Talk:Egyptian Revolution of 2011/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Arrests and deaths sections[edit]

Can anyone explain where the deaths and arrests sections went? They have disappeared since this version- - 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. SilverserenC 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. SilverserenC 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||title=Egyptian protests – timeline for the weekend's events|url=|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=|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.[1]</nowiki>

Considering it's not showing up in the edit box? I would think so. SilverserenC 15:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, you just removed it. Nevermind. SilverserenC 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. SilverserenC 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[edit]

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

Yes. For some reason. SilverserenC 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)


Supranational bodies[edit]

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 [1] -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
done.(Lihaas (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

Wider Middle East[edit]

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[edit], germany, france, and uk Ocaasi (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

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


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: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramibotros (talkcontribs) 08:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is also another list of some amazing photographs: [2] [3] [4] [5] -- 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)


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. SilverserenC 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)

Political cartoon NPOV Issue[edit]

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. SilverserenC 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)

[[File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg|thumb|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:
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)

Friday of Anger?[edit]

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? (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'. (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 [6] -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

29 January image[edit]

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)).

see also[edit]

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. SilverserenC 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)

Live ammunition[edit]

"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[edit]

proposing a new section for RS analysis (although probably after the split off): [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]Opinion: Could an Egypt-Style Internet Shutdown Happen Here?>> Arab revolutions transcend Iran's>> Obama and Egypt: Fear and Loathing>> Egypt's Berlin Wall moment>> Egypt: Why is Israel so Blind?>> Egypt's trove of potential leaders>> Pax Americana>> Time to change Obama Mideast team>> New allies for Israel?>> Egypt Burning[,8599,2048148,00.html?xid=rss-mostpopular The Suleiman Problem: Egypt's Transitional Figure Won't Transition]>> Iran: In the footsteps of Tunisia and Egypt>> Why Egypt Will Not Be Another Iran]>> Egypt: Revolution or bust>> Egypt: An idea whose time has come>> Twenty-eight hours in Tahrir>> Egypt: Seeds of change>> To Mohammad El-Sayed Said >> The intersecton between US principles and interests >> Egypt: A culture of torture >> Seeing Egypt through Sudan's lens >> Egypt's options post uprising>> The resurrection of pan-Arabism>> Winds of change in the Arab world>> Egypt's lessons for Palestine>> Al Jazeera in America>> Muslim world celebrates Egyptian revolution - in pictures>> Global Revolution: Will the Many>> Egypt's Judgment Day>> The girl with the Egyptian flag >> egypt burning>> Egyptian minds are opened>> Egypt through Iran's 1979 lens>> The false anxiety of influence>> Egyptian aftershock felt most by Israel>> Israel's options after Mubarak>> Mubarak's failed last stand>> Owning Egypt's revolution>> Egypt's revolution has just begun>> What makes a revolution succeed?>> Three questions: Egypt's transition >> Demonising the Brotherhood[ >> Anzalone: The Muslim Brotherhood Myth(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"[edit]

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. SilverserenC 20:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Editing notes[edit]

Thoughts on adding this to the talk page header? Talk:2011_Egyptian_protests/Notes

Ocaasi (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems okay. SilverserenC 23:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks good.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
added, will remove from this section briefly. Ocaasi (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Breaking News[edit]

Omar Suleiman appointed by Mubarak as Vice President of Egypt[edit]

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[edit]

Just show it on TV -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Egypt Shuts Down Al Jazeera[edit]

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. SilverserenC 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. SilverserenC 11:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

ELBaradei to form a new government[edit]

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)


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)
few days without reply and the bot will archive it soon so i redid it.(Lihaas (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)).

Casualties Table[edit]

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.[20] The BBC has reported on the 30th that 50 people have been killed in 24-hour period in Cairo alone.[21]. --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)).

Clarifying the graffiti on one of the pictures[edit]

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)

Anything we can do?[edit]

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 (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. Coasterlover1994Leave 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)).
Lihaas, I suggest that you read Wikipedia's article on Social Media. kencf0618 (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Key position of the military[edit]

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:
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)

Major To-Do[edit]

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, Ayman Noor, Ahmed Zewail)
  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:


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. SilverserenC 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)).

domestic calls[edit]

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[edit]

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.-- (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.) -- (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).)-- (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)).

