Talk:2011 Egyptian revolution

Name of the article

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)

Media Blackout

Newspapers websites are down

The Committee to Protect Journalists also said Wednesday that Egyptian authorities have shut down the websites of two popular independent newspapers, Al-Dustour and El-Badil. Source: Egyptian police crack down on second day of protests from CNN -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Facebook is blocked

Facebook is blocked in Egypt now.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Source please? --BorgQueen (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Facebook reported inaccessible in Egypt -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I can access Facebook now (from Alexandria, Egypt). --Meno25 (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Accessible now.. was blocked for a few hours in the morning.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Facebook wasn't blocked in Egypt I'm Egyptian live in Alexandria and my ISP is the biggest in Egypt TEdata and facebook isn't and wasn't close neither in the morning nor the evening !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.237.205.178 (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• According to this, it is still unclear on whether FB is being blocked, though it does seem to be having intermittent problems for a huge number of people. Silverseren^C 01:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Twitter is blocked

Twitter is blocked in Egypt now.-- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Facebook and Twitter Both Blocked in Egypt -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"During protests on Tuesday and again on Wednesday, many reported trouble accessing Facebook and Twitter, the social networking sites that helped organize and spread news of the protests. Twitter confirmed that its site had been blocked in Egypt on Tuesday, Reuters reported."

FAHIM, KAREEM (FAHIM). "Protesters in Egypt Defy Ban as Government Cracks Down". New York Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Twitter is now unblocked. --Meno25 (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Twitter and FB and other sites (including some proxy sites) are intermittently blocked. But there are instructions how to beat the censorship which ppl use quite successfully, so this might explain the conflicting reports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.206.14 (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Cell Phones

I am fairly certain that cell phones aren't working in Egypt either.Eiad77 (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

As of very late in the evening of 28 Jan (or perhaps after midnight the morning of the 29th) cellphone and smartphone service had been restored. Abrazame (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is not taking a neutral stance. I believe it is forged by anti-regime contributors who are taking the side of the protesters by any means available. I'm neither contributing nor will I contribute to the article, but for those who are doing so, have some Wikipedian ethics. Thank you. Maged Mahfouz (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well like it or not Maged, when a people rise up and overthrow a despotic regime, the facts of the matter are what they are. One is not anti-fascist by reporting on the Third Reich or the Italian New Order. Nor is there any "forgery". Your input as a defender of the regime will definitely help the article be a better report of the objective facts, but on the basis of the evidence and assuming no one is ready to provide such support, I suggest the NPOV tag be removed. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur that the NPOV tag should be removed. The facts are what they are, and the facts are not "biased." When or if Mubarek is revealed as the humanitarian savior of the world, then we can report on it. For now it is enough to report that his government is a corrupt and thuggish dictatorship. There is no disputing that. Qworty (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

And are these replies facts, too? :) Maged Mahfouz (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Maged, you raised a reasonable concern. The article shouldn't take a side for or against the protests--although it's not too much of a stretch to admit that most editors are probably rooting for them. That doesn't matter though, as long as we report what sources say and all sides of it. Are there specific places you think the language is skewed or perspectives are not being mentioned? We should include reporting on the Egyptian governments responses as well, so if that is lacking, we can look for sources to address it. Ocaasi (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) As of this post, the article appears to pass the requirements of WP:NPOV in my view. Events are developing quickly, of course. Agree with Ocaasi that Egyptian government responses would give balance, however.Jusdafax 06:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If a government spokesman makes a statement, it should be reported (as a statement, not as a fact) as well as coverage of and statements by the protesters. Edison (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

With full and proper citation, I feel this article will be more neutral. As it stands, it is adequately so. Karmos 01:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Photos

I have found some sets of photos of the "25th protest" on flickr by Kodak Agfa, Al-Jazeera, Collin David Anderson, Stationary Nomads, Mahmoud Saber, traveller.within, Amnesty International and Sarah Carr. Can someone please upload them anytime soon? thanks -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Found another site with more amazing photos. Can someone please upload them anytime soon? thanks -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added a photo. It's not very good, or clear, but I think it will do until we can find more photographs. --Sherif9282 (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The article's main picture is not really representative enough. Please change it to something that shows many people on the streets. Also, there are a lot of really good photos here: http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=617584&id=889875511&fbid=10150383370695512&forceClose=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramibotros (talk • contribs) 08:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is also another list of some amazing photographs: [1] [2] [3] [4] -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is an awesome CC-BY set which I think is from Cairo: تظاهرات يوم الغضب في مصر Egypt's day of Rage #Jan25 by Muhammad Ghafari.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Joe Biden's comments on Mubarak and legitimacy of protestors

Please add his comments as described in CS Monitor

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/0127/Joe-Biden-says-Egypt-s-Mubarak-no-dictator-he-shouldn-t-step-down —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.12.112 (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

His comments "as described in the Christian Science Monitor" are a partisan POV twisting of his words, and such U.S.-partisan baiting does not belong in this article. Biden was asked two or three days ago, "if the time has "come for President Mubarak of Egypt to go?" Biden answered: "No. I think the time has come for President Mubarak to begin to move in the direction that – to be more responsive to some... of the needs of the people out there." This is not the same as the title of that smear piece characterizes, that Biden says he "shouldn't" step down. At the time, Obama had not personally made an official comment; now that he has, the CSM's twisting of the Vice President's words, which was never in proper context, are even less necessary or relevant. Responding to questions about "would you say this, and would you say that" as "no, that's not what I would say" doesn't mean you don't think those things, it simply means the Vice President isn't falling into the trap of letting people put words in his mouth at a time that requires diplomacy. That the CSM would put the opposite of those words in his mouth is no more relevant or appropriate to parade as if it were the Vice President's opinion.

What is relevant to this situation is the desire for continuity in peace treaties that Mubarak has adhered to as a U.S. ally, so rather than removing the section again in its entirety, I have left in the part that speaks to that legitimately relevant point. Abrazame (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss this and don't simply revert provocative POV back into this sensitive article. Abrazame (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

 Disagree This is not a smear piece, it made headlines of several unrelated reliable sources([5][6][7]) It really is important as a reflection of the US view towards Middle East authoritarian regimes from a high authority. There is no broader context to be had here (see transcript), Biden really meant to express his belief that Mubarak is not a dictator and that he should not step down. Missionary (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Surely you know that headline writers are there to be provocative in order get hits and/or sell copy, and that syndicates and the blogosphere thrives on such provocativeness, preferring to bandy about the broadest and bluntest conclusion-jumping if it fits into their "storyline", rather than actually read and comprehend the words and their context. It is not relevant to this developing story about Egypt that the Vice President of the U.S. doesn't want interviewers putting words into his mouth.

Biden is not asked if Mubarak is a dictator, he is asked if Mubarak should be seen as a dictator, and what Biden replies is that he "would not refer to him as a dictator" (emphasis is mine). Biden does not say that Mubarak "is not" a dictator, it is the headline writer who says that Biden has said this. It is not relevant, then, whether the news agency mistitles it as such, nor that Fox News and the Malaysian Sun run with the headline that claims Biden says something that he does not, particularly when we have the actual transcript to show us this.

But this is not merely an argument about semantics, it is one about diplomacy, one that Biden chose to approach diplomatically given the sensitivity of the relationship, given the sensitivity of the then-nascent situation there, and given that he didn't want to get out in front of a story by making clumsily bellicose characterizations of allies. The fact that the U.S. considers Egypt an ally (and a primary reason the U.S. considers Egypt an ally) is arguably relevant to this article (though arguably no less relevant to others who appreciate and wish to maintain the peace Egypt made with Israel), so I thought a good compromise was to restore that aspect of his comments. Would you argue that the use of the term "dictator" is more relevant than the underpinnings of this relationship? It strikes me that this is the approach of a tabloid, rather than that of an encyclopedia.

I may be wrong, but I'm not aware of either President Obama or Secretary of State Clinton saying that they would "refer" to him as a dictator (or, indeed, doing so), and the point is that this is what diplomacy is all about. All of them seem to be on the same page that they would like the outcome of this to be decided in a peaceful way by the Egyptian people without the U.S. calling for "dictators" to "step down" as they move toward elections to choose a new leader going forward. It is implicit that leaders who care about preserving lives, much less leaders whose countries have treaties and trade pacts with another country, would prefer a peaceful succession of government rather than a bloody upheaval that throws all of their mutual interests into question. Stating publicly that you're not going to use disparaging characterizations against such an ally, given that this ally has indicated he will hold such elections (thereby implying that he may be ready to stop being whatever sort of leader one may characterize him as), is a diplomatically appropriate choice. Using this article to amplify this aspect of the VP's interview seems POV. Doing so because it is your misperception that Biden thinks that Mubarak should remain in power for the foreseeable future is a misinterpretation of the interview, one that is fueled by the influence of the POV headlines and not by a nuanced reading and digestion of the actual words and their context, and shows a naive misunderstanding of the responsibility of speech by U.S. leaders. If they say one thing, they may be accused of fomenting another country's civil war or even implying tactical support for such. (Remember Iran not long ago?) If they say another thing, they may be accused of backing a leader over his people. I don't think that any responsible reading of this interview takes away that Biden is saying the latter.

