Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taharrush gamea


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. If anyone feels there is further discussion to be had on the name, content, and general scope of the article, that may be continued on the article's talk page. m.o.p 22:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Taharrush gamea
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page will be transcluded into other pages. Only level 4 subsections make sense in this context. For a better readibility, first level comments in the main subsection should rather start by: * comment. Using new subsections for engaging more specific discussions would also be great. Thanks in advance. Pldx1 (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC) This comment is no more relevant. Someone else suppressed the subsections and moved some messages across the page without leaving a descriptive comment. Moreover some messages have been moved to the talk page, and are NO MORE accessible from the Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 12. Not taking responsability for this. Pldx1 (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No evidence apart from recent hype that this is actually a thing &mdash; goethean 17:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "No evidence"? There are, of course, indictments, arrests, in Sweden as well as in German cities. Government officials describing the phenomenon.  And, indelicate to mention, but that's a pretty narrow - not to say sexist, perspective.  You might want to speak with young women who live in the Middle East, South Asia, and elsewhere outside Western Europe.  This not new in the world, it's merely new in the recent experience of Western Europeans.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.129.196.126 (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2016‎(UTC)
 * This article is correct and true and must stay.
 * * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 12.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 17:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   Let It Go    18:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * redirect to "recent hype", which is not a hype but a problem. A searchable term. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not an eligible solution since the Swedish press is also all over this Aerabic term because of an outbreak of groping and sexual intimidation at a teen rock concert last summer. Swedes are pretty horrified by the idea of gangs of men surrounding and groping 14- and 15-year-old concertgoers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * P.S. About being actually a thing, yes it is, in some sexist and sexually-repressed cultures, see e.g. "Eve teasing". You have to admit that we (wikipedians) are 98% ignorant amateurs (outside of our area of expertise/training), therefore unfortunately I don't know a better redirect target for a generic article about this type of sexual violence. Also the transription "gamea" from "jamai" is quite inept. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW, the piped link "recent hype" is a link to New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany. That wasn't clear. I've spelled it out. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * What is the rationale for deletion? If it does not warrant a standalone article, wouldn't it be better merged with street harassment or sexual harassment?  (I would have added the term to one of those articles instead of creating this one but, like Eve teasing, it didn't seem a great fit with either.)  —  AjaxSmack   02:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * AjaxSmack, what was your rationale for creating the article in the first place? You based your addition entirely on news articles published in the last 48 hours. Why didn't you just write about this in the suggested articles? At best, this seems to be a neologism. Peter Isotalo 12:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * &#8203;I came to Wikipedia looking for information on the practice and couldn't find it so I boldly created a stub as I have in several other cases over the years. With the limited sources available to me, I wasn't sure exactly how it related to street harassment or sexual harassment.  The idea was the stub could be fleshed out by those with more knowledge of the subject and/or that it could be merged with the appropriate article.  WP:NEOLOGISM does not apply.  As e.g. guanxi is not simply "connexions", sources posit that taharrush gamea is substantively different from generic street harassment or sexual harassment.  And Wikipedia is hardly a vanguard "to increase usage of the term" in this case as is illustrated by sources and links noted below.  I can understand if you feel the term should be a redirect but I'm still not sure why it needs to be deleted. —  AjaxSmack   23:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * KEEP : It is a more generic phenomenon, not a hype. Zezen (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.26.144.203 (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2016‎ (UTC)
 * If this article is correct, or at least based on reputable sources and until it is then disproven, it should remain.


 * Keep: Widespread coverage in the media, even important authorities know about it. Then everyone should.--Gerry1214 (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete : This is just another name for group assault like the term "Wilding", which had many headlines at the time - but is now a mere mention under "other" on a disambiguation page. -- Versa geek  06:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP: Another case of manipulative deletionism. No need to even elaborate. Ahriman2014 (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * KEEP: Deleting a well-researched article on mass phenomenon would constitute political censorship. Tiphareth (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

