Talk:Egyptian Revolution of 2011/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Contents

Life returning to normal near Tahrir square

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_egypt Abrazame (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

YouTube

There are multiple contributory copyright violations with links to YouTube. Some of the videos have already been removed from YouTube. We can also not use YouTube videos that are not demonstratively from RS. Please do not link to such videos. It is often considered acceptable to link to videos posted on RS official channels such as those from the Associated Press. There are multiple videos that are acceptable so nice work using the appropriate templates. See an essay WP:VIDEOLINK (disclaimer: From me but from guidelines, policies, and related discussions).Cptnono (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The videos have not been flagged nor deleted. and as for them not being RS, they are videos that clearly shows show either police brutality or protesters getting killed. A picture is worth a thousand and a video is worth a thousand picture. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Three of them were removed from YouTube. Click on the links for yourself. And others are violations. For example, "Diary Of 'Torture' Captures Police Brutality" is from France 24 which the uploader does not appear to be affiliated with. Please review the links in the essay to guidelines and policies. Cptnono (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Mubarak resignation

2 editors with either a clear pov or a want to censor have removed information that is cited to RS (one of which was cited to a RS recommended by an editor to try to country his view). Both editors cite that it is not true and there is no solid source without providing either a counter view to their opinion or discussing here.

[1][2] and al jazeera (which has been unanimously declared a fair source above) mention his resignation.Lihaas (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't see Journal.ie as the number one source you can call reliable, anyways, the news that Mubarak resigned from the NDP is false. It appeared on Al Arabiya and was quickly retracted. Times of India said it's not confirmed and the arabic news source you cited doesn't contain that info. This information might have appeared on Al Jazeera briefly but it simply isn't true!!! President Mubarak is the one who named the new members and remains in the party as chariman. Al Ahram, Detroit Free Press, Al Ahram (The State TV denied the claims that Hosni Mubarak resigned), Al Masry Al Youm. Please fix what you stated accordingly. You might state that "Reports claiming that Hosni Mubarak resigned as NDP head were later denied by the Information Minister and State Television". And just a side note, you shouldn't assume that anyone who removes something is acting on censorship or just create conspiracy theories. I hope you can see your mistakes and fix it.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
the edit summaries asserted something else and then sources that cited it were removed WITHOut counter-sources, so you can see where that came from. But Egyptian Liberal pointed out some source (i see nw fixeD) so its more accurate now.Lihaas (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Young man possibly killed by Police in Alexandria?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzTxujQDokY

Not saying it's sourced enough to put in an article but worth keeping an eye out on what becomes of this video, it seems legit to me. --80.216.218.247 (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks dude, I was looking for this video all day now. He was killed on the 28th by a police officer in Alexandria. It was on Aljazeera. Thanks again -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Please see reasoning below for its removal. If people did see this on AL Jazeera there is a good chance it is a copyright violation. Furthermore, the channel is not from RS.Cptnono (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
If I remember this correctly, the video was described by Al Jazeera as "a video from YouTube". I therefore don't think that Al Jazeera can claim copyright for it, though maybe someone else can. (I am unaware of the specific contents of the agreement that people are entering into when posting things on YouTube.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Cities section

What is to be done about thuis section? As an editor pointed out it either should be expanded or removed as "much of it is duplicated in the timeline entries". I feel that it should be removed there are many cities in Egypt and this can easily define the article if it gets too big, however this might be a good thing if the timetable is merged - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

there is small problem. People have pointed out that the article might not have be written from POV due lack of mention of other cities. It was discussed before so we decided to add. I think we just need to expand it. You can give it a try and see what you can do -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
It felt for a while like people were thinking that this might have been turning into something like a civil war, and were expecting the escalating situations that spread across the country to continue to spread and continue to escalate. At the moment it seems as though negotiations are bearing fruit and the situation is ramping down to be the long and boring and compromising process of legislatively changing your government at every level and rewriting a constitution in advance of (or following interim) elections. That is a very real result of, I will personally use the phrase, this uprising, and so it should be covered here, but it does not fit the way it seemed appropriate for the article to be developing a week ago.
On the other hand, we don't know what news may have been limited out of these cities given the open violence against journalists, the incarceration or other threats by the police, the limited movement and association, and the shut-down of the internet and cellphones. We're still just getting video and other details the past couple of days from several days prior. There may be important stories that have gone unheard from these and other locations. This may no longer be an active portal through which to convey or learn current events unfolding by the hour, but we still have the responsibility of unearthing and conveying for the historical record what may yet come to our attention.
Finally, when it seemed like each day was worsening, telling it in a timeline fashion was really the only way to present the information. While there is no reason to dispense with the timeline, it may now be reasonable to ask ourselves if an article approaching the events from a few steps further back, rather than like a daily journal, or the news coverage and blogs many editors were following by the hour, would better serve the reader. The main stage was Tahrir Square in Cairo, which would dominate the article, but other cities' events could be told on a city-by-city basis rather than lost in the timeline. It may yet be too soon to begin this, and we may want to wait another week or so to see what is yet to unfold in the near term, but it's something to consider relative to these different approaches that editors were setting up to tell the story. Redundant in the short term isn't bad if it's on purpose, getting beefed up until it gets spun off into a different article with a different approach in a week or so, leaving this article to be renamed the timeline, for example; or the other way around, spinning the timeline off and allowing this to remain the primary article. Abrazame (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I should note that seeing that "remove-section" template, I put the template up for deletion, because it isn't specific and IMHO doesn't belong out in article space. As for the best article structure... I hope someone finds a good, long secondary source reviewing events so far, with a good outline that we can expropriate for our purposes. Wnt (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
i think we should wait till its over for a proper clean up and organisation where this section can outline the evetns by city and then the timeline details follow (or vice versa)Lihaas (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation

can you use this as hidden t4ext? b/c its not really disambiguation but we also want to avoid people adding the links all over (as the original intention for this was) multiple times.Lihaas (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Calm talking/Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not...

