Jump to content

Talk:2011 Egyptian revolution/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Images

One of two things is true about the images by Jonathan Rashad that appear in this article. Either the flickr page that lists these images as copyrighted is accurate and the user who uploaded them violated that copyright, or the user who uploaded them is Mr Rashad and released these files under CC-2.0 as stated in the file description. If the former is true these files must be removed and deleted. If the latter is true the copyright should be cropped out of the image. I will ask a commons admin and OTRS volunteer how we should proceed. nableezy - 19:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the problem. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Which problem and how? I still see a number of images that have a claim of copyright watermarked on them. nableezy - 20:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I have talked Jonathan Rashad on flicker and he has confirmed that he is Drumzo. The images are not copyrighted anymore. They are released under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Then we need to remove the watermarks from the images. nableezy - 21:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea how to do it. if you can and know how to do it, go ahead -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Done, though I think the flickr user should file something with OTRS. nableezy - 21:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting references not yet in the article

I'm listing here any general references (not breaking news) about the protests so that we can collect them and fill them in the article later.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Relating to internet crack down

  • Singel, Ryan (10 February 2011). "Report: Egypt Shut Down Net With Big Switch, Not Phone Calls". Wired. Retrieved 11 February 2011.
Added to Domestic_responses_to_the_2011_Egyptian_protests#Media_censorship_and_circumvention. The lower estimated cost of the shut-down to Egypt's telecom industry alone is $90M! kencf0618 (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Egypt's constitution

NASA

Added to International_reactions_to_the_2011_Egyptian_protests#Media_and_individuals. Hers shall doubtless be one name amongst thousands on a microchip or CD —they're not naming a rocketship the Sally Zahran (as some media have reported), but it's a nice tribute to the martyred young woman nonetheless. kencf0618 (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Mubarak bitter toward U.S. policy

Mubarak, Suleiman TV addresses in defiance of military

File:Egypt january 28 wounds scan.jpg

this file really doesnt further anyhing ont he page or illustrate mch. it seems itd be better on the x ray page. or human bones.Lihaas (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the image adds nothing to the article, if the point was to show an injured protestor, a non x-ray photo which actually shows injuries could be added. I'm going to remove the x-ray photo, Passionless -Talk 23:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The image is an x-ray of rubber bullet parts inside a protester body. It shows the weapons effect used by the police on the protesters -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to argue the point, but that is not rubber bullet pieces. That looks more like buck-shot from a shotgun. A rubber bullet is much larger, and it does encase metal. But the pieces that would enter the body would be a lot larger, and in irregular shapes. Those are all perfectly round, and I am led to believe from the same person. I am not going to argue that is adds/removes from the article, but I think at the very least the title under the picture needs to be changed.--Kranar drogin (talk) 08:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Military not neutral, has been kidnapping and torturing protesters

According to this report just released by the Guardian, the army has not been acting neutrally and, likely, has only been doing so in name. Instead, there seems to be a systematic campaign to discourage protesters from being involved, mostly through the application of torture. The Museum of Egyptian Antiquities seems to be a main base site for these tortures. SilverserenC 23:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Crucial reporting, but quite close to the events. How would you incorporate it to reflect the investigative/speculative nature, given that these things haven't been confirmed (no less prosecuted) yet. Are there any other major news org. reports along these lines? Ocaasi (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Here's some more sources on this topic.
Is that good enough? SilverserenC 03:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I still don't know what to make of Sify as a source, but WSJ in combination with the Guardian does it for me, as long as describe it as 'reports of' rather than as confirmed events. Seem ok? If so, I'll add it. But does it go to the Domestic Responses page? Or in one of the days? Ocaasi (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
A section in Domestic would probably be best. Make sure you mention three separate things. The information collected by the Guardian about this, the information released by Human Rights Watch, and the information related by a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. And, yeah, for now they are just reports. Nothing is confirmed. But, considering what happened with Mubarak's speech a couple of hours ago, I kinda feel like we might be seeing some more horrible things tomorrow. SilverserenC 05:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The very concept of a country's military being "neutral" is illogical. It suggests that the military is disobeying orders, and effectively supporting the protestors. The military was trying to stop the protests, but it was more restrained than the police had been. That isn't being neutral, that is being sensible. Having said that, the military has been party to the presecution of the people since 1952. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I would guess that the military told the President that it would have to refuse implementing his orders if he would order it to defend his personal position at all cost. As a result, the President did not order the military to defend his personal position at all cost, and there was no need for the military to disobey orders. Some part of the regime had to be sacrificed, and the President, as well as his entourage, did not want to be that part. Finally, however, they could not assert their will. So the military was not exactly neutral, but it did not side with the government either. (A state is more than it's current government.)  Cs32en Talk to me  02:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

