Talk:Rabaa massacre/Archive 3

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

Requested move 3

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: no consensus, again. Sorry guys. Would love to have this resolved one way or the other but that clearly hasn't happened this time. I'd suggest waiting at least a couple of months before the next RM. Jenks24 (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


August 2013 Rabaa Massacre → Raids on the Rabaa and Nahda sit-ins – Let's face it: The term 'massacre' is not only a loaded sensationalist term per WP:POVTITLE, but it is also far from being a common name. A high number of fatalities doesn't automatically make an event a 'massacre' so there is no need for participants in this thread to cast emotionally-driven !votes. Even if there are several media sources that call it a massacre, we're still not obliged to follow sensationalist journalistic names per WP:NOTNEWS. The proposed title might be commonly used by some government officials, but it is not government POV as it is the most neutral and descriptive name that comes to mind. And although this is irrelevant, but a quick Google search shows 40,200 hits for 'august rabaa massacre' and 192,200 hits for 'august rabaa raid' and 267,000 hits for 'august rabaa dispersed' (however, there are only 38,100 hits for 'august rabaa dispersal', but I don't think it really matters). On the other hand, I only see 40,200 hits for 'august rabaa massacre'. And per the above RMs, we cannot ignore the other protest camp that was dispersed in Al-Nahda Sq. which is located in Giza (12km away from Rabaa Sq.) and there is no need to have a date in the title since no such event occurred in those 2 locations at the same time. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Fitzcarmalan, I'm watching your work here since nearly one year now. As far as I'm concerned, finally coming to the result: the most eye-catching biased factor in this article seems to be: you. I don't know how to say it softer. Why? I'll pick this last action: You defended the term "dispersal", a completely inadequate term in this context - there is no doubt about that. Now you attack "massacre", but not by proposing a neutral and for this event commonly used term like "mass killing", but again you suggest a term which does not implicate a single killing. But we don't have one killing here: we have at least 900, probably more than one thousand, most shot in neck, head, chest and upper extremities. The killings were nearly completely asymmetric. No provocation by demonstrators has been detected until now. To see you searching that eagerly for an euphemising term for this outstanding incident in Euroafrican modern history makes me feel ashamed to work for the same platform as you do. I don't like the term "massacre". I prefer "mass killing", this is a juridical and forensic valid term. But when there ever has been a "massacre" at all, when this term ever had eligibility, it would be hard to find a better example than this unprecedented mass killing, happened on August 14th, 2013, at Rabaa square (and similiar at Nahda Square, in smaller dimensions of course), under our eyes. Who says, he does not know it... well, how to call him? Say yourself, Fitzcarmalan! It's a shame. Don't forget, this is an encyclopedia, not your living room. --,Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
How many sources call this a 'mass killing' compared to the ones that use the terms I proposed? Personally, I've never thought about it, but it's not my fault you didn't make an RM for that purpose (I could have supported, with reason). We go by the common name here, not by your personal intuition. I don't remember encountering you before so I don't know where you came up from with that and I'm not sure what made you decide to suddenly fling your "Fitzcarmalan investigation" upon me with your personal attacks, but honestly I don't care what you think about my work and I couldn't care less, no offense. But at least try to assume good faith.
Yes, I defended dispersal and I still favor it over 'massacre', an obvious pro-victims POV. It didn't come to mind that 'sit-ins' dispersal could be considered a "government POV", and this clearly brought my attention through Oncenawhile's comment in the first move request. I didn't make an effort to convince them that it was meant to be a descriptive name, not a government POV. However, I chose to compromise with the term 'raids' which was used in a title that was previously agreed on. I disagreed with this term before because it implied that it was an armed confrontation where both sides were engaged in the fighting and I thought that only security forces were the ones doing the killings. I still do, even though both sides blame each other for provoking the violence. Security forces indeed killed hundreds in the clashes, but I still fail to see how the term 'raids' doesn't apply here. Here is the common definition of the word: A sudden assault or attack, as upon something to be seized or suppressed[1] [2] The raids can be defined/described as a massacre, but it does that necessarily mean they are called a massacre, no matter how significant? The proposed title is also aimed at bringing attention to the Nahda sit-in as well which was also dispersed that day. Please refrain from coming up with unnecessary WP:ADHOM comments in the future. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not about you or me or any WP author else. It's all about the work of you, me or anyone else here. It's about this article indeed, its content and the content of the sources. Don't change this. You are absolutely of no interest for me. And I reckon, so am I for you. I did not attack you, but what you did (and still are doing) here. You may keep that in mind, when sending unasked POV-links instead working with the already provided material. You are right: I wasn't active here even though noticing what happened with this article. All those disarranged numbers in this article, just take one: 43 killed police officers. Do you mind? Do you really care about POV as always stressing? So tell me, how can that be then: English speaking WP telling the world there were 43 police officers killed at the Rabaa Massacre, soon one year after it happened? Yes. I saw that, but did not intervene. Just: it wasn't me who put those propoaganda numbers here. It isn't me who states to maintain (or: guard?) this article like you are doing. And you still keep this disinformation alive - "government view"? No, there was no government existing since July 3rd, 2013, as you should know very well, there occured a coup. You even might ask el Baradei, what he calls a government view or why he fled from Egypt. The contents and terms you defend here do not represent the Egyptian government's view at all, they come from military state, it's junta installed interim administration and those who support it. Speak it loud or think it at least, Fitzcarmalan: "coup". It is short, simple, not complicated and well known. You want me to cite sources? They already have been cited. You just have to read them or when you already did: to honestly work with them here. As I said, in your living room you can call it "dispersal" or whatever you want. In an encyclopedia it has to be called by its meaning. It was a state led mass killing, not the first and not the last since July 3rd, but the bloodiest. This is the central meaning, and by it is called, as every single scientific publication shows. And even when you don't like to read and cite Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch or Carnegie Endowment For International Peace, you also read it in the New York Times, in the Guardian, even - imagine - in Reuters U.S.: "Mass killing", "massacre", wherever you are. Really, Fitzcarmalan, you survived. The last one who tries to keep it down. Your work is a phenomena, but you really chose the wrong place for it. No mass killing, no massacre, but a dispersal, raids, nothing more. And "43 killed police officers". Pure desinformation. Did you got it now, I had to say this at least for one time? Now go on, when you think the world needs more POV rules links but does not care about numbers and terms. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
By the way, Fitzcarmalan, according to the wide use of the term "mass killing" for these post coup incidents: confer your own edit, and there you also can confer with my edit above of yours (in German the use of "Massentötung" unfortunately is some more restricted to forensic and juridical use as it is in English, German sources seem to prefer "Massaker" or "Blutbad" instead of "Massentötung") --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
And one remark more: Fitzcarmalan, you are hiding behind "good faith", but you've already consumed it over the span of one year: You state, sources say, it was a "Second Revolution", and therefore you cited Patrick Kingsley (Guardian) and Shadi Hamid (Brookings) and some other sources. But when I read your cited sources, I come to the opposite result. And I know many papers both of Patrick Kingsley and Shadi Hamid. First one a very good investigating journalist, the latter a well known and often cited scientiest. But what you are doing here is absolutely disinformative. Both, Kingsley and Hamid, are outspoken representers against the opinion, that July 3rd was a revolution. Both say it was a military coup, not a revolution of the people. Both call it mass killings and massacres (especially August 14). It is true, in the first days of the coup many western journalists and scientists followed Tamrod propaganda and faked numbers of protesters about June 30 and before. But meanwhile everyone knows about the reports of cooperation between secret service and Tamarod. And Tamarod itself admitted they gave faked numbers. So when you state (end of April, 2014!), that Guardian and Brookings support your opinion of July 3rd being a second revolution, you must have completely ignored all literature published since beginning of July, 2013. I don't know why you are doing so and it doesn't matter, whether you believe what you are stating or not. Because the result is: you drive on disinformation in Wikipedia and you don't care about the contents and opionion of the sources you cited. Instead of that you are building your own world here, full of incorrect numbers and information-source relations. There is no "good faith" left in trusting your work. It is miserable and I can prove that with nearly every single source you are citing and reproducing in bad manner. This is politics you write about and you distribute incorrect information all over the world. And after that you cite google matches to say, you are right. The truth is: today no one in the Western hemisphere calls it a "second revolution", but everyone calls it a coup. Everyone knows, August 14th was a mass killing and most call it a massacre. And you have to explain, why you try to present a second version here. One version, not covered by Human Rights Organisations, not by Scientists and today even not by journalists and general media reports. You have to explain that, because reputation of Wikipedia is in our responsibility. We are not Tamarod, we are not members of the regime of self declared field marshal Sisi. So when we WP authors don't get money from Saudi Arabia (we don't, right?), I don't see a reason why to ignore all the existing and cited reports and papers about Egypt since July, 2013. One example and again: please stop stating, that there were killed 43 police officers during Rabaa (and Nahda) mass killings! This "official" number relates to the "casualties of the day’s clashes", that is in all Egypt and that probably meanly relates to the Wednesday casualties after the mass killings and during the riots in several cities. I hope this helps understanding what it means: to work with sources, to read them, to understand the meaning, and then - not first - to honestly reproduce them. Hope you got it - this is not against you, Fitzcarmalan, it is against the method and the system you are using here, disinforming millions of people out there.--Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
About the term raids: As mentioned above, this term does not implicate or suggest killings. And - again as mentioned above - the main characteristic feature of this incident is not only killing, but mass killing, and not only mass killing, but worst mass killing in modern Egyptian history (and human rights watch organisation call it "unlawful mass killing" and "massacre", too). So whoever titles this "raids", he hides the actual meaning of this historic event, and has to explain, why he intends that. So when you called it "raids" (and this means in this case: police raids!), everyone will associate what is usually defined as en:Police raid: "A police raid or dawn raid is a visit by the police, immigration officers or other officials often in the early morning, hoping to use the element of surprise to arrest targets that they think may hide evidence, resist arrest, be politically sensitive, or simply be elsewhere during the day." This term is not completely wrong, but it is completely dishonest applied in this special and extraordinary context. We are talking about a unprecedented historical event, not about an ordinary police action. As you know very well.