Let's calm down a bit and stop flameing off about Egypt, please! 12:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

 :-)--Wipsenade (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's all read the WP:CIVIL page! User:The Egyptian Liberal, User:Lihaas and IP number User:94.246.150.68 should stop cat fighting on Talk:2011 Egyptian protests. It may be best to investigate some of the disruptive IPs and trowaway acounts and lock the page to IPs for a month or two.

Remember also to read- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.Wipsenade (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

this section is gonna get lost. shjould move the "need to read" to the header.Lihaas (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep.--86.16.6.70 (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This is pretty outrageous where you guys are asking people to calm down while people are being openly killed while defenseless, and many major media are downplaying the killings, or just not covering it hardly at all. Wikipedia is one place where the facts can be displayed and yet there is not even a section on this article about the media response, pro and con. I can't understand Wikipedia's complicity in this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.154 (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It was aimed at the (now temporaly banned) Polish IP number and some other editors, who were being anoying, not either you or the topic or Egypt it's self. Wipsenade (talk) 11:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reason for reverts OUT of the article of material about Egyptian government forcing carriers to send anonymous pro-govt. texts?

I think things are falling through the cracks. I came to this talk page because I added information about the cell phone carriers being forced to send anti-protest text messages which I can't add back to this article under WP:3RR. I don't think it's appropriate for anyone to selectively determine the significance of events at this point. Especially since most viewers of this wikipedia entry are not going to realize the "real" timeline of events is a different page. It's not helpful. You can read a response from the vodafone CEO here. Jeff Carr (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Who the keeps removing it? I added it today and yesterday with a source to back it. I was going upload a picture a on commons to show the message I got from them -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I added it twice yesterday also. 1 2 All I could understand it was related to an earlier conversation about the article being too long(?). User:Lihaas would have to comment. This page is being edited so often that I think things are being moved/removed/etc all over the place. It is difficult to tell. The mediawiki needs some better "diff" handling solution for highly volatile pages (in the spirit of git whatchanged) so the changes can be more quickly verified. In my case, I was curious & have a good internet access. Since this page was so volatile, I cam back to check. I wonder if other events might have been missed. Jeff Carr (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Jeff, could you post here the diffs for when you were reverted? It is possible that this was unintended reversion. Sometimes when one editor begins to edit after another editor has already begun an edit and before they're done, the first edit to be saved is undone by the second edit to be saved, without the second editor even knowing this. Editors can avoid this by clicking "Show preview" prior to saving their edit, and seeing if any other changes to the article appear. The issue of Vodaphone being forced to send text messages that were not clearly labeled as coming from the government is something widely reported, so there is no reason not to note it in the article. I have moved this whole section from another thread because it was off-topic and likely to be missed there.
Notably and reliably sourced, NPOV and uncontroversial edits that are clearly relevant and not vandalism should not reach a 3RR level without the objecting editor explaining why the material is being removed in the edit summary and/or by starting a new thread about them on the talk page of the article or the editor in question. Having said that, the onus is on the editor adding the material to make the case for the material, but certain edits are self-evident. If there are any objections to this detail being re-added, please discuss it here within the next few hours or the material will be re-added to the article under the assumption that the reverting out of the article in this instance was inadvertent, on the grounds that there has been no explanation or argument against the material. Abrazame (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's probably not purposeful revisions and it shouldn't be considered 3RR for you to add it back in. Who would be taking you to AN3? Go ahead and add it back into the article. Do it as many times as necessary to get it to stick and, if you can, try and figure out how it's being removed. Because it would be nice to know if its just accidental or if, say, IPs are removing it. SilverserenC 04:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No objection from me but we need to block IP from editing for the next 24 hrs. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • An 24 hour IP block would be handy.--Wipsenade (talk) 10:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
um. the article was already locked (for 120 hours, i think) — regrettably for this IP user (the "tidier") — via this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Egyptian_protests&oldid=412058272 "(22:47, 4 February 2011 Courcelles (talk | contribs) m (127,492 bytes) (Changed protection level of 2011 Egyptian protests: Persistent vandalism ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 22:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (indefinite))))".
before anyone might suggest that i merely register an account — that is not an option for everyone, specifically me. (thanks, "the egyptial liberal", for your kind note on my talk page.)--96.232.126.111 (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
It is NOT out of the article, read the edit summaries. it is on the split off article which was made to keep the article short and its creeping back up over 120k. Hence, instead of repeating same info, its duly kept there. NOTHING is censored, its just to clean the article up. Duly see the Domestic responses to the 2011 Egyptian protestsLihaas (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
What currently exists is fine for me at the moment, so this isn't to push this anywhere further, but simply to justify what is here given Lihaas' comment that this detail is/should be elsewhere. The question of who the pro-government protesters are, and how and why they coalesced, is as important as the question of who the anti-government protesters are, and how and why they did. We address elsewhere in the article that the government closed the banks and imposed curfews, then offered money to people willing to challenge the anti-govs. We also address the allegations that plainclothes policemen featured prominently in the pro-gov. actors. And we have acknowledged that Facebook was used to plan and notify the anti-gov aspect. It is very relevant to note that the govt. attempted (whether successful or not) to rally the citizenry's antagonism against the protesters with texts sent to tens of millions of Egyptians.
Also relevant is the fact that Facebook was proud to be utilized by pro-democracy groups (we might make a simple, brief comment about that; Facebook's founder was on TV speaking to this in the early days of the protests), while Vodafone objected to their service used to rally against pro-democracy groups, at least without transparent attribution (as we do already note). Abrazame (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikinews

Please, can some registered user add this line:
{{wikinewscat|2011 Egypt anti-government protests}}? --188.152.131.127 (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

EL

per WP:EL the list is a little long and redundant. although i suppose we can tolerate it while its ongooing with a due cleanup later(Lihaas (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)).