EL

I added an external link to Al Jazeera's live reporting from Tahrir square. It's on their YouTube channel here: http://www.youtube.com/aljazeeraenglish?feature=ticker. It was removed, but I'm not sure why. Per BRD I'd normally discuss it first, but since this event is happening right now, I'm going to put it back. Maybe the recentism is part of the issue, but I don't see this as compromising our encyclopedic stance. For one, this entire article is recent, and secondly, external links have a much looser approach to content which is useful but not directly encyclopedic. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You added a link to the Chanel of Al Jazeera. It is interesting but will not be related to this article as soon as their main video is something else. We are not here to spread breaking news.
  • WP:ELNO 1: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article."
  • WP:INDISCRIMINATE 4: "News reports... breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." (WP:NOTNEWS
Although this is interesting stuff, it turns the page from an encyclopedic article to a mirror for news sites. If someone is on th internet ight now, they can see similar live coverage at cnn.com or multiple other places.Cptnono (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. It's is a unique resource right now.
  2. It's not being emphasized, just included
  3. IAR. The speech is live, and this is coming right from Tahrir square. I'm putting it back, but will be happy to debate the policy subtleties tomorrow when the event has passed. I will also then remove the link.
Some outside opinions would be welcome here, since I don't want to break 3RR as this continues, but I'm willing to make an exception for an event as momentous as this. Ocaasi (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
And I am willing to report you for edit warring. If you want people to see the video post it on a blog. This is not a blog.Cptnono (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
You may report. I have made efforts to explain myself, and think the situation warrants the link. Al Jazeera's live feed of the president's speech is not un-encyclopedic; it's critical. Keep some perspective on this event, please, and let the article fulfill its usefulness. External links are more flexible than article text and, if you see this as outside the norm, then perhaps you can see it as a reasonable time to stretch. Ocaasi (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Please stop saying "IAR". The pillar is "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." The link actually causes more maintenance since it will have to be removed. The usefulness of this article (or any other) is not to present breaking news in this manner. There are other places on the internet for that.Cptnono (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
This improves the encyclopedia, right now. This entire article has changed with the events and will continue to do so. I adjusted the link title to better reflect that it is to the Youtube Channel. Please stop making an issue of something that can be easily maintained when it is no longer useful. Ocaasi (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
No it does not. It is a video linked to in a manner specifically prohibited. Furthermore, your primary argument has been that this is an important development. It is not since nothing happened. He did not step down. So what is your freasoning for breaking our standards here now?Cptnono (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's less useful now, but as long as it's a live reporting feed from Tahrir square, it's still quite useful. My reasoning is that it is a link to live online reporting from the scene of one of the most important political events of the decade (if not longer), from the news organization best aligned to report on it, with an accurate title describing the link, and from which no harm will from updating or removing the link as the channel changes. Please do something other than enforce EL technicalities on article on which we've been working constantly for weeks. We'll update it, when it's no longer relevant. Ocaasi (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Please do not move the goalposts. The reasoning for including it was because it was reported that he was going to step down. He did not. This is just another news report now. Time to remove it and instead find a stable link to use in a proper citation.Cptnono (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Your recent comment at the edit warring board did not address reasoning provided for removal but instead that you cleaned up the wording. It also mentioned that important stuff is going on but there is no reason to believe that this is anymore important then the other days of protest. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so we can not assume this requires any prominence in the article not already provided in the expanding "February 10" section. So if that is all you have left to say I am removing it again. Enough is enough. Focus on improving the article instead of highlighting this story.Cptnono (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The link, as described in it's title, is to live reporting from Tahrir square. That is still going on, and the speech was an important part of that. However, the situation is not over, and the intensity of protesting is increased and is predicted to increase through tomorrow. As long as the YouTube channel is reporting live, the EL is appropriate for the article. You can call it edit warring if you want, but I was putting up a link that was relevant and timely so that while we discussed it, others could use it. I intend to put it back, since I have changed the link to reflect the Channel specifically, although I'll update the note if necessary. I don't consider it edit warring, since it is doing zero harm while it stays up and we can wait for other opinions to clarify the matter until then. I'm not interesting in turning this to a policy discussion as there is other work to be done on the article, but I do believe that this link is within the bounds for El at an article which describes a current event. Ocaasi (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Would some other editors comment on the appropriateness of the link discussed above? Ocaasi (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Although other comments would be appreciated, your mentioning of BRD (only an essay of course) shows that you understand that good form would be to remove it now. Furthermore, there is still not significant reason to not follow external link or news standards so I am removing it. If consensus says to keep it in (I don't see how it could, especially with the link more than likely not being useful upon completion of any consensus building process) then it can come back. Until then, kudos to those working on the Feb 10 section and hopefully the Feb 11 section will be interesting as well.Cptnono (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    That is my preference, however the timeliness of the link makes BRD a detriment to the quality of the article, IMO, so I used BRDBRDBRD instead. Ocaasi (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Ocaasi, but i'm not going to end up on your side for this one. What Cptnono was trying to say in his first response is that, external links need to be incredibly important and related to the subject and they need to have a durability that will last for the conceivable future. The Al Jazeera video link will not last because they will eventually end up moving onto other coverage that has nothing to do with the protests, likely in a few weeks after everything is over with. Because of that, the video link has little to no durability, since it will only represent the subject for an incredibly brief amount of time. EL's must represent the subject, as I said, for the conceivable, inevitable future. For this reason, that link is not appropriate.
However, let me temper that with something else. Linking to an important direct video hosted on the Al Jazeera Youtube page would, conceivably, not change its content and that would be something that could be subject to being an EL. Though, the video would have to be an integral coverage of the protests to be elevated to a high enough status to qualify as an EL. SilverserenC 21:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
No expectation of allegiance, Silver. I just disagree with both of you, I guess. I'm currently keeping an eye on the feed which, as long as it's live from Tahrir square, is incredibly important to the subject. As for durability, well, see the template at the top of the article. When the coverage changes, we can change the link. This article is in that nether-region between news and encyclopedia which as Mr. Wales has described is becoming part of Wikipedia's purview. I see this situation as within that and easily remedied as the event progresses. Ocaasi (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Oops, I did remove the wrong link. So the link is still in. Consensus (per the arguments provided and the very short vote count) is against you, so you should remove it Ocaasi.
In regards to Silver's second paragraph, an external link is a possibility. This is especially true if it is considered a unique resource for something of utmost importance. Alternatives would be to use such a video as a source (more acceptable) or using the rarely used {{External media}} template. Been working on WP:VIDEOLINK where more detail is available.Cptnono (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Al Jazeera is undoubtedly the best ENGLISH language coverage with the most people on the ground (SS says it has to be incredibly important, it is) as opposed to the likes of fox, cnn, bbc, who have analysts sitting in london/atlanta/wherever fox is. it IS pertinent. it does NOT have to permanent b/c a live event will be change amid reviews when finalised just the way it was for 2010 Copiapo mining accident.
furthermore: IAR can be used to overide by consensus per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS not limiting us on individual artcles.
although id still suggest a direct al jazeera link instead of via youtube.(Lihaas (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)).
No one is questioning AL Jazeera's reliability. The link to their channel (as opposed to something subject specific) is in dispute.Cptnono (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The Al Jazeera link is here: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/spotlight/anger-in-egypt/ but it's a smaller and much lower quality video feed with no direct URL, so users would have to scroll and find it on the lower right of the page. Also, I updated the section tag to use {{offtopic}} rather than the full section cleanup tag. There hasn't been criticism of the other links in the section, at least not yet.
Also, the reliability of Al Jazeera, and their proximity to the protests, and the significance of the protests, and the uniqueness of this live online coverage, and the easily updated nature of this article, all combine to make the EL useful in the meantime. Ocaasi (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
It is a violation of ELNO and not news regardless of the reasoning provided above. Since you plan on removing the link when it is no longer relevant I think that says enough right there. But you can use that link you just pulled up as a source. Right now, we should not be adding links to every day's events. The president is still in power. It is not known and should not be assumed that it is such an important aspect of the subject that an EL is needed. Make it a citation for now.
Also, Lihaas mentioned "id still suggest a direct al jazeera link instead of via youtube." The link currently in would be like linking to the main page of Al Jazeera. Of course, if they have a section devoted to continuing coverage of this specific subject (they often do) then I would agree it should be included in EL.Cptnono (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The analogy would be linking to the main page of Al Jazeera if it was streaming live news broadcasts from Egypt. Good articles, even featured articles, are constantly changing with the times. I contend that this article is sub-optimal--right now--without a link to this stream. And when the livestream stops, then it would be sub-optimal to include the link. Meanwhile, our standards can take into account changing events, as this article already does. Also, NOTNEWS doesn't say "don't link to news". Would you like to bring an RFC about whether or not this is an EL/NOTNEWS violation or an EL/CURRENTEVENT exception? We could also post it over at Talk:Jimbo Wales and get some opinions. Though you have some clear policy points behind you, I think the context and uniqueness of this event are extremely clear and suggest/demand a flexible approach. Ocaasi (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Outside opinions

Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard notified.Cptnono (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Also posted at the Jimbo's talk page Ocaasi (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I saw the notice at ELN. The ideal solution would be to find a high-quality webpage that contains all the best links, and for us to link to that, rather than to a dozen or more webpages. It would get the linkfarm off of Wikipedia, and could provide a much larger variety of links.
    As for the specific video link: I personally am inclined to avoid links that have short-term value. Finding those is what your favorite web search engine is for. So I would not include a link that we know, in advance, that we'll need to remove as soon as the television program ends, whether that link is streaming a sporting event or a political one. (I'm not watching this page: y'all know how to find me if you need me.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if I count as an outside opinion (I've been watching and sometimes talking about the article, but haven't edited it oops - I just remembered, that's a lie - sorry ;) ). But it looks like, unfortunately, ELNO #16 and #19 do weigh against this, i.e. "Links that are not reliably functional, or likely to continue being functional. For example, links to temporary internet content, where the link is unlikely to remain operable for a useful amount of time." and "Links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article – unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered.[4][5]" Though I sympathize with the idea of including it, there's no better time to go with the policy (even if I think it's overly strict) than when we have an edit war and no clear consensus about which way to go. And there is a fair rationale there: as nice as it is to create a temporary resource that tells people to go watch al-Jazeera, it is simply no substitute for making a permanent resource that people can look back to. Is there truly no way to access al-Jazeera archives and get these reports in a permanently linkable format? I'm tempted to dig into the HTML source, but there should be an easier way. Wnt (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Note: after looking again I realize this goes into a Flash player... and I've had some bad experiences with Flash players... the relevant part is

<script type="text/javascript"> 

   yt.setConfig({
     'SWF_URL': '\/\/s.ytimg.com\/yt\/swfbin\/watch_as3-vfl_XjdLS.swf',
     'SWF_ARGS': {"el": "livepage", "fmt_list": "22%2F10%2F9%2F0%2F115%2C35%2F3%2F9%2F0%2F115%2C34%2F0%2F9%2F0%2F115", "ps": "live", "video_id": "live0000001", "vq": "auto", "partnerid": "24", "t": "irock", "fmt_stream_map": "22%7Caljazeera_en_veryhigh%7Crtmp%3A%2F%2Faljazeeraflashlivefs.fplive.net%2Faljazeeraflashlive-live%2C35%7Caljazeera_en_high%7Crtmp%3A%2F%2Faljazeeraflashlivefs.fplive.net%2Faljazeeraflashlive-live%2C34%7Caljazeera_en_medium%7Crtmp%3A%2F%2Faljazeeraflashlivefs.fplive.net%2Faljazeeraflashlive-live"}
   });
Now how to get a record of the actual video clip identities from this...? Sigh, if only I had some technical genius like Fred Phelps for assistance. I hate this silly format, but my standoffishness has left me at wit's end. Wnt (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
No comment on the technical conundrum, but might you also say that an event like this is an ideal time to bend ELNO 16?
  • ELNO 16: Links that are not reliably functional, or likely to continue being functional. For example, links to temporary internet content, where the link is unlikely to remain operable for a useful amount of time. What's useful? I think the next few days/weeks are so critical that even a single day or two of this free, live feed would be useful.
  • ELNO 19: Links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article – unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered.[4][5] I think this one doesn't apply since it's not the official website of the organization but specifically its YouTube channel which has been converted to a live video feed. Anyway, 'otherwise qualifies' is what we're discussing, so I think this one ultimately routs back to ELNO16. Ocaasi (talk) 04:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
ELNO 19 appears to deal with links to organizations that are being described in an article, not to organizations that are being used as sources, doesn't it?  Cs32en Talk to me  03:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
ELNO #16 says it all. Wish I would have realized that myself. So so far it looks likes consensus is against inclusion with multiple editors being against it who use reasoning based on ELNO. Although those videos could be considered if they were made permanently available. I would then point out that sources are better than something in an external link in my opinion but that is another discussion. And I also second the editor above who points out that there is sympathy for wanting to keep it. However, the rest of the comment summarizes it in a much civil manner than I am capable of. So I am removing it finally. Cptnono (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


Too many references?

This article currently has more references than any other Wikipedia article that I've ever seen (387). Does anyone know if there is a maximum that the Wiki software can handle? (And no I don't have a suggestion on whether or which references should be dropped (probably better is sub-articles), but just throwing it out as a *possible* concern) Naraht (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Where there are two or more references given for a single statement, it would be good to decide if they are all truly needed, and delete any that duplicate what other sources already say. Also, when we decide how to cut down this article after the dust settles, a number of references will go with the unneeded text. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
That is a good idea, but it's probably secondary to consolidating the article completely. Once we know which pieces are going to stay at all, it will be more efficient to remove remaining redundant refs. Ocaasi (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you can really have too many sources so long as the content is at least nominally different and they're solid sources. I second letting the dust settle first, however I'm also of the opinion that editors should be exceedingly judicious in what they choose to cut. --Crunk04gtp (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

List of 2011 Egyptian protests victims

That should not be a standalone article. It should be merged or deleted. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well we'll have to wait until the names of all the dead are released. If many noteworthy Egyptians were killed then yes it should be stand-alone. If most of the Egyptians killed were ordinary Egyptians, then perhaps a merge is appropriate. So I propose a Hold on Decision as of right now. Lilly (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
dekete we already have a template thats transcluded here. not reason to do this.
WP:AFD is thataway. This is not the apprpriate venue to discuss deleting another article. --Jayron32 21:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Guerillero | My Talk 22:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC) First of all its a Template. The reason we have there is because the article used get vandalized all the time and the numbers we always one of the fav. thing people played with. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead up to protests section

I was finally able to do this section any comments or help is welcome.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see my comment titled "Pro-Mubarak Protests." Some parts of this section are false and are created under the basis of misinterpretation of various sources. Example: there were not half a million Mubarak supporters and they were not comprised of any youth movements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andalus7 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It's ok, I meant they were planning to do so. What's interesting in this section is to see what the people expected after the Tunisian revolution, many people wouldn't have dreamed this would happen but surprisingly it did.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mannuak, 12 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} <a href="http://www.mantul.com">all about eveything</a>

Mannuak (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. -- Ϫ 08:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Please include this information in the article after it has been properly sourced: The way mubarak resigned was Unconstitutional.

The way Mubarak resigned was unconstitutional. It is explicitly stated that he should had appointed president a politician, instead he created a military junta. He was in the military himself. Please source this properly and include it. I don't know how or have the time for to source the proper arguments for it. I suppose it needs a Lawyer and proper sourced Constitution documents and potentially other relevant laws. --Athinker (talk) 10:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I don't mean this as 'original research'. I heard it by a University Professor on Islamic Studies on TV. I just don't have the expertise to source it and it may need an 'expert' wikipedian on such matters. --Athinker (talk) 10:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The constitution is suspended since this is a revolution. (Heard that on Al Arabiya, BBC and Aljazeera) The parliament and the government will probably be dissolved too so let's wait and see.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Full-stops in captions

It is a minor point but can editors please stop adding full-points to captions that are not complete sentences (ie ones that do not contain a main verb). I have lost track of the number of times I have removed them (eg, "Demonstrators marching on 25 January." does not need that full-stop because "marching" is not a main verb). See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Formatting_of_captions. Ericoides (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

In a Revolution, the leaders of the revolution take charge. I don't know if it had leaders, but the army and the ex ministers certainly were not.

