Talk:Ras Burqa massacre

Tighten up references

Broken link - Link no. 1 appears to be broken (clicking on the link brings me to the following address (which is broken): http://209.41.172.185/pdf/Winter2009.pdf, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.245.150 (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

For such a sensitive subject, this article needs more detailed references - where were mass demonstrations held? How many turned up? Which opposition papers lauded the killings? Otherwise, it reads badly and a bit sensationalist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.176.105.39 (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree. The article seems a little one sided at this point and the citations could be seen as painting a fairly biased picture of Muslim opinion about the event. Enordgren 20:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you think is missing in the article? Beit Or 21:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well not really missing anything specifically, it just seems to have a certain tone. The article, for the most part, focuses on anti-semitic reactions to the event. There's only two sentences that seem to note that there was a reaction in the Islamic world that sympathized with those people who died. I don't know enough about this specific issue to know if this weighting represents the reality accurately, but greater variance in sources could bring the article to a different (possibly more neutral) picture of the reaction. It's a very sensitive subject, and it just isn't great if it comes of as sensationalist. Enordgren 21:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you're surprised to learn about these reactions to the killings of Israelis; I'm not. It's just the tip of the iceberg of vilification and dehumanization of the Jews that are occurring in the Muslim world on the daily basis. Beit Or 21:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place to start bringing in personal opinions on matters far beyond the scope of this article. Enodgren was just trying to say that all reactions should be included if possible in order to provide a balanced history of what happened. Joshdboz 21:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you don't seem to have any evidence of reactions excluded. You just postulate their existence. Beit Or 21:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I don't have the best knowledge of this specific event. I just thought that additional sources could add to the balance of the article. I thought you might know of more sources, since you wrote the original article. I will not postulate any further. Sorry if I offended you...didn't mean to. Enordgren 22:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. This is only if possible. If nothing exists, than nothing will be added. Joshdboz 21:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

it's true and clear that the article has a bias.--Severino (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Describing Ras Burqa as "the place" baffles me more than helps me. Is it a village? A neighborhood? A campground? An empty field next to a road? The opening paragraph would read much better if those two words were dropped & the last half of the sentence simply read "in Ras Burqa, a part of the district of Nuwaiba in Sinai." -- llywrch 17:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Was he insane? On what evidence?

The article assumes that the killer was insane. On what evidence? What was his diagnosis. The article should state, instead, that "authorities claimed that he was mentally ill."Scott Adler 22:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The cited sources say he was insane. Beit Or 22:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Which one? What was his illness? Aaker 22:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat duplicative article

It would have been nice if the pre-existing article Suleiman Khater had been taken into account before this article was started. By the way, "Khatir" may be more technically correct according to Classical Arabic transcription conventions, but "Khater" seems to be more common in the English-language press... AnonMoos 00:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Motivations

There is nothng that suggests the man was acting out of hatred for Jews, motivated by religion (Islam) nor is there anything that says that he acting on behalf of some Islamist group.Bless sins 08:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody please point to where a reliable source states "anti-Semitism" is related to the Ras Burqa massacre. Secondly, can somebody point to a source that says the Ras Burqa massacre was either motivated by or caused "Islam"ic anti-Semitism.Bless sins 14:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Lewis describes the reactions to the event as an example of antisemitism. Beit Or 14:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

And since when is "Lewis" the De-facto authority? In fact, I see ^Lewis 233 in the citations, but I can't actually see any information linked. Fake citation?

The entire article has such a sensationalist bias with trying to turn it into an antisemitism factor, right down to the links at the end "see also section" The "see also" section should be linking to similar massacres, not to antisemitism.

The Fact remains that he was a soldier (Not a policeman, the CSF in Egypt are conscripts)in charge of guarding a specific location. The defense clearly stated that, and the Egyptian government agreed. Some of the "reactions" you've listed, are no more than excerpts taken out of context, as some of them were in reference to the claim by Khater that "I was given orders not to allow anyone to pass, and i followed my orders and for that i'm being punished" , instead you've given the reactions an antisemitism vibe. Where are the quotes by Khater's family? The quotes by his defense? The fact that he turned himself in directly after it happened?

