Jump to content

Talk:Rabaa massacre/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Additional Background

  • Looks like the government has been warning protesters to disperse, for weeks.
  • 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 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLNR (talk • contribs) 02:53, 16 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"".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, 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. --PLNR (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I would also ask that you stop editing other pages with the purpose of preemptively calling 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. 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.(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. Yintan  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. -- 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. Crtew (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

As I cited, Al Jazeera MENTUOINED civil war, but only as a possibility(Lihaas (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)).

When reverting changes please add useful comments

User Lihaas 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. --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(Lihaas (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)).

Attack on journalists

In the newly created section 'Attack on journalists'[1]

Why do we need to list every journalist name/profession job resume and other 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. --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. 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 job resume (and other irrelevant info), of every journalists killed, inured and detained is relevant/notable to this article and not a violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL? --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. 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 --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.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.(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)--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(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.--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.Crtew (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Reactions

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.

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. --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. --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? ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 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. --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. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 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. --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.

--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. --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.!(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. --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).--PLNR (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Summarised or moved to a different pacge is okey (hence I did the edit test). Biut it IS blatant pov to selectively choose which reactions matter. Editorial judgement is that , POV. This is not a media out let to make judgements. You can write an article for media outlet in that case instead of an encyclopaedia.(Lihaas (talk) 10:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)).
I agree. I think you guys did a great job with gathering all the info, however most users skip huge lists and prefer an informative summary. --PLNR (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Total deaths/hurts

Please add the total deaths or injuries. Thanks. --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. --PLNR (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Total as all, every, entire, combined. Not for 1 day, for all days. Total deaths and injuries. --4h8s (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Then you are looking in the wrong place, this about the raids on the 14th, try the Political violence in Egypt (July 2013–present) article for totals.--PLNR (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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.Furtfurt (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, consider it a civil conflict inforbox, but the idea is the same. Same informative purpose.(Lihaas (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)).
Upgraded the infobox to a civilian attack type one. I agree though that it's the same idea and information equally reaches the reader. Also, if you check the Halabja attacks aritcle you'll find the same thing and it's also better organized with a civil conflict infobox. Anyway, I hope you like it better that way.Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it work better, though it might be worth mentioning that the Death toll is from the 15th.--PLNR (talk) 23:37, 24 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. --PLNR (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding the Anti-Coup Alliance as a supporters per source provided[2]. 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...--PLNR (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Ref[1] 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 NCSL, and not only MB. This is clear from the response of NCSL as cited in [1].
(Mazidan (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC))
  1. ^ a b National Coalition to Support Legitimacy calls for new Friday of Rage, 16 August 2013, retrieved 19 August 2013
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. (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. (ZP12KL (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC))
I think it's OK to add MB to the list.
(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.--PLNR (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


In these new references [1][2][3], 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. (Mazidan (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC))
  1. ^ Pro-Morsi coalition claims protesters are being threatened, 15 July 2013, retrieved 20 August 2013
  2. ^ Egypt’s Anti-Coup Alliance promises more protests, 19 Augusy 2013, retrieved 20 August 2013 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ Egypt: global outcry steps up pressure on US to suspend aid to military, 15 Augusy 2013, retrieved 20 August 2013 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
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.--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. (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.--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). 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.--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 (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.--PLNR (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


  • In [3] (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 [4] (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 [5] (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 [6] ( 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 [7] (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 [8] (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"
(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:
  1. "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.
  2. "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?
  3. "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. --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 (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. --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 [9] 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 [10] 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.(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 "NCSL-coalition of x member" (member are listed inside), which doesn't detract anything but makes the list more readable.--PLNR (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
>Based on the above discussion, I think that the following solution should satisfy the different sides,
Side1:
Anti-Coupe sit-ins including:
  • Unaffiliated protesters [11]
(ZP12KL (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2013 (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 PLNR agreed upon in my last post.
I think instead of "sit-ins including", it might be "sit-ins participants".
This should appeal to everyone... Thanks everyone (Tashfen (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC))
No it's not. It's the same as before, "Anti-Coupe alliance" is another name for NCSL. Also 'sit-ins' make it sound as if the location was an active side. Here is my suggestion(per objection 1).
Pro-Morsi protesters:
  • Unaffiliated protesters [12]
Though I prefer this(per objection 2), I see no reason to list all of NCSL members.(as far as I seen none of them were mentioned in the articles or related sources, only NCSL as a whole).
Pro-Morsi protesters:
It is as informative(even more so to anyone outside of Egypt) and will be far more readable in the small confines of the infobox.--PLNR (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