About Nahda: it's correct, that Nahda Square faced a similar mass killing that day, even though not at the same range of victims (Wiki Thawra states for Rabaa mass killing: 969 deads, for Nahda mass killing: 96 deads, this would mean 10:1). But this is widely neglected in the media (I don't agree with the media reports neglecting Nahda mass killings, but I noticed it). But to use "Nahda" for this RM as an argument for subtitution of "massacre" by "raids" is pure (and weak) rhetoric. You can have proposed "August 2013 Rabaa and Nahda Massacres" then. But is appears, that you try to avoid the terms "killings" or "massacre" in the title at all - since nearly one year. "Dispersal" is of course a vast euphemism for the targeted killings of hundreds od demonstrators, but "raid" is not much better as explained above. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Please provide the diff that shows me adding the '43 officers killed' part instead of building up walls of text full of groundless and unnecessary attacks/accusations. I don't remember being behind it.
The term 'massacre' used in the title represents one side's POV and it is still not a common name. The term 'mass killing' is a common description. A relevant lead intro, according to my "living room" mood can go like this: → The raids on the Rabaa and Nahda sit-ins occurred on 14 August, 2013, and refer to the mass killing of supporters of former president Mohamed Morsi by security forces. Unlike massacre, I rarely encounter 'mass killing' in Wikipedia titles. It seems to be appropriate for a title of an article that deals with systematic killings that occur on a regular basis for a relatively long period of time (e.g. Mass killings under Communist regimes), not for one-event articles like this one. Also, how many sources sources use 'massacre' to describe both Rabaa and Nahda? If you insist that 'raid' is not sensationalist enough for your ideal title, you can check my proposed compromise below. Either agree or disagree, but if you persist with those counter-productive ad hom arguments, I will have nothing more to say to you. Period. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
"Mass killing" sensationalist and only "relatively long period of time"? Are you kidding? This is the normal term used by nearly every single human rights organisation (as cited by me and permanent ignored by you), by every internatonal tribunal. It is a correct term in scientific use and juridical defined. You never read sources about such incidents, right? Someone like you writing an article like this... and saying: "Hey, it wasn't me who stated '43 policemen killed', and I don't care whether it is in the article or not. End of discussion". Wow! What a leaving. Who knows, maybe you will start reading sources when I go, let's try. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose it is a massacre. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose it was - without any doubt - a state-led mass killing and is widely called a "massacre" as well as "(unlawful) mass killing". e.g.:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anglo-Araneophilus (talk • contribs) 20:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC) + modified: --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Agree, I find the term "massacre" ,in addition to being not common name, is definitely a POV speaking of the definition of the the word massacre on it's article (A massacre is a specific incident in which a military force, mob, or other group kill many people—and the perpetrating party is perceived as in total control of force while the victimized party is perceived as helpless or innocent.) that contrasts with the reality that the protesters were armed which is crystal clear in the ENCHR's report and the videos of the sit-in dispersal available on YouTube. there was mass killing but speaking about one side and forgetting the fact that were 8-43 policemen dead and calling it a massacre is not netural. Sinai Horus 〉〉〉 12:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello User:Sinai Horus, do you have a source to state "8-43 policemen dead" or are you just one of the many disinformation victims of this article? --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
"protesters were armed which is crystal clear": you mean, when reporting about a mass killing, perpetrated by Egyptian coup regime authorities, we can gather "crystal clearness" from information given by a state-run institution of the same regime, like the National Council for Human Rights, and don't care about contrary reports from independent human rights and scientific sources? Did I get it right, Sinai Horus? --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Just because it was reported by an Egyptian national council doesn't necessarily mean that it is biased. the fact that there were armed protestors and that policemen were killed can't be denied. review the videos of the sit-ins dispersal and see the weapons which were inside sit-in. Personally, my brother's friend, a policeman, was killed during the dispersal of Rabaa sit-in by a bullet. Sinai Horus 〉〉〉 20:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Right, the independent sources reported, police officers have been killed during the mass killings of the riot police. The question is, how many (9 is the number reported by 13 human rights organisations, including HRW and AI, by the way confer: at least 19 female (sic!) protesters - or shall we call them "terrorists"? - have been killed at Rabaa mass killing (not Nahda)) and how and when it happened (and it is the same question just from another direction: how many protesters have been killed and how and when did it happen). As far as I understand you don't know a single source for "43 policemen" being killed at Rabaa and Nahda mass killings, right? So explain, why did you write "8-43" then? What is the reason for this en:WP special number "43"? Maybe next time someone will write "millions" (cf: my edit here) here and no one cares about that? I don't blame the admins. They did their best and in such a special topic they probably had to trust the leading authors in some way. In my opinion these leading authors - like Fitzcarmalan, who dominates this discussion and maybe determed the direction of the whole article - did not work accurate at all here. And worse, I even can't see they tried at all. Well this is Wikpedia and nobody's perfect. But this is an encyclopaedic article about an outstandig historical event, the worst mass killing in Egypt's recent history and not the sandbox for your or my private sense of mission. Play at home! That's it and you can see the result now, when you compare this article with the original literatur cited here. So be careful with numbers. Be careful with causalities and - in first place - be careful with sources, which depend on the military regime. No one cites here Muslim brotherhood sources at first place, with good reasons. And on the other hand we have very good reasons to mistrust NCHR (btw: it is not "ENCHR", one of many small, but telling careless mistakes in this article). You remember Sisi's (why Sisi's? There was no government, even no military installed and military-led interim government existing that time) mass killing of July 8th? First they announced, 2 police officers been killed by "terrorists". Then the same day, New York Times reported, witnesses claimed, one police officer (Mohamed el-Mesairy) might habe been killed by military (NWT: page 1, page 2, NYT/The Lede). Or do you remember the two or more police officers, reportedly (and reportedly shown in Video footage) being killed on August 14th in Cairo, when "terrorists" "pushed" a police car from the bridge in Cairo? Then someone relased a video from a different angle, showing the police car driving towards a crowd of people and crashing into a bus, then driving back without beeing forced and falling from the bridge. What exactly happened - we don't know it. So we have to write, we don't know it. Or do you remember the police officer (Mustafa Sarı) killed in Turkey's Taksim-Gezi-Protests? He fell from a bridge when chasing a Gezi-protester (!). So, when you can explain what happened with those killed police officers, then do it, and please use valid sources. When you can explain, that about 1000 protesters had to be shot in selfe-defence by police on August 14th, do it. Until then it is a unlawful mass killing, as independent sources reported (HRW, AI and scientific sources as well). And when someone calls it massacre, of course this is a pro victim term. But this remains quite better at least, then to use pro perpetrator language, euphemisms and suggestive terms here. I don't see other possibilties to call this event than "mass killings" or "massacres". That has to be our choice. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
HRW about NCHR: "The National Council for Human Rights (NCHR), Egypt’s government-appointed national human rights commission, announced on September 20 that it had appointed four fact-finding teams to produce reports about the events of August 14: the killings during the dispersal of the sit-ins, the attacks on police stations and killing of police officers in Cairo and in Minya, and the attacks on churches in at least eight governorates across Egypt. However, like any other human rights organization, the NCHR can only request information from the Interior Ministry and has no authority to access its documents or to summon security officers for questioning, and is therefore no replacement for an official fact-finding committee." The worst massacre of Egyptian history hasn't officially investigated yet. That's a "crystal clear" fact. Compare with the presentation of the "ENCHR Investigation" paragraph in this article! --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I need to address your continuous personal attacks. The protesters and those who sympathize with them claim it was a massacre, while the government and those who sympathize with it claim that what happened was a "counter-terrorism" operation.
"Everyone knows, August 14th was a mass killing and most call it a massacre" → Sorry, I'm not familiar at all with this "everyone". Can you prove that the word massacre is the common name used to describe the events? For a while I believed 'dispersal' was the most common because of its high prevalence in Arabic sources (even pro-victim ones), but from the way I see it now, there really is no common name.
