Talk:2011 Egyptian revolution/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Internet is back (FINALLY)

Internet is back in Egypt.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back. Glad you are safe. What do you think of the article so far? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Bias

The article is very good thus far, however, it is a little biased in that it does not convey the dramatic change of the government initiatives after the protests. The speech of the president included remarkable points that are not addressed in the article including the presidents call for the limiting of the terms of the president and the change of the requirements for the election of a president. He also accepted the legal charges against the parliament members which means a great amount of the parliament members will be changed. The prime minister also went on the TV twice yesterday to talk on talk shows to show that the government is willing to talk to the masses. The new government that was formed also does not include any business men which the previous government dominated. The article also doesn't mention the anonymous hacker group which attacked multiple government website which might be also a contributing reason why the internet was down so that these groups wouldn't have access to the government websites, threatening national security. I'll do my best to include this info and hope others do as well.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

We are still working on that section. It just happened yesterday. Now for the new government formation, you will added it to Domestic responses to the 2011 Egyptian protests article. The hacking group goes to International reactions to the 2011 Egyptian protests article (although, I think we added it there). I am going to add Mubarak's comment after I find some sources for it. again, glad you are back -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of reforms, the article's background section on corruption is actually mostly discussing authoritarian tendencies and not the political corruption. (Misuse of government power for other purposes, such as repression of political opponents and general police brutality, is not considered political corruption.) So this stuff should be corrected. (So I did it.) --94.246.150.68 (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the sources for the background section? please do before you decide to edit them. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you read what political corruption is? The Egypt has problem with it, but the term means pocketing money, accepting or even demanding bribes, illegal lobbying and such. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

the background does cite an external organisations barometre of corruption, so its not OR. Although i think your concern is with the first line, that could be reworded/replaces somewhere else.(Lihaas (talk) 11:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)).

I agree that stuff like police brutality is a human rights abuce, while stuff like bribeing is political corruption (see David Chaytor, Jim Devine, etc).Wipsenade (talk) 11:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"Corruption" section as it was discussed mostly lack of real democracy. I fixed it already, by moving to the emergency law section. The new government that was formed also does not include any business men which the previous government dominated means a reform in this context, that's why I commented on this here. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Corruption is dopey!--81.100.122.245 (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added a quote from Mubarak's speech to the domestic responses article (and a reference that links to the full text). It's probably worth putting some more summary of it in the main article, but I'm not knowledgable enough about the Egyptian political system to do it myself.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

bold text in lead

i removed "day of anger" because there are obviously multiple days as viewable on the timeline. I also removed the "lotus reolution" because, as per tunisia, we would need extraordinary sources to verify that. right now its only a western and again media sensationalist tag. the need to label everything.Lihaas (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree; too few reputable sources refer to the protests as such. (See Names above.) 67.253.98.148 (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead too long

Is it normal for an article this size for the lead to be five paragraphs long? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not that strange, since the lede is meant to summarize the sections in the article, of which there are a lot in this article. After this is all over and things settle down, we'll be able to determine what parts were of more importance and trim down the lede in relation to those. But, while an event is ongoing, it makes sense to have the lede be comprehensive. Silverseren^C 17:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's stretching the guidelines a bit, but as Silver seren says, it summarizes the article well at this point. I'd say leave it for now, remove the template, and be vigilant about stopping it getting any longer.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur. We can rewrite the article when we know what goes in it - which includes whatever happens tomorrow. Patience. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We should try to prevent things going clearly in the wrong direction, but postpone attempts to clean up the article.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the size of the lead is justified by the momentous nature of the events in Egypt. It's not typical, but this is not a typical article by any means. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of all, it's out of date to begin with. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

ive shortened it a bit.Lihaas (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Name of the article

It should be named the Civil war in Egypt.--!!2011WorldProtests!! (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Seeing that the name of the article is changing and that it's going to be a problem in the future, we need to discuss it now -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

So, the popular protests that brought down the government in Tunisia are named "2010-2011 Tunisian protests" and the popular protests that have accomplished NOTHING (for the time being) in Egypt deserve the name "2011 Egyptian revolution"? Puh-lease.

I think calling these protests is reasonable. While this could evolve into a revolution, I feel the decision of whether or not this is a revolution will be better made in the coming months(weeks? days? hours? who knows?) as the whole situation heads towards some form of conclusion. Many thought that the Iranian Protests of 2009-2010 would lead to a revolution, here we sit over a year later and nothing changed. Let's be patient and watch. --71.41.220.147 (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

We generally determine the title from what the majority of the sources are calling it. For now, it is still being called a protest, thus our current name. If most news organizations started calling it a revolution, we would have a case for changing the name. Silverseren^C 20:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hosni Mubarak has dismissed the government because of the events. What is occurring has gone beyond mere protests. I wouldn't say that it is a revolution yet, but an uprising at least. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

As soon as sources call it an uprising rather than just protests, we can too. For now, every source I've seen is still just using 'protests' though. Ocaasi (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please let's follow article naming conventions and not vault every interested party's chosen moniker to boldface, lead-sentence status prior to this actually being widely accepted. Last night I removed "Youth Revolutions" and this morning I have removed "Lotus Revolution". Either may yet become what this becomes popularly known as, but it is not so now, and would be unencyclopedic to elevate a particular faction's preferred characterization so early in this developing story. If individuals or groups are seeking to "own" or co-opt these protests, that should first be covered with cites and appropriate relative weightings in the body of the article; if and when one such name seems to have stuck to the satisfaction of those involved, then it shouldn't be difficult to develop consensus to represent it that way here. Abrazame (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say yes at least maybe later. However, we will see during the following days or weeks if these protests will emerge towards the revolution which they called the Lotus revolution or the Youth revolution

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/01/28/egypt.press.club/

Kartasto (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It's time to change the name to "revolution" from protests

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/29/egypt-mubarak-tunisia-palestine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.166.157 (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, she's still well ahead of the pack. It's also an opinion piece and she has been acting particularly in a punditry/advocacy role supporting the protests throughout rather than as a neutral journalist. Still watching for sources, but thanks for that tip. Ocaasi (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Mona Eltawahi Eltahawy is not a remotely WP:NPOV source in this matter and quoting her words should be done cautiously. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

time to call it Revolution?

There must be sources supporting it. It seems like it. --Athinker (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Although a revolutionary outcome has not yet been achieved (of course that is a distinct possibility) the developing events certainly have many characteristics of a revolution, and for that reason I would personally be happy to see the word added in the Characteristcs section of the infobox. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources, just sources. We can't be pushing that needle any further than it's already gone. Revolution is a very 'big' word, and until governments are overthrown or replaced--and sources start using the term explicitly, I don't think we should. Ocaasi (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait till the president is completely gone...and maybe some actual reforms or changes are put in. Like maybe if Mubarak is either pushed out or maybe he simply does not run for president in the next "election". (Those rigged jokes of "elections"...where mysteriously he gets more than 98% of the "vote"...though most people don't like him and wanted him out...hence why a lot of the outrage and anger).

