Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:2011 Alexandria bombing

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

"All of them" isn't accurate

[edit]

the sentence "at least 23 people died in the attacks, all of them Coptic Christians" isn't accurate at all. Even the references to it, cite that some of them are Coptic Christans and some are Muslims. Would you correct this sentence, please? Besides, the first reference isn't authenticated at all. Regard 41.239.140.48 (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • wrong. ALL 23 victims were Copts. 8 muslims are only among the injured and not the dead. that's what the link says.
Which link? would you copy it here? 41.239.140.48 (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to what i read, none of the references says that "all deaths are coptic christans". if there's any authentic reference tells so, kindly copy it here. Regard 41.239.140.48 (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALL references in the article say that all the victims are Coptic Christians. there isn't one single source that mentions one single muslim death. if you have any such reference kindly copy it here. regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.139.221 (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here you are some of the references:
Reference NO.1 isn't authentic, it's a thread in a forum written by unknown member (should be removed)
Reference NO.2 says the number of deaths rises to 21 victims
Reference NO.3 mentions 3 deaths (Coptic Christans, apparently from their names) and 17 injuries (Christans & Muslims)
Reference NO.4 says at least 21 people were killed and 70 hurt in a suspected suicide attack
... etc.
still no reference talks about who are the 23 victims. Regards 41.235.3.49 (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is something wrong with the numbers cited. Is it 32? If it is then shouldn't that count as more deadly than the Kosheh 21?
  • It is now a week since the attack, presumably the churchgoers who died have been identified either by their remains or by friends and relatives noting who is unaccounted for.Although remains are mangled wouldn't the number of dead be now known and any dispute over if any were not Coptic sorted out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babaneal (talk • contribs) 18:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted a tally inconsistency. The entry states 21 killed in the blast and 2 more died later in hospital to total 32 victims. Has a number been transposed from 23 to 32 or are my glasses failing me?Babaneal (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk moved from Talk:2011 Alexandria car bombing

[edit]

Name of the Article

[edit]

I don't understand why this is dubbed Alexandria Massacre wouldn't 2011 Alexandria car bombing be more in league with other article names involving suicide bombings? --Kuzwa (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a good solution is to find what it is being called on the news.41.129.20.58 (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This might be of help Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)41.129.20.58 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which supports the 2011 Alexandria car bombing. Article has been moved to such a name. --Kuzwa (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And then User:Coptic101 went and did a cut-and-paste move, so we've lost the edit history. Move protection / histmerge? 201.137.214.59 (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 'rival' article at 2011 Alexandria bombing (older creation, longer edit history) has also been restored. 201.137.214.59 (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've redirected all titles to the original article (2011 Alexandria bombing). Any desirable content from the newer creation should be merged in accordance with our standard procedure. —David Levy 22:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the List of events named massacres shows that 2011 Alexandria bombing is appropriate for this article and consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the referenced material from the other article to this one. I think this title is much better than 2011 Alexandria car bombing because there's still a debate as to whether it was a car bomb or a suicide attack. --Coptic101 (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The attack was a "bombing" regardless of whether the bomber died or what transportation was used to bring the bomb there. To use "massacre" is not consistent with Wikipedia standard practice or other "massacres". And edit war reverting is really unproductive. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia:Edit warring
A guide to applying WikiLove towards another editor.

This is obviously an emotional issue for Coptic Christians in Egypt, so I would ask all editors to keep cool. I guess for now we can just keep the "massacre" article title rather than have an Edit war; the important thing is that there be just one article rather than the two separate articles there were a few minutes ago. I see a lot of well-intentioned stuff in this article (mainly the categories) that will nonetheless need to be removed by a dispassionate editor. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article also heavily violates WP:NPOV at the present time. --Kuzwa (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article has temporarily been protected due to recent edit warring - the fact that it is linked from the Main page contributes heavily to this protection. Please discuss all the changes here first. --Tone 22:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
restoring the current stupid version of the article and insisting on deleting the previously well referenced version makes a lot of people wonder who the f is running this encyclopedia and makes people seriously doubt the neutrality of the administrators like Tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.136.198 (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, this was far the best way to improve the article - have a look at it now. --Tone 10:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archbishop Arweis

[edit]

The top cleric in Alexandria, Archbishop Arweis -- who is he, and in what way is he the city's "top cleric"? 201.137.214.59 (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done added atag querying this.(Lihaas (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Problem resolved. He is the Patriarchal Vicar of Alexandria, the Hegumen Ruweis Marcos. Check the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church page. Orthopraxia (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed categories

[edit]

I am awaiting explanation regarding the removal of some categories from the article because I disagree with the removal of many of them. --Coptic101 (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it's because they did not apply to the article? There is no evidence that this was an execution, and there are no saints involved. ... discospinster talk 22:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can add Category:Suicide bombings in Egypt if we find a source stating that the bomber did indeed die in the blast. As for the categories I removed, please write them here for discussion and consensus. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the removed categories right now and I feel the following need to be restored:

In the future, the following categories may be appropriate as well:

--Khips (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ever dead chuild is not a saint. And wed need cites on the dead kids.(Lihaas (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Strongly disagree about Coptic saints. It has nothing to do with it.Eugene-elgato (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thank you and any saints for that matter ;)(Lihaas (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
This is not up to any of you to decide. This is up to Coptic Church. If the Coptic Church says they are saints then they are, whether or not you like it. But I will not add this category until I have a reference backing it up. --Khips (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like non-sense. As far as I know to be declared a Saint in the Orthodox Church you have to be formally glorified by the Church. Do you have a source that says that the victims of this attack have been formally glorified by the Church? I doubt that you do. Without it, you've got no ground to pretend that the victims are saints. Glorification is when the Church recognizes that someone is indeed in heaven. Being murdered isn't a free ticket to heaven unfortunately, so there's no reason to assume that everyone who is murdered is indeed in heaven and thus no reason to assume that everyone who is murdered is a Saint. Sima Yi (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, first let's calm down. Khips, most of those categories you mentioned are for biographical articles about a single person, and that is why I removed them. For example, Category:People murdered in Egypt is for bio articles for a single person, and Category:Articles about multiple people is for bio articles about several specifically named people like Cairo 52, Gang of Four and Aun ibn Abdillah and Muhammad ibn Abdillah. Whether the victims are martyrs or saints is up to Coptic Church, but those categories only apply to biographical articles, like Pope Gabriel II of Alexandria and Cyril of Alexandria. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move title to something less ambigious

[edit]

I suggest something like:

  • Al-Qiddissine church bombing which is consistent with Canal Hotel bombing and Imam Ali Mosque bombing. Religious sites are unique and shouldn't be represented by the cities they are located in. If this were an attack on a military outpost or small base then a general title might be sufficient.

Other things:

  • The intro should be rewritten to reflect the terrorism-angle.

For example:

A bombing occurred shortly after midnight on 1 January 2011 in Alexandria, Egypt. An explosive device detonated outside the Al-Qiddissine church (Saint Mark and Saint Pope Peter Church aka The Saints Church) where Coptic Orthodox worshippers had gathered to celebrate Mass on New Year's Eve

The first sentence is redundant. I recommend something along the lines of..."The Al-Qiddissine bombing was a suicide attack in Alexandria on 1 January 2011 that killed 21 people and injured over 70. It was the deadliest attack on Coptic Christians since the 2009 shooting of seven Christians." Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

suppport and tehen the 2010 could go to.(Lihaas (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Specifying a descriptive (Al-Qiddissene) in the title (but not the body) would be unwise. The average person with modest geographic knowledge may know the name Alexandria (and form a quick mental picture of its location in Egypt). I doubt most Egyptians have heard of Al-Qiddissene. The second reason is that you have used the names of specific buildings in your 2 examples and by your logic this attack should be named by the proper name of the church and not its informal name.Babaneal (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

What is this piece of crap: http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/12/two-missing-coptic-women-abused-by-priest-husbands-what-if-they-were-muslim/ - which is filled with unproven allegations - that two priest wives (because a priest's wife will obviously not be religiously influenced by her husband's Christian job) converted to Islam, that they were abused, that they wanted a divorce?

If it's going to be like that, then for wikipedia to remain unbiased, the other side of the story should be presented:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/10/raymond-ibrahim-islamic-supremacists-in-egypt-project-their-crimes-on-the-copts.html

It's only fair, since the first link attempts to critique the second link.98.176.12.43 (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. That link is nonsense. --Khips (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Totally biased article with complete nonesense. Since when do Muslims even the extremest of them defy dead bodies?


No I guess being Muslim automatically makes you perfect and innocent from the possibility of such a crime. Give me a break from the politically correct crap. Your actions define you, not the religious ideas a person falsely states; don't give any generalizations that all people of a certain religious group are above any evil. 98.176.12.43 (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Jihad Watch does not in anyway refute that which came from Loonwatch it just provides examples of horrible acts committed by Muslims. The article links to an internet newspaper ,so it is not in anyway bias. Also the what if they were Muslim series on the website is not meant to defame any religious group but simply to expose double standards used by those who bash Islam. --User talk:Yster76) 17:13, 4 January 2011 (CCT)

New title

[edit]

The current title is very ambiguous and slightly biased. Many sources are already calling this a massacre:

Arabic sources are also calling it a mssacre:

Other less bloody attacks on the Coptic community have been already acknowledged as massacres including:

Also, the term "massacre" has been employed in other similar incidences such as:

For those reasons, I am proposing to move the name of the article to 2011 Alexandria massacre. --Khips (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This horrible attack is still a bit too young to make any final determination of the name it will be known by history. Until then, the more descriptive "bombing" should continue to be used, IMO. None of your examples of the use of "massacre" primarily involved bombings and I'm not aware of common use of this term in reference to a singular bombing. --mav (reviews needed) 00:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring deleted items

[edit]

Going through the history of the page (quite confusing indeed), I see that a lot of well written statements were removed. Some of them have been already restored by User:Plot Spoiler. I will continue doing the same. If someone has a problem with that, please let me know. --Khips (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is that the citations are repeated instead of done properly with ref name="" tags.

