Jump to content

Talk:Mass sexual assault in Egypt

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 41.130.9.98 (talk) at 14:03, 2 February 2016 (→Break). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 12, 2016Articles for deletionKept

 In Egypt, they call this the “Circle of Hell.”

another name: http://www.thenation.com/article/exploiting-egypts-rape-culture-political-gain/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Empiricus-sextus (talk • contribs) 20:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it refers to the theme of our fine article about taharrush gamea. Indeed, several times "circle of hell" has been used: دائرة الجحيم , as in Arab language hell is جهنمية jahannam. We should (as we`ve done) use the term Taḥarruš ǧamāʿī (Taharrush gamea). 193.175.48.228 (talk) 11:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source suggestion

In case it's helpful, this article – Sandra A. Fernandez, "Male voices in a Cairo social movement", Égypte/Monde arabe, 13, 3015 – looks interesting. The journal is published by the CEDEJ.

It discusses efforts to combat al-taharrush al-ginsy, or taharrush (sexual harassment). Although it describes 14 forms of taharrush, such as comments and stalking, it mostly discusses the group violence and calls it "mass taharrush" (التحرش الجنسي الجماعى). See paragraph 9. SarahSV (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This التحرش الجنسي الجماعى transcribes as at-taḥarrush al-jinsī al-jamāʿī (the gang/collective/mass sexual harassment). Oliv0 (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Oliv0. So you're saying our version is more to the point, is that right? To view them next to each other:
Our article begins: "Taharrush jamaʿi (Arabic: تحرش جماعي‎ ..."
The source calls it التحرش الجنسي الجماعى
SarahSV (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As Taharrush jamai (several German authorities wrote: "Taharrush gamea") always includes Sexualized violence, it is not necessary to say "taharrush jinsi jama'i (التحرش الجنسي الجماعى at-taḥarrush al-jinsī al-jamāʿī). I think it is just too complicated to write "تحرش جنسي جماعى / taharrush jinsi jamai", but it is very ok to prefer the short (and well known) "تحرش جماعى" = "taharrush gamea". 193.175.48.228 (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and politics

This article has been pretty eye-opening with regards to how easy it is for dedicated groups to capture Wikipedia and use it to push an agenda. It is frankly baffling that a word which literally just means "collective sexual harassment" has been Otherized and made to seem like a rampant phenomenon exclusive to Arab/Islamic culture, somehow different from when the 'civilized' world does it. By refusing to translate it and opting to transliterate instead it is elevated to a reified, static concept exclusive to the Arab Other. It is akin to transliterating the Spanish word for "gang-rape" and turning it into a Wikipedia article to make it seem an alien phenomenon, exclusive to the Hispanic world, somehow 'different' and far removed from our normal conception of gang rape, which occurs everywhere in the world. All of which of course serves certain groups. This article is fundamentally political; fundamentally racist.

The fact that this article only appeared in the post-Cologne environment; the severe dearth of any academic research on this issue; and the fact that no counterpart in the Arabic WIkipedia exists is pretty damning. If anything at least I now realize how political an act Wikipedia editing can be; it is no longer the pure collectivist human endeavour I thought it was. Thanks for reading.

209.226.10.166 (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giving a FN for these claims: FAZ.net (german) (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung): "Angesichts der Karriere jedoch, die der Begriff „taharrush gamea“ jetzt in Deutschland macht, sind ägyptische Frauenrechtlerinnen irritiert: Aus einer simplen Vokabel für sexuelle Massenübergriffe ist ein scheinbar genuin arabisches Kulturphänomen mit eigenem Wikipedia-Eintrag geworden. „Taharrush“ bedeutet Belästigung, „gamea“ gemeinschaftlich. „Man kann die sexuellen Angriffe auf dem Tahrir-Platz aus vielerlei Gründen nicht mit den Ereignissen von Silvester in Köln vergleichen“, schrieb die Aktivistin Mariam Kirollos auf ihrer Facebook-Seite. Des Klischees vom triebhaften Orientalen sei sie wirklich überdrüssig."
Translated: "Regarding the career of the term "taharrush gamea" now in Germany, egytian feminists are confused: A simple vocable has apparantly become a genuine arabic culture phenomenon with its own WP entry. Taharrush means harassment, gamea collaborative. >>You can't compare the sexual attacks on the Tahrir place with the incidents in Cologne out of several reasons<<, the activist Mariam Kirollos wrote on her Facebook page. She is really sick of the cliché of the libidinal (or compulsive?) orientalic."
-- 77.64.190.242 (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"This article is fundamentally political", yes, because violence always is political. "This article is ... fundamentally racist", I don`t agree. The article is well done, and offers important information. Nobody is talking racist, nobody says: 'The men of this or that ethnic group are born rapists and will always be bad to women.' 193.175.48.228 (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are facing with a political struggle between two anti-racisms. Some people want to rape any women, not only women from their own race (supposing that races even exist); some people want to jail/hang/whatever any rapist, not only rapists from their own race (supposing that races even exist). It's a conflict, indeed. But racism isn't involved. By the way, I don't see how being against rape could be racist: there are women of all races (supposing that races even exist). Except if you don't include women... Do you, 209.226.10.166 ? Pldx1 (talk) 12:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I 100% agree. This article is a disgrace for Wikipedia. Imagine if the Arabic Wikipedia had an article called "school shootings" (not translated but using the English expression), suggesting that this is somehow a phenomenon exclusive to the English-speaking world. And imagine on top of that if that article was created right after a Canadian committed a school shooting in Cairo. There has been and there is sexual harassment or collective sexual harassment everywhere around the world, and yes it is more prevalent in some places than it is in others (but the fact that mass shootings are objectively more prevalent in the US than elsewhere still would not justify the creation of an article using the foreign, in this case, English-language term, in the Arabic Wikipedia). But using a foreign term from a foreign language first suggests that there is a distinction between "taharrush jamai" and collective sexual harassment (which there isn't, even if the article pathetically tries to portray the modus operandi of this crime as somehow "original", "special", or "new"), and second as the user above already wrote, it suggests that it is somehow exclusive to the Arab world (which again, it isn't). Why is there no article called सामूहिक यौन उत्पीड़न or harcèlement sexuel collectif in the English Wikipedia? There are plenty of documented cases of group sexual violence in India or in France! Or while we're at it, why don't we start creating an article called "Steuerhinterziehung" (tax evasion in German) in the English-language Wikipedia? Because there is plenty of tax evasion in Switzerland! And we don't have a word in English for "Steuerhinterziehung"! Seriously, this article is disgusting, and it's sad to see what Wikipedia has become. 41.130.9.98 (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article is well done and reasonably objective, it is inherently political because of the subject it deals with. This article should be mainly about the phonomenon in Egypt (as it already is), nowhere in the article is it sugested that collective harrassment only happens in islamic or Egyptian culture, however the use of agents provocateurs in Egypt, and the sheer scale of it certainly warrants the existence of this article. The part titled Comparison with incidents in Europe, should also be a part of the article as many media and political entities have made such comparisons. That being said I fully support the creation of a seperate article concerned with collective harrassment or mass sexual assault in far broader terms to include taharrush, eve teasing and other cases worldwide of collective harrasment.SKG1110 (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

This edit is very problematic. This article isn't about harassment in general, but about this mass phenomenon, and the digital penetration isn't unusual, but is what the women have been reporting. It's not clear that the point about flirtation is correct. It stems from another source, not the Nation. If you read the other article, you'll see how poor a source it is for that point.