— Deadwreck (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * DELETE “Taharrush gamea” is simply Arabic for “collective harrasment”: the term is used very recently in the press about the event in Cologne because the perpetrators seem to be migrants, but no study — sociological or otherwise — talk about it being a specially Arabic phenomenon. When it happens in an English-speaking country, it's called “harrasment”; in French it's “harcèlement”; in German “Belästigung” in Arabic it's “تحرش”: we should not create an article for every language. --Superbenjamin (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment This article needs to undergo a serious scrutiny. I have removed plenty of content that was completely unreferenced, based on obviously unreliable sources like Infowars.com (run by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones), or that used sources simply reporting on recent sexual harassment without making any connection to this term. The remaining attestations are all directly related to the news reporting relating to New Year's Eve in Köln. At the very least, this seems like a politicized neologism. Peter Isotalo 10:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ABSOLUTELY DELETE: The concept of collective rape being a uniquely Arab or Muslim phenomenon, or even having some form of casual acceptance in Arab culture specifically, is so obviously a fabrication that I can't comprehend how anyone could even consider for a second that it's factually accurate, let alone objective, neutral, or depoliticized. This article doesn't describe a phenomenon distinct from already-existing concepts of collective rape - unless you happen to be viewing it through a very particular lens. Deadwreck (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would support an article on the phenomenon of group sexual harassment (groping, surrounding a victim, verbal threats and verbal sexual harassment) carried out by gorups that does not escalate to the point of gang rape. The phenomenon is real, and terms for it in sundry languages can be included.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reliable sources indicate this is a notable phenomenon. Kelly  hi! 14:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, although I would prefer an English name for this phenomenon. The fact is tha tcoverage of this is now massive  and multiple incidents  have been revealed, some are enumerated in the Cologne article.  As a topic, it passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not how Swedish media are reporting on the issue. There's a very heated debate, but nothing about it being organized. It also seems to be limited to a single festival (We Are Sthlm). A criminal investigation was just laid to rest, but there is going to be an investigation about whether the problem actually exists or not (besides the "normal" festival raping that has been going on for years) One 15-year-old has been charged so far for groping at We Are Sthlm. And no one seems to be using the term "taharrush" about any of it. Peter Isotalo 16:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism. Article relies entirely on sources from the past few days. Google Trends indicate it's extremely recent, and there's pretty much just a single hit on Google Books. It might be relevant to redirect it to New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany, but a standalone article is extreme recentism and sensationalism. Peter Isotalo 17:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a persuasive argument. The question is whether this term is in substantive use now.  New York Times, ;  The Spectator ; The Daily Telegraph ; the BBC ].E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant coverage in multiple reputed sources, and such coverage is likely to increase.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a highly notable and specific phenomenon (not a rape!), which is now widely covered in numerous publications and in many different countries, for example, , including political debates in connection to other events , etc. My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: These also: Source Abdelmonem, Angie, Angie (2015), ”Reconceptualizing Sexual Harassment in Egypt”, Kohl: A Journal for Body and Gender Research 1 (1): 23–41 (PDF) and the german article.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong delete absolutely unnecessary article--Opdire657 (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: and kudos to Empiricus-sextus. We have done some work on the German article, which was in a similar poor state before. There are two reasons for a keep: First, Taharrush is a about a strategy started by Egyptian police forces and hired thugs to use sexual harrassment as a means of politics, denying (activist) women access and participation at public rallies and demonstrations. This has been covered in various research papers, NGO studies and serious media. Second, the behavior has spread as well to young men in their prime using it as an everlasting spring break on the cost of young women and girls in public spaces. Thats been covered by similar high quality sources. That said, its not a mere sort of sexual harrassment but a new type of molesters flashmob with a political cloud in Egypt, including some changes in the penal law. Therefore keep - in the updeted version. Polentarion Talk 01:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. In addition, judging from this Gender Research paper, it appears that "taharrush" is a social activity/activism by Muslim men to achieve public humiliation of women. Making this publicly (i.e. in the public space) is required for humiliation. Here is another scholarly source about it. My very best wishes (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This source does not define the phenomenon as you do. The article makes it very clear that the phenomenon at hand is called "sexual harassment" and refers to it in its Arabic form in order to specify the legal struggle of defining harassment. The very title makes that plain enough. The article by the way does not refer to "Muslim men" but to the gendered nature of space in Egypt. As it stands, neither the term "Muslim" or "Islam" are present in the document, and the word "Islamic" is employed as a quote of one of the parties of a conflict. There may be sources providing a defition of a hypothetical phenomenon such as the one you provide, but this clearly is not one. 88.105.128.78 (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP The article is well-sourced and is not biases. It discusses a real activity that people will seek to understand.Kmccook (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to discuss the fact that Taharrush gamea is presented as a distinct and somehow new form of sexual harassment:
 * 1) Sources in the article use the term Taharrush gamea as the local term for “collective harassment” in Egypt: nothing justifies creating an article for a mere translation.
 * 2) Scientific articles study the phenomenon of sexual harassment in the Egyptian context, especially during the Revolution and as a political tool, but the fact these studies exist does not mean sexual harassment is specific to Egypt. Sexual harassment is a universal phenomenon with particularities in every country/situation: if the topic of the article is sexual harassment in Egypt, it should be called Sexual harassment in Egypt. Nothing in the sources point to taharrush as a distinct concept from Sexual harassment or as something typical of Arab or Muslim countries.
 * 3) All sources about Taharrush being spread in Europe are VERY recent (not more than a few weeks) and most of them are based on a single report from the German police.