Put another way, as it seems to be your assertion that the U.S. wants Mubarak to remain in power rather than hold those elections and have a peaceful transfer of power, or for Mubarak to be unyielding (dictatorial) to the demands of his people for however long he might hold onto his position in advance of such an election, can you cite any other reliably sourced, non-POV-twisting statement to support that? Because selecting this one aspect to misquote out of context is an irresponsible amplification of a position, that Biden — and by extension the U.S. government — actually wants Mubarak to stay on, and such a provocative statement should have more than one misreading of a source — no matter how many sites mirror this amplified misinterpretation — to support it. Abrazame (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobel Laureate Mohammed ElBaradei Under House Arrest

This is probably pretty big news, especially considering he was attacked by police with water cannons. Silverseren^C 17:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done(Lihaas (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

Alexandria battle turns to handshakes

Think that this story is worthy of inclusion in the article. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/world/middleeast/29alexandria.html?hp --BazaNews (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I already linked that above. :P Silverseren^C 18:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done added to 28(Lihaas (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

ALLOW UNVERIFIED COMMENTS IN THE ARTICLE AND LABEL IT SO

SOME PROTESTERS CANNOT COMMUNICATE OTHERWISE. --Athinker (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

They have this talk page. The article is for encyclopedia, verifiable information, not unverified comments from protesters. Silverseren^C 20:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is absolutely not here to provide a forum or soapbox for peoples' views on the situation. Protesters can talk to news service reporters on site in Egypt, such as Al Jazeera and we can reference the news service articles if they choose to report them. Land line service is also said to be in service from Egypt to the outside, allowing spokesmen for the protesters to contact news services. Edison (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the current level of internet acess in egypt I don't think very many will be able to see the article.©Geni 20:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought the commenter seemed interested in using Wikipedia to spread views of protesters, rather than providing an article for Egyptians to read, but your comment is accurate. Edison (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for communicating between protestors. We're an encyclopedia and the article is for coverage of and information on the event. The talk page is for collaboration on the article. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's purpose is to cover the event in detail. Technically, the encyclopedia is neutral - though if one side in a conflict pursues censorship, we will inevitably tend to undermine that effort. Facts from involved participants are always welcome on this talk page. After all, it's a lot easier to find a source for something if you know what that something is. Unfortunately, we can't add facts straight from a random Wikipedia account unless they are verifiable to some kind of reliable source.

Some possible "loopholes" do exist for people involved in the protests to get facts into the article without violating Wikipedia policy. These include:

• Submit a photo to Wikimedia Commons. We need public domain photos of these historic events. When you submit a photo, you can include a detailed annotation about what was happening and when. You can provide a shorter description in the caption for the photo when it is placed into this article. This may be usable even for less dramatic events. For example, if you find that Wikipedia is blocked in Egypt, but that you can get around it with an open proxy, you can't just write here that you can do this because it would be original research - but you can post photos showing your computer windows, one blocked, one getting through, and it might make it into the article (I predict debate, though)
• Create or join a partisan website. Wikipedia can report on partisan primary sources that are relatively notable, so if you put something up on the Web that looks like a credible statement from a group of people, it can be summarized here as one side's opinion.
• Use Wikinews. That site welcomes journalistic reports. I am not very familiar with it, but you may find it a very useful way to get the story out. Wnt (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Invalid reference

Reference 32 in the References section is showing a cite error in the reference. Due to the fact that the article is semi-protected, I cannot view what is causing this error, and I suggest that someone who can view and edit the article fixes this problem. Thank you. Gaandolf (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

if you can figure out,ill correct it:

<ref name="Abdou Abdel-Moneim">{{ar}}{{cite web|url=http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7F5D64C8-241F-4F34-B36A-4F259CBF3371.htm?GoogleStatID=20|title=مصري يحرق نفسه أمام البرلمان|publisher=[[aljazeera]]|date=2011-01-17 |accessdate=2011-01-25}}</ref>(Lihaas (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)).

I believe the problem is where it should say "< ref >", it says "< ref ". (There is a chance I could be wrong as I do not cite references often. Also, please disregard the spacing in the text in quotations.) Please correct it. Gaandolf (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaandolf (talk • contribs) 22:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks leak amongst chaos

Wikileaks has released a new cable which claims that America has been secretly supporting the pro-democracy movement in Egypt since at least 2008. Also, it looks like major democratic reforms in Egypt were planned for 2011 through some sort of plot. Not sure if this plot counted in Tunisia's collapse or not. See here: [8] --Kuzwa (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

thats an american vioew, not a gospel fact. if its wiritten itll have to bewith that caveat(Lihaas (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)).

Think we should wait a bit on it for confirming sources. Nothing against the Vancouver Sun but this should be reported in multiple places if it's accurate and notable. Ocaasi (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually this is the Canadian press. --156.34.68.105 (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Kuzwa, you totally made that up. The link has nothing to do with wikileaks or the US backing protestors. You can just put any keywords in the URL that you want. 72.230.175.23 (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Pending Changes

I've enabled Pending Changes and taken the article off protection for two reasons. First, as a rapidly changing event, we ought to be allowing more frequent updating, not stifling it. Secondly, with the political climate being so tense, it is safer to remove protection, allowing users to edit while logged-out instead of being forced to log-in and use their personal usernames (which can then be tracked, hacked, etc.). Regards, ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

1)IPs are even more traceable. 2) one of the few solid conclusions of the pending changes trial was that it doesn't work as an aluturnative to semi on high volume articles.©Geni 22:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. An active article should be semi-protected. Also agree with Geni, an IP can be traced directly to the device used to edit, a username cannot. Yworo (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a concern of traceability --you can go to any random internet cafe and edit logged out. If you log in, and a hack like the Tunisia one occurs, every computer you've logged in from before is now potentially compromised. It's much safer in instances where specifically logged-in accounts are being traced, as opposed to the historical (and quite honestly overblown) concern that IP's will be tracked. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, anyone can log in still with PC and still edit. But there isn't a justification for protection without an extensive display of vandalism, which we haven't seen at this point. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Political cartoon NPOV Issue

How are the cartoons shown POV? Both of them seem to side with the protesters. I have nominated the article for a POV check here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

How are the cartoons shown POV? Both of them seem to side with the protesters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Political cartoons don't usually side with oppressive regimes. Do you have one that does? We can add it... The cartoons are not being 'promoted', they're just being documented. Since these are the main graphical expressions of satire and discontent published in the media that is what we are representing. Maybe we could just have one of them rather than two three, but the fact that we have them at all isn't taking a POV. Ocaasi (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

One thing we could do is try and move the political cartoons to the reception section rather than as illustrations for the factual content. Then we could replace, for example, the cartoon of Khaled with a photo of him (or relevant to him). Same for the Mubarak unplugging the internet cartoon, we could use a telecom or social media graphic, and then move the cartoon lower. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, we're down to two cartoons. Would going to one justify removing the tag? Ocaasi (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think putting both of them in the Reception section would mitigate any POV problems. Silverseren^C 00:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've left one in the censorship section but in all honesty none of the cartoons add much and just look like an attempt to promote Carlos Latuff's work.©Geni 00:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem in the internet one the other two raised concern though. Also the POV tag should stay, I had to remove info I found in the article that was not even in the reference. EDIT: On second thought the picture has the president grinning as he does pull the plug I agree with Geni. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

We're down to one cartoon. If there's no specific objections to NPOV material, I'd like to remove the tag. I don't think we need it (or should use it) just as a warning. If there's biased content, let's move it, but I'm not sure what the tag is doing right now. Ocaasi (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with removal of the tag. But if there are any NPOV issues they should be identified specifically so that they can be dealt with. Any NPOV issues left? Glennconti (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

A post mortem image of Khaled Saeed's corpse in the morgue

The above iamge has been deleted twice and it shows a post mortem image of Khaled Saeed's corpse in the morgue. Its extremely graphic picture and it shows "Police brutality" at its worse. But I am sure that Knowledgekid87 wont think its a protesters POV because Its real and not a cartoon -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Including images with extremely violent depictions is certainly not prohibited per policy, but we really have to weigh whether it's in the interests of our readers, if it illustrates something that the text does not, and if it is not gratuitous. To be fair to NPOV, we'd have to try and include bloody pictures of policemen as well, and since they have died too it would just get messy. I think we're doing a pretty good job so far. Ocaasi (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can view the image but I must warn, Its extremely graphic. If you can find a picture of the police man that died during the protest, that would be amazing and I would love to add it to the article. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I also am failing to see the reason for including Carlos Latuff's cartoons, and the NPOV issues this raises as well. This goes for *any* editorial cartoon, BTW, not just Latuff. Unless justification can be given that these cartoons are newsworthy in themselves, clearly representative of world reaction, then I strongly suggest dropping them. Peter G Werner (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Because his cartoons is being held by the protesters during their marches. Please look at the following images:

• File:Day of Anger shoe sign.jpg
• File:Hosni Mubarak getting the boot.png

That's why Carlos Latuff's cartoons are newsworthy -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's not the image being used in this article, is it? I suggest changing the editorial cartoon in the illustration to the one you're showing, or some other that can be verified as actually playing a role in the protests. Some information in the text putting it in that context is also called for. Peter G Werner (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree having the image shown with the protesters puts the images more in context and it is less of a POV issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the Latuff cartoons should be limited. They're such a disproportionate presence in the Arab world protests articles that it seems more designed to promote Latuff than to provide broad, representative documentation of the commentary on the protests/uprisings. --JamesAM (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"Youth Revolutions"?

