Talk:Egyptian revolution of 2011/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 9


an WP:AGF recently changed the box, and its a good idea, but im not sure were ready for that just yet. Its also more dubious to cite than the older well-sourced one. So i was wondering if we should we keep this or not?Lihaas (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

How is this any "military conflict" when the military is standing aside when crowds of civilians are pelting each other with stones? Maybe it's a Stone Age conflict, but how is this "military"? -- (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
We need to revert that edit. As Lihaas notes, it is not officially a military conflict. To the 70 million figure, the entire population of the U.S. was not in support of the American Revolution at its time; it's not reasonable to elevate such generalized synthesis and POV into an infobox. And yes, as this is an ongoing situation, we should cite sources there for raw data, if for no other reason than to date the data and so updating sources in one place will remind us to update them elsewhere where that source is used on the page. Abrazame (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not a military conflict at all. -- (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure it's not a military conflict but it indeed its a conflict between civilians, If this continues like this I would propose a change to the info box to be in a "Militarybox". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidboy10 (talkcontribs) 03:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
There's constant gun-fire...military guns being used. There's a military conflict element. In fact the news media (reliable sources) are referring to it as "hand-to-hand combat". So to say, as the IP address for some reason wants to water this whole thing down, that it's "not a military conflict at all" seems to be itself biased. There's definitely an element of militaristic fighting going on. However unusual. Precision aiming and military gun-fire is taking place. Things are on fire all over the place. And constant gun-fire. That does not happen every day everywhere, in just general riots or protests. Archiver of Records (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The military is doing little to nothing to stop the protsters other than firing shots into the air. Where is it referenced too that military guns are being used? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
You're missing the point. It does not have to be the actual army that's doing "military fighting" per se. Many plain clothes pro-Mubarak fighters (from different backgrounds) are shooting or around at the protesters. See the footage that I'm seeing right at this moment...and hear what the reporters, WHO ARE THERE and where you and I are not, are saying. COMBAT !!! And also "armed conflict." You (and the IP address) think that things have to be in such neat black-and-white packages to be called certain terms necessarily? (I was one who said days ago that it should NOT be called a "revolution" until it's actually a real revolution where Mubarak gets kicked out etc.) But in this case of course there's at least a QUASI "military" situation going on here, even if it's not mainly by the obvious "army" per se.
As far as your question, of "where is referenced too that military guns are being used?", well it's reported by on-scene reporters, who have been around this stuff, say that the pro-Mubarak supporters are believed to be gathered together BY THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF to break up the anti-Mubarak protesters. Some are military background and some are not. So what? Tanks are in the middle of this too. And the guns heard were Armor Piercing Containment System guns with 50 cal bullets. etc... Archiver of Records (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I also noticed that User:Vidboy10 put some interesting sources in one of his edits, He put these conflicts in the Sinai Peninsula with Hamas troops being responsible for the attack. [1][2]
Archiver of Records, you're incorrect; in situations where there is this degree of civil protest, the head of state often calls out the national guard or military to carry out specific directives or enforce certain actions or restrictions. This has apparently not happened. You and a couple other posters at this page are conflating military conflict with clashes between factions that may or may not have arms of some sort. This isn't a semantic argument, it is a question of whether the country's military is using force against the people, and all indications are that the military is going out of its way to be restrained and neutral and not escalate matters. In a state with an army, "military" fighting does not mean individuals with guns or swords or bows-and-arrows, it means the country's military engaging in combat on or against orders. To the degree that the military may be acting upon or against orders, it is refraining from combat, not engaging in it. The military has thus far contributed to the peace we've seen, not to any combat we've seen. That is what is exceptional with these Egyptian protests, contrary to your assertion, and it is our job to note that fact as reliably sourced. The suggestions in this regard by yourself and Vidboy10 would obscure this fact—in fact they would contradict it—and do a great injustice to the situation. Abrazame (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I won't get into a long silly debate (with both "Abrazame" and "Knowledgekid87") over this stuff...just know that that YES THEY HAVE done in Egypt just what you say they haven't. You're simply wrong. Listen to the live news reports. (Also, look at my comment above...) Cheers. Archiver of Records (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

What to do

I wrote about it in more detail above, but just to sum it up:

  1. Timeline - move the current bloated version to a separate article as proposed, here instead make a condensed version with really the most important stuff in good prose.
  2. Background - the same treatment?
  3. Major cities and Deaths - integrate the important things elsewhere if valuable, then remove these sections.
  4. Intro - rewrite/update.
  5. Domestic responses - a major general cleanup treatment in the style that its sister International reactions section has been given (but of course also salvage valuable stuff if it would belong anywhere else).

