No edit summary |
→EL: EL fits now, can be removed, is unique and is not indiscriminate, is appropriate for the article |
||
Line 514: | Line 514: | ||
:*[[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]] 4: "News reports... breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." ([[WP:NOTNEWS]] |
:*[[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]] 4: "News reports... breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." ([[WP:NOTNEWS]] |
||
:Although this is interesting stuff, it turns the page from an encyclopedic article to a mirror for news sites. If someone is on th internet ight now, they can see similar live coverage at cnn.com or multiple other places.[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 20:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC) |
:Although this is interesting stuff, it turns the page from an encyclopedic article to a mirror for news sites. If someone is on th internet ight now, they can see similar live coverage at cnn.com or multiple other places.[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 20:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
::#It's is a unique resource right now. |
|||
::#It's not being emphasized, just included |
|||
::#IAR. The speech is live, and this is coming right from Tahrir square. I'm putting it back, but will be happy to debate the policy subtleties tomorrow when the event has passed. I will also then remove the link. |
|||
::Some outside opinions would be welcome here, since I don't want to break 3RR as this continues, but I'm willing to make an exception for an event as momentous as this. [[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]] ([[User talk:Ocaasi|talk]]) 20:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:40, 10 February 2011
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Talk:2011 Egyptian protests/Notes
BREAKING NEWS
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)
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)
Miscellaneous
collection of news
|
---|
|
- 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)
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)
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.
Remamber also to read- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.Wipsenade (talk) 15:51, 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.
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
Lead up to protests very important, anyone wanna help?
I wanna start a section with the lead up to the protests. I think the mark can be the Tunisia protests and then self immolation of multiple people and the various small protests that escalated into larger ones. Al Masry Al youm shows all articles leading up to the events if u search for protests there. Anyone wanna help? --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Background
- I actually feels that a section on the lead to the protests is far more beneficial than that of the "background". A question that raises to mind is how the items of this background came about? Some of them seems to be random and do not have a direct relation to the cause of the protests. --Osa osa 5 (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- it is way too long (Adn worse now). some less relevant sections like military and the alex. bombing need to go.Lihaas (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I totally agree. In addtition to both "military" and "alex. bombing", I see "Population growth" could go too; as poverty is and should be covered in the "Economic climate" section. Similarly the section on "Foreign relations" does not seem relevant as well. --Osa osa 5 (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- We could consolidate the military into the mubarak side as reasons for his growth.
- pop. growth possibly shortened and briefly mentioned in econ. chllenges (as reasons for the lack of employment). Either take off or consolidate foreign relations into mubarak. election can be also be consolidated. though i agree wholly the alex. bombing is just pushing it.Lihaas (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I would have agreed about the alex. bombing yesterday but Former minister of the interior Habib El-Adli faces prosecution in a military court over his role in the New Year's Eve bombing of al-Qiddissin Church in Alexandria in which 24 people were killed and more than 90 were injured. I think election can be added to corruption. and honestly, the Military had nothing to do with why the protests started. it might be better to add it to analysis section. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I totally agree. In addtition to both "military" and "alex. bombing", I see "Population growth" could go too; as poverty is and should be covered in the "Economic climate" section. Similarly the section on "Foreign relations" does not seem relevant as well. --Osa osa 5 (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree with that point for two reasons. First, being accused is not equivalent of being guilty. Second, it does not really matters who is behind it, because it was not a factor that sparked the protests any way. Remember, we are writing a background on the protests (i.e. factors that contributed to its start) not a background on Egypt as a whole. A better place for this accusation is Habib El-Adli's page and off course the alex bombing page as well. In summary, the whole section seems to me out of place.
- After a close monitoring to the protests from its beginning, the main reasons for its spark that I see are the following (between parenthesis I add the reason): 1-Police brutality (face book page: "All of us are Khalid Said") 2- Emergency law 3-Corruption (items 2 and 3 are among the protesters top and main demands). 4-Tunisian Revolution (a great inspiration for the youth)
- So, I suggest removing: 1- Foreign relations (the protests are focused on domestic situations) 2-Military (no real position on protests as it remained neutral; at least officially). Items 1 and 2 would be better placed in an Analysis section as The Egyptian Liberal suggested. 3- Alex bombing (as described above). 4-"2010 election" (personally on the border on this one; would like to see it merged with corruption section because dissolving the Parliament was among the protesters/oppositions demands). --Osa osa 5 (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- You make some very good points. True Alex. bombing has nothing to do with the protesters. I think it might better to add to the analysis section about Copts More of them started to me bore vocal against the government after accusing. So I suggest adding Foreign relations' (Who its effect by the protests) and Military (Their role during the protests) to the analysis section.