I can't read the foreign-language source, but I don't think that "Youth Revolutions" should be in the lead sentence. It is my understanding that Egyptians of all ages, intergenerational families, are interested and involved in these demonstrations. Is this really a widely used phrase? Abrazame (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be very widespread at all. There are barely any news sources when I did a search and it seems like the title is being applied to Tunisia, not Egypt. Silverseren^C 01:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless further discussion here arrives at a consensus in contradiction of our understanding, then I will remove the phrase (and the ref, which would seem to be for that phrase), from the lead sentence. If editors determine that the characterization of the movement as a "Youth Revolution" is wide enough to warrant comment (and interpretation) in this article, it seems as though it should be somewhere further down in the text. Abrazame (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.82.19 (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Resumption of cellphone, text, Twitter and Facebook service?

It's being reported that smartphone and cellular service has recently resumed. http://wireupdate.com/wires/14731/blackberry-and-cell-service-returns-to-egypt/ Abrazame (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

My apology for editing it to look as though the internet blackout had ceased, it's an important distinction to make that the internet blackout is still in effect. However, should we point out, as the source noted "Blackberry and cell service" that it is more than cellphone calls, and to my understanding includes the ability to text and post to sites such as Twitter and Facebook? And shouldn't we add this to the "Media censorship" section, which currently reads as though cell service as well as text messaging, BlackBerry messaging, Twitter and Facebook are still all jammed? Or are they? Abrazame (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just heard a reporter stationed in Egypt say on CNN that he can send e-mails from his BlackBerry there, but not make cellphone calls on it, nor texts. However, I'm under the impression that this is a repeat of an earlier broadcast and may not be the total current picture. Can anybody source just what kind of communications services are available?

And, better, why? Was it a government decision to suspend part of the blackout, or was it a corporate decision to work around the methods employed by the government, or is it just some quirk of the technology? Is it just BlackBerry e-mail service or is it other devices? Is it country-wide, or just in a particular region(s)? Abrazame (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Suez "massacre" reports

Currently we have: Eyewitness reports have suggested that the death toll there may be significantly higher, even rising to the level of a "massacre".

It's sourced to rawstory.com: [Anti-government protests in Egypt moved into their third day early Thursday, with unconfirmed reports of police "massacres" of civilians in the port city of Suez.] [9]

Due to the third-hand reporting from a decent but not bulletproof news organization, can/should we either a) use in-text attribution to make clear the reporting is coming from rawstory.com; or b) find some other sources that report on the situation in Suez. Ocaasi (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I just checked and I can't find any other articles on this "massacre" that isn't a copy of the Raw Story article. No more reputable news organization has run anything about a massacre. Silverseren^C 02:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait untill we get a better source I think. We don't need to be breaking news.©Geni 02:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It is only 15 dead as of date.[[10]]--Wipsenade (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes re-enabled

I protected with pending changes for three days. I was quite surprised to get home from work after hearing about Egypt all day to find that it was removed. Reviewing edits from new and unregistered accounts/IPs is, in my experience as an administrator, a no-brainer for maintaing an encyclopedic article. This subject has been, can be, and will be, a magnet for adding disruptive and POV information from all saids. Pending changes, a feature that I personally don't approve of, makes sense here. Geni, please contact me for discussion. Keegan (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well you are kinda in violation of our wheel waring policy and convention demands that I take things to arbcom however I'm going to assume it was acidental and you will revert yourself because I really can't be bothered with arbcom. One of the few clear results to come out of the pending changes trial was that it just doesn't work as an alturnative to semi protection on highly edited/targeted articles. Aditionaly protection is meant to be reactive. The low level of vandalism is well within what the editors working on this article can cope with.©Geni 02:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the volume of vandalism is manageable. Pending changes are not needed. If anything, maybe semi-protection but I don't see enough problems for that either. --Aude (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, my position was not of management of vandalism, but providing a neutral point of view article on the current event. As for wheel-warring, I'd hope that we've worked together enough for you to know that I do not war. I shan't remove my pending changes, but if you should, Geni, I will not consider it wheel warring nor would I threaten arbitration. If you wish to take my position to ArbCom, be my guest. Threatening disciplinary action over a pending changes of a highly political current event would be quite amusing, so much so that I would not participate in the case. The arbitration committee has nothing to do with this. A pleasant day to everyone. Keegan (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection to deal with POV pushing is definetly something that should be reactive. I think we've already delt with the only major POV isssue though. Wikipedia does current events fairly well because it can draw in a lot of people intested in editing. Pending changes kinda kills that.©Geni 02:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes would be particularly inconvenient, since even edits by reviewers have to be accepted. I don't see the need for it yet. Frankly, the level of attention at this article has been excellent, and the level of vandalism quite low. Ocaasi (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't you have that backwards? It was you who undid Keegan's implementation of pending changes, apparently without any discussion whatsover. Aren't you supposed to discuss with the original admin before making a change to the settings they implemented? I don't see any discussion at AN/I about it either. Yworo (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No I undid Swatjester's implementation. Per WP:Wheel thats allowed. The tripwire would be if anyone then reveted me. Changes to protection level without discussion are pretty common practice. Which is one of the reasons I wouldn't have got anywhere if I actualy had tried taking things to arbcom.©Geni 03:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, guess I misread the log... I see that now. Yworo (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. Pending changes to protect people who are protesting from having to log in seems to make sense to me. These are people who could be persecuted for adding info to this article, and forcing them to log in is just putting them at risk. Pending changes makes a lot of sense here. - Philippe 09:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting point Philippe, but at this point it's academic, since the article isn't even semi protected. Ocaasi (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is well watched - the one time I saw it vandalized, I couldn't submit an undo edit fast enough to beat the person who did it. I agree that due to real dangers of censorship, we want editing to be open - that said, however, editing from an Egyptian IP address might be more dangerous than using an account. Is it possible to specifically allow editing of this article by normally banned open proxies, in recognition of the need to outreach to the Egyptian public? Wnt (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarifications:

• "Thousands filled the streets across Egypt on Friday 28 January, dubbed “the Friday of Anger”.[56][57] Shortly before 1:00 local time, hours ahead of the expected massive anti-government protests, the Egyptian government shut down internet service, although some people were still able to communicate using alternative means." Is this 1:00 am or pm?

• "The demonstration that was in front of the Supreme Court was larger than usual and was able to break the security cordon and head to Midan Tahrir." What is Midan Tahrir? Ocaasi (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

1 AM their time. And Tahrir Square is Midan Tahrir. Silverseren^C 03:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I updated these. Ocaasi (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Questions

• The Domestic reactions section only has 1 sentence: "Mohammed ElBaradei called for ousting the regime, as in Tunisia." Is that all we mean to cover, or are we pissing pieces from the government, activists internally, etc.?

• The Stock section has commentary from an energy hedge fund partner. “If this can happen in Egypt, there is no reason that it can’t occur in Libya or Saudi Arabia,” said John Kilduff, a partner at Again Capital LLC, a New York-based hedge fund that focuses on energy. " Is this encyclopedic? [11] Ocaasi (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it is likely self-serving, as he has surely invested in shorts and/or volatility indexes. There's no reason that it can't occur in Texas or New Jersey either, only I wouldn't take a hedge fund manager's off-the-cuff comment to support adding that to their articles. Indeed, there is a strong economic aspect, both domestically in the impetus for these protests and internationally for the concerns of allies and competitors, but let's limit this article's coverage of that aspect to instances with direct relevancy to Egypt, huh? Abrazame (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hadn't even thought about possible conflicts of interest. I don't think it's adding to the article, since we already describe the risk of general regional unrest. I'm going to remove it unless there are objections. Ocaasi (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Reaction Arab World

It would probably be more important to have a section on the reaction from the Arab world. But this section is not here.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

We did add some!

