Content deleted Content added
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Rabaa massacre/Archive 4) (bot |
|||
| (337 intermediate revisions by 64 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{oldafdfull| date = 15 August 2013 (UTC) | result = '''speedy keep''' | page = August 14th clashes }} |
{{oldafdfull| date = 15 August 2013 (UTC) | result = '''speedy keep''' | page = August 14th clashes }} |
||
{{Bannershell|1= |
|||
{{WPARAB|class=c|importance=high}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Egypt|class=c|importance=high}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Politics|class=c|importance=high}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Military History |
|||
|class=b |
|||
| B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y |
|||
| B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y |
|||
| B3 <!-- Structure --> = y |
|||
| B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y |
|||
| B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y |
|||
|African=y}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Journalism|class=c|importance=mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Death|class=b|importance=low}}}} |
|||
{{ITN talk|15 August|2013}} |
{{ITN talk|15 August|2013}} |
||
{{ |
{{controversial}} |
||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
==Change title== |
|||
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 75K |
|||
|counter = 4 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
|algo = old(14d) |
|||
|archive = Talk:Rabaa massacre/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
}} |
|||
{{OnThisDay|date1=2021-08-14|oldid1=1038813642|date2=2023-08-14|oldid2=1170374523}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| |
|||
{{WikiProject Arab world |importance=high}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Egypt |importance=high}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=high}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Military history |class=b |B1 <!-- Referencing and citations -->=y |B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy -->=y |B3 <!-- Structure -->=y |B4 <!-- Grammar and style -->=y |B5 <!-- Supporting materials -->=y |African=y}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{archives|search=yes}} |
|||
== Proposed title change == |
|||
"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. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 11:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: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. --[[User:Harizotoh9|Harizotoh9]] ([[User talk:Harizotoh9|talk]]) 13:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::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.([[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 13:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)). |
|||
*'''August 2013 Rabaa massacre''' -> '''August 2013 Rabaa and Nahda sit-ins dispersal''' |
|||
: 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. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:PLNR|PLNR]] ([[User talk:PLNR|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/PLNR|contribs]]) 01:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
Recently, I've cleaned up the article of POV, and here is a much more accurate title. Also doesn't feature the word "massacre," which is a one-sided and biased word which fits into the Brotherhood's narrative, as an earlier user noted in the past section. Should we keep the title as is, change it to my proposed version, or take a third option? Thanks. [[User:Zakawer|Zakawer]] ([[User talk:Zakawer|talk]]) 16:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Oppose''': A broad-spectrum of reliable sources refer to incident as Rabaa Massacre. Further, injecting one's own biases and POV doesn't qualify as clean-up. -- [[User:Dsprc|<span style="color: purple">'''dsprc'''</span>]] [[User_talk:Dsprc|<span style="color: green"><sup>'''[talk]'''</sup></span>]] 07:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
: '''Oppose''' A quick search indicates that "massacre" is the term commonly used by international press ([https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/08/14/counting-the-dead-of-egypts-tiananmen/ Washington Post], [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/16/rabaa-massacre-egypt-human-rights-watch The Guardian], [http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/aljazeeraworld/2016/08/massacre-rabaa-160816085846897.html Al Jazeera]). Even searching for "sit-in dispersal" brings up articles whose headlines call it "massacre", while the former term seems to be used almost exclusively by Egyptian press. This brings the change in conflict with NPOV per [[WP:UNDUE]]. [[User:Eperoton|Eperoton]] ([[User talk:Eperoton|talk]]) 02:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Reactions == |
|||
:'''Support''', as I am the person who made this proposal. [[User:Zakawer|Zakawer]] ([[User talk:Zakawer|talk]]) 14:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC) |
|||
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. |
|||
: '''Oppose''', this is the title that's overwhelmingly used by reliable news outlets and scholars. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 14:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC) |
|||