I can't revert again, so I'll have to stop work on the article for now. With each edit I'm building on the previous one – adding material, removing repetition, swapping poor sources for better ones, etc – so it's difficult to work when people keep reverting. SarahSV (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest issue is about The mass assaults, which can involve hundreds of men attacking one or two women, usually occur under the protective cover of large gatherings, typically protests and public festivals. Background see abaove, ist about groups, not about masses. If you propose a better lede here, I will insert it, as I am not within the 3R range so far. Polentarion Talk 02:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SV's source:[1] does appear to support this statement. In particular it makes the even stronger claim that the victims "often" find themselves trapped in a mob of hundreds of men, while SV only said the assaults "can" involve this. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Far from anything I would call a reliable source for a lede. Logan maybe went through that but, part of the hundred guys chased her security away, not the person herself. Its far from being physically possible. Polentarion Talk 03:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your point, Polentarion, especially "part of the hundred guys chased her security away, not the person herself." Logan was attacked by around 200 men. Other women report mass attacks too. There is a video in the article of such an attack starting in 2006.
This article is about those incidents – a "hive mind" of men engaged in sexual violence against one woman or a small number of women. Why would Al Ahram not be a reliable source? [2]SarahSV (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Al Ahram? Sorry, are you kidding? The hell story is far from anything I would call a reliable source for a lede, the newspaper clearly biased due to the political blame game in Egypt. They use a collection of various cases for one day. Never ever! Polentarion Talk 03:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC) PS.: For the physics, see Kissing_number_problem PPS.: There are reasons why we uses "Sexual violence in Egypt" and not "Rape in Egypt" for the second article on taharrush. The actual problem here was about a dozen till about 20 guys, attacking single women as couples and smaller gatherings, fixing the men, groping the women and stealing valuables. NGOs in Egypt report about the political cloud, but not about hundreds of men around one woman. I never would use a regime outlet like Al Ahram, God beware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polentarion (talk • contribs) [reply]
Al Ahram, founded 1875, is a good source for: "Women in Egypt have called it the "circle of hell." Not sure what you mean about not a good source for the lead. Leads don't need sources (see WP:LEADCITE), and certainly don't need special ones. Not sure what you mean by the physics problem, or when you said earlier that women in Egypt tend not be raped by strangers, and so on. SarahSV (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Plonk. Next time the British Sun ? Sorry, I am out of this. Polentarion Talk 03:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't comparable to the Sun. Sources have to be appropriate, and for that sentence that source seems fine. If we find a better source contesting the "circle of hell" issue, then of course that's a different matter. I've been looking at Al Ahram''s coverage of the harassment issues, and nothing is jumping out as inappropriate. Please post examples if you disagree. SarahSV (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SarahSV, I fully agree with you, Al Ahram really isn't comparable to the Sun. For that sentence Al Ahram is a quite reliable source. Circle of Hell refers to the theme of our fine article about taharrush gamea. To describe the sexualized violence of groups (taharrush gamea), indeed "Circle of hell" has been used in several sources: دائرة الجحيم , as in Arab language hell is جهنمية jahannam. We should (as we`ve done succesfully) use the term Taḥarruš ǧamāʿī (Taharrush gamea). Many greetings from Germany 79.251.83.156 (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Circle of hell

I would like to restore to the lead:

Women in Egypt have called it the "circle of hell."[n 1]

  1. ^ Fathi, Yasmine (21 February 2013). "The circle of hell: Inside Tahrir's mob sexual assault epidemic", Al-Ahram.

Sourced to: Fathi, Yasmine (21 February 2013). "The circle of hell: Inside Tahrir's mob sexual assault epidemic", Al-Ahram.

Another source: Patrick Kingsley (5 July 2013). "80 sexual assaults in one day – the other story of Tahrir Square", The Guardian: "'We call it the circle of hell,' said Bahgat, who herself narrowly escaped assault this week."

Are there any objections? SarahSV (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another source: "Circles of Hell: Domestic, Public and State Violence Against Women in Egypt", Amnesty International, 2015:

  • "Cover photo: Street art depicting an attack on a woman by a mob of men, referred to by activists as a 'circle of hell'."
  • "Activists have called the attacks 'the circle of hell', referring to how the mob drags the woman or girl into the centre of the group while attacking her" (p. 9).
  • "Activists have likened the attacks to 'the circle of hell'. Such attacks lasted from a few minutes to over an hour, until the women were rescued or the perpetrators abandoned them" (p. 41).

SarahSV (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As there are no objections and several RS, I'm going to restore the sentence. SarahSV (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks well-supported - I'm not sure why this phrase was objected to. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Circle of Hell refers to the theme of our fine article about taharrush gamea. Several times "circle of hell" has been used: دائرة الجحيم , as in Arab language hell is جهنمية jahannam. We should (as we`ve done!) use the term Taḥarruš ǧamāʿī (Taharrush gamea). 79.251.105.10 (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 January 2016