- So the only thing that stays in the background section are 1 Emergency law; 2 Police brutality; 3 Corruption (while merging the election section with it); 4 Economic challenges.
- While Foreign relations; Military; Alexandria church bombing goes into the analysis section. agreed? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Move request
{{adminhelp}}I don't think this template is needed, if the help you requested is the page move, there is a page for that and bot already placed the article there, no need for alert and template is not for talk pages in this space Petrb (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
2011 Egyptian protests → 2011 Egyptian uprising — Both CNN and Al-Jazeera now call the events an "uprising". (See the videos of both news outlets.) Cs32en Talk to me 06:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
NOTE: The article is move-protected, only administrators can change the title.
Old discussion
Copied from the first half of the discussion (currently located at: Talk:2011_Egyptian_protests/Archive_3#Move_request) which appears to have been archived by mistake.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Seeing that the name of the article is changing and that it's going to be a problem in the future, we need to discuss it now -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- So, the popular protests that brought down the government in Tunisia are named "2010-2011 Tunisian protests" and the popular protests that have accomplished NOTHING (for the time being) in Egypt deserve the name "2011 Egyptian revolution"? Puh-lease.
I think calling these protests is reasonable. While this could evolve into a revolution, I feel the decision of whether or not this is a revolution will be better made in the coming months(weeks? days? hours? who knows?) as the whole situation heads towards some form of conclusion. Many thought that the Iranian Protests of 2009-2010 would lead to a revolution, here we sit over a year later and nothing changed. Let's be patient and watch. --71.41.220.147 (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- We generally determine the title from what the majority of the sources are calling it. For now, it is still being called a protest, thus our current name. If most news organizations started calling it a revolution, we would have a case for changing the name. SilverserenC 20:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Hosni Mubarak has dismissed the government because of the events. What is occurring has gone beyond mere protests. I wouldn't say that it is a revolution yet, but an uprising at least. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please let's follow article naming conventions and not vault every interested party's chosen moniker to boldface, lead-sentence status prior to this actually being widely accepted. Last night I removed "Youth Revolutions" and this morning I have removed "Lotus Revolution". Either may yet become what this becomes popularly known as, but it is not so now, and would be unencyclopedic to elevate a particular faction's preferred characterization so early in this developing story. If individuals or groups are seeking to "own" or co-opt these protests, that should first be covered with cites and appropriate relative weightings in the body of the article; if and when one such name seems to have stuck to the satisfaction of those involved, then it shouldn't be difficult to develop consensus to represent it that way here. Abrazame (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would say yes at least maybe later. However, we will see during the following days or weeks if these protests will emerge towards the revolution which they called the Lotus revolution or the Youth revolution
- It's time to change the name to "revolution" from protests
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/29/egypt-mubarak-tunisia-palestine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.166.157 (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Respectfully, she's still well ahead of the pack. It's also an opinion piece and she has been acting particularly in a punditry/advocacy role supporting the protests throughout rather than as a neutral journalist. Still watching for sources, but thanks for that tip. Ocaasi (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/29/egypt-mubarak-tunisia-palestine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.166.157 (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Mona
EltawahiEltahawy is not a remotely WP:NPOV source in this matter and quoting her words should be done cautiously. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Mona
time to call it Revolution?
There must be sources supporting it. It seems like it. --Athinker (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Although a revolutionary outcome has not yet been achieved (of course that is a distinct possibility) the developing events certainly have many characteristics of a revolution, and for that reason I would personally be happy to see the word added in the Characteristcs section of the infobox. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wait till the president is completely gone...and maybe some actual reforms or changes are put in. Like maybe if Mubarak is either pushed out or maybe he simply does not run for president in the next "election". (Those rigged jokes of "elections"...where mysteriously he gets more than 98% of the "vote"...though most people don't like him and wanted him out...hence why a lot of the outrage and anger).