And don't forget to repair the missing references when any stuff is moved elsewhere/deleted! Then you can work on the sub-articles, because they need a lot of work too (cleanup, copyedit, update). -- (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldnt do anything yet without consensus it appears to be a bit slow right now here, I agree on the timetable though not sure where others stand on the others. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
International reactions section here was already extreme-trimmed to few sentenes in 1 paragraph, so the same should happen to Domestic responses (important stuff may be mentioned in either intro or the condensed timeline anyway) - and remeber it has already its own article for a reason, after all. Also the article is now protected so I can't participate. -- (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Good luck and bye for now. (I'll be back if it gets unprotected.) -- (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, we are NOT going to spilt ANYTHING for now. TOO EARLY -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you should make it a "split" - rather, you should copy the whole timeline to a new "Timeline" article, then here you should gradually edit it into a form that is not organized solely by date. I'm hoping some secondary source will review events so far, and provide a good outline to follow in terms of how the development of events unfolded. Wnt (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. But as I said, the other sections need work too. -- (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The cities thing started because people claimed POV due to the lack of mention of any other cities and WE agreed to add that section. We need to expand it. Suez is still under complete media blackout. Also Egypt just got internet back so we shall and see the reports that will come out from there. I am not gonna even comment on the death section because I dont think I can remain calm if I do. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
No, we need to integrate it elsewhere, then delete. (There's little valuable info there anyway.) And try to remember we're working to trim the main article, not expand it now. -- (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
and whose WE? because I know Im not -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
OK. "We" except you. -- (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
everyone above disagree with (YOU). so again whose WE? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
And who is "everyone above" that disagree with "(ME)"? "We" - we, the community. Editors of Wikipedia. The issue of article trimming, fighting overlink, timeline sub-article, etc, was raised repeatedly by various editors. -- (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
please point to me where the majority of the editors agreed to integrate the cities and death section? I might be blind -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support on full Timeline removal. The current timeline suffers greatly. The realities of WP:Article size have resulted in the removal of many important events. This determination of relevance carries with it many problems. These include the potential influence of WP:POV and crystal ball guessing of history. The best neutral course is to inclusively report events as they are occurring in real time. In the future, a full and accurate summary can be worked on for inclusion here. Additionally, in practical terms, it would be easier to maintain as a separate page. Jeff Carr (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose on full Timeline removal. We aren't writing a breaking news blog, or morning and evening editions of a newspaper, or a TV or radio newsbreak on the day's events, which is what carrying out your suggestion would effectively make the article. Those outlets are doing that already, and we're here to address the whole thing encyclopedically. That means we need to present the background and the responses and the timeline all in one place for as long as we possibly can. This is, after all, an article about protests, not an article about gymnastics. It makes no sense to address the protests without addressing what/why they're protesting. Bear in mind that a vast amount of the article's size consists of references, infoboxes, photo captions, and code, meaning that it is actually a great deal smaller when you strip those things away. Reporting events in real time is the POV of recentism when it is at the expense of the events of only 49 hours before. As I have written elsewhere on this page, it suggests that these protests are what happened to occur today and yesterday, and means all someone/faction has to do is dominate two days' worth of news on these protests in order to have seized the entire focus of the article, and by extension the whole of the events, and that is the most dangerous of all POV we must avoid. Abrazame (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your intent. However, the wikipedia policy of WP:LONG is almost a habit of experienced editors & therefore the timeline section has been trimmed under that policy often over the past few days. Timeline pages are granted exceptions so that is the only way the timeline can be kept in one place indefinitely. Jeff Carr (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your comment. I realize you meant to link WP:TOOLONG, which reads,
"With some web browsers with certain plug-ins running in certain environments, articles over 400 KB may not render properly or at all. If possible, such very large articles should be split."
This article is currently 127 KB long, less than 1/3 the length remarked upon in that sentence, and that's with the boxes and refs and code, as an experienced editor you know that means that without them it's easily less than 100 KB. We must not lose the vitally important resource of having both the timeline and contextual information on one page so early into this historical event. It's unnecessary to split so early, when the guideline notes three to four times larger than this and then says "If possible". We aren't talking about growing here indefinitely. You note that sections have been trimmed here and there as we've gone along to shave off recentism and redundancy, so you acknowledge that we're already working to keep at a distance that future point at which we would reach the size constraint. And frankly, I and several other editors have remarked that the timeline is the essence of what we're seeking to present here. The domestic and international reactions sections have been drastically reduced (I'd say even a bit too much) as have others, and essentially a timeline is what this article is. We could be pedantic and put the background into the timeline to suggest this has been bubbling up for X years, but I think reasonable editors would agree that's not the best way to present this and exceptional circumstances can justify allowing those circumstances to shape the technical development of their story rather than the other way around. Especially considering the timeline article has been erased and redirected back here (something I was uninvolved in but which I'm fine with), I think the way to go here is to make this article "the timeline", allowing liberally for background and context sections, while the deeper examinations of those aspects are spun off into other articles (as it seems they have been). But again, not at any more accelerated of a pace at this point. Abrazame (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I couldnt possibly agree more with Abrazame. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


Can someone explain why this article got semi-protected? In the times I've been editing it, it's had a fair amount of constructive IP contributions, especially a lot of work from 94, and a manageably low vandalism level. I don't really understand how the semi-protection system works; is there a way of discussing the decision?--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It was crazy last night tho. that's why. The war on the street came to wiki. so we should keep it until Saturday morning -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
there were quite a few IP and what id guess are new/vandalism only accounts. Many of which are easily viewable in tht ClueBot reverted them, some got reverted by regular contriubutors so a lil harder to atch at the onset.Lihaas (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. I have anti-protection instincts I guess. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Can this shore in some information?

Can this article fill in some section? I also think this paragraph would be useful,

"The deployment of plainclothes forces paid by Mr. Mubarak’s ruling party — men known here as baltageya — has been a hallmark of the Mubarak government, and there were many signs that the violence was carefully choreographed."

Does that help? SilverserenC 06:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it would fit in the "Corruption" section. What do you think? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that would work. That article also has a lot of other information that can fit in other sections. It's a fairly all-purpose article, i'm rather impressed with the New York Times. SilverserenC 06:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The New York Times and The Washington Post always have amazing articles. When are you going to add it? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Why are you always wanting me to add it? :P I have to get to bed, it's 2 in the morning here. SilverserenC 08:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
iight, I will do it :P. Just finished 2nd Feb editing. good night -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
This is not corruption. I told you already twice. -- (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
94.246, your tone is really unnecessary; please speak to other editors civilly or don't speak to them at all. On the merits, when governments create crime for the purposes of disrupting opposing political movements or other manipulative ends, it is most certainly a type of corruption, whether political or otherwise. It is a corruption of the purported goals of the power-holder by saying one thing and doing another. Quibbling over the semantics, whether it is technically 'subterfuge' or some other word, is not really relevant for this article. Ocaasi (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
It could arguably be called corruption, but if you were suggesting putting in the Background - Corruption section then that makes no sense, because this isn't background. The sentence and the article are about the current protests. Apologies if that's not what you meant. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
How many times do I have to post this link? Misuse of government power for other purposes, such as repression of political opponents and general police brutality, is not considered political corruption. For the last time. -- (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
94.246, first, it was added to the "Brutality" section because I thought it was better thing. and dude, please talk to others with respect. we are NOT dummys. the majority of us have been doing this for a while. we can disagree with each others but we do it with respect. Ocaasi has been doing this for a long time and you are not here to teach us what Political corruption is -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
(we are dummys.) Whatever you say. Anyway, the (alleged) use of police as "sword"-wielding goons is not corruption, it's other things. OK? That's all. -- (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hidden/Showing text

