Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
MediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)
Tag: MassMessage delivery
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Rabaa massacre/Archive 4) (bot
 
Line 19: Line 19:
}}
}}
{{archives|search=yes}}
{{archives|search=yes}}

== Inherently biased anti-govt content should be removed along with a requested rename to a neutral title ==

Ever since the Egyptian Revolution of 2013, political content in Egypt here on Wikipedia has had a visible bias against the Egyptian government. This shitty article, along with [[2013 Egyptian coup d'état]], are the two most obviously biased articles. Blatant POV follows the same fucking stupid narrative as the Muslim Brotherhood, whose first-party sources confuse international media. I think this encyclopedia should more rely more heavily on Al-Ahram's English website and Daily News Egypt, which are as unbiased as imaginable. Also, requesting rename to "August 2013 Rabaa and Nahda sit-ins raid" or something like that. [[Special:Contributions/197.167.6.0|197.167.6.0 (Zakawer as anonymous user)]] ([[User talk:197.167.6.0|talk]]) 16:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

: I agree, this article it seem to convey the opinion and not provide the facts, the citations are weak and misrepresent the facts. Who chooses the title ? [[Special:Contributions/118.211.192.60|118.211.192.60]] ([[User talk:118.211.192.60|talk]]) 12:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

:: I think the title is fine as it is. A great many civilians were killed, and this has been corroborated by the likes of HRW who are considered to be neutral in this case. Perhaps you could provide specific examples of how the article conveys "opinion and not facts"? And could the OP please refrain from using abusive language, it's not needed and is disrespectful. [[User:Muzher|Muzher]] <small>([[User_talk:Muzher|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Muzher|contribs]])</small> 16:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

:::[[Mass murder]] is what it is. Maybe next time the perps will think ahead... [[User:Fred Bauder]] [[User talk:Fred Bauder|Talk]] 09:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
::::[https://www.facebook.com/TuCasaInc/photos/a.423185250951.206225.206580540951/10152721139945952/?type=3&theater Neutral about mass murder?] [[User:Fred Bauder]] [[User talk:Fred Bauder|Talk]] 10:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
:::::The lamestream media of the Western world (with minor exceptions such as [[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]) have a record of failures in accurately reporting on the [[Muslim Brotherhood]] as a whole, including its [[Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt|Egyptian division]]; this explains their terrible coverage of Egypt. Here are a few links explaining the epic fails of the U.S. mainstream media to properly report on the MB; you should go read 'em:
:::::[https://www.globalmbwatch.com/2016/05/24/new-york-times-continues-media-epic-failures-on-global-muslim-brotherhood-the-latest-puff-piece-on-rachid-ghannouchi/''New York Times'' Continues Epic Media Failure on Global Muslim Brotherhood- The Latest Puff Piece on Rachid Ghannouchi]

:::::[https://www.globalmbwatch.com/2014/06/08/analysis-media-fails-to-do-even-basic-research/ ANALYSIS: Media Fails to Do Even Basic Research]

:::::[https://www.globalmbwatch.com/2016/04/06/us-media-fails-again-us-muslim-brotherhood-electoral-group-receives-no-scrutiny/ U.S. Media Fails Again- U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Electoral Group Receives No Scrutiny]

:::::[https://www.globalmbwatch.com/2016/04/11/epic-us-media-failures-part-2/ Epic U.S. Media Failures Part 2]

:::::Also, HRW is a bunch of poorly-informed but well-intentioned dudes. They most likely got their information on the sit-in dispersal from MB members. The title is clearly one-sided, and reflects the MB's bullshit agenda it pushes towards Westerners to make it seem like a bunch of peaceful dudes. Nevertheless, the [[National Council for Human Rights|NCHR]] released a superior report before HRW released its own report which explains the sit-in dispersal properly. Read this article, which explains it in brief:

:::::[http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/96882/Egypt/Politics-/,-people-injured-during-Rabaa-dispersal-NCHR.aspx 1,492 people injured during Rabaa dispersal: NCHR]

:::::And here is the NCHR's rebuttal to HRW's sit-in dispersal "investigation," which you should ''definitely'' read:

:::::[http://www.nchregypt.org/index.php/en/media-center/news/1427-the-response-of-the-national-council-for-human-rights-to-the-report-of-human-rights-watch-in-the-memory-of-the-dispersal-of-rabaa-al-adaweya-and-al-nahda-squares.html The response of the National Council for Human Rights to the report of Human Rights Watch in the memory of the dispersal of Rabaa al-Adaweya and Al-Nahda squares] [[User:Zakawer|Zakawer]] ([[User talk:Zakawer|talk]]) 16:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


== Proposed title change ==
== Proposed title change ==

Latest revision as of 19:24, 14 February 2024

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support, as I am the person who made this proposal. Zakawer (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is the title that's overwhelmingly used by reliable news outlets and scholars. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


August 2013 Rabaa massacreRabaa massacre – Per WP:CONCISE. There is no other Rabaa massacre to disambiguate. Festucalextalk 21:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Leave a Reply