeness, comprehensiveness and integrity", which will be as valid for inclusion of a list of all NCSL members(people), which is ridicules. --PLNR (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Morsi demonstrators:

Should I go forward with this? Thanks. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes. --PLNR (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've an objection here, since all our previous conversations were about including the members or not.
However, if we are planning to use the short list for the new infobox I prefer the one proposed be PLNR. Since all the latest references still call the alliance as National Coalition for Supporting Legitimacy. But I'm also OK with using the Anti-Coup Alliance name.
Finally, if we are looking for a short list we should write the description proposed by PLNR: (coalition of 11 parties)
So, my suggestion is,
Pro-Morsi protesters:
Thanks (Mazidan (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
The Anti-coup alliance is made of members other than the Islamist parties (Check ref. [15]). I suggest to keep the name without a sub-description to solve the conflict. ZP12KL (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. (Mazidan (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Hi, can you be little bit more specific in your post, to save us some time. Right now the article you referenced starts with:
Prominent Islamist parties and groups have announced the formation of the “National Coalition to Support Legitimacy,”
So I don't see on what you base your conclusion.--PLNR (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Total deaths/hurts

Please add the total deaths or injuries. Thanks. --4h8s (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The total death/injuries for the day of the raids is already noted in the article and infobox. Unless you are looking for a different total. --PLNR (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Total as all, every, entire, combined. Not for 1 day, for all days. Total deaths and injuries. --4h8s (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are looking in the wrong place, this about the raids on the 14th, try the Political violence in Egypt (July 2013–present) article for totals.--PLNR (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

18 August Incident section

While this is a very sad and unfortunate incident I suggest moving it to Political violence in Egypt (July 2013–present) cause it puts undue weight in this article which is mainly concerned with the raid. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ADisagree. It was directly tlrelated to arrests from here so mention is pertinent (and its brief)(Lihaas (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
Asked you before to show how it is 'directly related' to the 'day of the raids' and not just some event in close proximity. Your claim that those were prisoner from the raid, wasn't supported by your sources. So I don't see why would you single out this unrelated event over others at Political violence in Egypt (July 2013–present). For example the August 17th incident where protester exchanged gunfire with security forces is actually relevant, since they were barricaded inside the Cairo mosque, which was used by the protesters on the day of the raid and later holding the charred bodies which are mentioned in the casualties sections.--PLNR (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Focus of Article

The article is mainly concerned with the raids which occurred on 14 August. I suggest renaming the article to Rabaa and Nahda sitins crackdown/raids/dispersal . I find dispersal best because it describes the actual intention and result of the incident which was to end the sitins. Please let me know what you think.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of a name change that is more specific to the 14 August event, but while the terms chosen may be accurate, I don't believe very many people would find the article with that title or know what it was about after reading it. We should try to write for the broadest possible audience, including those who have not been following and who do not know the geography. Thank you for jump starting this topic. Crtew (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--PLNR (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with dispersal . But raids is more accurate and hence neutral. Crackdown may be pov against the government. So seems raids is okey. As for adding Rabaa/Nahda im neutral on that. Precedence would mean keeping Egypt, nbut the addition could be more specific.v(Lihaas (talk) 12:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

References and Neutrality

I notice nearly all the references are from media sources. I also notice that these media sources tend to be quite subjective. I also notice that many references are from the SAME media sources, and if not the same, then they are 'in league' i.e. owned by the same corporation, have the same source, repeat each others words etc. Although it may be long-established, which is a valid point for credibility, there are times when a media source must be questioned for its credibility by checking 'the other side'. That is, nearly all references are 'in agreeance' - although you may say they are simply stating fact, they, again, appear to be slightly opinionated and not wholly objective in their representations of the events. There does not appear to be any source discussing 'the other side' - yes there ARE many sources discussing the opposing views of those represented in this article - not simply a man making videos in his laundry on his camcorder, but many media organisations, long-standing corporations. Forgive me if I am mistaken, or seem ignorant - my only issue is this: Are the sources of information used allowing a fair representation of the events to be made? Is this article entirely neutral and wholly objective? Is it correct to use seemingly biased sources for a purely factual encyclopaedia? Thanks :) Omnicon1 (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any specifics, you can copy&paste this vague statement to any article on wikipidea and it will stick. So unless you have some specifics the Neutrality tag need to go, because as it is it's you don't like it tag. Other than that it's not our job to question reliable sources, if you think that information is missing please provide it with RS.--PLNR (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. There will always be people who would contest the neutrality of an article, especially on a highly-topics such as this. The way I see it, both view points are presented adequately in the article, but with the overwhelming majority of the world condemning the crackdown, I think the emphasis on the police's use of force is justified in the article. I think the tag at the top needs to go. If Omnicon1 sees any missing bits of significance, please insert them and provide adequate referencing. Regards --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed the tag needs to go. .Seems like Omnicon1 onjly say the media outlets and not the way it is presented here . Atno point is the media opinion stated as fact over here, only the numbers etc are sourced to them. Everythign else is neutrally presented.(Lihaas (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Proposed title

August 2013 Cairo sit-ins dispersal is more accurate because raids usually refers to an armed confrontation and "sit-ins dispersal" (فض الاعتصام) is the most common name used by Egyptians to describe the events. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, from my experience, most Egyptians call it "مجزرة رابعة / مجزرة فض اعتصام رابعة" "Rabaa Massacre / Rabaa sit-in dispersal massacre". Al-Jazeera news channel calls it like that as well. http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2013/08/201381661421880758 http://www.aljazeera.net/news/pages/a5cdaff5-a891-49fe-a5ca-008fbb68173a. StoneCold45 (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To begin with, Al Jazeera is not a reliable source when it comes to anything Egypt or coup-related. Secondly, we are trying to be as undramatic as possible in describing things here and the title seems perfectly neutral and fine. I don't see a lot of people here in Egypt describing this as a "massacre" while i see the Arabic Wikipedia and even some of the victims' relatives simply calling it "sit-ins dispersal". Also, the article's introduction clearly explains how brutal the crackdown was so i believe there's no need to change the title. Please explain more why are you having second thoughts and i'll be glad to discuss. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly I'd like you to state any "reliable" reason & proof why Al Jazirah is not a reliable source. Al Jazeerah is a worldwide multinational network, as far as my experience with it I have never seen any lying claims or news without any proof, in my opinion it is very reliable source for truth & for that reason it's attacked by known dictatorships & coup institutions in Egypt. 2nd I was just trying to correct you on something, I actually have no problem with the current title at all but I'm just stating you are incorrect about that subject. I don't know about you but I'm an Egyptian & I meet Egyptians everyday, I haven't made a poll but most people I meet & talk with call it a massacre rather than dispersal & add to that a huge (Arab popularity wise) multinational news corporation calls it as that as well. This is more a discussion, I guess, than an edit request but you're free to change the title or keep it as it is.StoneCold45 (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Al Jazeera unreliable when it comes to Egypt-related events?
  1. To begin with, it is funded by the Qatari government and is owned/controlled by it serving nothing but Qatar's interests just like RT and Press TV, so if you have a problem with those two you should also have a problem with Al Jazeera regardless of whether you like their reports or not. "I have never seen any lying claims or news without any proof" Good, but like Press TV for example, the criticism is never about what they bring up in their news coverage, it's about what they don't bring up or negligibly mention.
  2. It hosts several hardline Islamist clerics like Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Wagdy Ghoneim known for their extremist views and who would naturally have biased views against the current Egyptian government (i'm not saying our current Egyptian media isn't biased either).
  3. Sources → [16] [17] (I don't rely on Al-Arabiya either btw) [18] [19]
  4. Since you're fine with the title, this should then be discussed on user talk pages not on this one but i think i made my point already. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue posting here for sake of those reading it and maybe want to change the title so they have this discussion base.
-What news channel isn't funded by its own country? I doubt there are any.
-Also what news channels don't serve certain interests? Again I doubt any do, but there are those that serve the interests of truth & the so called bias is an opposition of slander against Muslim Brotherhood.
-What you are saying is that their guests shouldn't have an opinion. All people have their opinions and they have a right for stating it. Al Jazeerah also hosts people like Suleiman Gudah who naturally have biased views aiding the Egyptian government to counter those you mentioned.
-Yes Al Jazeerah brings up certain news I won't disagree on that, but you said in your post (basically) that you think those news aren't reliable & that is where I disagree with you "Al Jazeera is not a reliable source". I think those news they publish are reliable enough, I know there are others that are not published but I think Al Jazeerah follows a "case" sort of method if you know what I mean.StoneCold45 (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please try using less emotional phrases such as "serve the interests of truth" and you shouldn't describe it as a "so-called" bias because it clearly exists in their reports, and since you asked for sources and i brought you some that are not an "opposition of slander against MB", there is nothing more to say about this and feel free to call those un-reliable ones.

  1. Any guest has the right to express an opinion freely and it wouldn't count on the channel's credibility, except that some of the type i was discussing earlier host their own shows in Al Jazeera like Qaradawi who hosts a program called Al Sharia wal Hayat and Wagdy Ghoneim, known for inciting hatred and intolerance towards religious minorities in Egypt and the Arab world [20], who gave many "prayer" speeches on Al Jazeera and was hosted numerous times in religious conferences on the channel where he clearly attacked the Egyptian authorities.
  2. I'm not saying Al Jazeera can't be used at all on Wikipedia (since i also don't make rules here), but it can't be relied on in specific subjects such as Egypt and Syria due to how controversial their covering of the events can be. That's all i have to say, so keep posting as much as you like but this is simply off-topic. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, if you find some of my replies a bit rude in their tone, i apologize and i assure you i had no intention of being so. Welcome to Wikipedia. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your replies aren't rude so no apology about that is needed, but you tend to try to dictate on me what words I say in a sense. There is nothing emotional in "truth", it is a realistic word just like there are lying media out there (mostly local who do it by state orders or "high" orders, politicized media if you will) , there are truthful or factful ones if that's a word if you don't like truthful.
  • I don't see how hosting a show could stop them from saying their opinions, it's a common method that Al Jazzirah applies; to make popular guests host shows instead of being interviewed by the channel, some shows can have different hosts as well.
  • The video you linked I find has no relation with Al Jazeerah so I don't know why you brought it here but to comment, we don't know if what Wagdy says is a fact or not so until proven either I leave it at that.
  • You make it as if it's a wrong to attack the Egyptian authorities, well that's exactly what happened in the years leading up to 25th of Jan Revolution against Mubarak's rule: activists were attacking the authorities for violations of rights and rules, suppression of protests and forgery of elections/referendums (it's all written here in wikipedia so no need for reference) all three of which are happening right now following the coup.
  • I can't see how Al Jazzirah's reports on events happening in Egypt & Syria are controversial, I see that they allow for both sides of opinions to show on their screens but it is a known fact that Egyptian authorities, indirectly backed by the west [21] [22], wage media and political war on Qatar & Al Jazzirah by closing their bureau in Egypt and arresting their journalists & reporters with a political decision. If you can link me to one of the more reliable sources as to those controversies other than western mainstream who supported Mubarak's regime and now supports the military coup and definitely not an Egyptian source, then I might have an idea on your view point but right now I don't see it. Don't forget it is the same west that supports current authorities that arrest people just for raising their hands with the Rabaa sign [23] or a journalist with the charge "possession of a camera"[24] (doubt wikipedia will deem anything trustworthy other than a mainstream source, but oh well at least something) [25] or the same authorities that killed between 600 (by official Egyptian healthcare reports) and 2000 (by brotherhood reports) in Rabaa with no investigations being allowed or the massacre before that at the republican guard or the ramses before it, or the podium/memorial statue before it, and the 2nd ramses massacre after all before and so on...., The same authority that made up a law for protests that has been criticized by opposition & supporters alike [26], so that they can arrest the peaceful protesters but they don't actually charge them for breaking this law, they get charged other preset charges like incitement of violence & vandalism just as an example.
    • I think this discussion is right on topic and actually benefits it as something to look at if anyone wants to change the title or maybe use it for some details in the topic itself. Again I don't feel any offense & I don't mean any as well, we are just discussing a topic which is what the talk page is for, right? :)StoneCold45 (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing wrong and there is nothing right either about attacking the Egyptian government without reliable sources since this is what Wikipedia is mostly about. But there is a source (Al-Jazeera) that proved how controversial it was to the point of making other websites criticize its coverage of Egypt-related events. It has also shown extensive bias towards one side, just like Al-Arabiya showed bias towards the other. And like i explained in the move section below, it is preferable not to use it in the topic just like we prefer not to use either RT or Euronews in conflicts like Euromaidan.
  • I feel i should apologize once again, but i assure you i wasn't dictating anything. I agree the tone might have sounded a bit authoritarian (changed it), but it was a way of cautioning you about the importance of maintaining a neutral point of view, since on Wikipedia you're (in a way) like the devil's advocate and it is better not to clarify to other editors your views which might be POV, since this would affect the credibility of your future contributions. I am also a bit new here myself and i only started editing since July last year. I have made several mistakes before regarding this which i am now trying to prevent. That's why i'm asking you not to turn this into a forum. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Al-Monitor is a reliable source. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page move warring

