Talk:Rabaa massacre/Archive 4

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

HRW report (12 August 2014): Rab’a Massacre and Mass Killings of Protesters in Egypt

I recommend a complete revision of the current article based on the facts and results, Human Rights Watch provided on August 12th, 2014 on more than 180 pages. To all who still hesitate what to think about and what to do with move requests such as by Fitzcarmalan, which are neglecting the well known facts about the events of August 14th, 2013, I recommend reading this HRW report, too. By the way it is called "All According to Plan - The Rab’a Massacre and Mass Killings of Protesters in Egypt", even though Fitzcarmalan proved here - as he sees it - both expressions can't be used in this context for our lemma. Well... And not to forget - he states, we can't rely on HRW... ...? When there are still questions on whom we shall rely then, it means we have to ask Fitzcarmalan. He did not mention the name of his Arabic sources he mentioned. It could be very interesting to know them though. One year after the mass protestors killing of August 14th it is time to eliminate all propaganda - out of this article and to show authors - who try to reinstall it - what it means to write an encyclopedia. Don't you think? This article is a shame for en:Wikipedia indeed. The attitude of some authors who dominated this discussion is an even greater shame for the authorship of Wikipedia. But it still can be corrected. Go on! Greetings,-Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

To all who still hesitate what to think about and what to do with move requests ....we can't rely on HRW... ...? When there are still questions on whom we shall rely then. Obviously we can't rely on HRW. HRW is nothing but representative for the US administration (I guess that's no secret, they have been long criticized for that), and it's report obviously lacks credibility. The Report is mainly based on the protestors' claims, no field investigation and they cite some journalists one of them who has denied to have said anything.
On a side note: The term massacre stays a biased term. no way you can describe a crackdown whatever brutal it was on armed sit-in as a "massacre". Term massacre only can be used if the killings is against unarmed group aiming to killing them not implementing the law against illegal sit-in. That was brutal, There were killings, But it wasn't a massacre. Sinai Horus 〉〉〉 17:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Remarkable note of yours. Scientific observer say, U.S. government backed Egypt's military coup, John Kerry even neglected (August 2nd, 2013, some days after the mass killing of July 27th and two weeks before the mass killing of August 14th!) a coup had happened and called it restauration of democracy and you state, HRW "is nothing but representative for the US administration". So HRW is pro-coup, is that your logic? Irritating... isn't it. Do you want to make us believe, U.S. does not support Egypt's military? Is this you are telling us? I only heard this by Sama Elmasry, but tell me she is not your source for this: "When Egypt is talking, America should shut up." I don't think we have place for such ideas in this encyclopedia.
Did you read the report? If you have few time, listen here for first orientation: HRW researcher Omar Shakir says, the Interior ministry found 15 (sic!) guns in Rabaa square in the end of August 14th. 15 guns out of 85.000 protesters as has been estimated with help of satellite pictures of August 2nd. Is this what you call "armed sit-in"? Where did you read it was an armed sit-in, what source do you rely on stating the protesters were armed? Quote and cite it here, so we can see what you are reading to convince us here. "Massacre" is of course a biased term. And Wikipedia uses it, don't blame me for that. I never use "massacre", I did not invent this word. It was - without any question an unlawful mass killing, equal to or worse than China's Tiananmen Square killings in 1989 as the HRW report says, "one of the world’s largest killings of demonstrators in a single day in recent history" as HRW also says. Do you understand this meaning? What is your source to state the opposite? Is this is all you found? About the NCHR report listen what HRW says:
  • "The NCHR report on the Rab’a dispersal, released on March 16, has significant methodological weaknesses that seriously undermine its findings. In particular it relies heavily on testimony of local residents, largely antipathetic to the Brotherhood, and there is little use of accounts of participants in the sit-ins who were the primary witnesses and victims. Nonetheless, the NCHR report concluded that security forces used excessive force on August 14 and faulted security forces for insufficient warnings and failure to provide a safe exit for much of the day. It also called for the opening of a full judicial inquiry into the dispersal and for the provision of victim compensation." --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
America Supported the Coup? like really, I don't know but you must be not keeping up with the news. An armed sit-in is an armed sit-in, no matter how much they are armed, once you see even one armed man and you are okay with that, then you are guilty the same and you are helping him, that's law. and after all that was unauthorized sit-in where people were warned several times to leave but they preferred to clash with the security forces. The HRW says they were armed and 8 policemen died but that wasn't an excuse, like really? They are armed let them alone, let them kill you?