: '''Support''' -- Moving these MB, armed people was not a massacre. They weren't innocent civilians. They were asked to leave for a long time. Like in the [[Waco siege]] people died when Janet Reno asked to make a move and get them out. But the main media WP, Al Jazeera and Guardian are biased against Egypt and for MB -that's why they call it a massacre. Egypt is still fighting the MB in Sinai with police being killed almost every day. I don't know what the correct title should be but I don't think it should be called a massacre. Maybe it should be named the Rabaa siege. [[Hisham Barakat]], the general prosecutor, who ordered the people to be moved from Rabaa was assassinated a year later. Another example where it was called a seige is here [[Siege of La Rochelle]] . Also note this (copied from the Al Jazeera WP article) "The network is sometimes perceived to have mainly [[Islamist]] perspectives, promoting the [[Muslim Brotherhood]], and having a pro-[[Sunni Islam|Sunni]] and an anti-[[Shia Islam|Shia]] bias in its reporting of regional issues."<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-10/why-does-al-jazeera-love-a-hateful-islamic-extremist- |title=Why Does Al Jazeera Love a Hateful Islamic Extremist?|access-date=2015-09-23 |date=10 July 2013 |first1=Jeffrey |last1=Goldberg |publisher=[[Bloomberg L.P.]] |website=bloombergview.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.businessinsider.com/al-jazeera-us-government-funded-anti-muslim-brotherhood-activists-2013-7?IR=T |title=AL JAZEERA: US Government Funded Anti-Muslim Brotherhood Activists |date=10 July 2013 |work=Business Insider |accessdate=16 June 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.agsiw.org/why-america-turned-off-al-jazeera/ |title=Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington - Why America Turned Off Al Jazeera - Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington |work=[[Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington]] |accessdate=6 May 2016}}</ref> So we shouldn't be calling it a reliable source on this specific topic related to the Muslim Brotherhood.[[User:The Eloquent Peasant|The Eloquent Peasant]] ([[User talk:The Eloquent Peasant|talk]]) 02:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
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. --[[User:Harizotoh9|Harizotoh9]] ([[User talk:Harizotoh9|talk]]) 15:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: 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. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 21:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Should most of them be erased or added to a new article just for reactions? [[User:ComputerJA|ComputerJA]]<small> (</small><big>[[User talk:ComputerJA|<span style="color:darkred">'''☎'''</span>]]</big> • [[Special:Contributions/ComputerJA|<span style="color:darkgreen">'''✎'''</span>]]<small>)</small> 00:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::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. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 01:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::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. [[User:ComputerJA|ComputerJA]]<small> (</small><big>[[User talk:ComputerJA|<span style="color:darkred">'''☎'''</span>]]</big> • [[Special:Contributions/ComputerJA|<span style="color:darkgreen">'''✎'''</span>]]<small>)</small> 01:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::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. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 08:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
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. |
|||
--[[User:Harizotoh9|Harizotoh9]] ([[User talk:Harizotoh9|talk]]) 12:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: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. --[[User:Harizotoh9|Harizotoh9]] ([[User talk:Harizotoh9|talk]]) 12:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::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.!([[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 16:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)). |
|||
*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. --[[User:ThaddeusB|ThaddeusB]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusB|talk]]) 05:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*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).--[[User:PLNR|PLNR]] ([[User talk:PLNR|talk]]) 20:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Strongly oppose''' the move request on several grounds. First, the phrase "rabaa massacre" returns 18,600 hits on Google, while "rabaa dispersal" or "rabaa sit-in dispersal" return only 2,600 hits. Therefore per [[WP:COMMONNAME]] "massacre" is the globally recognized title of this event. Second, "massacre" is the term used by [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] from the right, center, left, mainstream, and financial press from all over the world, and by human rights organizations [https://www.ibtimes.com/five-killed-egypt-anniversary-protests-rabaa-square-massacre-1660470][https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/11804439/UN-urged-to-investigate-Rabaa-massacre-launched-by-Egyptian-security-forces-in-2013.html][https://www.dw.com/en/egypts-rabaa-massacre-rights-group-calls-for-international-probe/a-45066244-0][https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2013/1114/Egyptian-authorities-pave-over-Rabaa-massacre][https://www.voanews.com/world-news/middle-east-dont-use/5-year-anniversary-rabaa-massacre-looms-egypt-comes-under-fire][https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/08/arab-spring-rabaa-massacre/536847/][https://time.com/longform/rabaa-square-massacre-legacy/][https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/egypt-no-justice-900-rabaa-massacre-victims-mass-show-trial-continues][https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/egypt-rabaa-massacre-cairo-muslim-brotherhood-abdel-fattah-al-sisi-ibrahim-halawa-a8491821.html][https://www.ictj.org/news/egypt-marks-five-years-%E2%80%98rabaa-massacre%E2%80%99][https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/08/egypt-rabaa/][https://www.msn.com/en-gb/video/other/egypt-marks-five-years-since-rabaa-massacre/vi-BBLU6KD][https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/08/egypt-years-rabaa-massacre-180813145929087.html][https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/yw4k87/egypts-rabaa-massacre-of-1000-morsi-supporters-went-according-to-plan][https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rabaa-massacre-anniversary_b_5678581?