Why am I seeing this at the top of the page: Intellectuals on the Egypt Protests: Ahdaf Soueif on the eve of the Egypt protests

...but not in the edit text? Anyone else? Ocaasi (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

nevermind, it's gone. Ocaasi (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"Police in civilian cloth beating a protester in Cairo 1.png" II: Electric Boogaloo

The dubious screenshot is back despite the consensus above, the morgue boomerang-screenshot is back too, the photo captioned "Poor Living Conditions." (PLC?) is their companion. Geez. -- (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Look at the discussion above -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I thought you agreed with me. The thing here is: ANYTHING could be happening here, the source (Al Jazeera video, both voice commentary and tags) do not mention any "Police in civilian cloth[ing]" (WP:OR by author of this screenshot). For all we know, it could be as well protesters beating a policemen, for example. Why not? Or the Nordic aliens beating a Jew. OK, maybe not this. But we just don't know from the original source (the video). And "sourcing" it with an unrelated link is not a way out. -- (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Aljazeera has taped Aliens beating up ghost and decided to upload it under Egypt. Silly me. And jews are a bit harder to find in Egypt than aliens. BTW, we agreed that if we find a source, the pictures goes back on -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The original source is Al Jazeera footage, not identifying in any way none of these persons (not in the video, not in the tags). They were "identified" by the screenshot's "author", some random Wikipedia Commons user with magical skills of all-knowing. WP:OR and nothing else. -- (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, it was you. You made this screenshot. Congratulations for your magical skills, I envy you so much. You're better than CSI: Miami. I wish I had them too. -- (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Calm down everyone. I've watched the video, and the commentary doesn't say anything about this shot. Hence we can't be certain that the caption is fair, even if it seems likely given the situation. If we decide to keep the photo, could we agree on a modified caption? Possibilities: "A scene from the protests on the 29th of January." Or "Many protesters were injured in the violence." The more detailed discussion, sourced, about the actions of plain-clothes policemen would be in the main text, and readers can draw their own conclusions. What do you think?--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No, we can't keep it with other caption because it's titled "Police in civilian cloth beating a protester in Cairo 1.png". -- (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Ocaasi said That is why the [citation needed] tag was added. No problem to remove the image though and look for a better one. It is true that there are reports of some police in plain clothes beating protesters, and we may be able to find an image describing that. If not, we can just use more neutral captions. I added a source and used a more neutral captions. problem solved and no aliens were harmed in process. BTW, I like "silly you" thing, it was cute. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Not an insolvable (is that a word?) problem, as we could presumably resave the picture under a different name. Would you still have objections in that case? Egyptian, would you still want to include the picture if it had a different name? --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Egyptian, the source says "Plainclothes officers beat several demonstrators", but the problem is that we can't be certain that this is what is happening in this specific photo, and the caption strongly implies that it is. The caption is making a stronger claim about the image than Al Jazeera itself did. Could we find a more neutral caption? --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Physics, I am going to leave it up to you to decide what the caption should be. I trust your judgement on the matter and you have my full support - The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not a matter of caption, you named your screenshot "Police in civilian cloth beating a protester in Cairo 1.png". Don't pretend you don't understand.-- (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
But I like pretending. Its fun. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
You just confessed to trolling, thanks. -- (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I am just gonna pretend you dont exist. its very easy, fun and releases my stress. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

To throw another spanner in the works, the New York Times article is from January 25th, so can't really back up claims about what happened on the 28th. (The video was posted on the 29th, but shows the events of the 28th.) Oh dear. I'm inclined to be very cautious, with something like "A violent scene from the January 28 Cairo protests." or, to use something from the beginning of the video "Al Jazeera described downtown Cairo as a "battlezone"". Not perfect, I know. I tried mentioning the reports of plainclothes officers beating protesters, but decided it violated WP:SYNTHESIS.

For other editors' reference, link to the video. The scene pictured is at roughly 1:50.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to try and keep this particular picture at all, it's just a random but highly-partisan, misnamed screenshot made by a Wikipedia user who was not there and now is pushing it like a forced meme, its value is zero. -- (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
94, I really want to know what do you think is going on in that picture that was taken on the 28, before the pro-mubarak started protesting. I am interested in what are your thoughts on the matter -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what's happening there. It's because I don't have magical powers. The very point is: you don't know either, it was just your guess. WP:OR, how many times I need to post it? -- (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
94, please try to join in with moving towards WP:CONSENSUS. We've worked to address your main point that this was WP:OR, but now you bring up many other objections.
  • "highly partisan, misnamed": we're addressing the name issue already, I can't see any other way it's partisan.
  • "by a Wikipedia user who was not there": if we have to be in Egypt to have a say, that counts out most editors here.
  • "is now pushing it like a forced meme": each editor is allowed to argue their viewpoint, you've been pushing against it just as hard.
I've changed the caption for the moment (to "A violent scene from the January 28 Cairo protests. Al Jazeera described downtown Cairo as a "battlezone".[178]"). I think we should change the image title to match, but am waiting for more consensus (plus I'm not sure how!). Do people agree that the new caption is a reasonable compromise? --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Like I said you have my full support -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not a reasonable compromise as long as the picture is clearly titled "Police in civilian cloth beating a protester in Cairo 1" and this title was based just on an assumption. Also, there's no just need nor reason to have this particular random screenshot at all.

