Jump to content

Talk:2011 Egyptian revolution/Archive 9

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

Good Article.

I hereby declare that this article be considered for Wikipedia's prestigious "Good Article" status. It is rich in information in a visionary yet neutral point of view. I hope in your good hearts that you will find it within yourselves to bestow this honor on this Article.

That is all.

17:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.65.75 (talk)

I agree, it is good and of maerit.86.24.9.104 (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

long lead

The lead is much longer than normal for a WP article.--75.83.69.196 (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, 6 paragraphs over the general max 4. It's a very long article and a complex subject that is still going on. Once post-resignation events slow down, it will be easier to consolidate the lead. Ocaasi c 10:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Notes to add/edit

1st, In ((Cities and regions : Mass civil disobedience)) where's El-Mahalla El-Kubra and the tens of thousands of protesters which took to the streets??

2nd, where's 6 April 2008 events which could be revolution if spread to all cities ? (i think could be under section like spark)

3rd, Sally Zahran,was NOT beaten to death during Tahrir square demonstrations,But her family tell in TV show that she died in her city in souhag [1].. this is video

4th, the confirmed number of death toll is 846 according to final report from Fact-Finding National commission about Jan 25 revolution [2] and 6467 reported as injured , the final reported publish 19 April 2011

5th, i want thank everyone help in improve this article

--Eng.kika 04:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eng kika (talk • contribs)

the goals in the upper right box are not accurate

The goals were not just toppling Mubarak but also bringing a new honest regime.

Proof: the protests kept going with huge numbers till shafek resigned and Sharaf took over

Why important?

I have talked to an american political scientist who claim that the revolution is just a liberation movement not a revolution since it only called for toppling the regime while the revolution does not end till it brings a new regime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.82.84.219 (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The immediate goal of the revolution was the overthrow of Mubarak's regime. Partly there is a semantic issue involved, since technically, the revolution ended with his ouster. What happens in the broader search for civil liberties is part of the 'aftermath', 'reform', 'rebuilding', and 'future'. We can approach the issue differently, but either way does not suggest that the Egyptian people's purpose was to stop once Mubarak was gone. Also, I'm not sure what 'a new regime' means in the context of free and fair democratic elections, as most Egyptians seem to be pursuing. Perhaps the wrong model is being used as a comparison; hopefully, there will be no new regime. Ocaasi c 23:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Question of terminology Separation of church and state / secular?

In many discussions here, secular may warrant further clarification. When referring to the composition of the secular nature of the revolution, it would be helpful to differentiate between the implications of the term. In some cases secular can be used to infer the unified action of many represented religions or the traditional alternative advocacy of the separation of church and state. The current article talks about the secular parts of the revolution. Was this secular discussion about wanting to remove article 2 of the Egyptian constitution? It then might be worth putting it in context of the constitutional requirements (like Turkey's 1928 amendment). Jeff Carr (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done fixed -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead section pretty too lengthy:

The lead section just consists of about six or seven paragraphs long, and too big. Why not trim down the lead? A\/\93r-(0la 17:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This lead was trimmed before by many editors a while back (Check the archives) so editing it needs consensus. Also keep in mind that this is ongoing revolution, once things come down, the page will most likely gonna go through major editing. so we just gonna have to wait and see. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

lede claim

" took place following a popular uprising that began on 25 January 2011 and is still continuing as of August 2011."