Obviously, both perspectives are respective POVs. I don't prefer raid, it was just the most neutral term that comes to mind after dispersal was rejected. However, I still disagree about considering both words government POV (the government just happens to use them). On 2 August 2013, two weeks before the events, Amnesty International released a report where it claimed the Rabaa protesters had weapons and tortured anti-Morsi protesters, so technically speaking, the government had a legal justification to disperse the sit-in (but not for the disproportionate use of force) after several warnings. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
This is how you reacted all the time since one year: you just refuse to read sources, even those you cited yourself.
1. Amnesty International never stated the storming and mass killing of the Rabaa and Nahda sit-ins were justified by crimes. This is completely invented by yourself. I never read such argues by AI.
2. What you are citing here, relates to (read your own sources please): "Amnesty International has found that the capture and torture of suspected anti-Morsi protesters most frequently occurs during or in the immediate aftermath of violent clashes between the two camps." Did you understand? This were not one way crimes. Read more: "Mastour Mohamed Sayed, 21, told Amnesty International he and a group of 20 others were attacked by a group of Morsi supporters near the pro-Morsi sit-in at Rabaa al-Adawiya on 5 July.". You know, that July 5th was the first (small) mass killing by security forces outside the Republican Guard Club headquarters in Cairo, without ever been investigated? Do you see, you are constructing causalities without considering the context? Next reading please: "Since mass rival rallies began in late June, as of 28 July, eight bodies have arrived at the morgue in Cairo bearing signs of torture. At least five of these were found near areas where pro-Morsi sit-ins were being held." This is one day after the mass killing of July 27, when Egyptian police killed about 95 protesters (according to independent sources, again no investigation of the killings followed). Of course all important crimes commmited by Anti-coup protesters or Pro-coup supporters have to be investigated and to be reported, too. But there is absolutely no causality stated in the sources the way you constructed here. Opposite: according to the sources it seems there usually was a mass killing immediately before those incidents, not after it. The way, you inverted the order, is really adventurous. It is completely equal whether Pro-coup or Anti-coup supporter perpetrated crimes. The only thing we have to keep in mind is, to report in a correct manner, based on reliable sources. I hope you can follow this point: we should report shapes, not colours.
@Sorry, I'm not familiar at all with this "everyone". Can you prove that the word massacre is the common name used to describe the events?: You should be, because I already cited some, Fitzcarmalan. This "everyone" is every reliable source, in this case this means - of course - independent scientists and human rights organisations, not the involved Pro-coup regime sources, nor the involved Anti-coup groups (such as the both banned Muslim Brotherhood or April 6 Youth Movement and others). And you should already know what I meant with "everyone" because I spent some time to explain it to you. Don't you like reading sources? I'm afraid, if this should be the case, my time will be wasted here with you. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


Compromise?

How about Crackdown on the Rabaa and Nahda sit-ins? I also see 'crackdown' commonly used by sources and it demonstrates to some extent the seriousness of the event in a neutral and descriptive way. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"Compromise"? Or rotten compromise? Once again, Fitzcarmalan, do you intend to prevent deads being associated with this lemma with all means? Shall I cite again the recent valid casualty ranges?
1. If August 14th was a simple crackdown in Egypt without a large number of killings, no one would have created an own article for that in en:WP, right?
2. According to independent sources (ECESR, Wiki Thawra) - adopted from a majority of well known human rights organisations - we may assume a minimum total of about 900 dead protesters for Rabaa and Nahda mass killings of August 14, 2013. Do you agree with this point or not? Did you ever heard from such an event in this century before?
3. As you prove by your change of argues and attitudes ("dispersal", "raid", "crackdown", ...), there is not only one possibility to assign a valid attribute to this event. But existing validity of an attribute does not mean, it is the adequate lemma in an encyclopedia. What we have to find out is:
  • What is the main meaning of this event in history and policy: what is the main meaning: crack down or 900 deads, say you!
  • What is the term, most and most important scientific and leading sources (human rights organisations, leading media such as New York Times, The Guardian...) use for it (see above: the answer is clearly "mass killing" and "massacre").
  • What is the already distributed name, known in the general public: This is what you are talking about all the time. But there is no unitised common term for "Rabaa massacre", used on the streets in Berlin or London yet. They don't call it "Crackdown on the Rabaa and Nahda sit-ins" either. Nor "riots", "clashes", "raids", They have no term at all. When you refer to the general media reports you have to refer to those, written after the most important human rights reports have been released. This point point does not help us determing the lemma.
I want to give you an adivce, Fitzcarmalan. When say you are searching for an "neutral and descriptive way" you should try at least to distance yourself from the terminology and ideology of Sisi's coup regime. You stated here "Al-Jazeera and some other exclusively pro-Morsi websites" What you try to equalise here, is English and Arabic AlJazeera. AlJazeera International (English channel) did not differ significantly from New York Times or Guardian reporting at all. In contrary to all of your edits here it was not biased for any conflict party. Check yourself: NYT, AJ, Guardian. If you think AlJazeera International is "exclusively pro-Morsi website" - as you put it - then cite a valid source to prove it. When you can't cite such a source, maybe better read first about the recent process against Peter Greste, think about it again, before talking such things here to convince people of your private ideas. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: again a suggestion by Fitzcarmalan - again an immoderate euphemism, again desperate masking of the mass killing of more than 900 people. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose would support something along the lines of Rabaa Massacre, the word "raids" is not the most appropriate to describe what happened --Tachfin (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Tachfin, this is a sub-discussion I created where the proposed title is 'crackdown' not 'raids'. I remember you saying in the previous RM that loaded words like massacre can be avoided. Thoughts? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • checkY Allow me to join this conversation. First, I'm Egyptian, and I've witnessed a big portion of the events regarding the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 since the start closely from a wide range of views. I used to edit Wikipedia (Arabic mainly) a few years back. I've got used to seeing biased opinions. There will always be biased opinions, since this is the internet and life in general. I found the events to be unfortunate and I wish they would've never happened, and that they would've ended peacefully. I've opposed the crackdown since the first moment, but that doesn't change my opinion on neutrality regarding reviewing and naming what happened.
TL; DR; The most used unbiased/professional Arabic/English name is: 2013 Crackdown on Rabaa and Al-Nahda sit-ins [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] / The user who changed the name at first, used a sock puppet, and got banned! / We are not looking for your personal opinion of the unfortunate controversial events, but the neutral consensus for a title in the real world / Check Sources down there
How did I get here as a normal user who was searching for a certain article on an encyclopedia?
  • I was reading the Arabic article wanting to see the latest verified number of civilian/police deaths in the crackdown on Rabaa in August 2013. That article name is Crackdown on Rabia and AlNahda Sit-ins which is the neutral name.[1]
  • I wanted to check the English version, which I usually do with articles in Arabic.
  • First thing I noticed is the title. I got surprised. I noticed right away that the title is biased. The word "massacre" is rarely used. And when used, it's mainly used as political propaganda by Islamist media outlets.
  • I suspected that someone has "played" with the title, so I checked the article history, and guess what: it was edited by a sock puppet user called User:Qjahid of User:Usaeedi. Who got banned. I wonder why? huh.
  • I totally support everyone having their view regarding the unfortunate events. Only thing is: you shouldn't do that in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not your personal blog!
  • I came to the talk page to suggest a move "back" to the original name or a more common one "crackdown".
  • I found out User:Fitzcarmalan has made a move-back request to the original or even better a more neutral-global title.
  • Crackdown is the name used in all crackdowns on protesters in Egypt, including Tahrir in 28 Jan 2011 (during the first revolution), which had roughly the same number of deaths, why would Wikipedia use this biased title now! I never heard anyone call crackdown on Tahrir a massacre!
  • I understand how the events and deaths in the Arab Spring are emotional and touch everyone of us, even more when you're "in it", not just ideologically attached to it because it touches people who share the same political views as you. But this is Wikipedia, and I hope we try to stay and be neutral or this will hit the credibility of a neutral encyclopedia.
  • Note 1: I really find it bizarre that we're even discussing this, if you can read Arabic (which I do being Arabic), follow Egyptian news daily (which I do being Egyptian), and live the events day-by-day on the ground, you'd directly deduct that both users User:Anglo-Araneophilus and the banned User:Qjahid and a third Turkish user (no offense, but I had to look up why were you guys so biased) are biased because of their own national opinions, and I find it clear regarding the huge amount of sources simply by searching online, that everyone in the home country of the event (Egypt), and in the Arab speaking world, and worldwide, calls it a crackdown. I believe this discussion should've started before the banned user User:Qjahid changed the name on his own, not now. This discussion shouldn't exist in the first place, if it weren't for a user that "hacked" Wikipedia's rules to force his point of view here and god knows where else.
  • Note 2: I don't like personification of opinions, but clearly User:Anglo-Araneophilus is personifying User:Fitzcarmalan's opinions. And if we do the same regarding Anglo, you're Turkish, why wouldn't anyone assume you're biased to the opinions taken by your government and its media outlets. Is this acceptable in Wikipedia?
  • Note 3: AlJazeera is thought of as biased, not only regarding Egypt's current situation but other situations in the region too. Which resulted in a diplomatic clash between Egypt/Saudia Arabia/UAE/Bahrain goverments and the Qatari government (AlJazeera owner) because of the Qatari financial and media support of Islamist movements in the region. AlJazeera is also biased in this specific topic and should be avoided when possible. [1] [2]
  • P.S. I believe most accurate title would be 2013 Crackdown on Rabaa and Al-Nahda sit-ins or something like that (there were in fact a few other small sit-ins but mostly unmentioned by names, and weren't as prominent). These are the names used everyday in Egypt, Arab World, and Worldwide. Anything else, excuse me, I'd find clearly biased to the Islamist-view or the State-view regarding the unfortunate events.