After a relatively long period of being (more or less) stable, this article has been moved to the title August 2013 Rabaa Massacre and back several times. In the interest of avoiding further edit wars, I'd like to ask: do we have a consensus for moving the page to such a title? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to August 2013 Rabaa Massacre. There is a definite consensus that change is necessary, and the "massacre" option has the most support among commenters and sources. User:Fitzcarmalan's suggestions are interesting, and might merit a separate RM, as they discuss points of precision that were not contemplated in the original RM request. Xoloz (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


August 2013 Cairo sit-ins dispersal → August 2013 Rabaa Massacre or August 2013 Egyptian raids: In 12 December 2013, article moved by Fitzcarmalan [27] as usual, without any consensus or request move. 01:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya are not to be relied on when it comes to current Egypt-related events as both staunchly support a different side of the conflict. Same way we try not to use RT or Euronews in EU-Russia conflicts. In addition, globalresearch.ca is not a reliabe source either, especially when it's about the Middle East. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rabaa and Nahda sit-ins dispersal or Rabaa and Nahda massacres - I have recently checked sources on Google for "massacre" and i found good ones using this word. The same goes for "sit-ins dispersal" and the sources calling it so do not use "massacre". Both are common names. However, the events did not take place in Rabaa Square only and i oppose the use of the date tag "August 2013" because there were no similar massacres in these 2 locations in the same time throughout Egypt's history and the event is already highly notable without a date in the title. Redirects already exist. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013 Rabaa Massacre → Rabaa Massacre – I don't see any reason for the inclusion of the month and year in the title. --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Charles Essie (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - There was an earlier incident on July 27, 2013, that is widely called the "Rabaa massacre".[28] [29] [30] [31] [32] I think Rabaa and Nahda massacres would be more appropriate in this case, since no such event occurred in those 2 locations at the same time as far as we know. And as you can see, I also oppose capitalizing "massacre" regardless of other stuff since few or no RS do so and I don't see it on MOS:CAPS either. However, I came here with the intention of making a different move request to Raids on the Rabaa and Nahda sit-ins before I saw this one, so I guess I'll have to wait for now till we're done with this RM. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (provisional) per WP:PRECISION this is an unneeded precision, there isn't a Rabaa massacre every now and then. Otherwise, I believe we can think of better titles, that avoid loaded words such as massacre and probably something that encompasses all the violent protest breakup that happened post-coup. --Tachfin (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important note: I hope we don't ignore the fact that the same clashes took place in another sit-in in Al-Nahda Square (or simply Nahda Square), which is 12km away from Rabaa and where a significant number of people were also killed. I agree, there isn't a Rabaa massacre every now and then, there were just two of them. Both are regarded as massacres by many people (although this is still far from being close to WP:COMMONNAME) and 120-200+ were killed in the July 27 clashes, which isn't minor but doesn't necessarily classify it as a massacre of course. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 3