- As of yet, it's an uprising, violent protest, unrest, riot... That sorta thing. But an attempted "revolution" is not quite yet an actual "revolution" per se, I would think. What happened in Iran not that long ago kinda proves that. Ahmadinejad is still "president" of Iran, despite the uprising and protests that happened there. So we'll see... This might be different though. With Egypt. Time will tell. Archiver of Records (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm presuming the new name would be "Egyptian Revolution of 2011", in the event of Mubarak's removal from power (let's not kid ourselves, it's imminent at this point). Master&Expert (Talk) 06:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- If and when Mubarak leaves, then it becomes an "Uprising", Not a Revolution. We need have NPOV. If and when it becomes a full-blown revolution, then we will name it a "Revolution" -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- If and when a diversity of RS' call it so. even tunisia had no consensus for it. though i was just about to nominate a move to "uprising" isntead of protests. but scratch that, Egyptian Liberal's comment makes more sense.(Lihaas (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).
- Forgive me for perhaps misunderstanding what has been said, but I fail to see how the term "revolution" would appear as biased. It implies dramatic change, whether positive or negative. If it comes to be identified with the term, then we can potentially follow my suggestion above and rename the article. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- If and when a diversity of RS' call it so. even tunisia had no consensus for it. though i was just about to nominate a move to "uprising" isntead of protests. but scratch that, Egyptian Liberal's comment makes more sense.(Lihaas (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).
- I currently Oppose calling this a revolution, take for example the Tunisian uprising article the president there stepped down, there was no viuolent takeover or anything there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to be violent to be a revolution anyway. Look at Velvet Revolution for example; it had nothing to do with violence, but it was a revolution because despite being non-violent there were changes (from communism to democracy) and the changes were dramatic. Also, if the stated goal of the Egyptian protests is to oust Mubarak that can hardly be named a revolution; it doesn't change the existing systems, does it? It only replaces the man/men currently at top with someone else. Roofred (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree to call it a revolution, Millions of people, with different ideologies requiring the regime to step down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.248.56.1 (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am placing this here as well (originally made the post at the bottom of the talk page): For what its worth: A February 14 TIME issue (vol 177, no 6) went even further and called the crisis in Egypt a Revolution (or more specifically: "The Revolution - by Fareed Zakaria", page 12).Calaka (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
This is not a mere protest. Rename it.
This is not a mere protest. Almost all sources title it TURMOIL. In my opinion it's a dictionary definition of a Revolution but I'm aware sources are afraid to say it. --Athinker (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Can you give an example of a similar case with their name/title? Dinkytown talk 18:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
If the government is still in power, it is not a revolution by definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.154 (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Uprising?
CNN seems rather fond of calling the events an Uprising. Personally I think this is a good middle ground between 'protest', which it is in my opinion evolved beyond, and 'revolution,' which implants a physical attempt to seize power. DavidSSabb (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Just a rough guide, Google News search limited to the past 7 days for Egypt protests: 27,693; for Egypt uprising: 11,305 (note: similar breakdown of about 2.5:1 for egyptian protests, egyptian uprising). See also Google Trends (egypt protests, egypt uprising) [1]. And check out the Google Trends regional breakout at the bottom, where the 'uprising' term has indeed caught on more in the US than the UK or Canada: [2] Ocaasi (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'd support renaming it "uprising". I don't see it being "POV connotated", it's exactly what's happening: an uprising of millions of Egyptian people against Mubarak.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support for "uprising". Seems a good middle path. Midlakewinter (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- As the single events taking place are often called "protest", or, if they take place in several cities simultaneously, for example, are referred to as "protests", a Google search can't really answer the question of whether the movement as a whole is being seen as an uprising, a revolution, a revolt, or as (a number of) protests. We have to look carefully at the context in which reliable sources use words such as "protests" or "uprising". Also, internet search may well include outdated information and analysis. Cs32en Talk to me 13:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I commonly understood an uprising to involve violence, which isn't really the case yet. This could very well change but I don't think the case has been made that either A) it is an uprising and B) that is the common name being applied to the current events.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Protests are expressions of opinions, while an uprising is an attempt to change the existing power structure. Such an attempt may be peaceful, but often, as it implies a power struggle, it is violent. Violence can emerge for different reasons, and a violent uprising does not imply that the movement behind the uprising intended it to be violent. Cs32en Talk to me 18:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- From webster: "Uprising - an act or instance of rising up; especially : a usually localized act of popular violence in defiance usually of an established government" wikidictionary has a similar thing on it. In other words it appears that this meets the definition here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, my impression is that it normally employs large-scale violence. To reach this conclusion, I searched other wikipedia articles that employ the term uprising in the title and I had difficultly finding any that did not involve armed struggle.