 * It is also necessary to recall that harassment or rape of women in the public space by men or groups of men is a well-documented phenomenon in Western societies (,, , , , etc.): presenting it with a foreign word as if it was something foreign is really worrisome for the neutrality of Wikipedia. --Superbenjamin (talk) 09:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Your examples are not on point since they show that sexual crimes happens the world over. However, this discussion is about a specific type of sexual assault, carried out by a group of men who surround and physically detain a woman in a crowd, forcibly detaining her while they grope her, force their hands into her clothing, sometimes remove some or all of her clothing, rob her, and verbally taunt and humiliate her, and sometimes rape her and/or beat her, before they themselves disappear into the crowd and escape. There are a number of types of sexual assault.  This discussion focuses on this specific type.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's precisely my point: there is no source demonstrating that this type of assault originated in Egypt or the Arab world. If an article is needed about Egypt, it should be Sexual harassment in Egypt. If an article is needed about collective harassment, it has no reason to have a name in Arabic and should be Collective harassment. --Superbenjamin (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your title shows a failure to grasp the topic, since forcible groping is not "sexual harrassment"; it is sexual assault.   There could perhaps be an article about "group sexual assault" separate from gang rape as a wider phenom, but this article has sources asserting that this is a culturally specific phenomenon that emerged in Egypt, recently, first as a police tactic to suppress female participation in protest demonstrations, and was then taken up by groups of young men for the sheer joy of assaulting women.  There are sources supporting this, and we should keep this discussion focused.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In which case using the Arabic term for "harassment" is even wronger. 88.105.128.78 (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Lara Logan's account of her attacks in Egypt gives an example of the level of violence. If Wikipedia is to be a reliable source for women as well as men it cannot cover up men's behavior whatever the culture. Kmccook (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sources describe this primarily as a public humiliation of European women by groups of Muslim men in public places that involves sexual harassment and frequently a robbery. This looks like a distinct phenomenon.My very best wishes (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please, show me the sources “asserting that this is a culturally specific phenomenon”: none of the scientific sources say that, but there are plenty of examples of collective assaults on women outside of the Arab World. I don't understand how it is possible to ignore the fact that “taharrush gamea” means “collective harassment”: in Egypt, sexual harassment by the police or any other person is called that. There is absolutely no argument for using another term than “collective harassment” (or “assault”) in English.
 * “cover[ing] up men's behavior whatever the culture”? But this article implies a universal phenomenon is Arabic, despite evidences it's not the case: that‘s covering up rape culture in the West and the rest of the world (and racism).
 * “public humiliation of European women by groups of Muslim men in public places”: where on earth have you read that!? In Egypt, Egyptian women are the first victims of assaults, harassment and rapes, especially when this ‘technique’ is used by the government against activists. Transforming that in a assault of Muslims against white women is a racist manipulation of the facts. --Superbenjamin (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It only matters how this term is currently used in English language sources. Right now the term is actively used in English, German, Russian, Swedish and Norwegian language sources. Speaking about collective harassment (note that word "sexual" is missing), yes, perhaps that might be an appropriate alternative name or redirect, however sources on these languages do not actually use this term. Speaking about Arabic, yes, this is obviously relevant - as an etymology of the term. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't call it a culturally specific phenomenon nor does it need to be a culturally specific phenomenon for it to have a dedicated article. Fojr (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is certainly the case if we speak about current version (as we do). My very best wishes (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * First I have asked to merge Rape in Egypt (the title is much more controversial) into Taharrush (gamea). The 2000 Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks show a similar behavior pattern for young machos in a non muslim country btw. Polentarion Talk 17:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure there are sources claiming that Taharrush attacks in Europe were racially or religiously motivated. If there are such sources, this should be noted. If there are no such sources, then obviously, no. My very best wishes (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Two !votes (one keep, one delete, to avoid conspiracy claims... ) and their attached comments have been moved to the main section (!vote), above the present section. Pldx1 (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC) No more relevant. Pldx1 (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please keep this article. If the politically correct police don't like it they can edit the article to include their comments and changes.  The facts don't change it has and continues to happen.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.69.0.133 (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong delete The article takes a single event, turns it into a social phenomenon, and presents biased and unproven by the literature explanations of this so-called phenomenon. It compromises the integrity of Wikipedia. 88.105.128.78 (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * — 88.105.128.78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC). E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – A lot of coverage and is a definite concept. --Article editor (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * KEEP This article is well-sourced and is not biased. It describes a phenomena which is hard to understand and new in Europe. The press in Britain uses this term. I agree with a previous keep-comment on this. The article describes a crime that has taken place several times in Germany and Sweden lately, which people will seek to understand. Oyvindlyslo (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * — Oyvindlyslo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * KEEP per Dwaipayan. Some references were copied & pasted from the French and German Wikipedia, I corrected and/or translated most of them, others are caring for the rest presently. --tickle me 15:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * KEEP With the amount of references that have been added so far, it would be completely absurd to delete the article. Fojr (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep the amount of references means it has achieved WP:SIGCOV and therefore WP:GNG notability and so the article can't be deleted. It could be improved with prevalence, history, definition etcetera. AadaamS (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * KEEP This is a recurring phenomena that people need to be aware of for their own protection. Deleting this amounts to political censorship. --Paldrion (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * — Paldrion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * KEEP There are plenty of reliable sources. I can only imagine that the nomination to delete has some political basis. 2.98.172.201 (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * — 2.98.172.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * KEEP: i came to get the non spin version of facts rather than relying on simple news stories. articles like this absolutely have a place to inform people. Nosdan (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * — Nosdan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

