Talk:Mass sexual assault in Egypt/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Mass sexual assault in Egypt. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The last line of Terminology and Background:

The transliteration followed the Egyptian pronunciation, taḥarrush gamāʿī (with a hard ⟨g⟩), rather than the standard pronunciation, taḥarrush jamāʿī.[19]

This contradicts many other parts calling it a miss-transliteration rather than just an alternative due to the differrence between Egyptian Arabic and Classical Arabic.

The North Rhine-Westphalia Ministry of Justice in Germany, in a report dated 10 January 2016, compared the Cologne attacks to the mass assaults in Egypt, transliterating the latter mistakenly as "taharrush gamea" and referring to them as Arabic, rather than Egyptian.

This part also seems to sugest that Egyptian isn't a dialect of Arabic and is a completly seperate language. Any sugestions on what to change?SKG1110 (talk) 09:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The second one since the final part is not in the reference (the report of the German Ministry of Justice) which only speaks of "a modus operandi in Arab countries": in arabischen Ländern ein Modus Operandi. (And of course how much varieties of Arabic are separate languages is an open question.) Oliv0 (talk) 10:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

But gamea is still a mistransliteration of what should be gamai, no? And it seems the German police may have been wrong, and it's only a modus operandi in Egypt. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Koncorde, I've tried to copy edit the changes you made to the lead, but you removed certain issues and added certain others, so I'm finding it difficult to maintain the flow. Can you say what you dislike about the current lead?

One point to note is that the attacks are not always coordinated, and it's important to make clear that the behaviour spread beyond the security forces after 2005. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Repinging because of typo: Koncorde. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: this edit of mine was a mistake. I didn't intend to revert to the IP's version, which includes "usually of Islamic faith." I intended to revert to the version of 2 February. I want to make that clear in case anyone thinks I support adding that phrase. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The existing lede is imbalanced, and places equal emphasis on the 2016 issue and provides little actual historical context. When your first paragraph says "Here's a word with 12 years history of events, you may only know it because some Germans said it wrong in 2016" then you are doing the subject a disservice. The actual article itself is largely okay, but when 75% of the article is talking about its use as a political weapon - but the lede only gives it brief lip service then it may be missing the point.

• The topic in the infobox outlines it as "Mass sexual assault in Egypt". Most of the sources support the idea that it is coordinated (most in fact explicitly quote that it was coordinated by security forces, plus the paragraph outlining the tactic suggests some coordination too). Infobox also states "First documented in current form, Cairo, 2005" - the "current form" based on all other sources from 2005 and subsequent refer to coordination by security forces or other groups with specific goals (and the commentators section also outlines that there was a broader tactical aspect).
• There are no sources suggesting that it is spontaneous or uncoordinated. It might be, but what evidence is there?
• I did not remove any context relating to its spread - I placed it within the preceding paragraph which is discussing the actual tactic (not sure it's particularly lede material in any case).

Overall the lede needs far more context relating to what is the dominant subject of this article.

Also, yes, the Islamic or Muslim reference is irrelevant, particularly if the context is one of political motivation (in which case it is a wider issue involving societal attitudes etc). Koncorde (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The lede points out that political motivations were what started this but later developments had no such political motivation. The subsequent events had no State backing and trying to shoehorn societal attitudes as "political motivation" is highly disingenuous. Maybe you meant an Egyptian (has spread beyond those boarders) or Arabic event and not a religious inspired situation? Brainplay (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree about the 2016 sentence, but that will go if the page move is successful, so we should wait until that's decided rather than trying to work out how to fit it into a different structure.

Re: coordination, most of the sources say it is not coordinated now (or largely not), though it began that way. See the footnote in the lead "after [2005] it spread across the country like wildfire." There are numerous others that say something similar. See the Reasons and Prevalence sections for sources and what they identify as the causes. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I see that, when I returned in the first sentence to the previous formulation about the use of taharrush jamai/gamea ("sexual assault of women in public by large groups of men"), I undid the change by Aquillion to "sexual assault by multiple attackers", this can be discussed here but I think the English use of this phrase has usually been for a "mass/crowd" phenomenon. Oliv0 (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Although recently publicised Taharrush jamai is not a new phenomenon. This ritual has been practiced in Muslim countries for over 1000 years. It is well documented and has been witnessed but never openly spoken about until it was widely publicised by the Cologne and Stockholm incidents. Those who witnessed the events describe them rightly as ritual ceremonies.

"Taharrush" in Arabic means mutilation as in circumcision or Female genital mutilation. This ancient religious practice goes back in history to the origins of Islam. The ritual of Taharrush jamai is an ancient Islamic ritual which involves the sexual assault of women in public by large groups of Muslim men. The men gather moving in circles to hide the woman while chanting and dancing arround the woman as she is gang raped.[n] <re> http://billmuehlenberg.com/2016/01/11/islam-and-rape-jihad/ </ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.42.18 (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Bill Muehlenberg's personal website is not a reliable source. --Aquillion (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

تحرش taḥarrush does not mean that at all, and ritual and chanting in circles is not in the source which only speaks (unreliably) of wartime rape in Islam. Oliv0 (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Also تطهير in English "Taharr" - "Taharru" to mutiliate circumcise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.42.18 (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

As I said previously, تحرش taḥarrush "harassment, molestation" is from حرش ḥarasha "provoke, scratch" (akin to Hebrew חרש ẖarash "carve, plough"). It is unrelated to this تطهير taṭhīr "sterilization, circumcision, cleansing" which is from طهر ṭahhara "clean, circumcise". Oliv0 (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