The following is a closed 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: WITHDRAWN. (almost unanimously opposed: closure by nominator) Oliv0 (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Taharrush gamea → Collective sexual harassment in public places – as per WP:NEO "it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible". Defining the topic clearly in English will avoid edit wars and WP:3RR violations due to sources giving different meanings to this new phrase taharrush or taharrush gamea (a distorted form of the Egyptian pronunciation taḥarrosh gamāʿi), implying or not Arabic/Muslim culture, or hundreds of people, or strangers, or government/flash mob coordination, etc. Oliv0 (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The applicable policy is Wikipedia:Article titles. The phrase "collective sexual harassment in public places" currently gets two hits on google.com, both connected to this requested move. That is not a term readers will search for.
    Readers will search for "taharrush gamea" (462,000 results; taharrush: 1,070,000 results) and its variants, because of the news coverage. I wouldn't mind moving this to a different transliteration of gamea, but that's a separate discussion. Taharrush is the term most used by the sources for this phenomenon, English-language and otherwise, so that should be in the title. SarahSV (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This terminology does not reflect the sources, and frankly, this proposal strikes me as an attempt to obscure the subject. On Wikipedia at least, reality should trump political correctness. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, at least for now. "Taharrush" appears to be the common name at this time. If a different term becomes the common name at some point down the road, then it would be worth revisiting. Faceless Enemy (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the text shows special information about Egypt. So this should be split from the parts describing the invented lemma "Taharrush gamea", and the news carear of the term can be explained better and it could be linked to related topics like the proposed one. -- Amtiss, SNAFU ? 00:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We have a special phenomenon, and an object for soci(ologic)al / scientifical investigation. Besides, it is a matter of journalism. Everyone may read the word (Taharrush jamai / taharrush gamea) in the newspapers, and Wikipedia should offer information. See this source here, Bangladesh: Taharrush Jama'i : From Cairo to Cologne, and Damascus to Dhaka The Daily Star (Bangladesh) 79.251.113.123 (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
have you ever searched to prove yourself wrong? Seems like not. (See also Self-fulfilling prophecy) Then you might find sources which use different terms, also in Germany. -- Amtiss, SNAFU ? 21:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Berlin, Cologne, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg and Stuttgart, Germany; Salzburg, Austria; Helsinki, Finland; Kalmar and Malmö, Sweden; and Zurich, Switzerland. Pretending that all this places are in Egypt seems surprising. Perhaps searching all these places on a map could help. Pldx1 (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
so you actually argue for moving. -- Amtiss, SNAFU ? 21:08, 27 January 2016 (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.

Subheadings

Wuerzele, I removed the subheadings you added to the Europe section, because there was text that didn't belong in them. The section would have to be rewritten a little if we want to split it up. SarahSV (talk) 07:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

can you please wait until I make the next edit please? I wasnt finished!!! --Wuerzele (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what a mega massive [//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Taharrush_gamea&type=revision&diff=701560473&oldid=701560083 edit. Only now, I see you didnt just do the above(removed the subheadings), but also removed my explanation of eve teasing under "see also". there is nothing wrong in adding a note to a see also link.
i think this is unfriendly and smells like WP:ownership. especially in the face of not replying when pinged on Talk :COI! here you respond as if I hit your nerve and I didnt even ping you.
User:SlimVirgin Dont bite newbies on a site they've never been before. --Wuerzele (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wuerzele, three things. First, the section was left making no sense. Second, adding subheadings to Europe will make it appear that most of this happens in Europe, whereas most of it happens in Egypt (and exactly what happened in Europe has not been established yet). Third, Eve teasing is in the "violence against women" template, so there's no need to repeat it in See also. It's also not clear how related it is, if at all, but that's a separate issue. SarahSV (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re : "the section was left making no sense" Hello ! you jumped into my edits! I CLEARLY wrote above can you please wait until I make the next edit please? you dont get it, do you ? some people make one edit at a time and not 5 in 1 like you did, used to get your way on the site because you were almost the only one editing there. but when a new person turns up, you look, you examine, you dont bite and revert immediately, you discuss. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you basically continue to WP:own the article restoring your preferred version almost 100%! Shameful.
I do not agree with your argument that changes in the layout/the subheadings alone will make it appear that most of this happens in Europe (how ridiculous!).
I think that you need to explain when in your mega edits that do way more than one thing at a time ( just because you are an admin ?) you think you can make sources disappear as here. I hereby advise you to split your edits up.
I will revert your edits with their insufficient edit summaries. I request discussion. you didnt ping- so you dont want to be pinged, i guess.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to restore the recent changes, because you seem to be trying to draw attention to Europe. What happened in Europe has been compared to this phenomenon, but it really isn't clear yet how close that comparison is. The attacks in Egypt are extraordinarily violent and prolonged, and while I obviously don't want to minimize the attacks in Europe, they're of a different order of magnitude. So it's wrong-headed to have comparably sized sections, or a toc that is more devoted to Europe, and a generic debate section that is entirely about Europe.
Also, you reverted a lot of other copy editing and tidying of sources. Please let the article be developed. SarahSV (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yes, you please let others develop the article as well, madame. you are pushing your opinion! you are WP:editwarring !--Wuerzele (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC
(edit conflict)I see you reverted again. You are BLATANTLY pushing your WP:POV opinion (on my edits and me) here, and brazenly editwarring. I cant believe you cannot cooly discuss your issues ! wrong-headed for layout changes, clear ownership behavior as the WP : expert on this? Dont you see you are editorializing where you say "it really isn't clear yet how close that comparison is" and "obviously don't want to minimize the attacks in Europe" ? You are above the many many sources that call it that way. Why downplaying the numerous recent European sources that call Taharrush happening elsewhere? I did let you single out Egypt as the heartland for Taharrush, but there's Algeria, Tunesia and Southasia, I know you think Eve calling "may not be related" (because you havent read about it quite obviously then it wopuld be clear to you, that the border between the two issues is fluent and a lot more will need to be added on that.
  • I tell you what, since you do not want to talk on the numerous issues or compromise : You build up the Egypt section and let me edit the layout of Europe, how is that ?
  • as far as "generic debate section that is entirely about Europe" : that is assuming bad faith. I simply copyedited, dont you see that ? woman, add to it !!! you should Self-revert and discuss. Otherwise I feel I must go to 3RR and complain about your I arrogant and non reconciliatory behavior.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very sensitive article, being written at a time of high tension in Europe. It therefore needs a high degree of precision, which I'm trying to add. We also need to be careful not to overegg the pudding when it comes to what happened on New Year's Eve. Yes, the comparison was made and we should summarize it. The article wouldn't exist otherwise, because that's how the term was spread. But the phenomenon appears to be an Eygptian one (not Arab, Muslim or North African); Egyptian security forces seem to have invented it, at least in its current form. So we have to be more careful than usual about emphasis, etc, and following the best sources. SarahSV (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re needs a high degree of precision: and only you are trying to add it ? You cant accept that others copy edit too ? you think the layout alters precision negatively ?
  • Re overegg the pudding re New Year's Eve. It was by NO MEANS overegged , the subsections were comparably brief Note I added NO CONTENT - this is a tempest in a teapot , you know.
  • Re "the phenomenon appears to be an Eygptian one (not Arab, Muslim or North African)": that is your opinion, the term has been circulating, the phenomenon is not just Egyptian anymore. enforcing some semantic purity (that doesnt even exist) because you, SLIM VIRGIN see it that way is -what was the term you used on me- : "wrong headed". --Wuerzele (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please gain consensus from others if you want to add subheadings to Europe, or develop it? As I said, there are good reasons for not doing so, and I'd like to hear whether anyone else has a view. Also, please stop referring to me as woman and madame. SarahSV (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding ? An RFC on LAYOUTCHANGES (subheadings, a section on debate)? you are that rigid and intolerant to other editors?--Wuerzele (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, please stop the shouting and the reverting. It's a huge waste of time and is raising your blood pressure. I.e., stop jerking our readers around. Instead, bring your proposed changes to Talk and get consensus on them. None of you has a monopoly on the right way to proceed. Stop patting yourselves on the back. It's not about RfC's. It's about having a conversation rather than a way-too-visible confrontation. We need your energy directed at making WP better. Help us out! Lfstevens (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should not draw a false equivalence here. I tried pretty hard to follow this and the associated changes to the mainspace page, but I can't discern the substance of Wuerzele's position or the reason for his large revert; whatever he's arguing, it's drowned out by all the vitriol and indignation. I am gathering he wants to give more weight to the attacks in Europe but I'm not sure why. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you do not get the opposing view. This is the place to discuss until you do. Once you can see where they're coming from (and vice versa) progress becomes possible. Lfstevens (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I'm curious what Wuerzele's view is. But let's be clear: in the above exchange only one of the participants addressed the other as woman. WP:CIVIL is a policy, believe it or not. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy1339 sorry you didnt get my view after "trying pretty hard, read through the discussion", did you ever look at the initial page diff/her revert ? open my initial edits on 1-25 and you see the benign copy edit changes, subheadings, a new section to BETTER ORGANIZE the article. SLIM VIRGIN found these so unacceptable, that they needed to be immediately reverted, and were editwarred out. editwarring about layout changes !