In the end, armed protestors clashed with the security forces, non-armed protestors could just leave from the safe-exit 1 2 3 4 Sinai Horus 〉〉〉 10:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Everlasting vow of fidelity? Tahrir square, one day before the mass killing of July 8, 2013
Wow, that was hot-foot. Since you was one of the two supporters of Fitzcarmalan's last "Requested move 3" it is interesting to listen to your perspective. I hope, everyone heard it here.
I'll hope for you and all Egyptians, whenever you take part in a demonstration, dispersed by security forces, to get a "safe exit" that is really existing. So just take care. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
What is the meaning of "اخوان صهيون" (cited in your first video)? --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
And about your source ONTV: you know Naguib Sawiris? "His" ONTV diffamed Syrian refugees and badged against them right after the military coup happened in July 2013 as being terrorists or Morsi supporters. Sawiris himself declared, he had financed the Tamarod campaign (which is said to have cooperated with secret service btw and is known to have faked anti Morsi protesters numbers in huge dimensions) for the ouster of the elected president, Morsi, and provided Tamarod the infra structure of his Free Egyptians Party. The same Sawiris, who demanded in November, 2013, to forbid all protests in Egypt for one year! (again: to forbid all protests!) Two weeks later Egypt finally got its new restrictive (anti-)demonstration law signed, that "leads to fears that the government is now seeking to include secular activists in a crackdown that had previously mainly affected Islamists". Is this ONTV the source you recommend us to rely on here in WP instead of HRW and Western sources. ONTV? --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Still there is the fact that there was a safe exit. we are not discussing whether that actions were deadly or not, it was. but it wasn't a massacre that the point I am arguing, speaking of "even of they were 2 armed men" in the sit-in and police moved to enforce the law not to mention how many warnings were issued then it vary from the definition in of massacre mentioned in it's article. anyway looks like there is no intention to change the current title so I guess discussing won't change a thing, I don't want it to go like a political discussion. Sinai Horus 〉〉〉 22:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Do you intend to change the lemma of this article or do you intend to change the historiography? As far as we know, there was no safe exit existing during the mass killings (see above). This is, what all human right organisations say (HRW, AI, NAZRA, CIHRS....) even your semi official favorite NCHR. But instead of an investigation and prosecution of the perpetrators the current military backed regime seems to intend to complete its crackdown on human rights organisations now. It's simply unbelievable. We've never experienced such a decline of civilisation in Egypt before, did we? Poor Egypt with that leadership. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 4

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: Page not moved: no consensus Ground Zero | t 16:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


August 2013 Rabaa Massacre → Rabaa and Nahda massacre – I have informed Jenks24 (who closed the previous RM) about my intention to start this request and I believe I have a green light for it.[1] Since the word massacre will obviously never be replaced in the title, I believe it is fair enough to at least make it factual and accurate per the first and second move discussions. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why you think there is no hope to replace the word "massacre" in the lemma. When the usage of the scientific and main media sources changes, we can adopt our lemma, too. Until now you just tried to replace it with trivialising terms - that was the main problem here, since we have to avoid terms here that support historical revisionism as driven by the current Egyptian regime's media for example.