August 2013 Rabaa Massacre → Raids on the Rabaa and Nahda sit-ins – Let's face it: The term 'massacre' is not only a loaded sensationalist term per WP:POVTITLE, but it is also far from being a common name. A high number of fatalities doesn't automatically make an event a 'massacre' so there is no need for participants in this thread to cast emotionally-driven !votes. Even if there are several media sources that call it a massacre, we're still not obliged to follow sensationalist journalistic names per WP:NOTNEWS. The proposed title might be commonly used by some government officials, but it is not government POV as it is the most neutral and descriptive name that comes to mind. And although this is irrelevant, but a quick Google search shows 40,200 hits for 'august rabaa massacre' and 192,200 hits for 'august rabaa raid' and 267,000 hits for 'august rabaa dispersed' (however, there are only 38,100 hits for 'august rabaa dispersal', but I don't think it really matters). On the other hand, I only see 40,200 hits for 'august rabaa massacre'. And per the above RMs, we cannot ignore the other protest camp that was dispersed in Al-Nahda Sq. which is located in Giza (12km away from Rabaa Sq.) and there is no need to have a date in the title since no such event occurred in those 2 locations at the same time. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzcarmalan, I'm watching your work here since nearly one year now. As far as I'm concerned, finally coming to the result: the most eye-catching biased factor in this article seems to be: you. I don't know how to say it softer. Why? I'll pick this last action: You defended the term "dispersal", a completely inadequate term in this context - there is no doubt about that. Now you attack "massacre", but not by proposing a neutral and for this event commonly used term like "mass killing", but again you suggest a term which does not implicate a single killing. But we don't have one killing here: we have at least 900, probably more than one thousand, most shot in neck, head, chest and upper extremities. The killings were nearly completely asymmetric. No provocation by demonstrators has been detected until now. To see you searching that eagerly for an euphemising term for this outstanding incident in Euroafrican modern history makes me feel ashamed to work for the same platform as you do. I don't like the term "massacre". I prefer "mass killing", this is a juridical and forensic valid term. But when there ever has been a "massacre" at all, when this term ever had eligibility, it would be hard to find a better example than this unprecedented mass killing, happened on August 14th, 2013, at Rabaa square (and similiar at Nahda Square, in smaller dimensions of course), under our eyes. Who says, he does not know it... well, how to call him? Say yourself, Fitzcarmalan! It's a shame. Don't forget, this is an encyclopedia, not your living room. --,Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How many sources call this a 'mass killing' compared to the ones that use the terms I proposed? Personally, I've never thought about it, but it's not my fault you didn't make an RM for that purpose (I could have supported, with reason). We go by the common name here, not by your personal intuition. I don't remember encountering you before so I don't know where you came up from with that and I'm not sure what made you decide to suddenly fling your "Fitzcarmalan investigation" upon me with your personal attacks, but honestly I don't care what you think about my work and I couldn't care less, no offense. But at least try to assume good faith.
Yes, I defended dispersal and I still favor it over 'massacre', an obvious pro-victims POV. It didn't come to mind that 'sit-ins' dispersal could be considered a "government POV", and this clearly brought my attention through Oncenawhile's comment in the first move request. I didn't make an effort to convince them that it was meant to be a descriptive name, not a government POV. However, I chose to compromise with the term 'raids' which was used in a title that was previously agreed on. I disagreed with this term before because it implied that it was an armed confrontation where both sides were engaged in the fighting and I thought that only security forces were the ones doing the killings. I still do, even though both sides blame each other for provoking the violence. Security forces indeed killed hundreds in the clashes, but I still fail to see how the term 'raids' doesn't apply here. Here is the common definition of the word: A sudden assault or attack, as upon something to be seized or suppressed[33] [34] The raids can be defined/described as a massacre, but it does that necessarily mean they are called a massacre, no matter how significant? The proposed title is also aimed at bringing attention to the Nahda sit-in as well which was also dispersed that day. Please refrain from coming up with unnecessary WP:ADHOM comments in the future. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about you or me or any WP author else. It's all about the work of you, me or anyone else here. It's about this article indeed, its content and the content of the sources. Don't change this. You are absolutely of no interest for me. And I reckon, so am I for you. I did not attack you, but what you did (and still are doing) here. You may keep that in mind, when sending unasked POV-links instead working with the already provided material. You are right: I wasn't active here even though noticing what happened with this article. All those disarranged numbers in this article, just take one: 43 killed police officers. Do you mind? Do you really care about POV as always stressing? So tell me, how can that be then: English speaking WP telling the world there were 43 police officers killed at the Rabaa Massacre, soon one year after it happened? Yes. I saw that, but did not intervene. Just: it wasn't me who put those propoaganda numbers here. It isn't me who states to maintain (or: guard?) this article like you are doing. And you still keep this disinformation alive - "government view"? No, there was no government existing since July 3rd, 2013, as you should know very well, there occured a coup. You even might ask el Baradei, what he calls a government view or why he fled from Egypt. The contents and terms you defend here do not represent the Egyptian government's view at all, they come from military state, it's junta installed interim administration and those who support it. Speak it loud or think it at least, Fitzcarmalan: "coup". It is short, simple, not complicated and well known. You want me to cite sources? They already have been cited. You just have to read them or when you already did: to honestly work with them here. As I said, in your living room you can call it "dispersal" or whatever you want. In an encyclopedia it has to be called by its meaning. It was a state led mass killing, not the first and not the last since July 3rd, but the bloodiest. This is the central meaning, and by it is called, as every single scientific publication shows. And even when you don't like to read and cite Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch or Carnegie Endowment For International Peace, you also read it in the New York Times, in the Guardian, even - imagine - in Reuters U.S.: "Mass killing", "massacre", wherever you are. Really, Fitzcarmalan, you survived. The last one who tries to keep it down. Your work is a phenomena, but you really chose the wrong place for it. No mass killing, no massacre, but a dispersal, raids, nothing more. And "43 killed police officers". Pure desinformation. Did you got it now, I had to say this at least for one time? Now go on, when you think the world needs more POV rules links but does not care about numbers and terms. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Fitzcarmalan, according to the wide use of the term "mass killing" for these post coup incidents: confer your own edit, and there you also can confer with my edit above of yours (in German the use of "Massentötung" unfortunately is some more restricted to forensic and juridical use as it is in English, German sources seem to prefer "Massaker" or "Blutbad" instead of "Massentötung") --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And one remark more: Fitzcarmalan, you are hiding behind "good faith", but you've already consumed it over the span of one year: You state, sources say, it was a "Second Revolution", and therefore you cited Patrick Kingsley (Guardian) and Shadi Hamid (Brookings) and some other sources. But when I read your cited sources, I come to the opposite result. And I know many papers both of Patrick Kingsley and Shadi Hamid. First one a very good investigating journalist, the latter a well known and often cited scientiest. But what you are doing here is absolutely disinformative. Both, Kingsley and Hamid, are outspoken representers against the opinion, that July 3rd was a revolution. Both say it was a military coup, not a revolution of the people. Both call it mass killings and massacres (especially August 14). It is true, in the first days of the coup many western journalists and scientists followed Tamrod propaganda and faked numbers of protesters about June 30 and before. But meanwhile everyone knows about the reports of cooperation between secret service and Tamarod. And Tamarod itself admitted they gave faked numbers. So when you state (end of April, 2014!), that Guardian and Brookings support your opinion of July 3rd being a second revolution, you must have completely ignored all literature published since beginning of July, 2013. I don't know why you are doing so and it doesn't matter, whether you believe what you are stating or not. Because the result is: you drive on disinformation in Wikipedia and you don't care about the contents and opionion of the sources you cited. Instead of that you are building your own world here, full of incorrect numbers and information-source relations. There is no "good faith" left in trusting your work. It is miserable and I can prove that with nearly every single source you are citing and reproducing in bad manner. This is politics you write about and you distribute incorrect information all over the world. And after that you cite google matches to say, you are right. The truth is: today no one in the Western hemisphere calls it a "second revolution", but everyone calls it a coup. Everyone knows, August 14th was a mass killing and most call it a massacre. And you have to explain, why you try to present a second version here. One version, not covered by Human Rights Organisations, not by Scientists and today even not by journalists and general media reports. You have to explain that, because reputation of Wikipedia is in our responsibility. We are not Tamarod, we are not members of the regime of self declared field marshal Sisi. So when we WP authors don't get money from Saudi Arabia (we don't, right?), I don't see a reason why to ignore all the existing and cited reports and papers about Egypt since July, 2013. One example and again: please stop stating, that there were killed 43 police officers during Rabaa (and Nahda) mass killings! This "official" number relates to the "casualties of the day’s clashes", that is in all Egypt and that probably meanly relates to the Wednesday casualties after the mass killings and during the riots in several cities. I hope this helps understanding what it means: to work with sources, to read them, to understand the meaning, and then - not first - to honestly reproduce them. Hope you got it - this is not against you, Fitzcarmalan, it is against the method and the system you are using here, disinforming millions of people out there.--Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About the term raids: As mentioned above, this term does not implicate or suggest killings. And - again as mentioned above - the main characteristic feature of this incident is not only killing, but mass killing, and not only mass killing, but worst mass killing in modern Egyptian history (and human rights watch organisation call it "unlawful mass killing" and "massacre", too). So whoever titles this "raids", he hides the actual meaning of this historic event, and has to explain, why he intends that. So when you called it "raids" (and this means in this case: police raids!), everyone will associate what is usually defined as en:Police raid: "A police raid or dawn raid is a visit by the police, immigration officers or other officials often in the early morning, hoping to use the element of surprise to arrest targets that they think may hide evidence, resist arrest, be politically sensitive, or simply be elsewhere during the day." This term is not completely wrong, but it is completely dishonest applied in this special and extraordinary context. We are talking about a unprecedented historical event, not about an ordinary police action. As you know very well.
About Nahda: it's correct, that Nahda Square faced a similar mass killing that day, even though not at the same range of victims (Wiki Thawra states for Rabaa mass killing: 969 deads, for Nahda mass killing: 96 deads, this would mean 10:1). But this is widely neglected in the media (I don't agree with the media reports neglecting Nahda mass killings, but I noticed it). But to use "Nahda" for this RM as an argument for subtitution of "massacre" by "raids" is pure (and weak) rhetoric. You can have proposed "August 2013 Rabaa and Nahda Massacres" then. But is appears, that you try to avoid the terms "killings" or "massacre" in the title at all - since nearly one year. "Dispersal" is of course a vast euphemism for the targeted killings of hundreds od demonstrators, but "raid" is not much better as explained above. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the diff that shows me adding the '43 officers killed' part instead of building up walls of text full of groundless and unnecessary attacks/accusations. I don't remember being behind it.
The term 'massacre' used in the title represents one side's POV and it is still not a common name. The term 'mass killing' is a common description. A relevant lead intro, according to my "living room" mood can go like this: → The raids on the Rabaa and Nahda sit-ins occurred on 14 August, 2013, and refer to the mass killing of supporters of former president Mohamed Morsi by security forces. Unlike massacre, I rarely encounter 'mass killing' in Wikipedia titles. It seems to be appropriate for a title of an article that deals with systematic killings that occur on a regular basis for a relatively long period of time (e.g. Mass killings under Communist regimes), not for one-event articles like this one. Also, how many sources sources use 'massacre' to describe both Rabaa and Nahda? If you insist that 'raid' is not sensationalist enough for your ideal title, you can check my proposed compromise below. Either agree or disagree, but if you persist with those counter-productive ad hom arguments, I will have nothing more to say to you. Period. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Mass killing" sensationalist and only "relatively long period of time"? Are you kidding? This is the normal term used by nearly every single human rights organisation (as cited by me and permanent ignored by you), by every internatonal tribunal. It is a correct term in scientific use and juridical defined. You never read sources about such incidents, right? Someone like you writing an article like this... and saying: "Hey, it wasn't me who stated '43 policemen killed', and I don't care whether it is in the article or not. End of discussion". Wow! What a leaving. Who knows, maybe you will start reading sources when I go, let's try. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it is a massacre. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it was - without any doubt - a state-led mass killing and is widely called a "massacre" as well as "(unlawful) mass killing". e.g.:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anglo-Araneophilus (talk • contribs) 20:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC) + modified: --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree, I find the term "massacre" ,in addition to being not common name, is definitely a POV speaking of the definition of the the word massacre on it's article (A massacre is a specific incident in which a military force, mob, or other group kill many people—and the perpetrating party is perceived as in total control of force while the victimized party is perceived as helpless or innocent.) that contrasts with the reality that the protesters were armed which is crystal clear in the ENCHR's report and the videos of the sit-in dispersal available on YouTube. there was mass killing but speaking about one side and forgetting the fact that were 8-43 policemen dead and calling it a massacre is not netural. Sinai Horus 〉〉〉 12:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello User:Sinai Horus, do you have a source to state "8-43 policemen dead" or are you just one of the many disinformation victims of this article? --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"protesters were armed which is crystal clear": you mean, when reporting about a mass killing, perpetrated by Egyptian coup regime authorities, we can gather "crystal clearness" from information given by a state-run institution of the same regime, like the National Council for Human Rights, and don't care about contrary reports from independent human rights and scientific sources? Did I get it right, Sinai Horus? --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it was reported by an Egyptian national council doesn't necessarily mean that it is biased. the fact that there were armed protestors and that policemen were killed can't be denied. review the videos of the sit-ins dispersal and see the weapons which were inside sit-in. Personally, my brother's friend, a policeman, was killed during the dispersal of Rabaa sit-in by a bullet. Sinai Horus 〉〉〉 20:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the independent sources reported, police officers have been killed during the mass killings of the riot police. The question is, how many (9 is the number reported by 13 human rights organisations, including HRW and AI, by the way confer: at least 19 female (sic!) protesters - or shall we call them "terrorists"? - have been killed at Rabaa mass killing (not Nahda)) and how and when it happened (and it is the same question just from another direction: how many protesters have been killed and how and when did it happen). As far as I understand you don't know a single source for "43 policemen" being killed at Rabaa and Nahda mass killings, right? So explain, why did you write "8-43" then? What is the reason for this en:WP special number "43"? Maybe next time someone will write "millions" (cf: my edit here) here and no one cares about that? I don't blame the admins. They did their best and in such a special topic they probably had to trust the leading authors in some way. In my opinion these leading authors - like Fitzcarmalan, who dominates this discussion and maybe determed the direction of the whole article - did not work accurate at all here. And worse, I even can't see they tried at all. Well this is Wikpedia and nobody's perfect. But this is an encyclopaedic article about an outstandig historical event, the worst mass killing in Egypt's recent history and not the sandbox for your or my private sense of mission. Play at home! That's it and you can see the result now, when you compare this article with the original literatur cited here. So be careful with numbers. Be careful with causalities and - in first place - be careful with sources, which depend on the military regime. No one cites here Muslim brotherhood sources at first place, with good reasons. And on the other hand we have very good reasons to mistrust NCHR (btw: it is not "ENCHR", one of many small, but telling careless mistakes in this article). You remember Sisi's (why Sisi's? There was no government, even no military installed and military-led interim government existing that time) mass killing of July 8th? First they announced, 2 police officers been killed by "terrorists". Then the same day, New York Times reported, witnesses claimed, one police officer (Mohamed el-Mesairy) might habe been killed by military (NWT: page 1, page 2, NYT/The Lede). Or do you remember the two or more police officers, reportedly (and reportedly shown in Video footage) being killed on August 14th in Cairo, when "terrorists" "pushed" a police car from the bridge in Cairo? Then someone relased a video from a different angle, showing the police car driving towards a crowd of people and crashing into a bus, then driving back without beeing forced and falling from the bridge. What exactly happened - we don't know it. So we have to write, we don't know it. Or do you remember the police officer (Mustafa Sarı) killed in Turkey's Taksim-Gezi-Protests? He fell from a bridge when chasing a Gezi-protester (!). So, when you can explain what happened with those killed police officers, then do it, and please use valid sources. When you can explain, that about 1000 protesters had to be shot in selfe-defence by police on August 14th, do it. Until then it is a unlawful mass killing, as independent sources reported (HRW, AI and scientific sources as well). And when someone calls it massacre, of course this is a pro victim term. But this remains quite better at least, then to use pro perpetrator language, euphemisms and suggestive terms here. I don't see other possibilties to call this event than "mass killings" or "massacres". That has to be our choice. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HRW about NCHR: "The National Council for Human Rights (NCHR), Egypt’s government-appointed national human rights commission, announced on September 20 that it had appointed four fact-finding teams to produce reports about the events of August 14: the killings during the dispersal of the sit-ins, the attacks on police stations and killing of police officers in Cairo and in Minya, and the attacks on churches in at least eight governorates across Egypt. However, like any other human rights organization, the NCHR can only request information from the Interior Ministry and has no authority to access its documents or to summon security officers for questioning, and is therefore no replacement for an official fact-finding committee." The worst massacre of Egyptian history hasn't officially investigated yet. That's a "crystal clear" fact. Compare with the presentation of the "ENCHR Investigation" paragraph in this article! --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I need to address your continuous personal attacks. The protesters and those who sympathize with them claim it was a massacre, while the government and those who sympathize with it claim that what happened was a "counter-terrorism" operation.
"Everyone knows, August 14th was a mass killing and most call it a massacre" → Sorry, I'm not familiar at all with this "everyone". Can you prove that the word massacre is the common name used to describe the events? For a while I believed 'dispersal' was the most common because of its high prevalence in Arabic sources (even pro-victim ones), but from the way I see it now, there really is no common name.
Obviously, both perspectives are respective POVs. I don't prefer raid, it was just the most neutral term that comes to mind after dispersal was rejected. However, I still disagree about considering both words government POV (the government just happens to use them). On 2 August 2013, two weeks before the events, Amnesty International released a report where it claimed the Rabaa protesters had weapons and tortured anti-Morsi protesters, so technically speaking, the government had a legal justification to disperse the sit-in (but not for the disproportionate use of force) after several warnings. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is how you reacted all the time since one year: you just refuse to read sources, even those you cited yourself.
1. Amnesty International never stated the storming and mass killing of the Rabaa and Nahda sit-ins were justified by crimes. This is completely invented by yourself. I never read such argues by AI.
2. What you are citing here, relates to (read your own sources please): "Amnesty International has found that the capture and torture of suspected anti-Morsi protesters most frequently occurs during or in the immediate aftermath of violent clashes between the two camps." Did you understand? This were not one way crimes. Read more: "Mastour Mohamed Sayed, 21, told Amnesty International he and a group of 20 others were attacked by a group of Morsi supporters near the pro-Morsi sit-in at Rabaa al-Adawiya on 5 July.". You know, that July 5th was the first (small) mass killing by security forces outside the Republican Guard Club headquarters in Cairo, without ever been investigated? Do you see, you are constructing causalities without considering the context? Next reading please: "Since mass rival rallies began in late June, as of 28 July, eight bodies have arrived at the morgue in Cairo bearing signs of torture. At least five of these were found near areas where pro-Morsi sit-ins were being held." This is one day after the mass killing of July 27, when Egyptian police killed about 95 protesters (according to independent sources, again no investigation of the killings followed). Of course all important crimes commmited by Anti-coup protesters or Pro-coup supporters have to be investigated and to be reported, too. But there is absolutely no causality stated in the sources the way you constructed here. Opposite: according to the sources it seems there usually was a mass killing immediately before those incidents, not after it. The way, you inverted the order, is really adventurous. It is completely equal whether Pro-coup or Anti-coup supporter perpetrated crimes. The only thing we have to keep in mind is, to report in a correct manner, based on reliable sources. I hope you can follow this point: we should report shapes, not colours.
@Sorry, I'm not familiar at all with this "everyone". Can you prove that the word massacre is the common name used to describe the events?: You should be, because I already cited some, Fitzcarmalan. This "everyone" is every reliable source, in this case this means - of course - independent scientists and human rights organisations, not the involved Pro-coup regime sources, nor the involved Anti-coup groups (such as the both banned Muslim Brotherhood or April 6 Youth Movement and others). And you should already know what I meant with "everyone" because I spent some time to explain it to you. Don't you like reading sources? I'm afraid, if this should be the case, my time will be wasted here with you. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Compromise?