As of yet, it's an uprising, violent protest, unrest, riot... That sorta thing. But an attempted "revolution" is not quite yet an actual "revolution" per se, I would think. What happened in Iran not that long ago kinda proves that. Ahmadinejad is still "president" of Iran, despite the uprising and protests that happened there. So we'll see... This might be different though. With Egypt. Time will tell. Archiver of Records (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Mubarak is still in control, so there has been no "revolution." So far it is vandalism, rallying and whinging. Let us know when Mubarak is no longer in control, so we can make the name change for the article. Edison (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm presuming the new name would be "Egyptian Revolution of 2011", in the event of Mubarak's removal from power (let's not kid ourselves, it's imminent at this point). Master&Expert (Talk) 06:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If and when Mubarak leaves, then it becomes an "Uprising", Not a Revolution. We need have NPOV. If and when it becomes a full-blown revolution, then we will name it a "Revolution" -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If and when a diversity of RS' call it so. even tunisia had no consensus for it. though i was just about to nominate a move to "uprising" isntead of protests. but scratch that, Egyptian Liberal's comment makes more sense.(Lihaas (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

Forgive me for perhaps misunderstanding what has been said, but I fail to see how the term "revolution" would appear as biased. It implies dramatic change, whether positive or negative. If it comes to be identified with the term, then we can potentially follow my suggestion above and rename the article. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It's only biased because it's premature. So, suggesting it now seems to prefer that outcome. Otherwise, if/once RS start using that term, we probably will too. Ocaasi (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I currently Oppose calling this a revolution, take for example the Tunisian uprising article the president there stepped down, there was no viuolent takeover or anything there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be violent to be a revolution anyway. Look at Velvet Revolution for example; it had nothing to do with violence, but it was a revolution because despite being non-violent there were changes (from communism to democracy) and the changes were dramatic. Also, if the stated goal of the Egyptian protests is to oust Mubarak that can hardly be named a revolution; it doesn't change the existing systems, does it? It only replaces the man/men currently at top with someone else. Roofred (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree to call it a revolution, Millions of people, with different ideologies requiring the regime to step down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.248.56.1 (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not a mere protest. Rename it.

This is not a mere protest. Almost all sources title it TURMOIL. In my opinion it's a dictionary definition of a Revolution but I'm aware sources are afraid to say it. --Athinker (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a similar case with their name/title? Dinkytown talk 18:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

we dont use editor opinion, and for such a big thing we need multiple and DIVERSE RS. Tunisia is still not a revolution, no way egypt will bveLihaas (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If they call Paris: May 1968 a revolution then this is.Ericl (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

yes, but we cant cite "they" we need such RS.(Lihaas (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)).

Uprising?

CNN seems rather fond of calling the events an Uprising. Personally I think this is a good middle ground between 'protest', which it is in my opinion evolved beyond, and 'revolution,' which implants a physical attempt to seize power. DavidSSabb (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a rough guide, Google News search limited to the past 7 days for Egypt protests: 27,693; for Egypt uprising: 11,305 (note: similar breakdown of about 2.5:1 for egyptian protests, egyptian uprising). See also Google Trends (egypt protests, egypt uprising) [1]. And check out the Google Trends regional breakout at the bottom, where the 'uprising' term has indeed caught on more in the US than the UK or Canada: [2] Ocaasi (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"Revolution" is totally unsuitable and "uprising" arguably has a POV connotation. "Protests" is a straightforward, NPOV description of the situation. Everyking (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd support renaming it "uprising". I don't see it being "POV connotated", it's exactly what's happening: an uprising of millions of Egyptian people against Mubarak.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Support for "uprising". Seems a good middle path. Midlakewinter (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

As the single events taking place are often called "protest", or, if they take place in several cities simultaneously, for example, are referred to as "protests", a Google search can't really answer the question of whether the movement as a whole is being seen as an uprising, a revolution, a revolt, or as (a number of) protests. We have to look carefully at the context in which reliable sources use words such as "protests" or "uprising". Also, internet search may well include outdated information and analysis.  Cs32en Talk to me  13:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I commonly understood an uprising to involve violence, which isn't really the case yet. This could very well change but I don't think the case has been made that either A) it is an uprising and B) that is the common name being applied to the current events.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Protests are expressions of opinions, while an uprising is an attempt to change the existing power structure. Such an attempt may be peaceful, but often, as it implies a power struggle, it is violent. Violence can emerge for different reasons, and a violent uprising does not imply that the movement behind the uprising intended it to be violent.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

From webster: "Uprising - an act or instance of rising up; especially : a usually localized act of popular violence in defiance usually of an established government" wikidictionary has a similar thing on it. In other words it appears that this meets the definition here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said, my impression is that it normally employs large-scale violence. To reach this conclusion, I searched other wikipedia articles that employ the term uprising in the title and I had difficultly finding any that did not involve armed struggle.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

2010–2011 Tunisian uprising would be an example without much violence on the protesters' side... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

A perfect example indeed, because it started off as 2010–2011 Tunisian protests and when it became conclusive that it was a uprising the article was renamed 2010–2011 Tunisian uprising. That didn't happen until over a month after those events started. The protest in Egypt have been taking place for just over a week. Patience.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Per above, and my comment - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Postpone definitely and see what happens. If this prevails, it may be consensus to call this a Revolution (with a flower name all its own - Lotus, I suppose) by the end of the week. If it fizzles, it may not even become known as an uprising. If a consensus name emerges, present evidence for it; if not, let us reconsider this time next week. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support I too agree with the previous statements caling for a name change. Although there is no easy way to quantify "protests" versus "uprising" or "revolution", in my opinion several hundred violent deaths doesn't seem like a protest to me. But, like above, a revolution requires some level of success that the anti-Mubarak crowd has not yet achieved. If the name of the article must change again to reflect further development in the days ahead, so be it. but for now these are not protests. It is revolt. Sixer Fixer (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

BREAKING NEWS

Mubarak to resign

Mubarak to ABC: I want to resign but I'm afraid of chaos -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The Egyptian Government Issues A Travel ban and Bank accounts freeze for many people

The Egyptian Government Issues A Travel ban and Bank accounts freeze for many people. The list include Ahmed Ezz, Habib Ibrahim El Adly, Ahmed Alaa E-Din Amin El-Maghrabi and Ahmed Abdul Aziz -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahmed Ezz quits Mubarak party

Egypt magnate-cum-politician quits Mubarak party -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahmed Shafik named as the new Prime Minister of Egypt

Ahmed Shafik the Minister for Civil Aviation is named as the new Prime Minister -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

prison escape

need mention of this (like tunisia), reports saying over 3,000 have been recaptured. (no doubt the looters)(Lihaas (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

Reports state that many Islamic militants have escaped, and the Egyptian Air Force is heavily present over major cities like Cairo. Try checking the current events portal periodically for updates. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

[3][4][5](Lihaas (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

Tora prison

Good afternoon. Possible shooting against unarmed prisoners. http://www.hrw.org/egypt-live-updates --Youssef (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Oil Brent hit 100 dollars

Perhaps it deserves a coverage. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12328745 --Youssef (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

if related add it to the financial markets bit.Lihaas (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera

Al Jazeera journalists released, though not sure about equipment adn data.(Lihaas (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)).

Good afternoon. According to theit new site (in English), camera equipment has been seized. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/01/2011131123648291703.html --Youssef (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Prison escapees at least 1 from Army of Islam and one fron Hamas, n=both in Gaza.