An issue is the use and transformation of the word "taharrush." Older generations use the term for violent, physical sexual assault, younger generations and activists use it for any kind of sexual harassment. I don't think anyone would argue that organized, violent attacks fall under the definition and that seems to be what happened in Germany and what the article should focus on. --DHeyward (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Just noting here that one or more editors are saying these attacks happen only in Tahrir Square and are coordinated. Neither of these claims is correct, according to the RS. The attacks have been documented many times in Tahrir Square, but also elsewhere in Cairo, and indeed all over the country. There is widespread consensus that they are no longer coordinated (or, at least, that most are not). SarahSV ^(talk) 00:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the "attacks" section uses sources solely referencing the Tahrir Square attacks (and later attacks on protesters that commentators have connected with those) without making that clear. When it says "the attacks", for instance, it's almost directly quoting the Amnesty International report on typical attacks in Tahrir Square. eg. search the source for "few minutes to an hour" and you'll find the source for almost everything in that section -- but it's describing a specific set of attacks on January 13, 2013, and that context is lost in our summary. --Aquillion (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Tahrir Square is the epicentre, but the attacks occur elsewhere in Cairo. The October 2006 one was in a street near Tahrir Square. And sources discuss them happening elsewhere in the country to a lesser extent. That section describes how such attacks occur; that we use examples from one location doesn't mean we have to change the heading. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

But the section (at least, as it's worded now) doesn't describe how such attacks occur in general. It directly paraphrases sources that are describing specific attacks that took place on January 13, 2013; it needs to be made clear, at least, that these descriptions are just being presented as an example. The current reading makes it seem like Amnesty International is giving a description of a broader practice of "Taharrush jamai" (a term that they don't even use), rather than reporting a specific set of attacks at a specific place and time. We can use them as examples, yes, but we need to make it clear that they are only examples, and that things like "the attacks last from a few minutes to over an hour" or "the men are usually in their 20s and 30s" or the entire paragraph about being separated from the crowd are directly paraphrasing specific incidents rather than making broad statements about the nature of sexual assault in Egypt (or sexual assault as it falls under "Taharrush jamai", whatever that covers.) Again, read the wording in that section, then search over its source and look at the context where it appears -- it doesn't support the way we're using it. If we want to make broader statements about sexual harassment, we need to rely on broader sources, and make it clear exactly what their scope is. --Aquillion (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This isn't about sexual harassment. This is an article about a particular kind of sexual assault: mass sexual assault by a crowd. Outside wartime, the only modern examples I can find are in Egypt. All the women describe very similar kinds of attacks. Most of the sources discuss the attacks that occur in Tahrir Square or nearby, but the sources make clear that these attacks are reported elsewhere too in Egypt. You seem to be arguing that the Tahrir Square attacks might be different in some way. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The use of the term is broad. Among women's rights activists that use it include sexual harassment in any form. Older, more conservative generations won't use the term to describe what happens to women that aren't at least wearing a Hijab, including assault. That's just in Egypt and there are other regions where the term is also regionally distinct. The concept is similar to western discussions but it can't escape tradition, religion and language. But you are correct that I think in Egypt, this term always applies to the type of attack you described even if there are boundary disagreements. --DHeyward (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not arguing that the Tahrir Square assaults are necessarily different, just that we can't take a literal description taken from collected interviews about those specific assaults and present it without the qualifier that this is just an example taken from this specific thing -- if we want to use the Tahrir Square assaults as an example of typical mass sexual assaults, we need a source saying that they're typical, and we need to specifically say in the article "here are descriptions of some specific Tahrir Square assaults from this time period, which are typical examples..." The old version just says "these attacks" as if it's giving a general description of mass sexual assault by a crowd, and then gives a bunch of stats and numbers and descriptions of how it goes down; but it didn't make it clear that those were just an example -- it literally reads as if it is saying "this is how mass sexual assault always happens", which isn't what the sources that were being paraphrased there say at all. --Aquillion (talk) 05:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

There appears to be confusion with regards to coordination. There is both the coordination of the group (politically) and then the coordination of the group (to commit the act). There is no question based on the sources that the group coordinates to harass. It also happens that some of the harassment was political in nature.

Otherwise I agree with Aquillion as it revolves around similar issues I had with the article which is that it is trying to be very general, yet almost all the sources refer to specific documented instances. Whereas the "widespread" claims are rather more generic. Koncorde (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if this source has been presented [1] --DHeyward (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it's in the article. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, just a quick question. I see that this article does not have a edit function, and thats okay if it is a controversial topic. However i do not see the keylock symbol on the page, is this something new or has wiki changed its policies? thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.197.124.253 (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Im going to wager that something stopped you from seeing the lock, it has been visible here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BCA4:B660:ED6F:BE6:4F2A:F103 (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This article has been pretty eye-opening with regards to how easy it is for dedicated groups to capture Wikipedia and use it to push an agenda. It is frankly baffling that a word which literally just means "collective sexual harassment" has been Otherized and made to seem like a rampant phenomenon exclusive to Arab/Islamic culture, somehow different from when the 'civilized' world does it. By refusing to translate it and opting to transliterate instead it is elevated to a reified, static concept exclusive to the Arab Other. It is akin to transliterating the Spanish word for "gang-rape" and turning it into a Wikipedia article to make it seem an alien phenomenon, exclusive to the Hispanic world, somehow 'different' and far removed from our normal conception of gang rape, which occurs everywhere in the world. All of which of course serves certain groups. This article is fundamentally political; fundamentally racist.

The fact that this article only appeared in the post-Cologne environment; the severe dearth of any academic research on this issue; and the fact that no counterpart in the Arabic WIkipedia exists is pretty damning. If anything at least I now realize how political an act Wikipedia editing can be; it is no longer the pure collectivist human endeavour I thought it was. Thanks for reading.

