![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
an WP:AGF recently changed the box, and its a good idea, but im not sure were ready for that just yet. Its also more dubious to cite than the older well-sourced one. So i was wondering if we should we keep this or not? Lihaas ( talk) 00:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I wrote about it in more detail above, but just to sum it up:
And don't forget to repair the missing references when any stuff is moved elsewhere/deleted! Then you can work on the sub-articles, because they need a lot of work too (cleanup, copyedit, update). -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 01:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Disagree, we are NOT going to spilt ANYTHING for now. TOO EARLY -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 04:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Strong Support on full Timeline removal. The current timeline suffers greatly. The realities of WP:Article size have resulted in the removal of many important events. This determination of relevance carries with it many problems. These include the potential influence of WP:POV and crystal ball guessing of history. The best neutral course is to inclusively report events as they are occurring in real time. In the future, a full and accurate summary can be worked on for inclusion here. Additionally, in practical terms, it would be easier to maintain as a separate page. Jeff Carr ( talk) 02:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Strong Oppose on full Timeline removal. We aren't writing a breaking news blog, or morning and evening editions of a newspaper, or a TV or radio newsbreak on the day's events, which is what carrying out your suggestion would effectively make the article. Those outlets are doing that already, and we're here to address the whole thing encyclopedically. That means we need to present the background and the responses and the timeline all in one place for as long as we possibly can. This is, after all, an article about protests, not an article about gymnastics. It makes no sense to address the protests without addressing what/why they're protesting. Bear in mind that a vast amount of the article's size consists of references, infoboxes, photo captions, and code, meaning that it is actually a great deal smaller when you strip those things away. Reporting events in real time is the POV of recentism when it is at the expense of the events of only 49 hours before. As I have written elsewhere on this page, it suggests that these protests are what happened to occur today and yesterday, and means all someone/faction has to do is dominate two days' worth of news on these protests in order to have seized the entire focus of the article, and by extension the whole of the events, and that is the most dangerous of all POV we must avoid. Abrazame ( talk) 04:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Can someone explain why this article got semi-protected? In the times I've been editing it, it's had a fair amount of constructive IP contributions, especially a lot of work from 94, and a manageably low vandalism level. I don't really understand how the semi-protection system works; is there a way of discussing the decision?-- Physics is all gnomes ( talk) 12:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Can this article fill in some section? I also think this paragraph would be useful,
"The deployment of plainclothes forces paid by Mr. Mubarak’s ruling party — men known here as baltageya — has been a hallmark of the Mubarak government, and there were many signs that the violence was carefully choreographed."
Does that help? Silver seren C 06:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Why am I seeing this at the top of the page: Intellectuals on the Egypt Protests: Ahdaf Soueif on the eve of the Egypt protests http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWpln1-sWzs&feature=feedu
...but not in the edit text? Anyone else? Ocaasi ( talk) 10:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The dubious screenshot is back despite the consensus above, the morgue boomerang-screenshot is back too, the photo captioned "Poor Living Conditions." (PLC?) is their companion. Geez. -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 10:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Calm down everyone. I've watched the video, and the commentary doesn't say anything about this shot. Hence we can't be certain that the caption is fair, even if it seems likely given the situation. If we decide to keep the photo, could we agree on a modified caption? Possibilities: "A scene from the protests on the 29th of January." Or "Many protesters were injured in the violence." The more detailed discussion, sourced, about the actions of plain-clothes policemen would be in the main text, and readers can draw their own conclusions. What do you think?-- Physics is all gnomes ( talk) 12:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
To throw another spanner in the works, the New York Times article is from January 25th, so can't really back up claims about what happened on the 28th. (The video was posted on the 29th, but shows the events of the 28th.) Oh dear. I'm inclined to be very cautious, with something like "A violent scene from the January 28 Cairo protests." or, to use something from the beginning of the video "Al Jazeera described downtown Cairo as a "battlezone"". Not perfect, I know. I tried mentioning the reports of plainclothes officers beating protesters, but decided it violated WP:SYNTHESIS.
For other editors' reference, link to the video. The scene pictured is at roughly 1:50.-- Physics is all gnomes ( talk) 14:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not a reasonable compromise as long as the picture is clearly titled "Police in civilian cloth beating a protester in Cairo 1" and this title was based just on an assumption. Also, there's no just need nor reason to have this particular random screenshot at all.