CNN says "heavily armed" marines sent to us embassy as the CNN analyst cites the Tehran embassy precedent. + new Ministers sworn in + netenyaho wary of "chaotic change" + million man march in cairo and alexandria (name in obious reference to MLK)

al jazeera quoptes tehe armed forces spokesman as saying "we will not raise arms against a great people" (yadda, ydda, ie- egyptian people who are good and cannot be fired upon). just asked if prez is losing support of army, or theyre playing careful. + alexandria has seen the worse clashes during the protests + analyst says the only functional part of the country is the army + Dennis Kucinich as expect, Ron Paul-ish call for mubarak not to supress, etc. + al jazeera pieece right now on american support for egypt (mostly mil) (damn damning i might say!) + police abck on street + helicopters all night over tahrir square + pro-mubarak protests, motly from community protections + new VP says govt willing to talk any and all groyups as of a speech tonight + police planning to block protests tomorrow morning + people believe army is there to protect them from police + charles boutany response + israel "allows" troops to move into sinai near sharm el shaikh + some calls for "traitor" mubarak to move to israel + people sleeping out in the street all night to prepare for tomorrow, and internet shut down, mobile services to be shut + local criticisms of state media broadcasts + MB now blames army for allowing looters/rioters/mobs into cairo + supporters of muabrak say that opposers have weapons and are ready for violence + fuel lines + banks opening for pensioners to withdraw money + elbaradei: "what is happening now is a crime against egypt" (feb 2 violence) + reports of capital flight from egypt + state tv not showing night porotests + S... Amin, sr journalist, resigned from Nile TV sayign she doesnt want to be part of state propaganda + protesters say Mubarak speech was worthless and did address major issues [(Parliament and Shura should be dissolved due to the rigged election, hence the constitution can not be rewritten by them) (He didnt say anything about Gamal not running) (Amending article 88 of the Constitution of Egyp) (Releasing political prisoners) + PM speaks to address 2nd Feb attack + the wafd party flip-flops + protesters still refusing to take to the government until Mubarak steps down due the Feb. 2nd attack + 3 Aljazeera reporters arrested by the Egyptian government + prosecutor general announces on state tv that certain former ministers are barred from leaving the country (incl. the steel guy in the background section) (4 in total) + Interior Min. to investigate why police ordered off the street(feb 3 + Omar Soliman says the Mubarak and his son are not going to run in the next election but the protesters are not buying it(feb 3 + sniper shots reported in Tahrir(feb 3 + PM had a press conference (feb 3) + VP spoke *feb 3) + The government arrested nine of the young activists, including Amr Salah ,Nasser Abdel Hamid, Shadi Ghazaly + TV Live feed as stop from tahrir square + MB will nto partake in talks with the government + Alexandria protests big on the 3, but ended before 9 (though people were camping out akin to "our friends in cairo/tahrir" also a big demonstations expected tomorrow + al jazeera amongst mos repressed new outlet (if not THE) + egyptian islamic jihad made a statement (press tv) + feb 4: alexandria protests massive, some pics even suggest more crowd than cairo + feb: alexandria iman (Ibrahim Mosque) saying mubrak's times up and intimidation wont work + feb 4: military leaders (tantawi first min to visit square) met protesters at tahrir earlier saying "they will not be attacked today" and security checkpoitns aroudn cairo to check protests going to Tahrir + feb 4: pro-mubarak gather in cairo (number 3,000) + el baradei working on new constitution with opposition + no pro-mubarak or police/military in alexandria + Amr Moussa join protesters in tahrir square + A joint statement from all the opposition group to come out soon + cultural icons present gain in Tahrir + berlusconi back to being the idiot again: "muabrak is wise" and he should stay to transition + Khomeini says this is a sign the islamic rebvolution is winning (sure press tv may have a source on it) + clashes reported to have begun + 5m in cairo alexandri? (egypt 2nd scity).. + state-tv in la-la land believing nd SHOWING that there are no distrubances and everything is quiet, reportin theyre correcting "false images of the foreign media" + protests in suez -- state tv claimed peaceful despite both sides present --> they also claim protesters are shaking hands and openly and freely exchaning views last few days of the network... + ban-ki moon again + mullen sayign us armed forced on the ready + protests expanded to Abdul [something] square nearby tahrir + us said to be workign with muabrak to find some way to resign + Journalist Ahmed Mohamed Mahmoud dies on 4 feb due to gun shot on the 28th + alexandria much more peaceful, very minor scuffles early in the day (feb 4) + noon namaxz in open air in cairo, and night in alexandria...following whch protests continued (though many left at night due to cold) + ban ki moon call for immediate elections + night curfew eased by 3 hours + VP calls for meet with "wise men" opposition to discuss issues + baradei call to "leave in dignity" (longisicne gone that) + MB earlier said it would hold a referendum on relations with israel + mubarak is a "dead man walking" + john kerry/john mccain call for mubarak to leave + al hjazeera arabic bureau chief arrested along with another jornalist + Papandreu due in Cairo for talks on bhealf of the EU + 6 April Youth Movement release a statement + Health min OFFICIAL death toll at 11silly as the ministry may be, we should mention their version + al jazeera showing day-by-day (from jan 25) hypocritical us reaction + sinai pieline explosdes + daivd cameron comments on some typical western ruhbbish about extremist idology still drawing people even if this was solved + bill o'reilly critical of al jazeera coverage + clinton: perfect storm for region

Need to find

+ need to find : Boutros boutros ghali and al qaeda (Arabian Peninsula and/or islamic maghreb)

Tuesay huge march

URGENT: Tomorrow 9am march to the Heliopolis Palace.Lihaas (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

TOMORROW (FEBRUARY 1) BIGGEST MARCH PLANNED TO DATE Archiver of Records (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done (id imagine)(Lihaas (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)).

The Council of the state and the nation's faithful

Wafd party made a statement of opposition (id imagine against the new govt and not baradei)

Its kinda talking a dig at both. They are forming a "council of wise men". I think we will have more info on that tomorrw. I hope... -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahmed Zewail

AHMED ZEWAILsaid on Monday he would return on Tuesday to continue work in a committee for constitutional reform including Ayman Nour and prominent lawyers. Al-Shorouk newspaper published a “letter to the Egyptian people” in which he proposed a "council of wise men" to write a new constitution. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Army sides with protesters

A new article was just released by Reuters here. It discusses how the army has sided with the protesters, saying that they believe the protests are legitimate. It also discusses how the US has now demanded point blank that Mubarak must end the Emergency Law and hold free elections. Silverseren^C 22:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

In response to the army declaring them legitimate, the protesters are planning a "million-strong" protest tomorrow, the Guardian reports. Silverseren^C 23:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

yes, thank you.  Done(Lihaas (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)).

Looting, verification

In the January 29th section we cover reports that some looting is linked to the Egyptian Regime or the police. There are currently three claims, one of which is not cited and seems difficult to confirm:

News from inside Alexandria as reported by an eye witness on Al-Arabiya news channel via phone, that a group of people captured a number of armed civilians trying to break into a local bank and after some investigation they learned that those armed civilians were actually part of the "Egyptian Undercover Police" with orders to create chaos.