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACXhSz-FPaaQ0AjRlQDNHg9-pAHXxQeOATTElRMvNfdt7txwJKRpcSK9X6mPWnROO1OPzOu4n70CFZujKCne8PnzJlUEa6NIjTdrLj5hkUug2N_VXExVKp6favbXEEa6gsuwNosR5TFTU3QRvl_9JpvSoC0ZwtBDjS-q29K3xyq_][https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-morning-after-egypts-rabaa-massacre]. Lastly, a "massacre" is what actually occurred, and we shouldn't be engaged in [[WP:EUPHEMISM]] here. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 04:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Additional Background == |
|||
{{reftalk}} |
|||
* Looks like the government has been warning protesters to disperse, for weeks. |
|||
== Requested move 13 August 2023 == |
|||
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|||
* 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 following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' |
|||
* 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 <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:PLNR|PLNR]] ([[User talk:PLNR|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/PLNR|contribs]]) 02:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.73.222.31|86.73.222.31]] ([[User talk:86.73.222.31|talk]]) 15:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== 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.[[User:Furtfurt|Furtfurt]] ([[User talk:Furtfurt|talk]]) 16:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Alright, consider it a civil conflict inforbox, but the idea is the same. Same informative purpose.([[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 12:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)). |
|||
==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"".[[User:HighIntellectual|HighIntellectual]] ([[User talk:HighIntellectual|talk]]) 23:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:(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, [[User:Iselilja|Iselilja]] ([[User talk:Iselilja|talk]]) 23:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
* 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. --[[User:PLNR|PLNR]] ([[User talk:PLNR|talk]]) 23:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:I would also ask that you stop [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Arab_Spring&diff=prev&oldid=568879993 editing] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_civil_wars&diff=prev&oldid=568879763 other] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Egyptian_Revolution_of_2011&diff=prev&oldid=568879524 pages] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_2011%E2%80%93present_Egyptian_civil_unrest&diff=prev&oldid=568862448 with] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_violence_in_Egypt_%28July_2013%E2%80%93present%29&diff=prev&oldid=568857258 the purpose] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_violence_in_Egypt_%28July_2013%E2%80%93present%29&diff=prev&oldid=568856587 of preemptively calling] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013_Egyptian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat&diff=prev&oldid=568856535 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. [[User:8ty3hree|8ty3hree]] ([[User talk:8ty3hree|talk]]) 03:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Even IF Egypt has a vcivil war that would be another article with background info leading to this. The events are seperaevv.([[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 05:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)). |
|||
:The USA Today article basically says "Yes, you could call it a Civil War but it isn't, not really." Some source. [[User_talk:Yintan|<span style="color:Black">'''Yinta'''</span><span style="color:DarkRed">'''n '''</span>]] 10:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::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. -- [[User:Chronulator|Chronulator]] ([[User talk:Chronulator|talk]]) 10:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
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. [[User:Crtew|Crtew]] ([[User talk:Crtew|talk]]) 19:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::As I cited, Al Jazeera MENTUOINED civil war, but only as a ''possibility''([[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 12:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)). |
|||
== Attack on journalists == |
|||
In the newly created section 'Attack on journalists'[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=August_2013_Egyptian_raids&diff=568959194&oldid=568948871] |
|||
Why do we need to list every journalist name/profession [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=August_2013_Egyptian_raids&diff=568985083&oldid=568985043 job resume] and other [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=August_2013_Egyptian_raids&diff=568984497&oldid=568980712 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'''. --[[User:PLNR|PLNR]] ([[User talk:PLNR|talk]]) 21:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