<ref name="Reuters Alex bombing"> {{cite news  
| last=  
| first=  
| url=  
| title=  
| publisher=  
| date=  
| accessdate= }} </ref>

... later <ref name="Reuters Alex bombing" />

Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i resolved this with the reflinsk but the new user reverted it all. i cant redit as id be 3rr for some reason, but can you revert it?(Lihaas (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
I will take care of it. Don't worry. --Khips (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

edits explained

[edit]

User:Lihaas has recently performed a massive reversion on the article, deleting much of the work that has been done over the past few hours. I herein invite him/her to explain this massive removal of content. I also invite other users to contribute to this discussion. --Khips (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

just restoring info that was also sourced and reverted without explanation.(Lihaas (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
This is not a restoration by any stretch of the imagination! First of all, you removed the referenced number of injured people from 97 (according to [1]) to only 43!!! You also changed attack on Coptic Christians to attack on Al-Qiddissine church. The rest of your changes contained other removal of referenced material, which I will list one by one, but I will wait for your reply to the 2 points above first. --Khips (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you see what was added back you would note that not one bit was added by me but was readded from edit history.
97 was not sourced when initially added, now youve added a source so its fair game. it would also help oif you added edit summaries.(Lihaas (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
NOT TRUE. The source was very well referenced and you removed the reference [1]. --Khips (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
if it was part of what was overridden in restoring previous removals then yes. because it replaced previously well sourced info. Add it back if its sourced, dont remove other info .(Lihaas (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
I am restoring the referenced stuff you deleted per consensus here, but I am also reporting both you and User:JPosten for edit warring. Please stop!!! --Khips (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you are MORE than welcome to restore sourced stuff if, as you say, referenced material is NOT removed.
to cite the other editor, i think youll find the NEW editor blindly reverted everything without explaining and giving a FALSE SUMMARY(Lihaas (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
I agree with you that the other user is edit warring, but so are you, and you have already broken the 3RR rule. You have also removed referenced material as I showed you above. --Khips (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
as i also said you are welcome to add it back (and no i wont complain to 3rr if you add it back now as its legitimate and uncontroversial) but as i said intermediate edits removed sourced info.(Lihaas (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Please tell me about the edits that were removed and you would want to add back and I will add them back. --Khips (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
firstly can you revert the new editors cahnges to what is recognised against his pov/vandalism. then add back whatever you feel is necessary. i had no intention of reverting your edits, was just going back over the past few hours of what was removed and the intermediatory edits seemed to have removed certain cites.(Lihaas (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
The current edits are very well referenced, so I cannot revert them. I also don't want to be accused of more reverts than necessary on the article. If you can tell me what exactly is missing from your intermediary edits that you would like to add, I will add them back with pleasure. --Khips (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you wont be accusedof anything ;)
the issing content was repalced in that edit he reverted. ill come back and revierw it in 24 hours(Lihaas (talk) 04:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Ok, I'll do my best looking for missing stuff now and add it back. If you feel something is still missing, you can either ask me to add it, or you can add it yourself tomorrw. --Khips (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ الصحة: ارتفاع عدد ضحايا حادث الإسكندرية إلى 21 قتيلا و97 مصابا

Photos

[edit]

I uploaded some of my personal photos of the attack. The page is protected though, so someone can add them on the article page if you want. Jimmy

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmydunn2010 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really take these photos yourself? We can't copy and paste on Wikipedia. These photos look professional; they are probably copyright protected. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I ran the images through TinEye and discovered that one (which we displayed in the infobox) not only appeared to violate copyright, but it actually depicted victims of a July 2010 bombing outside an Iranian mosque. For obvious reasons, I've deleted the file.
It's highly likely, of course, that the other images also are copyright violations. Pending a reasonable explanation from the uploader (whom I've notified via his/her talk pages at both Wikipedia and Commons), I've deleted them as well. —David Levy 19:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the uploader's only other contribution (which I also deleted) was taken directly from here. —David Levy 19:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
dubious then i think they should be considered as such for copy vio and reported as it hurts the integrity of wikipedia.(Lihaas (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Number of deaths

[edit]

The article says 21 coptic christians when this number is the total deaths Christians and Muslims this is a reference from Masrawy news (in Arabic) with the known names of victims. http://www.masrawy.com/News/Egypt/Politics/2011/january/1/masrawy_alex.aspx --Hexacoder (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

>> Egypt arrests church blast suspects + the WP:EL needs to go.(Lihaas (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

I formatted those external links properly with cite so that editors can easily use them with ref tags and then remove them from the external links section. Earlier, this article had a major problem with properly citing. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
>> Egypt charges pro-Copt activists >> Europe Copts on alert after threat >> Egypt's Copts prepare for Christmas>> Iran 'detains US woman on spying' >> Security fears for Egypt's Copts >> Egyptian police accused of tortureThe Arab world must face its demons *>> Policeman kills Egyptian Christian Egypt vs. Extremism Egypt vs. Extremism
please strike out after use(Lihaas (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Dear Coptic101

[edit]

