Jump to content

Talk:Nag Hammadi massacre

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

Unreliable sources & coatracking

[edit]

I've removed some sections from this article, they were pure Wikipedia:Coatrack and served purely to attack arabs/moslems and had no direct relevance to Nag Hammadi murders. Sources were also not acceptable , there is still one source from a tourist guide website! Stuff about being descended fro Dynastic period Egypt are not relevant to THIS article, and stories about not being able to build toilets etc should (if needed go into) Persecution of Copts. Without a doubt Copts are not being treated equally in Egypt, but that is no excuse for filling article with material not directly connected to this massacre. thks --Glumboot (talk) 08:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lanternix - I cannot agree with your mass expansion - many of the sources you have used are not RS and are from partisan sources such as Church websites. You have deliberately introduced errors ( that are not supported by your sources) , 2 of the 10 passersby were muslim, 1 muslim killed was a church guard. All that stuff I mentioned above is excessive/ wp:coatrack for this article and again non RS sources have been used. please discuss them on this page & follow WP:BRD thanks --Glumboot (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to agree. If there's a source that you disagree with, list it here and we'll work on it. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 05:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just self reverted another rollback, my apologies. first issue - as above the muslim killed was a church guard and not a passerby and of the 10 wounded, 8 were copts 2 muslim. This is mentioned in the BBC sources you use.--Glumboot (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Muslim man killed was the church guard, but he was NOT on active duty. He was socializing with one of his Christian friends who happened to be also killed in the attack. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 06:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In which source is this stated?--Glumboot (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I have are in Arabic. Do you read Arabic? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 06:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the sources for this are not ones you have used in the article? I prefer to use the reliable BBC sources used which just mention he was a church guard - on/off duty immaterial. And the issue of the muslim casualties? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glumboot (talk • contribs) 06:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's very important to make it very clear he was NOT on duty, because all of the killings actually occured 200 meters away from the church as these people were walking the streets after the service. The church guard was NOT guarding the church at that time, and was killed by mistake as he was mistaken for a Christian, since he was walking with the Christians who left the church. This is crucial details because otherwise the crime cannot be classified as a sectarian one. As for my sources, they are all from credible Egyptian newspapers. Again, do you read Arabic? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 06:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not read MSA. btw there is no disagreement from me that it is a sectarian attack.

If the distinction must be made, it should mention he was an off-duty church guard. Had he just finished guard duty after the service, and this is why he was strolling with a copt friend? If you wish to use a foreign language reliable source then follow Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources

English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote.

BTW the above will also apply to the two arabic sources regarding Nadim Gemayel

http://www.nadimgemayel.com/newsInformation.asp?NewsId=180

http://www.lebanese-forces.com/web/MoreNews.aspx?newsid=72357&title=%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%85 --Glumboot (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, he had not just finished guard duty at the church. He actually had the day off, and he just happened to be with one of his Christian friends. I will add the Arabic sources and follow the translation guidelines you mentioned above. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 07:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, the same should be done for gemayel or mention of him can be removed.
Done. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 07:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It still does not mention he was an off-duty church guard which I regard as an important fact, and you still have not addressed why it says 10 copts were wounded when it was 8 copts and 2 muslims! All this breaking things down into copt this, muslim that makes me sad..Glumboot (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does mention this in the footnotes. And which sources mention other Muslim casualties? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 08:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you changed numbers to 16 injured. All the bbc sources refer to 10, copts.co.uk is not a reliable source. In addition, you have added some sources that already were used and would have been better to use the ref name=xxxx facility to reduce duplication.--Glumboot (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opening another section to address a seperate issue Glumboot (talk) 07:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rape revenge?

[edit]

In the article Lanternix you have stated that This incident, which was never confirmed by any investigation, . That is strange because a man has been arrested, his name is Girgis Baroumi Girgis and he is standing trial [1] [2] Glumboot (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. He's on trial. He has repeatedly denied the accusations and has even asked to be examined medically because he states he's impotent, and thus unable to rape anybody. Many people believe he has been framed. But even regardless of what people believe, he has NOT been officially charged, and therefore he remains innocent until otherwise proven. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 07:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can someone be on trial yet not be officially charged? read the source "Girgis Baroumi Girgis was charged with rape on Nov. 21, 2009" The incident has been confirmed by investigation, it's his guilt which is yet to be determined. That section should state that a suspect is charged & awaiting trial. I shall make this clear in the article Glumboot (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I take it back, he has been charged but not officially accused. If you mention him in the article, I will include the following articles that state he has been framed [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 08:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it necessary to naming him in this article, merely that a suspect was arrested,charged, awaiting trial. If you wish to add that he is being stitched up (quite possible)then do use a good source - sloppynoodle & copts.com are reprint of the assistnews release, which itself takes all it's content from AINA. I see no 'about us' for AINA's so cannot determine it's fact checking and accuracy, If used I'd like to get an opinion from the RS noticeboard. The daily news egypt (same souce as i mentioned above) does not use the word 'framed' in the article. Glumboot (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lanternix, left a message on your home talk page Glumboot (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]