Look at that. I don't know if it's properly discussed and sourced in the article. --Athinker (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not a necessary condition for a revolution.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
See Leaderless resistance, Facebook#political impact and social revolution. ~AH1(TCU) 23:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Feb 11 was the day of decisiveness

Feb 11 was the day of decisiveness Egyptian Arabic يوم الحسم youm elhasm hope this is added since i am unable to edit the page myself. --216.249.11.108 (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

New article "Coalition of the Youth of the Revolution"

See Coalition of the Youth of the Revolution.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Egypt's Day of Love

I noticed, under the section 'Day of Love' in the article that it needed to be cleaned up. I did a fair bit, but I would like others to check and see if I missed anything before we remove the notice. MrMonday1 (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Move?!?

Move to Egyptian Revolution this is THE revolution that 99.9999999% of readers r looking 4 righ now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.137.57 (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No. The disambiguation page works perfectly well; just because this revolution is a topic of current newsworthiness does not mean that we shouldn't differentiate it from the other Egyptian revolutions. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Restoration of monarchy

Egypt has been ruled by the military since 1952. The removal of general Mubarak will make little difference - there is now a military dictatorship in place rather than a military-civil dictatorship. The only way for Egypt to move on is to undo the effects of 58 years of military rule, and return to the pre-revolutionary parliamentary democracy. Has anyone heard whether there have been calls for the restoration of the monarchy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead up to protests very important, anyone wanna help?

I wanna start a section with the lead up to the protests. I think the mark can be the Tunisia protests and then self immolation of multiple people and the various small protests that escalated into larger ones. Al Masry Al youm shows all articles leading up to the events if u search for protests there. Anyone wanna help? --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

the best place would be the background,. although there is brief mention in the lead and the self-immolations are at the arab world protests which is linked through the template at the bottom of the page.Lihaas (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Diaa, I'm not the best at writing articles, but it is very important to both mention in the timeline, as well as link to, the following person/event: Egyptian activist Asmaa Mahfouz posted a video online urging people to protest the “corrupt government” of Hosni Mubarak by rallying in Tahrir Square on January 25. Her moving call ultimately helped inspire Egypt’s uprising. "I, a girl, am going down to Tahrir Square, and I will stand alone. And I’ll hold up a banner. Perhaps people will show some honor,” Mahfouz said. "Don’t think you can be safe anymore. None of us are. Come down with us and demand your rights, my rights, your family’s rights. I am going down on January 25th and will say no to corruption, no to this regime." see: http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/8/asmaa_mahfouz_the_youtube_video_that for the interview with Democracy Now. As well as the youtube video. She was later credited by Wael Ghonim. I haven't been able to find out if there was a previous (activist) relationship between the two of them. Still looking. This is VERY important as many are asking how did the people know to go to Tahrir Square on the 25th. She is one of the primary reasons. The wikipedia article on her and this event is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asmaa_Mahfouz (and it's skimpy). Please help!Zygarch (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)zygarch User:Zygarch'

Background

I actually feels that a section on the lead to the protests is far more beneficial than that of the "background". A question that raises to mind is how the items of this background came about? Some of them seems to be random and do not have a direct relation to the cause of the protests. --Osa osa 5 (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
it is way too long (Adn worse now). some less relevant sections like military and the alex. bombing need to go.Lihaas (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree. In addtition to both "military" and "alex. bombing", I see "Population growth" could go too; as poverty is and should be covered in the "Economic climate" section. Similarly the section on "Foreign relations" does not seem relevant as well. --Osa osa 5 (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
We could consolidate the military into the mubarak side as reasons for his growth.
pop. growth possibly shortened and briefly mentioned in econ. chllenges (as reasons for the lack of employment). Either take off or consolidate foreign relations into mubarak. election can be also be consolidated. though i agree wholly the alex. bombing is just pushing it.Lihaas (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I would have agreed about the alex. bombing yesterday but Former minister of the interior Habib El-Adli faces prosecution in a military court over his role in the New Year's Eve bombing of al-Qiddissin Church in Alexandria in which 24 people were killed and more than 90 were injured. I think election can be added to corruption. and honestly, the Military had nothing to do with why the protests started. it might be better to add it to analysis section. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I disagree with that point for two reasons. First, being accused is not equivalent of being guilty. Second, it does not really matters who is behind it, because it was not a factor that sparked the protests any way. Remember, we are writing a background on the protests (i.e. factors that contributed to its start) not a background on Egypt as a whole. A better place for this accusation is Habib El-Adli's page and off course the alex bombing page as well. In summary, the whole section seems to me out of place.
After a close monitoring to the protests from its beginning, the main reasons for its spark that I see are the following (between parenthesis I add the reason): 1-Police brutality (face book page: "All of us are Khalid Said") 2- Emergency law 3-Corruption (items 2 and 3 are among the protesters top and main demands). 4-Tunisian Revolution (a great inspiration for the youth)
So, I suggest removing: 1- Foreign relations (the protests are focused on domestic situations) 2-Military (no real position on protests as it remained neutral; at least officially). Items 1 and 2 would be better placed in an Analysis section as The Egyptian Liberal suggested. 3- Alex bombing (as described above). 4-"2010 election" (personally on the border on this one; would like to see it merged with corruption section because dissolving the Parliament was among the protesters/oppositions demands). --Osa osa 5 (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
You make some very good points. True Alex. bombing has nothing to do with the protesters. I think it might better to add to the analysis section about Copts More of them started to me bore vocal against the government after the accusation. So I suggest adding Foreign relations' (Who its effect by the protests) and Military (Their role during the protests) to the analysis section.
So the only thing that stays in the background section are 1 Emergency law; 2 Police brutality; 3 Corruption (while merging the election section with it); 4 Economic challenges.
While Foreign relations; Military; Alexandria church bombing goes into the analysis section. anyone disagree? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I disagree. For one, the analysis section involves events that all preceded the protests. If that doesn't make them 'background' I don't know what would. Also, analysis is a bit of a misnomer here, since there is actual analysis as in punditry, commentary, political strategy, etc. which has been ongoing since the protests started. So I don't understand the placement or the title of the section. And I don't understand the motivation for moving them. Is there concern that we relate certain events which were not directly related? Can't we just resolve that with better headers? Do we need to correct that perception at all, since the text doesn't make any direct causal links anyway? Ocaasi (talk) 05:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The military involvement happened after the protests started. Foreign relations has been and will be changed (damaged). Alex. bombing was added to the analysis section about Copts More of them started to me bore vocal against the government after the accusation. which part do you disagree with? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Mainly I don't agree with the chronological placement. These are major issues which played out before the protests, but we are discussing them for the first time after the timeline. I think clearly belong in the background section but with expansion in the domestic/international response articles for the parts that had/will have ongoing repurcussions. As it is now, I don't see a coherent logic to put these ones as opposed to the others in the background section after the timeline, or to exclude these from the background section. Again, background is just background, not immediate causes, so I don't think there's a risk of misleading readers into thinking 'the military caused the protests' or 'the alex bombing caused the protests'. They were just precursors, an understanding of which helps explain the actual events. Ocaasi (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