Azerbaijani Diplomat killed; Causes fleeing of Azerbaijani citizens from Egypt[edit]

According to this, an Azerbaijani diplomat was killed on the 29th. SilverserenC 23:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's time to start routing these to the international reactions article. Ocaasi (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I know. It's just that this is the centralized discussion place. I don't want to have it be abandoned on the international reactions talk page. SilverserenC 23:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Perfect -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
already on that pege.(Lihaas (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)).

Anyone up to making a protest article on Sudan?[edit]

According to this template, the protests for Sudan are still red linked.And with sources such as this and a number of other sources from a search result here, there's quite a bit to work with. Anyone up to making that article? SilverserenC 23:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Bit confused. Wouldn't we just add this to the international reactions page? Or is that what you're suggesting... Ocaasi (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
That too, but I meant, is anyone up to creating this article? There's more than enough sources for it at this point. SilverserenC 23:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh nevermind. Ok, I got it. Um, is there really enough for an article just from the brief sympathy protests? Maybe that has to wait a few days. I think I'd have to wait a few days given the current load. Maybe you can ask someone who works on the Sudan articles? Ocaasi (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
There should be enough, considering these ([22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]), but i'll look into contacting some Sudan Wikiproject or something. SilverserenC 23:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I would say no just because of notability issues, it is connected yes but Sudan has it's fair share of protests. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thats not going to go anywhere, then again i wa reluctant to start both tunisia and this.(Lihaas (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)).

Foreign relations section[edit]

I've rewritten this to try and give a better background for beginners.

Lihaas - Could you please stop readding the sentence "The USA funds the Egyptian Armed Forces to the sum of $US1, 300,000,000 a year, second only to Israel. [2] " The fact is already stated two sentences earlier, and the tone of this addition seems somewhat anti-US. (Not that I'm pro-US, but neutral is better :) And no personal criticism meant, you're doing great work on this article) --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

External link to Commons/Latuff[edit]

Some back and forth over this. I removed it again since the link directly above it to Commons/Egypt 2011 protests has a link to Latuff in it. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation overkill & Overlinking[edit]

Any objections to limiting the cites per claim to 2 or 3? How about de-linking some nouns? I am not sure why so many common English nouns need wiki-links? Any thoughts? Midlakewinter (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

the latter would qualify as overlink i think (proper nouns excepted that would need 1).
for the former, id agree for the most part, but osome extraordinary tags may bneed more.Lihaas (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Common nouns don't need wikilinks, but removing sources is rarely if ever a good thing. Unless the articles are carbon copies of each other (like an AP wire or simultaneous media reports from the same event) there should be something to distinguish one from the other. So usually the cure is to go back and find more facts to add, to spread apart the citations. Wnt (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"A poster of Khaled Mohamed Saeed"[edit]

I'm not sure about any real importance of this picture, also appears to be a case of self-promotion by the author (note the website url in the picture), so I think it should be removed. -- (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't even say who or why the person is signifiant. I say remove it. Chesdovi (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
See Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed Cs32en Talk to me  00:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Khaled Saeed was one of the main catalysts for these protests and his name is a rallying cry for the protesters. SilverserenC 01:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
One the main organizers of the event are called "We Are All Khaled Said Movement" so you can how important he is to the article. It would like writing about the tunisia uprsing with mentioning Mohamed Bouazizi‎ -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Do we need the strange poster though? Chesdovi (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
No : ) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


Try and count the internal links to Tahrir Square alone, for example. Many others too. (Wikipedia:Overlink crisis) -- (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for removing them. We don't need more than the first mention linked, and definitely not more than one per section. Ocaasi (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I worked only on some of them. Tahrir Square is an example of these that remain (btw a link may be allowed more than once, just not THAT many - also there are many random links, like just to police like if no one knew what police is). -- (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll take a look at the links. Tahrir square is a common one since it's a foreign word that has been at the center of things. Ocaasi (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Do not remove the link rot tag until the issue is resolved[edit]

Obviously. (Wikipedia:Link rot) -- (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

We've been working continually on the article and decided that not all cleanup tags are necessary given the constantly changing state of the article. Typically we've been leaving them up for the first, say, hour, to motivate some change, but not indefinitely since traffic to the article is so high and new references for example are constant. Any help formatting the refs would be great. Ocaasi (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
support ocaasi(Lihaas (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)).