According to your proposal I don't oppose nor do I support this proposal. Just some thoughts (not about how it should be but about how it is):
In my opinion "Rabaa massacre"'s usage in publications since August 2013 usually already subsumes the mass killing (or "massacre") at Rabaa square and at Nahda aquare and the killings at Mustafa Mahmoud square as well. In other words "Rabaa" is commonly used as catch-word for all violent and bloody dispersals in Greater Cairo on August 14th, 2013 including "Nahda" dispersal and mass killing and the "Mustafa Mahmoud" dispersal and killings cf. e.g. HRW report. And really: it seems about 90% of the Greater Cairo dispersal killings that day happened at Rabaa square alone (probably more than 1000 demonstrators killed there as well as 8 of 10 members of the security forces) and information known so far shows, it probably was one planning and a coordinative operation of security forces and so on. So is there a compelling reason to deviate here from the common usage in English sources in this case?
--Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC) In memoriam of Peter Scholl-Latour (†)
The massacre issue doesn't concern me in this thread. The dispersal of Nahda's sit-in might not be as notable as Rabaa's in terms of fatalities, but the sit-in itself was certainly big and garnered significant media attention before the crackdown. Our titles should also be based on the facts at hand, and 90+ killed in Nahda is not minor. According the HRW report, the Mustafa Mahmoud events (along with the attacks on churches by Islamists) took place in the aftermath of the dispersals, not as part of the main events: After security forces dispersed the al-Nahda sit-in on August 14, Brotherhood supporters organized a march towards nearby Mustafa Mahmoud Square in Mohandiseen, a neighborhood southwest of al-Nahda Square in Giza. This protest was among the many held across Egypt on August 14 to protest the violent dispersals of Rab’a and al-Nahda squares. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
1) "massacre": I did not ask you about "massacre" or "not massacre", Fitzcarmalan. We had that before enough and you should have learned from your many mistakes and foolish source usage here in the discussion, that you cannot prevent the mass killing to be mentioned in the lemma in an explicit (!) way. I won't discuss this with you any more. It is compelety out of question that there happened an unlawful asymmetrical mass killing in huge dimensions, which can be called "massacre". This discussion is done.
2) Nahda's mass killing's importance: Hard to believe: first you insist on calling it "dispersal" or "crackdown" or just with any other term that may help avoid the lemma remembering a single killing and now you are fit to teach me to accept that "90+ killed in Nahda is not minor". Did you forget your own behaviour and arguments in this discussion and don't you remember mine? Be sure and don't worry about this any more: I am clearly aware we must not hush up the mass killing happened at Nahda square. But your move request has nothing to do with this question. Or do you think HRW and all other human rights groups are neglecting "Nahda" killings when they use the (incorrect but established) form "Rabaa massacre" for the Nahda mass killing, too? What an absurd idea! I am happy when you've turned to an advocat for the memorial of the "Nahda massacre", bravo. But don't pretend now, the usage of the term "Rabaa massacre" is denying the importance of the Nahda mass killings. Keep in mind even pro-Morsi and anti-coup groups (those who have been killed in first instance) in Egypt are using "Rabaa Massacre" for all the mass killings that happened at the dispersals in Greater Cairo in August 14. To twist it as if they would neglect the Nahda mass killings with the term "Rabaa massacre" would be really tasteless. You should not state that again.
3) Nahda in the lemma: I said clearly, to call it "Rabaa and Nahda massacre" is indeed an option, I never opposed to it. It is just unusual and I asked you why we should prefer it then. You say Nahda sit-in had "significant media attention before the crackdown". I don't know (because you don't tell it) whether you refer to Arabic media sources as you did before, but the Western media response before the bloody crackdown was weak - wrongly when you ask me, by the way - as it kept after it. And the Nahda-sit-in was always much smaller as we know well (Nahda: "dipping into the low thousands during the day and multiplying at night"; Rabaa: "to more than 100,000 at night and during big events"). So why you state the opposite - your move's reason keeps incomprehensible, it does not reflect the usage of the sources at all.About your argumentation: Take care not to trivialise the mass killings. This article (and lemma as well) is not about the "July and August 2013 Rabaa and Nahda sit-ins" in general, it is about the so-called "Rabaa massacre" of August 14th with probably more than 1100 killed demonstrators. The general history of the Nahda- and Rabaa- Sit-ins may be touched in the article, but is not central. The mass killings during the violent dispersal of those sit-ins are central.