hey nutjob Flyer22 Reborn keep your paranoid schizophrenic accusations well away from my comments and preferably out of wikipedia altogether. they are neither wanted nor helpful. Nosdan (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Per WP:Talk, do not mess with my comment like you did earlier. As for your WP:Personal attack, meh. I know when I'm right. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

do not make unsubstantiated accusations about me (or anyone else for that matter), thanks Nosdan (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This little "This account is not good enough for its arguments to be considered" game has lasted long enough and does provide none to little insight to the debate. Out personal observations about each other's personalities are irrelevant to the matter at hand. The content of an argument is unrelated to the durable presence of an account on the website. Please try to maintain the discussion on a factual, rather than ad hominem, level. 88.105.128.78 (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:Single-purpose accounts matter because they should not be allowed to WP:Game the system; you know that. Single-purpose accounts voting in AfDs will always matter, and rightly so. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is what the IP identification system prevents. Besides, this is completely outside of the point I was making. Please keep to the arguments instead of making this discussion ad hominem. Because someone could have the idea of following all your messages with "This account has a strong tendency to deviate the discussion to personal accusations rather than arguments", which would only make the page less interesting and legible. End of the discussion on my side about that topic, please do stop the fingerpointing. 88.105.128.78 (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Whatever points you are making about the single-purpose accounts, I disagree with them. And I'm sure you know why. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for stopping your little exercise of modifying other people's comments and deplacing them in the page. These comments have been written exactly where and in the way they were meant to be written.If someone feels the urge of contributing to the debate on single-use accounts, there is no doubt they shall. In the meantime, these messages are beside the thread about your contributions being unhelpful to the page so far and they are very well where they are. Thank you. 88.105.128.78 (talk) 09:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not modify others' comments. I reverted you on moving my comments out of place. As seen here and here, you are moving others' comments. The Nosdan account has modified others' posts as well. So I note again that I did not strike through my comments above. E.M.Gregory did not strike through his comment. Nosdan struck through our comments. And as for who has been helpful in this AfD, you have not been. I see nothing helpful from you in this AfD. Noting single-purpose accounts in an AfD? Yeah, that's helpful. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This conversation has lasted long enough re. its interest for the matter at hand. The fact is that my comments were displaced. The rest has absolutely no importance to me. Please do not hesitate if you ever feel the urge to actually contribute to the debate. Best. 88.105.128.78 (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * flyer22 and please stop with your personal attacks and unfounded accusations. i will allow you to continually focus your hate on me for no reason. Nosdan (talk) 10:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Those who want this deleted have no strong arguments towards its non-notability and while it requires an increase in credible sources it is certainly within WP:N Hemi9 (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment to closer: This AfD has a number of WP:Single-purpose accounts and WP:Sleepers. No doubt in my mind that WP:Socking is going on here. A tainted AfD. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That is...unless the one-time accounts and other barely-there accounts can be chalked up to the media attention. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Reminder to everyone. Using UPPERCASES don't make an upper opinion, using strong don't make a stronger opinion. Arguments are read and weighted, that's all. An amusing remark, among the 24 !votes above this one, the average registration date among the 5 delete is 2010-09-04, the average registration date among the 19 keep is 2010-08-20... nothing to endorse the usual conspiracy theories. And now the arguments to keep: it cannot be said that the Köln +Hamburg +Frankfurt +Stuttgart +Bielefeld +Düsseldorf +Helsinki +Malmö +Helsingborg +Karlstad +Kalmar+ others events aren't notable. Each of them has been covered by Reliable Sources. It is clear, and written in the sources, that these events belong to a same pattern, that has to be described and commented. Pldx1 (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * KEEP: This does seem to be distinct from other forms of sexual and street harassment, and it is held to be a new tactic/phenomenon which emerged initially out of the activities of the Egyptian security forces. If it is a recognisable and novel tactic of oppression then it is deserving of a distinct name (even if - or perhaps especially because - it has gone viral from it's original incarnation). The arguments in favour of deletion seem to be 1) that it doesn't exist, 2) that if certain behaviours do exist, they are not distinct from harrassment, and that "Taharrush gamea" is no more than a new term for an old behaviour. It's not the role of wikipedia editors to define what does and does not exist, even if it were fictional and fantasy elements even homeopathy have pages. It may be a page that gets culled in time, but at least while people believe this to be happening, and absolutely while there is evidence that this is a distinct behaviour that developed during the policing of protests in Egypt it is certainly a thing that exists in reality and there is a literature on politically motivated sexual violence in Egypt.


 * I'm going to quote from an article directly because not all of you may have access to academic journals


 * In "Understanding Politically Motivated Sexual Assault in Protest Spaces: Evidence from Egypt (March 2011 to June 2013), Tadros (Social Legal Studies March 30, 2015) notes:
 * "In analysing several incidents in Tahrir Square, Shash (2013) argued that they have common characteristics:
 * 1. they take place in squares and public spaces associated with protests;
 * 2. they happen during times when protests and demonstrations are held;
 * 3. the assaulted are disproportionately activists, whether women or men (even though there have been assaults on citizens who have no history of political activism);
 * 4. sexual violence is used in conjunction with other forms of violence;
 * 5. sexual violence is not enacted on a one-to-one basis but through a group of men, collectively and simultaneously assaulting the victim; and
 * 6. sexual assault does not occur in a passing moment, but is sustained over a period of time."