  • TL; DR; I agree / The user who changed the name in the first place was clearly biased, and got banned! / Most worldwide media use "crackdown" / AlJazeera is biased regarding that topic but still uses "crackdown" too! / This name is not common and doesn't represent the article correctly / The Arabic name uses "crackdown".
197.163.69.48 (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
By the way, IP197.163.69.48, why should I be a Turkish user? Because I have a account for Turkish WP? I have got no problem to "admit" that I am German - I thought you would hear my accent when reading my bad "Denglish" here :-D This is no secret at all, even though I did not understand what this has to do with the discussion whether we should call the Rabaa mass killing "clashes", "disperses", "crackdowns", "massacres", "mass killings" or whatever in the lemma. It's not important for me, but you simply could have asked me, what my nationality is, when yor are so interested in that, instead of calling me being the first of three Turkish users anywhere here. In this discussion it seems to be fashion first to state something and later to correct it. Not a good style.--Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Wait a moment, IP197.163.69.48, and let's have a closer look at how you used sources here to back your position according to the term "crackdown":
Pictures made by Asmaa Shehata on August 14. Cf. Louisa Loveluck/GP: "In one of Asmaa’s photographs, a man's brain has slipped out across the field hospital's bloodied floor. <cf. here> Yet the interior ministry still claimed that live ammunition wasn't used. In a statement that evening the ministry insisted that police had used only tear gas against protesters." Note that the argumentation of user:Fitzcarmalan / IP197.163... not to use "massacre" bases on the NCHR report, a semi official institution, which relies on the coup regime's "information" and "has no power to compel officials to testify" (NYT: "Memory of a Mass Killing Becomes Another Casualty of Egyptian Protests")
I did not even start to sum up reports of journalists, because there is no lack of publications by scientists and human rights organisations which have be mentioned first. But since a GlobalPost article of August 14th (just the day it happened) has cited here by IP197.163.69.48 as a "proof" against the term "massacre", let's have a look at what Cairo based Louisa Loveluck wrote End of February 2014 in this - explicitly so-called - "GlobalPost reconstruction" ("What really happened on the day more than 900 people died in Egypt - The story of a massacre", 26. February 2014) of the event:
"By the end of the day on Aug. 14, 2013, more than 900 people would die inside the encampment, plunging Egypt into turmoil. It was the deadliest day in the history of Egypt's republic. The fallout from the massacre has poisoned the country’s post-revolutionary politics, locking Egypt’s military-backed authorities and the Muslim Brotherhood into a battle for survival that has devastated families, hardened sectarian tensions, and facilitated the rise of Islamic militancy. But six months later, the truth about what happened in Rabaa al-Adaweya Square is hotly contested. This GlobalPost reconstruction — based on eyewitness interviews, visits to the scene, first-hand observation on Aug. 14, and an examination of video and photographic evidence — shows that thousands of peaceful demonstrators were trapped inside the camp as security forces mounted often indiscriminate attacks on the crowds." I recommend Louisa Loveluck's reports. She is not affiliated with Moslem Brotherhood at all, but was close to the occasions of Rabaa on August 14th. Her findings differ from what semi-official (that means semi-coup-administration official) NCHR wrote, which is favored by IP197.163.69.48 and user Fitzcarmalan. But they are in line with scientific and human rights findings. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC) By the way, this GlobalPost article is also interesting, because it mentions Asmaa Shehata as an eye witness. She - as member of the Rabaa sit-in and as journalist - documentated the Rabaa August 14 mass killing within the makeshift field hospital and make shift morgue, published some photos in Newspapers, and she shared many photos on Flickr (1, 2, 3), some of them used here now in The Free Encyclopedia. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC) + typos: --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
As I showed above, the way you treat sources here, twists information, selects the details you want to prove and hides those, which does not support your claims. You chose sources which were published days before the event as well as in the first hours of the more than 10 hours lasting event. You even changed the related events (July 8, August 14). You limit your sources to the days of the event (latest source was August 16!) and you don't mention sources, which gather information from later investigations, like those of Amnesty International, HRW, Wiki Thawra, Patrick Kingsley... This is exactly the way, Fitzcarmalan (mis?)used the sources in this article for his claims. And this is the reason, why I made my comments here, even though Fitzcarmalan refuses to acknowledge the shown facts. Will you? According to Arabic sources: I can't read them, but what is the point? Why do we need Arabic sources to determine the English lemma?--Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • TL; DR; There's no source consensus on the current 1-dimensional title, reverting back to the original (dispersal of) or using another (crackdown on) would be the only accepted neutral approaches: 2013 (Crackdown on)/(Dispersal of) Rabaa and Al-Nahda Sit-ins, with content providing all different views with their sources.
  • The hiding parts: You flame everything in conspiracy. And you misread everything written by anyone other than yourself like it's intended to be a global conspiracy on hiding the "truth" you personally believe and try to force!
  • If you read what I wrote clearly, you'd see that what I want to change is the article's title not the article's content, which I actually find neutral enough.
  • AlJazeera: It'd be a joke if you can say any news network is always "biased", or always "neutral". When we talk about AlJazeera and its news coverage of Egypt, it definitely has a long list of precedents of biased coverage, including the sources I already give you up there. AlJazeera isn't Herodotus (i.e. not the main source, or the only source of coverage in a huge country like Egypt), so sticking to it as the only valid source in a sensitive matter like this simply means we're using biased sources to force our opinions. So better use other valid multiple sources, and make it a low priority.
  • The bias: The words mass killings have been used literally on every scale of protest deaths in the middle east recently, except in this article it had to be named a massacre, a clearly biased name written by a banned mysterious user.
  • The banned sock puppet User:Qjahid: Clearly this discussion wouldn't exist if the banned fake user didn't edit the name without anyone noticing, until later, when multiple users tried to retrieve it. This discussion should have started before the initial edit, not now after that user has created a biased name without a "name change request"!
  • Why Arabic? I understand Arabic fluently (of course), and the Arabic sources I provided can simply be translated using Google/Bing translate, to see the common idiom of the mother language of the events. I cited, and would cite AlJazeera to prove that "even" the biased network (towards the Egyptian events, we're not talking about Ukraine here) used the idiom that's common in other places.
  • The situation in Egypt: Every protest in Egypt has had casualties, huge in a huge country, if you don't know, it's called civil unrest for a reason. And police brutality is a huge problem in here. Only this crackdown/dispersal is called a "massacre" but others are different? And that's not bias!
  • Who said it's not bloody? It's bloody! Are you kidding? of course it's a bloody crackdown, in all of Egypt hundreds died, including police officers in the process, protestors, and civilians. A lot of churches got burned by angry Islamists, and a lot of terrorist acts happened and still happening because of the events following the Revolution of 2013 and the following ouster of Mursi.
  • Naming/Content There's a huge difference between naming it a crackdown and including all details in article, and simply calling it massacre like it was a one sided act! The crackdown spanned a few protester sit-ins and squares, with protestors fighting back the cops that order them to comply to the law! The police is brutal no doubt, but it was always brutal and it's a huge problem we're facing. But when writing an encyclopedia you write all the different opinions in the content, and use the most common neutral name, because simply there is a big list of names to every event (The Holocaust isn't called a The Jewish Massacre, although it was a huge 1-sided massacre, but it's not our opinion it's the naming pattern used to identify an event).
  • There's no consensus on any naming in your or my sources: I've given a bunch of sources (my first reply), with many more existing with a simple search "crackdown on Rabaa/Rabia" in Google, and checking the huge amount of news articles of major sources / Again the naming should simply be the "frame" of the event, i.e. crackdown on protesters, like the way every protest crackdown is called. And in the content, the opposing opinions can be written (i.e. Islamists and some governments (Turkey, Qatari) call the events a "massacre" instead of a 2-sided violence etc. Which would be acceptable in a encyclopedia.
  • You can't find a single common name which has consensus? Then use a neutral one, and describe the different views in the content of the article.
  • Sources itself disagree, then why should we take your opinions over others? I find massacre lacking any neutrality, even to the content itself, which states more than one opinion, and the events you yourself stated, like protesters jamming around a police vehicle until the driver lost control and fell off, or the burning of churches!!
  • Final words: 2013 (Crackdown on)/(Dispersal of) Rabaa and Al-Nahda Sit-ins: any other words are biased to certain sources, ignoring other sources. In content we can add parts saying that "certain" views consider it to be a massacre, and state whatever sources you have. But definitely don't cover the whole thing with some sources, hide the other sources, then call everyone else wrong!
M 197.163.69.48 (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "The hiding parts": When did I construct or use a conspiracy? I say, you don't use sources in a correct manner. For what reasons - only you can know. There are many possibilities.
  • "If you read what I wrote clearly" this article's content isn't neutral at all, and I understood well from what you wrote here, that you don't want to change it.