As with similar articles, once every news source in the world is covering something as a 'topic' (i.e., collected news section), the list of links gets much too big. The BOTW category lists over 20 of them, including all that were listed here earlier, and in addition quite a few blogs, and we're linking to that already. I left the links for the major 'live blogs' and the crowdsourcing links in place. I also removed some links for individual articles which are now part of a 'topic' for that source. I think that cleans up the EL section while still providing access for our readers to all those links. Flatterworld (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Wael Ghonim to be released?

According to the Wall Street Journal, yes. He is to be released tomorrow, Monday. SilverserenC 00:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneLihaas (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wael Ghonim TV interview

Wael Ghonim interview - for someone with time to use these:

Boud (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I just spoke to Wael and no, he is still the admin of the page -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Egypt protests sets a record in Journalism

This site made a report that the current uprising in Egypt trigger record coverage in all media with 56% surpassing Iraqi & Afghanistan wars. Not sure how & where to put this. Essam Sharaf 20:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Essam Sharaf (talkcontribs)

I was going to add it (and even started doing so) to the reelvant section of the domestic response page, but i realsed its from the pers[ective of american news outlets and would thus be more valid on a section about america's reactions if at all.
although we could start a media and pundit reactions/analysis page to split content off.Lihaas (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

reorganisation

this actually worsened the organisation for 2 reasons: 1. the month is not replicated and thus a redundancy, 2. there are even MORE sublevels where a cleanup was needed.Lihaas (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The role of labour

Considering the importance of what's been happening over the last few days, I don't think this article is giving enough attention to the wave of labour strikes sweeping across Egypt right now. Here are just a few examples of wildcat strikes, often by workers without union representation, going on right now:

  • Railway technicians in Beni Suef struck today. Railway workers in other cities joined them by blocking the tracks. Public transport workers in Cairo have shut down five garages and their action is spreading.
  • They say no buses in the capital will move tomorrow. Instead, the buses will be used to take drivers to the central station, where they plan to declare in independent union.
  • Military production factories in Helwan are also hit by strikes, and over 3,000 oil workers in the Suez Canal area have also walked out and are staging protests outside the oil ministry in the Nasr City district of Cairo.
  • More than 5,000 walked out at the state-owned company Telecoms Egypt. They are demanding a minimum wage for workers and a maximum wage for the bosses.
  • The Al Nasr Company for Coke and Chemicals in the city of Helwan has been brought to a standstill by a strike of some 4,000 workers.
  • At the nearby Helwen Silk Factory, some 2,000 have refused to work and are demanding rights and the abolition of the board of directors. The workers, many of whom are women, went on to block the highway.
  • In the Nile Delta town of Quesna, some 2,000 employees of the Sigma Pharmaceuticals company walked out on strike yesterday morning.
  • Some 500 print workers have struck at the state-loyal Al-Alhram national newspaper to demand a change of editor and support for the revolution.

More strikes are planned for tomorrow, including in the textile city of Mahalla el-Kubra.

May of the strikes that began yesterday continue today, and are a sign of the deepening the revolutionary process. 206.116.29.203 (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Strikes and Port Said protests

Here is a source that discusses the strikes that government port workers are undergoing and also the protests that are happening at Port Said, which is at the mouth of the Suez Canal. SilverserenC 02:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Where the editors at

I feel like I have been editing this page by myself for a while. This would have been cool if It was not about current event. The infos keep coming and honestly, I cant keep up. SO PLEASE HELP! -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that more editors need to come and help. However, and please don't be offended in any way, but I think you should definitely let other editors take the lead, Egyptian Liberal. Although you have done a PHENOMENAL job so far, due to the fact that this issue seems very near and dear to your heart, I feel that perhaps you should step back and let those editors who may have a more objective view take the lead, with you offering guidance and advice. I would also like to tell you that as a fellow Deist, I am not praying for your compatriots, but I am however keeping them and their struggle in mind. I wish you and all of Egypt the best of luck in achieving democracy. Edit: BTW I am not editing this article because I support the protesters vehemently and do not feel that I could maintain a NPOV Lilly (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I completely understand your concern. Some of my friends have hurt during the protests so I might too invested in the article. I have been trying to be as neutral as I much as I can I am still a human. That's why I asked for more editors to come and help to make sure I am not leaning on way or another. It helps that I blow most of anger on twitter and facebook when I get or read bad news. But I think I owe the people who are protesting and those who have passed away to tell their story from a NPOV. I am not nor can I be in Egypt due my university so that my way of standing up to Mubarak and tell him I shall not be silenced and I shall tell the world what happened. I would be happy not to take the lead. That why I asked Lihaas among others to add certain parts that I know I can not do. like the wael part due to my personal relationship with him. I hope you would join us in editing tho. If you maintain a NPOV, trust me, other editors will let you know (me included). P.S Always happy to meet another fellow Deist-- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad that you understand and I feel that you have been very neutral so far. You have been doing a FABULOUS job, and I will try to help when I can. Perhaps I will try to write the timeline part. That seems pretty hard to be biased on that page/section. You are right, we do owe those that have died. We owe them a voice. Inshallah, no more people will die, and inshallah Mubarak will be out soon. Salaam. Lilly (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Back for a bit. Give me some things to work on if you have them. Ocaasi (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I think everything beyond the 6th of Feb needs work and of-course the Analysis section. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright infrigement

Good afternoon. In the 10 Februray section, the section talking about physicians is nearly the same as in http://blogs.aljazeera.net/middle-east/2011/02/10/live-blog-feb-10-egypt-protests only one word changes. I do not know if it qualify technically for copyright infrigement, but please try to change the wording at least. --Youssef (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

hmm, not sure if a web log would be copyvio, but be bold and change it/reword it.Lihaas (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
It's still copyvio, but regardless we should paraphrase it. I'll take a look. Ocaasi (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This article seems extremely biased against Mubarak