Why "was not there" - because if he was there, he would argue he identified them properly because he was there and have seen it with his own eyes (or even something like: "they were beating me shouting 'we are police in civilian cloth'"). Which is not a case, it was nothing but a guess on his side, when he has seen the same video as we both did. It's still misnamed, and there's still no reason to keep it. -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 16:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
This sentence is a run-on (under Feb. 2nd): While EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton also said that the violence must stop and that Mubarak needs to be more explicit in showing the people what changes would happen.[188
-
75.90.147.213 (
talk)
12:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
It's totally incorrect, absolutely false, it's a lie, it isn't and can't be backed by any reliable source (not even for an unconfirmed such figure, not to mention "confirmed"). It's just pure WP:OR, and it was pushed back in by someone for the [XX]th time already. -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 14:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know who is doing it, even the table's author admitted it was sloppy math. The other random, unsourced figures for the so-called "Confirmed death toll" besides 382 included 351, 410, 376 and more - all equally simply invented by Wikipedia user(s) attempting to do things clearly not allowed by WP:OR (read it, dammit). -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 14:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. |
OK? There's no "Confirmed death toll": not of 382, not of 351, not of 410, not of 376, not of 200 million, not of 2 and 1/2 either. And as such, this whole table is a lie. -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 14:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Talk:2011_Egyptian_protests#Deaths_by_city_table:_misleading.2C_should_be_removed -- you getr consensus you can change, in the meantime you are against the grain of consensus. Lihaas ( talk) 15:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll call it 'Unconfirmed total' then, to be safe.-- Wipsenade ( talk) 15:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
STOP CAT-FIGHTING, YOUR NOT A BUNCH OF RIOTERS IN TIRIR SQUAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Sorry, but it had to be said!) Wipsenade ( talk) 15:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I renamed it 'As yet uconfirmed death toll'. Wipsenade ( talk) 15:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I had sorted it out with my maths being corrected, but then it got screwed up again by others and I've lost count now, I mite aswell have not bothered in the firts place, It's being hijaked on mass. Wipsenade ( talk) 16:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Aaaand the table still remains. Sigh. -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 17:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, it's out untill it's confirmed in time by the BBC, UN, EuroNews, CNN, NHK, Ruiters, ect.-- Wipsenade ( talk) 17:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Their "source" for this does not contain the number "382" anywhere in the article. Of course. -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 17:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
And also 300 people have been not confirmed dead. No, really. Hello. Do you even understand "unconfirmed"? It means "not confirmed". -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 18:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Also now I know who's behind pushing this invented false figure. I'm disappointed, Physics is all gnomes, I thought you're much more reasonable. -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 18:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
My doubel counting of HRW's totals is fixed and Asianet.it's non backed up by others information is suspended pending a reliable source issue.
Major flash point | As yet unconfirmed death toll as of 1 February 2011 |
Sources |
---|---|---|
Alexandria | 22 | [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] |
Suez | 31 | |
Asyut | 3 | [9] |
Beni Suef | 17 | [10] |
Thebes | 1 | [11] |
Atfih | 1 | [11] |
Sidi Gaber | 0 | [7] |
Cairo | 44 | [3] [12] [13] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [14] |
El Arish | 0 | [15] [7] |
Kharga Oasis | 1 | [11] |
El-Mahalla El-Kubra | 0 | [16] |
Ismailiya | 0 | [15] |
Monufia | 0 | [15] |
Sheikh Zoweid, North Sinai | 1 | [17] [17] |
Abu Simbel | 1 | [11] |
Aswan | 0 | [3] |
Luxor | 0 | [4] |
Rafah | 3 | [4] [4] |
Giza | 0 | [3] [4] |
Sharm El-Sheikh | 0 | [4] |
Hurghada | 0 | [4] |
Mansoura | 2 | [18] |
Other places hit by protests (if any) | 15 | [17] [17] [19] [3] [4] |
Total | 138 |
My doubel counting of HRW's totals is fixed and Asianet.it's non backed up by others information is suspended pending a reliable source issue. Wipsenade ( talk) 18:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Feel free to ad more deaths as they happen. Wipsenade ( talk) 18:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Now it looks quite reasonable, but the problem is... it will be corrupted if re-inserted. As always. It will end with a huge random figure, again. -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 18:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I think I have a way of fixing that. We will put the table in a Template and anyone who wants to edit it, must do so through a request. any thoughts? -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 18:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I forgot to add: several references there are randomly doubled for some reason and there's no need to have cities with 0 reported deaths. -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 19:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Fixed version (only these issues, I didn't check the sources):
