Talk:2011 attack on the Israeli Embassy in Egypt

proposed delete
The reason for prodding was Not the news, no indication this is going to have any lasting significance., how can we know that... the news has just broken or is someone using a magic ball. And after all in where lies the harm in waiting and see.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And after all Wikipedia is filled "with news like this". so claiming news isn't for Wikipedia is wrong, especially when 3000 people attack an embassy.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is clearly news that surpasses WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, however the title is incorrect - the attacks were part of the protest, not its sole purpose nor reason.--Cerejota (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Move to protest?
I unilaterally moved the article to 2011 Israeli embassy protest but self-reverted for lack of consensus, though the article is very young and most of the sources are describing the incident as a series of protests rather than attacks. Here are some sources. Not sure how much longer I'll be around:


 * Forbes
 * Jpost
 * The guardian
 * Reuters (jpost release)
 * Netanyahu aide: Israel, Egypt to preserve peace deal

Maybe add a reaction section? Wikifan Be nice 00:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Stub class?
This no longer looks like a stub-class article- I think that tag is out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.243.202 (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Giza or Cairo?
If it happened in Giza and not in Cairo then the name of the article should be changed. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Article name change
Any objections for renaming the article to 2011 Giza Israeli embassy attack? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, i object. The proposed title is not clear (what is "Giza Israeli embassy"?), while we should stick to similar namings in the past, like the Attack on the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, Attack on the embassy of Israel in London and 2008 American Embassy attack in Yemen. Hence, i propose this article to be named 2011 attack on the Israeli embassy in Giza, or simply Attack on the Israeli embassy in Egypt.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How about 2011 attack on the Israeli embassy in Egypt? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not good either. I don't mean to be rude CuriosGnome, but I believe you're a native Israeli and your grasp of English grammar is not as strong as other English-language Wikipedians. Some of the article name changes you have suggested here and on other pages recently simply make the page more messy and bulky. It should be simplified. Once again, I don't mean to be rude or presumptuous. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So what do you suggest? We cannot keep the current name since the incident occurred in Giza. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem on my behalf.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * About "The proposed title is not clear (what is "Giza Israeli embassy"?)" - Greyshark, all he did was swap Cairo (as in "2011 Cairo Israeli embassy attack") for Giza. The embassy is actually in Giza, not in Cairo. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, but "Giza Israeli embassy" is a less clear form of "Israeli embassy in Giza", and as shown not used in wiki.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Then that means the current article title has a problem... so the title will have to be changed anyway. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 Cairo Israeli embassy attack → 2011 Giza Israeli embassy attack – The attack was not carried out in Cairo. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 2011 Cairo Israeli embassy attack → 2011 attack on the Israeli embassy in Egypt – The attack was not carried out in Cairo. In addition, most people in the talk page have agreed that they prefer this name instead of "2011 Giza Israeli embassy attack" or "2011 Cairo Israeli embassy attack". TheCuriousGnome (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as stated above, propose alternative 2011 attack on the Israeli embassy in Egypt.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I support Greyshark09's proposal. Either way, the current name has to be changed as soon as possible. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support grey as well. "attack on the Israeli embassy in Egypt" is superior to "giza israeli embassy attack." Largely because reliable sources are framing the event as a state-issue, rather than city. And giza is technically part of greater Cairo no? Wikifan Be nice  23:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Is "attack" the right word here? Some media are using the word but it seems misleading. This incident is very different than Attack on the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires or Attack on the embassy of Israel in London where bombs were exploded and shots were fired. I think words like "breach", "infiltration", "invasion" or "take-over" may be more appropriate.  They are more descriptive. For example, "take-over" is the title used for the Iran Hostage crisis, which described a similar initial incident. Poyani (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on spirit, but the Iran situation was different in many ways, most significantly the involvement of the State, the length of the event and the hostage taking. As such "take over" is bordering on the non-neutral, as the Egyptian government clearly didn't support this event (and even helped rescue personnel - using elite special forces), and the embassy was ransacked, not occupied. In Iran, the Iranian revolutionary State took over the US embassy in order to break relations and use the hostages as a bargaining chip - in Egypt the situation is of a more spontaneous nature - even if obviously planned by extremists, and there has been no breaking of relations between Israel and Egypt - and in fact the Egyptian government tried to resign as a show of good faith. Apples and bottles, because there is no fruit to compare ;) --Cerejota (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Giza is considered part of Greater Cairo, so Cairo as shorthand for Greater Cairo is ok by me and this is the way most RS use it. Embassies tend to be in Capital cities or their suburbs, and using "Giza" smacks me of over-precision that the RS are not generally using - Egypt is preferable to Giza, but Cairo is preferable to Egypt. However, even if decided to move, these are still descriptive titles that should use the usual "YYYY Country/City Place event" succinct format. For example, instead of Attack on the embassy of Israel in London we should use the current name 1994 London Israeli embassy attack - it is more succinct as MOS requires. In terms of "attack" I can live with it, but prefer "riots" - the event was significantly different from a bomb or hostage situation, and riots around the embassy continued for over a day after the embassy was evacuated - while the attack on the Embassy is a centerpiece event, it was in the midst of a larger event, the Riots. Lastly, I think this RM was premature, the discussion was moving forward, and had not deadlocked. I suggest we close it and continue discussing and then reopen it if we cannot find consensus. I have also merged the two RMs, so the bot doesn't have a heart attack ;) --Cerejota (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There had been reasons the office were in Giza not in Cairo. So when Jews from Israel did not move it to Cairo why you will want to move it there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So it's "Jews" from Israel, huh, you racist pig? You have a "Jew radar"? WillNess (talk) 08:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you strike through this personal attack. --Cerejota (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article name is bogus, should be changed into An Attack on Israeli Embassy in Egypt
Did Israeli embassy attack Cairo? Did Israeli embassy in Cairo conducted some sort of an attack, and on whom?