• Libyan Leader Muammar al-Gaddafi during a telephone conversation with Mubarak expressed confidence in the stability of the Egyptian society and preserving the gains of what Egypt have achieved. He expressed his wishes for the completion of Egypt's march towards the greater good and progress for its people and to continue its central role in the defense of issues of its nation. [[Template:Ar"دعم عالمي لحق التظاهر بمصر". Aljazeera. 27 January 2011. Retrieved 29 January 2011.]]

More for the American response

The USA has two warships with marines in international waters off Egypt. source --Guerillero | My Talk 05:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's not be alarmist, or draw incorrect conclusions. As your source notes, the ships just happened to be there for deployment of troops to Afghanistan and their use if any would be in the event it became necessary to evacuate Americans from Egypt, not a military response to the situation. Abrazame (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera video?

Why is an Al-Jazeera video embedded in this article? It is one thing to use a news network as an article reference, it is quite another to embed a video with commentary straight from a network. This raises all kinds of NPOV issues. Peter G Werner (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera English is dead center politically (relative to the New York Times and the Egyptian government); it's as well-positioned a source as we could hope for. Specifically, the video's content is merely descriptive of local surroundings and events and not editorializing at all. I like it here and don't see an NPOV issue. Ocaasi (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

And to make it even better the video is actually Free content too (it isn't being used under fair use, it's CC-BY) if we can use it I think we should, it allows people to get a better sense of what is happening with a different media. It is quite clear who is speaking (not us, them). James (T C) 09:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It's the only video coverage we have of events (and the only visual coverage with have of events on the 29th). It's under a free license so you can edit the sound/chop up the visual if you want.©Geni 17:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Copy-edit lead

I gave a significant copy-edit to the lead paragraphs. Please check that I didn't muck anything up factually (or otherwise). Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Venezuela

Should the takeover of the Egyptian embassy in Venezuela be added to the article? 65.93.15.80 (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

If we have a source for it, the Venezuela mention would fit in the reactions sections as well as perhaps briefly in the lead. It's definitely relevant to international reactions and the increasing scope of the protests. Ocaasi (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110128-715552.html Abrazame (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

But please, show restraint with the weighting and characterization. This brief and quickly defused event is a tangentially related factoid, and not as relevant (or as useful) as the peaceful protests in solidarity around the world. Abrazame (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"CARACAS (Dow Jones)--A group of young Venezuelans of Egyptian descent attempted to take over the Egyptian embassy in Venezuela, though the dispute was ended quickly, President Hugo Chavez said Friday in a televised speech." This seems almost trivial enough to be completely excluded. Maybe a very small mention in the reactions section, but not in the lead I don't think. Ocaasi (talk) 10:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, absolutely not in the lead; this ill-advised blip seems to be a tangential anomaly relative to the actual profound events in Egypt. Abrazame (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done, although that would never make it ot the lead unless it was the reason for mubarak's ouster or something.(Lihaas (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

Mubarak dismisses the government

Do you really think this deserves to be reduced to commingle amongst the domestic responses instead of getting a more prominent header? And as it stands now, it's out of chronological order, prior to the rumored departure of his family four days earlier. Abrazame (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

i think like tunisia it should be more prominent. (its going to expanded today, tomorrow, etc)(Lihaas (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

I think for now its fine. Mubarak did dismiss Ahmed Nazif government but incoming government is an NDP one. we should wait and see if any of the ministers change or just shuffled (for example, Habib Ibrahim El Adly. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but then, either way (if he merely reshuffles the deck), you're burying that fact by reducing the header. But I won't press that point.

On a related issue, as you're rearranging this hand, don't you think that the house arrest of Elbaradei deserves not to get lost in the shuffle? Don't you think it deserves its own header in the reactions, rather than (or in addition to) buried in the events of 28 January? Abrazame (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No matter what he does, it will a more prominent header. It's a big deal. We just have to wait. As for your secend point, I totally agree with you. to should go under the domestic responses. It should also mention the nation-wide curfew-- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. I think we need to create two sections in the Protest Section, one for Elbaradei, and one for Mubarak, so we can summarize both of their experiences. The Domestic Reactions section is just a holding tank while we figure out what is the best way to do that. Ocaasi (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree, sounds reasonable to have a section for Mubarak and one for Elbaradei. --Aude (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

elbaradei is not yet as porminent as mubarak. though his house arrest can be a subsection of arressts as "notable arrests" perhaps.(Lihaas (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

I added these and other ideas to the to-do list at the top of the talk page. Let's use it to try and coordinate some more structural changes. Ocaasi (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Where did the section go??? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It's currently in Reactions - Domestic Ocaasi (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I cant see it -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

29 January - Protest continue (demanding Mubarak to step down)

It needs to be added to the article. Aljazeera just reported on TV that 50,000 protesters are marching in Cairo -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It's ok if we stay one step behind today's events. Let's wait for some hard news copy, and we'll go from there. Ocaasi (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Added about the protests in Tahrir Square. Here they just say "large numbers" and on broadcast they say 50,000. Either sticking with the number or saying "large numbers" is okay. --Aude (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

update: policse station in alexandri burned down and attempt to burn intelligence HQ too.(Lihaas (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

casualty

based on eysterday al jazeera said the cairo morgue had at elast 50 bodies and another 23 and 26 in suez and alexandria (not sure which is which). anyone got a nother count?(Lihaas (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

I watching AlJazeera right now and they said that more than 100 protesters died; some very young (Kids). We should wait til the entire report is out. Maybe it will come out in the next few hours. we will wait and see. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

i though al jazeera was switched off in egypt?(Lihaas (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

I am not in Egypt; Thats why I can access the internet. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

ah yes, good point ;)(Lihaas (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

Arrests story

This is great:

Security forces in Cairo arrested Jack Shenker, a Guardian news reporter, who secretly recorded his subsequent journey in a police van. Shenker was beaten several times along with numerous other protesters, after which they were loaded onto one of the security trucks. Shenker was crowded with 43 others in the vehicle, whose only ventilation were thick metal grates. They were driven for hours, and one of the protesters, who was diabetic, fell into a coma. Others tried to get the truck driver to stop, unsuccessfully. After stopping near a government security headquarters far outside the city, a policeman unlocked the vehicle door, wanting a specific prisoner, Ayman Nour's son. The detainees managed to overpower the policeman and escape, flagging down cars to evacuate the unconscious man, while the rest worked to find their way back to Cairo.[51]

...but it seems way too detailed for an encyclopedia. I think as the article grows it has to go. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it's becoming more of like a news article than an encyclopedia article, when the article grows to an extent that it becomes confusing, I'll say we should really consider refining it. But I doubt it should be erased completely from the entire Wikipedia world.--Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done shrotened the bit

but for the most part the refinements will happen when the article is off ITN and less editors are around liek 2010 Copiapo mining accident(Lihaas (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

Friday of Anger?

The section titled 28 January - Friday of Anger says that this day was known as the Friday of Anger. However, the citation for that leads a news reference that says it is called the Friday of Anger. It is a news source, the editor just described it as the Friday of Anger, it wasn't given the name as Friday of Anger yet. Remove? --Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The people who organized the event on facebook called it "Friday of Anger". -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Are other sources calling it that or reporting on the Facebook name? Ocaasi (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

yeah, just google "جمعة الغضب" -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

there are 2 sources here, including FT which certainly counts as an RS.(Lihaas (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

It seems that 'Day of Anger' is much more common than 'Friday of Anger'. That's what Al Jazeera English is using, and dominates in Google hits. Any comment? 112.119.91.68 (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

But 'Day of Rage' (which the BBC is using) gets just about the same number of G-hits as 'Day of Anger'. 112.119.91.68 (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

@The Egyptian Liberal Could you link to that facebook maybe? --Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

day of anger is a different day from yesterdays events. (id guess something that failed)(Lihaas (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

Day of Anger is the 25th ... Friday of Anger is the 28th ... and here is the link to the event page on facebook [12] -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

News Release Tag

The big yellow 'News Release' template was added. It's somewhat accurate but I'm not too keen on it. This is a phenomenally important global article and we're continually trying to integrate a ton of new information an encyclopedic way. I suggest we keep doing that but remove the tag, since it's an ongoing effort. And if not for that reason than just because perhaps this article is a little too important to be covered in templates addressing issues being improved anyway. It's something I'd vote to WP:IAR for while we work it out. Ocaasi (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, beside I think Lihaas has addressed the issue regarding the arrest section that was the cause for the tag -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

STRONG agree to remove on an ongoign event, it WILL be reviewed when events are done anyways./(Lihaas (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

Re-organize?

The Domestic Reactions section is all about really key events that are actually part of the protests, not just commentary on them. I think it needs to be integrated somehow into the Protest section, perhaps splitting Protest into a /Timeline half and a /Major aspects half. As it is now, I don't quite see how it makes sense. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think the protests section and reactions section needs major re-organizing. I think the protests should be the only thing in the protest section. So might need to move Arrest sand Suez (I dont know where to tho). any ideas? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Working on it, give me about 10. I think splitting Domestic from International reactions will free up room for a major issues section. Ocaasi (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

we did that in tunisia. though i dont think it should WITH protests, seperate from reactions would be feasible. seemsto have worked there.(Lihaas (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

removing the tag [er this unexplained addition [13](Lihaas (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

the reorg is pretty poor right now. we dont need subsections for reactions, ";" before the region name should do it as it clutters the contents box.