Shouldn't we tag with {{current}}?--Cerejota (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

category issues

User:Carlossuarez46 did this edit [1] removing a bunch of "non-violent" cats and adding Category:Antisemitism in Egypt this doesn't seem appropriate. I have reverted this action.--Cerejota (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking back, he also did this [2] and was reverted by another editor. While there has been a lot of violence associated with the events in Egypt, the RS in general agree that non-violent methods and civil disobedience have largely been the way the opposition has expressed itself, and largely places violence on the lap of extremists and the state and Mubarrak loyalists. This has precedent here on the events in Eastern Europe in the late 80s and early 90s, where even if there was violence, and at times, significant violence, they are viewed historically as "non-violent revolutions". Please do not do this removal without discussion. --Cerejota (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Same editor reverted alleging POV. I have reverted. Editor should discuss his removal and insertion of the controversial "anti-semitism" category in this talk page and seek consensus.--Cerejota (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The quote above is telling: "the RS in general agree that non-violent methods and civil disobedience have largely been the way the opposition has expressed itself" Really? Was there no violence on the part of the opposition? That's what the categories say. "Category:Nonviolent revolutions" For some reason, you all want a sliding scale, a "not-so violent" is non-violent. And I assume that the storming of the Israeli embassy by the anti-government folks was another manifestation of the revolution's non-violence? Fine, you can win because I am not going to revert your POV any more, but the article is untrustworthy and disputed and I will mark it so. You can keep pruning the article to show the revolution in its best light, but you only make WP your propaganda tool. Oh, and the next time Mr. Assad kills 800 of his folks, just remember that that's nonviolent too - killing Arabs in your opinion is just fine and dandy, until 800 are killed. Pathetic, but call yourselves winners. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple sources in the article that describe this revolution as non-violent, and in particular, the initial protest groups consciously utilizing nonviolent ideology and tactics. It is not a claim I make, it is a claim the sources previously inserted claim. The WP:BURDEN lies with you to provide sources that contradict this view. And the deaths are irrelevant: if you look at Category:Nonviolent revolutions a number of those in the category or subcats indeed had significant numbers of dead - casualties are not a measure in general when the RS evaluate this appellation. However, no sources claim any connection of this event with anti-semitism, so your inclusion of this category is clearly a POV based one and the WP:BURDEN again lies with you.--Cerejota (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

  • The burden is on the people who want to add the categories, Cerejota. The article's lead says "Despite being predominantly peaceful in nature, the revolution was not without violent clashes between security forces and protesters, with at least 846 people killed and 6,000 injured." Predominantly peaceful ≠ nonviolent. Nonviolence is lost at the first violence. Read Gandhi. There are lots of reliable sources describe "violence" in connection with the revolution - not surprising given the high casualty count: For example [www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2058032,00.html Time Magazine], Al Ahram, Al Ahram again, BBC - and all this before the clearly antisemitic embassy attack. For a real nonviolent revolution, in contrast to this bloody affair, see Velvet Revolution. If WP engages in subjectivity, as you obviously think it should by your reinsertion of categories that are factually WRONG. Perhaps you'd enjoy it if WP adopted your standard that 800 lives lost is a non-violent event, and characterize events with less than 800 dead people as non-violent? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
It is true the burden is whit those who add information, but the burden has been met: multiple reliable sources, present in the article, argue that this revolution, in particular in the beginning, was an example of a "non-violent revolution. I am sympathetic to your view: it is ridiculous to consider a revolution like this "non-violent" but the sourcing present in the article, and a cursory Google News search, says this is a generalized view in the RS. None of the sources you provided declare this a "violent" revolution - so we cannot say that this categorization is disputed or non-neutral. Lastly, what do you have to say about the anti-semitism category?--Cerejota (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Do you deny that the attack on the Israeli embassy, too? Normal, nonviolent, non-antisemitic people may have lots to protest about Israel, but they don't sack embassies. Or is it just OK for Egyptians to do so? Your bias is so overwhelmingly apparent, I'm not sure I'd trust any article to which you contribute. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Please focus on the content, not the editor. That said, 2011 Cairo Israeli embassy attack has nothing to do with this article - not every event that happens in Egypt today has to be connected to their revolution, nor are non-partisan sources establishing a connection. If the motive to remove these categorizations and add the anti-semitic ones is the attack and riots on the Israeli embassy, I suggest I strongly urge you to strike the accusatory comments above and below, as they are irrelevant to this discussion. You are in the wrong article, and I linked you to the correct one.--Cerejota (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed before here and Carlos didnt failed to make any valid points and when he is corned like now, he goes on personal attacks. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

