This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Arab world B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Egypt B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: African B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  African military history task force

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

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

There's reports and videos of some of the protestors firing back with automatic weapons. Some of them were confiscated after their arrest. But they appear to have been a minority, and only responding to attacks by the security forces. "Raids" as a title fits. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No both sides were armed and using fire arms, obviously armed police/military vs paramilitary will reflect in the casualties 118.211.192.60 (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add "14 AUgust 2013 Egyptian raids" as there will be repercussions of more violence TIED to this in the coming days in August, so we should clarify when it all began. Then the "aftermath" section can cover it. Also don't gorget the Aftermath of the coup page will also carry other details. So this separate event needs to indicate it happened on the 14th.(Lihaas (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

I agree, 'August 2013' suggest we are discussing a much wider angle here. So this should be renamed to August 2013 Egyptian 'clashes' or 'protest', which resulted in a raid in 14 august. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLNR (talk • contribs) 01:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest that the title needs to be changed to Rabaa Adawiyya Massacre. Calling it a 'dispersal' fits into the pro-coup (or 'it's not a coup')narrative that was widespread at the time. This is now widely described as a coup, and outside of Egypt, at this point, this event is now considered to have been a massacre. Importantly, the death total (at least 500 and probably close to a thousand demonstrators killed) places the event fairly high in any list of the bloodiest state massacres of civilian demonstrators in history. Calling it anything else is a clear violation of NPOV. CF: Sharpeville Massacre, Tlatelolco Massacre jackbrown (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be renamed into a battle or to clashes; The police have been fired at and lost 49 of its own. Photographs taken by military helicopters also show weapons being used by Islamist militants. Calling it a massacre highly fits into Islamist claims of what they call "the throne of Egypt". Coup or not, Islamists still fought the state, it wasn't the security forces' faults they lost badly.  Mahmood  14:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Potato Riots which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. 197.167.6.0 (Zakawer as anonymous user) (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 ? 118.211.192.60 (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Muzher (talk • contribs) 16:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mass murder is what it is. Maybe next time the perps will think ahead... User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral about mass murder? User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lamestream media of the Western world (with minor exceptions such as Fox News) have a record of failures in accurately reporting on the Muslim Brotherhood as a whole, including its 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:

New York Times Continues Epic Media Failure on Global Muslim Brotherhood- The Latest Puff Piece on Rachid Ghannouchi

ANALYSIS: Media Fails to Do Even Basic Research

U.S. Media Fails Again- U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Electoral Group Receives No Scrutiny

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 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:

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:

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 Zakawer (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Obama's first visit was to Egypt to send a message of support to the Muslim Brotherhood. Morsi was installed, thanks to Obama. When the people of Egypt protested and removed him, the MB armed themselves in the streets and sat in. They had to be removed. Would any country allow thousands of people to sit-in for months and block major thoroughfares, they didn't allow people get to their flats. I don't think so. 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 seige--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]