"Major issues " is a hodgeposh of everything and needs sorting. the first 4 can use their own section (although suez just jumps out since cairo and alexandria are not there.)

likewise " Internal responses" + "Mubarak dismisses the government" can seperate out (Lihaas (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

"Self-immolation" and the "Deaths" section should merge together. Same goes to "Media censorship" and "Internet blackout". -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

ive done these 2. but the section still needs cleaning. im moving the article tag to the section.(Lihaas (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

I'm not sure I agree with all of those suggestions. I think sub-sections in the reactions paragraph is helpful, and immolations and deaths are two very different things. I do agree that Major Issues is a hodgepodge and can be split as you suggested. We should add the Cairo and Alexandria subsections. Ocaasi (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

alright, give me 2 mions, see what i did and then change accordingly.(Lihaas (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

i like this,m although my concern would be that subsection tag coming back on(Lihaas (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

Fatalities

I'm trying to update the fatalities... we have them listed in the infobox and lead, the 29 January section, and we have the Self-immolation section. It's getting confusing with so many sources and so many places to update in the article. Of course, these numbers should stay in the infobox (7 refs) and lead, but maybe there should be a subsection of the Protests section with more detailed accounting and refs and consolidate the Self-immolation section? Thoughts? --Aude (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on it, give me one minute. I'll add a Deaths section and integrate it with the new outline. Ocaasi (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

New outline sounds good. --Aude (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a brutal cleanup with the edit conflicts. Aude, could you help me in the section below add back anything I pasted over to get the changes through? I'll have to check each one manually (there are about 20 total since things were moving so fast). Ocaasi (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The reorganization looks good. How about I work on going through all the references, trying to clean them up. (duplicates, etc.) and work on the Deaths section? I can also help check the edit conflicts. --Aude (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

PS - I saw on AJ English at 15:03 UTC: 25 in Cairo (less than what we have, not sure it's total), 38 in Suez (seemed credible), 36 in Alex. --Aude (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

One fatality this afternoon in Midan Tahrir. --Aude (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd go straight for refs and the death section. It's moving too fast to worry about the edit conflicts this second. Let's clean things up and when the dust settles (which it won't really) I'll see if anything didn't get put back in place. Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Aude, someone added a deaths table to the January 28th section. It can/should definitely be moved to the Deaths section. Ocaasi (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I moved the table and I also made the tabe ln question.Wipsenade (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

ive put a total here, so we can now carry a sourced nyumber isntead of dubious varaitions(Lihaas (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

Edit conflicts

Cleanup resulted in some intermediate edit conflicts I couldn't fix. Can someone check these for me and help update anything I pasted over:

Sorry if I overwrote your edit. Will fix soon. Ocaasi (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, caught up and all of these are back in. I didn't add back in the Japanese reaction, since it was just a travel advisory. We're looking for political stances on some aspect of the protest, foreign policy rather than just safety guidance. Ocaasi (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Jordan, Algeria and Yeman

Discontent is also evident in Jordan, where King Abdullah II has announced reforms, and in Yemen, which is geting brutal to[[14]]. Protests also hit Algeria. Is the Moslem Brotherhood there to?--Wipsenade (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

We have pages on this already. I was trying to clean jordan. havent seen the algeria page in a while, ill get to tis soomn. Yemen also needs expansion

MB is there in jordan, not yemen (even their goals are different for the most part). not too sure about the islamic credentials of algerias protests.(Lihaas (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

BREAKING NEWS

Omar Suleiman appointed by Mubarak as Vice President of Egypt

Major news just came out. It seems the we gonna have pull an all nighter. Omar Suleiman is sworn in :O -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Source...? Ocaasi (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

My word is not a RS? lol...Egypt's Mubarak picks vice-president for first time -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Gamal and Alaa Mubarak are in london

Just show it on TV -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:40, 29 January 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)

Egypt Shuts Down Al Jazeera

Egypt Shuts Down Al Jazeera -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Make sure to note that it's only the Al Jazeera office in Cairo, not the entire network. See here, here, and here. Silverseren^C 09:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

And here's Al Jazeera's response on the matter. It apparently is all of their offices in Egypt, it's just that Cairo is the only one that has been personally closed so far. Silverseren^C 11:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

ELBaradei to form a new government

I just saw the news on alarabiya that says the groups behind the protest asked elbaradei to form a new government. looking for sources as we speak -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I found sources جماعات توكل "البرادعي" لتشكيل حكومة انتقالية, بيان «قوى الاحتجاجات» تفوض البرادعي بتشكيل حكومة إنقاذ وطني مؤقتة and مصر: خمس جماعات معارضة تفوض البرادعي لتشكيل حكومة انقاذ وطني مؤقتة -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

prisone 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)

[15][16][17](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)

OTHER CURRENT EVENTS AS THEY HAPPEN PENDING SOURCE

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)

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

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

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!)

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

Overstating El-Baradei's role?

I'm wondering if we're giving too much prominence to El-Baradei - Aljazeera's reports have seemed to be downplaying his role Theshibboleth (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

What parts would you like to see changed? The last sentence of the first paragraph? Or elsewhere as well? Ocaasi (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it would make sense to mention him after the first paragraph because although he is a possible replacement for Mubarak, it is by no means clear that he is the most likely or most popular replacement. Theshibboleth (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

What? I am confused. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup questions

1. Can we get the ref duplication out of the infobox?
2. How should we order the regions in the international section; alphabetically?
3. What will we have to do to remove the cleanup tag? Ocaasi (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Working on the refs and some copyedits. Once they are done, together with the reorganization, I think cleanup is sufficient for the tag to be removed.

The reactions section is too much of a laundry list, too much recentism, etc. I would have a paragraph (probably two or subsection) on US reactions, given the significance, try to summarize the others (Middle East; Europe/Asia/elsewhere) in paragraphs and condense it. --Aude (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The casualties reporting is a mess. One place says 100 dead. Another says 53. And the table adds up to 54. Glennconti (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the regions should be ordered as follows: Supranational Bodies, Middle East, and then the rest in alphabetical order. I feel it is logical to put the Middle East toward the top. Karmos (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed dates and numbers. I did the table in question to.Wipsenade (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Self-immolation table

Is this really needed? This table is not WP:Notable and just shows the names of four people, what makes those four stand out and how many reports are there about people who lit themselves on fire that were not news doc'd. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Some important mention of the immolations is needed. The protests all started in Tunisia with a self-immolation. The copycats were shocking and caused a reaction. The table is messed up because it links dates. I don't care whether or not a table is used but the immolations were notable. Glennconti (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the immolations being notable I just dont see why there needs to be a table for it showing each victim's status. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

if youw ant to prose-ify go ahead. though i too support the content being included.(Lihaas (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

 Done Put into prose - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It was removed for some reason as there were 2, but then both were gone. oso i merged it into deaths per above.(Lihaas (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

29 January image

There are some comments on the original Flickr page suggesting that the image was doctored in some way. Can we confirm its authenticity? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 16:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Cairo, 29th January 2011.jpg ? It's a copyvio and I've deleted it.©Geni 16:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, clarity of sourceing is needed to screen out propaganda by all parties to the conflict!--Wipsenade (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

We should thent Take it off in the meantime with hidden tags(Lihaas (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

O.K., do it (Lihaas (talk), zap that immage for us!--Wipsenade (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

already hiddn, not removed(Lihaas (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

Condense

I see alot of sections in this article and expand section tags placed, is there a way to put small sections into bigger ones here to improve the article? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

ditto, i mentioned above. im going to be bold and redo, see how you liek it then.(Lihaas (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

I dont know even in the backround I see the Economic conditions only has one sentence and it has it's own section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well this brings up the bigger question -- whether the "Background" section should be as big as it is. To me, I found it useful, but it's unlike how other breaking news events have been covered in Wikipedia. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the background section. I think the problem is later on. I think it's better that we expand sections with content and then summarize them once things slow down a bit. Ocaasi (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

International responces could get another page of it's own?Wipsenade (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe background could be split into a subarticle, but not right now. Agree with Ocaasi on expanding now, injesting info, and then summarizing. --Aude (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I took out the Economic part of this, because it's a word-for-word copyvio from AFP. Let's not re-add it verbatim. PS: Hi Aude! -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

we could decrease background into a general section for the shorter ones and leave the bigger ones as a subsection. (ill try something, see how it turns out)(Lihaas (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

I think it was more logical before - at least, I think it would make sense to put the background section in vaguely chronological order. The current version seems to jump around a lot. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

feel free to revert then, it was an "attempt" to condense.(Lihaas (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