The part of the background is unfair & extreme in the discription,for example the arabic teacher in egypt teach both the language& Islam relegion how could a christian teach the relegion? they are not banned authors or in college but the school is diffrent, also the azhar university you cant enter it without studing the Quran & relegion related subjects ; it is originaly an Islam studing university then it turned to be more global & I never heared of christians asking to enter it anyway.the article is unfair & extreme in discription in a way that gives a total wrong idea, The person who wrote it wants to deliver his own point of view & this is not what the wikipedia is supposed to be like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.239.51.238 (talk • contribs) 05:26, November 6, 2010

Categories I removed

[edit]

I removed the categories below. If you click on them and see the articles listed, you will note that they are for biographical articles and not about historical incidents like terrorist bombings, pogroms, mass murder, etc. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century Christian martyrs

- Category:21st-century executions

- Category:Child saints

- Category:Christians executed for refusing to convert to Islam

- Category:Coptic Orthodox saints

- Category:Coptic Christians

- Category:Deaths by firearm in Egypt

- Category:Egyptian saints

- Category:Executed children

- Category:Executed Egyptian people

- Category:Murdered children

- Category:People executed by Egypt

- Category:People executed by firearm

- Category:People murdered in Egypt

- Category:Articles about multiple people

- Category:2010 deaths

Deleted references

[edit]

User:Tijfo098 just deleted the following references and associated material from the article. Unless I get an explanation, I will restore then and undo his edits:

Coptic Christians are the direct descendants of the Ancient Egyptians.[1][2][3][4][5]
They form the largest religious minority in the Middle East, and represent between 15% and 20% of a population of over 80 million Egyptians[6][7][8]
The Coptic community has been targeted by hate crimes and physical assaults, and has been facing varying degrees of discriminatory and restrictive government policies.[9]
Coptic Christians continuously complain that attacks against them always go unpunished.[10]
The government protection is almost non existent for the Copts and the law is usually not enforced on the Muslim perpetrators.[11][12][13]
In addition, the extent of governmental discrimination against the Copts goes as far as the fact that they are not even allowed to fix a toilet in a church without direct approval from the president of the republic.[14]
According to the Coptic American Friendship Association, eye-witnesses reported that the mobs were chanting Allah Akbar and There is no God but Allah while destroying, looting and torching Coptic property in many recent attacks.[13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth will prevail 200 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are a block evading sock. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ World Council of Churches
  2. ^ http://www.worldmag.com/articles/15734
  3. ^ http://www.wiscopts.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81&Itemid=90
  4. ^ http://www.copticmission.org/copticchurch
  5. ^ http://www.coptic.org/language/georgy/common.htm
  6. ^ Encyclopædia Britannica (1985)
  7. ^ Macropædia (15th ed., Chicago)
  8. ^ http://www.asharqalawsat.com/leader.asp?section=3&article=157751&issueno=8872 "Institut National Etudes Démographiques" - Research in population and demography of France estimates the coptic population to be
  9. ^ http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/copticchristians.htm
  10. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8478397.stm
  11. ^ http://www.christiannewswire.com/index.php?module=releases&task=view&releaseID=12778
  12. ^ International Freedom of Expression eXchange
  13. ^ a b Christians Gunned Down After Christmas Service in Egypt - White House Prayer Vigil January 21 Followed by a Peaceful Rally, Coptic American Friendship Association via Christian Newswire, Jan. 20, 2010
  14. ^ http://www.britishorthodox.org/113d.php

Copy editing

[edit]

I did a good bit of editing in the article for sentence flow, spelling and other touch-ups; I kept the structure of the article intact and did not delete any sources. Foreignshore (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes to "Deleted References" section

[edit]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nag Hammadi massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nag_Hammadi_massacre&oldid=1252380150"