Why "was not there" - because if he was there, he would argue he identified them properly because he was there and have seen it with his own eyes (or even something like: "they were beating me shouting 'we are police in civilian cloth'"). Which is not a case, it was nothing but a guess on his side, when he has seen the same video as we both did. It's still misnamed, and there's still no reason to keep it. -- (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to feel that nothing we can do will satisfy you, other than agree exactly with every one of your demands. I already said I was willing to change the picture title, and just wanted to know what you thought of the possible new name, before I go work out how to change it. I'm trying to be constructive, now please can you try too, because all this arguing is getting really tiresome.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
To other editors, what's the best way to change the name of an image? I've not done much with images before.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a plenty of other pictures to choose from, most of them are of much better quality and I think many of them are not misnamed. There will be probably many more to come, and one can even make any other Al Jazeera screenshot apparently, so I don't see any reason to keep this particular one. -- (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and I think you just can't change the name of an already uploaded picture. So, bye-bye Police in civilian cloth beating a protester in Cairo 1.png. -- (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Geez, you dont stop, do you? like an ex-wife! if it means that much to you to remove it, ask someone to remove it. I dont care anymore about the picture. I have talking to Aljazeera anyway to release their entire collection on the Egyptian protests anyways so its fine by me -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I thought I was asking for this all the time. -- (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Asking? well I guess that one way to look at it. you nagged and complained. even when there was consensus. Even tho I know I am right, the reason I am letting go because I do want to argue with you anymore. You made something that I like to do for fun seem a pain. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


{{editprotected}} This sentence is a run-on (under Feb. 2nd): While EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton also said that the violence must stop and that Mubarak needs to be more explicit in showing the people what changes would happen.[188 - (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll fix it. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 12:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

OR table of "Confirmed death toll" of 382 is back, once again

It's totally incorrect, absolutely false, it's a lie, it isn't and can't be backed by any reliable source (not even for an unconfirmed such figure, not to mention "confirmed"). It's just pure WP:OR, and it was pushed back in by someone for the [XX]th time already. -- (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who is doing it, even the table's author admitted it was sloppy math. The other random, unsourced figures for the so-called "Confirmed death toll" besides 382 included 351, 410, 376 and more - all equally simply invented by Wikipedia user(s) attempting to do things clearly not allowed by WP:OR (read it, dammit). -- (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

do you see the RS' on the table? You have ONE source saying "unconfirmed" and its not going to undo the hordes on the table.
At any rate saying "ts a lie" is not going to help your case.Lihaas (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
1) There are just no confirmed figures right now. At all. 2) Even the highest uncofirmed estimates are still much lower than Wikipedia OR attempts here. Get rid of this thing, and keep it out, until you get the confirmed figures by reliable sources. -- (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

OK? There's no "Confirmed death toll": not of 382, not of 351, not of 410, not of 376, not of 200 million, not of 2 and 1/2 either. And as such, this whole table is a lie. -- (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

im not going to keep going round in circles. see the table on the page and its sourcing. now if you have a multitiude of sources saying otherwise SHOW them.v
Also note above that the ip was the ONLY editor who didnt want it in and yet kept removing it citing consensus.Lihaas (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
See the WP:OR and show me the sources for the figure of 382 (or 410, or 376, or any other of these figures of yours). Show me the reliable, published source saying: "Confirmed death toll is 382". Go on. Do it. (May be even unconfirmed, just show me "382" at all.) And no, I'm not "the only editor" who set the rules for WP:OR. No. Original. Research. Allowed. On. Wikipedia. Get it? -- (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:2011_Egyptian_protests#Deaths_by_city_table:_misleading.2C_should_be_removed -- you getr consensus you can change, in the meantime you are against the grain of consensus.Lihaas (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not a matter of consensus, it's matter of Wikipedia policy: NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH ALLOWED ON WIKIPEDIA, NEVER, ANYWHERE, AT ALL. The original research here also goes squarely against reliable sources, because all of them say there's no confirmed death toll. So, again it's a lie. -- (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Stop calling people lairs. Geez -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry. It's incorrect figures achieved with the use of original research (sloppy math). -- (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll call it 'Unconfirmed total' then, to be safe.--Wipsenade (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

sounds like a plan :) --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree per Wipsenade, Physics is all gnomes and Lihaas -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not a matter of local consensus, it's the "three pillars of Wikipedia". You can't create any original content not backed by just what the reliable sources are saying, not in such cases as creating history. -- (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
And yet it would be still OR, meaning it's unacceptable here. You can post "[figure] people reportedly died in Cairo so far, according to unconfirmed reports" alright, but only when a reliable source says just this. But you can't add and sum various unrelated reports using sloppy math (that's a quote), because it's constitutes original reasearch, and this is a big no-no. I didn't make these rules, it's how Wikipedia operates. -- (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

STOP CAT-FIGHTING, YOUR NOT A BUNCH OF RIOTERS IN TIRIR SQUAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Sorry, but it had to be said!)Wipsenade (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I feel the table should go, there are unaccountable deaths out there and the table really does not help the article other than show where the deaths took place, the deaths are pretty much in the total number killed and the numbers killed are disputed by many sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I renamed it 'As yet uconfirmed death toll'. Wipsenade (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

And yet it's still original research. OK, I'll tell you something. If you badly need to have such table, use the HRW report. That's one source (very reliable), it's one date, and there will be no confusion of any kind, and no original research at all. It may be "incomplete and out of date" in the eyes of some, but it will be correct in every way. Seems it wasn't released publicily in such form yet. Just get rid of this table. -- (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
There are now 4-5 editors who see the utility thereof, weve even accomodated to change it to suit others.
Sure were open to improvement, the table can be added to at any time, but improvement doesnt mean exclusion. only 1 editor seems to think its OR to cite RS (and yet h e reverts to have HIS way against EVERYONE) Lihaas (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Ask any Wikipedia Administrator about this. For, say, the claim of "149 in Cairo" you have to find a RS saying just this ("149 in Cairo"). Using sloppy math to get any new figure by yourself is original research. -- (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I had sorted it out with my maths being corrected, but then it got screwed up again by others and I've lost count now, I mite aswell have not bothered in the firts place, It's being hijaked on mass. Wipsenade (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You said it. Anyone else: go and just ask any Admin - I'm not inventing stuff here, you do: [original research?] -- (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Aaaand the table still remains. Sigh. -- (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Deaths table

OK, it's out untill it's confirmed in time by the BBC, UN, EuroNews, CNN, NHK, Ruiters, ect.--Wipsenade (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

And so "382 confirmed deaths" crowd is back, this time striking the infobox

Their "source" for this does not contain the number "382" anywhere in the article. Of course. -- (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed- I can't see any info on deaths in the source - not sure how the source got there. But what number should we put in the infobox?--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
And also of course: It's actually unconfirmed 300 deaths (as of February 1), according to this very source (citing Pillay citing HRW). Obviously. There was no update of this figure (HRW estimate) since then. -- (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
And also also of course: There is simply no source for "382" figure anywhere. It was invented by the editor(s) behind the idea of "382 confirmed" in the (now gone) death-toll table, who then decided to push it into the infobox as well. -- (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

And also 300 people have been not confirmed dead. No, really. Hello. Do you even understand "unconfirmed"? It means "not confirmed". -- (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Also now I know who's behind pushing this invented false figure. I'm disappointed, Physics is all gnomes, I thought you're much more reasonable. -- (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(Copied from my talk page) I honestly don't understand how that happened, I only added the text at the very bottom of the page. Seems to be an edit conflict as Egyptian liberal had only changed it one minute before, but I thought edit conflict screen was meant to prevent that happening. I've fixed it now. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

End the chart problem right here, right now!