It's self explanatory, this article reveals a huge bias against Mubarak that is professed apparently by the Wikipedia editing community. Now I know Wikipedia has a liberal bias, a huge one at times (like in this case), but let's attempt to be more neutral, okay? Just cause the Huffington post says that Mubarak is a despotic, cruel dictator and that the protesters are gentle souls, seeking only political change and democracy, doesn't mean that it's true. So let's quit the bias, dudes, Wikipedia shouldn't be a place where bias is accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.189.154.1 (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see such claims in the article. Can you point out some of them? And maybe some other sources to help balance it out? Reach Out to the Truth 16:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Its full of facts -- 94.202.111.162 (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I shall locate some as soon as I can. 184.189.154.1 (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Do any of the sources we use not qualify? Are there sources we have not used that should be added? Are there any phrases that seem implicitly favoring one side? If the majority of international media describes the Mubarak regime as despotic and the protesters as non-violent and democracy-seeking, then we reflect that. We don't present a middle of the road point of view (as in, 'Egypt is in trouble because of a conflict that no one started and no one deserves the blame for'); rather, we present what significant sources say with encyclopedic distance (generally, that Egyptian people are trying to overthrow 30 years of dictatorship). If you want this article to say, "the unruly protesters are reeking havoc on the benevolent government", I'm sure there's a state-run TV show which has that angle (and we should quote it in a relevant section), but we should not sound like a state organ any more than we should sound like the International Anarchist Party. So,please do point out the areas where you see bias or provide contrary sources so we can consider how to incorporate them. Ocaasi (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Fighter Jet picture: the F-16 is unarmed

I think we need to note that the EAF combat airplane pictured has no visible weaponry on its wings. Frankly i'm not sure terms like "show of force" or "strength," are quite correct considering that, and considering the military's overall behavior since then. I'm inclined to to think it was more accurately a show of solidarity with the protesters, but that would be OR. So basically I think noting the jets were unarmed is a good middle ground. I have a login and will make the change myself but I wanted to make a comment here first because its such a hot page. 66.220.113.98 (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A show of force does not imply that actual force could be used immediately. If that would be the intention, the military would probably use attack helicopters. I would propose to attribute interpretations such as "show of force" or "intelligence gathering" to the respective newspapers or notable people who have made them.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
the deafening sound was a show of force--78.3.218.67 (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The aircraft may have been armed - it probably had ammunition for its cannon. But it is not relevant whether it was armed or not. It flew low as a sign of the military's presence and power. It was intended to intimidate - it was never part of the plan that it would open fire! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok so I've no idea how to do a redirect thing...

And I don't want to do something stupid like delete the Main Page (or this article) so can someone make it so that "2011 Egyptian Protests" also redirects to this page. It won't work with a capital P in "protests". Annoying... Lilly (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if there are any others. Its really easy if you want to do it yourself; you just start the article and paste:
#REDIRECT [[2011 Egyptian protests]]
in the text. That's it. Ocaasi (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Made a new redirect for 2011 egyptian civil disobedience. I don't know if anyone will use it but it was a good test for my first Redirect that is actually helpful to the wiki. i.e. not sandbox. Lilly (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
That's funny ;p. No idea who will type that into the search box, but I'm glad you know how to do it now! Ocaasi (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Civil disobedience sounds like the sort of phrasing that China would try to spin. SilverserenC 04:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Civil disobedience, I don't know what you're talking about? This is an outdoor festival. [Egyptians gather to celebrate the glory of the government]. Didn't you get the invite? Ocaasi (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
LOL Ocaasi. Anyhow After Mubarak's resignation added a few more Redirects: ouster of mubarak, and Mubarak overthrown. Yet again just trying to make sure that all bases are covered. Salaam! (Yes this is my officially new favorite way to end my posts... "Peace" what could be wrong with that?) Lilly (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Glad you're having fun. Please bring some of that redirect energy to helping copy-edit the crazy mess here. As for what could be wrong with Salaam, today... nothing. But tomorrow it will return to just almost making me hungry. Ocaasi (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Rename proposals

'Its definitely time to rename this article "2011 Egyptian Revolution"'

See Talk:2011 Egyptian protests/Article name for the discussion on this. -- The Anome (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to Egyptian Revolution of 2011, executed by Tariqabjotu. Labattblueboy (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)



2011 Egyptian protestsEgyptian Revolution of 2011 — Now that Mubarak has been forced out of power, many major news outlets are referring to it as a revolution. --J4\/4 <talk> 17:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC) (As amended by me to capitalise the "R" in "Revolution" The Anome (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC))

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Support
  • Support Aljazeera and other sources are calling it a "revolution". Surely time to rename this page "Egyptian Revolution"? Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Pretty much every media outlet is calling it a revolution now. Jmount (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Agreed, the title should now be changed ASAP to Revolution. WP is now falling well behind the curve. For a number of days 'protests' has been a very lame description for such significant and impactful events, but it is now ludicrous. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Yes. CALL IT REVOLUTION ALREADY. Dictionary definition complete. --62.1.57.85 (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
62.1.57.85 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Hi, I think this events are equivalent to the fall of the Berlin Wall in Germany. The media is calling it a revolution and I couldn't agree more. I believe this article should be renamed 2011 Egyptian Revolution, there is a redirection but I think that should be THE name. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - I would agree that, at this point, revolution as a title seems to be the only option. I think it's quite clear with Mubarak's resignation that this should be considered a revolution. Since his resignation an hour ago, almost all news sources have been referring to it as a revolution. SilverserenC 17:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Again now that Mubarak is gone it has been termed a revolution by at least CNN. [Article title: "Why Ghonim's passion reignited revolt"]Lilly (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support it's definitely a revolution at this point. Whether or not it has now been overtaken by a coup, revolutionary change has occurred. "Revolt" or "uprising" are also certainly valid: it's definitely not mere "protest" anymore. -- The Anome (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support it's definitely a revolution at this point. See Google Trends (egyptian protests, egyptian revolution) [3]. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support lack of boldness of the wikipedians is disturbing! And rename Tunisia too --78.3.222.224 (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
78.3.222.224 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like that, but the ip number changes over time--78.3.216.50 (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support for the reasons stated above. In fact, we're behind the curve on this. fishhead64 (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The dictator is ousted now egyptians have their REVOLUTION don't deny history SyHaBi (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
SyHaBi (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. The President has resigned. The VP is not exercised power either. The legislature has been dissolved. The military is now in charge, pending whatever transition/changes come about. That seems fundamental enough to connote a revolution. At the very least, it should be termed "revolt" or "uprising" rather than merely "protests". --JamesAM (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Now that Mubarak is gone it was definitely a revolution Lilly (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Along the same lines as JamesAM. There has also been a huge spike in media reports employing the term revolution, so I am happy to say this would not be a case of WP:CRYSTALBALL.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support the media is referring to this as a revolution especially because of the importance of Egypt in the Arab World which definitely will unleash a domino effect . --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The resignation of Mubarak adds sufficient thrust to the announced process of transition towards a new political system, rule of law (end of state of emergency) and free elections. Thus, I withdraw my proposal to rename the article "2011 Egyptian uprising" and support renaming it to "Egyptian Revolution of 2011". The revolution may still fail, of course, but failed revolutions are still revolutions, so there is no need to wait for further developments.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, since the media is now calling it so. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support users are already taking this initiative, and there's going to be some sort of redirect warring if we don't act on this. I'd like to declare this decided with the support from users above.-- Patrick, oѺ 19:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
No, no. consensus is not determined over 3 hours heated with breaking newsLihaas (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - All signs clearly point to this being a revolution. While it is true that the military could have everything revert back to the old ways tomorrow, it does not look like that will happen. I think if the counterrevolution does happen, we can change the name to something more appropriate. Remember (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - "It's not a revolt sir it's a revolution."