I understand that you were very upset by the unacceptable bombings in your country. Indeed, the word "unacceptable" does not express the wrongness of taking human life. However, you need to realize that wikipedia is not a medium for condemnation. It is a medium for reporting factual information. I do not know whether the information you have written is true, and that is why I have deleted it. Yes, you DID cite it, to the source freecopts.net however this source does not meet Wikipedia's very high WP:RS standard. Furthermore, words such as "rounded up", and "massacered" express emotion as well as meaning. Your emotion as an editor is not supposed to show on wikipedia, so I strongly recomend you use more "bland" words... This is not merely a cultural taboo in expressing yourself. It is one of wikipedia's core principles WP:NPOV. Tim.thelion (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your words. This is not about POV and about being upset (which we all are in Egypt, because those murdered were our family members and friends). But this is about getting the facts right. When all 21 people killed are Coptic Christians, and all of them are killed BECAUSE they are Coptic Christians, then it is not acceptable to say in the article that 21 people died! --Coptic101 (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you have other objections about the article please discuss them here first and I will gladly discuss them with you to reach a compromise. This is better than keeping reverting the article. --Coptic101 (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's nesessary. Of the apx 11 edits I made you reverted apx 3 of them. We're doing pretty well here. Tim.thelion (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI is not WP:RS, which freecopts is already seeming to violate.(Lihaas (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
In this vein, we should not call the victims "martyrs" unless we are quoting someone who says that they are. See my edit [2]. Ericoides (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am ok with not saying martyrs and massacre and stuff until we have official reports calling them as such. But to revert every single FreeCopts link is not acceptable. This is in fact one of the most, if not the most respected source of news in the Coptic community. --Coptic101 (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the question as to whether FreeCopts is or is not an RS to the reliable sources noticeboard here so that it can be resolved in a non-partisan fashion. Ericoides (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! I was just looking into how to do that! Tim.thelion (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the claim " "The scattered body parts were covered with newspapers until they were brought inside the church after some Muslims started stepping on them and chanting Jihadi chants." This is a very inflammatory claim. Please do not revert until the discussion at the RS noticeboard is concluded. Ericoides (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revert? What's there to discuss? Is the reality of this event too politically incorrect for you? The question you need to answer is whether it's a reliable source. Not how inflammatory it is. 98.176.12.43 (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing the reliability of the source here. The inflamitory nature is only important in a periferal sense... Tim.thelion (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. However, you will not find my contribution friendly - though I have done my best to be polite98.176.12.43 (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Than you for doing your best to be polite. I'll do the same. I'm pretty neutral on this subject, given that I am neither Christian nor Muslim and I live in Prague, a safe distance to the north of Egypt. Infact, my only bias here is a certain hatred for authoritarian states and a very strong distaste for murder. I don't really see any risk in you offending me... Tim.thelion (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction from Lebanon

[edit]

"separate condemnations came from the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and the Orient Ignatius IV Hazim"....the Patriarchate of Antioch is based in Damascus, Syria, not the Lebanon.Eugene-elgato (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Thank you! --Coptic101 (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Had to put two sources- one of them the source from the Lebanon which seemed to bundle together Sunnites, Shiites, and the Patriarchate, as though all coming from Lebanese soil; and the other of the Patriarch delivering the Xmas message in Damascus itself just to show that's where he actually has his Seat.Eugene-elgato (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Names of the Martyrs

[edit]

What is Wikipedia's policy on including the names of the martyrs in the article? Anything against it? Because the list recently got published. --Coptic101 (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we weren't calling them martyrs. Ericoides (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can call them anything you want, but I will not change my convictions. I will continue to say "martyrs" and "massacre" because I would feel ashamed to say otherwise. It would feel like a treason for me not mention these simple truths. And you're welcome to change these words into anything you want. --Coptic101 (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down. The article can list the victims as "martyrs" if we cite a reliable source such as an official statement from the Coptic Church. We can include the names of the victims, again, if we cite a reliable source such as a respected news agency and follow Wikipedia guidelines for the transliteration of Arabic. "Feeling ashamed" (or not) is not a reason to do something on Wikipedia. Every article must have a Neutral point of view regardless of how horrible the event we are describing is. If you don't believe me, look at Nanking Massacre or any article about Hitler.
Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:BLP guidlines, you should not mention the names. But I'm not sure if that matters. The real point, is whether mentioning the names adds any valulable information to the encyclopedia. Who will read the names, why would they wish to know the names? Tim.thelion (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tim.thelion, the L in BLP means "living". Anyhow, see 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan for an example of naming living and deceased terror victims. Listing the names here would not unnecessarily clutter the page, as it would for example in 9/11 terror attacks. Again, we need to cite a reliable source. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Memorial would have issues with that.(Lihaas (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Not exactly, Lihaas. Rather, WP:NOTMEMORIAL says we can't make individual articles on each of the victims. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just an added point, the Nanking massacre doesn't so much produce martyrs as does being killed by another for your belief. 128.54.29.73 (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Bishop of The Diocese of Melbourne (Bishop Sorial) has called them Martyrs. If the statement that they are martyrs by a Bishop of the Coptic Church doesn't count as official church recognition then Wikipedia needs to reconsider what it sees as official. The reference is at ABC online (Australia); Author Tim Leslie 4/1/2011. Note that a 14 year old is mentioned as among the dead so she may count as a child martyr.Babaneal (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bare URLs

[edit]

I fixed most of them, but new bare URL refs keep popping up. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change "talked shortly" to "talked for a moment" or "talked for a short while".