Influence of Iran, freedomclublebanon blog[edit]

I removed this from the lead:

The first call to to demonstrate came from a 1 December blog entry after the 2010 Egyptian Parliamentary elections that cited the protests following the disputed 2009 Iranian Presidential elections as an example.

I like the link to Iran if we can find a source connecting them (sure we can), but the blog link is almost definitely an WP:SPS and if it is the seminal blog post that started it all, we'll need an WP:RS for it. Ocaasi (talk) 07:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate quote from army[edit]

The military stated its understanding of the legitimate rights of the protesters and its will to not use violence against them: "To the great people of Egypt, your armed forces, acknowledging the legitimate rights of the people... have not and will not use force against the Egyptian people."

I removed that from the background section, intending to place it elsewhere, but it's already covered. Maybe someone wants to create a quote-box for the army's statement? It looks pretty powerful. Ocaasi (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No mention of Trade Unions/ organized labor?[edit]

the new Federation of Egyptian Trade Unions just formed and has issued a call for a general strike. please make the article reflect the importance of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

To the unregistered user who made this comment, if there is no mention of the labor movement in this article that is because its presence has been about invisible. These riots were started by forces which have nothing to do with any labor movement. (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

hey dumb fuccker, why don't you do some fuccking research? or read the fuccking link, you ass fucck. god, you are such a piss fuccker. Please die. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The "main articles" that I added through this article[edit]

...need a lot of work, typically. Take a look, maybe you can help. -- (talk) 12:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view[edit]

I see there's a now neutrality dispute banner at the top of the page. If you believe the article is non-neutral, please discuss the specific reasons here, so we can all work to address the issue.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The neutrality banner which I placed was removed by someone else; however whatever had concerned me appears to have been addressed, in any event. So for now, no worries. (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
It was probably due to it focusing on Suez, Cairo and Alexsandria. I'm sniffing around Sharm-El-Sheikh, Aswan, Asuyt and Giza. It was probalby called POV over it's locationry bias.--Wipsenade (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

POV bias[edit]

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. SilverserenC 19:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Not only because Cairo is focused more on by the general news media, but it seems that because Cairo is the capital of Egypt, and the protests mainly started there, then for geo-political (and arguably logical) reasons, Cairo is the main focus and the main mention. Though I agree that perhaps Alexandria and Suez should be talked about a bit more in the article, since protests and violence and situations have occurred there throughout too, and since they are also mentioned in the news as well at times, quite a bit. Archiver of Records (talk) 06:34, 1 February 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)


Here's some. SilverserenC 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)).

Regarding 'anarchy' after the disappearance of police (important)[edit]

Once again, the state of criminal chaos (widespread looting, mass jailbreaks, reports of rapes, etc) and vigilante activities (now joint with the military with the army blessing) should be clearly separated from the bulk of the article. As I wrote about it above, these things should be taken to a separate section (maybe even a sub-article like International reactions to the 2011 Egyptian protests), then rewritten and updated. This situation is not really an integral parts of the protests, but a side effect of them, however the issue is huge obviously, and now the military is even officially sponsoring the vigilante groups and working together with them during the ongoing political status quo. -- (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No objections if you want to do this. It might make sense to put in near the arrests section.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I just realized there is Domestic responses to the 2011 Egyptian protests which would cover the vigilante actions, also I don't think the arrests should be in "Casualties" section - but rather in "Domestic responses" sub-article. (And I'd remove "Casualties" altogether, it sounds like if there was a civil war there, obviously it's not a war. "Deaths" section is enough, but the cities with 0 deaths should be removed from the table.) -- (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree, that is the place for it at the Domestic article. Ocaasi (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Copy edit request[edit]