FYI: it is my first interaction with slimvirgin trying to edit an article, after having seen her around for years now. I see she assumed absolutely no good faith in my edits, immediately made negative inferences, the almost paranoid accusation (read above: you try to draw attention to Europe), did not listening nor asking to clarify my points, leave alone discuss and see what my position is. to me this is also arrogant behavior of an admin that knows she can get away with it. there is no point fighting a windmill, and doing an RFC about layoutchanges. she s pushed enough, talk to the hand. these are disearnest tactics. I'll leave the field. but it is clear to me that the article is tainted, by someone with a strong opinion, how the term may be elaborated here (not too much Europe!).

Lastly Re "calling someone a woman" (or a man): I cannot see how this is incivil, man ! (is that uncivil now?). If you identify your gender on WP as male i see nothing wrong saying man, dude, guy. I say gals or women to female editors on talk pages. Havent you ever done that ? ( It is besides the fact that SLIM VIRGIN chose a username deliberately drawing attention to her gender so an editor using Mrs, madame, frau or woman to address her shouldnt be surprising.) you called me a "he" but what do you know about my gender ? Do I say "WP:CIVIL is a policy" to you, because you said he to me? no. -- BTW: she said she doesnt want to be called woman. fine but she SHOULD have posted that request on my talk page, because it is sidetracking from the ISSUE ABOVE, and you Sammy1339 walked right into that trap (note that you have yet to contribute anything to the topic of the section "subheadings"). --Wuerzele (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're all sinners, in this and in other domains. We have to look past each other's flaws dan find common ground. I'm sure that I have written intemperately in the past. I'm trying to do better. Lfstevens (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You need to more carefully distinguish forgiving offenders from shifting blame onto non-offenders. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're right. But look at this thread. Paragraph after paragraph about section headings. Is blameshifting the issue? I think it's too much trying to "win". If we understand each other better, we can all win. Lfstevens (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How very intersting that neither you, Sammy1339, nor you Lfstevens do not contribute to the content of this section here, I duly note. --Wuerzele (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wuerzele: I'm trying to follow the conversation and inform myself on the topic, and not to make blusterous edits. I do note that on an article that is getting about 5000 pageviews per day, leaving inaccuracies or mistakes in the article while you are working cannot be justified, and you cannot fault other editors for reverting such an edit. Also, while some of the issues with your talk comments can be forgiven due to the language barrier (woman is not an equivalent of frau, and is a very insulting way to address someone in English) the general tone cannot. Hasty, indignant accusations, repeated exclamation points, typing a user's name in all-caps while lambasting that person - all are pretty aggressive in any language. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
still no content.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Europe section

Hi Tickle me, I disagree with your edits here and would like to restore some of the previous text.

Previous

Writing that European cultures lack a term for mass sexual assault, Josef Joffe, editor of Die Zeit, argued that the "acculturation into the strict sex codes of the West takes years."[1] Against this, Stefanie Lohaus and Anne Wizorek wrote that sexual assault occurs regularly at large events in Germany, particularly during Oktoberfest, which sees an average of ten reports of rape a year, and that this is not attributable to immigrants.[2][n 2]

  1. ^ Joffe, Josef (18 January 2016). "Germany's Road to 'No We Can't' on Migrants". Wall Street Journal.
  2. ^ Lohaus, Stefanie; Wizorek, Anne (8 January 2016). "Immigrants Aren't Responsible for Rape Culture in Germany", Vice.
  3. ^ "Violence against women: an EU-wide survey", European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, March 2014, p. 3 (main page and other languages).

    Dalhuisen, John (14 January 2016). "Stereotypes of Muslim Men Are No Basis for Policy", The New York Times.

  1. ^ Yasmine Fathi, Al-Ahram, 2013: "During the attacks [in Cairo], the women often find themselves trapped inside what some have called 'the circle of hell,' a mob of 200 or 300 men who fought with one another to pull, shove, beat and strip them.[1]
  2. ^ The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights reported in March 2014 that, in face-to-face interviews of 42,000 women (18–74 years old) in 28 member states, five percent reported having been raped since they were 15.[3]
Current

Writing that European cultures lack a term for mass sexual assault, Josef Joffe, editor of Die Zeit, argued that the "acculturation into the strict sex codes of the West takes years."[1] Feminists compared these numbers to the Oktoberfest, alleging ten reports of rape a year.[2] According to the FAZ these numbers stem from an article in the taz from 2009 that didn't give any sources for these claims. According to the police there were four rapes in 2008, six in 2009, two in 2014 and one attempt in 2015. The number of ten rapes per year is definitively wrong, said a spokesman of Munich police.[3]