No he didn't. I really suggest we focus on the content.--Cerejota (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and what do you have to say about nonviolence and riots, as detailed in the article and the church bombings, and the attack on the Israeli embassy? consistent in your opinion? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Please read what I said above, in particular not every event that happens in Egypt today has to be connected to their revolution. This articles has lost some focus, and that needs to be fixed, but that is not reason to remove categories supported by RS and insert a category not supported in RS and that is in fact inflammatory and POV. Is there anti-semitism in Egypt? Yes. Is this revolution anti-semitic? No. So there is no reason to include the category.
Has the revolution been seen by RS as a non-violent one? Yes. Have the general ideas and methods of non-violent resistance been adopted by the movements behind this revolution? Yes. Has there been violence in this revolution? Yes. Does this mean the categories are incorrect? No. Why? Because in every "non-violent" revolution there is violence, an the appellation "non-violent revolution" is always a relative one: contrast with a violent revolution such as that in Libya next door, in which 800 people died in a few hours in a single battle. If you think the appellation or category of "non-violent revolution" is a wrong one, this is not the place to discuss it - perhaps trying to CfD the category, or raise an RfC or something like that. But as long as the RS use these description and we have the category, this is a useful categorization. --Cerejota (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Transition (post Mubarak) need a comprehensive article

We are now and for the last 6 months in the transitional phase, which is as important and complex as the revolution itself. The Post-Mubarak timeline is not suitable. A clear, comprehensive article on this transitional phase and its actors, problematics, dynamics, and moves is very need. Yug (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Under Water Protest.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Under Water Protest.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Non violent protests?

This article portrays this conflict as mainly non-violent. However I have been watching the CBC news where videos for the last couple of days have been nothing but peaceful. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/10/10/egypt-christian-clashes.html Ottawahitech (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Current protests against the military

With hundreds being injured and a few killed in the recent Alexandria and Cairo protests, it seems like the revolution is still going on. The article needs a new section summarizing recent protests against the military or a new article ought to be created and referenced by this one.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15807441 — Preceding unsigned comment added by OriEri (talk • contribs) 15:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Most of the protests that happened after Mubarak stepped down is here -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Updates and Timelines.

Currently there are two (or more) timelines. There's the Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution with before and after Mubarak very detailed sections. Then there are the Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution under Hosni Mubarak's rule and Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution under Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, both very detailed and finally one in this article 2011 Egyptian revolution#Timeline. They look like they have not been cross-checked and most importantly none of these timelines has been updated for quite some time. I tried to update one of them when I came across the others. They should really be merged down somehow.Trek qo (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Late 2011 protests?

Why is it hard to find an article about the current, Dec 2011, violence in Egypt? Large scale protests began just before the first votes, November 28, 2011. If there is a Wikipedia article about these protests, and demonstrations, I cannot find it. Is it part of some other article? Is there some form of censorship going on here? Nick Beeson (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, very strange - there's also no mention of "The Girl in the blue bra" incident, even under the section on women, nor the ensuing protests about her beating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.14.197 (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. Y'all can add the info here -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

A poor neighbourhood in Cairo?

Concerning "A poor neighbourhood in Cairo" picture, how in the world a neighbourhood with a dozen of satellite television dishes can be classified as "poor"? Netrat (talk) 09:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The neighbourhood is more like lower middle class to be honest. This image shows what poor neighbourhoods looks like [3] but if you find a picture on commons let me know. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Name change to 2011-12 Egyptian revolution

What time span should this article cover? ʝunglejill 16:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