209.226.10.166 (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Do the Spanish do "gang-rape" in a way fairly unique to them? If so, then yes we should have an article under the Spanish word for "gang-rape" discussing this unique aspect of their rape culture. In most Western cultures however, gang rapes are almost exclusively spontaneous and covert crimes of opportunity, occurring out of public view and usually involving intoxication. Almost never in the West have crowds gathered in public squares with the explicit and premeditated intent to commit mass sexual assaults--and never in the hundreds or thousands--which is precisely what Taharrush jamai is and why we have a separate article for it. Even the most similar occurrences in the West (like the Woodstock '99 assaults or the Puerto Rican Day ethnically-driven mob assault) have been different from Taharrush jamai in that they've either been completely spontaneous, and/or perpetrated by single-digit numbers of attackers--and have been very very rare. Taharrush jamai, however, was practiced as a premeditated act (often with a script for what to say to victims) by large crowds sometimes numbering hundreds, in dozens of major incidents in many cities all over Europe in just one night. That is a unique phenomenon which needs a unique name and its own article under that name. 96.241.136.57 (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Giving a FN for these claims: FAZ.net (german) (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung): "Angesichts der Karriere jedoch, die der Begriff „taharrush gamea“ jetzt in Deutschland macht, sind ägyptische Frauenrechtlerinnen irritiert: Aus einer simplen Vokabel für sexuelle Massenübergriffe ist ein scheinbar genuin arabisches Kulturphänomen mit eigenem Wikipedia-Eintrag geworden. „Taharrush“ bedeutet Belästigung, „gamea“ gemeinschaftlich. „Man kann die sexuellen Angriffe auf dem Tahrir-Platz aus vielerlei Gründen nicht mit den Ereignissen von Silvester in Köln vergleichen“, schrieb die Aktivistin Mariam Kirollos auf ihrer Facebook-Seite. Des Klischees vom triebhaften Orientalen sei sie wirklich überdrüssig."

Translated: "Regarding the career of the term "taharrush gamea" now in Germany, egytian feminists are confused: A simple vocable has apparantly become a genuine arabic culture phenomenon with its own WP entry. Taharrush means harassment, gamea collaborative. >>You can't compare the sexual attacks on the Tahrir place with the incidents in Cologne out of several reasons<<, the activist Mariam Kirollos wrote on her Facebook page. She is really sick of the cliché of the libidinal (or compulsive?) orientalic."

-- 77.64.190.242 (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"This article is fundamentally political", yes, because violence always is political. "This article is ... fundamentally racist", I don`t agree. The article is well done, and offers important information. Nobody is talking racist, nobody says: 'The men of this or that ethnic group are born rapists and will always be bad to women.' 193.175.48.228 (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

We are facing with a political struggle between two anti-racisms. Some people want to rape any women, not only women from their own race (supposing that races even exist); some people want to jail/hang/whatever any rapist, not only rapists from their own race (supposing that races even exist). It's a conflict, indeed. But racism isn't involved. By the way, I don't see how being against rape could be racist: there are women of all races (supposing that races even exist). Except if you don't include women... Do you, 209.226.10.166 ? Pldx1 (talk) 12:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I 100% agree. This article is a disgrace for Wikipedia. Imagine if the Arabic Wikipedia had an article called "school shootings" (not translated but using the English expression), suggesting that this is somehow a phenomenon exclusive to the English-speaking world. And imagine on top of that if that article was created right after a Canadian committed a school shooting in Cairo. There has been and there is sexual harassment or collective sexual harassment everywhere around the world, and yes it is more prevalent in some places than it is in others (but the fact that mass shootings are objectively more prevalent in the US than elsewhere still would not justify the creation of an article using the foreign, in this case, English-language term, in the Arabic Wikipedia). But using a foreign term from a foreign language first suggests that there is a distinction between "taharrush jamai" and collective sexual harassment (which there isn't, even if the article pathetically tries to portray the modus operandi of this crime as somehow "original", "special", or "new"), and second as the user above already wrote, it suggests that it is somehow exclusive to the Arab world (which again, it isn't). Why is there no article called सामूहिक यौन उत्पीड़न or harcèlement sexuel collectif in the English Wikipedia? There are plenty of documented cases of group sexual violence in India or in France! Or while we're at it, why don't we start creating an article called "Steuerhinterziehung" (tax evasion in German) in the English-language Wikipedia? Because there is plenty of tax evasion in Switzerland! And we don't have a word in English for "Steuerhinterziehung"! Seriously, this article is disgusting, and it's sad to see what Wikipedia has become. 41.130.9.98 (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is well done and reasonably objective, it is inherently political because of the subject it deals with. This article should be mainly about the phonomenon in Egypt (as it already is), nowhere in the article is it sugested that collective harrassment only happens in islamic or Egyptian culture, however the use of agents provocateurs in Egypt, and the sheer scale of it certainly warrants the existence of this article. The part titled Comparison with incidents in Europe, should also be a part of the article as many media and political entities have made such comparisons. That being said I fully support the creation of a seperate article concerned with collective harrassment or mass sexual assault in far broader terms to include taharrush, eve teasing and other cases worldwide of collective harrasment.SKG1110 (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of politics what is this tripe doing in here?

"Nehad Abu Komsan, head of the Egyptian Center for Women's Rights, argues that sexual harassment is a symptom of the country's political and economic oppression, and that men are "lashing out at those next down the line in the patriarchy."[10]:126 Hussein el Shafie of OpAntiSH has argued that the attacks are like a "tear-gas bomb" to get women off the streets – not sexual but stemming from a sense of entitlement.[21]:3:25 According to a 2013 paper by Nazra for Feminist Studies..."

this has no place on wikipedia. what nonsense.120.148.162.145 (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is exclusive, have you seen anything like that happen in any other culture?193.198.70.211 (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm leaving this for any admin willing to deal with it. Several IPs or new/little-used accounts have arrived since 1 February to add Muslims or Arabs to the first sentence. It may be the same person; more likely it's several people from the same discussion board. The first edit, which added "Muslim," was by 82.46.35.158. [2]

Reverts: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]

Lectonar semi-protected at 10:16, 5 February.