  • AlJazeera: You have to clarify what you are referring to. AlJazeera international is different from Arabic AlJazeera (which is indeed said to be pro-MB) and it is subject of Egypt's coup regime propaganda (think of Peter Greste) So be careful citing Egyptian state'S decision (by military-installed and led interim government's authorities) to ban AlJazeera. We have to rely on Western sources in this case; not on those of the coup regime.
  • The bias: [...] "massacre, a clearly biased name written by a banned mysterious user: According to your conflict with that "banned mysterious user" please contact the admins. I can't help you with that. They may help you by investigate IPs or what digital protocols ever can be used for it. But stop suggesting that I am Turkish or have been banned or whatever this expression "banned mysterious user" shall give us in this context. Who "flames everything in conspiracy" as you put it? You or me? Look at what and how you are writing here.
  • The banned sock puppet User:Qjahid: I commented especially the recent editing and suggestions of Fitzcarmalan, not of User:Qjahid. Maybe those of him were worse than those of Fitzcarmalan. But Fitzcarmalan has still got permission to write here and that's why I address him, not any banned users. The use of sock puppets or the use of anonymous IPs by registrated users may be a bad sign of their intentions or attitudes. That's right, IP197.163.69.48.
  • Why Arabic?: I don't know what languages you can speak fluently or not, but what does that mean for the decision to name the lemma? The sources have to be reliable, not "Arabic". Why should it be necessary to cite Arabic sources to find a lemma for English WP? I don't get the point.
  • The situation in EgyptThe mass killing of August 14 in Egypt is outstanding from every other killing there. It is not simply an example of a random "police brutality", but a planned action by the coup administration. The military coup leader Sisi declared after the mass killing of august 14, in an interview in october 2013, the number of "lossed" was smaller than expected when planning the action: "“Honestly, we were afraid the losses would be greater than this … we told them please leave, but the other party didn’t want to listen or think,”"! And why does a "civil unrest" against a coup automatically mean, that more than 900 protesters have to be killed, probably most of them targetly? What kind of obscene logic do you want to presuppose for this encyclopedia?
  • Naming/Content [...] and simply calling it massacre like it was a one sided act! I don't prefer "massacre", but "mass killing" - but there is no doubt - according to all reliable sources given here - that the mass killing was practically completely asymmetrical. If you think that a rate of about 1000:10 (or 100:1) is a sign of a non-"one sided" action you can cite sources to prove your opinion. All sources I know (and given here) describe the action of the riot police as planned and practically one sided, even in the case, individual demonstrators should have used fire weapons (e.g.: see HRW report!). When I say, I don't prefer the term "massacre" it is because the term itself is not defined in a juristic and forensic manner, not because there were existing any doubts in the stunning asymmetry of the mass killing. To cite the "The Holocaust" here is a disgusting mockery of the systematic and murderous killing of about six million civilians in Europe by the German (and other European) NAZI regimes. The Holocoust lasted not 10 hours, but - in some respect - more than 10 years. This comparison is completely out of place here. Of course the "Holocaust" wasn't just a massacre. It was genocide. You should apologise for this.
  • like the way every protest crackdown is called. Yes, that's what you state. August 14 mass killing was not kind of "every protest crackdown" as you want to see it. Interesting aspect of your viewing.
  • Sources itself disagreePardon? Of course you have to consider, who (which author) wrote for which publishing source, when (what day, what state of process of the event) did he wrote it, based on which sources (news agency information, investigative reporting, official sources, scientific sources...) did he wrote it. What do you mean with "Sources itself disagree"? When you carefully read reliable sources, and when you try to understand them, most of them are consistent. Contrary to the changing temporarily arguments presented here by Fitzcarmalan, for example. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose it is a massacre and this proposition is an euphemism. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


  • Dispersal/Crackdown are both acceptable. Massacre is directly judging and biased Islamist propaganda, clearly hiding a long road of civil unrest before the event of dispersal. The situation is too complicated to simply give it a non-neutral name. I believe the article should include the whole story from the beginning instead of throwing big words like massacre to enforce 1-dimensional views of the civil conflict.
  • Dispersal/Crackdown can include a massacre-point-of-view in the content, and I believe it should. But a massacre-title simply negates and hides many other views that should exist in the content (Islamists threatening to burn Egypt a month before the crackdown or Islamists attacking churches are just examples). Ignoring this in the article clearly gives an impression that it was a 1-sided massacre, not a dispersal of a sit-in in a long civil conflict that sadly turned bloody.
  • Sock puppet User:Qjahid is the one who edited the name from "dispersal" to "massacre" (The Infamous Edit) without a prior discussion. Technically he was hiding his identity to abuse Wikipedia. I'm saying this to tell you, that this discussion is too late, it should've started before the biased edit not after.
  • What User:Qjahid did is a common Wikipedia abuse. Someone changes a controversial article's name/content without a discussion, which forces other editors to start a new discussion after the name change has happened. And of course because the issue is controversial no consensus is reached, so the biased title/content gets stuck.
  • There's no consensus on any naming, because it's a controversial issue. Some sources in the mother tongue of the event, and English too (which I already provided) name it a dispersal/crackdown then describe the different views in the content.
  • Whatever name is used must be neutral and not take the side of either the government or the Islamists. Both are the 2 parties of the unfortunate Islamist civil unrest (2013+).
  • A side-note 1: I never attached you User:Anglo-Araneophilus to User:Qjahid, so don't bend the meaning of my words.
  • A side-note 2: The Egyptian problem - everyone must understand - has multiple different views internally and externally (Revolution 2011/2013 vs Coup), (Elected President vs Coup Regime). Sticking to one of the views is the trait of biased people. In Wikipedia you always state all the different views even if you hate them, again Wikipedia is not your personal blog.
M 197.163.8.128 (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
All to my knowledge "massacre" is indeed not a technical term, not defined exactly and not valid in international courts for example. But your pronouncement "Massacre is directly judging and biased Islamist propaganda" is ignoring both, independent Western scientific literature and human rights reportings. Read these examples (there are many more, I even did not mention countless media reports, such as in leading German and English speaking media journals). None of them is distributing "biased Islamist propaganda". And it is no "directly judging", with regard to several well known reports of independent human rights organisations, who all tell the same story. You just have to cite literature, published after Aug-16 and to remember your own words: "Wikipedia is not your personal blog". Of course there is a long-term context, since there occured a military coup on July 3rd, do you agree it was a coup? Of course this context has to be explained thoroughly in the article, too. One day before the JP-article you mentioned was published, the coup leader (now president of Egypt, even though without any parliament yet) let shot several protesters in Cairo - it was the first state-led ("small") mass killing in a row that led - but did not ended with - the mass protesters killing of August-14 (see here for example). But it could have been easier to clarify all that, when I've had criticised the methods used here many months earlier. That's right. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "2013 Rabaa Massacre" vs "2013 Rabaa and Al-Nahda Dispersal/Crackdown" for a title is as much judging/biased as "2014 Crimean Occupation" vs "2014 Crimean Crisis". You can't sum up one point of view in the title, instead you use neutral "enclosing" titles (Crisis/Crackdown/Dispersal) then elaborate in the content with all the different views.
  • The dispersal is commonly called a crackdown for sure among other names. Some sources after the dispersal was completed: [1: IBITimes] [2: Guardian] [3: FoxNow/AFP] [4: BBC] [5: Time] among others.
  • BBC even details with the number of policemen casualties during the wide crackdown (43 deaths), adding to what I already said, that the "massacre" term would side with "a single view among others" that it was a 1-sided situation, not a part of an unrest which has multiple sides and views.
  • Some reports do exactly as I suggest (IBITimes, Guardian, FoxNews/AFP): Neutral crackdown title, then include the details of any other views (including the big number of casualties, and casualties of all sides) in the content. They are not even encyclopedias that have to be neutral; on the contrary they more than usual reflect certain political views and ignore others.
  • A side-note: Our views regarding the 2013- situation in Egypt shouldn't reflect upon our editing of this article. We're discussing a very specific topic so lets stick to it, and leave other political discussions to other talk pages.