{{od}Ocaasi, please distinguish the difference between a background on the protests and a background on Egypt. If we were to write a background on Egypt, then we would run out of space due to the many many issues that could be covered. Therefore, we must be concise and selective on the most relevant ones (which The Egyptian Liberal has done successfully). However, I agree with you on changing the header of the Analysis section to something else (for example "Aftermath" or "Consequences") to better capture the theme of this section. Moreover, I have suggested to move the accusation of the Interior Minister on the Alex. Church bombing to the "Domestic Responses" to where the religious institutions is covered. As a result, the Aftermath section would only include info on what is happening after the protests come to an end; i.e. military rule, a possible change in foreign relations issues, and what ever comes as well. Regards. --Osa osa 5 (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi! See my note above regarding Asmaa Mahfouz. Sorry, I don't fully know the protocol here yet. But I'm learning.Zygarch (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)zygarch
Osa, I don't see why our reader won't want to understand both. The protests happened in Egypt, and the countries mix of socioeconomic conditions, it's political structure, recent history, and triggering events are all part of the background. If you want to try and cut the section in half as 'general background' and 'specific background', that's fine with me, but it seems clear that they are both background rather than one background and one "analysis", which I think is just a misnomer.
Zygarch, perhaps Asmaa Mahfouz should be incorporated into a the section with Khaled Said, or a new background sub-section on 'triggers' or 'activists'. Ocaasi (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved, boldy. I removed/integrated the Analysis section. I put Military and Foreign Relations where they fit naturally in the general Background. I put the Alexandria Bombing as a subset of the Lead-Up Section. Please check the categorization, but regardless of which place those sections end up, we can't just have a hanging, mis-named, achronological Analysis section at the end of an article which already forks to separate Domestic and International pages. Ocaasi (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Length of Article

This article is a wall of words, is it necessary to have detailed documentation of every single day? 129.25.21.253 (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. Due to the ongoing nature of this event, people will add details as they happen. After things have settled down, we can take a look at everything and decide what is needed and what isn't. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The article is little better than a timetime. There is no analysis, no indication who was behind the protests, what their aims where, etc. International reaction should be covered more- and I don't mean what the USA says, we hear enough about the Americans as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
There is extensive coverage of the Domestic and International responses at the main articles linked in those sections. Like really extensive, and definitely not just the USA. Please check that page. Ocaasi (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.228.10.129, 12 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Field Marshal Tantawi actully said that all international treaties will be observed. He did not say the treaty with isreal will be observed. He only said international treaties 24.228.10.129 (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Just updated. Midlakewinter (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Reliable sources have interpreted this as including the Egypt-Israel treaty, while we may quote Tantawi directly, we should not leave readers in the dark about the actual meaning of the statements, as reliable sources don't do so, either.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Since the page is unprotected you may edit it directly. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Article TOO long

It is approaching 200 kb already. Please refractor and split into offshoots. ~AH1(TCU) 23:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Per the discussion above I have been trying over and over to get a consensus to move the timeline to Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian protests, now that the protests are over I wonder if consensus could change here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
We have to do it, and I think today is a good day to try. The article can still be expanded while we start to shift this main piece into summary style. Objections to moving it today? Ocaasi (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Date format in time line

Should the format for the time line be changed from "25 January" to "January 25"? It looks a lot neater on the contents table. --Mabduhu (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree too but that is how the time is shown in the majority of world countries so I have heard, oh well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
No, it shouldn't. First, whether it looks neater or not is a matter of opinion; I think that 25 January etc looks neater. But, second, what you or I think is completely irrelevant, as, according to WP:DATERET, 'The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic. Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor."' When the article was created by User:The Egyptian Liberal, the dd/mm/yy format was used, and so it should stay like that (as well as using UK spelling and -ise endings). Ericoides (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Requests

If someone find the correct place for this table ! let's include it and complete it. :)

Demands of the protestors
Demands[1] Status Date
1. The resignation of president Mohammed Hosni Mubarak Satisfied
2. Cancelling the Emergency Law
3. Dismantling the state secret service
4. An announcement by (Vice-President) Omar Suleiman that he will not run in the next presidential elections
5. Dissolving the Parliament and Shura Council ?
6. Releasing all the prisoners since January 25
7. Ending the curfew so that life resumes as normal across the country
8. Dismantling the university guards system
9. Referring officials responsible for the use of violences against the peaceful protesters since January 25 and those responsible for the organised thuggery which followed January 28 to an investigation committee
10. Sacking Anas el-Fiqqi and stopping the attack on protesters in government owned media through threats and calling protesters traitors, and ending the spread of hate against foreigners in the streets
11. Reimbursing shop owners for their losses during the curfew
12. Announcing the demands above on government television and radio
  1. ^ Egypt: A List of Demands from Tahrir Square, Global Voices, 10 February 2011

See also : "People's Communique No 1", Yug (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a very nice idea. Once we move the timeline out, I think it will fit nicely. Let's keep it here for a day or too until we sort through the rest of the accumulation. Ocaasi (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Concepts: State of Emergency, Martial Law, Revolution

The different concepts thrown around on in the debate needs to be clarified. For thirty years there has been a State of Emergency enforced. That is a civilian circumstance found in legal sources such as a constitution and in enactments of law from a parliament or president, the key is that its sources lays within Civil Law. This is in contrast to the concept of Martial Law whose source is military rule. In other words, for thirty years a civil State of Emergency has been in place. This is part of the formally civil system of governance which was replaced by Martial Law at the moment the State powers were transferred from the presidency to the military rulers. From a legal standpoint, the country has gone from a civil State of Emergency to a military state of Martial Law. This could be interpreted as a revolution if the military bends to the political will of the revolutionaries. If it bends to another political will it is simply a Coup de Etat and the revolution is high-jacked. The political wills in the country and how it steers the military policies determines the outcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.226.32 (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that helpful distinction. Most readers from countries where the military does not intervene in policing (in the US, the Posse Comitatus provision), may not know what Emergency Law means without the description of martial law attached to it, even in a colloquial sense. Could we describe Emergency Law as 'civil martial law' or 'martial law imposed by the police under the authority of the President' or is that mixing definitions? In short, after we use the term Emergency Law (description here), what would you put in the parentheses? Ocaasi (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
There are State of Emergency and Emergency law in Egypt, so I don't think that we should get too specific in this article, and a link to Emergency law in Egypt, with a brief mention that basic civil rights were suspended, would probably be sufficient.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the contributors. We may call the State of Emergency many things, but it is most definitely not "martial law", as some cynical Western reporters have dubbed it. A better term would be "period of freedom" or "restructuring interval". Leader Tantawi (peace be upon him) has made this clear on multiple occasions. The Egyptian people are rejoicing. Mardiste (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