Reverting continued (from the second diff they're adding Arab instead of Muslim): [17][18][19][20]

• Accounts: SRM 73, Triforcefff, Rezz22, Ekiph, LordCazicThule, Thesqueegeeman

The IPs gelocate to the UK, Netherlands, United States, Ireland, Canada and Finland. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the men participating in the Arabic practice of Taharrush jamai in Cairo and Cologne are not Arabic? As I understand it, all reported instances of this practice were perpetuated by men of Arab appearance and descent. If not, why is there an entire article devoted to the literal Arabic translation of "collective harassment" on English Wikipedia? If you're going to go out of your way to disassociate the practice from a race on the basis that any men could instigate this type of harassment, why keep the name? 2605:6001:E2E1:8800:49BA:780D:85E:8BB6 (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Taharrush jamai is merely the Arabic for collective harassment. It is not specific to any one region or culture, as we have seen such collective harassment resulting in sexual assault and rape in many events in the US and other events in Europe, committed by non-Arabs. I do agree this page should not even exist with this title. Taharrush jamai should merely be a mention on the English page on "Mass Sexual Assault in Egypt" as to what it is called in Arabic, next to collective harassment in English Sufficientiae (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It appears to be a term of Arabic origin with a more specific meaning than "collective harassment" it has a very particular modus operandi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.162.145 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this an example of "Taharrush jamai"? Is this an example of "Taharrush jamai"? Is this an example of "Taharrush jamai"? If those are not examples of "Taharrush jamai" committed by non-Muslims and non-Arabs, then what constitutes "Taharrush jamai" according to you? Sufficientiae (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Doxxing: It's ok when we do it! No bad tactics, only bad targets! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:4E40:E380:4889:7BC5:BDDE:7805 (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You do know anyone can click on the "History" page of an article on Wikipedia and see the IPs themselves, right? Sufficientiae (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Why on earth would you think it's okay to make a list of users who added a detail to an article? Are you _trying_ to get people doxxed? This is unacceptable behaviour for an admin. I don't feel safe on Wikipedia with admins like you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaconMaster2 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You do know anyone can click on the "History" page of an article on Wikipedia and see the IPs themselves, right? Sufficientiae (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Oliv0, can you supply a link to the source you added here? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: done. In Seattle Mardi Gras riot it came from, the history of the cite news and of the description was rather chaotic [21] [22] [23], but finally it does not fit too bad. Oliv0 (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Oliv0: I agree, and thanks for the link. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be some serious [POV pushing] here. The page has been sanitised of any associations of this phenomenon with Islam. This unique type of highly organized group sexual assault was developed by and is practised by members a particular ideology. To remove this fact is dishonest.

It is clear from the talk section, a small group of people are attempting to create a false reality to support their point of view and protect a particular religion from potential criticisms. There is no precedence for allowing this, other articles about sexual assaults with relation to religion exist on Wiki with no sanitation (see the various [Priest Scandal] articles & even the regular Child sexual abuse entry). Wiki is meant to be independent and unbiased.

In addition to continued edit wars, and a refusal to cooperate despite third-party suggestions to do so, this small group is now attempting to intimidate contributors by doxxing any who mention Islam or Middle-East/North Africa in the article. That is not acceptable behaviour at all. I fear that formal Mediation may be needed on this page if those POV pushing do not cease their activities. RemiWasHere (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• If you have evidence that "Taharrush jamai" is unique and specific to Islam, if you have sources showing that it stems from Islamic teaching, please share it with us. Morever, Is this an example of "Taharrush jamai"? Is this an example of "Taharrush jamai"? Is this an example of "Taharrush jamai"? If those are not examples of "Taharrush jamai" committed by non-Muslims and non-Arabs, then what constitutes "Taharrush jamai" according to you? Sufficientiae (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

RemiWasHere, no one has been doxxed, and no one is trying to cover anything up. The point is a very simple one, namely that taharrush jamai is just the Arabic phrase for mass sexual harassment. There isn't a special term for "mass sexual harassment by Arabs or Muslims." They don't call it something else when non-Arabs or non-Muslims do it. That's what the recent edits were implying.

In addition, there are no sources showing that mass sexual assault is an Arab or Islamic practice. It is common in Egypt. There are particular reasons for that, partly to do with endemic sexism, partly that women are fighting the sexism, and partly because of other political upheaval. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

→ Sufficientiae, I refer you to one of the sources used in the article ( Magda, 2013) which describes the phenomenon being labelled Taharrush, as a political tactic employing organised sexual torture by a group of men. The goal is to 'break the will' of their political opponents (Magda,2013) Additional source. Using rape as a weapon of war is found all over the world, what differentiates 'Taharrush' is the use of mass sexual assault by gangs of civilians and or agents of the state (e.g. police) publicly to humiliate political & religious dissenters; it is justified by a narrow puritanical interpretation of Islam.

"Perpetrators act from a belief that they are safe from accountability; that society itself will blame the victim and let the perpetrator free, that the girl and her family will live in shame and prefer silence." [[24]]

The Amnesty International source used in the article also associates hostility toward independent women to "Islamist political parties and movements in the name of religion"4.

The following Quranic verse (33:33) was used in support of the sexual assaults on the women in Tahrir Square:

“And abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance.”[[25]]″

This is not to imply that the practice is approved of by the average Muslim any more than the average Catholic approves of Child sexual abuse. Muslim activists are trying hard stop the practice External link. Those who condone it and participate in it however, are using Islamic views of how women should dress and behave to justify it. Therefore, the intentional removal of any and all associations with Islam is, as I stated, dishonest.