4) Mustafa Mahmoud Square: Listen Fitzcarmalan, stop this kind of perverting sources. The HRW report you are citing, sums up exactly three dispersals in its content list (not less and not more): 1st "Forcible Dispersal of the Rab’a Sit-in" (page 33ff), 2nd "Dispersal of the al-Nah da Square Sit-in" (p. 86ff) and 3rd "Dispersal at Mustafa Mahmoud Square" (p.92). Of course it was "among the many held across Egypt on August 14 to protest the violent dispersals of Rab’a and al-Nahda squares" (thanks for quoting the source I cited myself). But it was part of the both existing Greater Cairo dispersals in that way, that protesters who survived and escaped the Nahda dispersal, who could not go home and could not go back to the destroyed sit-in as some stated, "on Wednesday morning" managed to "secure the area" at Mustafa Mahmoud Square and tried to reinstall their sit-in in another place and were dispersed again by security forces in similar manner as before. What do you think, why HRW spend an own chapter for it in its report. Why do you, as citizen of Cairo, don't know about the meaning of this event, when we in Germany and other Western countries read it in our language in the media reports (e.g. http://www.webcitation.org/6LpgnnUmr, http://www.webcitation.org/6KU5GvvMe, http://www.webcitation.org/6KU7ZsaOW, http://www.webcitation.org/6IwQ0ssrW, http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/egypt0814_ForUpload_0_0.pdf)? Yes it was "among the many held across Egypt on August 14 to protest the violent dispersals of Rab’a and al-Nahda squares" and it was a special case and closer related to the Cairo mass killings though in personal, spatial and chronological meaning. HRW sees it as part of a long-term planned and systematical crackdown in Cairo.
When someone calls your oratory reasonable, be happy. Whoever reads the sources well, might ask, why you still try to avoid to follow the established terms. Is anything wrong with it? The sources understand Rabaa massacre as all the bloody dispersals of August 14th (including Nahda and Mustafa Mahmoud). This unity of the unlawful killing's planning and execution can get important in juridical manner, too, since HRW and others demand prosecution of the traitors of these supposed Crimes against humanity. I don't say we will live and see that happen. But we have to report the main proceedings of that story. You can try to separate the killings here, but they already are seen as one. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 06:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I am not trying to teach anyone anything, nor am I here to right the great wrongs. The usage of Rabaa massacre is not neglecting the importance of the events in Nahda, it is simply hiding the facts that two sit-ins were dispersed that day as part of the main plan by security forces. Do you happen to have one or more sources explicitly saying that the Nahda and Rabaa killings are both called "Rabaa Massacre"? Keep in mind even pro-Morsi and anti-coup groups (those who have been killed in first instance) in Egypt are using "Rabaa Massacre" for all the mass killings that happened at the dispersals in Greater Cairo in August 14 → Could be true, but then again there's Ikhwan Web ("The Muslim Brotherhood's Official English web site"): A Month Passes Since Rabaa and Nahda Massacres // Freedom & Justice Party: The Muslim Brotherhood issued the following statement regarding Rabaa and Nahda massacres' first anniversary // PressTV: Protesters marked the first anniversary of the Rabaa and Nahda massacres, and probably more. Even the HRW report's title "The Rab'a Massacre and Mass Killings of Protesters in Egypt" doesn't necessarily suggest that both crackdowns are called Rabaa Massacre. To draw up that conclusion based on this is clearly original research. Also, the main chapter about the killings (p. 31) is titled The Dispersals at Rab’a al-Adawiya and al-Nahda Squares as a main headline for all the events that took place that day, each detailed in different sub-sections (including the aftermath events such as Mustafa Mahmoud and the church attacks).
