Talk:2015 Zaria massacre

page title
, I've been working on this page since yesterday, adding updates from various reliable sources. Been also contemplating the soundness of the previous title of the page, too, since sources such as Amnesty Nigeria and Nigerian Human Rights Commission talk about an outright "massacre" by the army. So I was also contemplating a title along that vain. But the new title after your move, seems to completely mischaracterize the incident.


 * First of all, all reports make it clear that it was a clash between the army and the Shia community (officially known as the Islamic Movement of Nigeria or IMN), not between two rival sects. See.
 * The conflict does not also seem to be provoked by sectarian motivations on the part of the Shias. The whole thing reportedly erupted after the army wanted to pass through a street where the Shia community have been holding a religious ceremony and had set up barricades for the ritual. The army arrives and insists on breaking the ritual barricade and the Shias resists army's advance, and it is apparently then followed by a killing spry by the army.
 * The army response though seems to be extremely excessive. Nigerian Human Rights Commission, calls the attack a "massacre" and speaks of "hundreds upon hundreds" killed by the army according to AP report. . Same report also indicates that Nigeria's military is infamous for its excesses. Nigerian troops are accused of killing thousands of detainees by shooting, torture, starvation and suffocation in its prosecution of a war against Boko Haram in northeastern Nigeria.". Dailytrust, a prominent local media talk about an "invasion" by the army.
 * The Nigerian Army General, though, apparently in an attempt to whitewash the carnage, comes out claiming in a long statement that the Shia community had wanted to murder the army chief of staff that was among the army convoy that clashed with IMN gathering. Immediately though this claim was categorically denied in strong terms by the IMN in a statement published online.. However not all mainstream sources mention these important rebuttal by IMN. Iranian sources claim biased/selective reporting in some Western coverage. Iranian officials have come out condemning the massacre, naturally representing the Nigerian Shia community and voicing its grievances. (See the Reactions section of the main)
 * In a similar incident the army had also killed 34 members of this community, causing international outrage.
 * In both conflicts the IMN leader, Ibrahim Zakzaky, and his family members have been the primary targets of the army attack. Zakzay has so far lost four of his sons. In this last incident he himself was injured, along with his wife; their religious center raided and demolished. Yet in both these instances the leader is treated in the hospital to be later released after protests by the movement supporters and media publicity!

Taking account these reported facts, the incident does not seem to be a sectarian one. Either it is that the Nigerian Army has the ulterior motive of killing the movement's leader for unknown reasons, or that this has been just another instance of excessive violence by the army. In either case though the sectarian characterization seems unwarranted. Substitutes like "Nigerian Army attack on--" or "Massacre of--" the Shia community reflect the incident more accurately. MMonib (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@MMonib The Army is Sunni and the IMN is a religio-political party sponsored and supported by Iran. The clashes show that the clashes were not unprovoked as IMN seems to have started mob protesting etc. Secondly IMN, nor any other religio-political party for that matter, can claim that they are representatives of every Shi'ite in Nigeria, therefore the clashes were between this party and the Army, not between Shia and the army. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, even assuming that "The army is Sunni" I wonder how that automatically makes it a sectarian conflict! Nowhere in the reliable sources I have covered, does it mention that the army was Sunni, or that there have been Sunni sectarian motivations behind the attack, or anything that implies sect even matters in what took place. In fact, in his statement, the Army Major General dismissed that the group's sect had anything to do with the incident, insisting on the claim that they have been trying to uphold the law. So your argument doesn't make any sense to me except that you personally like the subject characterized in sectarian terms, but personal preference is not how we decide content or its representation in Wiki, but content policies such as Verifiability. MMonib (talk) 12:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I gave my two cents. What would you like to name the article. We can discuss your idea too, maybe it will be great. Please give your idea for the title. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I said, we should describe it in concrete terms. Like "2015 Nigerian military attack on the Shia community" or "2015 massacre of Shias by Nigerian military". MMonib (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How about 2015 Zaria Massacre. Similar titles exist on wikipedia FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's also good. My proposals though are more explanatory of the subject. Yours is shorter. MMonib (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What happened then?! MMonib (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @MMonib Yes, we try to keep titles short and concise. If you agree I will rename the page now. I also think that "2015 Zaria clashes", "2015 Zaria Shi'ite massacre" and others on the same vein can be the title of this page. so what is your opinion FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks! I will prefer your second proposal to strike a balance between brevity and being more explanatory. So please go for "2015 Zaria Shias massacre". For "Shia" is the preferred spelling in other Wiki articles. Best! MMonib (talk) 08:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @MMonib done. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! But did you have a particular reason to prefer the "Shiite" spelling? "Shia" seems to be standard across related Wiki articles. See: Shia Islam. MMonib (talk) 08:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @MMonib auto correct lol. I'll move it again. I should turn the damn thing off anyway, it is stuck on American I think, turning my Quran into Koran every time. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hehe. I'm afraid you may have to do it over again! Not a big deal but it seems that only the proper nouns and opening words are capitalized in Wiki titles. So "Massacre" should change to "massacre". Note Deir Yassin massacre. MMonib (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikiprojects
MMonib: Can you add it to related wikiprojects? Mhhossein (talk) 06:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know! But how do you do that? MMonib (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * MMonib: Just see how Anotherclown how did it. Mhhossein (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality
I think section "Cause of clash" contains view points of both sides with observations/reporting by HRWs. Thus it is a balanced page and tag for disputed neutrality is inappropriate. Nannadeem (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As per Template:POV we have two criteria met which are


 * 2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
 * 3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
 * so I remove the tags. Wykx 16:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio deleted
All revisions of the article have been summarily deleted by myself, up to the point where User:Nikkimaria (thank you!) rewrote the article without the copyrighted material. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 15:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Without prejudice to above actions, I have point in my mind about copyvio versus fair use i.e. what is the difference between these two. Nannadeem (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NFC goes into great detail about this. It's what I would recommend reading to familiarize yourself with the fair use concept, and how such material can be used in accordance with copyright law. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 16:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)