Someone with a good English grasp rather badly needs to read through the article for the plenty of grammar and other errors, section by section - one at a time (not the whole article at once, because there would be certainly an edit conflict before such work could be finished). -- (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to copy edit a few sections. I'm starting from the bottom of the article and working up.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Nice, I'll meet you in the middle! 94.246, how's your English? Want to help? Ocaasi (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I got a bit distracted by whether Internet should be capitalized: turns out we have a whole article about it :o --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Noooo, avoid reading Wikipedia at all costs...! It's quicksand...' Ocaasi (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
English is not my first language, but I'm trying with the obvious issues. -- (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

As we're nearly done with the general cleanup here, remember the related articles need your attention and work, too[edit]

And so on, the "see also" list is just some examples. -- (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


Do we have cites for the Days of Rage, Papyrus Revolution, and Lotus Revolution? Ocaasi (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

[Lotus Revolution], all sources I can find calling it the "Papyrus Revolution" are blogs, [Days] [of] [Rage]. But, still, many of these are op-ed articles. I imagine many of these phrases are only in use on the internet, or perhaps as translations of Arabic. Karmos (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

some claimed 200M showed up...[edit]

Tahrir Square taken over by 200 million Egyptian protestors. There are only 80M in the whole country! Chesdovi (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"Some" are also obviously trollin', so much about the value of "Contributor Reports" and AllVoices is not real journalism anyway. (But I must say I love the Islam and antisemitismIslam and antisemitism and africa originalvalue africa originalvalue tags there, pretty creative.) -- (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Lol. I swear I heard "a billion" on Al Jazeera earlier - I presumed the presenter said the wrong word, but maybe it's really a rapid population expansion.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that they meant to say 2 million. The estimates that i've heard most often range from 1 to 2 million people. SilverserenC 23:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Silver seren -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"Arkadia shopping mall"[edit]

"According to Wikipedia", Arkadia (shopping mall) is in Poland. Is it related? Should we make article once it was burned down? "#55 of 400 things to do in Cairo, #4 of 54 shopping centre shopping in Africa" -- (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

News reports usually call it "Arcadia". (Like, Egyptian men hold poles as they protect from looting the Arcadia shopping center, that was already partially looted, damaged and set on fire by people in Cairo, Egypt, Sunday, Jan. 30, 2011.) -- (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

then be WP:Bold and change it.(Lihaas (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)).

Deaths by city table: misleading, should be removed[edit]

The article says "By 1 February, the riots had left at least 125 people dead," but according to the table "Confirmed death toll as of 1 Febuary 2011" is 410. Obviously no one is going to check all these sources cited for if it's really in these source, if it's all relibale, actually up to date, etc - remeber such a check would be needed to be done repeatedly - so I say: let's just remove it. (We can have it after the protests will be over and some kind of actual reckoning is done.) -- (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea to move it, since we are doing a bit of original reporting by trying to accurately synthesize all of this data ourselves. I'm going to move it to a subpage so that we can store it there for later. It's here: Talk:2011_Egyptian_protests/Table Ocaasi (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Any other objections to removing it for now? Ocaasi (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think adding up the number of deaths that reliable sources report is OR. It just means that we're conglomerating sources, while the sources themselves can only report on the individual areas that they're investigating. The table is very well sourced. I don't see any issues with it. SilverserenC 23:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Really? Did you check all these sources and you are sure nothing there was misquoted/invented, it's all reliable info ("confirmed" - by whom?), it's all up to date (continously), and also somehow it's not OR despite the fact not one reliable source came with such a large total figure - and the actually confirmed is less than thid of this and the rumoured one (300) is much lower too? Oh, and the figure of "4,000 injured" (by Jan 30) comes from the notoriously unreliable (Pravda-like) Russian blunt-propaganda TV Russia Today - other, more reliable sources were saying about more than 2,000 at the roughly same time (Jan 29/30), which is some half of that. We should find some up-to-date (Feb 1/2) estimates and replace RT stuff. Also, even recent official rumours of 300 dead say of "only" 3,000 injured,[28] so please get rid of RT lies. (Small correction, it was RIAN, which is only minimally better.) -- (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
First of all, learn to talk to other people with respect. Silver has been nothing but helpful since day one. He makes a good point. If we have reliable sources we can add them up. its basic math. BTW, you dont get to decide whats a reliable source source and whats is not. just because it doesnt represent your POV, doesnt mean it isnt a reliable source. I dont have a problem moving it to subpage FOR NOW -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I usually talk to other people with respect lil buddy. "My POV" is that what you call "basic math" is a totally WP:OR as it goes squarely against what reliable sources claim. Reliable sources: WP:RS. Read these 2 policy articles. -- (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
You said that Russia Today is not a reliable source. that's a POV. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
That's a fact. A sample of the RT style of propaganda:[29] But it's OT really, all I meant the wild claims by RIAN, much larger than most other sources including the unconfirmed reports of 300/3,000 people, that were chosen anyway and worded as "at least 4,000 protesters". -- (talk) 09:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
A new number is released by La times. here is that link Rights advocates report protest death toll as high as 300 -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Is this a disgussion as a whole on my faulty chart or on weather Al Jazeera and Russia Toady are state run propaganda machines?--Wipsenade (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
If you think RT is not a RS then you can take it to RSN ;)
seriously though, wikipedia hasnt labeled it as a non-RS just yet, and until there is some consensus on that we cant remove it on any one persons whim.Lihaas (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