 * Which seems to have some correlations with accounts from Cologne Tadros further notes that it is difficult to define, describe the behaviour because it is novel.


 * And "there is still a gap in international studies of MPR [Multiple Perpetrator Rape] in politically tumultuous, non-war settings. For example, the Harkins and Dixon’s 2010 classification of different contexts of multiple perpetrator sexual offending include (among a long list) rape in war, prison rapes and rape in countries under corrupt governments. Technically, none of these quite describe the Egypt context in which politically motivated sexual assault occurred in 2011–2013 under two different non-war governments (military and Islamist), which are best described as ‘politically unstable’ rather than corrupt per se and sexual assault was not only occurring in prisons but in open public squares as well.


 * Whilst it is difficult to establish empirically and categorically the motivations for sexual assault in Egypt, this should not deter scholars’ and researchers’ efforts from seeking to disentangle the various drivers of sexual violence at different junctures and spaces"


 * It could be argued that the behaviours alleged in Cologne are distinct from what happened in Tahir Square (perhaps because they are depoliticised), but that will emerge in time, and it is not the role of amateur wiki sleuths to decide that issue.


 * Finally the name is useful not least because it is being used as the name for this activity in mainstream media and, English in particular has a strong tradition of borrowing words from other languages to describe new things from shampoo to assassins.

Connees (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * — Connees (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is indeed pretty helpful in evaluating the situation at hand. It argues, for instance, that "the aggregation of politically and socially motivated sexual assault on account of their common patriarchal basis may be analytically unhelpful. Patriarchal, hyper masculine values do not necessarily bear a causal relationship with sexual violence. Wood (2013: 146) points to countries such as Sri Lanka that have rigid gender hierarchies subordinating women yet do not experience high prevalence of sexual assault in conflict.", thus making a clear point that the type of violence it studies is neither "Muslim", nor "Arab", but indeed political. This is reinforced by the fact that the author insists that the study related to "sexual assault against women (although men have been sexually assaulted too), in a particular space (protest space) and in a particular political moment (in a country experiencing political turmoil after a dictatorship of 30 years was overthrown after a popular uprising)", a definition of the object which clearly rules out Germany, or any other Northern European country - or indeed any situation which is not the sexual violence committed against women in Tahrir Square - from its scope. This is finally clarified when the author states, at the beginning of their case study, that "The Egyptian regime has a long history of deploying sexual assault against women and men to repress, curb and punish political dissidents. A number of intertwining contextual factors sustained a culture of silence and impunity in relation to sexual assault, irrespective of their motivation including (i) the deeply entrenched social more associated with honour being embodied in the sexual purity of women, (ii) the legal framework and (iii) the political will and practices of the ruling regimes". An assertion which is reinforced by the conclusion of the article which insists on comprehending the phenomena "By examining the culture, politics and legal framework governing GBV in Egypt during this time". To say the least, these elements indicate that for the matter at hand, this article makes the very point of the people who oppose the creation of this page, which is that it associates to the forms of repressive sexual violence in Egypt - which deserve to be talked about - every other form of sexual violence commited by Arab or Muslim men in public places, because in both case the perpetrators are Arabs, regardless of the context in which such violence is committed. This has the triple effect of 1. compromising Wikipedia's integrity by conveying racist prejudice, 2. ruling out every form of sexual violence in festive context and in public places in Europe in which the perpetrators are not Arab or Muslim men, and 3. blurring the definition of the phenomenon of political sexual violence in Egypt by entirely ruling out the fact that by all accounts it has been a policy aimed at repressing social opposition to an authoritarian regimes. In the meantime, as there is strictly no evidence that the events in Cologne derive from the same type of phenomena as the repressive sexual violence observed in 2011 and 2013 onwards in Egypt, it remains over-interpretive to associate them, especially when that association rules out cases which appear to be much more accurate in a comparison, such as sexual violence in the Férias de Nîmes in the French context. To put it more clearly: Egypt is not Germany, German party-goers are not Tahrir demonstrators, and the attackers in Germany were not Egyptian policemen. Hence, the comparison between these two things is extremely dubious. All of which, by the way, is beside the point if we consider that the debate is to know whether a specific page with a translitterated Arabic title, since the author does not employ the term in their article, except in one occasion because it is the name of an Egyptian NGO. If we can all agree that it is not for Wikipedia "sleuths" to establish whether the term is adequate, it also happens that it is Wikipedia's responsibility to decide if it wants to endorse a category which is so far employed by only one source - the German police - thus rendering it natural for further use - and we do see which it is even in this very page - or not. Wikipedia does not have to endorse every rumour out there, in a nutshell. Especially when the effects of endorsing these is to directly have an effect on a political rationale (which is now more than clear from every use of the term quoting Wikipedia as a proof that refugees are all rapists and should be kicked out of Europe, a fact that we cannot shrug away). 