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. [[User:Crtew|Crtew]] ([[User talk:Crtew|talk]]) 21:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=August_2013_Egyptian_raids&diff=568985083&oldid=568985043 job resume] (and other [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=August_2013_Egyptian_raids&diff=568984497&oldid=568980712 irrelevant] info), of every journalists killed, inured and detained is relevant/notable to this article and not a violation of [[WP:NOTMEMORIAL]]? --[[User:PLNR|PLNR]] ([[User talk:PLNR|talk]]) 21:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
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. [[User:Crtew|Crtew]] ([[User talk:Crtew|talk]]) 22:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
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 --[[User:PLNR|PLNR]] ([[User talk:PLNR|talk]]) 22:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
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]].[[User:Crtew|Crtew]] ([[User talk:Crtew|talk]]) 22:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::The nationalist and the outlet the journalist worked for is pertinent and as such elucidates who was targeted, what perspevctive, etc.([[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 06:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)). |
|||
::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)--[[User:PLNR|PLNR]] ([[User talk:PLNR|talk]]) 15:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::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([[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 06:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)). |
|||
:::: 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.--[[User:PLNR|PLNR]] ([[User talk:PLNR|talk]]) 18:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
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.[[User:Crtew|Crtew]] ([[User talk:Crtew|talk]]) 15:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== When reverting changes please add useful comments == |
|||
User Lihaas [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=August_2013_Egyptian_raids&oldid=568996999&diff=prev 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. --[[User:Diaa abdelmoneim|Diaa abdelmoneim]] ([[User talk:Diaa abdelmoneim|talk]]) 09:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Theres no rule on that. Tags exist to get other editors to add to it |
|||
::Anyway, statement in question is now sorted([[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 12:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)). |
|||
== 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. --[[User:PLNR|PLNR]] ([[User talk:PLNR|talk]]) 16:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: I have no problem with adding the [[Anti-Coup Alliance]] as a supporters per source provided[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/75145/Egypt/Politics-/-Islamist-parties-launch-Legitimacy-Support-allian.aspx]. 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...--[[User:PLNR|PLNR]] ([[User talk:PLNR|talk]]) 17:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
The result of the move request was: '''page moved'''. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 03:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
---- |
||
:*Ref<ref name="dne16Aug">{{Citation |url=http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2013/08/16/national-coalition-to-support-legitimacy-calls-for-new-friday-of-rage/|title=National Coalition to Support Legitimacy calls for new Friday of Rage|date=16 August 2013|accessdate=19 August 2013}}</ref> 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 [[National Coalition for Supporting Legitimacy|NCSL]], and not only MB. This is clear from the response of [[National Coalition for Supporting Legitimacy|NCSL]] as cited in <ref name="dne16Aug"></ref>. |
|||
:([[User:Mazidan|Mazidan]] ([[User talk:Mazidan|talk]]) 18:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)) |
|||
::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. ([[User:ZP12KL|ZP12KL]] ([[User talk:ZP12KL|talk]]) 18:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)) |
|||
::For the sake of completeness, Muslims Brotherhood should be added to the "Supported by" list of side1. ([[User:ZP12KL|ZP12KL]] ([[User talk:ZP12KL|talk]]) 18:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)) |
|||
:::I think it's OK to add MB to the list. |
|||
:::([[User:Mazidan|Mazidan]] ([[User talk:Mazidan|talk]]) 18:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)) |
|||
:: 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.--[[User:PLNR|PLNR]] ([[User talk:PLNR|talk]]) 02:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: In these new references <ref name="dne15Jul">{{Citation |url=http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2013/07/15/pro-morsi-coalition-claims-protesters-are-being-threatened/|title=Pro-Morsi coalition claims protesters are being threatened|date=15 July 2013|accessdate=20 August 2013}}</ref><ref name="ptv19Aug">{{Citation |url=http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/19/319396/promorsi-alliance-vows-more-rallies/|title=Egypt’s Anti-Coup Alliance promises more protests|date=19 Augusy 2013|accessdate=20 August 2013}}</ref><ref name="gard15Aug">{{Citation |url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/14/egypt-protests-aid-military|title=Egypt: global outcry steps up pressure on US to suspend aid to military|date=15 Augusy 2013|accessdate=20 August 2013}}</ref>, 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. ([[User:Mazidan|Mazidan]] ([[User talk:Mazidan|talk]]) 07:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)) |
|||
:: 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.--[[User:PLNR|PLNR]] ([[User talk:PLNR|talk]]) 17:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:I still believe that we should keep all the supporting parties listed, after adding the Muslims Brotherhood. ([[User:ZP12KL|ZP12KL]] ([[User talk:ZP12KL|talk]]) 10:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)) |