Regarding your links, no, I would not consider them examples of what people mean when they refer to Taharrush. Those incidences lack ideological motivation, as well as the belief that they'll be free from punishment for the attack.

Similarly, as I'd not consider the political & religiously motivated sexual torture by groups of civilian and police in Tunisia to be considered Taharrush, as the cases I'm aware of lack the characteristic public and mob aspects that has become associated with Taharrush.

The lack of a known ideological motivation is also why the mass sexual assaults occurring in Europe are only speculated as being an example of Taharrush. They match the organised coordinated mob attacks seen in Tahrir Square, taking place in public and using the crowd to mask the attack, but the motivation is unclear. Although with people like Salafist Sami Abu-Yusuf, an Imam in Cologne, saying things like:

″One of the reasons [why migrants raped the girls] was how they were dressed. If a woman goes out half naked, uses perfume, then such things happen, and man, a woman ... It's like a splash of oil into the fire .... "External Page fuels speculation. RemiWasThere (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

→ SlimVirgin, When people are searching for Taharrush on Wiki they are not generally searching for how to say harassment in Arabic. If that was the case this article wouldn't exist. The previous request for deletion was made for that very reason and that request was denied. People are searching for a particular phenomenon that has been given the label Taharrush.

That phenomenon, as shown by the sources already used in the article, has been associated with Islam. So, I re-state, removal of this association is dishonest and biases the article. It is deliberate PoV pushing, and it is discriminatory as no other religions are given that preferential treatment (nor should they). The edit warring must stop. The reasons stated during the vote on why the article exists should be respected. Otherwise there is no choice but to elevate the matter further. RemiWasThere (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Taharrush jamai is just the Arabic for "collective harassment." We have an article on Table (furniture), but we don't have a special article on Tisch just because Germans have tables too.

Sometimes, when a cultural practice is very specific, we do host it under the foreign title. For example, we might create an article on Kaffee und Kuchen, which is the German practice of having coffee and cake on Sunday afternoons, and we might argue that we should host it under that title because it is so distinctive.

There are indeed a lot of mass sexual assaults in Egypt, which is why this article is almost entirely about Egypt. But (a) the Egyptians don't have a special word for it; they call it several things. And (b) there is no evidence at all that it's an Arab or Islamic practice, although clearly certain views of women in Islam provide the background. Nevertheless, Egypt ≠ the Arab world or Islam.

If you want to argue otherwise, the onus is on you to produce high-quality sources that predate the confusion of January 2016, or sources that take the confusion into account but argue the case anyway. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@RemiWasHere, there is no Quranic verse used that was used as a justification by any of the attackers in Tahrir. That was a comment left on an article. None of the actual recollections given by the victims mention any religious justification as far as I can see. And if the Salafist Imam is responsible, so are the numerous priests who have blamed sexual assaults on women for how they are dressed. Sufficientiae (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The phenomenon Taharrush being a colloquial term for a particular type of sexual abuse has already been supported by the sources already in use in the article. Further, the name change of the article to “Taharrush Jamai” is completley unsupported, the source used to justify this term and change (Fernandez, 2015) doesn't use that term at all, on the contrary Fernandez states: “the most commonly used term is al-taharrush al-ginsy or taharrush” and then proceeds to refer to the phenomenon as “Taharrush” for the majority of the paper.

On the Egyptian Newsite Ahram, Kirollos discusses Taharrush in 2013, explaining that although "Group sexual assaults in public are not a recent phenomenon in Egypt." the name for it is, "The word taharrush (harassment) is a relatively new term in the daily lexicon."

It is not simply Arabic for “harassment” it is used to refer to a particular phenomenon. The only evidence used to justify this argument and name change is from a Huffington Post article—hardly a “high quality source” and certainly not one that outweighs thousands of others. Taharrush and Taharrush Gamea are the most popular terms used, as demonstrated by Google results (Approximately 400k & 300k respectively compared to less than 4k for Jamai, as has already been stated on this Talk page by another contributor). It is the terms used by officials such as German Federal Criminal Police/BKA who states that:

“taharrush gamea” (community sexual harassment) is a phenomenon from "some Arab countries" involving "organised purposeful sexual harassment of women in the public sphere". "The assaults range from sexual harassment to rape", emphasizes the BKA. a similar phenomenon in Germany have not known."

As well as Mainstream Media all over the world for example

• United Kingdom BBC; Daily Mail
• Finland
• Germany
• Poland
• India

"The game is predominantly from Egypt but is also common in other Arab nations"

• Pakistan

“On Twitter, some have taken to describing this as a Muslim tradition, which isn’t true, as Islam doesn’t condone such a thing. But there is no denying that it is taking place at the hands of those of Muslim origin.”

• Russia
• Romania
• Australia

“Strategic public shaming.”

“A middle eastern and North African phenomenon”

• France
• And so on...

I could spend hours listing sources that support Taharrush (and Taharrush Gamea) being a colloquial term for a particular type of sexual abuse, the majority of which relate it to either the Middle East and North African countries or Islam. I understand one may be fan of the Huffington Post, it can be an amusing site, but that site hardly outweighs multitudes of other news sources from across the world.

That said, the Huffpost opinion piece is the only supporting source for the view being wrongfully forced upon this entry—including supporting the entry's name being changed to a rarer and incorrect term. The onus to provide high-quality sources—that actually support what they're being used to support rests on everyone.

That responsibility is not being met by the Entry's current state. In addition to the Fernandez paper not supporting the name change despite being used as the sole source to support it, the secondary supporting source used for the 'misunderstanding/just a word' argument, The BBC article, also makes no mention of that viewpoint. The BBC article doesn't use the term Taharrush Jamai, nor does it state it is a mistranslation, nor does it state that it is just an innocent word being misused. On the contrary, the BBC uses the terms "taharrush gamea" and Taharrush only and refers to it as a “modus operandi”--a particular method.