Major flash point | As yet uconfirmed death toll as of 1 February 2011 |
Sources |
---|---|---|
Alexandria | 22 | [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] |
Suez | 31 | [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] |
Asyut | 3 | [9] |
Beni Suef | 17 | [10] |
Thebes | 1 | [11] |
Atfih | 1 | [11] |
Cairo | 44 | [3] [12] [13] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [20] |
Kharga Oasis | 1 | [11] |
Sheikh Zoweid, North Sinai | 1 | [17] |
Abu Simbel | 1 | [11] |
Rafah | 3 | [4] |
Mansoura | 2 | [18] |
Other places hit by protests (if any) | 15 | [17] [19] [3] [4] |
Total | 138 |
Here you go -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 19:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
O.K., it was exsesive to put in those said to be at 0 deaths, missing them off would be just as good as saying the declaired a score of 0 dead. I agree with the above chart. Wipsenade ( talk) 03:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Yep!-- 82.14.54.247 ( talk) 11:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
why change it to petty 'protest' -- 194.219.254.43 ( talk) 16:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
From BBC live updates:
Ans so almost half of the entire section is about Israel now, because discussing Israel "is important" even when it is not at all. My proposition to keep it short, without singling out any countries for no valid reason:
International reactions have varied with most Western states saying peaceful protests should continue but also expressing concern for the stability. Many states in the region expressed concern and supported Mubarak, while others like Tunisia and Iran supported the protests. Israel was most cautious for change, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asking his government ministers to maintain silence and urging Israel's US and European allies to curb their criticism of President Mubarak [21] [22]; however, an Arab-Israeli parliamentarian supported the protests. There were also numerous solidarity protests for the anti-government protesters around the world.
NGO's also expressed concern about the protests and the heavy-handed state response.;Solidarity protests and evacuations. Many countries issued travel warning or started evacuating its citizens from the country. Even multinational corporations started to evacuate their expatriate workers. [23]
into
International reactions have varied with most Western states saying peaceful protests should continue but also expressing concern for the stability. Many states in the region expressed concern and supported Mubarak, while others supported the protests. There were also numerous solidarity protests for the anti-government protesters around the world. NGOs also expressed concern about the protests and the heavy-handed state response. Many countries issued travel warning or started evacuating its citizens from the country and even multinational corporations started to evacuate their expatriate workers. [24]
-- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 18:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd suggest to mention the following countries and institutions in this article: U.N., European Union, U.S., Arab League, Israel. If any other international reaction would be widely reported in reliable sources, we would add those statements as well. The international reactions in turn influence the events in Egypt, so they deserve more space here than in other instances, in which those reactions are more akin to commentary. Cs32en Talk to me 01:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Add the reaction from the
Gaza Strip, remenber an Egyptian cop was killed at Raffa on the border.--
82.14.54.247 (
talk)
18:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC).
The Committee to Protect Journalists has collated a list of attacks on the media since the protests began: Mubarak intensifies press attacks with assaults, detentions. Chesdovi ( talk) 18:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Here you go. It seems that the Ramses Hilton hotel has been telling the journalists staying there to not broadcast from the hotel. However, the more important bit is that it seems the hotel has been allowing the seizure of equipment on their property (presumably often while the occupants are out).
Also related to that, which was linked from there, is this article, which discusses that Vodafone, the cellular company that had shut down its stuff in Egypt at the behest of the government, has been allowing pro-Mubarak supporters to send out text messages and tweets through their phones, while still blocking everyone else. Silver seren C 20:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Yes, but we should cover it. Ocaasi ( talk) 00:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
My initial feeling is that this item is undue with regard to the overall scope of this article. However, we may have a sub-article about the Battle of Tahrir Square or something similar at a later time. I have no further information, but the hotel management may well have felt under duress and did not want to risk having the building burnt down. Cs32en Talk to me 01:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
This article from Forbes discusses that 24 reporters were arrested on Thursday and 21 were assaulted. It also explains that at least 30 human rights group members, such as Amnesty International members, were arrested on Thursday. The article also goes into much more detail about the fighting and other information for what happened on Thursday. Silver seren C 04:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
From our article "Since police forces disappeared from Cairo," and also from TV reports, I understand that Cairo police "disappeared".