Mohkalb (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This user has been blocked as a sock puppet --Guerillero | My Talk 21:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support -- Totally support, that shouldn't even be a question, also I think the article Tunis uprising should be renamed to Revolution as well, as almost every highly reliable source has used the term revolution in regards to that event as well. Userpd (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
encyclopaedias dont work on opinions just a few hours on. that is what wikinews is for.
and Mohkalb nad Christiaan, consensus is NOT based on vote count!!
(Lihaas (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)).
  • Belated Support it's always going to be referred to as the "Egyptian revolution" from now on. Shouldn't "Revolution" have a lower-case "r" though? --Dorsal Axe 21:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The medis is already calling it this and per above - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)ro
  • Support At this time it is a revolution. Let me tell you that this was not a protest anymore since they overwhelmed police, set ablaze the NDP building, and demanded the departure of the president. Think of the russian revolution of 1905, compare it with the egyptian revolution of 1952 that was more of a coup. First choice: revolution. Second choice: uprising. "Protests" is utterly unsustainable.190.19.240.214 (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I concur. The fat lady has sung. kencf0618 (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - You say you wanna revolution? Jusdafax 01:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - These events have surpassed protests, riots and revolts. It's a revolution in fact and nature and that's what it's called by the media, and by Egyptians. --Sherif9282 (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - CNN calls it a revolution Obama praises Egyptian revolution. We should consider removing the "Dubious - Discuss" tag sooner or later, because the news outlets are beginning to call it as such. Drivec (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Some might contend that not until a completely new form of government replaces the old regime will it be a revolution. That will doubtless come but only the opposition to revolution pushing its POV could say that it didn't already satisfy the broad definition of a revolution now. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - According to wikipedia: A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. Mubarak is gone, power has shifted, its a revolution. (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose
  • Strong oppose 1. WP:CONSENSUS is not based on vote count. 2. wikipedia is not a news outlet, (see wikinews) we cant work on a heat of the moment arguement (its been 3-odd hours), we need to wait at least a LITTLE while to make this move. (as an aside, tunisia is not a revolution for the wikipedia page and that is a few weeks ahead of egypt). And certainly not as a capital R proper noin.
See comment above: "polling is not a substitute for discussion." Most comments are either heat of the moment OR peronal definitions thereof without reasons. Lihaas (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sure, Mubarak is gone, but the military is still in power and 30-year old 'emergency' measures are still in place. As far as I can tell (original research in mind) nothing has changed. Wait a while and see if this was really a revolution, a return to democracy, a flash in the pan, or something else entirely. Banaticus (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose 4 hours is not long enough for WP:RS to publish on the matter. As editors we are supposed to be "behind the curve," that is my reading of what WP:NOR means. Midlakewinter (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
It's official: A revolution in Egypt from the Washington Post -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
wikipedia is also an encyclopaedia not social media or news.Lihaas (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Why not? If there is a consensus, the discussion time shouldn't matter. Major news agencies are not "yellow press". Again, users have already gone ahead with copy-paste moves. Let's not have a split, and just move it for now. It doesn't have to be the end of discussion.-- Patrick, oѺ 19:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I hear you Patrick, but my concern is that the above a consensus of editors feeling that it's "clearly" a revolution not WP:RS calling it such. What I term the events is irrelevant, no? Midlakewinter (talk)
Most major news outlets probably have discussed the question of which condition must be met, in their view, to refer to the events as a revolution. There are already numerous reports by reliable sources after a few hours. I cannot imagine that any significant number of reliable sources would refer to these events as simply the "2011 Egyptian protests", and if reliable sources come up with some other name later on, we can move the article again, of course.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a grasp of how editors should handle opinion pieces v. news desk article asWP:RS. But here is a lack of "revolution" talk from lead stories by Reuters [4] & Al Jazeera English [5] have yet to adopt the phrase. Midlakewinter (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Revolution is a broader term which will include both "protests" and "uprising". Userpd (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Mild Oppose - Revolution would be said to have taken place when there is a fundamental change in governance within a short period usually following a protest or uprising, Egypt had a change of President after a spate of protests, but would mere change of President qualify as fundamental change in governance? LegalEagle (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose until RS come out in droves saying this. I also oppose this article being moved in the middle of a discussion. A consensus can be drawn in under a day. In addition the only way a consensus can be found is via vote counting. If you look over the support !votes you see that its is 100% ILIKEIT and OR, Also, google search trends and results are a fallacy. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose—there hasn't been any revolution. A necessary aspect of a revolution is the creation of new, revolutionary authorities, carrying out policies fundamentally distinct from those before. Everyking (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
I have seen some people refer to this as the "Nile Revolution." Not sure if this term will take off, but I just wanted to add it to the discussion. Remember (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be 2011 Egyptian Revolution? Dates usually come first, see 2010–2011 Tunisian Revolution -- Smurfy 18:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
per MOS, yes and eventual move would ahve to be so.Lihaas (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Right, 2011 Egyptian Revolution would be correct.-- Patrick, oѺ 19:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
That depends of whether reliable sources refer to the event without further elaboration. For example, there is German Revolution of 1918–19, Revolutions of 1848 in the German states, Russian Revolution (1917). If its one event among (potentially) many similar events, then 2011 Egyptian Revolution would be correct. Reliable sources, however, describe it as an extraordinary event, and will like just refer to the "Egyptian Revolution", not to the "Egyptian Revolution in 2011" in the future. The best name, in my view, would be Egyptian Revolution (2011), but I don't want to interfere with the ongoing move discussion by adding a third alternative.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, good points. I'm used to the year-first format, but I suppose it depends on what this article is really about, and when this is cut off, and we stop adding new sections for each day. I certainly can envision an article on the protests as well as an article with a larger scope of the changes.-- Patrick, oѺ 19:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
what is the with the unilateral and unexplained change while discussion is ongoing. FOUR hours doesnt give enough discussion for those that are asleep in other time zones (Ie- the regiou where it occurs)? neither has a name been discussed yet! Something that is against MOS(Lihaas (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)).