I've put it back into sections but changed the order a bit - what do you think?--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

looks okay to me.(Lihaas (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

this merger of the alex. bombings and the emergency laq is out of place because one came 30 years ago and is not directly related escept thorugh synthesis.Lihaas (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible Outline

• ==Protests
• === timeline
• ==== day
• ==== day
• ==== day
• === casualties
• ==== arrests
• ==== self-immolation
• ==== injuries and deaths
• === regions
• ==== cairo
• ==== suez
• ==== alexandria
• === gov't response
• ==== media blackout
• ==== mubarak dissolves gov.'t
• ==== mubarak family relocation
• === miscellaneous
• ==== stock prices

Ocaasi (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Though, keep the "reaction" section though it needs major revision and summarization. Also, maybe combine self-immolation with injuries and deaths. --Aude (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, deaths and immolation was already combined by Lihaas, so that's done. Is 'Casualties' a good header for arrests/deaths? Ocaasi (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

i think the current version is good, althjough id be concernsed over that subsection tag coming back.(Lihaas (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

This proposal should be completed by == Background (reasons and main actors). Yug (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Reaction

Supranational bodies

In the Reactions section we have responses grouped by region, but we have Europe and Supranational, of which the European Union is the only member so far. Can we just put the EU in the Europe section? Are there other supranational entities we couldn't group in their relevant regional categories? Ocaasi (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

the UN has made a statement (we need to find it). expect the arab league to follow suit. then probably the IMF/World Bank, etc. even possibly the OIC(Lihaas (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

Here's Moon's and Pillay's comments [18] -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

done.(Lihaas (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

Wider Middle East

Anymore reaction?? I know some have arrested Egyptian because they were trying organize protest to support the uprising in Egypt -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

id be interest to see tunisia (although WHO would say something i dont know) and algeria and lebanon. but i guess well wait a few days.(Lihaas (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

I changed 'Wider Middle East' to just 'Middle East'. I think that's the common name, and I'm not sure 'wider' adds any meaningful distinction otherwise. Ocaasi (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Mostly Middle East refers to Asia, but then you hae Libya.(Lihaas (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

Joint Statement

http://www.number10.gov.uk/latest-news/2011/01/joint-uk-france-germany-statement-on-egypt-59740, germany, france, and uk Ocaasi (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done with quopte.(Lihaas (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

Cite does not support the claim: "socio-political protest in the country, when they occurred at all, rarely made major news headlines in the United States.[28]"

Can someone point to where in the article claims that they 'rarely made major news headlines'?

This is patently FALSE. As a counterexample: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=egyup#hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=egypt&cp=1&qe=ZWc&qesig=8SKWd3kUH04PiaaEp-VBWg&pkc=AFgZ2tndDMUIxEs3VQW03h1EmCAq1S6kVcTF-WAodA09R7OMtD9pkm3_YQq_LZpy5kz2Ni68f3NphKgzIWuihlB8qUL5lXwvIQ&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wn&fp=10f6603732373017

--69.123.205.100 (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't say this anywhere in the source given. I've removed "... and most instances of socio-political protest in the country, when they occurred at all, rarely made major news headlines in the United States." due to lack of source.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

CNN had it on about half the time or more yesterday. It is not true that major news sources ignored it. 66.183.11.233 (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Grievances

I'm working on the lead section, and finding cites for each specific grievance. There are still uncited grievances, and if can't be found, remove the listed grievances.

Also, I would like to change the lead from:

Specific grievances have centered around legal, political, and economic issues including police brutality, state of emergency laws, lack of free elections, corruption, restrictions on freedom of speech, high unemployment, low minimum wages, insufficient housing, food price inflation, and poor living conditions. Mohamed ElBaradei, seen as the most likely candidate for an interim presidency, called for the ousting of President Hosni Mubarak as the only objective.

to say (with missing cites added too):

Specific grievances have centered around legal, political, and economic issues including police brutality, state of emergency laws, low minimum wages, lack of free elections, corruption, high unemployment, insufficient housing, food price inflation, and poor living conditions. Demands from protest organizers included rights of freedom and justice, the end of the Hosni Mubarak regime and a new government that represents the interests of the Egyptian people.

Any objections? Thoughts? --Aude (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that 'demands' component is better than the current slant towards Elbaradei. Ocaasi (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

id agree if we were to take out "goals" because that is only elbaradei's view, and he is not the only person in this revoslt. THe MB hasnt stated its objective.(Lihaas (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

I dont know about that Lihaas. elbaradei, Ahmed Zewail, Amr Moussa and others have asked Mubarak to step down. The protester are still screaming "Down with Mubarak" -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

but that would be a result of protests, not the goal. (ie- it happened after the fact)(Lihaas (talk) 08:31, 30 January 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)

see also

we need to avoid overlinking so that the see also is not cluttered, accordingly tunisia and the april 6 movement should be removed. I also dont see the commonality with iran. its not over the same grievance, nor is it arab. unless one wants to suggest to add ALL such protets (kyrgz, etc (which is arguably more similar than iran))(Lihaas (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

I agree that the April 6 Movement has absolutely nothing to do with this. And the Iran protests have little to do with this, since they were over an election, while this is not. However, I feel that 2010–2011 Tunisian uprising should most definitely be included, because it is one of the main factors that influenced the Egyptian protests. This is attested to in multiple reliable sources. Silverseren^C 08:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

April 6 Movement were the master mind behind the protests -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

im not digressing the relevance, my concern was the overlinking nature sine those 2 are already listed int he article )in the lead in fact)(Lihaas (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

I see your point but we should mention somewhere in the article and we also need to mention National Association for Change (They were some of the main organizers of Uprise) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

With el baradei? and/or the lead?(Lihaas (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

I cast my vote to the lead but I am gonna keep an open mind for any other suggestion -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

financial markets

we need a roundup of other ME market open today. i guess most sources will come later, but the tase is also down 2.5%, for which there is really just 1 reason.(Lihaas (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

Article size

Now over 100k. so I propose a split. it seems the best would be to remove reactions (domestic and foreign) with a summation here. We could move protests but that’s the main part of the article.(Lihaas (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

How about we wait until the 5th of February? I think by then we will be able to tell how big the article is going to get and if need to split it. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Split off Background information and International reactions?--Wipsenade (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I really think removing the background information is a loss for the reader. I'd recommend we wait at least one or two more days before splitting, and then start with the international reactions first. Ocaasi (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to move international reactions first, leaving a short summary of the most important reactions. Not sure how long to wait, the article is getting quite slow to load.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that the section on solidarity protests should also go into an international reactions article. - BanyanTree 04:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Kuwait reaction

I copy-edited someone's international reaction addition about Kuwait:

Kuwait Emir Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah condemned Saturday riots and affirmed Kuwait 's support to the Egyptian government and people. This came in a phone call Sheikh Sabah made with Mubarak to inquire about the developments in Egypt. Sheikh Sabah expressed to Mubarak the State of Kuwait's condemnation to all acts of "riots, looting and sabotage" as well as terrifying citizens, undermining security and stability of Egypt. Sheikh Sabah also said he was confident the "Egyptian brothers" would overcome this "critical" phase to reach security and stability.

...but there's no source for it. Ocaasi (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Google gives this one: [19]. Hope it helps. Kavas (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I'll add it if no one already has. Although it's a primary source, since it's from Kuwait's official website, I believe we can use it as a source for their own statements. Ocaasi (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

International reaction list format

[20][21] were de-bulleted without expmalantion as such. the reason it was bulleted was b/c some are not official/non-government reactions. which dont represent the view of the country officially.(Lihaas (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

Ok, that was me. I'd like to find a more attractive way of formatting multiple/long entries in that section. I also don't think the flag necessarily represents the government as opposed to the geographical/political area. Ocaasi (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

oh yeah, ive since corrected that. they should have gone now with the new subsection that collate all such related data.

right now it should represent the official view where the government in pwoer said so, for other members in government office but not in power (ie- in opposition) there is a double bullet (eg- israel)(Lihaas (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)).

wo! just saw the over emphasis of stars and stripes. ghenerally on these typo of lists we put all official govt stuff in one to avoid duplication and confusing the matter.(Lihaas (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)).

Russian reaction

On http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/0/28DA98369E67F581C3257827005664EC there's a reaction from the Russian ministry. It's Russian but i translated it to know that it's about egypt, but I don't trust the translate enough to put it in here, if someone speaks Russian here than maybe he can put it in. Jillids (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

if you can give a rought overview, ill reword and put it on.(Lihaas (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

I can't speak Russian. I have no problem to put it in but when I translate it than there could be vital words that are mistranslated. Jillids (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

could you try the russian embassy on wikipdia?(Lihaas (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

No I haven't, I am not very active. Could you please ask them or give met the link? Jillids (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

[22](Lihaas (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

I have put a message at there talk page. Jillids (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I have done a translation, based off of Google Translate, but edited using my knowledge of both English and Russian for consistency and grammar (while doing my best to keep true to the original tone and content). Feel free to verify this as needed.