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- 2010–2011 Tunisian uprising would be an example without much violence on the protesters' side... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- A perfect example indeed, because it started off as 2010–2011 Tunisian protests and when it became conclusive that it was a uprising the article was renamed 2010–2011 Tunisian uprising. That didn't happen until over a month after those events started. The protest in Egypt have been taking place for just over a week. Patience.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- 2010–2011 Tunisian uprising would be an example without much violence on the protesters' side... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, my impression is that it normally employs large-scale violence. To reach this conclusion, I searched other wikipedia articles that employ the term uprising in the title and I had difficultly finding any that did not involve armed struggle.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- From webster: "Uprising - an act or instance of rising up; especially : a usually localized act of popular violence in defiance usually of an established government" wikidictionary has a similar thing on it. In other words it appears that this meets the definition here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support Per above, and my comment - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Postpone definitely and see what happens. If this prevails, it may be consensus to call this a Revolution (with a flower name all its own - Lotus, I suppose) by the end of the week. If it fizzles, it may not even become known as an uprising. If a consensus name emerges, present evidence for it; if not, let us reconsider this time next week. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support I too agree with the previous statements caling for a name change. Although there is no easy way to quantify "protests" versus "uprising" or "revolution", in my opinion several hundred violent deaths doesn't seem like a protest to me. But, like above, a revolution requires some level of success that the anti-Mubarak crowd has not yet achieved. If the name of the article must change again to reflect further development in the days ahead, so be it. but for now these are not protests. It is revolt. Sixer Fixer (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
New discussion
- Support By now, I would say that this is appropriate. Events have certainly unfolded to the extent that it can be considered an uprising and reliable sources have reflected that. SilverserenC 06:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support — The situation has risen above and beyond the level of mere protests. As with the Tunisian uprising, Egypt has essentially overthrown their government (Mubarak merely clings to power). Master&Expert (Talk) 07:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support When rulers are resigning, politicians discuss it spreading to other countries, and new outlets call it an uprising, it is an uprising.--76.214.104.173 (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- as the first one to call for uprising, i naturally support this.Lihaas (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support For all the reasons stated above, 'protests' is clearly now a very considerable understatement.
- Support The scale of the events and the international attention they attracted and most importantly the previously unthinkable decisions now taken by the government mean that this has gone beyond just a continuous protest. Its a full uprising and once it succeeds should be moved to a revolution.NMKuttiady (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support I agree with the name change, it is definitely an uprising if not a revolution already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingTut1982 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I still find twice as many Google hits for "Egyptian protests" as for "Egyptian uprising". I think this supports adding the "uprising" phrase to the lead sentence, as in "The 2011 Egyptian protests, or Egyptian uprising," but not just yet a move of the article name. Like the use of the "uprising" phrase, I realize I am in the minority here, but it's worth pointing out that some things are supposed to be based on what's actually happening in the world, and not on what interested editors vote for. The incremental shift of adding the secondary phraseology to the lead sentence now for the first time, rather than jumping ahead of that preliminary step and moving the whole article to what is still only a secondary phraseology, seems to be what is called for. Abrazame (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Reading the article I think current name is better Petrb (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose There's more reliable sources (guardian, bbc, reuters, nytimes, huffington post) that use the word "protest" in their headings / headlines and refer to this event often as protest, not as "uprising" (and so does the majority of other sources in comparison to those that started referring to it as "uprising", google hits to the rescue: protests' hits are 8x time more than uprising ones). Also, the nominator is known for his pro-right Israeli edits, uprising is a label to show that it wasn't the voice of the people but rather some sort of riot by bunch of rioters. Better keep it as it is, no need to make the title biased (I'm not opposed, however, against a redirection from the page 2011 Egyptian uprising which already exists) let alone the fact, that in other sources in different languages since the beginning was used the word "Protest", for example russian ones: gazeta.ru, lenta.ru, 1 state channel, Russia. So I think we can manage without this cliche / label from mainly pro-right Israeli side. Userpd (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- The first five sources (The Guardian, BBC, Reuters, New York Times,Huffington Post) all were published in January, so I would advise against using them to determine how reliable sources describe the events. Cs32en Talk to me 23:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. While I certainly think that these events will soon be widely referred to as an uprising, the evidence presented by User:Userpd indicates that this label has not yet gained sufficient currency. It is not our job at Wikipedia to pre-empt such changes in terminology; it is our job to report what reliable sources say. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose at least for now. I see no down-side to article readers in waiting for reliable sources consensus to emerge.Midlakewinter (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