Is there any reliable information on why this happened, and for how long?
Thanks, Wanderer57 ( talk) 18:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Dr. Ahmed Khaled Tawfik is referring to the yesterday night events as (Ash Wednesday) as in the christian calender. A name to adopt I guess to tell a lot of what happened at Tahrir square at this terrible night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.68.33.98 ( talk) 23:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
am i missing some discussion (as i could well be after a ton of "tidy" edits)? where was concensus on forking the timeline section? from what i read on this talk page of earlier forking discussions above, there was no concensus; the mood was leaning toward waiting a while longer (even though size has quickly crept back up past 120+ kilobytes and is guaranteed to bloat even more with citations fully formatted) to give some perspective as an "encylopedic" article. perhaps i'm all wet. -- 96.232.126.111 ( talk) 06:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it should be mentioned.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/dave_zirin/01/31/egypt.soccer/index.html
And the full story on James Dorsey's blog (he's mentioned in the SI article):
http://mideastsoccer.blogspot.com/2011/02/egyptian-ultra-tactics-evident-in.html Edgar ( talk) 06:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
How about a media section that contains info about when the internet was banned and how it contributed to the protests? It can also contain the information about the reporters harassment and so on... any ideas?-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 09:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
someone went though the entire article and removed all the overlinking (well done), and now that the page ahs opened up the IP has gone and slowly undone all of it. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]( Lihaas ( talk) 11:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)).
Here is a reference for the details of how the prison break was done by human rights watch-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 12:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I've just been shortening the lead slightly, but it's quite out of date - it doesn't mention the most recent protets, or the violent clashes with Mubarak supporters this week. What do you think are the most important points to cover (in very few words), and how can we do it neutrally?-- Physics is all gnomes ( talk) 15:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Women protesters number anywhere from 20% to 50% participation, depending on the time of day. I think this is relevant, considering that traditional participation of Egyptian women in public life is less than 10%. Is anyone interested in including a section about women's participation?
Article [ [10]] Photos [ [11]] Egyptian woman kissing a police officer (on the cheek) [ [12]] CBS report [ [13]] USchick ( talk) 17:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The ref simply does not exist at all and yet corrupts the references, I have no idea how to fix it. -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 17:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
This Renesys video graphically illustrates Egypt's bandwidth withdrawal. I've played with this in the sandbox for a while, but for the life of me I haven't been able to get the link to work properly. Given the time difference it should illustrate the 28th.
External videos | |
---|---|
![]() |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_jRcxuemtg
kencf0618 ( talk) 17:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I've been away since yesterday and this section disappeared. What happened? Attacks on journalists are a significant theme in the international attention on the Egyptian uprising. ScottyBerg ( talk) 17:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
A section on attacks on the news media was removed to a separate article, Domestic_responses_to_the_2011_Egyptian_protests#Arrests_and_harassment_of_foreign_journalists_and_NGOs. I believe it is a significant aspect of the Egyptian protests and belongs in this article. It was moved without consensus or (as far as I can see) discussion, so I'd like to get the sense of the editors here on whether they feel it belongs here.
I'll get the ball rolling by endorsing inclusion in this article. ScottyBerg ( talk) 19:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The Health ministry will publish tomorrow the accurate number of deaths and injuries, for now the minister told al arabiya it's 5000 LA times-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 18:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Besides a small amount of info in the Religious Institutions section of the split-off Domestic responses article, there is practically nothing on Coptic Christians in here. Which should be rectified, since there are a number of news articles about them and their support for Mubarak because of their fear of an Islamic regime forming after his ouster. And then how that has changed a bit in recent days. I'll just list the sources here and let you guys pick through them. I really think there should be a sub-section, maybe an expansion in the domestic responses article? Not sure where exactly.