My doubel counting of HRW's totals is fixed and's non backed up by others information is suspended pending a reliable source issue.

Major flash point As yet unconfirmed death toll
as of 1 February 2011
Alexandria 22 [3][4][5][6][7]
Suez 31


Asyut 3 [9]
Beni Suef 17 [10]
Thebes 1 [11]
Atfih 1 [11]
Sidi Gaber 0 [7]
Cairo 44 [3][12][13][5][6][7][8][9][14]
El Arish 0 [15][7]
Kharga Oasis 1 [11]
El-Mahalla El-Kubra 0 [16]
Ismailiya 0 [15]
Monufia 0 [15]
Sheikh Zoweid, North Sinai 1 [17][17]
Abu Simbel 1 [11]
Aswan 0 [3]
Luxor 0 [4]
Rafah 3 [4][4]
Giza 0 [3][4]
Sharm El-Sheikh 0 [4]
Hurghada 0 [4]
Mansoura 2 [18]
Other places hit by protests (if any) 15 [17][17][19][3][4]
Total 138

My doubel counting of HRW's totals is fixed and's non backed up by others information is suspended pending a reliable source issue.Wipsenade (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Feel free to ad more deaths as they happen.Wipsenade (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


Now it looks quite reasonable, but the problem is... it will be corrupted if re-inserted. As always. It will end with a huge random figure, again. -- (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I have a way of fixing that. We will put the table in a Template and anyone who wants to edit it, must do so through a request. any thoughts? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to add: several references there are randomly doubled for some reason and there's no need to have cities with 0 reported deaths. -- (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, i dont see why we had to kowtow to the whims of the lone editor.
Secondly, could this not have been updated on the page isntead of crying over the whole table?
Thirdly, Egyptian Liberal's solution seems good. theres not reason to keep this one (on top) off the page.Lihaas (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Support putting this back in now, using the template. Probably sensible to remove the cities with 0 deaths, purely for length reasons.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Need help with doing template. I made this page 2011_Egyptian_protests/Deaths_table but can't get it to appear in the main article. Am I doing it all wrong?--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
ill just get to that. but theres gonna be a source problem on the template with all those double refs to this page. perhaps the bot can catch it.
the Wikipedia help channel just told me its not possible. so well have to addit here. the page is locked anwyays so it can be vandalised, and we have regular monitors on this page.Lihaas (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
"Firstly", you are "the lone editor" too, and you seem to be forgetting yourself. -- (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
94, Calm DOWN. I fixed the problem. I took me a minute. you need to learn how to talk to ppl dude. This the last time I am going to warn you about the way you speak to others. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

A better one

Fixed version (only these issues, I didn't check the sources):

Major flash point As yet uconfirmed death toll
as of 1 February 2011
Alexandria 22 [3][4][5][6][7]
Suez 31 [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
Asyut 3 [9]
Beni Suef 17 [10]
Thebes 1 [11]
Atfih 1 [11]
Cairo 44 [3][12][13][5][6][7][8][9][20]
Kharga Oasis 1 [11]
Sheikh Zoweid, North Sinai 1 [17]
Abu Simbel 1 [11]
Rafah 3 [4]
Mansoura 2 [18]
Other places hit by protests (if any) 15 [17][19][3][4]
Total 138

Here you go -- (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

O.K., it was exsesive to put in those said to be at 0 deaths, missing them off would be just as good as saying the declaired a score of 0 dead. I agree with the above chart.Wipsenade (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep!-- (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I just removed the cities with 0 deaths from the table template.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

'Political unrest' is good

why change it to petty 'protest' -- (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to, can you explain more? --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Im quite sute he emans the page title to 2011 Egyptian political unrestLihaas (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Update 16:58 03 Feb 2011

From BBC live updates:

  • 0654: Egypt's health minister says five people have been killed and 836 been taken to hospital as a result of the fighting in and around Tahrir Square, the epicentre of the protests, Reuters reports. Of those, 86 are still being treated. "Most of the casualties were the result of stone throwing and attacks with metal rods and sticks," says Health Minister Ahmed Samih Farid.
  • 1218: Three Polish journalists covering the unrest in Cairo have been detained by police, AFP quotes Polish Television TVP as saying. Two other TVP journalists who were detained and then released said police "took all our documents, all our equipment and then destroyed our camera", before handing them over to the army who released them.
  • 1501: The Egyptian health minister says eight people have died so far and 890 been injured, including nine in critical condition, in the Tahrir Square clashes.
  • 1617: New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof tweets: "Govt is trying to round up journalists. I worry about what it is they're planning that they don't want us to see."
  • 1620: BBC World tweets: "Egyptian security seize BBC equipment at Cairo Hilton in attempt to stop us broadcasting."
  • 1654: Iran's al-Alam TV reports that "a group of thugs" has beaten up one of their crews in Alexandria, and intelligence agents have confiscated their equipment.
  • 1707: Reuters reports 10 people have died in clashes in Tahrir Square on Thursday, and a doctor at the square told the agency: "An hour an a half ago, two people were rushed to me with gunshot wounds to the head. They were gasping and died." Chesdovi (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Inserting anti-Israel bias "is important", editor says

Ans so almost half of the entire section is about Israel now, because discussing Israel "is important" even when it is not at all. My proposition to keep it short, without singling out any countries for no valid reason:

International reactions have varied with most Western states saying peaceful protests should continue but also expressing concern for the stability. Many states in the region expressed concern and supported Mubarak, while others like Tunisia and Iran supported the protests. Israel was most cautious for change, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asking his government ministers to maintain silence and urging Israel's US and European allies to curb their criticism of President Mubarak[21][22]; however, an Arab-Israeli parliamentarian supported the protests. There were also numerous solidarity protests for the anti-government protesters around the world.