How about Crackdown on the Rabaa and Nahda sit-ins? I also see 'crackdown' commonly used by sources and it demonstrates to some extent the seriousness of the event in a neutral and descriptive way. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Compromise"? Or rotten compromise? Once again, Fitzcarmalan, do you intend to prevent deads being associated with this lemma with all means? Shall I cite again the recent valid casualty ranges?
1. If August 14th was a simple crackdown in Egypt without a large number of killings, no one would have created an own article for that in en:WP, right?
2. According to independent sources (ECESR, Wiki Thawra) - adopted from a majority of well known human rights organisations - we may assume a minimum total of about 900 dead protesters for Rabaa and Nahda mass killings of August 14, 2013. Do you agree with this point or not? Did you ever heard from such an event in this century before?
3. As you prove by your change of argues and attitudes ("dispersal", "raid", "crackdown", ...), there is not only one possibility to assign a valid attribute to this event. But existing validity of an attribute does not mean, it is the adequate lemma in an encyclopedia. What we have to find out is:
  • What is the main meaning of this event in history and policy: what is the main meaning: crack down or 900 deads, say you!
  • What is the term, most and most important scientific and leading sources (human rights organisations, leading media such as New York Times, The Guardian...) use for it (see above: the answer is clearly "mass killing" and "massacre").
  • What is the already distributed name, known in the general public: This is what you are talking about all the time. But there is no unitised common term for "Rabaa massacre", used on the streets in Berlin or London yet. They don't call it "Crackdown on the Rabaa and Nahda sit-ins" either. Nor "riots", "clashes", "raids", They have no term at all. When you refer to the general media reports you have to refer to those, written after the most important human rights reports have been released. This point point does not help us determing the lemma.
I want to give you an adivce, Fitzcarmalan. When say you are searching for an "neutral and descriptive way" you should try at least to distance yourself from the terminology and ideology of Sisi's coup regime. You stated here "Al-Jazeera and some other exclusively pro-Morsi websites" What you try to equalise here, is English and Arabic AlJazeera. AlJazeera International (English channel) did not differ significantly from New York Times or Guardian reporting at all. In contrary to all of your edits here it was not biased for any conflict party. Check yourself: NYT, AJ, Guardian. If you think AlJazeera International is "exclusively pro-Morsi website" - as you put it - then cite a valid source to prove it. When you can't cite such a source, maybe better read first about the recent process against Peter Greste, think about it again, before talking such things here to convince people of your private ideas. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • checkY Allow me to join this conversation. First, I'm Egyptian, and I've witnessed a big portion of the events regarding the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 since the start closely from a wide range of views. I used to edit Wikipedia (Arabic mainly) a few years back. I've got used to seeing biased opinions. There will always be biased opinions, since this is the internet and life in general. I found the events to be unfortunate and I wish they would've never happened, and that they would've ended peacefully. I've opposed the crackdown since the first moment, but that doesn't change my opinion on neutrality regarding reviewing and naming what happened.
TL; DR; The most used unbiased/professional Arabic/English name is: 2013 Crackdown on Rabaa and Al-Nahda sit-ins [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] / The user who changed the name at first, used a sock puppet, and got banned! / We are not looking for your personal opinion of the unfortunate controversial events, but the neutral consensus for a title in the real world / Check Sources down there
How did I get here as a normal user who was searching for a certain article on an encyclopedia?
  • I was reading the Arabic article wanting to see the latest verified number of civilian/police deaths in the crackdown on Rabaa in August 2013. That article name is Crackdown on Rabia and AlNahda Sit-ins which is the neutral name.[1]
  • I wanted to check the English version, which I usually do with articles in Arabic.
  • First thing I noticed is the title. I got surprised. I noticed right away that the title is biased. The word "massacre" is rarely used. And when used, it's mainly used as political propaganda by Islamist media outlets.
  • I suspected that someone has "played" with the title, so I checked the article history, and guess what: it was edited by a sock puppet user called User:Qjahid of User:Usaeedi. Who got banned. I wonder why? huh.
  • I totally support everyone having their view regarding the unfortunate events. Only thing is: you shouldn't do that in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not your personal blog!
  • I came to the talk page to suggest a move "back" to the original name or a more common one "crackdown".
  • I found out User:Fitzcarmalan has made a move-back request to the original or even better a more neutral-global title.
  • Crackdown is the name used in all crackdowns on protesters in Egypt, including Tahrir in 28 Jan 2011 (during the first revolution), which had roughly the same number of deaths, why would Wikipedia use this biased title now! I never heard anyone call crackdown on Tahrir a massacre!
  • I understand how the events and deaths in the Arab Spring are emotional and touch everyone of us, even more when you're "in it", not just ideologically attached to it because it touches people who share the same political views as you. But this is Wikipedia, and I hope we try to stay and be neutral or this will hit the credibility of a neutral encyclopedia.
  • Note 1: I really find it bizarre that we're even discussing this, if you can read Arabic (which I do being Arabic), follow Egyptian news daily (which I do being Egyptian), and live the events day-by-day on the ground, you'd directly deduct that both users User:Anglo-Araneophilus and the banned User:Qjahid and a third Turkish user (no offense, but I had to look up why were you guys so biased) are biased because of their own national opinions, and I find it clear regarding the huge amount of sources simply by searching online, that everyone in the home country of the event (Egypt), and in the Arab speaking world, and worldwide, calls it a crackdown. I believe this discussion should've started before the banned user User:Qjahid changed the name on his own, not now. This discussion shouldn't exist in the first place, if it weren't for a user that "hacked" Wikipedia's rules to force his point of view here and god knows where else.
  • Note 2: I don't like personification of opinions, but clearly User:Anglo-Araneophilus is personifying User:Fitzcarmalan's opinions. And if we do the same regarding Anglo, you're Turkish, why wouldn't anyone assume you're biased to the opinions taken by your government and its media outlets. Is this acceptable in Wikipedia?
  • Note 3: AlJazeera is thought of as biased, not only regarding Egypt's current situation but other situations in the region too. Which resulted in a diplomatic clash between Egypt/Saudia Arabia/UAE/Bahrain goverments and the Qatari government (AlJazeera owner) because of the Qatari financial and media support of Islamist movements in the region. AlJazeera is also biased in this specific topic and should be avoided when possible. [1] [2]
  • P.S. I believe most accurate title would be 2013 Crackdown on Rabaa and Al-Nahda sit-ins or something like that (there were in fact a few other small sit-ins but mostly unmentioned by names, and weren't as prominent). These are the names used everyday in Egypt, Arab World, and Worldwide. Anything else, excuse me, I'd find clearly biased to the Islamist-view or the State-view regarding the unfortunate events.
  • TL; DR; I agree / The user who changed the name in the first place was clearly biased, and got banned! / Most worldwide media use "crackdown" / AlJazeera is biased regarding that topic but still uses "crackdown" too! / This name is not common and doesn't represent the article correctly / The Arabic name uses "crackdown".
197.163.69.48 (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, IP197.163.69.48, why should I be a Turkish user? Because I have a account for Turkish WP? I have got no problem to "admit" that I am German - I thought you would hear my accent when reading my bad "Denglish" here :-D This is no secret at all, even though I did not understand what this has to do with the discussion whether we should call the Rabaa mass killing "clashes", "disperses", "crackdowns", "massacres", "mass killings" or whatever in the lemma. It's not important for me, but you simply could have asked me, what my nationality is, when yor are so interested in that, instead of calling me being the first of three Turkish users anywhere here. In this discussion it seems to be fashion first to state something and later to correct it. Not a good style.--Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a moment, IP197.163.69.48, and let's have a closer look at how you used sources here to back your position according to the term "crackdown":
Pictures made by Asmaa Shehata on August 14. Cf. Louisa Loveluck/GP: "In one of Asmaa’s photographs, a man's brain has slipped out across the field hospital's bloodied floor. <cf. here> Yet the interior ministry still claimed that live ammunition wasn't used. In a statement that evening the ministry insisted that police had used only tear gas against protesters." Note that the argumentation of user:Fitzcarmalan / IP197.163... not to use "massacre" bases on the NCHR report, a semi official institution, which relies on the coup regime's "information" and "has no power to compel officials to testify" (NYT: "Memory of a Mass Killing Becomes Another Casualty of Egyptian Protests")
I did not even start to sum up reports of journalists, because there is no lack of publications by scientists and human rights organisations which have be mentioned first. But since a GlobalPost article of August 14th (just the day it happened) has cited here by IP197.163.69.48 as a "proof" against the term "massacre", let's have a look at what Cairo based Louisa Loveluck wrote End of February 2014 in this - explicitly so-called - "GlobalPost reconstruction" ("What really happened on the day more than 900 people died in Egypt - The story of a massacre", 26. February 2014) of the event:
"By the end of the day on Aug. 14, 2013, more than 900 people would die inside the encampment, plunging Egypt into turmoil. It was the deadliest day in the history of Egypt's republic. The fallout from the massacre has poisoned the country’s post-revolutionary politics, locking Egypt’s military-backed authorities and the Muslim Brotherhood into a battle for survival that has devastated families, hardened sectarian tensions, and facilitated the rise of Islamic militancy. But six months later, the truth about what happened in Rabaa al-Adaweya Square is hotly contested. This GlobalPost reconstruction — based on eyewitness interviews, visits to the scene, first-hand observation on Aug. 14, and an examination of video and photographic evidence — shows that thousands of peaceful demonstrators were trapped inside the camp as security forces mounted often indiscriminate attacks on the crowds." I recommend Louisa Loveluck's reports. She is not affiliated with Moslem Brotherhood at all, but was close to the occasions of Rabaa on August 14th. Her findings differ from what semi-official (that means semi-coup-administration official) NCHR wrote, which is favored by IP197.163.69.48 and user Fitzcarmalan. But they are in line with scientific and human rights findings. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC) By the way, this GlobalPost article is also interesting, because it mentions Asmaa Shehata as an eye witness. She - as member of the Rabaa sit-in and as journalist - documentated the Rabaa August 14 mass killing within the makeshift field hospital and make shift morgue, published some photos in Newspapers, and she shared many photos on Flickr (1, 2, 3), some of them used here now in The Free Encyclopedia. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC) + typos: --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I showed above, the way you treat sources here, twists information, selects the details you want to prove and hides those, which does not support your claims. You chose sources which were published days before the event as well as in the first hours of the more than 10 hours lasting event. You even changed the related events (July 8, August 14). You limit your sources to the days of the event (latest source was August 16!) and you don't mention sources, which gather information from later investigations, like those of Amnesty International, HRW, Wiki Thawra, Patrick Kingsley... This is exactly the way, Fitzcarmalan (mis?)used the sources in this article for his claims. And this is the reason, why I made my comments here, even though Fitzcarmalan refuses to acknowledge the shown facts. Will you? According to Arabic sources: I can't read them, but what is the point? Why do we need Arabic sources to determine the English lemma?--Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • TL; DR; There's no source consensus on the current 1-dimensional title, reverting back to the original (dispersal of) or using another (crackdown on) would be the only accepted neutral approaches: 2013 (Crackdown on)/(Dispersal of) Rabaa and Al-Nahda Sit-ins, with content providing all different views with their sources.
  • The hiding parts: You flame everything in conspiracy. And you misread everything written by anyone other than yourself like it's intended to be a global conspiracy on hiding the "truth" you personally believe and try to force!
  • If you read what I wrote clearly, you'd see that what I want to change is the article's title not the article's content, which I actually find neutral enough.
  • AlJazeera: It'd be a joke if you can say any news network is always "biased", or always "neutral". When we talk about AlJazeera and its news coverage of Egypt, it definitely has a long list of precedents of biased coverage, including the sources I already give you up there. AlJazeera isn't Herodotus (i.e. not the main source, or the only source of coverage in a huge country like Egypt), so sticking to it as the only valid source in a sensitive matter like this simply means we're using biased sources to force our opinions. So better use other valid multiple sources, and make it a low priority.
  • The bias: The words mass killings have been used literally on every scale of protest deaths in the middle east recently, except in this article it had to be named a massacre, a clearly biased name written by a banned mysterious user.
  • The banned sock puppet User:Qjahid: Clearly this discussion wouldn't exist if the banned fake user didn't edit the name without anyone noticing, until later, when multiple users tried to retrieve it. This discussion should have started before the initial edit, not now after that user has created a biased name without a "name change request"!
  • Why Arabic? I understand Arabic fluently (of course), and the Arabic sources I provided can simply be translated using Google/Bing translate, to see the common idiom of the mother language of the events. I cited, and would cite AlJazeera to prove that "even" the biased network (towards the Egyptian events, we're not talking about Ukraine here) used the idiom that's common in other places.
  • The situation in Egypt: Every protest in Egypt has had casualties, huge in a huge country, if you don't know, it's called civil unrest for a reason. And police brutality is a huge problem in here. Only this crackdown/dispersal is called a "massacre" but others are different? And that's not bias!
  • Who said it's not bloody? It's bloody! Are you kidding? of course it's a bloody crackdown, in all of Egypt hundreds died, including police officers in the process, protestors, and civilians. A lot of churches got burned by angry Islamists, and a lot of terrorist acts happened and still happening because of the events following the Revolution of 2013 and the following ouster of Mursi.
  • Naming/Content There's a huge difference between naming it a crackdown and including all details in article, and simply calling it massacre like it was a one sided act! The crackdown spanned a few protester sit-ins and squares, with protestors fighting back the cops that order them to comply to the law! The police is brutal no doubt, but it was always brutal and it's a huge problem we're facing. But when writing an encyclopedia you write all the different opinions in the content, and use the most common neutral name, because simply there is a big list of names to every event (The Holocaust isn't called a The Jewish Massacre, although it was a huge 1-sided massacre, but it's not our opinion it's the naming pattern used to identify an event).
  • There's no consensus on any naming in your or my sources: I've given a bunch of sources (my first reply), with many more existing with a simple search "crackdown on Rabaa/Rabia" in Google, and checking the huge amount of news articles of major sources / Again the naming should simply be the "frame" of the event, i.e. crackdown on protesters, like the way every protest crackdown is called. And in the content, the opposing opinions can be written (i.e. Islamists and some governments (Turkey, Qatari) call the events a "massacre" instead of a 2-sided violence etc. Which would be acceptable in a encyclopedia.
  • You can't find a single common name which has consensus? Then use a neutral one, and describe the different views in the content of the article.
  • Sources itself disagree, then why should we take your opinions over others? I find massacre lacking any neutrality, even to the content itself, which states more than one opinion, and the events you yourself stated, like protesters jamming around a police vehicle until the driver lost control and fell off, or the burning of churches!!
  • Final words: 2013 (Crackdown on)/(Dispersal of) Rabaa and Al-Nahda Sit-ins: any other words are biased to certain sources, ignoring other sources. In content we can add parts saying that "certain" views consider it to be a massacre, and state whatever sources you have. But definitely don't cover the whole thing with some sources, hide the other sources, then call everyone else wrong!
M 197.163.69.48 (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The hiding parts": When did I construct or use a conspiracy? I say, you don't use sources in a correct manner. For what reasons - only you can know. There are many possibilities.
  • "If you read what I wrote clearly" this article's content isn't neutral at all, and I understood well from what you wrote here, that you don't want to change it.
  • AlJazeera: You have to clarify what you are referring to. AlJazeera international is different from Arabic AlJazeera (which is indeed said to be pro-MB) and it is subject of Egypt's coup regime propaganda (think of Peter Greste) So be careful citing Egyptian state'S decision (by military-installed and led interim government's authorities) to ban AlJazeera. We have to rely on Western sources in this case; not on those of the coup regime.
  • The bias: [...] "massacre, a clearly biased name written by a banned mysterious user: According to your conflict with that "banned mysterious user" please contact the admins. I can't help you with that. They may help you by investigate IPs or what digital protocols ever can be used for it. But stop suggesting that I am Turkish or have been banned or whatever this expression "banned mysterious user" shall give us in this context. Who "flames everything in conspiracy" as you put it? You or me? Look at what and how you are writing here.
  • The banned sock puppet User:Qjahid: I commented especially the recent editing and suggestions of Fitzcarmalan, not of User:Qjahid. Maybe those of him were worse than those of Fitzcarmalan. But Fitzcarmalan has still got permission to write here and that's why I address him, not any banned users. The use of sock puppets or the use of anonymous IPs by registrated users may be a bad sign of their intentions or attitudes. That's right, IP197.163.69.48.
  • Why Arabic?: I don't know what languages you can speak fluently or not, but what does that mean for the decision to name the lemma? The sources have to be reliable, not "Arabic". Why should it be necessary to cite Arabic sources to find a lemma for English WP? I don't get the point.
  • The situation in EgyptThe mass killing of August 14 in Egypt is outstanding from every other killing there. It is not simply an example of a random "police brutality", but a planned action by the coup administration. The military coup leader Sisi declared after the mass killing of august 14, in an interview in october 2013, the number of "lossed" was smaller than expected when planning the action: "“Honestly, we were afraid the losses would be greater than this … we told them please leave, but the other party didn’t want to listen or think,”"! And why does a "civil unrest" against a coup automatically mean, that more than 900 protesters have to be killed, probably most of them targetly? What kind of obscene logic do you want to presuppose for this encyclopedia?
  • Naming/Content [...] and simply calling it massacre like it was a one sided act! I don't prefer "massacre", but "mass killing" - but there is no doubt - according to all reliable sources given here - that the mass killing was practically completely asymmetrical. If you think that a rate of about 1000:10 (or 100:1) is a sign of a non-"one sided" action you can cite sources to prove your opinion. All sources I know (and given here) describe the action of the riot police as planned and practically one sided, even in the case, individual demonstrators should have used fire weapons (e.g.: see HRW report!). When I say, I don't prefer the term "massacre" it is because the term itself is not defined in a juristic and forensic manner, not because there were existing any doubts in the stunning asymmetry of the mass killing. To cite the "The Holocaust" here is a disgusting mockery of the systematic and murderous killing of about six million civilians in Europe by the German (and other European) NAZI regimes. The Holocoust lasted not 10 hours, but - in some respect - more than 10 years. This comparison is completely out of place here. Of course the "Holocaust" wasn't just a massacre. It was genocide. You should apologise for this.
  • like the way every protest crackdown is called. Yes, that's what you state. August 14 mass killing was not kind of "every protest crackdown" as you want to see it. Interesting aspect of your viewing.
  • Sources itself disagreePardon? Of course you have to consider, who (which author) wrote for which publishing source, when (what day, what state of process of the event) did he wrote it, based on which sources (news agency information, investigative reporting, official sources, scientific sources...) did he wrote it. What do you mean with "Sources itself disagree"? When you carefully read reliable sources, and when you try to understand them, most of them are consistent. Contrary to the changing temporarily arguments presented here by Fitzcarmalan, for example. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Dispersal/Crackdown are both acceptable. Massacre is directly judging and biased Islamist propaganda, clearly hiding a long road of civil unrest before the event of dispersal. The situation is too complicated to simply give it a non-neutral name. I believe the article should include the whole story from the beginning instead of throwing big words like massacre to enforce 1-dimensional views of the civil conflict.
  • Dispersal/Crackdown can include a massacre-point-of-view in the content, and I believe it should. But a massacre-title simply negates and hides many other views that should exist in the content (Islamists threatening to burn Egypt a month before the crackdown or Islamists attacking churches are just examples). Ignoring this in the article clearly gives an impression that it was a 1-sided massacre, not a dispersal of a sit-in in a long civil conflict that sadly turned bloody.
  • Sock puppet User:Qjahid is the one who edited the name from "dispersal" to "massacre" (The Infamous Edit) without a prior discussion. Technically he was hiding his identity to abuse Wikipedia. I'm saying this to tell you, that this discussion is too late, it should've started before the biased edit not after.
  • What User:Qjahid did is a common Wikipedia abuse. Someone changes a controversial article's name/content without a discussion, which forces other editors to start a new discussion after the name change has happened. And of course because the issue is controversial no consensus is reached, so the biased title/content gets stuck.
  • There's no consensus on any naming, because it's a controversial issue. Some sources in the mother tongue of the event, and English too (which I already provided) name it a dispersal/crackdown then describe the different views in the content.
  • Whatever name is used must be neutral and not take the side of either the government or the Islamists. Both are the 2 parties of the unfortunate Islamist civil unrest (2013+).
  • A side-note 1: I never attached you User:Anglo-Araneophilus to User:Qjahid, so don't bend the meaning of my words.
  • A side-note 2: The Egyptian problem - everyone must understand - has multiple different views internally and externally (Revolution 2011/2013 vs Coup), (Elected President vs Coup Regime). Sticking to one of the views is the trait of biased people. In Wikipedia you always state all the different views even if you hate them, again Wikipedia is not your personal blog.
M 197.163.8.128 (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All to my knowledge "massacre" is indeed not a technical term, not defined exactly and not valid in international courts for example. But your pronouncement "Massacre is directly judging and biased Islamist propaganda" is ignoring both, independent Western scientific literature and human rights reportings. Read these examples (there are many more, I even did not mention countless media reports, such as in leading German and English speaking media journals). None of them is distributing "biased Islamist propaganda". And it is no "directly judging", with regard to several well known reports of independent human rights organisations, who all tell the same story. You just have to cite literature, published after Aug-16 and to remember your own words: "Wikipedia is not your personal blog". Of course there is a long-term context, since there occured a military coup on July 3rd, do you agree it was a coup? Of course this context has to be explained thoroughly in the article, too. One day before the JP-article you mentioned was published, the coup leader (now president of Egypt, even though without any parliament yet) let shot several protesters in Cairo - it was the first state-led ("small") mass killing in a row that led - but did not ended with - the mass protesters killing of August-14 (see here for example). But it could have been easier to clarify all that, when I've had criticised the methods used here many months earlier. That's right. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2013 Rabaa Massacre" vs "2013 Rabaa and Al-Nahda Dispersal/Crackdown" for a title is as much judging/biased as "2014 Crimean Occupation" vs "2014 Crimean Crisis". You can't sum up one point of view in the title, instead you use neutral "enclosing" titles (Crisis/Crackdown/Dispersal) then elaborate in the content with all the different views.
  • The dispersal is commonly called a crackdown for sure among other names. Some sources after the dispersal was completed: [1: IBITimes] [2: Guardian] [3: FoxNow/AFP] [4: BBC] [5: Time] among others.
  • BBC even details with the number of policemen casualties during the wide crackdown (43 deaths), adding to what I already said, that the "massacre" term would side with "a single view among others" that it was a 1-sided situation, not a part of an unrest which has multiple sides and views.
  • Some reports do exactly as I suggest (IBITimes, Guardian, FoxNews/AFP): Neutral crackdown title, then include the details of any other views (including the big number of casualties, and casualties of all sides) in the content. They are not even encyclopedias that have to be neutral; on the contrary they more than usual reflect certain political views and ignore others.
  • A side-note: Our views regarding the 2013- situation in Egypt shouldn't reflect upon our editing of this article. We're discussing a very specific topic so lets stick to it, and leave other political discussions to other talk pages.
M 197.163.7.205 (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really, IP197.163.7.205, don't you think, enough is enough with distorting information? The BBC source you cited, which is mentioning more than 40 killed police officers being killed, explicitly refers to the "aftermath" of the Rabaa mass killing (even the title is "In pictures: Aftermath of crackdown on Egypt camps") in all Egypt and - even more - the caption you refer to in this BBC publishing says the opposite from what you are stating: "At least 43 members of the security forces died in the fighting. Here an officer is buried in the country's second city, Alexandria." No word from Rabaa and Nahda in this context, even not from Cairo. Don't pervert sources that way! And anyway: this source is from August 15th. When you want to prove anything, you have to consider sources released with some distance, which can confer the numbers given by military-led authorities with independent sources. What does this mean:
Objection: We are in a mess, because you, Fitzcarmalan - everywhere in en:WP - tried to substitute terms used by reputable scientists, independent human rights organisation and leading international news media, with those, used by the military-led coup regime as well as by the secret-service-connected Tamarod campaign. Reliable western sources today strongly emphase, that the state-led mass killing of more than 900 protesters on August 14 was the worst mass killing in modern European history. And when I entered this discussion this had nothing to do with Usaeedi or any sock puppet. I would have come to clarify your inaccepable way of misusing sources anyway. Don't reduce my arguments to a consequence of those users' edits. Actually it's alone a result of the mess your biased edits (deliberately or because of disability, I can't and don't want to decide) caused here. The admins laid very much confidence and patience in your work here. And I probably agree with you, even though we know, that a vast majority of Egyptian media is under military-backed state control and strongly use propaganda and demonise all opponents of the military backed regime (including April 6 Youth Movement for example), this does not necessarily mean, that every single member of this completely polarised society has to think polarised, too (I can cite reliable sources for what I just said, if wanted). But on the other hand an encyclopedia can not, shall not, may not tolerate to be dominated by biased terms, which sound as coming from the worst military regime Egypt has experienced ever. And exactly this is, what well known scientists, statistics and international human rights organisation say about the first nine months of the regime of self declared field marshal Abdel Fattah el-Sisi (I'm keen on citing sources, if you persist on that here). So there is indeed some sensitiveness indispensable in determing the correct lemma of this article, when Wikipedia does not want to be misused here, but wants to ensure information, not disinformation, of people. Hope, this helped a little. I'm not here to attack a person, but to defend the content of sources, you distorted here. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One (of many) example of what Fitzcarmalan did here and of what this means for neutrality of his terms: Imagine all Egypt media under complete state control (the only counterbalance was formed by a few Arabic speaking (foreign) world services such as: Al Arabiya, Al Jazeera, Deutsche Welle or BBC Arabic): "More accurate because the events were centered in Cairo and "dispersal" is the most common name within Egypt" Within Egypt? What sources did he compare? Fitzcarmalans emphases himself, he does not rely on Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. I don't know the Arabic reports from Deutsche Welle and BBC Arabic, but I know their German and English reports and they don't support the position, Fitzcarmalan tries to push in this discussion. So which Arabic speaking sources does Fitzcarmalan refer to at all? All leading western reports say (e.g. Der Spiegel in Germany and so does Deutsche Welle and even the editor in chief of alternative news site Mada Masr, Lina Attalah), Egyptian media situation (especially state-led, but also to some extend private) is close to Gleichschaltung, and Fitzcarmalan argues (in en:WP!) with usage of Egyptian media? Unbelievable. That's the way we reach neutrality here? Using terms of Egyptian media? And he still has the boldness to add: "August 2013 Cairo sit-ins dispersal is more accurate because raids usually refers to an armed confrontation and "sit-ins dispersal" (فض الاعتصام) is the most common name used by Egyptians to describe the events." By Egyptians! Trust your eyes: that time Egyptians cutted their beards not to get in prison or even to be shot by military installed regime just because of their facial hair-growth, everyone who just possessed any writings of Muslim Brotherhood (which the military state claimed to be "terrorists"), even just a R4bia-flyer, recollecting the August 14 mass killing, was threatened to be punished with up to 5 year prison just because of that. And Fitzcarmalan says he knows, what term is "common name used by Egyptians". What Egyptians you refer to, Fitzcarmalan? Those 75%, who dominated the first and only democratic system in Egypt, till the coup happened? Or this one, who initiated a coup and controls the media now? Or whom do you refer to? Let's see your own socio-scientific studies and public opinion polls, say where did you publish it, enlighten us, don't let us starve in nescience about your sources! Too much sarcasm? I don't think so. Everyone easily can get aware of what happened here and how we have been taken in by him with what kind of methods. An Egyptian judge takes about 20 minutes, to sentence first 529, then about the same time to sentence again 683 people to death penalty, for killing one police officer in both cases. And Fitzcarmalan argus with "common use" in Egypt. It is common use in Egypt to call all opponents of field marshall Sisi "terrorists". Shall we use that, too, here therefore. What a logic, what a user, what a mess, we are in now. Indeed. The whole article needs carfule revision to remove such military controlled narratives in Egypt. This is the sad truth. Thanks Fitzcarmalan and some others for this mess. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For those who don't have opportunity to study literature according to the situation and characteristics of Egyptian media, on which Fitzcarmalan tried to base his argumentation here to determine the lemma of this article, here are some short talks of the conference titled as "The Role of the Media in Egypt's Military Coup", organized by the Institute for Religion, Culture and Public Life (IRCPL), Columbia University, NY. I'd like to point to Mohamad Elmasry's talk (University of Denver), who underlines, that Egyptian journalists understand themselves as political "activists", not as watchdogs, as used in Western hemisphere ("His PhD dissertation examined the ways news is produced in Egypt"). The talk of Nadia Elmagd (Aljazeera, which user:Fitzcarmalan called here "exclusively pro-Morsi website") is in accordance to all reports from Western scientists and experts and is supported by Mohamad Elmasry as well. It is nearly unthinkable, Fitzcarmalan - who says to be familiar with the situation in Egypt and/or Cairo - does not know about the amount of hysterical propaganda Egypt faced under the military backed regime after the coup of junta leader Sisi and during the "massacres" (Mohamad Elmasry), conducted in de-facto responsibility of Sisi. Wael Abbas is a well-known acticist in new social media, and I never heard, that he is affiliated with Muslim Brotherhood in any sense. Regarding to the terms used by Egyptian media we should have the information in mind, Mohamad Elmasry stresses: "Because this is a very perplexing and important problem: this issue of concentration of ownership in Egypt. Nadia (Elmagd) is absolutely right: we have a small group of very wealthy multimillionaires, billionaires even, who own all of the media and they all happen to have the same basic political ideas." Who is interested in this matter, there is a lot of reputable literature available contributing to this aspect, which is very important for our topic here. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, I was addressing Usaeedi, not you, because of his threats of getting me blocked on my talk page. He did the same thing through his sock a while ago. And no, this mess wasn't created by me and my biased work, it is due to Qjahid's undiscussed move from 'dispersal' to 'massacre'. Before that I moved the article from 'raids' to 'dispersal' but you clearly showed that you do not agree with either of those, so I fail to see what your problem is regarding that. I did not refuse to read the sources and I'm not trying to evade reading them, I'm just trying to avoid engaging with you in any discussion, because I've been told to avoid engaging with editors who resort to an offending uncivil tone (makes me feel ashamed to work for the same platform as you do / he does not know it... well, how to call him? Say yourself, Fitzcarmalan! / this is an encyclopedia, not your living room / you are hiding behind "good faith" and many more..). You keep suggesting that you're only here to defend this article from my biased work and that nothing is personal, but most of your arguments here prove otherwise. Furthermore, you insist on claiming that I am a biased editor, but I think I also have the right to question your own neutrality on the subject with comments like "the worst military regime Egypt has experienced ever" and your POVish repetition of 'mass killing' almost 70 times in this thread alone. You are the one building irrelevant conclusions out of your sources by analysing the work of the articles' authors citing other works published by them. No one asked you to do that here, and once again you fail to prove that 'massacre' is a WP:COMMONNAME.
The following is in response to 2 previous allegations you made about me:
  1. Amnesty International never stated the storming and mass killing of the Rabaa and Nahda sit-ins were justified by crimes. This is completely invented by yourself. I never read such argues by AI. → I never said that Amnesty stated it was justified. Do not put words in my mouth. By law, the government has the right to intervene in a situation like this when they are exposed to evidence of torture. The Egyptian government technically used Amnesty's report as a pretext to disperse the sit-in: Far from running scared of Amnesty, the leaders of the Egyptian coup have publicly quoted from its reports as part of their justification for the slaughter of pro-Mohamed Morsi activists.
  2. Do you see, you are constructing causalities without considering the context? → I am not the one doing that. Nothing in the Amnesty report says they are related to the July 5 Republican Guard HQs and the July 27 Rabaa killings. To say the torture and the 'mass killings' were related without sources would be a flagrant WP:SYNTH. The mere purpose of me bringing up the torture thing here is to simply prove that both sides have their respective POVs that should be considered as each blames the other for what happened on August 14 and the ENCHR suggests that the pro-Morsi protesters provoked the violence.
This "everyone" is every reliable source, in this case this means - of course - independent scientists and human rights organisations, not the involved Pro-coup regime sources, nor the involved Anti-coup groups → This everyone is not "every reliable source". This everyone only represents the cherrypicked ones you provided, and I can do the same thing. But that's not how you prove that a word is a common name. To do so, you must provide a representative sample of many sources and find out it if is used by a significant majority of these sources. My sample is a very simple Google search of "rabaa sit-in" (excluding photo galleries, Al-Ahram, opinion pieces and unreliable blogs). You can check for yourself. The following are 18 sources collected from the first 5 pages by order of appearance:
– Daily News Egypt by the same Rana Muhammad Taha whose articles you used above.
Use (and repetition) of massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersed/al =  17 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– American University in Cairo
massacre =  1 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  0 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– Middle East Monitor
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  2 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– GlobalPost
massacre =  1 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  1 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  1
– GlobalPost
massacre =  2 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  12 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  6
– The Cairo Post
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  8 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– The Christian Science Monitor
massacre =  2 // mass killing =  2 // dispersal =  2 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  4
– Human Rights Monitor
massacre =  5 // mass killing =  1 // dispersal =  13 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  1
– BBC
massacre =  6 (all quoted opinion) // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  7 (excluding opinion pieces) // raid =  5 (including a link to another BBC article) // crackdown =  3
– Vice News
massacre =  4 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  2 // raid =  1 // crackdown =  1
– World Bulletin
massacre =  5 // mass killing =  1 // dispersal =  9 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– Amnesty International
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  6 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– The Guardian → An article that discusses the status of a detained Al-Jazeera journalist with a flashback on the August 14 events. This is a clear example of how common 'dispersal' is used within a random article's context months after the events.
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  1 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– Islamist Gate
massacre =  1 (quoted opinion) // mass killing =  1 (citing HRW) // dispersal =  0 // raid =  1 // crackdown =  1
– Mada Masr
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  6 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– International Business Times
massacre =  1 (a link to another IBT article and a quoted partisan opinion) // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  0 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  1
– Daily Mail
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  1 // raid =  1 // crackdown =  4
– New York Times
massacre =  1 (link to another NYT article) // mass killing =  3 // dispersal =  0 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0 (different context)
Tally (if my calculation is correct) → We have 14 for 'dispersal' (11 if you want to exclude "Egyptian media" sources like Daily News Egypt, Mada Masr and The Cairo Post). We have 9 for both 'massacre' and crackdown' (11 for massacre if you want to include the quoted opinions of Muslim Brotherhood figures and spokespersons). Finally we have only 5 for 'mass killing' and 4 for 'raid'. Is there any term here that outnumbers the others significantly? No. But we do, however, have 2 commonly used ones (dispersal > massacre). Problem is, we all know that both sides of the conflict favor these two and commonly use them. There is a reason why, for example, we don't use massacre to describe the Ghouta chemical attack (which occurred in the same month with 1000+ fatalities) even though many sources us the word and even though both sides in the Syrian conflict describe it as such. Therefore we must go by the most descriptive and neutral name, and if you have a problem with the art of compromising then it would be pointless to discuss this with you any further. Both terms are closely followed by 'crackdown', which is undoubtedly used by both sides (feel free to revise my sources).
You complain about ENHCR being government-backed, but you seem to ignore and even underline the Brookings Doha Center (co-chaired by Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, a member of Qatar's royal family) as if anything that comes out of it is automatically reliable. Also, Wikipedia is not obliged to consider human rights organizations a universal consensus that everyone should follow (take a look at the criticism section in Human Rights Watch). Once again, we go by the common name in cases like that, not by any kind of authority (a government, a human rights group, a "reputable" person, etc). Period Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
:-) Really this table!? You continue with your disinformation in a funny way: imagine - you even cited Middle East Monitor, and of course you had to take a article published on Wednesday, 14 August 2013 12:01 (sic!). I already told you, at that moment we had only "official" numbers, there were no independent sources available that time. You keep ignoring everything I tought you here. And it is more than funny you try to take Middle East Monitor to prove, we can use Egyptian coup terminology here. This journal is one of those who extremely condemn the coup and the "massacres" as they call it. Daud Abdullah there will die of laughter, when heariing about your last attempt to take him as a witness. And indeed, I can't help you. It is not necessary to say more - and I don't want you to make something even more ridiculous. Shall an admin decide, how to proceed. I know about the "quality" of your work here. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to wait for admin attention. We already know there is no consensus for my proposal. And it is also funny how I was 100% sure you would begin your reply with "you continue with your disinformation..". Yes, I know perfectly well about Middle East Monitor and its staunch anti-coup rhetoric. But at least I addressed the point of concern, which is how common the usage of those terms is. You already made your point very clear and you don't have to worry because your title won't be moved anyways, not now, not ever, thanks to a sock. Nice to know you. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A sock again, did I miss something? :-) Oh come on, don't be mad with me, I'm just kidding and please let me add one note and everyone will have some joy at least: Fitzcarmalan, how desperate you must be: 5 of the articles you cited, are dealing with the NCHR Report (Mada Masr, 5-Mar-14, CP, 7-Mar-14, DNE, 17-Mar-14, HRM, no date, IR, 27-Mar-14, by the way: why do you still call it "ENCHR", I already told you such one does not exist). Of course they don't call it all "massacre", because some of them just report, what the NCHR report writes. Oh, Fitzcarmalan, your "google search" operating leads to funny results. And then: several of your articles are dated 15th August and similar. What analysis did you expect one day after it happened? You say Human Rights Watch is no valid help to determine the lemma, and you click google search to find random articles without any quality and plausibility check (even mulitiple reporting about the same NCHR report). Your Middle East Monitor seems clearly biased, even though it was interesting to see you citing it against its own partiality.
But now, please sit on your chair, before reading, it comes the last but best: you cited DailyMail, published on July 28, 2003, to prove that Rabaa Massacre (of August 14) has to be called crackdown. I am completely defenseless in the light of your diligent google based analysis, you even found prophetic sources. Especially this source of July 28 convinced me restless, that August 14 was a raid or crackdon or dispersal or - no - clashes, which should not be called "mass killing", "massacre" or anything else, which is just used by the victims (even those called it dispersal as you already "proved" before very convincingly) and human rights organisation or by any reputable scientist. We should stick to the "most common name within Egypt" and to the "most common name used by Egyptians" - such as Fitzcarmalan (and some others, Nudge Nudge)! Admins, please keep this in mind and don't forget. And Fitzcarmalan, cheer up, the truth always will win and you are sure you found the most common term, so it will win, right? --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One thing left open: in your "sigh" edit you said, that I insist on claiming that (you are) a biased editor and that you "question (my) own neutrality on the subject with comments like "the worst military regime Egypt has experienced ever" and (my) POVish repetition of 'mass killing' almost 70 times in this thread alone".
Let me response to this for a last time, since it is connected with the target to find a adequate lemma.
The neutrality of each author has be questioned all the time by anyone. Of course I can trust in your good will to work correctly, and this is exactly what I did, otherwise I would not have spend so much time to provide you with sources and with explaining you details, offered by those sources. But no good faith rule in this world may avoid questioning the neutrality of authors. Good faith means, that we have to work together without questioning the personalities behind the authors, not without questioning their work. But in that moment, when you stop questioning the neutrality of each author you (or I) should stop writing here, because this would mean to "believe" in my (or your) work. And we have to work with sources and authors and not to believe in them.
This user fears the tyranny of the majority, therefore having doubts about democracy in certain countries' politics.
It is no phrase when I say I honestly respect you as personality with all your background and characteristics, but this does not mean, I respect each edit or even your method of editing here. And no one can or should force me to respect what you have done here. On your user page you wrote on July 23, 2013, after the military coup in egypt against the elected government and parliament in Egypt, after the mass protesters killing of July 8 and some days before the mass protesters killing of July 27 by security forces of the coup regime: "This user fears the tyranny of the majority, therefore having doubts about democracy in certain countries' politics.". I assure you, I know what this can mean in Egypt, let's say for a member of a religious minority for example, and I respect one can have good reasons to represent such an attitude. But it is a completely different question, whether such an attitude may speak out of our edits here. I already told you: in an encyclopedia we have to report shapes, not colours, if you know, what this means. And "mass killing" is such a shape (without colour), used by all international courts, even when the exact circumstances of the killing of a large amount of people is not restless clarified. I did not construct this term, but it is used in the majority of reliable (English, not German) sources. "The worst military regime Egypt has experienced ever" was not my term, but I cited several human rights reports and scientific sources, as you can check easily (for further details I recommend Brookings and Carnegie Endowment For International Peace, if you understand German, I can add many more reputable sources). But until now I see no doubts, the sources' assessment is quite reasonable.
I am not perfectly happy with the term "massacre" at all, because it transports indeed a colour, but this seems to be the most accepted term in German and a well accepted term in English (maybe even more than mass killing), according to scientific, human rights and general media sources (and with media I don't mean any google matches, but newspaper of record and similar valid and available periodical literature with satisfactory reputation). --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to fool around here while I'm at it before an editor closes the discussion. Here is another sample, where I set the date from 31 August 2013 onwards and from which I collected 27 sources from the first 6 pages:

– Daily News Egypt → Same source used above.
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  17 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– The Christian Science Monitor → Same source used above.
massacre =  2 // mass killing =  2 // dispersal =  2 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  4
– The Cairo Post → Same source used above.
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  8 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– The Cairo Post
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  6 // raid =  1 // crackdown =  0
– New York Times → Same source used above.
massacre =  1 // mass killing =  3 // dispersal =  0 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– Human Rights Monitor → Same source used above.
massacre =  5 // mass killing =  1 // dispersal =  13 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  1
– Vice News → Same source used above.
massacre =  4 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  2 // raid =  1 // crackdown =  1
– World Bulletin → Same source used above.
massacre =  5 // mass killing =  1 // dispersal =  9 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– The Guardian → Same source used above.
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  1 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– GlobalPost
massacre =  3 // mass killing =  1 // dispersal =  4 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  3
– Islamist Gate → Same source used above.
massacre =  1 (quoted opinion) // mass killing =  1 (citing HRW) // dispersal =  0 // raid =  1 // crackdown =  1
– Mada Masr → Same source used above.
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  6 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– Project on Middle East Democracy
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  4 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– Middle East Monitor
massacre =  4 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  6 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  1
– Press TV
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  1 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  1 (link to another Press TV article that doesn't use 'massacre', but that's not the case)
– International Coalition for Freedom and Rights (March 6, 2014)
massacre =  1 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  1 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– Middle East Eye (May 11, 2014)
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  1 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– Aswat Masriya (Thomson Reuters Foundation) (March 18, 2014) → Side question: Did Reuters ever use the word 'massacre' to describe the events?
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  1 // raid =  0 (different raid) // crackdown =  0
– Human Rights Watch (December 10, 2013)
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  2 // dispersal =  6 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– Al-Bawaba (March 18, 2014)
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  8 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  3
– Anadolu Agency (March 18, 2014)
massacre =  1 (quoted opinion) // mass killing =  3 // dispersal =  4 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– The Nation (December 9, 2013)
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  0 // raid =  3 // crackdown =  0
– Daily Sabah (March 15, 2014)
massacre =  1 (quoted opinion) // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  1 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (June 10, 2014)
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  1 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– Fox News (March 5, 2014)
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  0 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  1
– MSN News (March 5, 2014)
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  1 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– Euronews (March 10, 2014)
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  1 (excluding quoted opinions) // raid =  0 // crackdown =  1