Those are just a few. Silver seren C 21:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
According to this report, journalist Ahmad Mohamed Mahmoud, who worked for state-owned Egyptian newspaper Al-Ta'awun, died earlier today after being shot by a sniper. It also states that there has been at least 101 direct attacks against journalists during the course of the protests. It also explains that earlier today, the Cairo office for Al Jazeera was burned down and a number of their journalists were arrested.
And there's also this article that discusses how a group of journalists are stuck in their hotel because of the armed thugs outside. Silver seren C 21:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, the previous news piece wasn't specific enough. According to
this article, the man who was shot by a sniper was shot last week and just died today. So it should still be in the info for today's events, but it should be clarified that he was shot last week and not today.
Silver
seren
C 22:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Done
Lihaas (
talk)
23:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
asianews1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).autogenerated2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Text " 9:48 am" ignored (
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
reuters2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).bloomberg3feb
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).bloomberg1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).autogenerated1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Thousands protests in Egypt
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).reuters1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).egypt1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
an WP:AGF recently changed the box, and its a good idea, but im not sure were ready for that just yet. Its also more dubious to cite than the older well-sourced one. So i was wondering if we should we keep this or not? Lihaas ( talk) 00:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I wrote about it in more detail above, but just to sum it up:
And don't forget to repair the missing references when any stuff is moved elsewhere/deleted! Then you can work on the sub-articles, because they need a lot of work too (cleanup, copyedit, update). -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 01:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Disagree, we are NOT going to spilt ANYTHING for now. TOO EARLY -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 04:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Strong Support on full Timeline removal. The current timeline suffers greatly. The realities of WP:Article size have resulted in the removal of many important events. This determination of relevance carries with it many problems. These include the potential influence of WP:POV and crystal ball guessing of history. The best neutral course is to inclusively report events as they are occurring in real time. In the future, a full and accurate summary can be worked on for inclusion here. Additionally, in practical terms, it would be easier to maintain as a separate page. Jeff Carr ( talk) 02:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Strong Oppose on full Timeline removal. We aren't writing a breaking news blog, or morning and evening editions of a newspaper, or a TV or radio newsbreak on the day's events, which is what carrying out your suggestion would effectively make the article. Those outlets are doing that already, and we're here to address the whole thing encyclopedically. That means we need to present the background and the responses and the timeline all in one place for as long as we possibly can. This is, after all, an article about protests, not an article about gymnastics. It makes no sense to address the protests without addressing what/why they're protesting. Bear in mind that a vast amount of the article's size consists of references, infoboxes, photo captions, and code, meaning that it is actually a great deal smaller when you strip those things away. Reporting events in real time is the POV of recentism when it is at the expense of the events of only 49 hours before. As I have written elsewhere on this page, it suggests that these protests are what happened to occur today and yesterday, and means all someone/faction has to do is dominate two days' worth of news on these protests in order to have seized the entire focus of the article, and by extension the whole of the events, and that is the most dangerous of all POV we must avoid. Abrazame ( talk) 04:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Can someone explain why this article got semi-protected? In the times I've been editing it, it's had a fair amount of constructive IP contributions, especially a lot of work from 94, and a manageably low vandalism level. I don't really understand how the semi-protection system works; is there a way of discussing the decision?-- Physics is all gnomes ( talk) 12:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Can this article fill in some section? I also think this paragraph would be useful,
"The deployment of plainclothes forces paid by Mr. Mubarak’s ruling party — men known here as baltageya — has been a hallmark of the Mubarak government, and there were many signs that the violence was carefully choreographed."
Does that help? Silver seren C 06:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Why am I seeing this at the top of the page: Intellectuals on the Egypt Protests: Ahdaf Soueif on the eve of the Egypt protests http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWpln1-sWzs&feature=feedu
...but not in the edit text? Anyone else? Ocaasi ( talk) 10:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The dubious screenshot is back despite the consensus above, the morgue boomerang-screenshot is back too, the photo captioned "Poor Living Conditions." (PLC?) is their companion. Geez. -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 10:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Calm down everyone. I've watched the video, and the commentary doesn't say anything about this shot. Hence we can't be certain that the caption is fair, even if it seems likely given the situation. If we decide to keep the photo, could we agree on a modified caption? Possibilities: "A scene from the protests on the 29th of January." Or "Many protesters were injured in the violence." The more detailed discussion, sourced, about the actions of plain-clothes policemen would be in the main text, and readers can draw their own conclusions. What do you think?-- Physics is all gnomes ( talk) 12:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
To throw another spanner in the works, the New York Times article is from January 25th, so can't really back up claims about what happened on the 28th. (The video was posted on the 29th, but shows the events of the 28th.) Oh dear. I'm inclined to be very cautious, with something like "A violent scene from the January 28 Cairo protests." or, to use something from the beginning of the video "Al Jazeera described downtown Cairo as a "battlezone"". Not perfect, I know. I tried mentioning the reports of plainclothes officers beating protesters, but decided it violated WP:SYNTHESIS.