[edit]

This usage of "shortly" is ambiguous as it also means "in a short while" refering to a point in the near future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.101.250 (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should post reaction of Muslim Brotherhood

[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} 

 -- Yster76 17:31

I noticed that in the main article the reaction of the Muslim Brotherhood was missing in the domestic reaction and think it should be included. --Yster76 17:29(CCT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yster76 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is link http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=27729 -- Yster76 17:38

Merger

[edit]

I propose the page Mohammad Salim Al-Awa be merged into this one since it seems he is only famous for his comments regarding Kamilia Shehata, and his allegations of the Coptic church having weapons... Tim.thelion (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. We can link between pages, but a merge does not make sense because the event and the person are quite different. --Coptic101 (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the page itself, I sugested that whatever relevant information exists on that guy, it should be moved here or over to the article on Kamilia Shehata. The page is not long, not much information exists on the guy in English, and most of what is written there are simply accusations against him.Tim.thelion (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree. I still think that linking the pages to each other would be the best idea. I will try to do this now. --Coptic101 (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The Al-Awa page needs to be merged to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copticnews (talk • contribs) 00:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death list

[edit]

I think you have missunderstood the article Coptic101. The article clearly states that the list is of Coptic christians living abroad... Furthermore, the article does not say when the list was published. It states it was published BEFORE December 21... Tim.thelion (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I didn't say it's in Egypt (see my last change where I removed the word Egypt). Also, I will change the paragraph back to read "weeks before" in this case. --Coptic101 (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't even weeks before. The origional article in thestar.com was published 21st of December. At that time, the list had clearly already been up for a while. Proof? They interviewed people who had been on the list, and those people had allready been warned by the Canadian Inteligence services about the list... Tim.thelion (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so basically so far the only problem is the days before/weeks before issue or do you have other problems with the paragraph as I wrote it? --Coptic101 (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is fine the way it is, at this moment.Tim.thelion (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, and this does not answer my question. Let me know if you have a problem with the changes I will make right now. --Coptic101 (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of Alexandria

[edit]

Egyptian and Lebanese newspapers are already calling the crime the Massacre of Alexandria:

--Coptic101 (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also a New York Times report mentioning one of the Egyptian newspapers calling it the Massacre of Alexandria: [7]. --Coptic101 (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The former Lebanese president Amine Gemayel also called it a Massacre and a Genocide (links in the article). --Coptic101 (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not here for political pandering. still too early to judge waht is not a heat-fo-the-moment reaction(Lihaas (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

IP Vandalism

[edit]

lately this page is filled with vandalism edits, i think it should be locked down and will reccomend as such. 1 ip claimed "major copy edit" when all he did was revert everything without a reason.(Lihaas (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Untill recently, it had that lock. The lock should be restored, I agree. Tim.thelion (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Requested Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#2011_Alexandria_bombing_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29. you could support if youw antLihaas (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC));[reply]
Can someone please revert this, as non-controversial cleaned content has been removed.(Lihaas (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
What did you revert? did you have a clue what "copy editing" you did? no, it was reverting everything with a deceptive edit summary. for example, the flags/reactions were organised, and the WP:OVERLINK was cleaned youve undone it by BLINDLY REVERTING, youve violated WP:EL. what was controversial about the content? that is not a copy edit, that is vandalism by any stretch.(Lihaas (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
  • I didn't ask what did I revert. I asked what vandalism did I do? When I restore an entire section u deleted(external links section) and when I restore parts of articles u removed, this is not vandalism. vandalism is what u r doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.139.147 (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. you did not copy edit -- all you did was revert WITHOUT a reason
2. as duly mentioned above the WP:EL is not a repository of links, every article is not a place to be linked.
3. unexplained deletions TWICE are vandalism
4. you have already reverted 4 times in 24 hours. that is an edit war.(Lihaas (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Now that reasons are given and content is not removed im restoring it. (ive also duly asked the admins on the edit warring page and the response said this does not qualify) if you have specific objections then challenge that.Lihaas (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me?

[edit]

User:Lihaas, what exactly is this edit [8]? Are you kidding? I am changing most of this edit back to the way the article was yesterday --Coptic101 (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, wait a seccond Coptic101! There are very few things wrong with that edit. I would sugest he break it into two edits, one for copy edits, and the seccond for sentence removal, but other than that... Oh, and also, why shouldn't Canada be linked when Austria is? Canada is only 3 times larger by population(which isn't very much)... The only problem with Austria is that dyslexics like me have to read it twice before deciding it's not Australia... Tim.thelion (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

[edit]

I received this message from User:Lihaas on my talk page:

i think you need work on your consensus.

everything is duly mentioned in talk. youve more than violated norms of neutrality as well dirtied up the page. see the guidelines cited to clean the page up!
and also learn to be WP:CIVIL before editing.(Lihaas (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Based on this message:

1. User:Lihaas is accusing me of not working out of consensus. I don't know of course how he reached this idea! If anything it was User:Lihaas who did these very disruptive 11 edits to the article [9] resulting in changing everything people have been working on together in this article. This shows that it is User:Lihaas and not me who is obviously working against consensus.
2. User:Lihaas claims that everything is duly mentioned in talk, but these very disruptive 11 edits that completely changed the structure of the page [10] are not discussed on the talk page. This means that User:Lihaas is not saying the truth.
3. User:Lihaas is insulting me and making accusations against me that include the following:
I "violated norms of neutrality"
I "dirtied up the page"
I am not being "civil"

