Talk:2011 Egyptian revolution

Lead up to protests very important, anyone wanna help?

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

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

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

Background

I actually feels that a section on the lead to the protests is far more beneficial than that of the "background". A question that raises to mind is how the items of this background came about? Some of them seems to be random and do not have a direct relation to the cause of the protests. --Osa osa 5 (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

it is way too long (Adn worse now). some less relevant sections like military and the alex. bombing need to go.Lihaas (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. In addtition to both "military" and "alex. bombing", I see "Population growth" could go too; as poverty is and should be covered in the "Economic climate" section. Similarly the section on "Foreign relations" does not seem relevant as well. --Osa osa 5 (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

We could consolidate the military into the mubarak side as reasons for his growth.

pop. growth possibly shortened and briefly mentioned in econ. chllenges (as reasons for the lack of employment). Either take off or consolidate foreign relations into mubarak. election can be also be consolidated. though i agree wholly the alex. bombing is just pushing it.Lihaas (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I would have agreed about the alex. bombing yesterday but Former minister of the interior Habib El-Adli faces prosecution in a military court over his role in the New Year's Eve bombing of al-Qiddissin Church in Alexandria in which 24 people were killed and more than 90 were injured. I think election can be added to corruption. and honestly, the Military had nothing to do with why the protests started. it might be better to add it to analysis section. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• good point but cant we just wikilink to the bombing page where the main info can stay?(Lihaas (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)).

• I disagree with that point for two reasons. First, being accused is not equivalent of being guilty. Second, it does not really matters who is behind it, because it was not a factor that sparked the protests any way. Remember, we are writing a background on the protests (i.e. factors that contributed to its start) not a background on Egypt as a whole. A better place for this accusation is Habib El-Adli's page and off course the alex bombing page as well. In summary, the whole section seems to me out of place.

After a close monitoring to the protests from its beginning, the main reasons for its spark that I see are the following (between parenthesis I add the reason): 1-Police brutality (face book page: "All of us are Khalid Said") 2- Emergency law 3-Corruption (items 2 and 3 are among the protesters top and main demands). 4-Tunisian Revolution (a great inspiration for the youth)

So, I suggest removing: 1- Foreign relations (the protests are focused on domestic situations) 2-Military (no real position on protests as it remained neutral; at least officially). Items 1 and 2 would be better placed in an Analysis section as The Egyptian Liberal suggested. 3- Alex bombing (as described above). 4-"2010 election" (personally on the border on this one; would like to see it merged with corruption section because dissolving the Parliament was among the protesters/oppositions demands). --Osa osa 5 (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You make some very good points. True Alex. bombing has nothing to do with the protesters. I think it might better to add to the analysis section about Copts More of them started to me bore vocal against the government after the accusation. So I suggest adding Foreign relations' (Who its effect by the protests) and Military (Their role during the protests) to the analysis section.

So the only thing that stays in the background section are 1 Emergency law; 2 Police brutality; 3 Corruption (while merging the election section with it); 4 Economic challenges.

While Foreign relations; Military; Alexandria church bombing goes into the analysis section. anyone disagree? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I disagree. For one, the analysis section involves events that all preceded the protests. If that doesn't make them 'background' I don't know what would. Also, analysis is a bit of a misnomer here, since there is actual analysis as in punditry, commentary, political strategy, etc. which has been ongoing since the protests started. So I don't understand the placement or the title of the section. And I don't understand the motivation for moving them. Is there concern that we relate certain events which were not directly related? Can't we just resolve that with better headers? Do we need to correct that perception at all, since the text doesn't make any direct causal links anyway? Ocaasi (talk) 05:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The military involvement happened after the protests started. Foreign relations has been and will be changed (damaged). Alex. bombing was added to the analysis section about Copts More of them started to me bore vocal against the government after the accusation. which part do you disagree with? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Mainly I don't agree with the chronological placement. These are major issues which played out before the protests, but we are discussing them for the first time after the timeline. I think clearly belong in the background section but with expansion in the domestic/international response articles for the parts that had/will have ongoing repurcussions. As it is now, I don't see a coherent logic to put these ones as opposed to the others in the background section after the timeline, or to exclude these from the background section. Again, background is just background, not immediate causes, so I don't think there's a risk of misleading readers into thinking 'the military caused the protests' or 'the alex bombing caused the protests'. They were just precursors, an understanding of which helps explain the actual events. Ocaasi (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Ocaasi! See my note above regarding Asmaa Mahfouz. Sorry, I don't fully know the protocol here yet. But I'm learning.Zygarch (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)zygarch