I'll post it here so others can try and track it down. If we can't, given the increasing reporting on this issue, I think we can remove it and/or replace it. Ocaasi (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Here - "We had one confirmed report of two looters who were caught who had identification of the dreaded plainclothes undercover police unit on them so we are not quite sure how much of this is spontaneous and how much of this is an organised attempt by the government to create instability now so people have the choice of either going back to the Mubarak police state or facing this instability."

Here - "His statement comes as Al Jazeera and other news networks reported extensively on the small looting at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo in the past two days as police guarding the museum left their posts. Others allege that the police themselves are responsible for the looting."

Here - "The protesters distanced themselves from the atrocities, organized human chains to protect the museum, and blamed the looting and jailbreaks on instigation by the secret police. It is possible that parts of Mubarak's security apparatus, with or without his consent, took part in instigating the chaos. This would echo what has happened in similar circumstances in countless other places, and, if executed stealthily, could damage the support base of the protesters. American think-tank Stratfor reports, 'Egyptian plainclothes police allegedly were behind a number of the jailbreaks, robberies of major banks and the spread of attacks and break-ins in high-class neighborhoods.'"

How's that? Silverseren^C 08:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks, sorry this got lost amongst the madness. Ocaasi (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera Journalists Arrested, Then Released; Equipment Taken

See here. Silverseren^C 16:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Also here. Silverseren^C 16:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I put it in the arrests section. Feel free to move it if you like.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

the question is was tghe equipment/data released too>?Lihaas (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Those sources I gave say that the equipment was confiscated and not returned. Silverseren^C 19:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

ah! we need that to say thenLihaas (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"around 8 million" yesterday

Sources for this claim are this are all Arabic. Need English sources, possibly alternative estimates. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Clashes in Tahrir Square

Discuss here how to cover the issue, and look at the Internet articles how they do this (instead of just watching TV). --94.246.150.68 (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There's already a sentence or so in the article at the end of February 2nd, but it should probably be expanded. See this article released by Al Jazeera. Over 100 people are injured from this, with this report saying more than 500. The accusations of Mubarak paying off and sending in these "thugs" should probably be in the article. Silverseren^C 16:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Anderson Cooper, CNN reporter, attacked

Anderson Cooper and his TV crew are punched and beaten in Tahrir Square, according to Entertainment Weekly. Silverseren^C 16:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Add it - The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Anderson Cooper describes more about what happened here. It seems that the pro-Mubarak group purposefully went after him. Silverseren^C 20:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

 DoneLihaas (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but how is this encyclopedic? I doubt that sources will refer to this as the Time in Egypt that Anderson Cooper was roughed up. I vote to sacrifice the mention at the alter of article size. Midlakewinter (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

that journalists were attacked, which is a form of censorship (where we have an entire section), and where CPJ's comments are also cited here indicating notability.Lihaas (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This may seem a silly point to argue, but the source refers to "pro-Mubarak" supporters roughing him up, not state actors. I don't doubt your good faith, but thought I'd make mention. Midlakewinter (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The sources also point out that a good number of the pro-Mubarak supporters are police in plain clothes. There are other sources elsewhere on this talk page (further down) that discuss that fact that it is alleged that police are being paid 5 month wages in advance for joining the pro-Mubarak side and this whole fighting/killing thing. Silverseren^C 00:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"pro Mubarak" supporters

Al jazeera is reporting that the "pro Mubarak" people clashing with the anti mubarak demonstrators right now are police/security forces in plain clothes. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

BBC reporter says pro-Mubarak protestors are being paid £5-10 to counter-demonstrate by the ruling party. One was also offered half a chicken! [6] Chesdovi (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

They came on camels and horses. Police IDs have been found on them. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Police are being offered 5 months wages to stoke the violence! Chesdovi (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

They are throwing stone at each other. Disgraceful. [7]. Chesdovi (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

pro-Mubarak protesters attacked the anti-Mubarak protesters with pocket knives and swords. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Scary scenes of violence on al jazeera :( My thoughts are with those in Egypt. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Pro-Mubarak protesters are killing the pro-Democracy protesters. OMG. 300 dead so far. Its sicking -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• CNN just released an article that discusses the identity of the pro-Mubarak supporters. [8] Silverseren^C 18:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Great can you add it? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The Egyptian museum is on fire

Pro-Mubarak have hit the Egyptian museum with a molotov cocktail while trying to hit the pro-Democracy protesters. The army is trying to put the fire out -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Egyptian government rejects international requests for a transition

According to this article, this morning, the Egyptian government announced that it will not be working toward an immediate political transition, regardless of what other countries want. Silverseren^C 17:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Add it - The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

State television orders protesters to disband

New Los Angeles Times article here. Silverseren^C 20:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Add it to the article -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No editing from me, that's up to you guys. I'm just the reference guy. :P Silverseren^C 20:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Archived. Wipsenade (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Move request

2011 Egyptian protests → 2011 Egyptian uprising — [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]  Cs32en Talk to me  05:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

.

NEWS DESK (sourcing and verification)

Use this section to post requests for sources, statements needing verification.

Hamas Involvement Dubious

Is there another source that suggests Hamas involvement? The source given for this claim is two articles on a right wing Israeli website whose authors boast of having an 80% accuracy level in their statements. Once of the articles cited does not even assert Hamas is involved and I was unable to find any credible collaboration of this claim, though other articles in the mainstream Israeli press (Ha'aretz) indicated Hamas is consciously avoiding involvement.--152.23.238.39 (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Self-organized services

Protesters were also reported picking up trash in Tahrir Square, as essential services were not working and they wanted to "keep our country clean." (this was sourced to 'TV', but I know there are print sources out there). Ocaasi (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Here and here. Silverseren^C 09:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice, added. Ocaasi (talk) 09:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Opposition talks

An opposition leader{Who|date=January 2011} said that talks would not be held with Mubarak but only with the army. (sourced to 'TV') Ocaasi (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I might be wrong, But I think that was ElBaradei -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

that was directly from al jazeera, i didnt catch the name (not sure they said it then)(Lihaas (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)).

• Hah, found it! Opposition plans to negotiate with military, not president. Silverseren^C 20:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

 Donethanks(Lihaas (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)).

nice find! Ocaasi (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Funerals

Funerals for the dead on the "Friday of Anger" were held on 30 January. Ocaasi (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

that was directly from al jazeera. (ie- 2 days later and attended by further protests)(Lihaas (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)).