Say what you want about the Mustafa Mahmoud dispersal, but it is still part of the "Aftermath" section in the article since it wasn't initially planned. Even the DNE source you cited says the Mustafa Mahmoud incident took place following the dispersal. Same thing goes for the church attacks which also have a separate chapter in the HRW report but you didn't mention that. And by the way, I don't have much time to correctly translate German links, so I would be thankful if you either transalte them yourself or find English alternatives. I've never provided an Arabic source in this talk page myself. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'll answer once again in detail, but then it must be enough. If you don't read the given sources, it will be impossible to discuss without endless dilatation.
-Rabaa massacre or Rabaa and Nahda massacre: This question is not a trivial go / no-go type, Fitzcarmalan, I think we know that both. We can use "(August 2013) Rabaa massacre" as we can use "Rabaa and Nahda massacre(s)". When you ask me what most sources use, I would say, in first place they use "Rabaa massacre" in the headlines, and then they explain "violent dispersals of Raba sit-in and Nahda sit-in" or similar in more detailed sections. I think this is what HRW did (with "mass killings" in their title they might refer to the mass killings of July 5, July 8 and July 27 as well as to the whole systematic crackdown and repression planning as they put it and explained it in the text; but they possibly refer to Nahda mass killing, too)
R4bia as sign for "Rabaa massacre" of August 14, 2013 (August 23, 2013)...
...the same R4bia sign exactly half a year after the "Rabaa massacte" used to commemorate the six month anniversary of the whole violent crackdown of August 14, 2013
- Sources which use "Rabaa massacre" in headline and then refer to Rabaa and Nahda mass killings in the text: So many, just pick any out of google as I do here: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/inpictures/2014/08/egypt-rabaa-cairo-massacre-201481213185826678.html. You can add as many others as you want. But there is another interesting phenomena: many sources don't even try to mention Nahda. They just refer to Rabaa mass killing and that seems to intend to include Nahda without emphasing it. Look at Kristen Chick, how she put it in CSM: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2013/1114/Egyptian-authorities-pave-over-Rabaa-massacre. Or to take a clearly biased example, distributed by the "Egyptians against Coup": http://de.slideshare.net/TwthekMajzara/the-massacre-of-rabaa-between-narration-documentation. This effect might result from the fact, that most people gathered in Rabaa Sit-in, not in Nahda. It is difficult to decide, whether they can't differentiate (because they only saw or researched one sit-in-dispersal or whether they don't want to differentiate, because they see the Rabaa- and Nahda dispersals as one story. I just can say, the headline I encounter in most cases is "Rabaa massacre" and not "Rabaa and Nahda massacre". You are the one, who uses google statistics as argument. I am sure you rarely will find the explicit term "Rabaa and Nahda massacre", even though this is no argument in my opinion (but in yours it was during the last move request, where you tried to proove, that "Rabaa massacre" is not used most commonly, but "Rabaa dispersal" or "... crackdown", remember?) And last not least: similar as Kristen did it in her CSM article about the Rabaa square you see it by Anti-coup protesters all over the world, especially Pro-Morsi or Pro-Muslimbrotherhood suporters, but also other groups inside and outside of Egypt: They simply use the R4bia-sign to memorate the Cairo "massacre" of August 14 and it would be completely absurd to state, this excludes the Nahda mass killing.
- I don't know how you know what has been planned initially and what not. But when you read the HRW report, you find them arguing, the Rabaa massacre (and Nahda mass killing and Mustafa Mahmoud killing as well as the the mass killings of July 5, July 8, and July 27, and maybe the months of repression following the August 14 crackdowns) might form one entity when regarded as one systematical planned and executed crackdown and repression by the military led regime.