I am here asking all the users who helped write this page to comment on this. I am also addressing User:Lihaas when I say that I request that you apologize to me about your insults and your accusations. If you don't, I will report this incident to higher admin and ask for a reprimanding action. --Coptic101 (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coptic101, I sugest YOU take a short WP:Wikibreak. Yes, Lihaas may have been direct with you, to the point of being rude. Perhaps very rude. But his edits are constructive, and reasonable. You are new to Wikipedia, you don't even understand the technical reasons behind the link cleenup that he did. You shouldn't simply revert edits you don't understand. Furthermore, you need to read WP:COI before you continue editing. And you most certainly need to not make "I'll tattle on you" type threats towards other users. Is English your first language? If not, an "I'll tattle" threat is when you say "I'm going to go to the administrators if you don't do what I say." There is nothing wrong with going to the administrators, but any kind of unconstructive threat is not acceptable. Tim.thelion (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tim.thelion can you please explain:
How Lihaas edits are constructive and reasonable, and how my edits are not constructive and not reasonable
What do you mean by the "link cleenup that he did"
If you explain to me how I am wrong here, I will return back his edits myself. --Coptic101 (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • : Well, your comment "Are you kidding me?" was unconstructive. And the edit you refered to in that comment [11] was mostly simple link cleanup. Sure, he/she also rearranged the sections, but the deletion of all those brackets and the replacement of several bare links with [1] is called link cleanup, and it improves the readablilty of the article and is in no way controversial. Tim.thelion (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Coptic101_and_LihaasTim.thelion (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Are you kidding me?" is much less unconstructive than User:Lihaas's insults against me. But anyway I am learning something new here. How do you decide what brackets to delete and what brackets not to delete? Also I thought the link you put above (this link [12]) was controversial because this change removed brackets from Christianity but left it on Islam. Do you think this is not controversial? So I ask you again, how do you decide what brackets to remove and what brackets not to remove? --Coptic101 (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, can you please respond to my questions? --Coptic101 (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Risk of WP:Edit warring

[edit]

Editors who engage in blanket reverts may eventually be sanctioned. Please break down your edits into reasonable chunks and be sure that what you are doing is either harmless or has WP:Consensus. Adding citations to reliable sources is usually harmless. If you make a change and it is reverted, don't make it again without discussing first on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fouad Twal

[edit]

Where is the evidence that Fouad Twal is an Israeli? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Patriarch Fouad, Jordanian, is the second Arab patriarch placed at the head of the diocese. " [13] Jordan and Isreal are really close together. So if he is Jordonian, then he must be Israli too :D Tim.thelion (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He may not be Israeli but he resides in Israel. --Coptic101 (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb threats to the Coptic Diaspora

[edit]

At least 4 Coptic Orthodox churches in Sydney Australia had bomb threats made against them for the Christmas Eve service. According to a news report on the Channel 9 website there is an article in The Weekend Australian (7-8/1/2011 issue) there were threats made to 60 churches worldwide. As an attendee at the service at St Michael & Archangel Bishoi Church (Mt Druitt, Sydney, Australia)I can attest to the unprecedented police security that is mentioned in several online news articles. (As a wikipedia total novice I ask for the old hands to fix what needs to be fixed in what info I enclosed. I noticed that The Wikipedia entry for the bombing only mentioned Canada and the UK and failed to mention Australia. If anyone has further knowledge about the other churches that make up the 60 then that may also be useful to post). (A serious lapse in the Wikipedia entry is that it mentions that the security officials were withdrawn, yet also mentions that several police were at their post AND also that all the dead were Copts. Something is wrong with this as if several police remained it is highly unlikely in my personal experience in Egypt that these police were not mostly muslim). (A second serious lapse at the top of the wikipedia entry is that the (only)suspect is al qaeda Iraq. Surely the Salafist demonstration that is mentioned was carried out by Egyptians AND most importantly the diaspora (from my speaking to other Copts) has a strong belief that the Egyptian government at some level is involved as evidenced by the pulling back of security. I have heard unconfirmed rumours that threats had been made against this church prior to the attack (can anyone substantiate this?)So why was security pulled off and who authorised the security lapse?Babaneal (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Gassarian, 8 January 2011

[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} The phrase : "At least 32 people died in the attacks, all of them Coptic Christians" "At least 23 people died in the attacks, coptic christians and muslims as well" Gassarian (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, I don't think 23 people is correct (at least when compared to the already-cited sources). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that a number of the cited sources claim 23 dead then shouldn't that 32 figure be double checked?121.210.131.200 (talk) 11:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian security forces guarding the church 'withdrew'

[edit]