I think that the first suggestion by PLNR should satisfy all the sides. If everyone is OK with it we should just go and update the page.(Mazidan (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC))
That's great, I'll go on and update it. Thank you everybody. (ZP12KL (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC))


Actually, I support the Fitzcarmalan variant, it address all of my objection and IMO offers a better infobox variant for this event.(Which up until now was part of the 'whatever silly infobox name' we picked).--PLNR (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

How about this one?
Pro-Morsi demonstrators:

Why should we mention all parties on a list? This is after all a different type of infobox. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Fitzcarmalan, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya is already included as its political party Building and Development Party, and I didn't think there is a need to redundantly repeat it. Especially, this will open the way to do it with all the other parties. Thanks (Mazidan (talk) 07:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC))
So is the Muslim Brotherhood which is represented by the Freedom and Justice Party..
Al Gama'a is a historically-important and major Islamist movement in Egypt along with the Brotherhood and the Salafist movement, and all three differ tactically but have a main ideology which is Islamism (political Islam). Any party in the Anti-Coup Alliance is linked to at least one of the 3 big Islamic movements. Even the so-called "Arab Unification Party" composed by some clerics but mostly by members of the Islamic Labour Party which allied once with the Brotherhood and attempted to do the same several times later. I don't see the damage of mentioning it since it's a special case..Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
MB were included since the references talking about the raids mentioned them explicitly as a major Pro-Morsi supporter, beside the NCSL. This is not the case for Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya.
Ex.: in Ref. [14] by (Tashfen): "The sit-ins contained MB supporters, NCSL supporters and more." (Mazidan (talk) 10:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC))
My point was that it represents 2 political parties (1 directly and the other indirectly) in the coalition and its members were securing the entrances to Raba'a square. However, Al Gama'a is nothing compared to the MB in popularity even though they ARE extremely popular. It's nothing worth an argument really so forget about them..
It's all about shortening the target list anyway because it's a different type of infobox. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree. I see no reason whatsoever to list all the members of the NCSL coalition, this adds nothing to the article. The only thing resembling an argument for its inclusion was the vague "for the sake of completeness, comprehensiveness and integrity", which will be as valid for inclusion of a list of all NCSL members(people), which is ridicules. --PLNR (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Pro-Morsi demonstrators:

Should I go forward with this? Thanks. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

yes. --PLNR (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I've an objection here, since all our previous conversations were about including the members or not.
However, if we are planning to use the short list for the new infobox I prefer the one proposed be PLNR. Since all the latest references still call the alliance as National Coalition for Supporting Legitimacy. But I'm also OK with using the Anti-Coup Alliance name.
Finally, if we are looking for a short list we should write the description proposed by PLNR: (coalition of 11 parties)
So, my suggestion is,
Pro-Morsi protesters:
Thanks (Mazidan (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC))
The Anti-coup alliance is made of members other than the Islamist parties (Check ref. [15]). I suggest to keep the name without a sub-description to solve the conflict. ZP12KL (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree. (Mazidan (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC))
Hi, can you be little bit more specific in your post, to save us some time. Right now the article you referenced starts with:
Prominent Islamist parties and groups have announced the formation of the “National Coalition to Support Legitimacy,”
So I don't see on what you base your conclusion.--PLNR (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