|||
:: 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.--[[User:PLNR|PLNR]] ([[User talk:PLNR|talk]]) 18:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::: 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). [[User:ZP12KL|ZP12KL]] ([[User talk:ZP12KL|talk]]) 18:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::: 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.--[[User:PLNR|PLNR]] ([[User talk:PLNR|talk]]) 21:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::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 ([[User:Tashfen|Tashfen]] ([[User talk:Tashfen|talk]]) 19:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)). |
|||
:::: 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.--[[User:PLNR|PLNR]] ([[User talk:PLNR|talk]]) 21:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:*In [http://www.webcitation.org/6J0dlANSm] (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 [http://www.webcitation.org/6J0dd9hAv] (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 [http://www.webcitation.org/6J0eSfAh0] (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 [http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2013/07/15/pro-morsi-coalition-claims-protesters-are-being-threatened/] ( 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 [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/14/egypt-protests-aid-military] (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 [http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/19/319396/promorsi-alliance-vows-more-rallies/] (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" |
|||
:([[User:Mazidan|Mazidan]] ([[User talk:Mazidan|talk]]) 22:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)) |
|||
:: 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: |
|||
::# "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. |
|||
::# "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? |
|||
::# "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. --[[User:PLNR|PLNR]] ([[User talk:PLNR|talk]]) 01:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::*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 ([[User:Mazidan|Mazidan]] ([[User talk:Mazidan|talk]]) 06:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)) |
|||
:::: 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. --[[User:PLNR|PLNR]] ([[User talk:PLNR|talk]]) 18:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::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 [http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2013/08/18/The-outcome-in-Egypt-may-be-unfavorable.html] 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 [http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/78849/Egypt/Politics-/ProMorsi-protesters-begin-sitin-outside-High-Const.aspx] 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.([[User:Tashfen|Tashfen]] ([[User talk:Tashfen|talk]]) 21:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)) |
|||
::: 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 "[[Anti-Coup Alliance|NCSL-coalition of x member]]" (member are listed inside), which doesn't detract anything but makes the list more readable.--[[User:PLNR|PLNR]] ([[User talk:PLNR|talk]]) 00:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
[[:August 2013 Rabaa massacre]] → {{no redirect|Rabaa massacre}} – Per [[WP:CONCISE]]. There is no other Rabaa massacre to disambiguate. <span style="border:1px solid;padding:2px 6px;font-variant:small-caps">'''〜 [[User:Festucalex|<span style="color:#3cb400">Festucalex</span>]] • [[User talk:Festucalex|<span style="color:#ff007f">talk</span>]]'''</span> 21:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:>Based on the above discussion, I think that the following solution should satisfy the different sides, |
|||
::Side1: |
|||
::Anti-Coupe sit-ins including: |
|||
:::*[[Muslim Brotherhood]] supporters [Ref] |
|||
:::*[[National Coalition for Supporting Legitimacy]] supporters:[Ref][Ref] |
|||
::::*[[Al-Wasat Party]] |
|||
::::*[[Authenticity Party]] |
|||
::::*[[Arab Unification Party]] |
|||
::::*[[Building and Development Party]] |
|||
::::*[[Egyptian Reform Party]] |
|||
::::*[[Freedom and Justice Party]] |
|||
::::*[[Homeland Party]] |
|||
::::*[[Islamic Party]] |
|||
::::*[[People Party]] |
|||
::::*[[New Labour Party]] |
|||
::::*[[Virtue Party]] |
|||
:::*Unaffiliated protesters [http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2013/08/18/The-outcome-in-Egypt-may-be-unfavorable.html] |
|||
: ([[User:ZP12KL|ZP12KL]] ([[User talk:ZP12KL|talk]]) 07:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)) |
|||
*'''Closing comment''': This article title has a complex history see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Andrewa/sandbox&oldid=1171440203 here] and the talk page archives. Hopefully this will lead to some stability. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 03:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Looks fine to me. the list is simple, clear and comprehensive. Just to make it well cited kindly add the sources that me and [[User:PLNR|PLNR]] agreed upon in my last post. |
|||
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] --> |
|||
:I think instead of "sit-ins including", it might be "sit-ins participants". |
|||
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div> |
|||
:This should appeal to everyone... Thanks everyone ([[User:Tashfen|Tashfen]] ([[User talk:Tashfen|talk]]) 08:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)) |
|||
== Crimes against humanity category removal == |
|||
== Total deaths/hurts == |
|||