Bogus, misleading, vague. WillNess (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It follows the usual format used for descriptive names: "Date Location [Place] event" - September 11 attacks, 2011 England riots, etc. Please read WP:AT, which are the rules.--Cerejota (talk) 08:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You exhibit a basic miscomprehension here. "September 2011 Cairo riots" is what follows from your argument. Since there were so many riots there in September, the "riots" need further qualification, leading to "September 2011 Cairo riots against Israeli Embassy in Egypt". WillNess (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not miscomprehending, I am simply explaining policy to you. Specifically, WP:AT:


 * Avoid definite and indefinite articles: Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name (e.g. The Old Man and the Sea) or will otherwise change the meaning (e.g. The Crown).
 * Use nouns: Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech; such a title can be the subject of the first sentence. One major exception is for titles that are quotations or titles of works: A rolling stone gathers no moss, or Try to Remember. Adjective and verb forms (e.g. democratic, integrate) should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun (Democracy, Integration), although sometimes they will be disambiguation pages, as at Organic. Sometimes the noun corresponding to a verb will be thegerund (-ing form), as in Swimming.


 * As you can see, your proposal is both too verbose and too filled with articles to meet policy. 2011 Cairo Israeli embassy attack‎, however, does meet policy and describe the event unambiguously - there has only been one attack on the Israeli Embassy in Cairo in 2011, so 2011 is enough to establish a date, the attack was in Greater Cairo, so we shorten it to Cairo because that's what the RS do, Israeli embassy, which was the place of the attack. No one has proposed September 2011 Cairo riots so that is a strawman.--Cerejota (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The current name "2011 Cairo Israeli embassy attacks" must be changed ASAP

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The reasons it has to be changed is because:
 * The article covers only ONE attack, which occurred in September 9, 2011 and not many attacks as the current title hints.
 * The current title is factually wrong and misleading - the attack occurred in the Egyptian city of Giza and not in the city of Cairo

Because of this and due to the consensus already reached on this subject here, I suggest the the article would be renamed as soon as possible to "2011 attack on the Israeli embassy in Egypt". Any objections? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As has been explained, Giza is part of Greater Cairo. Almost all international sources use Cairo, because Giza is a sub-division of Greater Cairo, because embassies tend to be in the Capital. See Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian (UK), The New York Times all use Cairo rather than Giza, and this is brief view of the subject. For example, some embassies in the USA are not in Washington D.C. proper, for reasons of space or funding, but are still reported to be in DC because for all intent and purposes is where the embassy is. The insistence on "Giza" instead of "Cairo" is something I do not understand for this. "Attack" is proper indeed, this was a move error.--Cerejota (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The current name (2011 Cairo Israeli embassy attack) is wrong, imprecise, misleading. Whom did the Israeli embassy in Cairo attack and why? To what body was this embassy established? Was it Israeli embassy to the Arab League perhaps?
 * The name should be changed ASAP to "2011 Cairo attack on the Israeli Embassy to Egypt". WillNess (talk) 07:27, 19 September 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.''
 * Support - best and most suitable to replace the nonsense current title.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - the suggested title is a big improvement. Marokwitz (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - much more informative title. Just without the "the", as per policy. WillNess (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

American involvement
The Israeli security team in the embassy were rescued by Egyptian forces. So why the repeated references to thanking President Barack Obama for his help? Was this simply because Israel didn't want to thank Egypt?124.197.15.138 (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)