With this revolution continuing in the media, should the name be changed as well? GameGuy95 (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be appropriate. — Life in General Talk/Stalk 13:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure, the name should be changed but I think "Revolution of 25 January" or "January 25 Revolution" is more better. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Considering "Revolution of 25 January" is what it's called in Egypt itself, I'd say I agree with you. — Life in General Talk/Stalk 00:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
So why isn't page moved yet? Bahraini Activist (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of any opposition to moving, I'll boldly assume consensus and move this page to Revolution of 25 January. On my head be it, it appears. — Life in General Talk/Stalk 17:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops! It appears that for some reason I'm incapable of moving this page. So, let's hope someone who has the ability to move this page gets around to moving it (I suspect this page may be move-locked in some way). — Life in General Talk/Stalk 17:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have, though, updated the lede to mention that the revolution is still ongoing. — Life in General Talk/Stalk 17:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a strong view either way, though in such circumstances I tend to be most swayed by google search results showing which is used more (especially, by RSs).--Epeefleche (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I would support changing the article into 2011-2012, but changing the main article to 25 January Revolution or Revolution of 25th January something similar would not be appropriate because not all media says it that way. They say the uprising starts at 25th January but they didn't mention the date as the title by itself. I know the Egyptians will say use this kind of title but the international community still refer it as Revolutions in Egypt. Therefore 2011-2012 Egyptian Revolution is still the best title for now at this article. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest to change the title to "Egyptian Revolution of 2011", as compared to Egyptian Revolution of 1952 and Revolution of 1905, for example.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Where is the update?? the revolution is still going on in Egypt against the Military rule and casualties still falling, it is meaningless to think that the revolution ended with Mubarak stepping down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.34.139.149 (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite right. there should be a new section or article about currrent action.142.22.115.5 (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The text of the article and events in egypt reported through other means than this article and not referenced here leave no doubt that the revolution is ongoing. I'm writing partly in response to what others have said below as well in the "update" talk section. This is a request to anybody with autoconfirm status to move this page to reflect the alternate name which is already even used, bolded, at the start of the article header: "2011-2012 Egyptian Revolution". I think this does justice to the ongoing efforts in egypt at this time. I will also be working on a section expanding recent events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trichometetrahydron (talk • contribs) 17:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I also agree that the proper name for this article would, indeed, be "2011-2012 Egyptian revolution". The revolution did not end on December 31st, 2011. Indeed, it still continues, even to this very day. So, if an administrator could please come over here and move this page to that title, then, that would be awesome! :) SuperHero2111 (Talk) 21:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. The revolt only lasts for 18 days. After Mubarak was resign, those aren't uprisings anymore, but rather just a massive demonstrations against or demanding something they want. 175.137.55.62 (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Just adding my opinion - I tend to agree with 175.137.55.62 and oppose the name change. The country is undoubtedly undergoing major political changes, but it's incorrect to say that the revolt is ongoing when general elections are taking place and participated by over 40% of Egyptians. Current circumstances and demands are quite distinct, and there has been a long lull in protest. The current events are related to last year's, and the article should include info about that, but it would be incorrect to treat them as the same event. I propose instead that a section be added to this article describing 2012 events, and ideally include a link to a new article named 2012 Protests in Egypt.
Having said that, 175.137.55.62 was wrong to make the changes when there is an ongoing discussion about this in the talk page, but seems to have done so in good faith.
Since opinions are divided, and few were available for comment when the issue was raised, perhaps you should actively seek input from other editors. ʝunglejill 09:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I have put this issue up for discussion at wp:Dispute resolution noticeboard since there is now an edit war regarding the date in the infobox. Discussion should continue there where input can be received from third parties. ʝunglejill 10:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Well the 'revolution' or 'protests' in massive amounts are still going on, they wanted Mubarak to resign first, now they want to get rid of Islamic fundamentalists, military rulers etc, if you just put it as '25 jan - 11 feb' change the title of the page to 'revolution against mubarak', because egypt's revolution thing is still going on. Clarificationgiven (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I personally don't think it should say Jan 25 - Feb 11, but that is the subject of the current edit war. Like I said in wp:Dispute resolution noticeboard, civil unrest in Egypt could continue for years and it would be silly to cram all that information in one article. My opinion is that "January 25, 2011; unrest ongoing" is more appropriate, as appeared in the article before, and that a new article should be created for current events. We weren't able to resolve this on the talk page (we have three sections about it, and no one actually replied constructively.) Since there's a request at the noticeboard, let's discuss there, where we can get a third opinion. ʝunglejill 12:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Decided to change my approach, since I don't intend to fix this issue by myself. Dispute resolution topic is closed. I changed the date in the infobox to "Jan 25; unrest ongoing". But my problem isn't with the title or the date in the infobox, it's with the content. Here's why:

  • Civil unrest is likely to last for years.
  • The article is over 190,000 byes; for comparison, featured articles are normally 30,000 - 50,000 bytes.
  • Anyone who only wants to learn about current events has to dig through this monster article.
  • Current events aren't receiving proper coverage, because of the desire to include everything in one article.

What I think should be done:

  • This article should mention current developments and link to a new article.
  • A new article should be created, where current events are covered properly.
  • The timeline article should receive some attention; either a name change to "Timeline of the Egyptian revolution" or a split to two timelines.

To illustrate my point: take a look at Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution under Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution under Hosni Mubarak's rule: Well-written, concise articles where one can find specific information. This is because the topic was limited to a specific time period. This will be impossible if editors insist on including two years' worth of developments in one article.

Finally: please try to reply to the issues I raised, rather than simply re-stating your opinion. If we don't respond to each other, no meaningful discussion can take place. ʝunglejill 13:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, my point here is that there have also been protests, in Egypt, in 2012. For example, on April 20th, 2012, many people protested in Tahrir Square, because they were angry that the military's transitional period was taking so long. Then, on June 2nd, 2012, there were lots of protests, after the sentencing of Hosni Mubarak. The protesters wanted Mubarak to get the death penalty, and they also opposed the fact that Mubarak was found innocent, on corruption charges. And, most importantly, there has recently been a dramatic upsurge, in protests. This is because there are thousands, (and possibly even millions), of people, who are now once again protesting in Cairo's Tahrir Square, against the military's recent siege of power, away from The Presidency. However, instead of renaming it the 2011-2012 Egyptian Revolution, might I suggest possibly moving it to, "Egyptian Revolution (2011-present)"? SuperHero2111 (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Tanta

An IP editor removed text relating to Tanta and requests for references to back up claims. I reverted the changes, but I have no strong opinion on the matter and I would just like to be sure that information wasn't removed accidentally. TreacherousWays (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there have been a few IP edits recently that - to my uninformed eye - look problematic in that they may be original research or synthesis. Perhaps a more informed editor would care to look at them? TreacherousWays (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


Rtnews template

I've removed the Russia Today news template from the page, as it had raised concern because it pointed to a single trending news page, rather than a selection of trend pages, and after discussion in the appropriate places, it's easier to remove it than it is to add lots of other trend pages, as I don't know of any (don't have time to look). If there are any comments, concerns, or suggestions please reply on my talkpage, as I don't watch this page. Penyulap ☏ 03:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Religion and politics

I'm interested in the pictures under "Religion and politics". The caption reads "A Muslim wearing the cross in solidarity with Christian; and a Copt Christian (left) and a Salafi Muslim (right) debate in Tahrir Square on politics and the revolution"... Now hat are the sources of this? To me it just looks like it could be pictures of anyone, anywhere. What tells us the man with the cross is "a muslim showing solidarity", and not a christian? And the second picture could just be of any two people, anywhere? Trying to prove a point (of religious solidarity, I guess) with unsourced pictures that do not in any way prove that they actually depict what the caption says they do, to me looks quite bad and unproffesional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.149.160.189 (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Al Jazeera video has no sound