88.105.128.78 (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * While the quotation of a scholarly source by Connees is completely appropriate and convincing, the response by the IP is an example of WP:OR, pure and simple. No one endorses anything here. We only summarize what reliable sources tell. My very best wishes (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you aware that half of my contribution consists in quotes from the exact same scolarly source that you find "appropriate and convincing" and shows that the article has been misquoted in the contribution I was answering to, or did you just think "tl;dr, I'll just patronise everyone and not read the other people's arguments" on that one? Connees' argument is a case of WP:OR, which is precisely the point I make by quoting the source. Since you don't seem to have the time to read what someone says before answering - very uninterestingly so, if I may - let me summarise it for you, so that you don't have to confront yourself with too much reading from the research paper which I quote in my first paragraph: the article from Tadros says the exact contrary of what Connees tells it says. For more details, see the actual long development I have taken the time to put together after taking the time to read the paper entirely, and do not hesitate to restrain from throwing arrogant messages which entirely miss their point about without any form of argumentation in the future. Thanks a lot. 88.105.77.83 (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your posts are difficult to understand. Here is the source and it is clearly written. The publication tells about this particular type of gender-oriented attack and describes its distinct characteristics: (a) it is directed specifically against women as gender to suppress them politically and exclude them from public life; (b) "such cases involved multiple perpetrators, in numbers that sometimes make it difficult for survivors to even count them", (c) "it is unclear who the perpetrators were, and if they were hired, who hired them", (d) some of the identified members belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood and possibly other similar organizations, (e) this happens in public places, etc. This is just another good source on the subject of this page and it should be used for sourcing. My very best wishes (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany per WP:RECENTISM. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Recentism is an ESSAY, nothing more. And this essay doesn't say that Helsinki, Malmö, Helsingborg, Karlstad, Kalmar, Vienna, etc. are in Germany. Dit I miss something ? Pldx1 (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Cannot see how redirect is appropriate, since this article discusses this as a phenomenon with examples in several countries, years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Rape in Egypt or Move to Sexual harassment in Egypt or Sexual assault in Egypt. The current title is essentially just taking the Egyptian pronunciation of the Arabic word for collective harassment and assigning it to an article about groups of people committing sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape in Egypt, and this title makes it more difficult for English-speaking readers to find what they're looking for when sifting through categories or doing a search of Wikipedia. A clear plain-English title can help people who have heard of the problem but don't have a word for it, while redirects using this term (and similar terms in Arabic) can help people who have heard or seen the term but don't know what it is. Moving the content into plain-English article titles also helps keep Wikipedia consistent, matching other articles like Rape in Germany and Rape in France. See WP:NC for guidance on article naming. -NorsemanII (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * NorsemanII appears not to understand that this is not an article about events in Egypt, it is an Arabic term that is being applied in German, English and other languages to a unique type of group sexual assault being documented by journalists in several European countries, as well as in Egypt (where sources state that this term/usage originated) and, according to The Express Tribune in Pakistsn: .E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * More than half of the article being about Egypt, NorsemanII's remark is both relevant, and adequate. 88.105.128.78 (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * — 88.105.128.78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems, dear E.M. Gregory, that you have on many occasions now been asked to stop your little fingerpointing campaign. If you are unable to respond to an argument, there is no need for you to do so. Especially by pointless contributions such as the ones you are constantly making. Do not hesitate to actually contribute to the debate if you feel the urge to. 88.105.77.83 (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This page is not about rape, and it is not about Egypt. This is new and a distinct international phenomenon. Perhaps one could propose a better name, specifically for this phenomenon, however name used in English language sources and other languages, including even Russian, is "Taharrush gamea". My very best wishes (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * FAZ entry about the deWP article and its name. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung described the deWP article and its extension with real sourcing and confirms the "weird carreer" of the term in the last week, including a confirmation, (refering to a current report of the Minsitry of intererior of NRW to a parlament group) that that taharrush gamea behavior respectively the Tahirsquare events have some strong parallels to the events in Cologne. WP:Snow, someone should close this. Polentarion Talk 18:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. The discussion is about keep or delete, nothing else. Proposing a redirect of Malmö, Vienna and Köln to Cairo (and why not women to ghosts) is irrelevant. By the way, let us tell User:88.105.128.78, who appears to be a newcomer, that trying to flood the discussion with 15 contributions will not give them more weight. An interresting piece of opinion related to the keep choice is http://femen.org/inna-shevchenko-if-feminists-and-liberals-remain-silent-xenophobes-will-write-their-own-history/ . Pldx1 (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So, according to this source, "As the Cologne police reports, they have now received more than 500 complaints, 40% of which relate to allegations of sexual assault. On Friday, the interior ministry said Germany’s federal police had identified 32 suspects ... The German minister of Justice Heiko Maas has said he believes that the sexual assaults in Cologne were ‘coordinated and prepared’ ahead of time." Points to note: (a) only 40% of attacks are related to sexual assault (yes, that was a gender-oriented assault, but not necessarily sexual), and (b) the attacks have been prepared in advance and involved very large number of people: thousands attackers and hundreds victims. That is what makes this phenomenon unique and worthy a separate page. This is not merely a rape or harassment. My very best wishes (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * KEEP The campaign for deletion is plainly political, rather than editorial. On the basis of that fact alone, the article must remain. CletusJunk 11:27, 16 Jan 2016 (UTC)