References and Neutrality

I notice nearly all the references are from media sources. I also notice that these media sources tend to be quite subjective. I also notice that many references are from the SAME media sources, and if not the same, then they are 'in league' i.e. owned by the same corporation, have the same source, repeat each others words etc. Although it may be long-established, which is a valid point for credibility, there are times when a media source must be questioned for its credibility by checking 'the other side'. That is, nearly all references are 'in agreeance' - although you may say they are simply stating fact, they, again, appear to be slightly opinionated and not wholly objective in their representations of the events. There does not appear to be any source discussing 'the other side' - yes there ARE many sources discussing the opposing views of those represented in this article - not simply a man making videos in his laundry on his camcorder, but many media organisations, long-standing corporations. Forgive me if I am mistaken, or seem ignorant - my only issue is this: Are the sources of information used allowing a fair representation of the events to be made? Is this article entirely neutral and wholly objective? Is it correct to use seemingly biased sources for a purely factual encyclopaedia? Thanks :) Omnicon1 (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any specifics, you can copy&paste this vague statement to any article on wikipidea and it will stick. So unless you have some specifics the Neutrality tag need to go, because as it is it's you don't like it tag. Other than that it's not our job to question reliable sources, if you think that information is missing please provide it with RS.--PLNR (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I concur. There will always be people who would contest the neutrality of an article, especially on a highly-topics such as this. The way I see it, both view points are presented adequately in the article, but with the overwhelming majority of the world condemning the crackdown, I think the emphasis on the police's use of force is justified in the article. I think the tag at the top needs to go. If Omnicon1 sees any missing bits of significance, please insert them and provide adequate referencing. Regards --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed the tag needs to go. .Seems like Omnicon1 onjly say the media outlets and not the way it is presented here . Atno point is the media opinion stated as fact over here, only the numbers etc are sourced to them. Everythign else is neutrally presented.(Lihaas (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)).

Focus of Article

The article is mainly concerned with the raids which occurred on 14 August. I suggest renaming the article to Rabaa and Nahda sitins crackdown/raids/dispersal . I find dispersal best because it describes the actual intention and result of the incident which was to end the sitins. Please let me know what you think.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of a name change that is more specific to the 14 August event, but while the terms chosen may be accurate, I don't believe very many people would find the article with that title or know what it was about after reading it. We should try to write for the broadest possible audience, including those who have not been following and who do not know the geography. Thank you for jump starting this topic. Crtew (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree.--PLNR (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Disagree with dispersal . But raids is more accurate and hence neutral. Crackdown may be pov against the government. So seems raids is okey. As for adding Rabaa/Nahda im neutral on that. Precedence would mean keeping Egypt, nbut the addition could be more specific.v(Lihaas (talk) 12:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)).

18 August Incident section

While this is a very sad and unfortunate incident I suggest moving it to Political violence in Egypt (July 2013–present) cause it puts undue weight in this article which is mainly concerned with the raid. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

ADisagree. It was directly tlrelated to arrests from here so mention is pertinent (and its brief)(Lihaas (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)).
Asked you before to show how it is 'directly related' to the 'day of the raids' and not just some event in close proximity. Your claim that those were prisoner from the raid, wasn't supported by your sources. So I don't see why would you single out this unrelated event over others at Political violence in Egypt (July 2013–present). For example the August 17th incident where protester exchanged gunfire with security forces is actually relevant, since they were barricaded inside the Cairo mosque, which was used by the protesters on the day of the raid and later holding the charred bodies which are mentioned in the casualties sections.--PLNR (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Page move warring

After a relatively long period of being (more or less) stable, this article has been moved to the title August 2013 Rabaa Massacre and back several times. In the interest of avoiding further edit wars, I'd like to ask: do we have a consensus for moving the page to such a title? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed title