  1. ^ Joffe, Josef (18 January 2016). "Germany's Road to 'No We Can't' on Migrants". Wall Street Journal.
  2. ^ Lohaus, Stefanie; Wizorek, Anne (8 January 2016). "Immigrants Aren't Responsible for Rape Culture in Germany", Vice.
  3. ^ Sexuelle Übergriffe - Lügenzahl vom Oktoberfest (sexual attacks - the made up numbers on the Oktoberfest), 08 January 2016, Rainer Meyer, FAZ; "Das Netz hat die Zahlen aus einem Artikel der „taz“ des Jahres 2009, der keine Quellen angibt, und nicht aus der Statistik der Polizei. 2008 kam es den Behörden zufolge zu vier Vergewaltigungen, 2009 zu sechs, vorletztes Jahr zu zwei und dieses Jahr zum Glück nur zu einer versuchten Tat. Nein, sagt Schicht, das könne er wirklich ausschließen, die Zahlen zehn und zweihundert seien definitiv falsch." (the internet took these numbers from an article in the taz and not from police statistics. According to the authorities there were four rapes in 2008, six in 2009, two in the year before last and this year fortunately just one attempt. No, said [police spokesman] Schicht, he could really rule this out, the numbers ten and two hundred [estimated number of unreported cases] were definitively wrong.)
Problems
  • It removed the names of the women and substituted them for feminists. So the two male commentators in that paragraph are named, but the two female commentators are described only in terms of their views.
  • Feminists "compared these numbers": which numbers?
  • If the ten reported rapes a year figure is wrong, we should remove it, not get into a debate about it.
  • You removed the footnote about the European Union survey, which is mentioned in this context by the New York Times. They highlight other figures from it (the physical and sexual assault figure, which is considerably higher), so we can change that if that's your objection. But the survey itself is relevant and mentioned by a secondary source in terms of the New Year's Eve attacks.
  • (The NYT writes: "A 2014 report by the European Union's fundamental rights watchdog said that 1 in 3 European women over the age of 15 reported being the victim of physical or sexual violence, but this startling figure did not provoke nearly the same outrage or stigmatizing rhetoric about European men.")
I suggest we say:

Writing that European cultures lack a term for mass sexual assault, Josef Joffe, editor of Die Zeit, argued that the "acculturation into the strict sex codes of the West takes years."[1] Against this, Stefanie Lohaus and Anne Wizorek wrote that sexual assault occurs regularly at large events in Germany, particularly during Oktoberfest, and that this is not attributable to immigrants.[2][n 1]

  1. ^ Joffe, Josef (18 January 2016). "Germany's Road to 'No We Can't' on Migrants". Wall Street Journal.
  2. ^ Lohaus, Stefanie; Wizorek, Anne (8 January 2016). "Immigrants Aren't Responsible for Rape Culture in Germany", Vice.
  3. ^ "Violence against women: an EU-wide survey", European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, March 2014, p. 3 (main page and other languages).

    Dalhuisen, John (14 January 2016). "Stereotypes of Muslim Men Are No Basis for Policy", The New York Times.

  1. ^ The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights reported in March 2014 that, in face-to-face interviews of 42,000 women (18–74 years old) in 28 member states, one in three reported having been the victim of physical or sexual violence, and five percent reported having been raped, since the age of 15.[3]

SarahSV (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re Lohaus/Wizorek, afaik we don't wikilink foreign wiki entries here. I separated the uk and german reaction, so there's only Josef Joffe in the german paragraph. he's a heavyweight in german journalism, if you allow, Lohaus/Wizorek are not even lightweights, certainly not in en:wiki. I subsumed them as 'feminists' as they were two of several who argued along the same lines. Dagmar Dehmer and Andrea Dernbach ie alleged in the Der Tagesspiegel (a paper of record, vice.com isn't) that many among the cologne victims were racists who had provoked the refugees to have them expelled, which caused heated debate in the quality media. you can add that if you think it's related. as this is about the media reaction it might. Dehmer and Dernbach are no heavyweights but they're feminist writers working since decades on the topic--and they have no wiki entry. (which I think is ok, just being a journalist doesn't merit mention by itself) the Lohaus/Wizorek entries have been written in the last few months, a bit funny I think. the UN report is WP:OR by an wiki editor, that it is pertinent here is WP:POV. the FAZ, another paper of record, took umbrage at the false numbers circulating in the internet, mentioning vice.com, too, that's pertaining to german media reaction and newsworthy by itself. Wizorek got known by starting a hash tag, (which was ill received by many in the press) I wonder if her name needs mentioning here, but I won't mind. just because the paragraph mentions a male journalist by name that imo doesn't imply a wikipedic need of female counterbalance. in :de dernbach should be mentioned, maybe. the nyt link/opinion should be mentioned here. --tickle me 21:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tickle me:
  1. To deal with the UN report first, that is not OR. As I said above, the NYT refers to it within the context of the attacks in Germany. That's why I added it.
  2. It's important to remember that this article isn't about what happened in Europe. That section is intended only to summarize the facts and give a broad sweep of opinion. We can't go into the detail you want about figures offered, figures disputed, hashtags, etc. That level of detail belongs in the article about the topic.
  3. There's no reason to separate by paragraphs a commentator in the UK from one in Germany, and it looks odd.
  4. I don't follow why we can't name the women who made that argument. If we name the men, we name the women. The argument that some of the victims were racists is a separate point and quite bizarre (and the sources raise it here only as idle speculation). And again, it doesn't belong in this article. SarahSV (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SarahSV (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed all the disputed material for now (the material that both of us added), including the UN footnote. And actually it looks better. We have one comment suggesting there was a link and one suggesting there was not, and I've ended on the latter for obvious reasons. So the paragraph reads:

The events sparked a debate about sexism, racism and refugees. Writing that European cultures lack a term for mass sexual assault, Josef Joffe, editor of Die Zeit, argued that the "acculturation into the strict sex codes of the West takes years."[1] Don Hitchens argued in the Spectator that taḥarrush jamai was a feature of Egypt, rather than the Arab world, and that linking it to the attacks in Europe was "over-excited."[2]

  1. ^ Joffe, Josef (18 January 2016). "Germany's Road to 'No We Can't' on Migrants". Wall Street Journal.
  2. ^ Hitchens, Don (14 January 2016). "Taharrush Gamea: has a new form of sexual harassment arrived in Europe?", The Spectator.
SarahSV (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the Vice article was not irrelevant in the former formulation describing a pre-existant rape culture in Europe (sexual assaults at large events like Oktoberfest, without the contested number of rapes). Oliv0 (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but if we restore it, someone will want to add a counter-point again, so then we would be discussing sexual assault in Germany in general. But this article isn't about Germany, so I'm thinking it's better to keep that section tight and focused only on the basics of New Year's Eve. SarahSV (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diacritics

These have been added even though the sources don't use them. For example, for taḥarrush jamāʿī, I would write taḥarrush jamai. The NYT writes "taharrush jami`. We have the same situation with taharrush; we sometimes have a dot under one of the letters, mostly not. I'm wondering whether that causes a problem for search.