This misuse of source material to push a particular agenda is rampant in the entry. It needs to be reviewed and opened up for revisions as it is currently locked to all but select contributors. Furthermore, the name needs to be reverted to the original Taharrush Gamea. The current one is obscure and inaccurate, as demonstrated.

Taharrush is not nor should it be treated as generic Mass Sexual Assault. There already exists a category on Wikipedia for Mass Sexual Assaults. Taharrush is its own unique thing, a fact supported by countless sources, a small selection of which are found in both the links here and in the entry. The entire argument against this rests on one provided source, the Huff Post opinion article. Continued attempts to restrict the entry to purely Egypt or broaden to to all Mass Sexual Assaults is an attempt to distort reality by denying the existence of a well documented phenomenon.

Taharrush originates in and occurs most frequently in Egypt, but is not limited to Egypt. The tactic has also been found to be used in other Middle Eastern and North African countries as well as by Muslims outside of that region. As stated in the provided sources above.

The piece in the Tribune (Pakistan) which reiterated what I stated in my previous responses:

“On Twitter, some have taken to describing this as a Muslim tradition, which isn’t true, as Islam doesn’t condone such a thing. But there is no denying that it is taking place at the hands of those of Muslim origin.”

Also refers to the Assault of Saira Khan ( HuffPost (UK) | Daily Mail (UK) | Tribune (Pakistan) ) as being a case of Taharrush Gamea, as well as other incidences occurring in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In edition to those incidences, and those on NYEs in Germany (Cologne, Berlin, Hamburg, Beilefed, Frankfurt, Düsseldorf, stuttgar, ), Austria (Vienna and Salzburg), and Switzerland, Sweden, and Finland. 1 2 3 Its been suggested a mass sexual assault occurring during a Swedish concert also meets the criteria of Taharrush.

In conclusion,

1. Name needs to be restored to the proper term for the phenomenon: either Taharrush or Taharrush Gamea as there is plenty of support for that and no support for the current obscure term.
2. The article and its sources need to be reviewed. Currently sources are being used to support a particular points of view, however, when those sources are read they do not support that point of view—in fact they often invalidate it.
3. Allow mention that this phenomenon has been widely associated with a particular region and ideology—keeping in mind that association is not causation nor is any implying such.
4. Remove the general incidences (Woodstock, Vietnam, Puerto Rican Parade, etc) that have been added but are not examples of Taharrush, nor do they have any supporting sources referring to them as possible examples of Taharrush.
5. Remove the semi-protected status as it is causing the entry to be invalidated by a select few who seemingly don't want it to exist.

RemiWasThere (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Remi, for clarity, it would help if you could list here the sources you're citing that predate January 2016 and that aren't already in the article. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The back and forth about the new sections isn't helpful. The scope of the article is clearly Egypt. If people want to create Mass sexual assault in general, please find reliable sources, including for a history section and a war section. It looks a bit silly to suggest that we can only find half a dozen examples.

Also, examples do not have to mention taharrush jamai or any variation thereof. Many of the sources for Egypt don't mention it; in fact, probably most don't. This article isn't about a term, Arabic or otherwise. If you want to create an article about the term, it would mirror the German approach; see their de:Taharrush gamea, where they explain how the term came to be spread. This isn't that kind of article. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be better to have the "Outside Egypt" section named back to "Events with similar collective harassment" like it used to be. That way events with a similar style of harassment taking place during large events or gatherings can be mentioned in the article itself without going into the larger subject of war time rape for example. Sufficientiae (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

If not, that seems like Synthesis. Did anyone call the Puerto Rican Day attack Taharrush jamai? Tex249 (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

No, they weren't. Thus are not appropriate and should be removed. RemiWasThere (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, no one has ever called them that. I'll remove. Tex249 (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Attacks don't have to be called taharrush jamai or variants. Several attacks in Egypt weren't called that. As several people have explained, this is just the Arabic translation of "collective harassment". Egyptian writers might use that term, or might use some other term. Obviously non-Arab speakers have no reason to use it when describing mass sexual assault elsewhere. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

They certainly do. Note the title of this article, which has survived a deletion discussion. Unless the attacks are linked to Taharrush by the sources themselves they do not belong here. It's not within our discretion to make connections the sources do not. I support Tex's removal.

If the article were moved to a more generic "mass sexual assault", they become relevant. But that discussion is ongoing. Including them before the discussion concludes is premature. Using their inclusion to justify the move is gratuitous. D.Creish (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The men in Cologne (31 december 2015) were of Moroccon or Algerian origin; the very young men, the boys in Sweden (festival We Are Sthlm) came from Afghanistan. Not the Muslim, the Islam is the problem. Male sexual violence against women is Islamic. It is shariah-compliant education, that leads to taharrush jamai, male (mass) group violence against women in public spaces. The boys or men are not of Japanese, Chinese, Russian, Mexican or Xhosa origin, but have been brought up according to the norms of traditional Islam (Shariah), for example in Afghanistan and now in Sweden: "In 2014 and 2015, 38 incidents of sexual harassment at We Are Sthlm were reported to the police by female visitors at the festival, most of whom were under 15 years of age". Or see here, taharrush jamai in Tunisia: "Die taharrush gamea in Tunis während des sogenannten Arabischen Frühlings fand bei uns wenig Beachtung." http://www.aliceschwarzer.de/artikel/war-die-silvester-terrornacht-organisiert-331391 - Whether in Tunis, Cairo, Kabul, or Dhaka, this group violence is a (by)product of a fundamentalist (maybe just a literalist) islamic gender view respectively a sharia-based upbringing - colliding with our universal human rights resp. cultural modernity. 91.61.217.203 (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Some hangings are lynchings. Not all hangings are lynchings. How do we decide the difference? Based on what our sources say.