"One hour before the bombing, the Egyptian security forces guarding the church withdrew, leaving only four policemen and one officer guarding the church." This section was removed because this claim is not supported by any credible source. As far as I know 'Copts United' and 'Free Copts' are not news agencies. The FOX video, just states that it was 'said' that the security withdrew shortly before the attack. This, at best, would be classified as hearsay. Both those sources report that 100 kg of explosives were used. 100 KG of explosive would leave a huge crater in the street. Official reports estimates that 10-15 kg of explosives were used. Now, to restore this section back, there has to be an objective credible news source to support that. Thank you. A elalaily (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a VC tag on this. The actual source appears to be Assyrian International News Agency and not freecopts.net.[14] My initial opinion was that they are RS but their Wikipedia article paints them in a questionable light. Anyone know if they have come up before or more about the organization's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? I saw the story reprinted in blogs and such so those are no good. It claims to be from eye witnesses but that claim may not be good enough.Cptnono (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rape

[edit]

The '10 shooting had some expansion on it.[15] At first I thought it was SYNTHy in a way that since it might be leading the reader to condone the shooting. I noticed that the aticle kind of has the tone of "well, the Copts deserve it". Then I second guessed that and thought it was SYNTHy since it might be attempting to lead the reader to believe that Muslim extremists are nuts since killing 7 people unrelated to the accused is hardly a healthy reaction to accusations that a guy who happens to adhere to one religion. But overall I don't know if it matters which one it is because leading the reader to draw a conclusion is bad and since the source used does not even mention this subject (unlike the source used to discuss the shooting as background) we really don't need it. Now f there is an article for that shooting it would be great to wikilink to. By the way, I am not saying that it was intentional one way or the other. Just how I believe it reads to a reader who is unfamiliar with the subject.Cptnono (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if we really need the material you recently added under the "Background" section that includes unrelated incidents committed by other individuals and accusations of persecution by the Egyptian government, as this might imply that the government had a hand in this attack or at least enabled its occurrence. I believe it was you who added the paragraph that explicitly mentioned the faith of the perpetrator of the attack and stopped right there, resulting in the false impression that it was religiously motivated (attacker said otherwise), and for that I added an important context to the story, the motivation of the attack.
I don't find your excuse that the rape story should not be removed as the NY Times reporter did not mention it. Well if the NY Times reporter, or any other reporter was lazy or dishonest to include an important bit of a story, then I guess we could do better than him/her and for that I included another reliable source. As for the other excuse that this information might lead "the reader to condone the shooting". This is an encyclopedia and not a Kindergarten to distill and manipulate the news, we present the facts and let the reader make his own conclusions. For now I reverted back the rape story until a decision is made whether we need your additions to the Background section or eventually get ride of the entire paragraph.
Finally, please allow for time for people to respond on the talk page before making your changes. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did wait (although I didn't need to) and there was no response.
Your reasoning for inclusion does not address the primary argument. That story says nothing about this incident so is possibly misleading SYNTH. Please address the SYNTH issue. It would also be useful if you explained why it is appropriate to disregard WP:BRD. You made a bold change. I reverted. So discussion is now taking place but there is little precedent for the edit to remain not only because it is possibly triggering an edit war but there is certainly no consensus for contentious and possibly standard violating material.
The lines I added before are clearly stated as background in a source discussing this incident so it is relevant as shown by the sources. Cptnono (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not try to turn the tables on me. This section on the talk page was created by you, and you made it clear that your aim was to get rid of the sentence, now suddenly it's me who has to explain and battle for its inclusion in the article, and not you who removed it in the first place without consent, who's disregarding BRD now ?
All stated reasons for its removal were addressed, but let's revisit them again:
[1] This information might lead "the reader to condone the shooting".
This is your perception of the article, not mine and certainly not that of most readers of Wikipedia. Stating motivation != justification of the act.
And just to give a counter-example: The article on Oklahoma City bombing states right in the lead section: "Motivated by his hatred of the federal government and angered by what he perceived as its mishandling of the Waco Siege and the Ruby Ridge incident , McVeigh timed his attack to coincide with the second anniversary of the deaths at Waco".
No one has suggested that it "might be leading the reader to condone the shooting".
[2] Limiting of the background to the NYTimes source only
There is NOT a single policy on this website that prohibits the use of multiple sources for an article, section, paragraph or even a sentence. Where did you get the impression that only one source should be used for the Background section ?!
SYNTH: I need to address the SYNTH issue ? Why don't you explain what is the conclusion or new position that is being advanced but NOT mentioned by either of the sources ? and clarify how did you draw this new "conclusion".
Since you mention BRD, this section was started on Jan 26. The proposed change was implemented shortly after without even waiting for a response to your talk section, let alone a concensus on the issue. I think you are the one who's violating BRD, probably not me.
I'm not going to argue much on my change, please feel free to raise the issue to one of the Category:Wikipedia noticeboards. Al-Andalusi (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYNTH (part of a policy) "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. " Since the addition of the line implies a conclusion (both of which would be violations of NPOV, a pillar, as mentioned in my first comment which I should not have to repeat) then it IS prohibited per multiple policies so we should be good to remove it. Removal of the line I included could have been done per BRD (an essay) and I would have disputed that on NPOV grounds (policy and pillar) but since it has stood this long I would seriously question the need for such action.Cptnono (talk) 07:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you answered my earlier question. What is the conclusion being implied here, which you say that it is a violation of NPOV ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then you have not read my comments since the very first one says: "At first I thought it was SYNTHy in a way that since it might be leading the reader to condone the shooting. I noticed that the aticle kind of has the tone of "well, the Copts deserve it". Then I second guessed that and thought it was SYNTHy since it might be attempting to lead the reader to believe that Muslim extremists are nuts since killing 7 people unrelated to the accused is hardly a healthy reaction to accusations that a guy who happens to adhere to one religion."