Opposition support

The Muslim Brotherhood, along with other {which?} Egyptian political movements, support ElBaradei and have given him a mandate to negotiate a unity government. Ocaasi (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

April 6 Youth Movement, We are all Khaled Said Movement, National Association for Change, Jan 25 Movement and Kefaya (The main organizers of the protests) have asked Mohammed ElBaradei to act in the country's internal affairs and foreign affairs in the transitional phase, and the formation of a temporarily national salvation government on the 30th of January (Its already mention in the article with sources) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Some sections have sourcing that others don't. Ocaasi (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood support

The Muslim Brotherhood supports Mohammed El-Baradei's National Association for Change. (we have the ref for this in the Jan 30th section, but need to copy it to the Domestic Responses section; Here's the ref--it's currently #116 ^ Coker, Margaret. "Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood Backs ElBaradei Role". The Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/articleSB10001424052748704832704576114132934597622.html) Ocaasi (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Note -- that footnote is now #138, not 116. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Police looting

• Don't forget the sources I gave in the section above about the police being the looters. Silverseren^C 09:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  Added them already, yes. Currently ref #97. Ocaasi (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

photos

FREE CONTENT: Al Jazeera creative commons

FYI -- they announced that anything of theirs related to this is automatically CC valid for any use. Can't find the link now. So any screen caps are fair game. Merrill Stubing (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This is all under a CC-BY licence; free for commercial use. See cc.aljazeera.net. --Natural R_X 20:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"Police in civilian cloth beating a protester in Cairo 1.png"

Police in civilian cloth beating a protester in Cairo

Accuracy of caption

How can you say it's not, for example, members of a vigilante group attacking a looter, or escaped criminals wreaking havoc? Or whatever else going on, filmed from a house window far away? http://cc.aljazeera.net/asset/language/english/footage-and-commentary-protests-egypt says nothing about any "Police in civilian cloth[ing]" in the text description nor in the video. Can't we really stick to the facts? --94.246.150.68 (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That is why the [citation needed] tag was added. No problem to remove the image though and look for a better one. It is true that there are reports of some police in plain clothes beating protesters, and we may be able to find an image describing that. If not, we can just use more neutral captions. Ocaasi (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ocaasi, if we cant find a citation for it, we will just use more neutral captions. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Looters

Btw vigilantes vs looters, we should write more about them: [15][16][17][18] and so on. And yes, this is much more important here than some silly cartoons in Brazil. And the vigilantes have the official military support now against the looters.[19] As its a largely/totally separate issue (side-effect) to the political protests,[20] we should write about it in a separate section (like "Breakdown of law and order and the vigilante response" or something). --94.246.150.68 (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

There are reports of this in the lead as well in several of the daily reports. You could also add/expand the Domestic responses to the 2011 Egyptian protests article with a section on either protester/military cooperation or protester self-organization for defense. Ocaasi (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ocaasi. :There are reports of this in the lead as well in several of the daily reports. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy

Also just as we should work so the looters (apolitical thugs) should not be mis-associated with protesters, stuff like Allegations are spreading that some plain-clothes looters [sic] are associated with the regime's Central Security Forces is unacceptable too, some retarded conspiracy theories helping to make Wikipedia a laughing stock it is, instead of being a reliable source. People are not blaming police for being "plain-clothes looters", but just for surrendering the streets to criminals after killing so many protesters in defense of the dictatorship. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC) I'll leave you with this for now, try to rewrite the article to address this issue properly. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You're being a little presumptuous here. The 'conspiracy allegations' are reports from several major news reports. They describe a growing consensus or sentiment or opinion that some of the looters are associated with Mubarak. The reports of that are verifiable, and the reports are about a significant perception, at least. Even if we can't confirm the truth of the allegations, we can cover it when others have reported on them. That is within what encyclopedias are supposed to do, whether you like the apparent point-of-view or not. Ocaasi (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with Ocaasi -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Replacing the photo

Hmm. seems to have been removed. Someone can insert the one on the link ive cited. Temperamental1 (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

There's an unsourced image on plain-clothes police arresting a protestor on the article. There's one here [21] which it can be replaced with. Im new so I dont know yet how to do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Temperamental1 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't even bother with random photos from the internet, it's not free (belonging to Mohammed Abed / AFP / Getty Images) and so will be quickly deleted. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Morgue photo

A protester casualty on 29 January

I feel uncomfortable using this photo. It doesn't seem to add anything to the article that isn't already captured by the text discussing the deaths. There isn't anything specific about this protester or how he died that can be seen. In other words, the content value of this image is low. By contrast, respect for the victim and his surviving family would argue against using it. How would you feel if your husband or father's body was pictured on Wikipedia forever? (The body is covered, but the family might still know who it was, when, and where.) Given that we don't seem to have much of an editorial motivation in this case, I'd suggest human dignity should win out. Dragons flight (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I would agree. I see little educational value for it and too much shock value. Leave it out. Dinkytown talk 22:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess so, also it's really just a random screenshot (literally). --94.246.150.68 (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, silly me watched the video. and silly me also watches Aljazeera as long as I am wake so evil me saw this so silly me decided to upload it. hence silly me knows what I am talking about -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

wikipedia doesnt censor per Dragons flight.Lihaas (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You should be uncomfortable. we are all human and lost of any human life should makes sad and sick. but I disagree with the removal of the picture because wikipedia doesnt censor (Beside, The body is covered), the image help people understand that fact out the protesters are going through, the fear say face and the price of freedom they had to pay. human dignity should make sure that we we KEEP it to tell the story of those how stood up against Tyranny against all odds. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Latuff cartoons

Is this encyclopedia, or a gallery website for a fan of such freedom-lovers as Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Hamas movement? --94.246.150.68 (talk) 10:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Buddy, we have discussed these topic before and we agreed to keep the picture. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"Buddy", and where "we" agreed some infantile Brazilian Marxist propaganda cartoons are essential to the subject (and NPOV too)? --94.246.150.68 (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, no more calling people synonyms for friend! 94.246, Please search the archives for 'cartoons'. And read the edit notice at the top of the page. Just one cartoon, representing the artist's significance. Not advocating that point of view. Ocaasi (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Tje only palce for such a discussion is ont he talk page here alright, so I'll also say the photo of a cartoon is not at all properly illustrating the historical background section discussing the Emergency Law issue (which should be some archival photo for example). --94.246.150.68 (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to add a photo as well, but the Latuff cartoon represents the friction caused under such emergency law. That is the very significance of the authoritarian approach, because it is what aggravated conditions leading up to these protests. A sterile photo of a policeman is not more reflective of that response than a popular cartoonist who represents widely shared sentiment of resent towards Mubarak. None of that is a bold or uncommon point of view; it's all over the news reports. That's my opinion on the matter.Ocaasi (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Latuff, Shoeing, and Arabic Protest Signage and Graffiti

Protesters had coppyed the Carlos Latuff cartoon and turned it in to one of the protest movements banner and logo.

Protesters had coppyed the Carlos Latuff cartoon and turned it in to one of the protest movements banner and logo.

Although Latuff's work here is quite topical (and OTRS-appropriate), I note that he is a Brazilian editorial cartoonist. Furthermore, shoeing in and of itself is a grave insult in the Arab world, so I'm not sure if the specific President George W. Bush allusion in the caption is appropriate. This may be a problem of duelling contexts, however.

Wikipedia does not censor -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's an issue of censorship; it's an issue of accuracy. Shoeing was an insult before anyone threw a shoe at Bush. If the cartoon was created, or is being used, with the express intention of reminding people of Bush or making some sort of parallel between Bush and Mubarak, then a mention is appropriate. If it is being used as a reference to the cultural practice in general, then the mention of Bush is gratuitous and should be removed/reworded. Does anyone know which it is? - BanyanTree 06:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bush reminder Brazilian cartoonist advocates Tunisia-style change in Arab world -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The reference to Bush in that article is made not by Latuff but by the journalist.

The copy of the cartoon on Wikicommons also has a Bush-relating caption, which I note is the work of The Egyptian Liberal.