August 2013 Cairo sit-ins dispersal is more accurate because raids usually refers to an armed confrontation and "sit-ins dispersal" (فض الاعتصام) is the most common name used by Egyptians to describe the events. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, from my experience, most Egyptians call it "مجزرة رابعة / مجزرة فض اعتصام رابعة" "Rabaa Massacre / Rabaa sit-in dispersal massacre". Al-Jazeera news channel calls it like that as well. http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2013/08/201381661421880758 http://www.aljazeera.net/news/pages/a5cdaff5-a891-49fe-a5ca-008fbb68173a. StoneCold45 (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
To begin with, Al Jazeera is not a reliable source when it comes to anything Egypt or coup-related. Secondly, we are trying to be as undramatic as possible in describing things here and the title seems perfectly neutral and fine. I don't see a lot of people here in Egypt describing this as a "massacre" while i see the Arabic Wikipedia and even some of the victims' relatives simply calling it "sit-ins dispersal". Also, the article's introduction clearly explains how brutal the crackdown was so i believe there's no need to change the title. Please explain more why are you having second thoughts and i'll be glad to discuss. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Firstly I'd like you to state any "reliable" reason & proof why Al Jazirah is not a reliable source. Al Jazeerah is a worldwide multinational network, as far as my experience with it I have never seen any lying claims or news without any proof, in my opinion it is very reliable source for truth & for that reason it's attacked by known dictatorships & coup institutions in Egypt. 2nd I was just trying to correct you on something, I actually have no problem with the current title at all but I'm just stating you are incorrect about that subject. I don't know about you but I'm an Egyptian & I meet Egyptians everyday, I haven't made a poll but most people I meet & talk with call it a massacre rather than dispersal & add to that a huge (Arab popularity wise) multinational news corporation calls it as that as well. This is more a discussion, I guess, than an edit request but you're free to change the title or keep it as it is.StoneCold45 (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Why is Al Jazeera unreliable when it comes to Egypt-related events?
  1. To begin with, it is funded by the Qatari government and is owned/controlled by it serving nothing but Qatar's interests just like RT and Press TV, so if you have a problem with those two you should also have a problem with Al Jazeera regardless of whether you like their reports or not. "I have never seen any lying claims or news without any proof" Good, but like Press TV for example, the criticism is never about what they bring up in their news coverage, it's about what they don't bring up or negligibly mention.
  2. It hosts several hardline Islamist clerics like Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Wagdy Ghoneim known for their extremist views and who would naturally have biased views against the current Egyptian government (i'm not saying our current Egyptian media isn't biased either).
  3. Sources → [16] [17] (I don't rely on Al-Arabiya either btw) [18] [19]
  4. Since you're fine with the title, this should then be discussed on user talk pages not on this one but i think i made my point already. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I will continue posting here for sake of those reading it and maybe want to change the title so they have this discussion base.
-What news channel isn't funded by its own country? I doubt there are any.
-Also what news channels don't serve certain interests? Again I doubt any do, but there are those that serve the interests of truth & the so called bias is an opposition of slander against Muslim Brotherhood.
-What you are saying is that their guests shouldn't have an opinion. All people have their opinions and they have a right for stating it. Al Jazeerah also hosts people like Suleiman Gudah who naturally have biased views aiding the Egyptian government to counter those you mentioned.
-Yes Al Jazeerah brings up certain news I won't disagree on that, but you said in your post (basically) that you think those news aren't reliable & that is where I disagree with you "Al Jazeera is not a reliable source". I think those news they publish are reliable enough, I know there are others that are not published but I think Al Jazeerah follows a "case" sort of method if you know what I mean.StoneCold45 (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Please try using less emotional phrases such as "serve the interests of truth" and you shouldn't describe it as a "so-called" bias because it clearly exists in their reports, and since you asked for sources and i brought you some that are not an "opposition of slander against MB", there is nothing more to say about this and feel free to call those un-reliable ones.