 * — CletusJunk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * delete: It's clearly a neologism that's been created in recent days. After an appropriate amount of time if the concept is used more often and frequently, an article should be created about it - otherwise wikipedia can be seen as a method to create new terms instead of being a place to find new terms. If someone can find a reference to the term from before recent events the page should stay otherwise it needs to swiftly be removed.  Countered &#124; talk  14:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This page is not about word, but about actually existing phenomenon. Moreover, nothing prevents from having pages about neologisms. We have hundreds of them - see Category:Neologisms. My very best wishes (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Neologism are not banned on Wikipedia, nor are new phenomena. As with every topic, if the sourcing suffices to pass WP:GNG, the article stays.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - We dont delete articles simply because they cover a controversial topic. This article has good sourcing and this is indeed a subject that is highlighted by recent events by men from a certain geographic area of the world. It is imformative and the topic is very relevant. The references clearly points towards this topic being the real deal and should be kept. BabbaQ (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a cultural phenomenon that deserves its own article. First and foremost, there are many documented occurrences from several countries. It is not an isolated event. Plus it has history - it is not new. This is a political expression towards women who do not dress a certain way and the political intent is to humiliate and shame women into compliance with a strict political ideology. Yes, sexual harassment occurs all around the globe as does gang rape. They are each isolated to the twist thinking of the perpetrators. However, in this article, the use of sexual molestation is for political use with a goal and purpose in mind. Research into sexual abuse of women for political purposes did not just start in Germany this past year. Dig into articles written by Arab women in the early 2000's and you will read of government men raping women who are activists - or whose husbands were activists. It has evolved into non-government activity by groups of citizens who make a political statement against Western dress/values. We need to keep this article as it isa real existing topic. Rjcb6552 (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * — Rjcb6552 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Preceding comment moved at the end of the section, according to chronological order. Pldx1 (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ""comment"" From what I read here, there is enough material and references to write an entire article about group harassment. I think it would partially solve the problems discussed here (At least the ones raised in good faith). With a section about it in different countries, circumstances and settings. the article could also state the different points of view on the occurrences including statements of the victims, perpetrators and examples of the local opinions. --Amanouz (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * KEEP: this is obviously a real thing as shown in Cologne on the 2016 NYE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.112.21 (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The notability of this topic is obvious from a Google search, and the sources refer to it as a specific phenomenon, not merely a synonym for harassment.
 * BBC: "The report describes a modus operandi known as "taharrush gamea" in Arabic, meaning group sexual harassment in crowds, and compares it to incidents reported in Cairo's Tahrir Square at the time of the Egyptian revolution."
 * New York Times: "The sexual attacks on women in Cologne and other European towns and cities (Kalmar, Sweden; Salzburg, Austria; Zurich; and Helsinki, Finland) that have been attributed largely to men of Arab or North African descent seem to be the phenomenon known as "taharrush jami`" -- a deliberate, organized sexual harassment of women by large groups of men."
 * Gatestone Institute: ""Cultural enrichment" has brought us a new word: Taharrush. Remember it well, because we are going to have to deal with it a lot. Taharrush is the Arabic word for the phenomenon whereby women are encircled by groups of men and sexually harassed, assaulted, groped, raped. After the Cologne taharrush on New Year's Eve, many German women bought pepper spray. Who can blame them?"
 * India Times: "When the first incidents of women being assaulted by crowds of Arab men came out of Cologne, Germany, during New Years Eve, the news was being suppressed. Realisation it seems has now dawned and the German Federal Criminal Police Office, BKA, says that the alleged Arab rape game Taharrush is now in Europe."
 * Associated Press: " Police fear that the Arabic gangrape phenomenon ‘Taharrush’ has spread to German cities after a series of sexual attacks on women during the New Year.
 * Taharrush refers to collective harassment of women that is often carried out by large groups of men. These men assault lone women, either by groping or raping them. These men surround their victims in circles. Some of the men sexually assault women, while others often watch the women being assaulted.
 * Sometimes, the victim also gets robbed by these men during the ordeal.
 * These attacks on women frequently go unpunished as it becomes difficult to trace those who carried out the assaults."