[[Crimes against humanity]] is a specific legal concept. In order to be included in the category, the event (s) must have been prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or at a bare minimum be described as such by most reliable sources. Most of the articles that were formerly in this category did not mention crimes against humanity at all, and the inclusion of the category was purely original research. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 07:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Please add the total deaths or injuries. Thanks. |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:Buidhe@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Buidhe/messages&oldid=1207219674 --> |
|||
--[[User:4h8s|4h8s]] ([[User talk:4h8s|talk]]) 00:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: 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. --[[User:PLNR|PLNR]] ([[User talk:PLNR|talk]]) 00:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 19:24, 14 February 2024
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Proposed title change[edit]
- August 2013 Rabaa massacre -> August 2013 Rabaa and Nahda sit-ins dispersal
Recently, I've cleaned up the article of POV, and here is a much more accurate title. Also doesn't feature the word "massacre," which is a one-sided and biased word which fits into the Brotherhood's narrative, as an earlier user noted in the past section. Should we keep the title as is, change it to my proposed version, or take a third option? Thanks. Zakawer (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose: A broad-spectrum of reliable sources refer to incident as Rabaa Massacre. Further, injecting one's own biases and POV doesn't qualify as clean-up. -- dsprc [talk] 07:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose A quick search indicates that "massacre" is the term commonly used by international press (Washington Post, The Guardian, Al Jazeera). Even searching for "sit-in dispersal" brings up articles whose headlines call it "massacre", while the former term seems to be used almost exclusively by Egyptian press. This brings the change in conflict with NPOV per WP:UNDUE. Eperoton (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Support, as I am the person who made this proposal. Zakawer (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose, this is the title that's overwhelmingly used by reliable news outlets and scholars. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Moving these MB, armed people was not a massacre. They weren't innocent civilians. They were asked to leave for a long time. Like in the Waco siege people died when Janet Reno asked to make a move and get them out. But the main media WP, Al Jazeera and Guardian are biased against Egypt and for MB -that's why they call it a massacre. Egypt is still fighting the MB in Sinai with police being killed almost every day. I don't know what the correct title should be but I don't think it should be called a massacre. Maybe it should be named the Rabaa siege. Hisham Barakat, the general prosecutor, who ordered the people to be moved from Rabaa was assassinated a year later. Another example where it was called a seige is here Siege of La Rochelle . Also note this (copied from the Al Jazeera WP article) "The network is sometimes perceived to have mainly Islamist perspectives, promoting the Muslim Brotherhood, and having a pro-Sunni and an anti-Shia bias in its reporting of regional issues."[1][2][3] So we shouldn't be calling it a reliable source on this specific topic related to the Muslim Brotherhood.The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose the move request on several grounds. First, the phrase "rabaa massacre" returns 18,600 hits on Google, while "rabaa dispersal" or "rabaa sit-in dispersal" return only 2,600 hits. Therefore per WP:COMMONNAME "massacre" is the globally recognized title of this event. Second, "massacre" is the term used by reliable sources from the right, center, left, mainstream, and financial press from all over the world, and by human rights organizations [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. Lastly, a "massacre" is what actually occurred, and we shouldn't be engaged in WP:EUPHEMISM here. -Darouet (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ Goldberg, Jeffrey (10 July 2013). "Why Does Al Jazeera Love a Hateful Islamic Extremist?". bloombergview.com. Bloomberg L.P. Retrieved 2015-09-23.
- ^ "AL JAZEERA: US Government Funded Anti-Muslim Brotherhood Activists". Business Insider. 10 July 2013. Retrieved 16 June 2015.
- ^ "Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington - Why America Turned Off Al Jazeera - Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington". Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington. Retrieved 6 May 2016.
Requested move 13 August 2023[edit]
- 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
August 2013 Rabaa massacre → Rabaa massacre – Per WP:CONCISE. There is no other Rabaa massacre to disambiguate. 〜 Festucalex • talk 21:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- Closing comment: This article title has a complex history see here and the talk page archives. Hopefully this will lead to some stability. Andrewa (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Crimes against humanity category removal[edit]
Crimes against humanity is a specific legal concept. In order to be included in the category, the event (s) must have been prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or at a bare minimum be described as such by most reliable sources. Most of the articles that were formerly in this category did not mention crimes against humanity at all, and the inclusion of the category was purely original research. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)