  1. Any guest has the right to express an opinion freely and it wouldn't count on the channel's credibility, except that some of the type i was discussing earlier host their own shows in Al Jazeera like Qaradawi who hosts a program called Al Sharia wal Hayat and Wagdy Ghoneim, known for inciting hatred and intolerance towards religious minorities in Egypt and the Arab world [20], who gave many "prayer" speeches on Al Jazeera and was hosted numerous times in religious conferences on the channel where he clearly attacked the Egyptian authorities.
  2. I'm not saying Al Jazeera can't be used at all on Wikipedia (since i also don't make rules here), but it can't be relied on in specific subjects such as Egypt and Syria due to how controversial their covering of the events can be. That's all i have to say, so keep posting as much as you like but this is simply off-topic. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Another thing, if you find some of my replies a bit rude in their tone, i apologize and i assure you i had no intention of being so. Welcome to Wikipedia. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Your replies aren't rude so no apology about that is needed, but you tend to try to dictate on me what words I say in a sense. There is nothing emotional in "truth", it is a realistic word just like there are lying media out there (mostly local who do it by state orders or "high" orders, politicized media if you will) , there are truthful or factful ones if that's a word if you don't like truthful.
  • I don't see how hosting a show could stop them from saying their opinions, it's a common method that Al Jazzirah applies; to make popular guests host shows instead of being interviewed by the channel, some shows can have different hosts as well.
  • The video you linked I find has no relation with Al Jazeerah so I don't know why you brought it here but to comment, we don't know if what Wagdy says is a fact or not so until proven either I leave it at that.
  • You make it as if it's a wrong to attack the Egyptian authorities, well that's exactly what happened in the years leading up to 25th of Jan Revolution against Mubarak's rule: activists were attacking the authorities for violations of rights and rules, suppression of protests and forgery of elections/referendums (it's all written here in wikipedia so no need for reference) all three of which are happening right now following the coup.
  • I can't see how Al Jazzirah's reports on events happening in Egypt & Syria are controversial, I see that they allow for both sides of opinions to show on their screens but it is a known fact that Egyptian authorities, indirectly backed by the west [21] [22], wage media and political war on Qatar & Al Jazzirah by closing their bureau in Egypt and arresting their journalists & reporters with a political decision. If you can link me to one of the more reliable sources as to those controversies other than western mainstream who supported Mubarak's regime and now supports the military coup and definitely not an Egyptian source, then I might have an idea on your view point but right now I don't see it. Don't forget it is the same west that supports current authorities that arrest people just for raising their hands with the Rabaa sign [23] or a journalist with the charge "possession of a camera"[24] (doubt wikipedia will deem anything trustworthy other than a mainstream source, but oh well at least something) [25] or the same authorities that killed between 600 (by official Egyptian healthcare reports) and 2000 (by brotherhood reports) in Rabaa with no investigations being allowed or the massacre before that at the republican guard or the ramses before it, or the podium/memorial statue before it, and the 2nd ramses massacre after all before and so on...., The same authority that made up a law for protests that has been criticized by opposition & supporters alike [26], so that they can arrest the peaceful protesters but they don't actually charge them for breaking this law, they get charged other preset charges like incitement of violence & vandalism just as an example.
    • I think this discussion is right on topic and actually benefits it as something to look at if anyone wants to change the title or maybe use it for some details in the topic itself. Again I don't feel any offense & I don't mean any as well, we are just discussing a topic which is what the talk page is for, right? :)StoneCold45 (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • There is nothing wrong and there is nothing right either about attacking the Egyptian government without reliable sources since this is what Wikipedia is mostly about. But there is a source (Al-Jazeera) that proved how controversial it was to the point of making other websites criticize its coverage of Egypt-related events. It has also shown extensive bias towards one side, just like Al-Arabiya showed bias towards the other. And like i explained in the move section below, it is preferable not to use it in the topic just like we prefer not to use either RT or Euronews in conflicts like Euromaidan.
  • I feel i should apologize once again, but i assure you i wasn't dictating anything. I agree the tone might have sounded a bit authoritarian (changed it), but it was a way of cautioning you about the importance of maintaining a neutral point of view, since on Wikipedia you're (in a way) like the devil's advocate and it is better not to clarify to other editors your views which might be POV, since this would affect the credibility of your future contributions. I am also a bit new here myself and i only started editing since July last year. I have made several mistakes before regarding this which i am now trying to prevent. That's why i'm asking you not to turn this into a forum. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: Al-Monitor is a reliable source. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.73.222.31 (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like this has been done. -- Kndimov (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to August 2013 Rabaa Massacre. There is a definite consensus that change is necessary, and the "massacre" option has the most support among commenters and sources. User:Fitzcarmalan's suggestions are interesting, and might merit a separate RM, as they discuss points of precision that were not contemplated in the original RM request. Xoloz (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


August 2013 Cairo sit-ins dispersal → August 2013 Rabaa Massacre or August 2013 Egyptian raids: In 12 December 2013, article moved by Fitzcarmalan [27] as usual, without any consensus or request move. 01:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I am ok with moving the page back to "Egyptian raids" then make a request for "sit-ins dispersal". My consensus was that i waited for over a week till someone replies, but i agree that it should be proposed this way. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, the article you gave us from The Guardian talks about a different massacre of 25 policemen in Rafah that took place on August 20. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya are not to be relied on when it comes to current Egypt-related events as both staunchly support a different side of the conflict. Same way we try not to use RT or Euronews in EU-Russia conflicts. In addition, globalresearch.ca is not a reliabe source either, especially when it's about the Middle East. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Rabaa and Nahda sit-ins dispersal or Rabaa and Nahda massacres - I have recently checked sources on Google for "massacre" and i found good ones using this word. The same goes for "sit-ins dispersal" and the sources calling it so do not use "massacre". Both are common names. However, the events did not take place in Rabaa Square only and i oppose the use of the date tag "August 2013" because there were no similar massacres in these 2 locations in the same time throughout Egypt's history and the event is already highly notable without a date in the title. Redirects already exist. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rabaa_massacre/Archive_1&oldid=1171440485"