The currently being used doesn't seem to have sound. Unless it's just me? --Hfordsa (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move (August 2012)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


2011 Egyptian revolution → 2011–2012 Egyptian revolution – I think this article should be moved to "2011–2012 Egyptian revolution". That is because the revolution began on 25 January 2011, and ended on 30 June 2012. Besides, I have already moved all 3 of the timeline pages to "2011-2012". SuperHero2111 (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cite_quick can avoid size/speed problems

The article "2011–2012 Egyptian revolution" is one of several which are reaching the template include-size error, plus at times exceeding the 60-second timeout to cause "wp:Wikimedia Foundation error" because {cite_news} or {cite_web} is too slow/large to be used over 350-400 times per page. Another article is "Arab Spring". Currently, new Template:Cite_quick can be used to reduce the size/speed problem, coded as {{cite quick |news|...}}. Now, other editors have come to support progress, and we can again begin to streamline those huge articles. Next year, when the Lua script cites are installed, then the {cite quick|news} usage can be edited to remove "quick|" and use the new, faster Lua-based {cite_news} which seems to run about as fast and small as {cite_quick}.

If there are no other concerns, then later tonight I can change the citations in the article to use {cite_quick} and reduce the edit-preview, or reformat, time of the entire page to within 30 seconds. - Wikid77 (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Pseudo coup theory

I moved this section to the talk page as it appears to be written in a speculative manner with original research and insufficient support from secondary sources.

A Leak All document reveals that what took place after the ouster of Mubarak is a silent security pseudo-coup. It started as CIA ordered Hosni Mubarak to step down, with promises of his security, to assign an undercover US-Egypt security board consisting of high-profile members of the Central Intelligence Agency and Egypt's General Intelligence Service, to conduct the coup and to govern Egypt in effect. It was agreed that a military junta would appear as the apparent ruler of Egypt through a transition period, but the junta was just a front. All unrest, mistrust, put-up jobs and big games were the only events that took place since February 11, 2011 until now. These events are considered as a farce, an intelligence theatrical performance to pave the way for major events like the reoccupation of Sinai and the intimidation and the occupation of people's minds away from democracy, justice and peaceful protests. Some of the lies the public have heard are that the remnants of Mubarak's regime are ruining the country; Muslim Brotherhood killed protesters at Tahrir Square and allowed Al-Qaeda and Hamas to prevail in Sinai; Omar Suleiman died/was killed. In fact, the said board committed the Port Said massacre, sectarian strife, fabricated Jihadists in Sinai and many other memorable situations. They even publicized the death of Omar Suleiman to make Egyptians believe that Muslim Brotherhood killed him and that the choice of the revolutionaries is mired, lame and shameful, although people are not part of that game, and to also keep Suleiman away from the counter-revolution public charges. One of the major lies is that Mubarak and the regime members are in prison. It is worth to say that they are leading a normal life just like anybody but in secret places; some of them are summoned on regular bases to appear before the camera for the misinformation of the public. Omar Suleiman's death is a lie just like Bin Laden's. Muslim Brotherhood was assigned to replace Mubarak through a meticulously rigged elections assisted by the propaganda machine of integrity and liberty. Actually, all known presidential candidates were first recruited and then chosen by GIS to make entrance for them into the game. All efforts has been exerted to rescue the CIA-founded regime in the region, besides a democratic Egypt would jeopardize the interests of US and Israel.[3]

  1. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqvSohh4bWk
  2. ^ http://www.ffnc-eg.org/assets/ffnc-eg_final.pdf
  3. ^ Hoffman, Anne. "Biggest conspiracy in Egypt's modern history". Retrieved 06 October 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

--Ocaasi t | c 15:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, not only is the source of questionable reliability, the way it's written in is very unencyclopedic. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
yep, agreed, single sources' conspiracy theorising is UNDUE/POV. Not to mention the size of the paragraph given credence. (aho added it?).Lihaas (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree with the foregoing statements of FutureTrillionaire and Lihaas and propose therefore to delete the section entirely and indefinitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move (November 2012)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. -- tariqabjotu 23:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