Osa, I don't see why our reader won't want to understand both. The protests happened in Egypt, and the countries mix of socioeconomic conditions, it's political structure, recent history, and triggering events are all part of the background. If you want to try and cut the section in half as 'general background' and 'specific background', that's fine with me, but it seems clear that they are both background rather than one background and one "analysis", which I think is just a misnomer.

Zygarch, perhaps Asmaa Mahfouz should be incorporated into a the section with Khaled Said, or a new background sub-section on 'triggers' or 'activists'. Ocaasi (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Comment The current size of the article makes it only the 422nd largest article on Wikipedia. The two articles immediately above it on the list are List of ThunderClan cats and 2009-10 Derby County F.C. season. At Wikipedia we do not point to egregious pages elsewhere to justify bad practices here. However, it is inarguable that the situation in Egypt is more sensitive, more complex, and of more vital importance for readers to understand the topic that they know the background of what has been happening there to real people in a major upheaval, more than what has been happening in a particular English football club or, I kid you not, the various cats — no vernacular, that's felines — that appear in a series of books. In fact, sports and fictional characters/games make up most of the articles larger than this one.

Do not misunderstand me, I am not suggesting that since this subject is more important than the largest single page here at Wikipedia, List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters, then we should craft an article that gives it appropriate relative weight here at the project and go for a billion bytes. But while some feel that it is important to understand the sweep of August 2010 in sports in one place, when nobody to whom it is relevant needs to have the background of sports explained in the same place, then we can focus on crafting the best article about this topic first and put off worrying about the length a week from now.

Nobody commented when I wrote it elsewhere, but article length is not actually determined by what it says when you open up the edit window, it is determined only after you remove all the code, infoboxes, photo captions, and references, meaning that the relevant measurement of the actual size of the article is probably 1/3 smaller than that 170,000 bytes. I wrote elsewhere at this page that if people want to write an article here, they should do so, yet all I see are suggestions that we whittle down, rather than beef up, the non-timeline aspects of the article. If people are actively reducing the backgrounds section, then what's the point of splitting the timeline? This article is already — incorrectly — being focused on as a Timeline alone. Editors should focus on writing some real article here and then you'll have a better argument for, and a better result of, a split. Abrazame (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I can make the same arguement for a split though, putting the timeline content in a seperate article can shift the focus of this article to other things. As for other articles every article on wikipedia is diffrent, if th timeline is moved there would be a short summary of the timeline here on the main article so readers would follow it. How long is the cutoff then if the timeline is not split off now, should we wait for 200,000 bytes or 250,000? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Support

• Support 100k-125k byte limit is what I generally follow. Lilly (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Edit: I agree with Lihaas below. Wait until after the speech tonight.Lilly (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Edit again: Speech over. Nothing new really. Mubarak not going to leave until the protesters attack the Presidential Palace [Is that what it's called? I heard the name of it a while ago and forgot.] Lilly (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support the article is over 100k already, so it is time for a size-split. 184.144.161.207 (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support A summary style for the timeline section, linked to a more detailed timeline article, seems like an appropriate solution. The currently timeline section is unwieldy with far too many sub-sections for a main article entry.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support The Timeline section is just way too long, a suggestion is to keep a brief overview and move all the rest to a new article. 62.235.177.108 (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Agreed too long. Split into new article. SethWhales ^talk 12:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose Per Abrazame -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, its the main topic of the article. Split and cut down other sections instead. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, it's too soon to split while the events are rapidly changing. I prefer that we draft a summary of the timeline to keep here (similar to the Background Section, so that if we do make the split there will be something meaningful in its place. I think we'll be able to make a definite move in the next week, as it appears events are coming to a head. Ocaasi (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Actully no events are not comming to a head the president is not resigning according to the speech which means that this could last until september unless action is taken. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

