Talk:Botroseya Church bombing

One of many attacks against Egypt's Coptic community
Should a separate article list the attacks on Egypt's Coptic churches? http://www.bishopangaelos.org/content/list-attacks-christians-churches-institutions-and-individuals-egypt Level C (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It is not easy to make a complete compilation. The list contains only the attacks of August 2013. --RolandUnger (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I guess you're right but the list can be built upon by the wikipedia community.Level C (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Real site of bombing
The bombing took place at the Church of SS. Peter and Paul south of the St. Mark's Cathedral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RolandUnger (talk • contribs) 15:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Roland is correct. The real site of the bombing was the St. Peter and St. Paul's Church, commonly known as Botroseya Church (الكنيسة البطرسية), which is a small church/chapel attached to the cathedral. The latter was undamaged: Fatal mistake, so I will move the title to the one that is most commonly used in Arabic sources. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * i see that there is sidedness against muslims because even befor claiming of any group for bombing there was attempts to add categories that indicate that muslims do it! There is no neutrality here. In a country with vast majority of people are muslims like egypt; there is a high propability for the terrorist to be muslim, althogh not necessary, but even if he was a muslim that does not mean that he replresent whole muslims or whole islam. He is simply a devil one who has highe predilecation to do evil in his own nature and not becuse of his religion. If he realy follow islam he will not kill any innocent person because it is mentioned in quraan: Because of  that,  We  decreed  upon  the  Children  of  Israel  that  whoever  kills  a  soul unless  for  a  soul  or  for  corruption  [done]  in  the  land  -   it  is  as  if  he  had  slain  mankind entirely.  And  whoever  saves  one  -   it  is  as  if  he  had  saved  mankind  entirely.  And  our messengers  had  certainly  come  to  them  with  clear  proofs.  Then  indeed  many  of  them, [even]  after  that,  throughout  the  land,  were  transgressors. That's all-- مصعب (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * مصعب -- There is no "sidedness", on my part in any event, I don't speak for anyone else. I am not anti-Muslim. The category in question is "Islamist" not "Muslim" -- there is a difference. I did restore it because I questioned your intent but I am not going to dispute it any more. If anyone else wishes to restore it that's up to them. I believe Category:Religiously motivated violence in Egypt is pretty good wording, though. Quis separabit?  22:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

What i say about sidedness is not from you but from some editors. look here for this version of the artile 3 days befor any group claimed responsibility and some editors add catogories that indicate that muslim do it! It was oroginal research and predictions which are not acceptable in wikipedia. Yes i think the category you mentioned is enough and neutral. You know that there is a difference between islamist and muslim. In islam every one who bleive that there is no god but allah and that muhammad is messenger of god is regarded muslim so i cant say that islamist are not muslims but rather i can say that they are misleaded muslims. So they do not truely represnt islam and muslims. Becuse there is a category which indicate that the attack is done by islamists i think it is a precise description and no need to horn all muslims in by saying it is islamic. Regards--مصعب (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

proposal for slight name change of article, for better clarity
greetings, I would like to move the name of the article from "Botroseya Church bombing" to "Botroseya Cairo Church bombing" to make it a bit clearer, at first glance, to searchers etc, that this was in Egypt. If there's no objection. I think that modification and addition to the article name would be only helpful. It even looks better, in my opinion, especially with a somewhat awkward word "Botroseya", there. With the word "Cairo" added, it's stronger and clearer, in general. Fellow contributors, what are your thoughts? Thanks. Namarly (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is an unneeded WP:PRECISION. Do you happen to know of another church called "Botroseya" that was bombed? The current title is a translation of the most commonly used name in Arabic sources ("تفجير الكنيسة البطرسية"). I also don't agree with the notion that it would "look better"; quite the opposite. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * of course there's no other church building named "Botroseya", but that's not the point. As I said, your point actually supports my original point that the extreme unusualness of the word name "Botroseya" makes it not very clear that htis was the Cairo Church bombing in question.  And as far as your reference to "WP:PRECISION", the very opening words, it could be argued, also support my position.   "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that."   And the problem is that the current title is NOT PRECISE ENOUGH "to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article"...as nobody off hand knows what or where "Botroseya" is.   Everyone knows what and where "Cairo" is though.  Namarly (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And the problem is that the current title is NOT PRECISE ENOUGH - Well, I think it is precise enough (not sure how I'm supposed to convince you otherwise). Better search results is what redirects, such as this and this, are for. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - "Botroseya" is not clear enough "to define scope of article", per WP:PRECISION, as nobody knows where or what "Botroseya" is.  Everyone knows what "Cairo" is though. Namarly (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I vote 'support' - this is the English Wiki, and most Westerners are not that familiar with the geography of Egypt to that detail.50.111.2.50 (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I vote 'support' - the title is now too narrow. It should say Cairo to enable people (especially those who are not familiar with this name for this church) to find the article, using a search engine, once they have read one of the many articles saying Cairo or Saint Mark's Coptic Orthodox Cathedral.  Our article on this church, at Saint Mark's Coptic Orthodox Cathedral, hasn't even one mention of a Botroseya church. Fconaway (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The St. Mark's Coptic Orthodox Cathedral article does mention "Botroseya Church" under "See also" Botroseya Church bombing / 2016 Cairo Church bombing. Level C (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I noticed most of the other languages include "Cairo" but this issue about "searching and finding the article" can be fixed in a different way- through Wikidata. In Wikidata there is a field called "also known as" (AKA) and can list a number of other names. I added Cairo Church Bombing so now when someone searches "Cairo Church bombing" they will see this article. I was involved in that project for awhile and made over 2,000 edits to the alias field. All I can say is that the AKA field is to include any name that might be associated with the entity.Level C (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)