- church attacks: The church attacks (and attacks on Christian properties) are not part of the regime's crackdown plan, but were caused by islamistic extremists. They differ from time (they actually started, when Nahda crackdown was already done and they lasted for several days, mainly August 14th to 16th, when I remember well), they differ from place (early reports came from Minya und Sohag and mainly many upper Egypt's cities) and they differ form the involved people (cf.: Mustafa Mahmoud demonstrators came directly from Cairo's Nahda dispersal, and not only for revenge or solidarity protestess, but because they had to go to any place since there was no normal train traffic from and to Cairo that time, don't forget) with regard to the Rabaa and Nahda mass killings. It might be true, that security forces killed many people during these attacks, but those attacks were clearly started by Islamists. So why should I have mentioned the attacks on churches by those Islamists in the context how to name our lemma here? The sources describe them as reaction on the dispersals (most say they were acts of revenge), not as part of the military or police forces' dispersal or crackdown planning. For further questions I recommend the AI report of October 9, 2013, but this has not much to do with our subject to find the best lemma for this article.
- Arabic sources: you said we should use terms, most people in Egypt use, and you said what these terms are and started several move requests here, based on your "findings", do I remember right (cf. here or here, and once again citing ar:WP, ar:WP as source, imagine!)? But you "never provided an Arabic source in this talk page" - that's right. These sources about the common use in Egypt and by nearly all Egyptians as you mentioned in general are still missing. Why? Let us know your Arabic sources in detail so we can see what is the base for your "research"!
- So you expect us to believe your "examination" of Arabic sources, but you reject German sources when untranslated. But German sources are not necessary anyway, because I cited those, you should be able to understand well: "Some protesters moved from Nahda Square to another square farther north, but security forces cleared that area as well" and HRW report or see DNE again: "After the clearing of Al-Nahda Square, Morsi supporters flocked to nearby Mohandessin where they tried to set up another sit-in but eventually their attempts failed." and "[2]". Was that intelligible now? If not read more:
- Mustafa Mahmoud dispersal: can be possibly seen as part of Nahda dispersal (of course it can be planned before since it was kind of treatment of the demonstrators which were dispersed from Nahda place) or as part of the dispersal's aftermath, even though it started in the morning of August 14, not in the afternoon. So whether you are right with this or wrong, it depends on the perspective: Of course "even the DNE source [I] cited says the Mustafa Mahmoud incident took place following the diepersal", because the Mustafa Mahmoud protesters had no time machine and could not go to Mustafa MAhmoud before escaping Nahda where they were trapped like mice when HRW report tells the truth. DNE wrote "following the dispersal of the two pro-Mohamed Morsi sit-ins in Al-Nahda Square and Rabaa Al-Adaweya" (I told you to keep in mind many sources treat it as one event) but they clearly meant the end of the Nahda dispersal or just the time after the beginning of the both dispersals of course (as you see easily when reading more than just one sentence in the same source: "Another man who came to Mohandessin following the clearing of Al-Nahda Square sit-in ...") which ended at about 9 am (cf. HRW report!). Protesters of the already terminated Nahda dispersal in Giza-Dokki then went to nearby Mustafa Mahmoud square in Giza-Mohandessin (not those protesters of Rabaa dispersal, where protesters had no "safe exit" that time - until about 5:30pm - and which is far distance in Eastern Cairo as you know well). The Rabaa dispersal and mass killing was not terminated before 5:30 pm (!). Read HRW report, page 92ff for example (as already cited) or other sources I gave. Don't you understand or don't you want to accept, that Nahda protesters who survived and escaped the Nahda killings went to Mustafa Mahmoud? It's not that difficult to understand, is it? So to put it very simple: protesters in Nahda were captured there until maybe 8 or 9 am, about at least 90 of them killed there, then many of the survivors marched to nearby Mustafa Mahmoud, secured the area and finally again they were attacked and dispersed by security forces. You can call this "aftermath" if you insist on that, but it ios actually not the aftermath of the Rabaa-sit-in dispersal but of the Nahda-sit-in dispersal. You also can see this as one story altogether and you can try to construct a more or less logic order.
This is exacty the task we face with defining our lemma here. And that's why I mentioned it. Decide so or so, but don't twist the known information or even misuse sources for that purpose. --01:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anglo-Araneophilus (talk • contribs) --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 17:45, 19 August 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.