2 problems with all kinds of figures[edit]

The first problem is WP:OR, here meaning attempts to make our own tallies. In short, let's just don't do it.

Second one is with simply outdated figures. For example, the figure of "over 1,000" arrested in the infobox is probably totally outdated (I just added "as of January 26" to it, because obviously many more people were detained since then, inluding looting suspects by the military). So let's stick to the figures in reliable sources, and keep them up to date - and adding the date info ("as of...") really helps here, both for the readers and for the editors alike. -- (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No one is making their own tallies. All that is needed is a couple of RS with the figures. They are bound to vary, and this must be shown. Chesdovi (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
As evidenced by the media reports, the numbers of arrents, injured and dead are an important aspect of the event. We can't leave this aspect out because exact figures are not available. As a rule of thumb, I would advise to add the date and the source for each figure, possibly in-line, and to report multiple figures when there is disagreement amoung reliable sources. Single sources may be disregarded if they publish outliers. (Al Jazeera would be an exception, because a lot of other media refer to the numbers of Al Jazeera, thus conferring additional notability to these figures.)  Cs32en Talk to me 
It was done in the death toll table, and we ended with over 400 supposedly "confirmed" fatalities somehow (which was larger than even the unconfirmed figures). -- (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
That's not true. We have had a a very close number before you started playing with them. Lihaas started the table and I trust him. his number was 150 while most media reprts were 149 (Very close). and if you claim "OR", show examples (Put up and shut up) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I didn't start playing with them at all, if by "you" you meant me. And you can see the table above. This is an "example" of OR I just put up and shut up (?), "buddy". -- (talk) 08:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Listen dude, I honestly cant be bothered fighting with you. I have family in Egypt that I am worried sick about. The last time I checked the numbers it said the total was 149 in the table. We can make sure it stats the right numbers. A lot of people come to Wiki to know how many people have died where their family lives because you to the lack of communication in Egypt. so keep that in mind -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I can say I honestly cant be bothered fighting with you too. Now, when I checked, it was 351 (2 times over the confirmed figure of 125, +1), and then over 400. So that's so much about the right numbers. That's the message you want to give to readers - obviously false, random figures? -~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this a disgussion as a whole on my faulty chart or on weather Al Jazeera and Russia Toady are state run propaganda machines?--Wipsenade (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I dont see anything wrong with the table, if only that it is not LIVE and updated because were awaiting the RS soruces so as nto to be OR.Lihaas (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

O.K., chaps.[edit]

I think I found the fault in the table-I added on and then counted the UN report's dead twice, duobeling the deaths. It was sloppy maths by me and thus not propaganda by Al Jazeara, Russia Today, etc!. --Wipsenade (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the faulty statistics and listed it in the above green chart box.--Wipsenade (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

seems okay now?Lihaas (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It is still claiming "Confirmed death toll" is 280, which is just not true. There is no updated confirmed figure, unofficial estimates are between over 100 by Reuters[30] and as high as 300 as cited by the UN's Pillay (it was HRW's estimate actually, and only about half of that verfified by them),[31] but it's all very vague and totally uncertain (There was no official figure, and the real figure may be very different, given the confusion on the streets Reuters wrote, unconfirmed reports suggesting Pillay said). There's also problem with how many deaths are actually directly connected to the protests since the looting started, or is a bloody jailbreak a "protest" too? -- (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Casualties section[edit]