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

INFORMATION AND PRESS DEPARTMENT

119200, Moscow G-200, Smolenskaya Square Hay., 32/34 tel.: (499) 244-4119, fax: (499) 244-4112 e-mail: dip@mid.ru, web-address: www.mid.ru

PRESS RELEASE

Of the oral message from Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to Foreign Minister of Egypt Ahmed Aboul Gheit

83-29-01-2011

January 29, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Sergey Lavrov, has sent an oral message to the Foreign Minister of Egypt Ahmed Aboul Gheit, to read:

"With great attention and concern, we are following those events that have gripped Egypt. Our hearts go out to your friendly country and friendly Egyptian people in connection to the shocks they endured, which unfortunately led to human casualties and other losses. We very much hope that the phase of confrontation will be overcome with non-violent means, without de-stabilizing the situation in the country while on the path to reaching an agreement on how to move forward the process of further development in Egypt.

We sincerely hope that the Egyptian leadership and all of society will show high national responsibility and do everything necessary to stabilize the situation and to ensure a civil peace, which is so necessary for progress and for meeting people's aspirations.

I hope that the Egyptian side will take comprehensive measures to ensure the safety of Russian citizens located in Egypt.

I would also like to emphasize that the stability of Egypt meets the genuine interests of both the Egyptians and the entire Middle East region. We are also sincerely interested in this in Moscow. Of course, we remain fully committed to the strategic partnership that connects Russia and Egypt. We have no doubt that [Egypt's] constructive and energetic role in the international and regional arenas will continue."

January 29, 2011

END

Google Translate Original: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mid.ru%2Fbrp_4.nsf%2F0%2F28DA98369E67F581C3257827005664EC&act=url

207.239.48.34 (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC) RK

PS, I am not affiliated with the Russian Embassy (Wikipedia or otherwise), nor am I affiliated with the Russian Federation government in any way. Then again, I am not in any way affiliated with Egypt either 207.239.48.34 (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC) RK

Live ammunition

"Soldiers were given orders to use live ammunition, but the army said the order was refused." A citation is needed for this claim, and clarification - were soldiers ordered to shoot at protesters, or to fire in the air?--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

its from tv, so will pull pout an online source soon.

live bullets is generally to shoot at protesters, in the air is not really live bullets. (defeats the point when a [cheaper] version is available to them)(Lihaas (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

new section - analysis

proposing a new section for RS analysis (although probably after the split off): [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34](Lihaas (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

I think it might be too soon for that and could be a slippery slope... whose opinion to include? actually, we're already doing that in the reactions section and maybe the international reactions and other sections can be improved by incorporating some "analysis" type sources. --Aude (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

its a little like electoral pages and the tinisa protests. we incldue anything from an RS that is nt a govt reaction.(Lihaas (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

When you're ready, go ahead and propose something and suppose we can work from there. Eventually, as time passes, I think "Analysis" will be more important and we could start with something. --Aude (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

i agreed with your above that its too soon. but was proposing it for future to see how itd turn out. clutter the ongoing page.(Lihaas (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

"Tahrir Square" & "central square"

Are them the same square ? that's quite confusing in the #30_January's section. If they are different, please consider to remplace all occurences of 'central square' by 'Central square', or 'OFFICIAL NAME square'. Yug (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

yeah they should be, i couldnt remember the former at the time. (most of which were added mby me)(Lihaas (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

If they're talking about a square in Cairo, then it is very likely to be Tahrir Square. That is pretty much the main base of protest operations. Silverseren^C 20:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Background and Mubarak's presidency section

I propose moving the "Mubarak's presidency" text to the top of the "Background" section and remove the subheading, then followed by the subsection talking about emergency law, corruption, brutality, etc. which are aspects of Mubarak's regime and rule. Seems like a more logical order to me, but since it's rearranging sections I want to know if there are any objections or other suggestions. --Aude (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: I've reordered and combined some parts of the background section. Hope it's an improvement, but sure it's still only so good and needs work. (feel free to undo anything) The section needs to be more concise, flow together better, and we can use more solid references. Also, the economic climate section is looking better. --Aude (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

(I refactored as well, trying to keep things together) I like this change, since it's obviously the overarching political context. Should we add a sub-header with Mubarak's Presidency rather than leaving the text directly under the Background header? Ocaasi (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't see why we would need a separate subsection for his presidency when it is in itself part of the background. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Casualties Table

Since this (the protests) is all unfolding as we edit, I don't think any news source has a complete casualties count. However, corrections should be made to the current list. Al Jazeera on the 29th reported that at least 22 people were killed in Cairo, 27 in Suez, and 23 in Alexandria (all of which are morgue figures.) It also says a further 13 bodies are in the general hospital in Alexandria.[35] The BBC has reported on the 30th that 50 people have been killed in 24-hour period in Cairo alone.[36]. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The infobox currently has the combined toll at 160, though this could change at any minute. Editors would need to update both the infobox and the section. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

agrreed have to match. the main table takes precedence over the infobox as its more detailed this accurate.(Lihaas (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)).

Anything we can do?

I think it should be suggested of any help sites or anywhere we can donate or anything we can do net-wise. Because I, myself, would really like to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.209.119.9 (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If you mean what you can do to influence the protest or the outcome, wikipedia cannot be used as a platform for that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Photos, If you are in Egypt or next to a protest, please take photos then upload them to Flickr under Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic, Attribution 2.0 Generic, or Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic so we can you them. If you have photos uploaded under a different license, please change it so we can use it. If you know anyone with picture, tell them to do the same -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

But shouldn't we list the "help sites" as a response to the protests? Similar things have been done for other events, natural or political. Coasterlover1994^{Leave your mark!} 23:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

donate to who? its not a natural calamity that had a red cross response team. you can protest outside the mbassy i guess. although for wikipedia Egyptian Liberal is right.(Lihaas (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

Anything that improves the article will help: better photos, charts, illustrations, more accurate sourcing, especially looking for reliable sources for information that is not included in the daily headlines and that help to clarify conflicting information present in the media etc.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Part of the verifiable response to these events has been an outpouring of support from individuals and organizations wanting to assist the efforts of protesters. This has been reported in many news sources, and we should summarize those reports. Part of doing that will include references linking to relevant news articles. Although we are not here to promote aid to the protesters, we can add an external link to a relevant website which is providing that type of information, provided we keep the focus on giving an overview of the subject rather than advocacy. Ocaasi (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I have already done so, the circumvention of media censorship being itself notable. Furthermore I have made a couple of requests on Flickr for appropriate Creative Commons licensing, so we shall see. Even within the ambit of Wikipedia policy we can do a great deal of good, Wikipedia being what it is and Wikipedia being what it stands for. kencf0618 (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you did that Ken, and we are doing a great deal of good, merely by giving people a place to find accurate background information, synthesized updates, and clear explanations of what is going on. The more we do that, the more we make Wikipedia a source people come to and count on. We do the most good like that, although I do also want to make sure we don't miss the information that is specifically about activism as well. Ocaasi (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

by nature wikipedia is not "social media" its not a point of contact, and youd never ahave a "wiki[peda revolution" as it doesnt work on the same model or intend to. its supposed to be neutral, where the others never claim to be.(Lihaas (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)).

International protests

(edit conflict x2; how the heck does this happen in new sections?!)We may eventually need a whole separate article for the "solidarity protests", perhaps comparable in magnitude to the 2009 Tamil diaspora protests. Mostly the events have occurred in the Arab world and outside embassies in North American/European countries. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Key position of the military

Now that the police is unseen in Cairo, the place of the Military became the key actor for the outcome. So who are the key military chiefs ? have them their own will ? what is the degree of connexion between the the military and the current system (goverment, economic circles) ? This is quite critical now. Yug (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

While not enough, I ound that:

• http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4021489,00.html :

Vice President Omar Suleiman and the new Egyptian Prime minister Ahmed Shafiq both have a military background. "The senior military commanders are an integral part of Mubarak's regime, and this is why (the army) will apparently continue to protect the government," he said.

Lipkin-Shahak says the fact that the Egyptian army is holding its ground is positive for Israel. "The army is western in its orientation and is dependent on American money and equipment. It needs the West's support," he said.

Yug (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that in the background section a brief overview of the Military's role and key figures would be helpful. Don't have the personal knowledge to do it, though. Ocaasi (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Mohamed Hussein Tantawi is named the defense minister by this guardian article. Glennconti (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Lieutenant General Sami Hafez Enan, chief of staff of Egypt's armed forces. Reference here. and here. Glennconti (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Egyptian military statitics. Glennconti (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Latuff, Shoeing, and Arabic Protest Signage and Graffiti

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)

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)

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)).