MOS:DIACRITICS says "their usage depends on whether they appear in verifiable reliable sources in English." I think we can write them with or without here, but we should be consistent, and without is easier. SarahSV (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping Oliv0. SarahSV (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think diacritics are usually removed in English and so this is what sources do and what we should do, but there is an exception: in the transcriptions next to the Arabic writing we need diacritics in order to give the same information in Latin letters, because for instance h (same as English h) is quite different from ḥ with underdot (letter ح, IPA [ʜ]) which is far more fricative. Oliv0 (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, but they've been added elsewhere too, including to the first sentence. I'd like to remove any that aren't within the brackets next to the Arabic if that's okay with you. SarahSV (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK with me, and congratulations for what you are doing here. Oliv0 (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll start removing them with my next edits. And thank you. SarahSV (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to taharrush jamai

Does anyone mind if I move this to Taharrush jamai while we decide what to call it in the longer term? There doesn't seem to be any reason to keep it at the mistaken transliteration, and we don't need a full move discussion for a change of spelling if no one objects.

We can do that without prejudice to any future discussion about an English title. Taharrush gamea will be a redirect. SarahSV (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps taharrush would be a more sensible target, which conveys the same thing but avoids endorsing the error in transliteration. It gets more results on news than "taharrush gamea" and is used to denote the same thing in Western media. (Meanwhile I got exactly one result for "taharrush jamai" on Google news.) The same phenomenon seems to appear more often as "taharrush al-jinsi" in academic books. I think there's a fair case to be made, based on the sources, that "taharrush" has become the English-language term for a specific type of attack, even though it just means harassment in Arabic. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Taharrush is harassment, so that would be too broad. The article is about this very specific phenomenon of crowd or mass sexual assault in Egypt (or rather, in Egypt so far; I haven't found sources discussing it elsewhere). SarahSV (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading quite a bit of material from people working in this area, and it's clear that the essential element of taharrush jamai is the participation of the crowd.

It's not just sexual assault within a crowd. That happens everywhere – daily, for example, on the London Underground, where men take advantage of the crush to rub up against women. The crowd does not support that; the social norm is to oppose it. Taharrush jamai is sexual assault by the crowd, or with a significant amount of crowd participation. The social norm (within that crowd at that moment) is not to oppose it, but to participate, support or make light of it.

The theory of some groups in Egypt is that this was started deliberately in 2005 by the Egyptian security forces, not to drive women off the streets, but to drive men off. According to these groups, the police had a habit, if you (as a man) had committed a crime or caused a political problem, of paying your wife, mother, sister or daughter a visit. The theory was: attack the women and you control the men.

After that it "spread like wildfire," according to one source. Some groups say it is still orchestrated; others say it's now just young men doing it of their own accord. I can't find sources discussing this in any context other than Egypt, not quite like this. I'm thinking that there may be some lynching episodes from the United States where the crowd watching it behaved this way before female victims were killed, but I've read quite a bit about that and don't recall any detailed descriptions. That was more about torture than what we're seeing here (as nasty as this is). SarahSV (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're arguing that mass sexual assault is unique or even unusual, see wartime sexual violence. What's possibly unique about this phenomenon is the way it is used in public gatherings. I haven't done as much research as you, but I wonder if it is really done "by" the crowd, and not by a gang of fifteen or thirty men in the crowd, who act deliberately, with some members of the crowd possibly joining in? That would make it a lot less unique.
I think it's best if we treat this as a specific phenomenon which has occurred since 2005 - the sources I've read seem to support that - which may or may not have spread to Europe. The latter is unclear to me at this point.
I don't think a move to taharrush jamai would be so bad, except I have to ask, if it's an Egyptian phenomenon only, why not taharrush gamai? --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about civilian crowds only. Yes, it might be 30 men or so, but the crowd joins in. Lots of women talk about circles of men who appear: the attackers, the supposed rescuers, the observers, all of whom become attackers if given the chance. Men who in some sense really are helping attack too. (I'm excluding the formal volunteer groups.) One woman said that men did help her to get to an ambulance, but that she was assaulted from the minute the attack began until the minute she entered the ambulance.
Re: gamai/jamai, if we're going to use an Arabic phrase, we should use the standard Arabic. I haven't seen any source call it taharrush gamai (not counting January 2016 sources). SarahSV (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to argue over gamai vs. jamai, so this move is fine with me. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oliv0, I'm coming to the view that this should be moved to an English title, e.g. Mass sexual assault in Egypt or Crowd sexual assault in Egypt. The issue that's giving me pause is whether it really is just an Egyptian phenomenon. So far I can't find any sources describing a modern-day equivalent elsewhere, not counting war and genocide. So maybe the scope of the article will only be Egypt, but I was hoping for a bit more time for research, and in the meantime at least to get it away from the mistaken transliteration. SarahSV (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Village Keeper. I am coming to the view that you are trying to white wash a large series of events, even if this requires to pretend that Köln, Malmö, and so on, belong to Egypt. This gives the impression that having be so vocal about ...addressing some of the problems women face on Wikipedia, whether as editors or article subjects... [including] which articles about women are created and deleted, and how those articles are written was only some kind of lipservice. Pldx1 (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see it's also written as taharosh, as in the Egyptian anti-harassment group Shoft Taharosh (I Saw Harassment). I think taharosh may have more Google entries that taharrush, not counting the January 2016 stories, though I'm not sure about that. SarahSV (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 197 entries for taharosh and 172 for taharrush on google.com (all languages) from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2015.
Some of the 172 include the German police report in comments under articles; even though an article is dated before January 2016, people have gone back and added later comments, and that's affecting the search. SarahSV (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm coming to think it might be better to stick with taharrush jamai. This 2013 article in The Nation identifies the "circle of hell" and brings up the term taharrush, but it's not clear if it's meant to refer to this specific custom or simply to sexual harassment broadly construed. Taharrush jamai/gamea does seem to refer to that. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Another search: from 24 October 2006 (the first known present-day, civilian, mass sexual assault in Egypt) to 31 December 2015, google.com, all languages:
"taharrush -gamea -Europe -Germany" = 123
"taharosh -gamea -Europe -Germany" = 168
SarahSV (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Almost everything I find for taharosh refers to Shoft Taharosh. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Might this just be another Egyptian versus Standard Arabic thing? I don't speak a word of the language. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Sammy, I wasn't suggesting moving it to taharrush/taharosh alone. I'm just trying to find the most common way of writing it. SarahSV (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The more I read, the less I feel we can justify keeping this at an Arabic title.