NGO's also expressed concern about the protests and the heavy-handed state response.;Solidarity protests and evacuations. Many countries issued travel warning or started evacuating its citizens from the country. Even multinational corporations started to evacuate their expatriate workers.[23]


International reactions have varied with most Western states saying peaceful protests should continue but also expressing concern for the stability. Many states in the region expressed concern and supported Mubarak, while others supported the protests. There were also numerous solidarity protests for the anti-government protesters around the world. NGOs also expressed concern about the protests and the heavy-handed state response. Many countries issued travel warning or started evacuating its citizens from the country and even multinational corporations started to evacuate their expatriate workers.[24]

-- (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Country specific reactions are found elsewhere. We can't list them all here and neither can we "cherrypick" as SD likes to call it. Chesdovi (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I can't edit it myself, you know. -- (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
are you kidding? you say israeli reactions are not amongst the MOST pertinent itnernational reactions? Shorten yes, certainly not to take it out all togetehr. 2 paras is fine.Lihaas (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm saying Israel was singled-out so much the US and Europe are only mentioned as "Israel's allies", "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu" is the only name there, and even "an Arab-Israeli parliamentarian" gets more attention than say, Obama (which has none) - and everyone else in the world for that matter. And to answer you, no I'm not "kidding". The user's obsession with Israel is clear. Maybe yours too, if you think it's okay. -- (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Firstly if you need to comment dont resort to WP:NPA.
Secondly, the cotnext of israel's reaction (as added by another editor too and opposed by you alone), is certainly more pertinent. Western reactions are mentioned (which are primarily the usa, but also the ojoint statements would disagree they are western?)Lihaas (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with the change proposed by the IP at the top. Impact on the peace process is a significant aspect. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
And yet it's saying nothing about any Impact on the peace process. What is wrong with you people? -- (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Western reactions are mentioned (which are primarily the usa - wrong. Only Israel's US and European allies to curb their criticism is mentioned. That's all. It's all about Israel, and the US is only mentioned as "Israel's ally" being lobbied by Israel - Israel this, Israel that, Israel Israel Israel. The only person by name and/or function - Israeli, getting 26 words. Obama - 0 words, but some random unnamed "Arab-Israeli parliamentarian" - 7 words, while EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD - 0 words too, not at all cherry picking. Why do I even have to explain something as obvious like this to you? After explaing this to you already? And also Chesdovi is not "me alone". -- (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
really? read the FIRST setnence to see the mentions fo western states PRECEDEING israel.Lihaas (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I...I don't know what to say. You people just can't be serious. Oh I know, you're just totally obsessed with Israel as well. A common trait these days, apparently. -- (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest to mention the following countries and institutions in this article: U.N., European Union, U.S., Arab League, Israel. If any other international reaction would be widely reported in reliable sources, we would add those statements as well. The international reactions in turn influence the events in Egypt, so they deserve more space here than in other instances, in which those reactions are more akin to commentary.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Id: support, weak support, oppose, support, support.
other regional reactions (like saudi and even turkey) ar emore pertinent. Otherwise we could also add russia, uk, etc.Lihaas (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I've thought about adding Saudi Arabia, and maybe Turkey. That would depend on whether these reactions would be regarded as highly significant or otherwise very noteworthy by reliable sources. For the other entities, I think that we can assume these reactions to be important. Even a seemingly vague statement can be highly significant, although maybe not very interesting for the general public. The U.S. reaction would merit additional coverage, because there is also commentary and analysis about the U.S. reaction in reliable sources.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
but there is also analysis (from america) that said the US reaction is "insignificant" adn the US has lostleverage. Tat would then be pushing some po.v(Lihaas (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)).
I completely agree with Lihaas -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Add the reaction from the Gaza Strip, remenber an Egyptian cop was killed at Raffa on the border.-- (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC).

Attacks on the media

The Committee to Protect Journalists has collated a list of attacks on the media since the protests began: Mubarak intensifies press attacks with assaults, detentions. Chesdovi (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

where can we add it tho? any ideas? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
There is now a section on that, and it needs expansion from the sources there now. I've added the CPJ website item. The NY Times just put on its site a long article which I've added too, but not at any great length. This is becoming a major aspect of the situation. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Best as an EL, otherwise it would be a copyvio.Lihaas (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hilton hotel helping government against journalists

Here you go. It seems that the Ramses Hilton hotel has been telling the journalists staying there to not broadcast from the hotel. However, the more important bit is that it seems the hotel has been allowing the seizure of equipment on their property (presumably often while the occupants are out).

Also related to that, which was linked from there, is this article, which discusses that Vodafone, the cellular company that had shut down its stuff in Egypt at the behest of the government, has been allowing pro-Mubarak supporters to send out text messages and tweets through their phones, while still blocking everyone else. SilverserenC 20:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Yes, but we should cover it. Ocaasi (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

My initial feeling is that this item is undue with regard to the overall scope of this article. However, we may have a sub-article about the Battle of Tahrir Square or something similar at a later time. I have no further information, but the hotel management may well have felt under duress and did not want to risk having the building burnt down.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Number of journalists attacked; human rights members attacked

This article from Forbes discusses that 24 reporters were arrested on Thursday and 21 were assaulted. It also explains that at least 30 human rights group members, such as Amnesty International members, were arrested on Thursday. The article also goes into much more detail about the fighting and other information for what happened on Thursday. SilverserenC 04:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait, I thought they were all Israeli spies... Nutmegger (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Police forces disappeared

From our article "Since police forces disappeared from Cairo," and also from TV reports, I understand that Cairo police "disappeared".