As stated above, the Bush reference in the caption is unjustified. (Further, the caption does not explain what shoeing means, beyond the Bush reference and linking the word shoe.) Unless there is a source with Latuff himself saying that the cartoon is a reference to Bush, this caption should be changed. - Eyeresist (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This insult is specific to Arab culture, and that's the context that should be given in the caption. The appropriate linkage shall take whomever to the assorted incidents of "shoeing." That said, Latuff's open source editorial cartoon appears to have become quite the open source phenomenon on the streets of Cairo. kencf0618 (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Secondly, what citations, if any, do we need for English translations of the protest signage and graffiti? kencf0618 (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Which one do you need the translations for? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 05:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of the images found are Flickr already have comments there translating Arabic script. In those cases, attribution on the image description page would be appropriate. I don't see any reason to require explicit citations for straightforward translations made by Wikipedians, since a record of your work is kept in the page history. In any case, translations should probably be added to the description of the files on Commons to centralize the work. - BanyanTree 06:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

As an example, I took the translations provided on Flickr for commons:File:2011 Egypt protests - two signs.jpg and put them into the description as well as as notes in the image so readers can determine which translation goes with which sign. I'm afraid that, while I can recognize some Arabic script, I am completely unable to provide translations. - BanyanTree 06:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I have put up this photograph a couple of times (it's actually three signs), but unfortunately it hasn't stuck. kencf0618 (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

the shoe-throwing that got int'l attention (and numerous parodies the world over) was a result of the shoe throwing at bush. it might have existed before, but where was the intl scope before that? (and dare i say, popularity. it happened even OUTSIDE the arab world later)(Lihaas (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)).

I raised the question because when I first checked the imagery on Flickr, there weren't any translations. Now there are. I'd rather have captions which translate the graffiti and protest signage than captions which just denote a place and a date. kencf0618 (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

agreed(Lihaas (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)).

I wish Wikipedia wasn't censored, but the track record on these demonstrations is that censorship is absolutely our Number 1 priority. For example, the autopsy photo of File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg, which is critical to the understanding of whether Khaled Mohamed Saeed was beaten to death (a major factor leading to the protest), was deleted, strictly because Americans think that photos of dead people are disgusting. And even though the File:Day of Anger shoe sign.jpg, one of rather few photos we have from the actual protests, was clearly based on the Latuff cartoon File:Hosni Mubarak getting the boot.png, there are still some very active editors here who won't allow any mention of Latuff, because he once drew something that annoyed the pro-Israelis. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the English Wikipedia is going to give anything but a stripped-down version of events skewed toward whatever Westerners want to hear. And I don't even know what truths we'll be missing. The days of dreamily believing in a Wikipedia under the Five Pillars are rapidly crashing to an end - together with its credibility.

Unless, that is, people throughout Wikipedia can join together and finally put the shoe to all the deletionist would-be dictators, in a mini, micro, nano version of what the noble Tunisians and Egyptians have been doing. Wnt (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it is of a topical nature and worth keeping some like:- File:Hosni Mubarak getting the boot.png and File:Day of Anger shoe sign.jpg. Wipsenade (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

split time again

time for another split - perhaps "timeline"

article has quickly crept back past 120 kilobytes creating accessiblity problems again.

surely the blow-by-blow diary in the "timeline" can be branched to a sub-article. it's moving to somewhat overweight the main article.--108.14.100.42 (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. I think we'll still need some kind of "today" or "breaking news" section in the main article, but the blow-by-blow timeline is getting a bit unwieldy and a summary would probably be more useful to the reader.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so, besides the issue of looting/vigilantes which I mentioned repeatedly and I think should be separated (it's not integral part of events, unlike for example the 1992 LA riots), and it rather needs to a serious copy-edit for a better flow (in progress now, slowly). --94.246.150.68 (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not total size that matters as much as it is the size of the readable prose. We've had this discussion at Talk:2011 Tucson shooting. I don't know how to calculate readable prose, however. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely total size matters from an uploading speed point of view?--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Not as much as you think, or as I used to think. 120K isn't problematic. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I support the split as the article takes time to load to edit and the timeline is just going to get bigger as the event progresses. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

So OK, but also most of "Domestic responses" as well as the entire "Arrests" section should be moved to Domestic responses to the 2011 Egyptian protests, replaced by a general summary of the important things in a good prose. A major cleanup is needed there, a lot of work. ("Deaths" also needs a cleanup, especially the bloated table with 0 deaths listed for no reason.) --94.246.150.68 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually 94, I think if we do that we will end up with just a timeline and no context or meaning. Sooner than later we have to start summarizing the daily events themselves. I'm starting with the earlier days so that new events can be fluidly added while we do some cleanup from earlier in the week. We can also summarize the Background section and move excess to a separate article on that subject explicitly. I agree that load time is the primary concern as long as we're under 150K, which I think is a readability excess. Ocaasi (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"Background" looks fine to me, just some sections needs to shortened for non-essential stuff (done). "Domestic response" needs a cleanup more. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the headers on Domestic response and removed the cleanup tag. Not sure if you meant other stuff too. The biggest issue is January 28th through February 1st. If we can summarize those days more, we'll be ok. Ocaasi (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think more cleanup is needed there (Domestic response). (Done) --94.246.150.68 (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

oppose this. background split ould be better than the timeline. the timeline is the crux of the articleLihaas (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to wait before splitting again. The article size is only 120k, not that big if you compare it to the Arizona shooting for example. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It is now 130k that is 10k in a day, these protests do not look like they will end anytime soon. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

[User: RPHKUSA] Maybe a split also for 'The Battle of Tahrir Square' as the back and forth and clashes between pro-Mubarak and anti-Mubarak is a main focus of the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RPHKUSA (talk • contribs) 21:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

STRONG OPPOSE we can narrow the summaries for intl and domestic with the main content on that apge.(Lihaas (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)).

accessibility

sorry to be a nudge, but regretably, splitting off "international responses" in last 24 hours only made a small dent in this main article's size. at this writing, the main article is still at 122+ kilobytes. as is known, this creates accessibility problems. two sections to suggest for branching:

1. "timeline". a blow-by-blow daily diary of events seems better suited to a branch article — tersely summarized, of course, in the main article. as the turmoil seems to continue, the diary can only continue to expand.
2. "domestic reactions". --108.14.100.42 (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

They both have to happen, and summarizing them will be good for the copy anyway. But tricky too: #1 is what people are all coming here to update, but #2 is the meaningful substance of the events. Which would you do first? And if we summarize the daily events of the protest, do the play-by-play events go in a new article, or is that Wikinews territory? Ocaasi (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say start with Domestic Reactions, since the timeline is the main thing that people probably come to the article to read. We should keep it in the article for as long as possible, until the length absolutely forces us to split it. Silverseren^C 03:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Domestic responses to the 2011 Egyptian protests. Needs help. Then this page can get it's sad summary. Ocaasi (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I wish you would have waited. People came here also to check out the domestic responses. I would you told you to start to the Background section since thats not going to change for now. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand your reluctance. Me too! I'm not axing the section entirely and there will still be a meaningful summary. Also, who's to say that the background is less useful than the reactions--it's all important! Take a look and see if you can make it better, tighter. People will continue to add information and we can just manually move it over ourselves. If you really disagree with this change, it's always possible to reverse it, but since this was going to happen eventually, it probably makes sense to work with this version. Let me know what you think. Ocaasi (talk) 08:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I chopped about 20K from the Domestic Responses section. There's a little more to trim but not much. Frankly, all of the sections are heading the way of summary, but we'll hold it off as long as we can. Don't forget that the forks are 'live' too and people can update any and all new information there.