You should remove you previous voteI suppose previous discusion was canceled; if not there are many users who voted more than one time Petrb (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)- Abstaining following User:Silver seren sourcing. Midlakewinter (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose for now As pointed out the president is still in power the governemnet is still intact.- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)- Abstaining Per above, there seems to be a split in the media on what this event is being referred to. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose for now The people holding Tahrir Square are doing so partly for fear of the regime cracking down and rounding them up. That is, they think their gains are still reversible. There's much to add and improve, and the name clearly identifies the topic. BagusBagus (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment for all oppose voters to address: All of the sources that Userpd put forth are from January, a very long time ago in the time scale of what's happening in Egypt. And, yes, in the beginning, all sources referred to it as a protest, which is why there are so many more labeled protest than uprising. However, have you noticed which term is used more within the past few days? Here's some examples of the use of the word uprising within the past few days.
- "Egypt uprising brings tourism to a standstill" - Los Angeles Times
- "Egypt's uprising an unseen economic pothole" - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
- "Mugabe Tries to Show Strength as Zimbabwe Watches Egypt Uprising" - Fox News
- "Egypt's uprising stirs fears of persecution of minority Coptic Christians" - The Washington Post
- "The Egyptian Uprising: The view from London" - AlMasry AlYoum
- "Women Play Vital Role In Egypt's Uprising" - NPR
- "Google Exec Made Silent Voice of Egypt Uprising" - CBS News
- "The Pentagon View of Egypt: What the Uprising Means for the U.S. Military" - ABC News
- "Egypt's Uprising: How One Young Man Found the Revolution" - TIME
- "France suspends sale of arms and tear gas to Egypt at early stage of uprising" - The Canadian Press
- "Downloading the Uprising" - The Wall Street Journal
- All of these sources are dated from February 3rd onward. And, with them, I think i've made my point. And I should also note, before someone needles me with it, that the people of Egypt are doing acts that are called protests, but the entire process is currently being called an uprising. SilverserenC 21:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- From today's (6 february) CNN news, they refer to them as "protesters", Also today, BBC, refers to it as "street protests", euronews, also today, uses the term "protests". And outside of the anglo-world, the event is more known as "protest" not as "uprising", at least in Russia. google hits for protests in Egypt, google hits for uprising in Egypt I think it needs no comment. Userpd (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- The CNN and Euronews are inconsequential, because they just use the word protesters. What else are they going to use as a term? Uprisers? Uprisingers? I'm fairly certain neither of those are words. And, yeah...BBC has pretty much stuck with calling it a protest. They haven't really deviated from that. Trying to stay neutral, I suppose? But one source isn't enough to make any conclusion.
- From today's (6 february) CNN news, they refer to them as "protesters", Also today, BBC, refers to it as "street protests", euronews, also today, uses the term "protests". And outside of the anglo-world, the event is more known as "protest" not as "uprising", at least in Russia. google hits for protests in Egypt, google hits for uprising in Egypt I think it needs no comment. Userpd (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- As for Russia, i'm not sure what you're expecting to find there. Of course they don't use the term Uprising. That is a term that Russian media does not want to go throwing around. Russia might not be being as extravagantly censorist as China is, but they are still being careful of what they say. Not that Russia has to worry about that as much from the main population, they love Russia, but more from the outlying territories, the former bloc countries. Believe me, I know how Russia works. Go read my article on the War of Laws. SilverserenC 21:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Rough google news searches indicate that "Egypt protests" still beats "Egypt uprising", 3,024 to 753. Furthermore:
- Egypt protests – Friday 4 February – The Guardian
- ElBaradei: Egypt protests could get "more vicious" – Reuters Africa
- Egypt, People Power...and the truth we dare not speak –Daily Mail
- Expert suggests reasons for EU's silence on Egypt's protests – Al-Masry Al-Youm English
- Lessons to learn from Egypt protests – Asia One news
- Guest view: Egypt protests prove people have power – Belleville News Democrat
- Google exec held in Egypt protests to be freed – The Washington Post (this AP article can be found in many other sources as well)
- Live blog Feb 7 - Egypt protests – Al Jazeera Blogs
- Egypt protests continue despite talks – Press TV
- Egypt Protests: Government Agrees To Major Demands In Talks On Sunday – The Huffington Post
- Latest Updates on Day 13 of Egypt Protests – New York Times Blogs
- Thus, I still find it a bit early to make a definite call for a move. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Rough google news searches indicate that "Egypt protests" still beats "Egypt uprising", 3,024 to 753. Furthermore:
- Let me work through each of your links.