One of the primary demands of the movement is the repeal of the Emergency law. Whether the emergency law is better or worse than martial law would depend on how military courts operate, and during the Mubarak regime, many people were detained, tortured and murdered without seeing any kind of court, so I don't think we can infer that emergency law would be better, or would be worse, than martial law. The military has not changed the legal basis of the emergency law, so I don't see any reason to talk of martial law here.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Difference between revolt and revolution, and what this article covers

A revolution certainly occurred in Egypt, but this article does not focus on that. Instead it focuses on the popular uprising, or revolt, that led to this revolution. The revolution was the ceding of power to the army, the suspension of the constitution and the dissolution of both houses of parliament (the Shura Council and the People's Assembly). I propose that this article be retitled 2011 Egyptian uprising or 2011 Egyptian revolt and another article be created about the actual revolution. Both of these topics should be covered in depth. But as it is we have a comprehensive article on the revolt but not much on the revolution. Also, the first paragraph is a mess. After the names, the first sentence reads is a social movement that began in Egypt on 25 January 2011, characterised by a series of street demonstrations, marches, rallies, acts of civil disobedience, riots, labour strikes, and violent clashes; the date was selected to coincide with the National Police Day. I suggest this be changed to, if this name is kept, The 2011 Egyptian Revolution took place following a popular uprising that began on 25 January. The revolt saw widespread protests against the regime of Hosni Mubarak throughout Egypt and was characterised by demonstrations, labour strikes, acts of civil disobedience and occasions of violent confrontations between protesters and security forces and later between dueling groups of protesters. On 11 Febrary, Mubarak resigned as President of Egypt, ceding his authority to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. No doubt this can be improved on, but it would be an improvement if we can get the first few sentences to follow the rules of the English language. nableezy - 20:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

What does "violent confrontations ... later between dueling groups of protesters" refer to? The supporters of Mubarak have generally not been described as "protesters", but as "allies of Mubarak", with most reliable sources highlighting that thugs, led by plain clothes security forces, were heavily involved in these activities. I would propose to correct those things that are wrong, yet it's probably best to wait some time for a more general clean-up of the article, including the lead section.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
No doubt the baltagia (thugs) made up at least some of the pro-Mubarak "protesters", but there are sources referring to the rock throwing "battles" that took place on the 3rd and 4th as being between two dueling groups of protesters (eg [1], [2], [3], [4]). nableezy - 22:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Can we have a review of reliable sources on this issue? I remember that the initial reports sometimes referred to "pro-grovernment protesters". However, when we have contradictory reports in reliable source, we need to look more closely at the circumstances in which the reports have been published. Reports that have been published after journalists had some time to investigate and look at the full picture of events are likely to be more reliable than on-the-spot dispatches.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
pro-government protests according to an Al Jazeera correspondent in Cairo. Reutors used "protesters".[5] "Demonstrators" (similar to "protesters"), "mob", "forces" (not similar), and other labels were used. "Supporters" should work just fine and side step this non-issue. "Protesters" should work fine too, but of course any opportunity to belittle those in favor of the previous government should be taken. (sarcasm)Cptnono (talk)

Pipeline explosion

Nobody has claimed responsibility for the explosion, and the Egyptian government said it was an accident. While there was some speculation in reliable sources about various possibilities, none of this speculation - to my knowledge - was later corroborated by any facts that would point in the respective direction. Reliable sources have not reported about any consequences the event may have had on the events related to the revolution. Im pasting the text here, in case it is of use in some other article. The Arish-Ashkelon pipeline is considered to be part of the Arab Gas Pipeline, therefore, the separate link is not necessary.  Cs32en Talk to me 

An explosion also occurred on the Arab Gas Pipeline in the Sinai at a gas pipeline to Israel and Jordan after saboteurs were believed to have responded to a call by Islamist groups to exploit the unrest.[1] the terrified residents told of a huge explosion and reported that flames were raging out of the bombed gas pipeline near El-Arish on Febuary 5th.[2] Supplies to Israel and Jordan[2] were expected to be cut for a week.[3] 40% of Israel's natural gas comes from Egypt via the Arish-Ashkelon gas pipeline because a deal built on their landmark 1979 peace accord.[1]

  1. ^ a b Perry, Tom (2011-02-05). "Egypt gas pipeline attacked; Israel, Jordan flow hit". Vancouversun.com. Retrieved 2011-02-12.
  2. ^ a b Perry, Tom (2011-02-05). "Egypt gas pipeline attacked; Israel, Jordan flow hit". Vancouversun.com. Retrieved 2011-02-12.
  3. ^ "UPDATE 1-Jordan gas supplies to be halted a week after blast". Reuters. 2009-02-09. Retrieved 2011-02-05.
  • Update: Al-Ahram reports that "an Egyptian investigator announced that a blast on Saturday at a north Sinai gas terminal was not caused by a gas leak but was a bombing carried out by four armed men." [6]. While more information may emerge that points toward including this event in the article, I'd suggest to look for reliable sources for information on how the incident relates to the revolution (if it does) before adding this to the article.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Role of Internet in Revolution

The internet has played a very big role in the revolution in Egypt and Tunisia, and it is playing a big roles in Yemen, Algeria, Iran etc. It deserves a special section and article for its huge role.

Here is the Wikipedia article on Human impact of Internet use. The article has a special section on internet and political revolutions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_of_Internet_use#Internet_and_political_revolutions

You can talk more about how the internet impacted Egypt their. also, I think that this article on the Egypt revolution should have a special secton on the internet. --Jo (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see Domestic responses to the Egyptian Revolution of 2011
More specifically Domestic_responses_to_the_Egyptian_Revolution_of_2011#Media_censorship_and_circumvention kencf0618 (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The hacking of the Tunisian and Egyptian goverment sites is well worth noteing.--Wipsenade (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC) ‎

Completely Wrong Number of Protestors

Especially at the "February 10" Section, the Number of 3 Million Protestors at Tahrir Square is ridiculous.

First of all, has anyone looked at the source? The number appears when the article or rather blog quotes a a protestor's comment. This is by no means an independent number an even if we would go with it, a protestor a the ground amidst thousands of people surrounding him has no means of fairly judging the number of protestors on the whole tahrir square.

Second. has anyone actually looked what that would mean if 3 Million people where at the square? Let's go though some rough numbers. Let's say the Tahrir square with its adjacent streets has a very generous 250m x 250m, that would equal an area of 62500m2. Now if there actually where 3 Million people in that area each person could occupy an area of no more but 208cm2 which equals an area of less than 15cm by 15cm.