conditioal oppose it does needs a split, this section seeming the most likely (per above proposal we can then expand the cities section with the details split off), but klet it be for now. BIG EVENT breaking, tomorrow/day after we can mop upLihaas (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The Egyptian revolutionary ferment is still gestating. Split the article when the bag of waters breaks, a palace coup occurs, tanks roll over people, or Hosni Mubarak leaves on a jet plane. kencf0618 (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose the timeline is an integral part of this article. The "Cities and regions" section could be cut, perhaps, and the overall article made more concise with copyediting, etc. --Aude (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose same as --Aude (talk) and helps inform! Edmund Patrick – confer 19:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that the protests ended, lets split

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was a suggestion by Nableezy below to call the first half Egyptian uprising, and the second Egyptian revolution. That's fine with me, and it would make our job infinitely easier to cleave the timeline at February 11 or 12. Ocaasi (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support splitting, though unsure where We need to be careful about where we split the timeline section. Especially if we're going to split it into uprising and revolution articles. Silverseren^C 23:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Length of Article

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

Probably not. Due to the ongoing nature of this event, people will add details as they happen. After things have settled down, we can take a look at everything and decide what is needed and what isn't. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is little better than a timetime. There is no analysis, no indication who was behind the protests, what their aims where, etc. International reaction should be covered more- and I don't mean what the USA says, we hear enough about the Americans as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There is extensive coverage of the Domestic and International responses at the main articles linked in those sections. Like really extensive, and definitely not just the USA. Please check that page. Ocaasi (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.228.10.129, 12 February 2011

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

Thanks for pointing that out. Just updated. Midlakewinter (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

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

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Since the page is unprotected you may edit it directly. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Article TOO long

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

Per the discussion above I have been trying over and over to get a consensus to move the timeline to Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian protests, now that the protests are over I wonder if consensus could change here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

We have to do it, and I think today is a good day to try. The article can still be expanded while we start to shift this main piece into summary style. Objections to moving it today? Ocaasi (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Date format in time line

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

I agree too but that is how the time is shown in the majority of world countries so I have heard, oh well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Revolution or revolution

Not the big debate, just whether or not the word "revolution" should be capitalized. WP:LOWERCASE makes me think not, since even if this has been called a revolution, it's not in the history books yet. We need to fix this so the redirects and links all go to the right places. Ocaasi (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Per the manual of style, this should be at 2011 Egyptian revolution (and other articles should be similarily formatted). —Nightstallion 18:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That's what most seem to think, but look at this: Egyptian Revolution. -- Ocaasi (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said, other articles should also follow that format. —Nightstallion 08:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that. I actually looked around at WP:MOSNAME, WP:MOSCAP, WP:MOSTITLE, and WP:MOSDATE, and even WP:NCNUM, and I didn't actually find the definitive stance on the date-event format. The guidelines were to include where and when, with enough detail for both to disambiguate, but no mention of which goes first. In fact, there was even a counterargument presented that putting the date first can overemphasize the time rather than the happening. So I'm not sure where this consensus on policy is coming from, even though I think it has advantages just because it's short and consistent. Ocaasi (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

support occassi and nightstallion (and most advocated of the revol. change). the link above goes to the disamb so its not of much conern really. accepted format to use the dates like this for such incidents as the copiapo mining accident, earthquake, haiti cholera epidemic, attacks, etc. (1 aexceptionm being elections which have the date AFTER)Lihaas (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Undecided with regard to the capitalization of the "R", but opposed to renaming the article to "2011 Egytian revolution". This sounds as if revolutions would happen in that country on some kind of time schedule.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see 2011 North Africa and East Asia protests. Every single other protest article mentioned there has the year in front. Ocaasi (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. "[Date] [Place] [noun]" is a normal phrasing for an article title. (It's not that revolutions happen on schedule, but that they've happened more than once.) —WWoods (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

i was just gonna say the same as wwoods to the query by cs32en, its not about frequency but the fact thats its already occurred numerous times (see the template) and ofcourse MOS.Lihaas (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Requests