M 197.163.7.205 (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Really, IP197.163.7.205, don't you think, enough is enough with distorting information? The BBC source you cited, which is mentioning more than 40 killed police officers being killed, explicitly refers to the "aftermath" of the Rabaa mass killing (even the title is "In pictures: Aftermath of crackdown on Egypt camps") in all Egypt and - even more - the caption you refer to in this BBC publishing says the opposite from what you are stating: "At least 43 members of the security forces died in the fighting. Here an officer is buried in the country's second city, Alexandria." No word from Rabaa and Nahda in this context, even not from Cairo. Don't pervert sources that way! And anyway: this source is from August 15th. When you want to prove anything, you have to consider sources released with some distance, which can confer the numbers given by military-led authorities with independent sources. What does this mean:
  • Strongly Oppose: I am totally against this. --Usaeedi (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Usaeedi, I am not the kind of person you want to come threaten on his talk page.[3] You should realize that the mess we are in right now is because of you and your sock, not because of my "biased editing". And your WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT !vote won't help you either. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Objection: We are in a mess, because you, Fitzcarmalan - everywhere in en:WP - tried to substitute terms used by reputable scientists, independent human rights organisation and leading international news media, with those, used by the military-led coup regime as well as by the secret-service-connected Tamarod campaign. Reliable western sources today strongly emphase, that the state-led mass killing of more than 900 protesters on August 14 was the worst mass killing in modern European history. And when I entered this discussion this had nothing to do with Usaeedi or any sock puppet. I would have come to clarify your inaccepable way of misusing sources anyway. Don't reduce my arguments to a consequence of those users' edits. Actually it's alone a result of the mess your biased edits (deliberately or because of disability, I can't and don't want to decide) caused here. The admins laid very much confidence and patience in your work here. And I probably agree with you, even though we know, that a vast majority of Egyptian media is under military-backed state control and strongly use propaganda and demonise all opponents of the military backed regime (including April 6 Youth Movement for example), this does not necessarily mean, that every single member of this completely polarised society has to think polarised, too (I can cite reliable sources for what I just said, if wanted). But on the other hand an encyclopedia can not, shall not, may not tolerate to be dominated by biased terms, which sound as coming from the worst military regime Egypt has experienced ever. And exactly this is, what well known scientists, statistics and international human rights organisation say about the first nine months of the regime of self declared field marshal Abdel Fattah el-Sisi (I'm keen on citing sources, if you persist on that here). So there is indeed some sensitiveness indispensable in determing the correct lemma of this article, when Wikipedia does not want to be misused here, but wants to ensure information, not disinformation, of people. Hope, this helped a little. I'm not here to attack a person, but to defend the content of sources, you distorted here. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
One (of many) example of what Fitzcarmalan did here and of what this means for neutrality of his terms: Imagine all Egypt media under complete state control (the only counterbalance was formed by a few Arabic speaking (foreign) world services such as: Al Arabiya, Al Jazeera, Deutsche Welle or BBC Arabic): "More accurate because the events were centered in Cairo and "dispersal" is the most common name within Egypt" Within Egypt? What sources did he compare? Fitzcarmalans emphases himself, he does not rely on Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. I don't know the Arabic reports from Deutsche Welle and BBC Arabic, but I know their German and English reports and they don't support the position, Fitzcarmalan tries to push in this discussion. So which Arabic speaking sources does Fitzcarmalan refer to at all? All leading western reports say (e.g. Der Spiegel in Germany and so does Deutsche Welle and even the editor in chief of alternative news site Mada Masr, Lina Attalah), Egyptian media situation (especially state-led, but also to some extend private) is close to Gleichschaltung, and Fitzcarmalan argues (in en:WP!) with usage of Egyptian media? Unbelievable. That's the way we reach neutrality here? Using terms of Egyptian media? And he still has the boldness to add: "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." By Egyptians! Trust your eyes: that time Egyptians cutted their beards not to get in prison or even to be shot by military installed regime just because of their facial hair-growth, everyone who just possessed any writings of Muslim Brotherhood (which the military state claimed to be "terrorists"), even just a R4bia-flyer, recollecting the August 14 mass killing, was threatened to be punished with up to 5 year prison just because of that. And Fitzcarmalan says he knows, what term is "common name used by Egyptians". What Egyptians you refer to, Fitzcarmalan? Those 75%, who dominated the first and only democratic system in Egypt, till the coup happened? Or this one, who initiated a coup and controls the media now? Or whom do you refer to? Let's see your own socio-scientific studies and public opinion polls, say where did you publish it, enlighten us, don't let us starve in nescience about your sources! Too much sarcasm? I don't think so. Everyone easily can get aware of what happened here and how we have been taken in by him with what kind of methods. An Egyptian judge takes about 20 minutes, to sentence first 529, then about the same time to sentence again 683 people to death penalty, for killing one police officer in both cases. And Fitzcarmalan argus with "common use" in Egypt. It is common use in Egypt to call all opponents of field marshall Sisi "terrorists". Shall we use that, too, here therefore. What a logic, what a user, what a mess, we are in now. Indeed. The whole article needs carfule revision to remove such military controlled narratives in Egypt. This is the sad truth. Thanks Fitzcarmalan and some others for this mess. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
For those who don't have opportunity to study literature according to the situation and characteristics of Egyptian media, on which Fitzcarmalan tried to base his argumentation here to determine the lemma of this article, here are some short talks of the conference titled as "The Role of the Media in Egypt's Military Coup", organized by the Institute for Religion, Culture and Public Life (IRCPL), Columbia University, NY. I'd like to point to Mohamad Elmasry's talk (University of Denver), who underlines, that Egyptian journalists understand themselves as political "activists", not as watchdogs, as used in Western hemisphere ("His PhD dissertation examined the ways news is produced in Egypt"). The talk of Nadia Elmagd (Aljazeera, which user:Fitzcarmalan called here "exclusively pro-Morsi website") is in accordance to all reports from Western scientists and experts and is supported by Mohamad Elmasry as well. It is nearly unthinkable, Fitzcarmalan - who says to be familiar with the situation in Egypt and/or Cairo - does not know about the amount of hysterical propaganda Egypt faced under the military backed regime after the coup of junta leader Sisi and during the "massacres" (Mohamad Elmasry), conducted in de-facto responsibility of Sisi. Wael Abbas is a well-known acticist in new social media, and I never heard, that he is affiliated with Muslim Brotherhood in any sense. Regarding to the terms used by Egyptian media we should have the information in mind, Mohamad Elmasry stresses: "Because this is a very perplexing and important problem: this issue of concentration of ownership in Egypt. Nadia (Elmagd) is absolutely right: we have a small group of very wealthy multimillionaires, billionaires even, who own all of the media and they all happen to have the same basic political ideas." Who is interested in this matter, there is a lot of reputable literature available contributing to this aspect, which is very important for our topic here. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • First of all, I was addressing Usaeedi, not you, because of his threats of getting me blocked on my talk page. He did the same thing through his sock a while ago. And no, this mess wasn't created by me and my biased work, it is due to Qjahid's undiscussed move from 'dispersal' to 'massacre'. Before that I moved the article from 'raids' to 'dispersal' but you clearly showed that you do not agree with either of those, so I fail to see what your problem is regarding that. I did not refuse to read the sources and I'm not trying to evade reading them, I'm just trying to avoid engaging with you in any discussion, because I've been told to avoid engaging with editors who resort to an offending uncivil tone (makes me feel ashamed to work for the same platform as you do / he does not know it... well, how to call him? Say yourself, Fitzcarmalan! / this is an encyclopedia, not your living room / you are hiding behind "good faith" and many more..). You keep suggesting that you're only here to defend this article from my biased work and that nothing is personal, but most of your arguments here prove otherwise. Furthermore, you insist on claiming that I am a biased editor, but I think I also have the right to question your own neutrality on the subject with comments like "the worst military regime Egypt has experienced ever" and your POVish repetition of 'mass killing' almost 70 times in this thread alone. You are the one building irrelevant conclusions out of your sources by analysing the work of the articles' authors citing other works published by them. No one asked you to do that here, and once again you fail to prove that 'massacre' is a WP:COMMONNAME.
The following is in response to 2 previous allegations you made about me:
  1. Amnesty International never stated the storming and mass killing of the Rabaa and Nahda sit-ins were justified by crimes. This is completely invented by yourself. I never read such argues by AI. → I never said that Amnesty stated it was justified. Do not put words in my mouth. By law, the government has the right to intervene in a situation like this when they are exposed to evidence of torture. The Egyptian government technically used Amnesty's report as a pretext to disperse the sit-in: Far from running scared of Amnesty, the leaders of the Egyptian coup have publicly quoted from its reports as part of their justification for the slaughter of pro-Mohamed Morsi activists.
  2. Do you see, you are constructing causalities without considering the context? → I am not the one doing that. Nothing in the Amnesty report says they are related to the July 5 Republican Guard HQs and the July 27 Rabaa killings. To say the torture and the 'mass killings' were related without sources would be a flagrant WP:SYNTH. The mere purpose of me bringing up the torture thing here is to simply prove that both sides have their respective POVs that should be considered as each blames the other for what happened on August 14 and the ENCHR suggests that the pro-Morsi protesters provoked the violence.
This "everyone" is every reliable source, in this case this means - of course - independent scientists and human rights organisations, not the involved Pro-coup regime sources, nor the involved Anti-coup groups → This everyone is not "every reliable source". This everyone only represents the cherrypicked ones you provided, and I can do the same thing. But that's not how you prove that a word is a common name. To do so, you must provide a representative sample of many sources and find out it if is used by a significant majority of these sources. My sample is a very simple Google search of "rabaa sit-in" (excluding photo galleries, Al-Ahram, opinion pieces and unreliable blogs). You can check for yourself. The following are 18 sources collected from the first 5 pages by order of appearance:
– Daily News Egypt by the same Rana Muhammad Taha whose articles you used above.