2011–2012 Egyptian revolution → 2011 Egyptian revolution – When referring to the Egyptian revolution, news sources are specifically referring to the events that led to Mubarak's fall, which occurred in Feb 2011. Here's the evidence: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. The events after his fall are often referred to as "post-revolution" or "aftermath" of the revolution. Since RS don't refer to the events in 2012 as part of the revolution, I don't see why WP should either.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support -For the reasons I stated above. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support; seems reasonable to me. bobrayner (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose WP is an encyclopaedia and a revolution is a n evolutionary process (a re-evolution). Thats the definition of the word. A single event does not constitute a revolution. Further this is not a media organisation to parrot sensationalism. We should break it down.Lihaas (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support agree that an article that is dated can also give background information that led up to the event and repercussions even if they are outside the dates. note on the last comment, revolution does not come from evolution, it is a term to describe a circle cycle (revolve) where the class structure is radically turned around - those who were at the top go to the bottom, those at the bottom go to the top. Yours ever Czar Brodie (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
sub note: I notice Egyptian Revolution of 1919 and Egyptian Revolution of 1952, would it not be better to keep with this format and change it to Egyptian Revolution of 2011? Czar Brodie (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
A few of the sources I checked reffered to it as that, but the majority simply referred to the events as "Egyptian revolution" or "revolution in Egypt", with the 2011 sometimes put in front or after.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, checked sources myself. I was satisfied with a New York Times article that squarely puts the revolution in 2011 ("its revolution in February 2011") and lists all other events as "aftermath" and "developments". If the NYT was reporting the French Revolution no doubt it would set the date as 1789 (storming of the Bastille) and list all the other events as aftermath. For an historian such as myself, this is problematic; but Wikipedia is, I think, about sources and the Egyptian Revolution is to current for History books to be used as sources, so it has to be sourced from newspapers (for now) in my view. Czar Brodie (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't see many sources calling it that. WP's naming policy is based on WP:commonname. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I know that. But that name would have the benefit of sidestepping the questions of whether or not it was a revolution and when that revolution actually ended. nableezy - 19:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mubarak

What is the status on him, is he really dead? If so, someone seriously needs to update his article, pronto. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosni_Mubarak#Health_problems> EgyptKEW9 (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

He's not dead, he's currently in court again. Charles Essie (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested Move (June 2013)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. -- tariqabjotu 00:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

2011 Egyptian revolution → Egyptian Revolution of 2011 – for consistency with the Egyptian Revolution of 1919 and Egyptian Revolution of 1952 articles. --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 19:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Charles Essie (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, why not. It doesn't really matter, but I guess it sounds better.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Reverse the proposal rename the other two articles instead. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Although the format [insert year] Egyptian revolution would be more concise, it is less clear in my opinion. Egyptian revolution [insert year] clarifies that multiple revolutions exist. Another possibility is to change all relevant article names to Egyptian revolution ([insert year]). Augsburgbeliever (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I support the current title and moving other revolutions to [year] Egyptian revolution. --Meno25 (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

For me, is all the same. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

financial support of anti-morsi activists

Al Jazeera has a lengthy article on the funding of anti-morsi figures: Exclusive: US bankrolled anti-Morsi activists --37.201.227.158 (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Al Jazeera admits the article is controversial. I'm no expert and I can't decide on this. --94.218.253.249 (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Was this a revolution?