This is not only impossible from a mathematical point of view but even if the whole square was packed to its theoretical mathematical maximum, people would not survive this for very long also because of the very probable mass panic and a stampede as seen some months ago in germany at the love parade (btw.the people/area there where far from what here is claimed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.148.172 (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that I have removed that "report" some days ago, but it may have been reinserted again.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Even the two million Al Jazeera claims are almost certainly wrong if not impossible. The thing is, that allmost all other newspapers, tv news and media took that number from Al Jazeera without verifying. The day aljazeera claimed two million protestors, the Nneue Zürcher Zeitung, a very repected Swiss newspaper counted them at 250'000 which is quite a difference but much more likely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.148.172 (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Al Jazeera referred to Tahrir Square and adjacent areas of Cairo. Other media referred to number of protesters earlier in the day, while people were still moving to Tahrir Square. I personally think that 2 million protesters is a bit too high. (Apparently, many people also guarded their neighborhoods against looters or police.) So the BBC figure is probably the low end, Al Jazeera the high end of the estimates. More reliable sources are always welcome, of course.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A time for the Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian protests article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{splitapart}} I see the article is approching 170,000 bytes, would now be a good time for a split off article here? The protests have gone on for about two weeks now and the timeline only grows, this article should not just be focused on the timeline. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment The current size of the article makes it only the 422nd largest article on Wikipedia. The two articles immediately above it on the list are List of ThunderClan cats and 2009-10 Derby County F.C. season. At Wikipedia we do not point to egregious pages elsewhere to justify bad practices here. However, it is inarguable that the situation in Egypt is more sensitive, more complex, and of more vital importance for readers to understand the topic that they know the background of what has been happening there to real people in a major upheaval, more than what has been happening in a particular English football club or, I kid you not, the various cats — no vernacular, that's felines — that appear in a series of books. In fact, sports and fictional characters/games make up most of the articles larger than this one.
Do not misunderstand me, I am not suggesting that since this subject is more important than the largest single page here at Wikipedia, List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters, then we should craft an article that gives it appropriate relative weight here at the project and go for a billion bytes. But while some feel that it is important to understand the sweep of August 2010 in sports in one place, when nobody to whom it is relevant needs to have the background of sports explained in the same place, then we can focus on crafting the best article about this topic first and put off worrying about the length a week from now.
Nobody commented when I wrote it elsewhere, but article length is not actually determined by what it says when you open up the edit window, it is determined only after you remove all the code, infoboxes, photo captions, and references, meaning that the relevant measurement of the actual size of the article is probably 1/3 smaller than that 170,000 bytes. I wrote elsewhere at this page that if people want to write an article here, they should do so, yet all I see are suggestions that we whittle down, rather than beef up, the non-timeline aspects of the article. If people are actively reducing the backgrounds section, then what's the point of splitting the timeline? This article is already — incorrectly — being focused on as a Timeline alone. Editors should focus on writing some real article here and then you'll have a better argument for, and a better result of, a split. Abrazame (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I can make the same arguement for a split though, putting the timeline content in a seperate article can shift the focus of this article to other things. As for other articles every article on wikipedia is diffrent, if th timeline is moved there would be a short summary of the timeline here on the main article so readers would follow it. How long is the cutoff then if the timeline is not split off now, should we wait for 200,000 bytes or 250,000? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Support
Oppose
Actully no events are not comming to a head the president is not resigning according to the speech which means that this could last until september unless action is taken. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
conditioal oppose it does needs a split, this section seeming the most likely (per above proposal we can then expand the cities section with the details split off), but klet it be for now. BIG EVENT breaking, tomorrow/day after we can mop upLihaas (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that the protests ended, lets split

I suggest we start splitting the article now that the protests stopped and Mubarak resigned.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed there is no need for a comnplete timeline to be in place here, now is the time for making the article more clearer and cleaning things up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I would support the split if a rather large summary remains in this article. Another possibility would be to create several sub-articles for the main events in the timeline.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Conditional Support: A concise summary of the timeline with every important details can be mentioned in the main article. Probably the 18 days may be divided into heads say Day 1-7, Day 8-14, Day 15-18. And the detailed rest can be split 117.211.83.26 (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. Time to move it. I suggest we start by moving all except the last 2 days so that people arriving here can still have a section to put stuff. We can just match up the pages manually for a few days until the summary makes it clear that small details belong at the timeline. Ocaasi (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Conditional Support: I think split it between pre- & post- resignation. Right now, people continue to demonstrate and will demonstrate every Friday till elections are held. Hence, I don't really see how it "ended" per se. Z3bolla (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There was a suggestion by Nableezy below to call the first half Egyptian uprising, and the second Egyptian revolution. That's fine with me, and it would make our job infinitely easier to cleave the timeline at February 11 or 12. Ocaasi (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support splitting, though unsure where We need to be careful about where we split the timeline section. Especially if we're going to split it into uprising and revolution articles. SilverserenC 23:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Support: It's the main focus of the article, which shouldn't really be the focus point. An actual "article" does not document the day-by-day occurences of an event. Splitting it off would be the best way, in my opinion. SellymeTalk 00:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support a simple summary of the timeline will suffice for this article, the rest can be moved to the new one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brightgalrs (talk • contribs) 01:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


Oppose: It is like talking about something that we have no information about. Please reintroduce the timeline, or even a summary. The article currently is very bland, I know that 200 kb is too much, but 70 kb is also irrelevant to t he size of the event. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phevos87 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The summary is on the way. We just needed to get the 140k timeline out. Should have something today. Ocaasi (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


Article was split off to Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian Revolution
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of the protests

Not a exactly a bullet-point timeline, but a summary of the protests as they happened is desperately needed in the article now. --Sherif9282 (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have two sources that we can use Timeline: Egypt's revolution and Timeline shows path to freedom in Egypt -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Great, this is just the kind of template that will help summarize the events. Ocaasi (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I added the majority of the timeline from the second source, with copy-editing and some paraphrasing. The information is all very basic, so it's not as easy to rewrite. I'll continue to re-work it to avoid COPYVIO. Help please. If it's a problem to have this on the main page while it is paraphrased, please move to talk. Ocaasi (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, finished with the copy-editing (date format, past tense, removed unnecessary details, redundant info, long phrases). There wasn't much to completely rewrite, so I'd still like a COPYVIO check, and again, if anyone wants to rephrase sections, that would be great. Remember to keep the details at a very brief summary level, since this is not the main timeline. Ocaasi (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Summary is good thing but the timeline is too short, in my opinion. Also, why use those two sources? We need to summarize our own timeline, and if we want to refer to external sources, let's pick much more reliable sources. Al Jazeera has a live blog for each day, The Guardian has one (with reporters on the ground), and there are plenty other good sources that give timeline accounts. --Aude (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's still short. That attempt was just to get something there while we had a completely blank section. Those sources were just for convenience, as the majority of events are available in multiple locations (including our own Timeline). I think we can expand more dates and events while keeping it short. Ocaasi (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm very glad the article is shorter! It's easier to edit now. I'm only so good at copyediting and such, but willing to make some effort at summarizing the timeline and getting references re-added. I also wonder about the cities section, with so many one-line subsections. I think we could instead break things down by regions -- Cairo, Alexandria, Upper Egypt (Luxor, Aswan, ...), Nile Delta, Suez / Sinai and have more substance per section. --Aude (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I like the idea of combining by region. Do you have the geographic background to do it? Ocaasi (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I can arrange the info by region. --Aude (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

French Revolution Article is Shorter!