First, to deal with the gamea title, that has to go and soon, so I'm tempted to be bold and do that. Second, any Arabic title: this appears to be an Egyptian thing (not counting war, not counting ancient history, where of course it has happened elsewhere). If they had one term for it, we could justify naming the article accordingly. But they don't. They call it taharosh/taharrush (harassment) and taharosh/taharrush ginsy/jinsy/gensy (sexual harassment). Very few refer to it as taharrush jamai and variations.

So really we ought to move it to Mass sexual assault in Egypt or Crowd sexual assault in Egypt. The New York Times calls it the former. SarahSV (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is from Kohl, 2015, a source you added:

In October 2006, a shift occurred in Egyptian posts, tied to the Eid mob sexual harassment that took place in downtown Cairo. From that point on, taḥarrush in Egypt signified the sexual harassment of women in public space. Prior to the Eid mob sexual harassment event, the Egyptian Center for Women’s Rights had begun a campaign to end everyday sexual harassment in the streets, which it called taḥarrush. Following the 2011 Egyptian Revolution, this activism continued with independent initiatives focused on community-based work, such as HarassMap. Throughout this time, the discourse was complicated by the connection of taḥarrush to more violent forms of sexual assault and rape, which was further evident following the Revolution. This connection of taḥarrush with more sexually violent practices aligns with prior meanings of taḥarrush, but it has also contributed to public resistance to the idea that taḥarrush signifies everyday sexual harassment that anti-sexual harassment initiatives seek to establish.

Taharrush jamai doesn't appear there. I'm thinking that just plain taharrush would be consistent with the usage in both Egypt an the West. We would add a note explaining the term's origins in attempts to get sexual harassment recognized. (The Nation above noted that 99.3% of Egyptian women reported being harassed, but until recently harassment was referred to euphemistically as "flirtation.") This would avoid keeping the mistransliteration, and also avoid the contentious move of separating the Egyptian phenomenon from the attacks in Europe. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More than a note rather, perhaps a whole section, since I do see plenty of sources for it. I see the problem with using this term, which is a little more broad than we'd like, but it seems to me a lot less clumsy than inventing an English phrase which explicitly excludes the way this was reported in Western media. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We could still have the European material in an article called Mass sexual assault in Egypt. It would be, as now, a summary-style section on something of relevance because of the police report linking the two.
I didn't add the Kohl source by the way (that I recall).
Notwithstanding that a lot of sources use the single word, that word encompasses more than mass sexual assault. So we would be jumping from the frying pan to the fire, accuracy-wise. Or we could have to expand the scope to all harassment in Egypt, or at least all sexual harassment, which was the German WP solution. I'm not keen on that, because these attacks aren't just harassment. The scope of the article is Mass sexual assault in Egypt, and that's the term the NYT uses, so that's what's starting to make most sense to me. SarahSV (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a particularly good source for this, because it studies how the word is actually used in Egypt. It makes clear that this is the common term for the phenomenon we're discussing:

As noted previously, the Eid mob harassment that took place in downtown Cairo, which has since become a yearly ritual, generated a wide degree of attention in the media and the Egyptian blogosphere, which was similarly matched with public deliberations via discussion forums on the event (Rifaat 2008; Rizzo et al. 2012). It was from this historic moment, that sexual harassment targeting women in the streets became a vital part of how el-taḥarrush el-ginsy was conceptualized. In Egypt, this was interlaced with the continued yet miniscule use of taḥarrush to refer to child sexual assault, as well as fluctuating use with respect to rape and muʿāksa. Outside of Egypt, child sexual assault still dominated conversations on taḥarrush.

So it looks like taharrush is the word for this in Egypt. We ought to have a section on how this came about, and note that the term historically applied to child molestation and is promoted by women's rights groups in the sense of "sexual harassment", but I don't think we need to create a new phrase for this. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a section on that (terminology and background), but I don't find that source to be at all clear. Writing from memory, it's someone looking at blogs, etc. What I plan to do is write to the people who are studying this and ask for their help, but I don't want to do that until there's a decent first draft in place and we've moved the title away from the German mistake. SarahSV (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a plan. I still don't object to either taharrush or taharrush jamai so go ahead. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SarahSV (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammy1339: In the Egyptian video mentioned at the end of #Renaming above, the reporter seems to say taḥar(r)osh gamāʿī instead of the taḥarrush gamāʿī currently shown in the first sentence of the article (تحرش جماعي; taḥarrush jamāʿī; Egyptian pronunciation taḥarrush gamāʿī), so in English just like gamai is an Egyptian-like version of jamai, taharosh might be the same for taharrush. As for the complex relationship between standard and local Arabic, see Varieties of Arabic#Formal vs. vernacular speech. Oliv0 (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Break