- The Guardian one is a blog article.
- The Reuters Africa one is using a quote for ElBaradei, which is why the title is preceded by ElBaradei:.
- Your Daily Mail link also seems to be blog-ish, considering it is written as the opinion of a single reporter.
- AlMasry seems legitimate.
- Asia One seems legitimate.
- The Belleville one is an opinion piece, it even has Guest view in the title.
- Associated Press articles can be found in many places because a bunch of newspapers copy the article verboten.
- Al Jazeera Blogs. I think Blogs is my point.
- "Press TV takes revolutionary steps as the first Iranian international news network, broadcasting in English on a round-the-clock basis." I would watch for bias on this one. They likely would not want to use the term uprising either, for political reasons.
- Huffington Post seems legitimate.
- New York Times Blogs. Blogs again.
- And, for the ones that I said were legitimate, you still have to consider that the actions of what the people are doing are called protests, while the thing in its entirety is an uprising. You have to read in that context. And I also notice that the links you gave had to, largely, be a bit of a stretch for reliability compared to the ones I gave. SilverserenC 23:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Blogs are widely cited in this article as is– something like 20 are already used in the refs section. I was following the established practise in providing them. I believe that the Reuters Africa one is only quoting "more vicious", hence the quotation marks around that phrase only. Also, I think you mean "verbatim", not "verboten" (the latter means "forbidden"). I realise that AP articles are widely syndicated, but I don't think that that makes them not RS. I was only including one manifestation of the article. Point taken about the Press TV article, though. I didn't look too deeply into these articles; I just chose a few the ones that looked legitimate after a quick scan of the page. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- And, for the ones that I said were legitimate, you still have to consider that the actions of what the people are doing are called protests, while the thing in its entirety is an uprising. You have to read in that context. And I also notice that the links you gave had to, largely, be a bit of a stretch for reliability compared to the ones I gave. SilverserenC 23:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
*Comment for oppose and new voters I think the logical next step is what I suggested, which is essentially a compromise between the two and which could be a stepping stone to a full move in a few more days or however long should that become the preponderant usage. The wording is used four times in the article (counterintuitively twice relating specifically to Suez). It seems logical that at some point prior to a full move it's appropriate for the wording to be metioned in the lead, no? To put it a different way, does anyone who does not/did not support a move think it's reasonable to put the "uprising" word into the lead in advance/instead of a move? Abrazame (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- If the sources being used in the lead call it an uprising call it an uprising, if they call it a protest then call it a protest.--76.214.104.173 (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
It is quite outrageous that Wikipedia is not allowing editing of this article. Further, there have many instances where the major media are not even reporting how severe the government's actions have been. How can the facts be proved when the media don't even report what we can see on video with our own eyes? In one article I saw a claim of a major news source "dozens of injuries" when it was clear from the videos it is at least in the hundreds or the thousands. If Wikipedia does not allow full reporting, that makes it complicit in this reporting. That is sad and horrible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.154 (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Egyptian revolution
Is it fair to call this a revolution now? There are diffrent types of revolutions and this appears to be more than just ousting the president in Egypt. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Admin action on move request needed
As the article is protected, it can only be moved by an administrator. Therefore, it would be helpful if we either close the move request with a definite result (i.e. supported, rejected, or "no consensus"). Then, an administrator may implement the decision, if a move is supported.