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

Demands of the protestors

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

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

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

Role of Internet in Revolution

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

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

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

Please see Domestic responses to the Egyptian Revolution of 2011

More specifically Domestic_responses_to_the_Egyptian_Revolution_of_2011#Media_censorship_and_circumvention kencf0618 (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Concepts: State of Emergency, Martial Law, Revolution

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

Thanks for that helpful distinction. Most readers from countries where the military does not intervene in policing (in the US, the Posse Comitatus provision), may not know what Emergency Law means without the description of martial law attached to it, even in a colloquial sense. Could we describe Emergency Law as 'civil martial law' or 'martial law imposed by the police under the authority of the President' or is that mixing definitions? In short, after we use the term Emergency Law (description here), what would you put in the parentheses? Ocaasi (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There are State of Emergency and Emergency law in Egypt, so I don't think that we should get too specific in this article, and a link to Emergency law in Egypt, with a brief mention that basic civil rights were suspended, would probably be sufficient.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Difference between revolt and revolution, and what this article covers

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

What does "violent confrontations ... later between dueling groups of protesters" refer to? The supporters of Mubarak have generally not been described as "protesters", but as "allies of Mubarak", with most reliable sources highlighting that thugs, led by plain clothes security forces, were heavily involved in these activities. I would propose to correct those things that are wrong, yet it's probably best to wait some time for a more general clean-up of the article, including the lead section.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No doubt the baltagia (thugs) made up at least some of the pro-Mubarak "protesters", but there are sources referring to the rock throwing "battles" that took place on the 3rd and 4th as being between two dueling groups of protesters (eg [1], [2], [3], [4]). nableezy - 22:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we have a review of reliable sources on this issue? I remember that the initial reports sometimes referred to "pro-grovernment protesters". However, when we have contradictory reports in reliable source, we need to look more closely at the circumstances in which the reports have been published. Reports that have been published after journalists had some time to investigate and look at the full picture of events are likely to be more reliable than on-the-spot dispatches.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

pro-government protests according to an Al Jazeera correspondent in Cairo. Reutors used "protesters".[5] "Demonstrators" (similar to "protesters"), "mob", "forces" (not similar), and other labels were used. "Supporters" should work just fine and side step this non-issue. "Protesters" should work fine too, but of course any opportunity to belittle those in favor of the previous government should be taken. (sarcasm)Cptnono (talk)

Completely Wrong Number of Protestors

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

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

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

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

I think that I have removed that "report" some days ago, but it may have been reinserted again.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Even the two million Al Jazeera claims are almost certainly wrong if not impossible. The thing is, that allmost all other newspapers, tv news and media took that number from Al Jazeera without verifying. The day aljazeera claimed two million protestors, the Nneue Zürcher Zeitung, a very repected Swiss newspaper counted them at 250'000 which is quite a difference but much more likely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.148.172 (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera referred to Tahrir Square and adjacent areas of Cairo. Other media referred to number of protesters earlier in the day, while people were still moving to Tahrir Square. I personally think that 2 million protesters is a bit too high. (Apparently, many people also guarded their neighborhoods against looters or police.) So the BBC figure is probably the low end, Al Jazeera the high end of the estimates. More reliable sources are always welcome, of course.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Church Bombing protests did not lead to the Revolution