Move discussion in progress

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

Change title

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

There's reports and videos of some of the protestors firing back with automatic weapons. Some of them were confiscated after their arrest. But they appear to have been a minority, and only responding to attacks by the security forces. "Raids" as a title fits. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
No both sides were armed and using fire arms, obviously armed police/military vs paramilitary will reflect in the casualties 118.211.192.60 (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I would also add "14 AUgust 2013 Egyptian raids" as there will be repercussions of more violence TIED to this in the coming days in August, so we should clarify when it all began. Then the "aftermath" section can cover it. Also don't gorget the Aftermath of the coup page will also carry other details. So this separate event needs to indicate it happened on the 14th.(Lihaas (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)).
I agree, 'August 2013' suggest we are discussing a much wider angle here. So this should be renamed to August 2013 Egyptian 'clashes' or 'protest', which resulted in a raid in 14 august. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLNR (talk • contribs) 01:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I strongly suggest that the title needs to be changed to Rabaa Adawiyya Massacre. Calling it a 'dispersal' fits into the pro-coup (or 'it's not a coup')narrative that was widespread at the time. This is now widely described as a coup, and outside of Egypt, at this point, this event is now considered to have been a massacre. Importantly, the death total (at least 500 and probably close to a thousand demonstrators killed) places the event fairly high in any list of the bloodiest state massacres of civilian demonstrators in history. Calling it anything else is a clear violation of NPOV. CF: Sharpeville Massacre, Tlatelolco Massacre jackbrown (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I think it should be renamed into a battle or to clashes; The police have been fired at and lost 49 of its own. Photographs taken by military helicopters also show weapons being used by Islamist militants. Calling it a massacre highly fits into Islamist claims of what they call "the throne of Egypt". Coup or not, Islamists still fought the state, it wasn't the security forces' faults they lost badly.  Mahmood  14:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I agree, this article it seem to convey the opinion and not provide the facts, the citations are weak and misrepresent the facts. Who chooses the title ? 118.211.192.60 (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I think the title is fine as it is. A great many civilians were killed, and this has been corroborated by the likes of HRW who are considered to be neutral in this case. Perhaps you could provide specific examples of how the article conveys "opinion and not facts"? And could the OP please refrain from using abusive language, it's not needed and is disrespectful. Muzher (talk • contribs) 16:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Mass murder is what it is. Maybe next time the perps will think ahead... User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Neutral about mass murder? User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The lamestream media of the Western world (with minor exceptions such as Fox News) have a record of failures in accurately reporting on the Muslim Brotherhood as a whole, including its Egyptian division; this explains their terrible coverage of Egypt. Here are a few links explaining the epic fails of the U.S. mainstream media to properly report on the MB; you should go read 'em:
New York Times Continues Epic Media Failure on Global Muslim Brotherhood- The Latest Puff Piece on Rachid Ghannouchi
ANALYSIS: Media Fails to Do Even Basic Research
U.S. Media Fails Again- U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Electoral Group Receives No Scrutiny
Epic U.S. Media Failures Part 2
Also, HRW is a bunch of poorly-informed but well-intentioned dudes. They most likely got their information on the sit-in dispersal from MB members. The title is clearly one-sided, and reflects the MB's bullshit agenda it pushes towards Westerners to make it seem like a bunch of peaceful dudes. Nevertheless, the NCHR released a superior report before HRW released its own report which explains the sit-in dispersal properly. Read this article, which explains it in brief:
1,492 people injured during Rabaa dispersal: NCHR
And here is the NCHR's rebuttal to HRW's sit-in dispersal "investigation," which you should definitely read:
The response of the National Council for Human Rights to the report of Human Rights Watch in the memory of the dispersal of Rabaa al-Adaweya and Al-Nahda squares Zakawer (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rabaa_massacre/Archive_4&oldid=1207411446"