2011 Egyptian protests → 2011 Egyptian uprising —
- "kicked off an uprising that has continued since" Wall Street Journal
- "Uprising in Egypt Equals Downfall in Tourism" NPR
- "Egypt's government attempted to placate a reinvigorated uprising" [The Telegraph
- "Egypt uprising has its roots in a mill town" Los Angeles Times
- "Al Jazeera gains popularity during uprising" ABC (Australia)
- "Record Turnout, Joyful Participants in Egypt Uprising" CBS
- "Egyptian uprising enables jailed Hamas militant to escape" Guardian
- "Human Rights Watch: 297 dead in Egypt uprising" Jerusalem Post
- "The Uprising Slows" The Atlantic
- "Egypt's uprising stirs fears of persecution of minority Coptic Christians" Washington Post
Cs32en Talk to me 02:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
(There's an ongoing discussion above. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC))
- I have started this new discussion, as in the discussion above, a number of sources dating from January 2011 have been cited to argue against moving the article. New sources (i.e. sources dating from February) that support describing the event as "Egyptian protests" are welcome, of course. Cs32en Talk to me 02:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- For what its worth: A February 14 TIME issue (vol 177, no 6) went even further and called the crisis in Egypt a Revolution (or more specifically: "The Revolution - by Fareed Zakaria", page 12).Calaka (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I removed the move discussion template. You can not simply start a new discussion when there is one ongoing. The first discussion must conclude and that decision should likely only be done by an admin in this case. It certainly shouldn't be done by the mover of the past discussion because they are unsatisfied with the discussion progress. --Labattblueboy (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- In other circumstances, starting a new discussion would indeed be inappropriate. This is a situation in which the coverage by reliable sources changes quite rapidly, so that old comments quickly become outdated. Cs32en Talk to me 02:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- That is, in onto itself, an opinion on the matter. It's not entirely certain that this opinion would be shared by all participants at this time. Starting new discussion simply restarts the WP:RM clock and only further delays any conclusion to the discussion.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- The discussion (with a request to move the article to "2011 Egyptian revolution") was started on January 26. So in my view, the discussion should have been closed at that point, possibly as "rejected". Then, a new discussion could have been started. So I hope that we will be able to close this discussion on February 13. Cluttering the talk space with outdated comments is, in my view, not helpful for anyone who wants to close this debate. Cs32en Talk to me 19:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- That is, in onto itself, an opinion on the matter. It's not entirely certain that this opinion would be shared by all participants at this time. Starting new discussion simply restarts the WP:RM clock and only further delays any conclusion to the discussion.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- In other circumstances, starting a new discussion would indeed be inappropriate. This is a situation in which the coverage by reliable sources changes quite rapidly, so that old comments quickly become outdated. Cs32en Talk to me 02:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Lead compromise
Though it still strike me as early to move the article (and there's no clear consensus to do so), I don't see a problem with adding an alternate name in the lead. I sourced it with a few major news org.'s articles. See if the phrasing works. Ocaasi (talk) 18:44, 10 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.
- [3][4] 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)
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)
- Done -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 23:16, 8 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
Wael Ghonim TV interview
Wael Ghonim interview - for someone with time to use these:
- Al Jazeera live blog, from @SultanAlQassemi's translation: http://blogs.aljazeera.net/middle-east/2011/02/07/live-blog-feb-8-egypt-protests
- The Guardian gives its POV on the likely impact of the interview and of Ghonim himself having been "outed" as the Facebook page admin: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2011/feb/07/egypt-protests-live-updates
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)
File:Egypt january 28 wounds scan.jpg
this file really doesnt further anyhing ont he page or illustrate mch. it seems itd be better on the x ray page. or human bones.Lihaas (talk) 18:45, 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)
Time Magazine Prominently Labels Protests "Revolution"
Time Magazine's Feb 14th issue is simply title "Revolution", in reference to the events this article describes.68.45.210.104 (talk) 04:44, 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 (talk • contribs)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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 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)
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)
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)
Military not neutral, has been kidnapping and torturing protesters
According to this report just released by the Guardian, the army has not been acting neutrally and, likely, has only been doing so in name. Instead, there seems to be a systematic campaign to discourage protesters from being involved, mostly through the application of torture. The Museum of Egyptian Antiquities seems to be a main base site for these tortures. SilverserenC 23:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Crucial reporting, but quite close to the events. How would you incorporate it to reflect the investigative/speculative nature, given that these things haven't been confirmed (no less prosecuted) yet. Are there any other major news org. reports along these lines? Ocaasi (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
A time for the Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian protests article?