Tally (again, correct me if I miscalculated) → So far, there are 23 sources for 'dispersal' (17 if we exclude Daily News Egypt, The Cairo Post, Mada Masr, Aswat Masriya and the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights), this time followed by 11 for 'crackdown' and then 8 for 'massacre' (11 if we include quoted opinions). These are followed by the minor 6 uses for 'mass killing' and 4 for 'raid' (3 if we exclude The Cairo Post). I still don't really know why I keep doing this. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzcarmalan, have mercy with me and spare my time! It's strong to keep serious with you. I take one for all and then you can continue your very amusing google method: Look at "Egypt: No Acknowledgment or Justice for Mass Protester Killings" by HRW, you cited. You are citing it here as a prove that this article does not contain "mass killing". And - you won't believe - I totally agree with you. Because of a very simple reason: they write "mass protester killing", and this even in its title! And more: this statement was confirmed by 12 other international (Amnesty International e.g.) as well as Egyptian human rights organisations, who all released the same statement. And even more: This has been adopted as "mass killingsof protesters by security forces during the dispersal of Muslim Brotherhood sit-ins in August" by Reuters U.S. And I could continue more and more. Your google technique is extremely entertaining, but completely improper and sadly useless. You even did not notice the title saying "Mass Protester Killings" even though I cited it here before for several times. It's really hard to find someone caring less than you about sources. I am just sorry for you! What shall I say more. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reassure: This is not a political discussion. I proved more than once there's no consensus on the biased term "massacre". User:Fitzcarmalan proved the same more than once. Multiple terms from opposing views exist. Both by English, and Egyptian sources (My first and third responses). Not mentioning User:Fitzcarmalan detailed sources too. Dispersal/Crackdown are both acceptable "enclosing" terms. Content can contain whatever other views that exist. Titles must be neutral. The current title ought to be neutralized.
  • User:Usaeedi really? You strongly oppose? I wouldn't have guessed! Only if you weren't the abuser that got banned for using a sock puppet, and that we, in this article are trying to undo his abuse.
  • User:Anglo-Araneophilus you asked for sources that use "crackdown" after the dispersal. I provided multiples. Yet your response ignored what I provided, kept talking about minor issues? focusing only on one source, digging into trivial information flavoring your opinion with a bunch of personal attacks on the integrity of everyone else. Misreading what I said multiple times (Wide Crackdown Rabaa + AlNahda + multiple small other sit-ins, Alexandria included = 2013 Rabaa and AlNahda... etc).
  • You keep narrowing the sources by ignoring any other valid sources that disagree with your view.
  • Your doings eventually will get us to a no-solution state where the situation stays as-is. This is the abuse I already warned of (Sock puppet edits the controversial name without discussion -> gets banned -> discussion starts -> no consensus is reached because it's a controversial topic -> new biased name stays).
  • You go out of topic A LOT. I was going to write a detailed reply about some of your thrown-into-the-air deep-in-the-text comments. But I decided the best would be focusing on topic and removing 3 more paragraphs (after I already wrote them) which explained things like "freedom of press in Egypt", "why only Arabic/English sources matter" and "beards?".
  • So lets stay on topic and stop talking about beards, coups, military and other personal opinions. This isn't your political rhetoric and no one is a fool.
M 197.163.18.204 (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the most points you mentioned there is no response necessary, because everyone can see the answer in the discussion and there is no reason to reply again (especially your sock puppet conspiracy theory or what it shall say us, is a matter for the admins who can check if there is any relation between IPs or not). But one point is worth a response here:
And don't blame me for starting a general discussion, because it is you who tries to argue using incorrect details about the different events on August 14, to spport your target, not to use terms as mass killing or masscre for the lemma, but just dispersal or raid or crackdown:
  • The events in Alexandria and other cities on August 14 are completely different from those in Rabaa and Nahda on August 14. They started after the killing of hundreds of protesters in Cairo's Rabaa and Nahda was reported and they led to attacks of Islamists (that's what most sources say) on police stations, to targeted killing of police officers by those rioting Islamists, to attacks on churches by Islamists and so on. To state here, those events were of the same kind as the mass killings of Anti-coup protesters in Rabaa and Nahda is again - how to put it different - a complete disinformation of yours. The killings in other cities are not the result of a systematical mass killing by security forces, but the result of different riots and police actions. And they led to the death of more than hundered civilians and many police officers, too.
  • The number given in the article's info box (even though reffering to a specified source) is incorrect:

My conclusion: I've seen enough here now. I sum up some points and the WP community may decide what to do with such an article, with such authors, with such iterating move requests. What does this discussion show for our lemma discussion: all of 197.163.18.204 and Fitzcarmalans edits show in one - and always the same - direction. They conceal and/or relativise the already existing results reported by independent international scientists and human rights organisations and they favor "official" numbers and narratives, used by authorities of the coup regime or by institutions, which are not independent, such as NCHR (erroneously called "ENCHR Investigation" in an extra paragraph in this article, even though there is no organisation ENCHR existing and the NCHR did not conduct an own "investigation", but referred to information given by the coup regime itself). None of both users seem to you use terms like "coup" or "protester killing", even though they have to be used without any doubt, according to independent western sources. None of both uses scientific sources at all for this article. Fitzcarmalans even rejected Brookings and Human Rights Watch as not valid for this article, even though Brookings has international reputation and is in line with leading German think tanks as Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP) and HRW positions are formally backed by 12 other international and Egyptian human rights organisations. And even though he did not cite a single scientific source at all and especially none saying "mass killing" or "massacre" is not appropriate term. Instead of that he reduces his work on automated google matches (even not google scholar, but just google), leading to more than bizarre results. And one important note: the attitude of Fitzcarmalan, who stated he "fears the tyranny of the majority, therefore having doubts about democracy in certain countries' politics" has to be respected - and I do respect it - but it must be clear, that this political attitude does not affect his and our work on Egypt specific topics - e.g. chosing the correct lemma - since the Egypt coup regime is claiming to represent democratic legitimacy, which is strongly questioned by all recent western scientific reports. This is an enyclopedia, we may not act as activists of Tamarod campaign or of Muslimbrotherhood or anything else. This I emphase with special regard to the use of Egyptian media sources by those both users 197.163.18.204 and Fitzcarmalans - western scientific sources stress, that Egyptian journalists mainly act as politic acticists (pro regime!), rather than as independent watchdogs. Fitzcarmalans demand to follow Egyptian narrative therefore is completely misdirecting and leads to perverted presentation and terminology of the events of August 14 and in general. I strongly recommend the choice of an adequate lemma without euphemistic effect, using western independent scientific references. I don't see better solutions than "mass killing" or "massacte". "Crackdown" as well as "raid" can be used by news agencies, just touching the topic. "Dispersal" is inappropriate (some general media sources still use it, but usually not when dealing with the event in detail) as well as "clashes". Both proposes - "crackdown" and "raids" - are inadequate for a detailed article like this and sound like a trivialising mitigation. Greetings, --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or to put it in other words: the important feature of the event does not consist in the dispersal or raid or crackdown on two Anti-coup protester sit-ins in Cairo (Rabaa-Sit-in) and Giza (Nahda-sit-in). This probably would have caused no own WP article. The international main meaning of the dispersal or raid or storming of the Anti-coup-sit-ins consists in the killing of more than 900 people (according to independent international sources), strongly condemned by leading international politicians as well as by human right organisations. The encyclopedic meaning does not refer to the decision of the security forces to conduct a "dispersal", "raid" or "crackdown" itself (which can be conducted quite differently), but it refers to the unprecedented killing of such a huge amount of protesters during a police operation of some hours duration. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right of reply: Nationality of Anglo-Araneophilus

