Talk:Human rights in Egypt under the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces

Mislabeled image

An image showing a man holding a complete bullet is labeled by the author as a protester holding ammunition that was fired by the army. One thing for sure, is that bullets do not exit the barrels of rifles full, but are (spent) which means the projectile part exits the rifle and the bullet jacket is ejected from another port in the weapon. Against this fact, the source of the image mislabeled it to show spent security forces rounds.

one a side note: I have personally served in the Egyptian Military and these do not even look like government-made bullets; large scores of foreign-made ammunition and weapons were seized and photographed following clashes with the state forces. Photographs of Islamists holding foreign-made full bullets claiming them to be spent state bullets also flooded the internet at a certain point.

As the bullet is not a spent bullet as the source's caption suggests, and as there is no evidence -so far- about the affiliation of the man in the photograph, I find the safest and only remaining fact to be cited is that this image only shows a man holding a full bullet, claiming it to be fired.  Mahmood  01:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but this isn't what you wrote in the first place. The man did not "claim" anything, and my version didn't mention whether the bullets were used or not, so it is pretty neutral so far. Best to keep questionable info aside for now. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The man raises the bullets up to show to the photographer, who happens to be the author who mislabeled it in the first place. He's not in a defense conference, he's showing it to be photographed and labeled as such. I used the word (claim) as it is linguistically neutral ( a claim can be false or true).

Either way, I modified the wording from "claiming them to be" (referring to the person in the photograph) to "claimed to be", to keep in the safe zone. The news source will be useful in clarifying this out. This image is of particular importance in showing an example of propaganda.

Note: let's discuss further edits (if any) before any reverts. Let's avoid making this look like a revert war.  Mahmood  09:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the military crackdown part, I think common sense should tell you which one of the following statements is more neutral:

1. My edit → A man displays bullets in front of a vehicle that was burned during the military's crackdown of 9 April 2011 in Tahrir Square. [ref]
2. Your edit → An Army truck burns in the back ground as a man is showing complete unused bullets, claiming them to be spent bullet jackets used by the army [no ref]

Don't incorporate your own version of the story with no proof whatsoever. You were the one who said in the beginning that the man was an "Islamist", no? And since it is you who added dubious info in the first place, then the onus is on you to wait until the discussion is over to make your edit, not me. If you don't like what the source says and think it is propaganda, you can go to WP:NPOV/N or even WP:RS/N, but do not add your personal views to this article and then complain when I am reverting you. Please self-revert. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Slow down. There are no "mine vs yours" in wikipedia, it's all OURS, as fellow editors. We are on the same side; that is improving Wikipedia. It saddens me the way you described my edits. I guess it will be helpful to read about WP:Talk page guidelines and Wikiquette, not assuming good faith is not the way to go, partner.

That being said, I do not guess that we should worry about pointing fingers or comparing edits. However, though, I did correct the mistake I did when I added un-sourced information. I still believe it to be true, it's a mistake just because it was not the right way to do it. And I wish you corrected it instead of reverting to an nonfactual version. Please note that I was asking you to discuss first, not telling you the onus is on anybody. I just thought it followed Wikipedia etiquette.

Now, the current description reads that the unused bullet is claimed to be a spent bullet fired by the Army. It has a source which claims so, and the picture it self shows the unspent bullet. If there is anything wrong with that, please let's make it better.  Mahmood  01:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Problem is, the source doesn't mention any of that. If you think there is a need to say whether the bullet is spent or not, please provide a source that supports your claim. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not how this works, buddy. This is not a claim, it's a fact. The new site labels them wrongly, our part is to indicate that the source says so, not to approve a claim known for fact to be wrong by the image in concern it self. I have made a quick search for bullet ballistics, but the results mainly discussed the science of ballistics, not the simple fact that bullets don't miraculously travel full. Simple, the propellant is ignited and propels the projectile out of the barrel of the weapon. Maybe you can help?  Mahmood  04:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi

I hope you accept that others contribute to this page! If so, I think that we should start compiling a list of resources [1] and testimonies. Moreover, how do you think this page should be organized? Dyaa (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I welcome your help. The main points I would like to write about is objecting civilians/activist to military trails, The torture of civilians/activist, The killing of civilians/activist and the censorship of free speech. I think that will be a good start of the article so we can make it go live and have the help of more editors. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not an expert in editing wikis, and every time i try to start working on a topic, i get a panic attack of all the regulations that should secure the quality of the content. But i will try to overcome this panic attack, and start with Dina AbdulRahman's part. Feedback and crit would be appreciated. --Taliawi (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Title and scope considerations

• The title needs to mention Egypt
• The title can't just focus on violations but human rights in general (any positive changes)
• It might be better in a more general setting such as 'Egypt under the SCOAF'
• It should possibly be merged with '2011 Egyptian revolution' post-Mubarak until it is longer
• It should focus on general trends rather than covering each incident (except for those with a lot of news)
• It may be too early to recognize these general trends.

Ocaasi ^{t | c} 13:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Improvements to human rights...?

To avoid this article being a WP:POVFORK, it has to cover both sides. Have human rights under SCAF improved? Compared to under Mubarak? Compared to during the revolution? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 13:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Human rights under the SCAF have only gotten worse. The have arrested workers and farmers for going on strike, Activists for speaking against the military junta, doctors for demand a better health care system for egyptian and on and on. We also got virginity tests AKA Virginity Gate [2]. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I still think the way to go is not to use 'violations' in the title. That way it leaves it open, and if there is no good news, then it's just not there, fine. Virginity tests, makes me irate. What were they thinking. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 02:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Dina Abdel Rahman

Sources

For further expansion -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Egypt's generals, protesters moving to open clash
• Egypt's generals, protesters moving to open clash
• Why #NoSCAF?
• Factors affecting Egypt transition discussed international conference
• Egypt's generals, protesters moving to open clash
• Egypt's State Media... Same Old, Same Old
• Egypt TV host axed over interviewing military official
• Sacking of TV host raises fears of self-censorship in private media

Egyptian Center for Economic and Social Rights (ECESR)

I've done some work (re)establishing an ECESR stub article and would like to invite editors with an interest in such topics to help expand upon it. --Kevjonesin (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Human rights in Egypt under the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110609210349/http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20067419-503543.html to http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20067419-503543.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Human rights in Egypt under the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/LastPage.aspx?Category_ID=1136
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721165108/http://bikyamasr.com/wordpress/?p=33601 to http://bikyamasr.com/wordpress/?p=33601

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) 15:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)