I see the article is approching 170,000 bytes, would now be a good time for a split off article here? The protests have gone on for about two weeks now and the timeline only grows, this article should not just be focused on the timeline. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The current size of the article makes it only the 422nd largest article on Wikipedia. The two articles immediately above it on the list are List of ThunderClan cats and 2009-10 Derby County F.C. season. At Wikipedia we do not point to egregious pages elsewhere to justify bad practices here. However, it is inarguable that the situation in Egypt is more sensitive, more complex, and of more vital importance for readers to understand the topic that they know the background of what has been happening there to real people in a major upheaval, more than what has been happening in a particular English football club or, I kid you not, the various cats — no vernacular, that's felines — that appear in a series of books. In fact, sports and fictional characters/games make up most of the articles larger than this one.
- Do not misunderstand me, I am not suggesting that since this subject is more important than the largest single page here at Wikipedia, List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters, then we should craft an article that gives it appropriate relative weight here at the project and go for a billion bytes. But while some feel that it is important to understand the sweep of August 2010 in sports in one place, when nobody to whom it is relevant needs to have the background of sports explained in the same place, then we can focus on crafting the best article about this topic first and put off worrying about the length a week from now.
- Nobody commented when I wrote it elsewhere, but article length is not actually determined by what it says when you open up the edit window, it is determined only after you remove all the code, infoboxes, photo captions, and references, meaning that the relevant measurement of the actual size of the article is probably 1/3 smaller than that 170,000 bytes. I wrote elsewhere at this page that if people want to write an article here, they should do so, yet all I see are suggestions that we whittle down, rather than beef up, the non-timeline aspects of the article. If people are actively reducing the backgrounds section, then what's the point of splitting the timeline? This article is already — incorrectly — being focused on as a Timeline alone. Editors should focus on writing some real article here and then you'll have a better argument for, and a better result of, a split. Abrazame (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- I can make the same arguement for a split though, putting the timeline content in a seperate article can shift the focus of this article to other things. As for other articles every article on wikipedia is diffrent, if th timeline is moved there would be a short summary of the timeline here on the main article so readers would follow it. How long is the cutoff then if the timeline is not split off now, should we wait for 200,000 bytes or 250,000? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support
- Support 100k-125k byte limit is what I generally follow. Lilly (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support the article is over 100k already, so it is time for a size-split. 184.144.161.207 (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support A summary style for the timeline section, linked to a more detailed timeline article, seems like an appropriate solution. The currently timeline section is unwieldy with far too many sub-sections for a main article entry.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose Per Abrazame -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose, its the main topic of the article. Split and cut down other sections instead. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose, it's too soon to split while the events are rapidly changing. I prefer that we draft a summary of the timeline to keep here (similar to the Background Section, so that if we do make the split there will be something meaningful in its place. I think we'll be able to make a definite move in the next week, as it appears events are coming to a head. Ocaasi (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
- new template
It's here Template:2011 Egyptian protests. Additions and organization welcome. Ocaasi (talk) 20:00, 10 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)
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)
- I shall locate some as soon as I can. 184.189.154.1 (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
EL
I added an external link to Al Jazeera's live reporting from Tahrir square. It's on their YouTube channel here: http://www.youtube.com/aljazeeraenglish?feature=ticker. It was removed, but I'm not sure why. Per BRD I'd normally discuss it first, but since this event is happening right now, I'm going to put it back. Maybe the recentism is part of the issue, but I don't see this as compromising our encyclopedic stance. For one, this entire article is recent, and secondly, external links have a much looser approach to content which is useful but not directly encyclopedic. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- You added a link to the Chanel of Al Jazeera. It is interesting but will not be related to this article as soon as their main video is something else. We are not here to spread breaking news.
- WP:ELNO 1: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article."
- WP:INDISCRIMINATE 4: "News reports... breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." (WP:NOTNEWS
- Although this is interesting stuff, it turns the page from an encyclopedic article to a mirror for news sites. If someone is on th internet ight now, they can see similar live coverage at cnn.com or multiple other places.Cptnono (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's is a unique resource right now.
- It's not being emphasized, just included
- IAR. The speech is live, and this is coming right from Tahrir square. I'm putting it back, but will be happy to debate the policy subtleties tomorrow when the event has passed. I will also then remove the link.
- Some outside opinions would be welcome here, since I don't want to break 3RR as this continues, but I'm willing to make an exception for an event as momentous as this. Ocaasi (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)