With all due respect, is this article a joke? It's about a couple weeks of street protests, whereas the French Revolution was a far more significant event which lasted ten years. REMEMBER: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.40.2 (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The french revolution's article has been split into subarticles. There is a discussion going on about how to split this article up already.Sir Robert "Brightgalrs" Schultz de Plainsboro (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but like a newspaper it is the first draft of history. And unlike a newspaper, multiple first drafts. kencf0618 (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect, they've had 222 years to edit that article. We're still letting the dust clear. Ocaasi (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, chances are that there isn't as much information available about the French revolution as there is from the Egyptian one. Also, the Egyptian one may become as important as the French one if it sparks up a new Arabian renaissance. Time will tell. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you IP 207... If the French Revolution took place now it would also be news and recentism. Historical importance is something Wikipedia as a whole disregards. Price we pay for collaboration from everyone in an age with so much information. Maybe they should have invented the internet sooner or maybe editors should not stick in every headline they find. Weird line though since those headlines are sometimes really interesting. Maybe Wikipedia should be called "In the year 2000... (+)" Cptnono (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The truth is, it's a lot harder to find stuff of importance from the French revolution era. I believe most of the material in this article is important. It (or similar stuff) would also be important if it was about the French revolution. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, I find the Egyptian revolution to be FAR more significant than the French revolution as it affects the World. As wee see today the revolutionary spirit is spreading throughout many countries. The French revolution just affects France or Europe at most. So don't make your opinions sound as facts.

Wow. Thank God this isn't a forum since I have plenty to say about that. Probably time to get back to content.Cptnono (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe there need to be an end to this endless wikipedia is not this or that. Imagine how this list will be in just some years. Dare to be bright, is my advice. Wikipedia is what wikipedia turns out to be at anytime. We may argue to every end of days that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but nevertheless wikipedia is a wikiwiki. It's no use escaping the fact that wikipedia is an ongoing live event. Of course does a revolution as the one going on here evolve on Wikipedia unproportionally compared with the French Revolution; although we may figure out that it has not really ended yet neither (or who can say who won it?). The French Revolution is of course no less important. We simply cannot compare an ongoing revolution with a historical one. The major difference between a traditional encyclopedia and Wikipedia, is that there will never be an end to Wikipedia. Encyclopedias traditionally have editions; although we must be aware and respectful of how wikipedia and online encyclopedias in large affect epistomology. It is a dramatic situation. This is pointing again to thee fact that Wikipedia is something entirely different than an encyclopedia, in spite of the encyclopedic ideal of Wikipiedia, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. We should accept the unique character of this project, and seek to keep faithful to and respectful of the five pillars of consensus, as it (r)evolves. --Xact (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

The article is now a desert for photos. We need to bring back some from the timeline article, place them throughout the text and maybe create a specially dedicated "Gallery" section. I can still contribute more photos, although they'll all be from Cairo. --Sherif9282 (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

More photos would be great! Sure we can re-add some from the timeline and look for more from other cities. --Aude (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Background -> Grievances

Would it be okay with folks if we renamed the "Background" heading to "Grievances" since that's what we're talking about there? I'd also like to move some of the details from the lead into this section. --Aude (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There's actually been some friction with using terms like grievances or causes, since the different issues vary in proximity and relevance to the actual motivations of the protesters. The Alexandria Church Bombing section was actually removed on those grounds, since its mere presence offended some who thought we were attributing religious motives to a broadly non-denominational movement (I disagree and think we should put it back, but that's another story, and just reflective of the trickiness here). I personally think that 'background' is about as specific as we can get, and somewhat prefer it that way, since a decent amount of the material in the background section is not about a grievance per se but about general conditions. That said, if you're looking for an easy way to move paragraph 2 of the lead into the background section, I'd be happy to look for a good spot to incorporate it. Ocaasi (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

26 February - March to Gaza

It seems like there will be an attempt to end the Gaza Strip blockade, here are some sources:

Also, Google search returns many more. Some better sources should be found on this, so information can be added about this where appropriate. --93.139.183.181 (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

So far all of those sources appear to be affiliated with or supportive of the protests. We should wait until this is reported in a major neutral news source. Thanks for the links.Ocaasi (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


Lead

The lead paragraph has improved in that it is now written in English, but there are several problems with it. To begin with, "الثورة المصرية سنة ٢٠١١" is a made up name. You will not find that name anywhere besides the English Wikipedia. The common Arabic name, so far, is "ثورة 25 يناير" (Revolution of 25 Jan). Compare for instance this result for the currently listed name to this. Next, the sentence began in Egypt on 25 January 2011, with a series of street demonstrations, marches, rallies, acts of civil disobedience, riots, labour strikes, and violent clashes in Cairo, Alexandria, and throughout other cities in Egypt, is poorly worded. The sentence reads as though "street demonstrations, marches, rallies, acts of civil disobedience, riots, labour strikes, and violent clashes" took place on the 25th throughout Egypt. And what exactly is the difference between a "street demonstration" and a "rally"? I wrote something like this in an archived section, but I think this part should say took place following a popular uprising that began on 25 January, which featured .... The word "throughout" is either wrong and/or redundant and in any case unnecessary. I think the next sentence is a bit wordy and would just stick to one of the more common chants, that the "protesters demanded the fall of the regime of Hosni Mubarak". The corruption, repression, fraudulent "progress" towards democracy, that is all a part of that and can be enumerated either further down in the lead or in the body. Finally, the line Mubarak resigned from office as a result of determined popular protest and pressure. Really? I realize it has two citations, but here are a few that provide a different cause for his resignation. [7], [8], [9]. I think it would be best to rephrase this as Mubarak resigned from office following weeks of determined protests and pressure. And actually, I am not sure if he "resigned from office" or he "resigned the office" should be used. He, at least temporarily, abolished the office of President of Egypt, not sure if that qualifies as "resigning from". Take it or leave it, nableezy - 06:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Why not change it? Ocaasi (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Excellent job on the intro, thank you! USchick (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Iran?

Any reason that Iran has its own, extensive summary here, in the Regional Instability section? If not, I suggest we consolidate/remove it into the general summary of the region's unrest. Ocaasi (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This is about the Egyptian Revolution. Not the protests in Iran. So everything in this article should talk about the Egyptian revolution or how the world reacted TO IT (the revolution). I suggest that it gets removed and the International reaction section should be heavily edited as it starts to astray from the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.1.239 (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Egyptian_revolution/Archive_7&oldid=1142749945"