Even with all that cutting we're still at 105k, still "too big" by ordinary standards. This isn't an ordinary article, but it's not going to get any smaller. I think other sections are going to need to be meaningfully consolidated as well--not to remove their content, just to organize it and summarize it better, keeping the most important parts and moving the less important details to sub-articles. Ocaasi (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I further cut the domestic response section to a brief summation, thouh were still at 120k. I guess we can split AFTER tomorrows eentsLihaas (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 Egyptian protests timeline

Is anyone actually working on it? Only REALLY essential stuff should be left out here after this.

I'd get rid of (meaning: integrate elsewhere, then delete) the Deaths section too (which is right now not even covering just the deaths anyway), and also Domestic section here needs a cleanup too (in the style that its Foreign counterport got, I guess). --94.246.150.68 (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a proposal the only thing to do here is copy/paste the timeline and create a lead with all the fixings. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I just found out that the timeline alone is more than half the article in terms of size, it should have it's own article. Sorry for the quick revert there, I did not know how to go about another way of finding out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

By removing it altogether you also destroyed a lot of repeated references! Also as I said, some kind of timeline has to be there, because right now there's only this really poor "Cities" thing. Also the intro is outdated already. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The article size remains the same so I do not think anything was removed, I agree a timeline will stay but usually for the article's main page it is put into prose with a very very brief summary of the timeline and it's highlights, while the whole timetable is placed in it's own article with a lead and such. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

By way of comparison, and furthermore to toot my own horn a bit, I was a major contributor to 2009 flu pandemic, and by far the largest contributor to 2009 flu pandemic timeline (which is linked under the former's Epidemiology section), so I can speak from experience here. It takes time for extremely volatile and multi-faceted events to gell into a solid Wikipedia article, and the editing process itself quite naturally mirrors that volatility, but a proper timeline is a part of the event's long tail, savvy? My read of the situation in Egypt as of this writing is that everything and its dog is still in flux (and the kitchen sink as well). For the duration a day-by-day timeline is necessarily big chunk of the main article, but in time with perspective-cum-consensus much of that chronology shall port over to the timeline article proper. That's pretty much what happened to the H1N1 pandemic, and much the same process shall occur with the 2011 Egyptian protests. kencf0618 (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• What we could do is move all but two of the days into a timeline article and keep the most recent two days here until this whole event is over. Then we can move the rest to the timeline article. Silverseren^C 02:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to add my voice in support of Kencf0618's comments here (although I can't speak for the dogs). This article inherently requires that a timeline is the primary element herein. There is a greater danger of conscious or subconscious carving of the days' events to fit a preconception of what this is or "will become" or "should be" than there is in temporarily (for a few weeks) having a section larger and more rangy than will ultimately belong here when all is said and done.

Respectfully, in regard to Silver seren's suggestion immediately above, I adamantly disagree: to include only the most recent two days (or any number) is to dismiss prior events and is essentially a recentism POV that helps to imply that what happens on any given day and the day prior is what is "really" relevant to the situation, as that the current day and the one before is what the situation is or has become, rather than simply what happened on those days. Abrazame (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that some aspects of the flu pandemic article erred by trying to be "up to date". This is an encyclopedia, not a news article, so we should avoid, for example, trying to make a running count of casualties, in favor of compiling a running count of casualties by a certain date, following if needed with another running count of fatalities by the next date ... though let's hope it doesn't come to that. However, a timeline is a something that can be kept up to date, yet it does not become obsolete. So a timeline article should cover all the days, beginning to end, and then this article can attempt to organize and summarize that information in other ways than by date (for example, by city, or by milestones achieved). In other words, "summary style" rather than simply chopping the timeline into two pieces. Wnt (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

the timeline is in fact the essential part of the article, before we split this, we should try other thingslike 1. cleaning the summary for domectic reactions then splitting off the background,Lihaas (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"and about 3,000 in the northern city of Mahallah"

A non-existing Egyptian "northern city"? (Mahallah) Someone needs to check the article for such wild claims. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, there's El-Mahalla El-Kubra. It was not in the list. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

again feel free to add(Lihaas (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)).

I did. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 11:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Asmaa Mahfouz

Forced meme? Linked from the very 1st paragraph of intro to this article, but it has only 1 source and is veeeeeery badly written. (Wikipedia:Notability (people)) Oh, and the 2-week old video on her YT channel ("queenofRomance83", lol) has only 8,755 views, which is pretty bad for a viral that has supposedly sparked a revolution, so I guess it's another case of self-promotion in progress. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

She is well known in the protesters circle but you are right. it does not belong in the article for now -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I can't check the source because it's behind a paywall, but it doesn't seem notable enough for the lead anyway.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Also I'd like to remind you that even for example the chief of staff of the Army has no article, and I say the guy was much more notable even before the last week. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Have removed her from lead.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking for sources on her.--Wipsenade (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

google "أسماء محفوظ" -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

:-)--Wipsenade (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad I helped -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Dubious claims of "around 8 million" protesters

Sourced by a bunch of links in Arabic + a laughable conspiracy website. Come on. In reality, it was "1 million"[22] / "around 1 million"[23] / "at least 1 million"[24] / "more than 1 million",[25][26] in short: estimated ~1 million or more across Egypt. One source said 2 million[27] which is a lot less than "around 8 million" anyway. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The only English language source is passing reference in a political polemic and definitely not a reliable source. This should be removed. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are some more sources cambridge first and almasry alyoum unless someone think they are ALSO a they are conspiracy websites -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought we had already agreed that it was between 1 and 2 million. I don't know why we still have 8 million in the article. Silverseren^C 21:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone reinstated it again. And the untrue table list of nearly 400 "confirmed" deaths, too. Geez. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC) --94.246.150.68 (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC) And the strange poster was back too. WTF? --94.246.150.68 (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

8 million is across Egypt ...assuming 2 million in Cairo almost a million (900,000) in Alexandria, then the hundreds of thousands in Nile, Luxor, Aswan and everywhere else. I think it was on AlJazeera Arabic the claim was appearing.NMKuttiady (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Edits in really broken English

one of the first five cities that toke place in the protests (Cairo , Alexandria , Suez, El-Mahalla El-Kubra, Mansoura ) thousands of people protested in 25 January and in the march of the millions the number reached 100thousand

Can you, uh, go and edit the your-language (Arabic?) Wikipedia, instead? English is not my first language, too, but seriously, come on. Copy edit is needed again.