Some sexual assaults are TJ. Not all sexual assaults are TJ. How do we decide the difference? Based on what our sources say. Tex249 (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this a general agreement that we should remove all examples that lack a source specifically using the term taharrush jamai? I removed some other recent additions that don't use the term, but the entire "Description" paragraph seems to lack sources tying it to the term, too, so we need to either source it to the term or remove it if we're going to base the article exclusively around the term's usage. I think that more sweeping changes might need to wait until the move request is resolved (since the question seems to be "is this article about mass sexual assault, or is it about the usage of the term 'taharrush jamai'), but obviously if we decide to base the article on the term, we're going to have to scour out everything that isn't directly connected to it, which includes almost everything outside of the "terminology" and "europe" sections (and the Europe section would have to be rewritten to focus exclusively on the police report which coined the term and the ensuing media controversy.) I think it does have to be one or the other, though; you can't remove the US and Vietnam examples because they don't use the term, then leave in the Sweden, Pakistan, India, or Tahrir Square examples, since the term doesn't seem to be used in the sources we have for those, either. --Aquillion (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

That's definitely how I view things. I assume that the Swedish/Tahrir examples have been referred to as TJ by a source, but if they have not then I don't think that they should be included. Tex249 (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Generally agreed but more specifically I said above: Unless the attacks are linked to Taharrush by the sources themselves they do not belong here. The link can be direct by classifying them as Taharrush or indirect (as in the sources we have for the Sweden attacks, which I'll restore) by linking them to incidents which other sources classify as Taharrush. Some connection must be made by the sources. This was not the case for India, Pakistan, US or Vietnam as far as I can tell but I'll review the sources. As well I support postponing drastic changes until the RFC close. D.Creish (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

All current disagreements seem to stem from the still unsettled choice described by Aquillion above and SlimVirgin below : is this

• an article about the usage of the term "Taharrush gamea", like the German interwiki de:Taharrush gamea describing how it spread in Western media from the German police report to other cases,
• or an article about the modus operandi "Taharrush gamea", defined by the German police and by later news reports as women sexually assaulted by circles of men in a crowd that does not intervene (with a section about the various opinions on whether it is due to an Arabic or fundamentalist Islamic background or to too high a proportion of males among asylum seekers, or whether drunk or sexually frustrated crowds have always done such things, etc.) ?

So let this choice be made first, and then work can be done. Oliv0 (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I think this article should be about women being sexually assaulted by crowds. There is enough evidence to suggest this is not something unique or a distinct phenomenon to certain regions of the world, it can be found all over. Hence the article should be renamed to the English translation of the term or changed to Mass Sexual Harassment/Assault with a section on what it is called in Arabic. If this is merely to be an article on the Arabic term for such harassment, a lot of the page will have to go as the sources do not specifically mention Taharrush Jamai Sufficientiae (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sufficientiae, be careful not to confuse isolated episodes of sexual assault within a crowd as "mass sexual assault". When women are assaulted on the London Underground (a fairly regular occurrence), that isn't mass sexual assault; that's one man taking advantage of a crowded situation.

Mass sexual assault is when the crowd itself turns on a woman, or a significant portion of it does, usually accompanied by bystanders not helping enough, not helping at all, or taking part. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

This is indeed another aspect which distinguishes Taharrush jamai from other forms of group sexual assault--it's a group sexual assault within a crowd which is complicit, and helps to hide the sexual assault by massing around it and/or helping to move the victim and attackers within the crowd. The crowd also often amorphously takes part, with crowd members joining the group of attackers to grope etc., and then moving back out into the larger crowd. This is very clear from most of the videos of the phenomenon, and distinguishes it from any form of sexual assault common in the West.96.241.136.57 (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Are there any parts I added to the article that fall outside of the definition? Sufficientiae (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The new sections you added need sources, and some of them wander into areas that aren't connected to mass sexual assault. I'd want to see how the sources describe those incidents. Don't rely on the Wikipedia articles, because they may not have described them properly. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I see. Would you consider the following sources to be appropriate to add to the article:

• The Guardian: NY police 'ignored' park sex attacks
• Slate: The Central Park Rampage

• SeattlePI: Looking back: Mardi Gras riots of 2001

• Washington Post: Police Investigate Reports of Rapes at Woodstock
• Huffington Post: Woodstock '99: Riots, Rapes and the Razing of the Alt-Revolution
• New York Times: 4 Rapes Reported At Woodstock, State Police Say
• CNN: Police investigate alleged rapes at Woodstock '99
• Salon: Woodstock 99: Three days of peace, love and rape

Also, I think if a large enough part of the crowd actively becomes hostile and people start to get assaulted, that would fall under such harassment, no? I'm new to editing on Wikipedia, so please bear with me Sufficientiae (talk) 05:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there's no cut-off point, so it's a matter of judgment: how many women were assaulted, how many men were involved, how long it lasted, and so on. The best thing is to find sources that use "mass sexual assault" or similar terms: crowd sexual assault, mob sexual assault, and so on. I'll look at the sources when I have time. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

→ Please be mindful that this entry is for the phenomenon Tahrrush and not generic Mass Sexual Assault Mass sexual assault, which has its own category already. None of these links are appropriate. Nor are the Woodstock 1999, Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks and Seattle Mardi Gras riot, an Vietnam incidences listed. They should be removed.RemiWasThere (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@RemiWasThere: The subject of the article is perfectly well defined in its first sentence: "the sexual assault of women in public by large groups of men" is what taharrush gamea/jamai refers to in English, so all cases of mass sexual assault in a crowd belong here. Oliv0 (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

If I'm following correctly, the sequence of events is as follows: (1) Incidents not explicitly connected to Taharrush are added. (2) These additions are used to argue the article is not about Taharrush. That doesn't make sense.