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)

Major To-Do

The article is coming along really well, but there are some major areas that need people to take the lead on. I'll list them here, maybe one or two people can commit to taking on each one.

1. Background - summary of opposition groups (Muslim Brotherhood, ElBaradei, etc)
2. January 29th - copy-editing, reference check
3. January 30th - copy-editing, reference check
4. Arrests - updating
5. Deaths - expansion
6. Solidarity protests - copy-edit and check, possibly condense
7. Evacuations - copy-edit and check, possibly condense
8. Lead - update developments in government, local conditions, international responses

if you disagree with any of them, discuss it here, or propose new items needing work:

Discussion

What areas do you think we haven't covered yet? I have a short-list including political analysis, the role of women, community safety organizing, and global technical activism assisting in communications. Any others? Ocaasi (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

In the Arrests section, should we mention the prison break and the ones who were arrested again? and the ones who are free? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Arrests section seems like a good place to cover that. Also, there have been reports of the self-organized community 'police' handing over looters to the Army. Ocaasi (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

the analysis links are collecting on this page.

I would put the prison break for the day it happened.

i think we already mentioned community policing in cairop and suez somewhere. (al jazeera (whos shining in this article and story in real life) mentioned something like that, a whole article on its site)

also need some mention of the free-market captialists brought into the govt recently (akin to the chicago boys(Lihaas (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)).

Sign me up

• I'm currently working on 2 and 3. Ocaasi (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think i'm up for article writing right now. Especially not on such an extensive one such as this. But I am definitely up for reference finding. Just let me know what statements you need to have referenced or the types of references that you need and i'll find them for you. Silverseren^C 08:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  Awesome, see below. Ocaasi (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

i think most will be done when the protests are done and a major review like the copaiapo mining accident. but ive been cleaning the reaction section when i can. the potests on current day are not going to be up to scratch b/c of the nature of the process thats ongoing.(Lihaas (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)).

NEWS DESK (sourcing and verification)

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

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)).

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)

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)

domestic calls

Omar sharif calls for mubarak's resignation (didnt even know hes still Egyptian...though he ran off to Hollywood)(Lihaas (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)).

Long live Omar, Alah Akbar!--Wipsenade (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

accessibility - article size - seems time to split

the article is now 150+ kilobytes (and bound to grow dramatically just from citation formatting alone). not all wikipedia readers and editors are necessarily on high-speed access. even with broadband, access has been quite sluggish for several days now.

would suggest that "reactions" (both domestic and international) be branched to sub-articles with a summary paragraph or two on each in this main article. regards.--108.14.100.42 (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree over the reactions.--Wipsenade (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, I think you're right, and this must happen, and probably today (certainly before Tuesday's major planned March). I still would like to start with International reactions, since removing it is least disruptive to the narrative. Want to create International reactions to the 2011 Egypt Protests and we'll go from there? (Oh right, you're an ip you can't--a very helpful ip). Ok, I'll put that on my list. Ocaasi (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

if a registered editor can make the split(s), i'll volunteer to spend some time in next few hours tidying where i can. (i agree that international is good to start.) --108.14.100.42 (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I created the fork here: International reactions to the 2011 Egyptian protests. You can use Reactions_to_the_United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak as a guide (or any of the other 'Reactions to' articles). This first thing we need, though, is a short summary so that when we remove all of this information there will be a little synopsis (max 1-3 paragraphs) for readers at this article. Ocaasi (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried adding some selected responses. What do you think? Ocaasi (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

good start. would suggest it to be as terse as possible. unfortunately, summaries always have a way of bloating. (fyi, i will be concentrating formatting/tidying the subarticle (primarily citations).)--108.14.100.42 (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

i cut the summary down to the most immediately pertient in detail (supranational and ME) and then summarised more briefly the rest.

although i would support the domestic POLITICAL reactions be put there.

be careful about nurturing only the subarticle -- i did it for reactions to the gaza flotilla raid and never went back ;)(Lihaas (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)).

Clarifying the graffiti on one of the pictures

The two large green sentences read: "Down with Mubarak" and "No to Mubarak." The bold sentence in black underneath reads: "Mubarak the dictator has fallen", while the one on the left read: "Leave, you thief" or maybe "Depart, you thief."
There are several smaller sentences, but these can barely be seen from the thumbnail, and they are all mostly the same message. hope that helps. Unflavoured (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll update the captions if there's any discrepancy. Ocaasi (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Arrests and deaths sections

Can anyone explain where the deaths and arrests sections went? They have disappeared since this version- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Egyptian_protests&oldid=411157336#Casualties - but I can't find their removal in the article history. It might be good to rearrange that information into different sections, but at the moment it mostly just seems to have disappeared.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking out for deaths, injeries and self-immolations. I'll defend the entry.--Wipsenade (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm looking for when it got removed. It was probably an accident. If not, that would have to be discussed on talk first, so I'll put it back. Ocaasi (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it happened here but for some reason it's not even showing up in the diff? Ocaasi (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it shows up here. Someone removed the ===Casualties header and left the ====Arrests and ====Deaths headers, which don't show up in the table of contents, since they're level 4. I think we should put it back in a way that shows up in the table of contents, since that data is all pretty critical. We can do this by changing the TOC settings, or by changing the header levels on those sections. Ocaasi (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

What's going on?

• Something weird is going on. I can't see those sections at all in the main article, but when I hit edit I can see them in the edit box! Is it the same for you?--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Yeah, i'm seeing it too. TYhe February 1 info isn't visible in the article, but it is when you try to edit the section on January 31. Actually, even some of the January 31 info isn't visible. Silverseren^C 15:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  We've been hacked! Seriously, anyone know what can cause that? Ocaasi (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• It gets weirder. The line in the article at the end of the January 31 section, "Hundreds of mourners gathered for the funerals calling for Mubarak's removal.[4]" does not appear in the info in the edit box. It doesn't exist in there at all. Silverseren^C 15:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, step 1. Purge cache. step 2. check for a ref error, or something in the markup that is blocking the text Ocaasi (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Problem found

I cut this text out of the article and the problem went away. There is a bug somewhere in this text:Glennconti (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Security officials announced that the curfew would start at 15:00 and threatened to shoot anyone who ignores the curfew, though eventually little or no action was taken.<ref>{{cite news|last=Egypt|first=guardian.co.uk|title=Egyptian protests – timeline for the weekend's events|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/30/egypt-saturday-events-timeline|accessdate=31 January 2011|work=[[The Guardian]]|date=30 January 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Tomasevic|first=Goran|title=WorldCurfew hours extended in Egypt as turmoil continues|url=http://en.rian.ru/world/20110130/162383449.html|accessdate=31 January 2011|work=[[RIA Novosti]]|date=30 January 2011}}</ref> as security and army personnel left Tahrir Square. Numerous cultural and sporting icons were present at Tahrir Square. Industrial strikes were also called in many cities.{{which}}

''Al Jazeera''<nowiki>'s television bureau was shut down in Cairo. Its journalists were then ejected from Cairo and Giza.</nowiki>

Considering it's not showing up in the edit box? I would think so. Silverseren^C 15:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you just removed it. Nevermind. Silverseren^C 15:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

its still in the edit box but not on the page. what the heck? apparently NO ONE sees it as it should.

i asked for help.(Lihaas (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)).

Yes. And please don't put it back in, it's disappearing our text. And copying my signature onto yours somehow. Silverseren^C 15:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I have updated the deseased.--Wipsenade (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The previous section is messed up

Is it this tag? <!--from tv->--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. For some reason. Silverseren^C 15:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yay. Mystery (sort of) solved.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry if from the main page.(Lihaas (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)).

Ok, I think that makes sense. It's a hidden comment tag, but it's not closed properly so it hides all of the text after it until it runs into some stop. Ocaasi (talk) 15:43, 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)

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)

POV bias

Why is the article thats supposed to be neutral so stronglty focusing on Cairo. Alexandri and Suez hasve been more affected and we barel mention their protests.Lihaas (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Cairo has been the focus of news coverage far more than Alexandria and Suez. We can only reflect how reliable sources treat the subject. If they focus much more on Cairo, then we must as well, because we don't have any other sources of information. Silverseren^C 19:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Tagged!--Wipsenade (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

but we must mention some relevance thereof, even without all the Tahrir square stuff. right now we mention almost nothing the last few days.(Lihaas (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)).

I fully expect that historians writing on this topic will give more weight to what is happening outside of Cairo. The first scolarly works could be used to determine the appropriate balance, but it will be some time until such texts will be published.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Alexandria

• Tension On The Streets Ahead Of Key Protest
• As protests continue, Al Jazeera's role debated
• Egypt’s Alexandria Library chief thanks youth for protection

Here's some. Silverseren^C 20:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

cool thx.

we can add themto the currently empty "cities"-->"alexandri" section(Lihaas (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)).

american reaction

there are continous american relations that need to be noted. Surprised no ones mentioned blowback yet.(Lihaas (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)).