Also, how about we move the whole Deaths section to the bottom? --94.246.150.68 (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

no, its more important than reactions and is a result of the protests, hence need to follow that.Lihaas (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, actually are less important, unless someone is looking for sensationalist stuff (for blood, literally) - especially since all death tallies are only speculations (unconfirmed estimates). It's also all already in the infobox at the start of the article and may be well said in 1 sentence in the (outdated) intro too. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

they are all cited to RS. only you seem to believe its "speculation" editors are not cited on wikipedia RS is.

at any rate, there is no consensus for the move that 2 editors placed above,Lihaas (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The english wikipedia is for Everyone and anyone to edit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Except the functionally illiterate people, which is clearly a case here. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

See when you say something like that, it counts as a WP:Personal attack on people, I think it is annoying too but you learn to deal with it - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"Only I" say the speculations are just speculations? Let me quote myself:

It is still claiming "Confirmed death toll" is 280, which is just not true. There is no updated confirmed figure, unofficial estimates are between over 100 by Reuters[28] and as high as 300 as cited by the UN's Pillay (it was HRW's estimate actually, and only about half of that verfified by them),[29] but it's all very vague and totally uncertain (There was no official figure, and the real figure may be very different, given the confusion on the streets Reuters wrote, unconfirmed reports suggesting Pillay said). There's also problem with how many deaths are actually directly connected to the protests since the looting started, or is a bloody jailbreak a "protest" too? --94.246.150.68 (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Unconfirmed speculations are unconfirmed speculations. Maybe try and actually read the sources. They say it very clear, as cited by me above in italics. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So, the Deaths section may actually go altogether. Some of this is important and need to be integrated elsewhere. Like the death of the Azeri should go into the Timeline section and the Foreign reactions article (btw, the poeple who set themsleves on fire mostly survived this, why are they all in "Deaths"?). Other stuff, it's just sensationalist speculations. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

And at least stop pushing-back the FALSE table list. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if they use broken English, Arabs should be welcomed on this page. Egyptians would be a logical sorce of information on Egypt!--Wipsenade (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No, because we don't accept edits not backed by reliable sources, anyway. It's not some kind of Twitter, you know? --94.246.150.68 (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

94.246.150.68, what's your problem with Egyptians??? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

My problem is with the really broken English edits, I don't know who's making them and I don't care (my guess was it was Arabic-speakers, it could be Chinese or even Greys for all I know or care). Value of such edits: none, zero, null, it's just a kind of good-faith vandalism really. Wikipedia is not someone's Twitter. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If they do write something in broken English, we fix it. If it does not have a source, we look for one, cant find any, we remove it. not that hard really -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Civil War?

Serious mention is made now in news organizations (CNN, etc) that, by what's been happening on February 2, it looks like it's turning into a sort of "civil war"; as for some reason PRO-Mubarak people (the segment that exists) have been attacking the anti-Mubarak crowd...like with Molotov cocktails, fire, and riding in horses and camels with swords, and throwing stones and things...as everyone by now knows (and is mentioned in the article.) So far, a few dead on 2 February, with hundreds injured...many seriously injured. And also, CNN reporter Anderson Cooper and his crew (and it's on video) were dramatically attacked by mostly pro-Mubarak people. Anyway, is this thing really turning into a "civil war" or at least a "civil strife" situation? Archiver of Records (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This talk page is WP:NOTAFORUM but discussion like this would be more appropriate to the refdesk.(Lihaas (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)).

I'm sorry if I did not make my point clear... I meant the heading as a question of whether at some point the title of the article may need to be changed. Just like others above asked if the title should be "revolution."

So my question was appropriate, I feel, (and similar to the headings) for this talk page. Sorry if I did not express it clearly enough. My point was about what the nature of this actually will turn out to be, and if the title needs eventual changing...or maybe at some point another article (if it does actually turn out to be an actual "civil war") may need to be created. Just like the point about the word "revolution" which was raised a few days ago. Cheers. Archiver of Records (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah! okay. well were not even in revolution yet, so itll take a lot more sources to authenticate taht. right now its just the usual spur of the moment sensationalist name calling, and in this case a totally isolated reaction. Lihaas (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The riders had no swords, they had sticks and whips. Also the pro-M crowd/mob had no "automatic weapons", despite the wild rumours (people in hospitals also have no gunshot wounds at all). --94.246.150.68 (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually they did have swords. And a number of reliable sources say that clearly. Two sources right here mention "swords": Swords Mentioned Here and here. (Plus I did see swords in video footage.) Archiver of Records (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There were also many claims of "automatic weapons" being used including from top opposition leadership (like: "they shot and killed 15 people" early on in the clash), and now excuse me but swords (or rather it would be sabres/scimitars in this case, presumably) are very lethal weapons and yet in the whole battle there were only 2 confirmed deaths among hundreds of injuries + the policeman who fell from a bridge (or something, whatever). Also I watched the video footage too. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point about being careful what's stated, but it seems you're being too semantical with words. And the point is that numerous reliable sources say that many of them carried "swords". (And "Sabres" are "swords"...) And even if some of them were "home-made swords" it's still swords. The general drift is there. Plus I saw the men on the horses with long sword-like solid objects. But again, the key issue is that RS repeatedly mention the actual word "swords". And that's mainly what Wikipedia goes by. Archiver of Records (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely it can't be a civil war until there are two military forces involved. To take an extreme example (I'm not suggesting any similarity) no one calls the Holocaust a civil war, nor the Watts and Los Angeles riots. Wnt (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm NOT the one who has called it a "civil war". (Or rather the RUMBLINGS of a "civil war".) News reporters are mentioning that. That's why I asked the question. By the way, you're wrong anyway. It's dogmatic to say (and too black and white) that there would have to be "two military forces involved" in the precise neat way that you're thinking. Also, I even said "civil STRIFE" didn't I? But not everything is as cut-and-dried all the time, as so many sticklers always want to make em. There's definitely INTERNAL CONFLICT going on in Egypt...and civil strife. But I agree that as of yet it's not quite yet a "civil war" per se. It's not easy to put such a neat label on this mess currently. Archiver of Records (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I meant rather regular sabres. When I think "swords", I think stuff like a mediaval European longsword or the samurai sword, in my language a sabre is not a sword. Never mind. Anyway, I didn't really see any "swords", many sources don't mention "swords", and the chaotic live reports and claims were obviously vastly sensationalised (including "automatic weapons", or "shotguns and automatic weapons") while after casualties were evacuated there were few deaths and apparently no gunshot wounds among "all other kinds" of injuries (mostly broken bones and head wounds from projectiles). It could be "reportedly armed wish swords", which is true because there were such reports indeed, but not as a fact of "armed with swords" (and in a way it would mean they all had swords, like some Saladin-era cavalry charge). --94.246.150.68 (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times Stated "Pro-government thugs at Tahrir Square used clubs, machetes, swords and straight razors on Wednesday to try to crush Egypt’s democracy movement" and here's the Watching Thugs With Razors and Clubs at Tahrir Sq. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"clubs, machetes, swords and straight razors" (and they forgot to mention whips and just sticks) is a not just "swords". It means a whole 'arsenal' of various melee weapons being reported. However, Wikipedia is calling reports of "clubs", "straight razors" etc, whatever, just "swords" ("armed with swords", period). Like I said: (and in a way it would mean they all had swords, like some Saladin-era cavalry charge). Is this what really happened? That's cherry picking and you know it. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I am confused. The wikipedia article reads armed with swords, whips, clubs, stones, rocks, and pocket knives. it does not say swords only. so your problem is what? do you want to remove the word "swords" -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently somebody corrected this, used to be "armed with swords" only. It still begins with "swords", while obviously they mostly threw stones and other objects (in the initial melee it was a fistfight and the horseback charge attempt was one big fail). --94.246.150.68 (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)