I see no mention of "Taharrush" in the sources for United_States or Vietnam. Without an explicit connection they must be removed - including them would be synthesis. RemiWasThere and DHeyward have explained quite clearly and with sources why this is a distinct phenomenon.

I'm reading the sources in #Final_reply_before_dispute_resolution_is_sought now which appear to settle the naming specifics, e.g. Gamea vs Jamai. Great research Remi, thanks. D.Creish (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

They have not actually explained quite clearly why this is a distinct phenomenon. The responses to their assertions bear that out. Sufficientiae (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, a minor thing, but "circle of hell" is what women in Egypt have called it. See, e.g. Guardian: "We call it the circle of hell," said [Soraya] Bahgat who herself narrowly escaped assault this week." Bahgat is a women's rights advocate and co-founder of Tahrir Bodyguard, one of the groups that rescues women. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• Sarah, the sources cited in that footnote don't support it. If you want to reinstate the phrasing (I saw something about the same topic in Archive 1, I think), that's fine--but you can't use a source that says "Activists" and then have the article say "Women in Egypt". Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• We had to add quotes to the footnote because people were trying to remove the phrase, but in fact there are lots of sources, so probably the best thing is to remove that quote in case it gives the wrong impression.

The activists Amnesty refers to are women's groups in Egypt and the groups that try to rescue the women from the attacks; see "Circles of Hell: Domestic, Public and State Violence Against Women in Egypt", Amnesty International, January 2015. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Drmies: And I see you have closed the wretched RM. Thank you! SarahSV ^(talk) 04:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe that it should be renamed in English to Sexual Jihad. Canadian-niceguy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.129.124 (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

This does not make sense. Egyptians would not want to be "blamed" for things happening outside their country, where the perpetrators are not even of Egyptian descent. A much better solution than this is required. The first question to be asked is whether this is counted as unwanted/criminal activity in every country - if yes, it becomes a question of crime and/or degrees of thuggish behaviour that may or may not be prevalent in a country, if not, it would qualify as culture. The second question is whether any scholarly sources has covered the alleged cultural phenomena or cultural differences in an honest manner - newspapers sometimes lack the accuracy required to be useful on sensitive issues, the third question is how relevant information can be conveyed by an encyclopedia. Narssarssuaq (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone pretend that Taharrush only happens in Egypt?

This inaccuracy is not just wrong, it is morally wrong, and an insult to other victims of Taharrush. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.88.239 (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is a New York Times story about such attacks outside of Egypt: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/10/world/europe/cologne-police-detain-2-suspects-in-new-years-eve-attacks.html?_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.88.239 (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The general article about mass sexual assault/taharrush is now here: Mass sexual assault. Oliv0 (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

A series of assaults in European cities are not connected by being situated in Egypt, obviously, but by the use of the term Taharrush jamai, that's why the section has been moved there. --89.204.154.11 (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Taharrush jamai redirects here, do you mean moving the section "Comparisons to attacks outside Egypt" to Mass sexual assault? Mass sexual assault could be developed, but the debate about the European use of the Egyptian phrase "taharrush gamea" seems to be useful here. Oliv0 (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Why was the fact that Taharrush is started by muslim men scrubbed from the page? there have been zero cases of non-muslim men taking part in this horrific act, yet some unseen entity is removing vital information in the name of being politically correct. Taharrush is performed by men of muslim religion and that fact should not be hidden from the people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camdoodlebop (talk • contribs) 03:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Even the involvement of a Wikipedia admin in terrorism and the lockerbie bombing didn't get this level of overt corruption and systemic censorship. I openly challenge those involved in this to excuse themselves from editing Wikipedia. You are blinded by your angenda, and have ceased to contribute to the project but hinder it. This is the most disgusting example of corruption I have ever seen and I have been here since Wikipedia's first months of operation. Shame on you, every single one of you who keeps censoring, deleting, and reverting this page and it's talk page.

I have NEVER seen the arbitration committee openly threaten Wikipedians before. I have never seen a talk page kept intentionally censored to blank. This is a lot of firsts for me. What on earth are you doing? Stop and think. This is not what an encyclopedia is about. This is NOT what Wikipedia has ever been about. Wikipedia is about presenting FACTS and REALITY not fiction and politics. It's about providing a politically neutral view that records history--for the first time in history--without the corrupting elements of emotional contamination from one's politics, religion, or other agendas.

And yet here we are. With the worst example I have ever seen of suppression of the mass sexual violence that women have to face, taharrush gamea has been 'disappeared' off of Wikipedia and melded into this one heavily censored and controlled article. The moral and ethical horror of that very act is mind numbing. The systemic mass sexual assault and rape of tens of thousands of women across the globe is an acceptable loss for your political agenda? If you have taken part in this you are not a Wikipedian, you are not even a human being. The level of corruption requisite in this is appalling, and I ask you to stand down and relinquish editorial control to the Wikipedians who do not have a political agenda in this matter and who serve the purpose of truth and accurate encyclopedic notation of factual events. Agendabender (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mass sexual assault in Egypt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160113193756/http://gsrc-mena.org/kohl/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Reconceptualizing-Sexual-Harassment-in-Egypt.pdf to http://gsrc-mena.org/kohl/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Reconceptualizing-Sexual-Harassment-in-Egypt.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160320140359/http://egypt.unfpa.org/Images/Publication/2010_03/6eeeb05a-3040-42d2-9e1c-2bd2e1ac8cac.pdf to http://egypt.unfpa.org/Images/Publication/2010_03/6eeeb05a-3040-42d2-9e1c-2bd2e1ac8cac.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160113153727/http://www.madamasr.com/ar/node/2410 to http://www.madamasr.com/ar/node/2410

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)