Removing it since you have still not addressed the concern when you had ample time.Cptnono (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed part of the disputed sentence because it has weasel words. "And is believed..." — by whom, and on what evidence? Without such information the phrase is not meaningful. Bradycardia (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not going to stay in simply because you disagree, Al-Andalusi. That is not how BRD works ad since there is a policy based reason for removal you need to refute it. It has been spelled out to you twice why it is problematic. So address it, find another source, open an RfC or whatever but simply reverting without using this talk page is unacceptable. It was a concern when you firt included it and it is a concern now.Cptnono (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No sorry, I think I've addressed all your points whenever they were raised, and backed my additions by reliable sources. I think I'm the one who has been waiting for long to hear from you (see my response and question posted on Jan 30). You can't just come after 10 days, remove content then claim that I'm the one who hasn't responded. I undid your change, and yes I'd like a moderator look into this. So far, and after asking this twice, you have NOT explained how you arrived at the SYNTH claim. 02:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al-Andalusi (talk • contribs)
And now you have reverted twice today without using the talk page.(didn;t see the above) This is edit warring. If you do not respond on this page I will revert again. It was explained to you in the very first comment I made on this talk page why it was problematic. And then I repeated it and then you asked again. The SYNTH explanation was ignored and simply not responding and asking to repeat myself is not grounds for its inclusion regardless of how many days have passed. Or we can see who can get to 3/rr first. Cptnono (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cptnono and Al-Andalusi, please do not keep on adding or removing this material. You should wait until consensus is reached. Open an WP:RFC if needed. Admins may protect this article or consider sanctions on individuals for long-term warring otherwise. If it is a question of WP:SYNTH, you could try posting at the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'm not too familiar with the dispute process in WP, but for now I asked for a Wikipedia:Third opinion as the dispute is between 2 editors. Al-Andalusi (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine but why should possible policy violating material be in? There was no consensus for inclusion and there has been no response to repeated explanation as to why it might be synth. So it needs to go and then we can have an RfC or else we are allowing edit warring to include policy breeching content again.Cptnono (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the inclusion of the rape story breaches policy as it stands, you could take this directly to ANI. If it is still a matter of interpretation whether WP:SYNTH was violated, then consider using WP:NORN first. Perhaps you could negotiate addition of a disclaimer to the article that the relevance of the rape is not yet proven. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ANI seems a little harsh since I do believe the edit is in violation (clearly) but that the intent was not to be disruptive (even though it is). NORN is a decent idea along with an RfC. I'll consider which one and go for it. I still think it is ridiculous that I have to again initiate conversation since it is clear that edit warring is working just fine keeping it in the article.Cptnono (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly and annoyed by it but Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard notified.Cptnono (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About your Third Opinion request: Your request has been removed from the Third Opinion project page since you also have a request pending at WP:NORN, which is a higher form of dispute resolution; if you get no response there, feel free to bring it back to Third Opinion. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make the 30 request and I think that 3O is not binding enough or appropriate for a matter that has POV concerns. As explained at NOR, I will be removing the edit if policy based reasoning is provided for the POV/SYNTH line. I tried to do the right thing by seeking a noticeboard but edit warring to include it was done so I see no reason not to revert it when no rebuttal to the policies in question have been provided. Maybe if another editor wanted to show the same good faith I did in process and open an RfC then more edit warring can be prevented. Cptnono (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Itsmejudith (talk · contribs) has clearly responded to the issue you raised on the noticeboard: "If you mention that other bombing it makes sense to mention the perceived cause". He also suggested that we truncate the background section. I don't see you following his advice. Also, can you please stop talking like there has been an agreement let alone consensus that this issue is SYNTH, please realize that you're the only one objecting here. You do not own this article to threaten to remove content allegedly because I haven't "explained" why it is not SYNTH Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy about Bombing as False Flag operation

[edit]

There is some controversy about whether the bombing was a false flag operation instigated by the internal ministry in Egypt.

The main source of the allegations seems to be the arabic news organization al-arabyia, more specifically the article [16]. The allegations are also mentioned in the article on the protests 2011_Egyptian_protests.

Until the contoversy is resolved, one way or another, we should at least mention it in the section on Responsibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.188.191.38 (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths ?

[edit]

The media at that time said that 3 of the people died were muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedyasserhamdy (talk • contribs) 02:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coptic Calendar Dates

[edit]

I see that my additions of dates in the Coptic calendar were reverted, with the edit summary saying, simply, "non-standard". This is an article concerning a bombing of a Coptic Orthodox Church in Alexandria, so, in this context, of course it is standard to use the official calendar used by the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. Not only is the Coptic calendar still used by the Coptic Church, but numerous other people still use it to this day in Egypt, including farmers, whom find its structure useful for determining the timing of the annual harvest seasons. I see no reason not to use Coptic calendar dates, as well as Gregorian calendar dates, in this article. 68.225.173.217 (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2011 Alexandria bombing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference dadada was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Alexandria_bombing&oldid=1256815722"