With all due respect, fact wise, the Church Bombing did not lead to the protests. Tension between Muslims and Christians in Egypt have been high for years. So it would be incorrect to say that it was one of the factors that led to the Egyptian revolution. As the original FaceBook page had said, the January protests were for "Against corruption, torture, and social inequality". I am sure that many Egyptians will agree with me on this one (I am Egyptian myself). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.2.129 (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe there is some speculation to that effect in some commentary in news media, but I would very much doubt that multiple reliable sources would have reported this as a fact.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This church bombing seems to be a sticking point for some reason. I don't know enough about the politics to understand exactly why, but if the bombing has nothing to do with the lead-up to the protests, then what is it doing in this article at all? If we want to create a background section about Muslim-Christian relations, then let's call it that and maybe mention the church bombing as one event in a longer trend. I do think it's important to know that there were religious tensions in Egypt prior to the protests, because it makes their multi-denominational nature that much more significant. Ocaasi (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I was living in Sidi Bishr at the beginning of the revolution. When the big protests started on 28 January, there was a very strong focus on Christian-Muslim unity, reflected in the chants of the protesters. I also talked to my neighbors, who seemed to agree that part of the reason turnout was so good was a desire to symbolically get back at whoever attacked the church. While certainly the church bombing protests did not directly lead to the revolution, at least some of those out in the streets, especially in that particular part of Alexandria, did have the Saints' Church in their minds. I recognize that this is OR, but the point remains that for some small part of the revolution, the church bombing was a factor. Lockesdonkey (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The background of, or lead-up to, these protests includes the fact that there were anti-government protesters clashing with police a mere few weeks earlier over a variant of the same issue, the failure of the government to adequately provide for the needs of its people; and that in those protests, the Coptic Christians who were the aggrieved party in the bombing were joined in these clashes by Muslims. This revolution didn't originate on a FaceBook page, its origin was a deep-seated, long-standing and widespread, cross-cultural/-sectarian sense that the government was not at all responsive to the needs of its people in a modern world of democracy, capitalism and freedom. If we can establish some other background of significant clashes wherein Muslims joined with Christians against Mubarak's government, and that this wasn't a rare occurrence and something of a turning point, I'd be all for that, but in that case this episode would still be one important point on that curve and relevant to the article. I agree with Ocaasi that we need to explain a bit about what makes this a remarkable shift from the tensions that existed previously.

Note one of the articles we sourced that section to, which quotes Egyptian government sources as whipping up the fear that the bombing would create a "religious civil war" between Christians and Muslims such as what waged in Lebanon for a decade and a half; this, too, is a bit OR on my part, but it seems as though the government may have been counting upon (and stoking) factional tensions to necessitate the perpetual emergency law hold on the country, and when it became apparent to many from the Alexandria church bombing scuffles that there were Muslims willing to stand by their Christian countrymen, that canard, that paradigm, shattered. If my take on that is not so, it would serve the reader to know what reliable sources say is relative to these points. This element should be added to, not removed. Abrazame (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If you haven't seen it yet, watch this: [6]. The religious cooperation and secular cooperation is the reason these protests succeeded. That and the military. And the internet. Ocaasi (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, some editors try to make things appear more complicated than they truly are. The bombing was not a factor in the making nor the evolution of the protests. My proof is what the youth called for on their face book accounts when they were organizing the protests + the demands of the protests were merely focused on democracy and domestic demands. Moreover, political analysts (and I have listened and read to several of them) did not mention this event as a factor of the revolution. The religious cooperation mentioned is different from the bombing. Cooperation was however a sign of how the revolution's demands were universal for all Egyptians and it was not intended to dismiss any sector of the Egyptian people (please review the link provided by 'Ocaasi' as it repeat the same meaning). This revolution was directed towards demands for democracy, better living, condemning police brutality, and fighting corruption ... THAT IS IT. The timing of the bombing is merely a coincidental, because these same demands have been repeated for years. So, the whole section is not necessary. --Osa osa 5 (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