There is no doubt now that there is consensus that revolution should be in the title. The location of "2011", the inclusion of "January", and the necessity of parentheses are small potatoes (read: not important) compared to the real issue at hand: the word 'revolution'. Also, the 'revolution' discussion has been going on for a long time on this article. There so moved, with no prejudice against any decision to move it to some other permutation of the same. -- tariqabjotu 20:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough that the consensus call has been. Just for future reference which Wikipedia policy indicates that "prominence necessitates decision". Midlakewinter (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
And have those in timezones that are sleeping (note the ME) got the opportunity to discuss? The name 2011 Egyptian protests was the MOS standard previously supported as well. It was not important to who then? a wikipedia editor/admin? See the previous revoltion discussions that had NO consensus, it is an ongoing breaking event in 4 hours, which means this is NOT a news service. Also note consensus is not made by vote counting. (the VAST majority of which are merely vote countingLihaas (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out I second Cs32en's suggestion. Egyptian Revolution (2011) seems to be the best solution. --Sherif9282 (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
As there have been (at least) two other important revolutions in Egypt (1919 and 1952), the current title seems to be the best choice, not – as I have proposed earlier – Egyptian Revolution (2011). If one can ask "which Egyptian revolution?", then the year becomes a more integral part of the name.  Cs32en Talk to me  04:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems like we need two articles, one on what was actually happening in terms of control of power and governance, i.e. who was calling the shots before during and after Mubarrak stepped down, we might call it 2011 Egyptian coup d'état and we could have another article on the protests that seemed to be the catalyst for the coup. It seems to be the case that the military ousted him at some point, whether that was immediately before his official resignation is unclear; it could be that the military has actually been running things for quite some time now--only people within the government would actually be able to say.

I think we need to have a clear definition of what a coup is and what a revolution is. This is not like the French Revolution with the masses overwhelming the former regime. Unless we have a precedent of popular demonstrations coinciding with a takeover of the government by a distinct entity being called a revolution, I suggest we split the articles, as I mentioned, into one about the protests and one about the coup. Theshibboleth (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Tantawi was a close associate of Mubarak. The regime had to make a major structural change, and the immediate resignation of Mubarak was an obvious choice. Mubarak and his inner circle, including many parts of the insecurity forces commanded by the Ministry of Interior, resisted that change. The military would not have forced this change if there had not been the pressure from the people. Thus, the revolution is the main event, and the coup is an episode that is only a part of the big picture.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

List of RS since Mubarak's resignation using revolution

I just wanted to throw these up here. SilverserenC 21:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

1 question: how long has it taken the media sensationalism to come up with this? less tan 6 hours?Lihaas (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Is it still media sensationalism if world leaders are calling it a revolution? SilverserenC 22:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
in a few hours? that is NEWS not encyclopaedic?
but what about the anme that was against MOS? 2011 Egyptian revolution vs. the unilateral proper noun. (see the post change support above.Lihaas (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the format of the title per MOS is really that important at the moment, rather than the name itself. Obviously, world leaders are going to make announcements fairly soon after an event occurs, and a large number of them have called this a revolution. SilverserenC 22:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • On state television an announcer referred to the “Youth Revolution.” (Source: New York Times, referring to Egyptian television)  Cs32en Talk to me  16:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article should be renamed

to 2011 Egyptian revolution. Zarateman (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion above --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

MUBARAK IS GONE

MUBARAK RESIGNED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.99.58 (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. For everyone else, here's some sources that are just starting to come out.
Have fun~ SilverserenC 16:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

We should edit the title now to officially reflect "2011 Egyptian Revolution" rather than "protests" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.159.255.232 (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Not Egyptian Revolution of 2011? That's the format of the 1952 one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Revolution_of_1952 --Christiaan (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

We should probably remove the "Dubious - Discuss" concerning revolution. The president never said the word "revolution," but CNN calls it that, and that fills the requirement on the editing rules of this talk page. Obama praises Egyptian revolution Drivec (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 91.113.26.73, 11 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} There is a typo in the following sentence: A group of foreigners[which?] have joined the protesters in Tahrir Square, handing our flowers to the protesters in a sign of solidarity and holding up a banner in English.

It should be 'handing out flowers'.

91.113.26.73 (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

why this article has just one link looping back to itself?