Use (and repetition) of massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersed/al =  17 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– American University in Cairo
massacre =  1 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  0 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– Middle East Monitor
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  2 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– GlobalPost
massacre =  1 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  1 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  1
– GlobalPost
massacre =  2 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  12 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  6
– The Cairo Post
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  8 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– The Christian Science Monitor
massacre =  2 // mass killing =  2 // dispersal =  2 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  4
– Human Rights Monitor
massacre =  5 // mass killing =  1 // dispersal =  13 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  1
– BBC
massacre =  6 (all quoted opinion) // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  7 (excluding opinion pieces) // raid =  5 (including a link to another BBC article) // crackdown =  3
– Vice News
massacre =  4 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  2 // raid =  1 // crackdown =  1
– World Bulletin
massacre =  5 // mass killing =  1 // dispersal =  9 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– Amnesty International
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  6 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– The Guardian → An article that discusses the status of a detained Al-Jazeera journalist with a flashback on the August 14 events. This is a clear example of how common 'dispersal' is used within a random article's context months after the events.
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  1 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– Islamist Gate
massacre =  1 (quoted opinion) // mass killing =  1 (citing HRW) // dispersal =  0 // raid =  1 // crackdown =  1
– Mada Masr
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  6 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– International Business Times
massacre =  1 (a link to another IBT article and a quoted partisan opinion) // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  0 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  1
– Daily Mail
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  1 // raid =  1 // crackdown =  4
– New York Times
massacre =  1 (link to another NYT article) // mass killing =  3 // dispersal =  0 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0 (different context)
Tally (if my calculation is correct) → We have 14 for 'dispersal' (11 if you want to exclude "Egyptian media" sources like Daily News Egypt, Mada Masr and The Cairo Post). We have 9 for both 'massacre' and crackdown' (11 for massacre if you want to include the quoted opinions of Muslim Brotherhood figures and spokespersons). Finally we have only 5 for 'mass killing' and 4 for 'raid'. Is there any term here that outnumbers the others significantly? No. But we do, however, have 2 commonly used ones (dispersal > massacre). Problem is, we all know that both sides of the conflict favor these two and commonly use them. There is a reason why, for example, we don't use massacre to describe the Ghouta chemical attack (which occurred in the same month with 1000+ fatalities) even though many sources us the word and even though both sides in the Syrian conflict describe it as such. Therefore we must go by the most descriptive and neutral name, and if you have a problem with the art of compromising then it would be pointless to discuss this with you any further. Both terms are closely followed by 'crackdown', which is undoubtedly used by both sides (feel free to revise my sources).
You complain about ENHCR being government-backed, but you seem to ignore and even underline the Brookings Doha Center (co-chaired by Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, a member of Qatar's royal family) as if anything that comes out of it is automatically reliable. Also, Wikipedia is not obliged to consider human rights organizations a universal consensus that everyone should follow (take a look at the criticism section in Human Rights Watch). Once again, we go by the common name in cases like that, not by any kind of authority (a government, a human rights group, a "reputable" person, etc). Period Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
:-) Really this table!? You continue with your disinformation in a funny way: imagine - you even cited Middle East Monitor, and of course you had to take a article published on Wednesday, 14 August 2013 12:01 (sic!). I already told you, at that moment we had only "official" numbers, there were no independent sources available that time. You keep ignoring everything I tought you here. And it is more than funny you try to take Middle East Monitor to prove, we can use Egyptian coup terminology here. This journal is one of those who extremely condemn the coup and the "massacres" as they call it. Daud Abdullah there will die of laughter, when heariing about your last attempt to take him as a witness. And indeed, I can't help you. It is not necessary to say more - and I don't want you to make something even more ridiculous. Shall an admin decide, how to proceed. I know about the "quality" of your work here. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no need to wait for admin attention. We already know there is no consensus for my proposal. And it is also funny how I was 100% sure you would begin your reply with "you continue with your disinformation..". Yes, I know perfectly well about Middle East Monitor and its staunch anti-coup rhetoric. But at least I addressed the point of concern, which is how common the usage of those terms is. You already made your point very clear and you don't have to worry because your title won't be moved anyways, not now, not ever, thanks to a sock. Nice to know you. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
A sock again, did I miss something? :-) Oh come on, don't be mad with me, I'm just kidding and please let me add one note and everyone will have some joy at least: Fitzcarmalan, how desperate you must be: 5 of the articles you cited, are dealing with the NCHR Report (Mada Masr, 5-Mar-14, CP, 7-Mar-14, DNE, 17-Mar-14, HRM, no date, IR, 27-Mar-14, by the way: why do you still call it "ENCHR", I already told you such one does not exist). Of course they don't call it all "massacre", because some of them just report, what the NCHR report writes. Oh, Fitzcarmalan, your "google search" operating leads to funny results. And then: several of your articles are dated 15th August and similar. What analysis did you expect one day after it happened? You say Human Rights Watch is no valid help to determine the lemma, and you click google search to find random articles without any quality and plausibility check (even mulitiple reporting about the same NCHR report). Your Middle East Monitor seems clearly biased, even though it was interesting to see you citing it against its own partiality.
But now, please sit on your chair, before reading, it comes the last but best: you cited DailyMail, published on July 28, 2003, to prove that Rabaa Massacre (of August 14) has to be called crackdown. I am completely defenseless in the light of your diligent google based analysis, you even found prophetic sources. Especially this source of July 28 convinced me restless, that August 14 was a raid or crackdon or dispersal or - no - clashes, which should not be called "mass killing", "massacre" or anything else, which is just used by the victims (even those called it dispersal as you already "proved" before very convincingly) and human rights organisation or by any reputable scientist. We should stick to the "most common name within Egypt" and to the "most common name used by Egyptians" - such as Fitzcarmalan (and some others, Nudge Nudge)! Admins, please keep this in mind and don't forget. And Fitzcarmalan, cheer up, the truth always will win and you are sure you found the most common term, so it will win, right? --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
One thing left open: in your "sigh" edit you said, that I insist on claiming that (you are) a biased editor and that you "question (my) own neutrality on the subject with comments like "the worst military regime Egypt has experienced ever" and (my) POVish repetition of 'mass killing' almost 70 times in this thread alone".
Let me response to this for a last time, since it is connected with the target to find a adequate lemma.
The neutrality of each author has be questioned all the time by anyone. Of course I can trust in your good will to work correctly, and this is exactly what I did, otherwise I would not have spend so much time to provide you with sources and with explaining you details, offered by those sources. But no good faith rule in this world may avoid questioning the neutrality of authors. Good faith means, that we have to work together without questioning the personalities behind the authors, not without questioning their work. But in that moment, when you stop questioning the neutrality of each author you (or I) should stop writing here, because this would mean to "believe" in my (or your) work. And we have to work with sources and authors and not to believe in them.
This user fears the tyranny of the majority, therefore having doubts about democracy in certain countries' politics.
It is no phrase when I say I honestly respect you as personality with all your background and characteristics, but this does not mean, I respect each edit or even your method of editing here. And no one can or should force me to respect what you have done here. On your user page you wrote on July 23, 2013, after the military coup in egypt against the elected government and parliament in Egypt, after the mass protesters killing of July 8 and some days before the mass protesters killing of July 27 by security forces of the coup regime: "This user fears the tyranny of the majority, therefore having doubts about democracy in certain countries' politics.". I assure you, I know what this can mean in Egypt, let's say for a member of a religious minority for example, and I respect one can have good reasons to represent such an attitude. But it is a completely different question, whether such an attitude may speak out of our edits here. I already told you: in an encyclopedia we have to report shapes, not colours, if you know, what this means. And "mass killing" is such a shape (without colour), used by all international courts, even when the exact circumstances of the killing of a large amount of people is not restless clarified. I did not construct this term, but it is used in the majority of reliable (English, not German) sources. "The worst military regime Egypt has experienced ever" was not my term, but I cited several human rights reports and scientific sources, as you can check easily (for further details I recommend Brookings and Carnegie Endowment For International Peace, if you understand German, I can add many more reputable sources). But until now I see no doubts, the sources' assessment is quite reasonable.
I am not perfectly happy with the term "massacre" at all, because it transports indeed a colour, but this seems to be the most accepted term in German and a well accepted term in English (maybe even more than mass killing), according to scientific, human rights and general media sources (and with media I don't mean any google matches, but newspaper of record and similar valid and available periodical literature with satisfactory reputation). --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Allow me to fool around here while I'm at it before an editor closes the discussion. Here is another sample, where I set the date from 31 August 2013 onwards and from which I collected 27 sources from the first 6 pages:
– Daily News Egypt → Same source used above.
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  17 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– The Christian Science Monitor → Same source used above.
massacre =  2 // mass killing =  2 // dispersal =  2 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  4
– The Cairo Post → Same source used above.
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  8 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– The Cairo Post
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  6 // raid =  1 // crackdown =  0
– New York Times → Same source used above.
massacre =  1 // mass killing =  3 // dispersal =  0 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– Human Rights Monitor → Same source used above.
massacre =  5 // mass killing =  1 // dispersal =  13 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  1
– Vice News → Same source used above.
massacre =  4 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  2 // raid =  1 // crackdown =  1
– World Bulletin → Same source used above.
massacre =  5 // mass killing =  1 // dispersal =  9 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– The Guardian → Same source used above.
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  1 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– GlobalPost
massacre =  3 // mass killing =  1 // dispersal =  4 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  3
– Islamist Gate → Same source used above.
massacre =  1 (quoted opinion) // mass killing =  1 (citing HRW) // dispersal =  0 // raid =  1 // crackdown =  1
– Mada Masr → Same source used above.