This might sound a bit trollish, but the word "revolution" is somewhat misleading here. As of 2013, it seems that after some protests, unrest and wasted elections, the end result was just changing one general to another, all existing institutions basically remaining as they were before things got unstable and army maintaining its dominance just as before. An actual revolution should be able to name at least one lasting change in the governance. Less glorious "2011 Egyptian protests" or "2011 Egyptian coup d'état" (again, it was the army back in 2011 who actually toppled the president) would be more truthful. Drieakko (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Practically, Mubarak stepped down, the SCAF got the power until they made a fair elections where Egyptians choosed their president freely, a civil one for first time in Egypt's history. don't build conclusions upon your theories. we Judge what we see not what we think going under tables.
  • President overthrown.
  • Cabinet overthrown.
  • Constitution suspended and new one was written.
  • Downfall of security agency like SSIS.
  • Dissolution of the ruling party.
  • Arrest of the Regime's figures including the president.

what other acts of revolutions should be done? + I don't where you came with changing a general with another. as far as I see no general had the power in Egypt unless Morsi was a general. Amr TarekSay Hello!, 23:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Stating that a revolution is "misleading" needs to be backed up by facts and if there aren't any then you are using the wrong word. I don't recall a revolution that has faced changes exactly on the spot. Changes might be minor or major, but either ways changes take time and this is what makes it credible. I, as an Egyptian who was part of mostly every protest knows that many changes have taken place over the last few years. To downgrade the effect of the revolution is not fair to many of those who spent every minute of their day fighting for their rights. In the end, those who lost their rights and fought for them in this revolution are the only ones to evaluate whether this was actually a revolution or not.Mariamsalama3 (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

>> Egypt youth disappointed ahead of anniversary (can update in an @aftermth"section)>> Egypt counts toll of anniversary protests>> Egypt revolt still 'worth it' despite turmoil(Lihaas (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)).

Article needs copyeditng

I did some minor copyedits to this Egyptian Revolution of 2011 article, and I find it to be looking like a news article. Lots of photos, instances of mediocre grammar, the use of un-neutral terms like "hallmark", "wielded", and "reach out", and too many references come from primary news sources. Articles that appear in WP:ITN look like news articles, so why most of them don't get copyedits? I want this article to be copyedited, and there must be a big section about the protests that is not a timeline. IX|(C"<) 04:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there isn't too many primary news sources used. IX|(C"<) 04:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you please add a {{copyedit}} tag to this article? Mr*|(60nna) 21:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
By the way, the lead doesn't want refs. Mr*|(60nna) 21:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Disputed

See this Vice article. Mr*|(60nna) 00:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Vice article was actually satire. Mr*|(60nna) 01:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone please fix the vandalism.

On the timeline, February the 11th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.219.76.83 (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Lists of links

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Egyptian Revolution of 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 16 external links on Egyptian Revolution of 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Egyptian Revolution of 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Egyptian revolution of 2011. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 32 external links on Egyptian revolution of 2011. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 09:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Egyptian revolution of 2011. 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:

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) 09:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Egyptian revolution of 2011. 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:

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) 20:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Egyptian revolution of 2011. 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:

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) 02:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Egyptian Revolution of 2011

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Egyptian Revolution of 2011's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "DeathToll-16-8-13":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


Requested move 13 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Egyptian revolution of 2011 → Egyptian Revolution of 2011 – Established name. – Article editor (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox formatting: conflict!

I don't have the technical capability (yet) or the knowledge of the situation (yet) to edit the article myself, but surely the infobox ought to be formatted like all other conflicts, and have a divided section at the bottom with parties to the conflict, notable leaders, and deaths (etc) listed in separate columns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amatama (talk • contribs) 22:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree. Nonsense that such an important article (in the infobox) doesn't identify the parties to the conflict. 87.252.229.38 (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Archiving

I believe I have fixed this page's broken archiving (it seems that none had been done since 2012). Please look out for any anomalies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Page size

The article currenlty has 239,330 bytes of wiki markup. Can it be trimmed, or sub-divided? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Material copied to another Wikipedia page

Material from this article has been copied to the Wikipedia page 2010s political history.Michael E Nolan (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Egyptian_revolution/Archive_9&oldid=1166069902"