-Abhishikt 19:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The page is semi protected, so only administrators can move it. A user attempted to redirect the article to a new location (probably intending to copy/paste article text instead of moving the article) and someone else tried to fix the redirect instead of reverting it. I reverted back to the state before the first redirect was added and the article has proceeded from there. It was only a link looping back to itself for less than a minute. :) Banaticus (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

template:2011 Egyptian protests

{{editsemiprotected}} Please add this to the footer templates at the bottom {{2011 Egyptian protests}}

184.144.164.14 (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Done; not sure if there are now too many navigational boxes dbut since it is in use on the other related articles it would be strange to not have it on this one. sonia 22:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Check Spelling

Feburary 11 section of the article says "Muabrak's resignation was announced by Omar Suleiman and was followed by nationawide celebrations." This should be changed to "Mubarak's resignation was announced by Omar Suleiman and was followed by nationwide celebrations."

Nationwide and Mubarak are spelled wrong.

Thanks, fixed. —Stephen (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Tahrir Square

It is obvious for the outside obsverver that the Tahrir Square (Tahrir Republic) is one out of many tools and battlefields that has helped to promote the specified political outcome. Each of these tactical tools and (social media, national unity, peacefulness, etc) can be used and optimized (minimized or maximized) depending on circumstances. One can argue that the physical square has played its role and that other battlefields now are to be fought on. This optmization of different weaponry and tactical moves is by definiton called Strategy.

However, the Square can strategically still be used for new purposes, namely as a place for the exchange of ideas and political debate in real life situations. Political debate face to face with strangers. The square could be sealed off for traffic and used for the citizens as a national political forum (in real life) in the way the old squares in Rome and Greece were used for political debate. A descicion about were to lay roundabouts and the naming of streets and such are usually made on a low, local, city desicion level, not the high national level.

It should be made a political request, or perhaps an objective, to the city to lead the traffic on other streets and keep the square as a political platform for debate. It yields two advantages: it promotes political ideas to flourish face to face in ways the West has not seen since the dawn of Democracy in ancient Greece, and it keeps the people on the Square as the ultimate political weapon, safeguarding against any high-jacking of the Revolution. Put cafes and fountains instead of cars on the square, make it a park for families, ice cream, picnic and peaceful politics.

Letting the square go too easy, in combination with keeping the old regime (cabinet ministers, Generals, bureau/agency directors) awakens the questions of what actually has been gained, and ultimately, whether it is a Revolution or simply a Coup de Etat by rich Generals... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.226.32 (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting commentary, but we're not here to share personal opinions, only to collect and summarize sources. Ocaasi (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead photo

I think at this point, it would make sense to use one of the photos from Tahrir, which has really become the epicenter of everything, rather than the street shot from the beginning of the protests. Cjs2111 (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

sure, which picture you wonna use? you check out commons and let me know. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking of it today, but then i though its not a badpicture. the others we have are not as clear (esp. the night shots)Lihaas (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The current photo is not representative of the fact that, since the 28th of January, the protests have been an occupation of Tahrir Square. I think one of the views of the square from above would work well, like this one from the "Friday of Departure": http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tahrir_Square_during_Friday_of_Departure.png Cjs2111 (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Split the navigation template

There is a proposal to split off the Egyptian protests into its own navigation template apart from the Arab World template, as this subject has spawned multiple articles already, and another one has been proposed above. Considering the number of notable peopel connected to these protests, the nav template should be separated to provide better division between Egyptian and other Arab protests, and show what is clearly Egyptian topics. See Template talk:2010–2011 Arab world protests#Split off Egypt. 184.144.161.207 (talk) 07:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I have added a counter-proposal in that same section. SilverserenC 07:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I think it's unnecessary to complicate that template to serve this article. Let's wait and see if Mubarak steps down, and if he does, I think we should make our own template for the major aspects, events, locations, and players in this story. Ocaasi (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
new template

It's here Template:2011 Egyptian protests. Additions and organization welcome. Ocaasi (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Military surrounds Parliament

Military surrounds Parliament, please cover this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.36.123 (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking, but I haven't found any sources on this. Did it just happen within a couple of hours ago? If so, then the media probably doesn't have any reports out just yet. Wait a few more hours. Once we have the sources, we'll add in the information. SilverserenC 04:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Egypt politics Task force

I'm thinking about starting a new Egypt politics task force to organize and create articles related to the protests events and clear out the history of politics in Egypt. Many ministers and public figures related to the protests don't have an article and one of the targets of the task force would be bringing this article to featured status. The task force would be under WikiProject Egypt, Anyone interested in joining such a task force?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Mubarak flees for home on Red Sea

It is only reported for now and not confirmed, but here's some sources. And it's likely confirmed anyways.

There. SilverserenC 15:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyone heard if there are going to be more protests to get rid of Suleiman?

Probably spelled his name wrong but whatever. So any news? B/c I know that the protesters got their major goal, but what they really wanted was Mubarak to be gone completely and will they accept having his lackey as his replacement? Just curious and it may be useful that (if the protesters do want Suleiman gone too) the article explains the changing goals of the populace. Also CNN has an article called "Why Ghonim's passion reignited revolt" and as the word Revolution comes from "revolt" that is a major news agency that is calling the protests a "revolution" and I agree with them.!السلام (Salaam "Peace") Lilly (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I see, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces is now the supreme decision-making body. As Suleiman himself announced that Mubarak has instructed the Supreme Council to assume power, it appears difficult to imagine that Suleiman may lay a claim to power in these circumstances.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Both GoodDay and Cs32en are right. Omar is out, if he tries to get back in, protesters will march again. The NPD is out too. The NPD was not the ruling party, it was the ruler's party. huge diff. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
bnice, need to add to the page..(Lihaas (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)).