 * It's quite clear that this is a notable topic, and the opposition to the article is based on WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - obviously passes notability requirements (WP:GNG). Clearly a contentious topic, content must be worked out on talk page, but deletion is an unreasonable alternative here.LM2000 (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to be an obvious keep. SarahSV (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Keep' It is discussed in many sources and has happened as an alleged phenomenon.  The article may be subject to refinement, but it plainly should be kept, not censored, deleted, obfuscated or hid.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 03:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Keep' Russia Today has both a description of Taharrush gamea and footage of an attack taking place. --[[User:The Vintage Feminist|The Vintage Feminist] (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Information: The german WP decision was KEEP.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Currently, the German Wikipedia has found a solution: de:Taharrush gamea is explaining the creation of that word by the federal police (internal document) and a news paper citing them (Die Welt) and a broad criticism of this creation. The most associated parts and examples are moved because they are not part of that lemma, in acceptance of the main author Polentarion (which is the main author of the english article too), into the article de:Sexuelle Gewalt in Ägypten. That would be the correct version. Otherwise you should delete because of OR. -- 77.64.190.242 (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Until now there is no-Consensus to reduce this phenomena only in this direction. "BKA-Explanation and critic". There is only the consensus to build a wide lemma - for all sexual attacks in Egypt. Greetings. --Empiricus-sextus (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * note Here's Josef Joffe in today's Wall Street Journal: "Young Christian males also don’t always obey Miss Manners when traveling in packs. But their culture doesn’t have a word for taharrush gamea, as practiced in some Arab lands: a group-grope where young men encircle women to jeer, molest and rob them..E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, as was also noted in New York Times article, this is partly a cultural phenomenon: "If women are out and about in the street without a male escort, then, under this attitude, they are fair game for groping, or worse, by any man". That is exactly what I have seen during old Soviet times in places like Bukhara - women tourists could not walk alone on the streets. When one or two tourist women were accompanied by a Russian man, locals on the street considered women in the group as a property of that man, very literally. But what had happened in European cities is actually a different story. My very best wishes (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * keep: notability is sources and there are strong sources here. Support efforts such as Empiricus-sextus' to re-cast the article, however. Stuartyeates (talk)  00:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: This article lists a few examples of sexual assaults in Egypt and suddenly concludes that is a "phenomenon", and one that is uniquely "Arab". The sources are weak: German police officials are cited as the main proponents of this theory, and there is no indication that any of them is a sociologist or a scholar of any relevant field. Heck, none of them even speaks Arabic, or been into an Arab country. But simply by virtue of being white, OP have turned them into experts on Arab/Muslim society and culture, and their judgements are passed as undisputed truths, and worthy of an article. And by using the literal translation of "mass sexual assaults" in Arabic as the title, that makes it officially an Arab phenomenon!
 * Furthermore, the body of the article is quite ridiculous. Consider the following sentence:
 * Some parallels have been drawn to Eve teasing and the mob of youngsters that harassed women and couples in a year 2000 New York Parade (Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks).
 * So basically this article cites earlier examples of mass sexual assaults, as a supporting argument that it is an Arab phenomenon? You'd think editors at this point would stop, and ask themselves whether the cited German officers/other pretentious euro-supremacists are full of crap and perhaps reconsider this phenomenon as one that exhibits in large male crowds, and one that transcends all cultures?
 * This article serves no purpose other than perpetuating the euro-supremacist anti-immigrant narrative that regards Arab and North African individuals as sexual predators. Al-Andalusi (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * KEEP. SERIOUSLY? Who would want to delete this very important article as it becomes more and more timely in Europe? Do you really want people to come to Wikipedia looking for this term and find out that it's been proposed for deletion? The very fact that someone proposed this article for deletion makes me despair for Wikipedia. How on earth does Wikipedia hope to attract women editors and contributors? Easy tip: if you're a guy and the article concerns women: YOU shouldn't propose it for deletion. Evangeline (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you in support of renaming the article to "mass sexual assaults"? Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Evangeline (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Al-Andalusi: "The sources are weak" - This is the official source of the German Federal Police and the context: "Die Tatbegehungsform sexualisierter Gewaltstraftaten durch Gruppen in Verbindung mit Eigentum- / Raubdelikten ist in der Ausprägung der Kölner Gewalttaten in Deutschland nicht aufgetreten. Diese Gewaltstraftaten sind insbesondere von den bereits polizeilich seit längerem verfolgten Antanzdelikten deutlich zu unterscheiden…So liegen dem Bundeskriminalamt Erkenntnissee dazu vor, dass in arabischen Ländern ein Modus Operandi bekannt ist, der als „taharrush gamea“ (gemeinsame sexuelle Belästigung in Menschmengen) bezeichnet wird. Darüber wurde z.B. anlässlich der ägyptischen Revolution von den Medien berichtet... Vor diesem Hintergrund hat sich bereits am 8.01.2016 die AG Kripo im Auftrag der Innenressorts von Bund und Ländern damit befasst und beschlossen, dieses Phänomen unverzüglich analysieren zu lassen und dabei auch Erkenntnisse aus dem Ausland einzubeziehen."[fore more see Government of NRW]--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 09:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And you think that the German Federal Police is a reliable reference on Arab/Egyptian affaris because...? Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The BKA paper is the main source for a large amount of newspaper quotations of the term (evident from their use of a slightly wrong transkription). The FAZ has now two articles elaborating on the "weird career" of the term in Wikipedia. WP:Snow applies. Polentarion Talk 19:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. Figures are slightly evolving. 31 keep (averages: 16623	edits, 02/03/10 registration) v. 7	delete (averages: 8997 edits,	02/28/11 registration). Time to close ? Pldx1 (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: This has been in the news quite a bit, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to explain known concepts. Gzuufy (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.