We can work on clearing up the misleading 'direct connection'. Let's pull together a few sources, both from the aftermath of the bombing as well as any that mention it in the context of the protests. Then we'll re-draft the section, or draft a new section and put it in the Background section (Muslim-Christian relations, e.g.) Ocaasi (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Everyone, focus on what is being said. We are not talking about "why the revolution succeeded", we are talking about LEAD UP events. This revolution, that was started by a call against injustice on FaceBook, had NOTHING to do with Muslim-Christian relations. It's all about freedoms and democracy. I don't know what source could say this other than the FaceBook page that called for it. Otherwise, it's common sense. Just look at the slogans that the people were saying. Nothing about the Church bombings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.2.129 (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ocaasi; It seems to me that you did not fully understand my comment. The whole section is not necessary and if you will to replace it with a "Muslim-Christian relations" section, it would be even worse. We are basically looking at a clear case of Wikipedia:No original research. Conclusion: No relationship between Alex church bombing and revolution, however religious cooperation is related to the revolution. So, the later should the one be included, which is the case as it appears in many places (for example: Timeline page). Regards. --Osa osa 5 (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Pipeline explosion

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

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

• Update: Al-Ahram reports that "an Egyptian investigator announced that a blast on Saturday at a north Sinai gas terminal was not caused by a gas leak but was a bombing carried out by four armed men." [7]. While more information may emerge that points toward including this event in the article, I'd suggest to look for reliable sources for information on how the incident relates to the revolution (if it does) before adding this to the article.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

French Revolution Article is Shorter!

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

The french revolution's article has been split into subarticles. There is a discussion going on about how to split this article up already.Sir Robert "Brightgalrs" Schultz de Plainsboro (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but like a newspaper it is the first draft of history. And unlike a newspaper, multiple first drafts. kencf0618 (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, they've had 222 years to edit that article. We're still letting the dust clear. Ocaasi (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, chances are that there isn't as much information available about the French revolution as there is from the Egyptian one. Also, the Egyptian one may become as important as the French one if it sparks up a new Arabian renaissance. Time will tell. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you IP 207... If the French Revolution took place now it would also be news and recentism. Historical importance is something Wikipedia as a whole disregards. Price we pay for collaboration from everyone in an age with so much information. Maybe they should have invented the internet sooner or maybe editors should not stick in every headline they find. Weird line though since those headlines are sometimes really interesting. Maybe Wikipedia should be called "In the year 2000... (+)" Cptnono (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The truth is, it's a lot harder to find stuff of importance from the French revolution era. I believe most of the material in this article is important. It (or similar stuff) would also be important if it was about the French revolution. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Wow. Thank God this isn't a forum since I have plenty to say about that. Probably time to get back to content.Cptnono (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Summary of the protests

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

I have two sources that we can use Timeline: Egypt's revolution and Timeline shows path to freedom in Egypt -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Great, this is just the kind of template that will help summarize the events. Ocaasi (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I added the majority of the timeline from the second source, with copy-editing and some paraphrasing. The information is all very basic, so it's not as easy to rewrite. I'll continue to re-work it to avoid COPYVIO. Help please. If it's a problem to have this on the main page while it is paraphrased, please move to talk. Ocaasi (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, finished with the copy-editing (date format, past tense, removed unnecessary details, redundant info, long phrases). There wasn't much to completely rewrite, so I'd still like a COPYVIO check, and again, if anyone wants to rephrase sections, that would be great. Remember to keep the details at a very brief summary level, since this is not the main timeline. Ocaasi (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Summary is good thing but the timeline is too short, in my opinion. Also, why use those two sources? We need to summarize our own timeline, and if we want to refer to external sources, let's pick much more reliable sources. Al Jazeera has a live blog for each day, The Guardian has one (with reporters on the ground), and there are plenty other good sources that give timeline accounts. --Aude (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's still short. That attempt was just to get something there while we had a completely blank section. Those sources were just for convenience, as the majority of events are available in multiple locations (including our own Timeline). I think we can expand more dates and events while keeping it short. Ocaasi (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm very glad the article is shorter! It's easier to edit now. I'm only so good at copyediting and such, but willing to make some effort at summarizing the timeline and getting references re-added. I also wonder about the cities section, with so many one-line subsections. I think we could instead break things down by regions -- Cairo, Alexandria, Upper Egypt (Luxor, Aswan, ...), Nile Delta, Suez / Sinai and have more substance per section. --Aude (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of combining by region. Do you have the geographic background to do it? Ocaasi (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can arrange the info by region. --Aude (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

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

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

Background -> Grievances

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