Is there any reliable information on why this happened, and for how long?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

After the Friday of anger evening until two days ago. if you google it, you will find it. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ash wednesday

Dr. Ahmed Khaled Tawfik is referring to the yesterday night events as (Ash Wednesday) as in the christian calender. A name to adopt I guess to tell a lot of what happened at Tahrir square at this terrible night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

We would need multiple sources calling it that before we would be able to change it. Just one man doing so is not enough to define what the name for it should be. SilverserenC 23:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
with 1 we could mention he said it, but as Silver seren says wed need more to call the section that.Lihaas (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

timeline was forked in last 24 hours - where was concensus?

am i missing some discussion (as i could well be after a ton of "tidy" edits)? where was concensus on forking the timeline section? from what i read on this talk page of earlier forking discussions above, there was no concensus; the mood was leaning toward waiting a while longer (even though size has quickly crept back up past 120+ kilobytes and is guaranteed to bloat even more with citations fully formatted) to give some perspective as an "encylopedic" article. perhaps i'm all wet. -- (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone forked the timeline? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
sure did (see Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian protests) and some editing has occured. would have expected that a "timeline summary" for main would have been created in a sandbox first before forking the monster blow-by-blow diary. i'm sure not up to tidying citations in both! -- (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, we shouldn't have a split article unless we're going to also show the split in this main article by summarizing the content. The way things are now, we have different editing occurring on both pages, leading to rather different sounding information between the more recent days' coverage in both articles. SilverserenC 06:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
the other page needs to go NOW -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
It should be put up for merging. That would be the best way. SilverserenC 06:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
NOT merging. i'm sure this main article is by far more comprehensive and complete in the timeline area. it has continued to have the broad wikipedia editor group trolling through. there are only a few edits to the current forked article. the current forked should be bagged, plain and simple (perhaps someone could cull a tad of value from the limited edits there). when ready to fork, create anew by porting from this main article.-- (talk) 07:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Lear's Fool has already merged that article back to this one. So we're good. SilverserenC 07:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
at least wait till today ends. Alex. and Cairo are only beginning yet, and looks like its bigger than the million march day.(Lihaas (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)).

The role of Al-Ahly ultras in the protests

I think it should be mentioned.

And the full story on James Dorsey's blog (he's mentioned in the SI article): Edgar (talk) 06:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Probably only one line is needed for the organizations but "The Egyptian Soccer Federation announced that they would be suspending all league games throughout the country" is also a big deal.Cptnono (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
So people are getting killed, thousands wounded, the economy is collapsing etc etc etc - and you wish to mention that a few Soccer games have been cancelled?Moxy (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
It isn't only that soccer games have been canceled, but that the Ultras have played a key role in organizing and supporting the protests/uprising.
There article in need of cleaning up on the Ultras Ahlawy you might want to have a link to. Also if anyone is interested in going to that article, cleaning it up (I started but..), and adding more details about the role of the Ultras in the feel free.XinJeisan (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
under "apolitical" --> "dpmestic response" (on that page) would be best.(Lihaas (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)).
Yes check.svg DoneLihaas (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Media section

How about a media section that contains info about when the internet was banned and how it contributed to the protests? It can also contain the information about the reporters harassment and so on... any ideas?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Information on the internet blackout can be found in a section on the Domestic responses page that was split from this one. Look here for that section. SilverserenC 09:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't you think that this is worth being stated in the article? Especially that the media had a great impact on the protests.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
It is a part of the domestic responses, which does have a summary in this article. And that summary does state "The Egyptian state also cracked down on the media, shutting down internet access on the first day of the protests for over a week. Journalists were also harassed by the regime's supporters, eliciting condemnation from the occupational NGO and the United States." So, I don't exactly understand what you want. SilverserenC 09:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

REF FORMAT / "tidy"

someone went though the entire article and removed all the overlinking (well done), and now that the page ahs opened up the IP has gone and slowly undone all of it.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9](Lihaas (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)).

The page needs to semi-protected again for a while -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch details on prison break

Here is a reference for the details of how the prison break was done by human rights watch--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone add this? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Time to update lead a bit - what to include?

I've just been shortening the lead slightly, but it's quite out of date - it doesn't mention the most recent protets, or the violent clashes with Mubarak supporters this week. What do you think are the most important points to cover (in very few words), and how can we do it neutrally?--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

it can be shortened certainly. paraphrase protests, add clashes, talk of the big days, and remove some other stuff.Lihaas (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to whoever removed the names of the organizations who supposedly "selected" the protest date. It had been bothering me a lot. The lede made (and probably still makes) this "selection" sound more important than Tunisia. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The role of women

Women protesters number anywhere from 20% to 50% participation, depending on the time of day. I think this is relevant, considering that traditional participation of Egyptian women in public life is less than 10%. Is anyone interested in including a section about women's participation?

Article [[10]] Photos [[11]] Egyptian woman kissing a police officer (on the cheek) [[12]] CBS report [[13]] USchick (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I am sure where it can go. Maybe later in the analysis section. Any thoughts? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I would like to see a mention somewhere in the lead introduction and the rest maybe between Domestic Responses and International Reaction? USchick (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


The ref simply does not exist at all and yet corrupts the references, I have no idea how to fix it. -- (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Let take a look at it -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I've got it, the ref to be removed is in the external template for the table. -- (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
a bot will come by and rescue it. must have been deleted or moved (probably to the doemstic reactions)Lihaas (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Graph of Internet Withdrawal

This Renesys video graphically illustrates Egypt's bandwidth withdrawal. I've played with this in the sandbox for a while, but for the life of me I haven't been able to get the link to work properly. Given the time difference it should illustrate the 28th.

External video
Time-lapse graph of Egyptian ISPs withdrawing from the Internet on YouTube

kencf0618 (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

fixed.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks! kencf0618 (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Attacks on journalists section

I've been away since yesterday and this section disappeared. What happened? Attacks on journalists are a significant theme in the international attention on the Egyptian uprising. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a part of the Domestic responses section, which was getting too large and was split into its own article. You can find the journalist harassment section here. SilverserenC 18:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
That's not a section, that's a separate article. I think it belongs in this main article, as the suppression of coverage has become a major aspect. It is now seriously underweighted. I think this presents a significant NPOV problem by dint of this underemphasis. The section should not have been deleted without talk page consensus anyway. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Again, it was not deleted. I just linked you to it above. It is a part of the domestic responses to the protests and, thus, was split with the rest of the domestic responses in their own article, because this article was getting too long. The summary on this article for domestic responses does have a sentence about the journalist harassment, but the main section is in that split-off article. If we bring that back, then we would arguably have to bring back the other sections as well. And, as I already stated, this article is already too long as it is. SilverserenC 19:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Let's see how other editors feel on this. See new subsection below. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Editor opinions on separate section on news media attacks

A section on attacks on the news media was removed to a separate article, Domestic_responses_to_the_2011_Egyptian_protests#Arrests_and_harassment_of_foreign_journalists_and_NGOs. I believe it is a significant aspect of the Egyptian protests and belongs in this article. It was moved without consensus or (as far as I can see) discussion, so I'd like to get the sense of the editors here on whether they feel it belongs here.