  • Thinking some more about a move: the impression given by the German police was that this is a distinct cultural practice in the Arab world and that it had its own name (which they translitered poorly). Looking around, I can't find modern, documented examples of this anywhere outside Egypt. There are group attacks, gang rapes, wartime sexual violence, and these occur everywhere. But modern, peacetime, civilian sexual attacks on women by crowds is something I have (so far) found documented only in Egypt. And they don't have a fixed term for it. I can't tell what they're writing in Arabic script, but when translitered it's often taharrush or al-taharrush al-jinsy, and only rarely taharrush jamai (and variations).
I've been looking around for analogies. An IP wrote above that it's akin to the Arabic Wikipedia hosting an article on school shootings and calling it "School shootings," as though it only happens in English-speaking countries.
We do use other-language terms when none other will fit well, and where that term is established and used by RS. Dedovshchina is an example where we use the Russian, rather than calling it something like "Hazing in the Russian Army." But there is no equivalent, established Arabic term for these specific crowd attacks. SarahSV (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the previous primary source analysis in Kohl made a strong argument that the word for it in Egypt is taharrush, and this is complicated mainly by activist groups who popularized the phrase and want it to mean something else. There's also a strong argument that it's the English term for this as well. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The German report was an error, and it generated most of the sources. I've been looking up the recent news coverage, and so far as I can tell, high-quality sources are not continuing to discuss it in those terms. This is partly for the reasons outlined above, and partly because there isn't enough information available about what happened in Germany. We may have to wait for trials, good investigative reporting, a public inquiry and academic sources.
The "school shootings" argument seems strong. Even if those incidents had only ever happened in the English-speaking world, it would still be odd for the Arabic Wikipedia to call them "school shootings." They would only do that if the term "school shootings" was being used by sources in all languages because there was something unusual about the incidents that didn't quite translate, as with Dedovshchina. But in the absence of that, the Arabic Wikipedia would (and does) translate the term "school shootings" into Arabic.
It's true that we don't have a common term for taharrush jamai, but likewise the Arabic WP probably doesn't have a common term for "school shootings." SarahSV (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "school shootings" argument is somewhat faulty in that the argument for this title isn't that that collective harrassment isn't present outside of the Arabic speaking world, the argument is that tarrush gama'i is sufficiently different from other forms of harrasment to warrant it's own article, whatever the final title as long as there are sufficient redirect pages. The same would be true for Eve-teasing.SKG1110 (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If from your point of view "taharrush jamai" is different from normal harassment, just because it is committed by more than one individual (which is hardly a "new" or "original" phenomenon) or because it is used by the government or in socio-political conflicts (which also is as old as humanity), then you should still name the article "collective sexual harassment", just like Arabic speakers call the phenomenon themselves. After all they also don't use "taharrush jamai" to describe some original phenomenon, it is just simply that they have no other words expressing that more than one person sexually harasses somebody else, just like we don't in the English language if we don't use the words "collective sexual harassment" (and the effort to create an "Arab" word for a crime, just because we are unwilling to use our own language, is a politically motivated effort itself - not just the topic of sexual harassment). Arabic-speakers are not describing some new "trend" or "thing" (as the German BKA report falsely suggested). A good analogy is "murder" and "murder committed in groups". In the end, what you write also doesn't change the fundamental aspect that this "different" harassment, is somehow an "Arab" harassment (and it doesn't make it better to create a "Europe" section), given the language of the term that this article uses. Eve-teasing is also not different from collective sexual harassment, and should also not exist. These should all be sub-sections of an English-titled article "sexual harassment in public places", "group sexual harassment", or simply "sexual harassment". 41.130.9.98 (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The mass assaults in Egypt are not simply sexual harassment. Insisting that disparate acts of sexual violence be collected in one article, Sexual harassment, is akin to arguing that Lynching in America be merged into Racism. SarahSV (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my (main) point. My main point is the language. Describing it in Arabic despite the fact that it is *very easily* translatable suggests a national/regional/cultural distinctiveness which is not warranted by reality. If mass sexual assaults in Egypt are not simply sexual harassment, then the article should be called "mass sexual assaults in Egypt". Otherwise, as I already said, we could start creating articles called Steuerhinterziehung in Switzerland (in the English Wikipedia) or Desaparición forzada en Argentine (in the French Wikipedia), suggesting that tax evasion is somehow "Swiss" or forced disappearances somehow "Argentinian or Chilean". On that note, the "Forced disappearance" article in the English Wikipedia is a good example of what this one should look like. Good general analysis, followed by country examples.

That being said, I don't agree with your analogy. Your analogy would work if I had called merging this article into "Misoginy", which is not at all what I called for. Merging this article into "sexual harassment" would rather be like merging "drug smuggle through tunnels in Mexico" (using its Spanish translation in English) into English-titled "smuggling" or "drug dealing" articles. 41.130.9.98 (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 41.130.9.98 (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

The last line of Terminology and Background:

The transliteration followed the Egyptian pronunciation, taḥarrush gamāʿī (with a hard ⟨g⟩), rather than the standard pronunciation, taḥarrush jamāʿī.[19]

This contradicts many other parts calling it a miss-transliteration rather than just an alternative due to the differrence between Egyptian Arabic and Classical Arabic.

The North Rhine-Westphalia Ministry of Justice in Germany, in a report dated 10 January 2016, compared the Cologne attacks to the mass assaults in Egypt, transliterating the latter mistakenly as "taharrush gamea" and referring to them as Arabic, rather than Egyptian.

This part also seems to sugest that Egyptian isn't a dialect of Arabic and is a completly seperate language. Any sugestions on what to change?SKG1110 (talk) 09:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second one since the final part is not in the reference (the report of the German Ministry of Justice) which only speaks of "a modus operandi in Arab countries": in arabischen Ländern ein Modus Operandi. (And of course how much varieties of Arabic are separate languages is an open question.) Oliv0 (talk) 10:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But gamea is still a mistransliteration of what should be gamai, no? And it seems the German police may have been wrong, and it's only a modus operandi in Egypt. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 February 2016

Taharrush jamai → Mass sexual assault in Egypt –

It appears that the German police made a mistake in January 2016 when they described "a practice in Arab countries known as 'taharrush gameâ' (collective sexual harassment in crowds)."[1] It was a mistake not only of transliteration (it is apparently more accurate to transliterate this as taharrush jamai). It was also a mistake to describe it as something that occurs in Arab countries.

There has been a practice in Egypt since 2005 where women have been subjected to mass sexual assault by crowds during political protests and religious festivals: 500 cases were recorded there between June 2012 and June 2014.[2] Taharrush jamai is just one of the phrases Egyptians use to describe these attacks.

But there is no such practice in other Arab countries that I can find. Hosting the article under an Arabic title gives the impression that there is something distinctively Arabic about this. Another editor argued that it would be like the Arabic Wikipedia hosting their article on school shootings under "School shootings," as though there is something distinctively English about that.

I therefore propose that this be moved to Mass sexual assault in Egypt (currently a redirect), which is the focus of the sources and the article. The New York Times has used the phrase "mass sexual assault" to describe these attacks.[3] The only part of the content that will have to change to accommodate the new title is the first paragraph.

References

  1. ^ "Bericht des Ministeriums für Inneres und Kommunales über die Übergriffe am Hauptbahnhof Köln in der Silvesternacht", Ministerium für Inneres und Kommunales des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, 10 January 2016, p. 15.
  2. ^ "Circles of Hell: Domestic, Public and State Violence Against Women in Egypt", Amnesty International, January 2015, p. 10.
  3. ^ David D. Kirkpatrick, Mary El Sheikh, "Video of Mass Sexual Assault Taints Egypt Inauguration", The New York Times, 9 June 2014.

SarahSV (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Mass sexual assault" from the NYT sounds good, and without "in Egypt" it would include "incidents in Europe" not only as a "Comparison" in the section title, and maybe also other places (in India there may have been mass assaults worse than "Eve teasing" harassment, like for punishment but I could not find right now where I saw it on Wikipedia). Oliv0 (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mass_sexual_assault_in_Egypt&oldid=702933581"