Temporarily changing templated citations into identical non-templated citations

What are your thoughts on temporarily not using templated citations? The #if statements in the different cite templates really add a great deal of overhead to the template. You really shouldn't have more than 300 citation statements in an article and this one almost has 400. That's a heck of a lot to have parsed before the page can load. On the fastest dialup connection (56k), we're looking at almost five minutes for the page to load. On a broadband internet connection, we're looking at 1 2/3 minutes. With a T! dedicated connection, it's only 30 seconds, but page loads for most people are going to take long enough that the page will seem to be "broken". Are there any thoughts on me running through the article and replacing all the templated citations with citations that would display exactly the same but without using an actual citation template? For instance:

International reactions have varied with most Western states saying peaceful protests should continue but also expressing concern for the stability of the country and the region. 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;[1][2] however, an Arab-Israeli parliamentarian supported the protests. There were also numerous solidarity protests for the anti-government protesters around the world.
References
  1. ^ "Israel's Big Fears over a Post-Mubarak Egypt". Euronews. 31 January 2011. Retrieved 31 January 2011. 
  2. ^ "Israel Urges World To Curb Criticism of Egypt's Mubarak". Haaretz. 31 January 2011. Retrieved 31 January 2011. 
International reactions have varied with most Western states saying peaceful protests should continue but also expressing concern for the stability of the country and the region. 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;[1][2] however, an Arab-Israeli parliamentarian supported the protests. There were also numerous solidarity protests for the anti-government protesters around the world.
References
  1. ^ "Israel's Big Fears over a Post-Mubarak Egypt". Euronews. 31 January 2011. Retrieved 31 January 2011.
  2. ^ "Israel Urges World To Curb Criticism of Egypt's Mubarak" Haaretz. 31 January 2011. Retrieved 31 January 2011.

It looks identical, right? But the big difference is that the first example uses citation templates, which as far as the Wikimedia parser goes are pretty expensive because they call for a lot of #if's which all have to be interpreted. Normally, that's not really a problem, but with hundreds of them in this article it's really affecting load times. Here's an example of the code difference:

<ref>{{cite news|title=Israel's Big Fears over a Post-Mubarak Egypt|url=http://www.euronews.net/2011/01/31/israels-big-fears-over-a-post-mubarak-egypt/|accessdate=31 January 2011|work=[[Euronews]]|date=31 January 2011}}</ref>
<ref>[http://www.euronews.net/2011/01/31/israels-big-fears-over-a-post-mubarak-egypt/ "Israel's Big Fears over a Post-Mubarak Egypt"]. ''[[Euronews]]''. 31 January 2011. Retrieved 31 January 2011.</ref>

So, what are your thoughts on temporarily changing the references to not use templates, so that this page can load in perhaps only 10 seconds instead of over a minute for those of us with broadband connections (and perhaps only 30 seconds instead of almost 5 minutes for those on dialup)? Banaticus (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you do it? We have over 300 refs. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Definitely support this change, doing the refs without the citation templates. --Aude (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

ONGOING protests

As numerous editors have shown the protests are NOT over yet. we need to see if the protesters clear out tomorrow and sentiment changes.Lihaas (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

How exactly does that stop it from being a revolution if the protests end or continue on? There is a fundamental change of power that has occurred, whether that means democracy, islamic theocracy, or a military coup. SilverserenC 21:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
this is not about revolution, that is above. this si about hte infobox end date that others too have put back at "ongoing"/"presnt" vs. ip changes.(Lihaas (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)).
Ah, I see what you mean. Should have been more clear. :) Yeah, there's entirely indication that the protests are going to continue on, as there was mention of the start of some "phase II" now that Mubarak has resigned. SilverserenC 21:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Even if the protest do not going on continuously, the revolution does not end at that point. Presumably, it may be said to be completed once a freely elected parliament elects a new president. (We will need to decide this based on reliable sources.) Even in the French Revolution, people did not gather in central Paris for the entire time period of the revolution.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Cities and Regions

Probably should not be under 'Resignation of Mubarak.' Seeing as it deals with events before he resigned. Zazaban (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Should probably be a subsection, not a section.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
that would be myu bad. this should be under the protests bitLihaas (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox historical event

The template {{Infobox historical event}} may be appropriate at the top of the article. The protests are the most important aspect of the revolution, but not all aspects of the revolution can be characterized as "protests".  Cs32en Talk to me  22:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Minor title change

Wouldn't 2011 Egyptian Revolution work better? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Per the MOS, I would agree, but that would also mean we would be obligated to go to the other revolution articles in Egypt's history and rename them. SilverserenC 23:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
See the discussion on this topic up above -- the Survey which is looking for support/oppose opinions. Banaticus (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
THIS was 100% move sosensus per MOS as opposed to the unilateral mad adminLihaas (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Pro-Mubarak Protests

Under the section "Lead-Up to the Protests" it states that the NDP arranged for half a million supporters of the ruling party with a reference number at 63. I have checked this source and it does not say that half a million were arranged but rather that they wanted to arrange this many. In actual fact the number of supporters did not exceed a few thousand, most of which were hired thugs.

Some fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andalus7 (talkcontribs) 03:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the content. The source referred to another newspaper which referred to the announcement of something that effectively did not happen.  Cs32en Talk to me  04:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

AP on the role of the military

AP has this interesting account of the role of military in the recent days.  Cs32en Talk to me  04:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

BREAKING NEWS

NDP website hacked now

Ahmed Zaki Osman (11 February 2011). "Hackers take over Mubarak's party website". Al Masry Al Youm. Retrieved 11 February 2011. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Mubarak might leave tonight

The Secretary-General of the NDP thinks the Mubarak might leave office before friday -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110210/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_egypt Ocaasi (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneLihaas (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Protesters' demands to be met

Army officer told the protesters the demands is going to be met -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Council of the Armed Forces held a meeting

Supreme Council of the Armed Forces held a meeting now to study the current crisis -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Yes check.svg DoneLihaas (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

all currently sourced to <ref name="aljazlive"/>

What is all this? Is this going into the article or just being collected here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Some will at on point. We are just looking for sources and a place to put in. 2 much news. - The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The Army of Islam, Hammas, the 6 April Youth Movement and President Papandreu of Greece are worth noteing.Wipsenade (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If you think they are worth nothing, take them out -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)