Where the heck did it go? Its certainly pertinent adn better than sub-sectioning everything. (granted, it also has subsections)Lihaas (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Deaths (which actually also discuss injuries) are on the bottom. -- (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it?-- (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Which deaths should be included[edit]

It is important for us to dicide which death should be included on the chart--Wipsenade (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

And I'll explain my question: if I decide that looting children's cancer hospital is a great idea of what do when the police disappear, but the local hard boys knife me or a soldier shoot my for my trouble, this is a death in the protests-related violence, but should it be really in the death toll? It's just an example, and same for the prison break deaths, and so on. -- (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
to answer your question, yes. The government asked the police not to do their jobs hence the blood is on their hands. --The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
But the jailbreak deaths were due to interior/justice/whatever ministry action, not inaction. Now, is this "protest deaths" too? There's obviously a connection here, but not really direct. Also, the "confirmed figures" are just unconfirmed estimates anyway (though HRW's estimate was partially verified by the group, just don't make a mistake that HRW is the UN - and you guys did it, it's an independent NGO). -- (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I have also heard about corupt Egyptian cops beating people up and poseing as looters in Cairo and Suez--Wipsenade (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely it should be included, prison deaths too, because they are a result of the protests and what goes on now. Sure someone who gets a heart attack fishing on the nile wont be, but then again that would never be in any source so it wont be included.Lihaas (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just added to Feb' 2 a sourced clame about bent cops and rioting off duty cops rioting in Cairo. Wipsenade (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


94, do you know where the Arrests section went? Ocaasi (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Domestic responses to the 2011 Egyptian protests#Arrests (the article needs work too). -- (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Before moving anything we need to discuss it here (we have already talked about this 10 times today) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this article becoming a twitter advert?[edit]

Can someone who knows about twitter (I've been a stubborn twitter-refusenik so far) shorten the following? I don't think it deserves quite so much coverage in the main article, and having external links is a bit dubious too.

"On 1 February, Google and Twitter launched the so-called speak-to-tweet system that allows people caught up in the unrest to post messages without any need to use an internet connection, by dialing an international telephone number and leaving a voicemail message. The message is then sent out as a tweet with the hashtag #egypt and the date. People can listen to messages by dialing the same phone numbers (+16504194196 , +390662207294, +97316199855) or going to a special Twitter page. Most messages are translated in different languages at alive in egypt.[22] Twitter was used by a large number of users outside Egypt for up-to-the-minute commentary on the situation with several news sources providing real-time coverage. But few people from inside the country used Twitter as only 14,000 people from Egypt are Twitter users according to the social media firm Sysomos.[23] Twitter has setup a new account @twitterglobalpr to talk specifically about Egypt's use of the tool[24] after it was blocked on the 25 January.[25]" --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems like something we could send off to international reactions or something and keep its paragraph length. SilverserenC 23:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the "People can listen to messages by dialing the same phone numbers (+16504194196 , +390662207294, +97316199855) or going to a special Twitter page. Most messages are translated in different languages at alive in egypt.[18]" as it offers little to the article other than a means of an ad. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"March of One Million" in title section[edit]

Just to be clear on this un like the others, February 1 has not been dubbed by a source so calling it "March of One Million" would go against WP:Promotion as it just describes and promotes the facebook movement. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Germany's most influential news service, the Tagesschau, is referring to it as the "March of the Millions". [32]  Cs32en Talk to me  04:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay then I will source and add it as that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Most reliable sources use "March of the Millions" with quotation marks, so I'd suggest that we do so as well. My personal guess is that the content related to the demonstration, or set of demonstrations, will ultimately be spun off into its own article, which will then probably be named March of the Millions, or something similar.  Cs32en Talk to me  04:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Heres some sources news week, The Jerusalem Post and global post -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)