This article is not fair or balanced in the slightest. As such, it SHOULD be merged or at least more data linked from the Suleman Khater article, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suleiman_Khater#Investigations_with_Suleiman , when you're a solider you listen to your orders and do your job, your religious or personal views don't come into play, and there is absolutely NOTHING besides the media reaction later on, that would hint in the slightest that Khater did so because of antisemitism. (98.233.38.29 (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC))

Merger proposal

The article about Suleiman Khater should be merged into this one according to Wikipedia notability guidelines. (Lord Gøn (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC))

The Khater article actually existed before this one (see above)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, though I don't think that's a reason to keep it. The Ras Burqa massacre article is quite a bit longer and more detailed, and Khater himself is only known for the massacre, so I'd say it is not necessary to have a rather short article about him that is not likely to be expanded a lot in the future anyway. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

It's absolutely and verifiably true that the Khater article existed quite a bit before this one did, but I wasn't arguing that that was a reason to keep the Khater article -- just explaining how the situation came about... AnonMoos (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, ok, I still propose merging them though. I don't care, if the one is merged into the other, or the other way round, but having two articles about the subject seems very unnecessary to me. (Lord Gøn (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

The Suleiman Khater article can have all kinds of biography categories not really appropriate for this article, while this article has incident categories maybe not appropriate for the Suleiman Khater article... AnonMoos (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but there aren't any, and it doesn't look as if they would emerge in the not too distant future. It seems there isn't that much information out there about Khater's life and motives, so massive expansion of the article seems very unlikely to me. (Lord Gøn (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC))

Aren't any what? AnonMoos (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I've misundertood you here. I assume you are talking about categories, while I was talking about section headings. Don't know how that came to my mind. BTW the categories could remain. Merging is not the same as deleting. I'd simply create a redirect and keep all the categories that are not overlapping. (22:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC))

Anyone against merging? (Lord Gøn (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Merging the articles is OK except for the fact that it gives way too much face time to the murderer. My attempt to include the names of the victims long ago was deleted. That is unacceptable. --Gilabrand (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't have anything against naming the victims, though if possible all of them should be listed, including the Egyptian policeman. And I wouldn't be afraid that the merging will give Khater "too much face time", as there isn't that much to merge anyway. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Deletion of survivor's testimony

Attempts to delete the sole survivor's testimony, properly sourced, will not be tolerated. They show exactly where the "editor's" POV lies. An article about a murder is not just a showcase for the views of the murderer and his supporters. --Gilabrand (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Iranian stamp and street name

For a trippy experience, go to Hebrew Wikpedia (he:Image:Solayman.jpg, or with English-language interface here) and see the 1986 Iran stamp in his honor. If someone felt like filling in all the tedious multiple redundant fair use paperwork, this could be copied over to en.wikipedia. Also, do a simple Google search to see evidence of of the street named for him in Tehran... AnonMoos (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Suleiman Khater.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Suleiman Khater.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Reactions in Egypt Section - POV flag

I find the wording of this section to be quite biased. The opening sentence "Egyptian opposition politicians hailed Khatir as "hero of Sinai" for committing the massacre of Israelis" sounds particularly agitprop, let alone being erroneous. While opposition politicians in Egypt may have hailed Khater as a hero, it would have been for reasons along the lines of "defending the borders of his country against trespassers" and/or due to Khater's "mysterious murder;" and certainly not for shooting and killing civilians. The section as a whole should be rewritten to be more descriptive of the aftermath on the Egyptian side rather than just being emotionally rhetorical. - Estr4ng3d (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ras Burqa massacre. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110526090845/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/2ee9468747556b2d85256cf60060d2a6/7959f6fccfeb4d6305256516004a8944!OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/2ee9468747556b2d85256cf60060d2a6/7959f6fccfeb4d6305256516004a8944!OpenDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 09:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)