WP:NOTFORUM
This place is for the article's improvement only.

It has been claimed in this discussion, that I am Turkish (of nationality, origin, identity or whatelse - not specified). It also has been claimed that being Turkish disqualifies one to act as an author here. Therefore I solemnly affirm that I am German in all respects. I also declare that I respect Turkish culture and disrespect people who pretend to be what they aren't and that I am sorry for all victims of stupidity and recklessness. And I continue declaring, that in my opinion Turkish nationality or origin or identity does not result in inexpediency for editing this article, but irregular (mis)use of source references does. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is going to be a side-note out of the main discussion, a friendly, personal "lets-not-act-dumb" note: Not only I assumed you are Turkish (or attached to Turkish culture in some way, whatever it may be), not only you but also 2 other guys who had the same opinion were too (spoke Turkish, and edited Turkish wiki). Of course you have the right to edit the article, which I believe is common, I'd even go as far as expecting a lot of Turkish people editing Egyptian articles on here recently, which is of course okay as much okay as a Russian editing articles about Ukraine for example. Egyptian-Turkish relations recently have been bad, because Turkey (and lets be frank I don't like people who act dumb, unless they are) supports the Muslim Brotherhood and that resulted in cutting ties with Egypt. That also comes back to Qatar. And following twitter, a huge amount of Turks every few days create #hashtags about the Egyptian situation, which I find cute, because I might be the only Egyptian knowing about, because really no one follows Turkish news in here.
  • I don't need to source this note's opinion, because I'm not writing an article, but any person who understands Turkish would probably know how Turkish Islamists view Egyptian recent popular changes, however our opinions of it might be. It's like finding 2 or 3 Russians editing Ukrainian articles right after what happened recently, it would make anyone wonder, wouldn't it? Especially if they keep changing the names of controversial events to "The Coup of Ukraine", or the "Freeing of Crimea from Ukrainian Oppression", which are biased Russian propaganda, not valid in Wikipedia. A neutral worldwide encyclopedia. / I repeat: this is a friendly side note, not related to the main topic, just to clarify how personalization of opinions, which you enjoy very much and repeat in all your comments, means.
M 197.163.69.48 (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First you say I am Turkish, now you suppose me to belong to "Turkish Islamists", did I understand you right? Who practices "personalization of opinions" here? What did I wrote about your intentions and opinions. Please refer to my sources and discussion and don't try to project your ideas of nationalities in technical debate about the subject. If you see problems concerning "Turkish Islamists" or "Russian" users, better address them, not me. I try to show, how some authors in this artcle use sources in incorrect manner to determine a euphemistic lemma. Whatever their reasons, motives or cultural/national backgrounds are (I don't know and I don't speculate about that). If my German nationality and background isn't of interest here, why do you calling me Turkish then or comparing my argues with Russian propaganda? What is your point. If you click the link of the song I gave above you will find a Turkish socialist Alevi YouTube video, showing that Turkish background does not determine a pro-coup or anti-coup position concerning the coup in Egypt. Turkey is split (at leat in two, probably in quite more parts) according to that event. In Germany, indeed Guido Westerwelle called the mass killing of August 14 "Blutbad" (this is quite near to "massacre"), but to think I am biased therefore would be quite simple, don't you think? I am not biased. I am not pro-Muslim Brotherhood, and I am not pro-Turkish or pro-Russian or whatever you may believe or suggest. I am pro-science and pro-source-related-work in WP. That's what is important for me. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 10:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you hide my right of reply with this edit: does it mean, Fitzcarmalan, everyone can state in this discussion that I am Turkish and I have no right to explain here I am not? --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your right of reply concerns you and the editors who accuse you, not this page. The same goes for anyone else of course. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, I'll survive being called "Turkish" in "this page" (what you did not hide). Anyway actually it's no shame at all to be called "Turkish". In contrast it is a shame indeed to be one-sided. But it seems, you don't see any problems with that, even though asserting the opposite. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Right of reply: Nationality of User:Usaeedi

WP:NOTFORUM
This place is for the article's improvement only.
  • IP 197.163.18.204 talk you have blamed in the article calling me a Turkish. Though I wouldn't mind being called any nationality you want but I am a proud Afghan. Regarding sock puppet being connected with me, I won't waste much of my time on this but please note that I had used a public computer which might have caused it. Anyways it is blocked now.

--Usaeedi (talk) 07:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When will this have an end, Fitzcarmalan? I don't know if Usaeedi mind, when you turn the course of this discussion into its opposite, but I do. You know exactly, and everyone can see this in this discussion, that someone - using an IP (here or here) - who shares your argumentation in nearly every single detail by the way - spent much emphasis in stating, that those authors, who used or supported the term "massacre" for the mass killing of August 2014 (instead of your preferred "dispersal" or whatever the recent choice shall be) has to be "Turkish" (don't blame me, when I can't reflect those confused ideas in the same way, but they are even lacking a lower limit of consistency). Now he - same as you do - is stating, that those who have been called "Turkish" misuse this discussion by mentioning their nationality. But when you read the discussion no one argued with his nationality, no one but this/these IP(s). And you are the one, who says we have to use the terms, that are used by Egyptians and in Egypt. If "no one cares about anyone's nationality on a Wikipedia talk page" as you stated then, why didn't you hide or comment or even condemned those absurd ideas of this IP, who was stating for several times here, that I am Turkish and who compares me with other users, he stated to be Turkish as well? Try to understand people don't want to get defamed, Fitzcarmalan. Try to understand, they have got interest to get informed. Don't play admin here, instructing authors what to say and what not. Every person has a right to reject imaginary claims about their private affairs. In case the IP's claim was that user Usaeedi is Turkish (and therefore is biased or whatever the IP tried to prove with that claim), and it isn't founded, then his responding explanation was much more authorised just here in place than all of your edits in this discussion and article, which attast a indefensible and continuous irregular use of sources in this topic. I don't think, you are in the position to teach someone commendable editing here that way. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 08:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rabaa_massacre&oldid=617803146"