I'll get the ball rolling by endorsing inclusion in this article. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose inclusion Every part of the other articles, the Domestic responses and the International reactions articles, are important and a significant part of the protests. And they were originally in this article, but the sections were getting too long, so they were split off, per WP:SPLIT. Returning any section of them to the article and not the rest would be clear POV-bias, because we would be saying that one thing is more important than the rest, which is a statement we, as editors, are not allowed to make. For example, I say that the internet blackout is just as important. I say the deaths are just as important. We can go on and on with this. SilverserenC 20:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The attacks on journalists have, inter alia, become a major source of friction with the U.S., and were condemned in strong terms by Hilary Clinton yesterday and by the White House. This isn't even mentioned in the article as best as I can see. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree wholly with silverseren. everything is particularly important (ESPECIALLY domestic reactions). we split it for manageable reasons not to censor.(Lihaas (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)).
If it's not mentioned in this section, then you should feel free to add stuff to that section. SilverserenC 21:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Accurate count for injured will come out tomorrow for now it's 5000

The Health ministry will publish tomorrow the accurate number of deaths and injuries, for now the minister told al arabiya it's 5000 LA times--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Coptic Christians prefer Mubarak

Besides a small amount of info in the Religious Institutions section of the split-off Domestic responses article, there is practically nothing on Coptic Christians in here. Which should be rectified, since there are a number of news articles about them and their support for Mubarak because of their fear of an Islamic regime forming after his ouster. And then how that has changed a bit in recent days. I'll just list the sources here and let you guys pick through them. I really think there should be a sub-section, maybe an expansion in the domestic responses article? Not sure where exactly.

Those are just a few. SilverserenC 21:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I had a part that talk about the official coptic church position regarding the protests but it was taking out when the are article was spilt. I have no idea who did it and how to get back. It was sourced. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Two methods...either go back through the article history to before it was split and find that section and copy/paste. Or go back through your contribution history to find that edit and copy/paste. Whichever would be faster. SilverserenC 21:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I cant do either. The page has been edited so much that I wont be able to and I edit a lot so same problem
I guess just rewrite it then? SilverserenC 21:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
need this and the takeover of the embassy in carcas (im adding to the to do list)Lihaas (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Where's this To Do list at? :o SilverserenC 22:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind, I see it. Cool. SilverserenC 22:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Journalist dies; Al Jazeera office burned to the ground

According to this report, journalist Ahmad Mohamed Mahmoud, who worked for state-owned Egyptian newspaper Al-Ta'awun, died earlier today after being shot by a sniper. It also states that there has been at least 101 direct attacks against journalists during the course of the protests. It also explains that earlier today, the Cairo office for Al Jazeera was burned down and a number of their journalists were arrested.

And there's also this article that discusses how a group of journalists are stuck in their hotel because of the armed thugs outside. SilverserenC 21:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

should be added to either the relevant domestic section or the day it happned (presuming he actually is egyptian and there is then no section for it) (check this section off when you take a WP:BOLD decision)Lihaas (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Already done. B-Machine (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Need to revise

Apparently, the previous news piece wasn't specific enough. According to this article, the man who was shot by a sniper was shot last week and just died today. So it should still be in the info for today's events, but it should be clarified that he was shot last week and not today. SilverserenC 22:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneLihaas (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Cite error: The named reference asianews1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Cite error: The named reference autogenerated2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b c d e f February 1, 2011 . "EGYPT: Rights advocates report protest death toll as high as 300 | Babylon & Beyond | Los Angeles Times". Retrieved 2011-02-01.  Text "  9:48 am " ignored (help)
  6. ^ a b c d e f "Rising death toll in Egypt protests: Cairo 25; Suez 38; Alexandria 36". Retrieved 31 January 2011. 
  7. ^ a b c d e f g h "Al-Jazeera says Egyptian riot death close close to 90". 
  8. ^ a b c d "Al Jazeera: 11 dead in Suez, Cairo 8". 2011-01-28. Retrieved 2011-02-01.  External link in |title= (help)
  9. ^ a b c d e f January 27, 2011 2:00AM (2011-01-27). "4 confirmed dead in Egyptian riots". Herald Sun. Retrieved 2011-02-01. 
  10. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference reuters2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ a b c d e f g h
  12. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference bloomberg3feb was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference bloomberg1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ "Egypt official blames car crash for Cairo deaths". Reuters. Retrieved 2011-02-01. 
  15. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference autogenerated1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  16. ^ Cite error: The named reference Thousands_protests_in_Egypt was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  17. ^ a b c d e f Cite error: The named reference reuters1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  18. ^ a b "Day of Wrath in Egypt as 62 Killed". The Sun. Retrieved 30 January 2011. 
  19. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference egypt1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  20. ^ "Egypt official blames car crash for Cairo deaths". Reuters. Retrieved 2011-02-01. 
  21. ^ "Israel's Big Fears over a Post-Mubarak Egypt". Euronews. 31 January 2011. Retrieved 31 January 2011. 
  22. ^ "Israel Urges World To Curb Criticism of Egypt's Mubarak". Haaretz. 31 January 2011. Retrieved 31 January 2011. 
  23. ^ "Foreign governments, businesses begin evacuations from Egypt". CNN. 30 January 2011. Retrieved 30 January 2011. 
  24. ^ "Foreign governments, businesses begin evacuations from Egypt". CNN. 30 January 2011. Retrieved 30 January 2011.