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  6 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– Project on Middle East Democracy
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  4 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– Middle East Monitor
massacre =  4 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  6 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  1
– Press TV
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  1 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  1 (link to another Press TV article that doesn't use 'massacre', but that's not the case)
– International Coalition for Freedom and Rights (March 6, 2014)
massacre =  1 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  1 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– Middle East Eye (May 11, 2014)
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  1 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– Aswat Masriya (Thomson Reuters Foundation) (March 18, 2014) → Side question: Did Reuters ever use the word 'massacre' to describe the events?
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  1 // raid =  0 (different raid) // crackdown =  0
– Human Rights Watch (December 10, 2013)
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  2 // dispersal =  6 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– Al-Bawaba (March 18, 2014)
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  8 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  3
– Anadolu Agency (March 18, 2014)
massacre =  1 (quoted opinion) // mass killing =  3 // dispersal =  4 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– The Nation (December 9, 2013)
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  0 // raid =  3 // crackdown =  0
– Daily Sabah (March 15, 2014)
massacre =  1 (quoted opinion) // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  1 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (June 10, 2014)
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  1 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– Fox News (March 5, 2014)
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  0 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  1
– MSN News (March 5, 2014)
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  1 // raid =  0 // crackdown =  0
– Euronews (March 10, 2014)
massacre =  0 // mass killing =  0 // dispersal =  1 (excluding quoted opinions) // raid =  0 // crackdown =  1

Tally (again, correct me if I miscalculated) → So far, there are 23 sources for 'dispersal' (17 if we exclude Daily News Egypt, The Cairo Post, Mada Masr, Aswat Masriya and the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights), this time followed by 11 for 'crackdown' and then 8 for 'massacre' (11 if we include quoted opinions). These are followed by the minor 6 uses for 'mass killing' and 4 for 'raid' (3 if we exclude The Cairo Post). I still don't really know why I keep doing this. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Fitzcarmalan, have mercy with me and spare my time! It's strong to keep serious with you. I take one for all and then you can continue your very amusing google method: Look at "Egypt: No Acknowledgment or Justice for Mass Protester Killings" by HRW, you cited. You are citing it here as a prove that this article does not contain "mass killing". And - you won't believe - I totally agree with you. Because of a very simple reason: they write "mass protester killing", and this even in its title! And more: this statement was confirmed by 12 other international (Amnesty International e.g.) as well as Egyptian human rights organisations, who all released the same statement. And even more: This has been adopted as "mass killingsof protesters by security forces during the dispersal of Muslim Brotherhood sit-ins in August" by Reuters U.S. And I could continue more and more. Your google technique is extremely entertaining, but completely improper and sadly useless. You even did not notice the title saying "Mass Protester Killings" even though I cited it here before for several times. It's really hard to find someone caring less than you about sources. I am just sorry for you! What shall I say more. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I reassure: This is not a political discussion. I proved more than once there's no consensus on the biased term "massacre". User:Fitzcarmalan proved the same more than once. Multiple terms from opposing views exist. Both by English, and Egyptian sources (My first and third responses). Not mentioning User:Fitzcarmalan detailed sources too. Dispersal/Crackdown are both acceptable "enclosing" terms. Content can contain whatever other views that exist. Titles must be neutral. The current title ought to be neutralized.
  • User:Usaeedi really? You strongly oppose? I wouldn't have guessed! Only if you weren't the abuser that got banned for using a sock puppet, and that we, in this article are trying to undo his abuse.
  • User:Anglo-Araneophilus you asked for sources that use "crackdown" after the dispersal. I provided multiples. Yet your response ignored what I provided, kept talking about minor issues? focusing only on one source, digging into trivial information flavoring your opinion with a bunch of personal attacks on the integrity of everyone else. Misreading what I said multiple times (Wide Crackdown Rabaa + AlNahda + multiple small other sit-ins, Alexandria included = 2013 Rabaa and AlNahda... etc).
  • You keep narrowing the sources by ignoring any other valid sources that disagree with your view.
  • Your doings eventually will get us to a no-solution state where the situation stays as-is. This is the abuse I already warned of (Sock puppet edits the controversial name without discussion -> gets banned -> discussion starts -> no consensus is reached because it's a controversial topic -> new biased name stays).
  • You go out of topic A LOT. I was going to write a detailed reply about some of your thrown-into-the-air deep-in-the-text comments. But I decided the best would be focusing on topic and removing 3 more paragraphs (after I already wrote them) which explained things like "freedom of press in Egypt", "why only Arabic/English sources matter" and "beards?".
  • So lets stay on topic and stop talking about beards, coups, military and other personal opinions. This isn't your political rhetoric and no one is a fool.
M 197.163.18.204 (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
For the most points you mentioned there is no response necessary, because everyone can see the answer in the discussion and there is no reason to reply again (especially your sock puppet conspiracy theory or what it shall say us, is a matter for the admins who can check if there is any relation between IPs or not). But one point is worth a response here:
And don't blame me for starting a general discussion, because it is you who tries to argue using incorrect details about the different events on August 14, to spport your target, not to use terms as mass killing or masscre for the lemma, but just dispersal or raid or crackdown:
  • The events in Alexandria and other cities on August 14 are completely different from those in Rabaa and Nahda on August 14. They started after the killing of hundreds of protesters in Cairo's Rabaa and Nahda was reported and they led to attacks of Islamists (that's what most sources say) on police stations, to targeted killing of police officers by those rioting Islamists, to attacks on churches by Islamists and so on. To state here, those events were of the same kind as the mass killings of Anti-coup protesters in Rabaa and Nahda is again - how to put it different - a complete disinformation of yours. The killings in other cities are not the result of a systematical mass killing by security forces, but the result of different riots and police actions. And they led to the death of more than hundered civilians and many police officers, too.
  • The number given in the article's info box (even though reffering to a specified source) is incorrect:

My conclusion: I've seen enough here now. I sum up some points and the WP community may decide what to do with such an article, with such authors, with such iterating move requests. What does this discussion show for our lemma discussion: all of 197.163.18.204 and Fitzcarmalans edits show in one - and always the same - direction. They conceal and/or relativise the already existing results reported by independent international scientists and human rights organisations and they favor "official" numbers and narratives, used by authorities of the coup regime or by institutions, which are not independent, such as NCHR (erroneously called "ENCHR Investigation" in an extra paragraph in this article, even though there is no organisation ENCHR existing and the NCHR did not conduct an own "investigation", but referred to information given by the coup regime itself). None of both users seem to you use terms like "coup" or "protester killing", even though they have to be used without any doubt, according to independent western sources. None of both uses scientific sources at all for this article. Fitzcarmalans even rejected Brookings and Human Rights Watch as not valid for this article, even though Brookings has international reputation and is in line with leading German think tanks as Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP) and HRW positions are formally backed by 12 other international and Egyptian human rights organisations. And even though he did not cite a single scientific source at all and especially none saying "mass killing" or "massacre" is not appropriate term. Instead of that he reduces his work on automated google matches (even not google scholar, but just google), leading to more than bizarre results. And one important note: the attitude of Fitzcarmalan, who stated he "fears the tyranny of the majority, therefore having doubts about democracy in certain countries' politics" has to be respected - and I do respect it - but it must be clear, that this political attitude does not affect his and our work on Egypt specific topics - e.g. chosing the correct lemma - since the Egypt coup regime is claiming to represent democratic legitimacy, which is strongly questioned by all recent western scientific reports. This is an enyclopedia, we may not act as activists of Tamarod campaign or of Muslimbrotherhood or anything else. This I emphase with special regard to the use of Egyptian media sources by those both users 197.163.18.204 and Fitzcarmalans - western scientific sources stress, that Egyptian journalists mainly act as politic acticists (pro regime!), rather than as independent watchdogs. Fitzcarmalans demand to follow Egyptian narrative therefore is completely misdirecting and leads to perverted presentation and terminology of the events of August 14 and in general. I strongly recommend the choice of an adequate lemma without euphemistic effect, using western independent scientific references. I don't see better solutions than "mass killing" or "massacte". "Crackdown" as well as "raid" can be used by news agencies, just touching the topic. "Dispersal" is inappropriate (some general media sources still use it, but usually not when dealing with the event in detail) as well as "clashes". Both proposes - "crackdown" and "raids" - are inadequate for a detailed article like this and sound like a trivialising mitigation. Greetings, --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Or to put it in other words: the important feature of the event does not consist in the dispersal or raid or crackdown on two Anti-coup protester sit-ins in Cairo (Rabaa-Sit-in) and Giza (Nahda-sit-in). This probably would have caused no own WP article. The international main meaning of the dispersal or raid or storming of the Anti-coup-sit-ins consists in the killing of more than 900 people (according to independent international sources), strongly condemned by leading international politicians as well as by human right organisations. The encyclopedic meaning does not refer to the decision of the security forces to conduct a "dispersal", "raid" or "crackdown" itself (which can be conducted quite differently), but it refers to the unprecedented killing of such a huge amount of protesters during a police operation of some hours duration. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 11:33, 13 July 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_3&oldid=1223934892"