For other editors' reference, link to the video. The scene pictured is at roughly 1:50.-- Physics is all gnomes ( talk) 14:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not a reasonable compromise as long as the picture is clearly titled "Police in civilian cloth beating a protester in Cairo 1" and this title was based just on an assumption. Also, there's no just need nor reason to have this particular random screenshot at all.
Why "was not there" - because if he was there, he would argue he identified them properly because he was there and have seen it with his own eyes (or even something like: "they were beating me shouting 'we are police in civilian cloth'"). Which is not a case, it was nothing but a guess on his side, when he has seen the same video as we both did. It's still misnamed, and there's still no reason to keep it. -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 16:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
This sentence is a run-on (under Feb. 2nd): While EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton also said that the violence must stop and that Mubarak needs to be more explicit in showing the people what changes would happen.[188
-
75.90.147.213 (
talk)
12:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
It's totally incorrect, absolutely false, it's a lie, it isn't and can't be backed by any reliable source (not even for an unconfirmed such figure, not to mention "confirmed"). It's just pure WP:OR, and it was pushed back in by someone for the [XX]th time already. -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 14:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know who is doing it, even the table's author admitted it was sloppy math. The other random, unsourced figures for the so-called "Confirmed death toll" besides 382 included 351, 410, 376 and more - all equally simply invented by Wikipedia user(s) attempting to do things clearly not allowed by WP:OR (read it, dammit). -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 14:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. |
OK? There's no "Confirmed death toll": not of 382, not of 351, not of 410, not of 376, not of 200 million, not of 2 and 1/2 either. And as such, this whole table is a lie. -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 14:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Talk:2011_Egyptian_protests#Deaths_by_city_table:_misleading.2C_should_be_removed -- you getr consensus you can change, in the meantime you are against the grain of consensus. Lihaas ( talk) 15:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll call it 'Unconfirmed total' then, to be safe.-- Wipsenade ( talk) 15:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
STOP CAT-FIGHTING, YOUR NOT A BUNCH OF RIOTERS IN TIRIR SQUAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Sorry, but it had to be said!) Wipsenade ( talk) 15:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I renamed it 'As yet uconfirmed death toll'. Wipsenade ( talk) 15:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I had sorted it out with my maths being corrected, but then it got screwed up again by others and I've lost count now, I mite aswell have not bothered in the firts place, It's being hijaked on mass. Wipsenade ( talk) 16:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Aaaand the table still remains. Sigh. -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 17:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, it's out untill it's confirmed in time by the BBC, UN, EuroNews, CNN, NHK, Ruiters, ect.-- Wipsenade ( talk) 17:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Their "source" for this does not contain the number "382" anywhere in the article. Of course. -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 17:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
And also 300 people have been not confirmed dead. No, really. Hello. Do you even understand "unconfirmed"? It means "not confirmed". -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 18:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Also now I know who's behind pushing this invented false figure. I'm disappointed, Physics is all gnomes, I thought you're much more reasonable. -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 18:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
My doubel counting of HRW's totals is fixed and Asianet.it's non backed up by others information is suspended pending a reliable source issue.
Major flash point | As yet unconfirmed death toll as of 1 February 2011 |
Sources |
---|---|---|
Alexandria | 22 | [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] |
Suez | 31 | |
Asyut | 3 | [9] |
Beni Suef | 17 | [10] |
Thebes | 1 | [11] |
Atfih | 1 | [11] |
Sidi Gaber | 0 | [7] |
Cairo | 44 | [3] [12] [13] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [14] |
El Arish | 0 | [15] [7] |
Kharga Oasis | 1 | [11] |
El-Mahalla El-Kubra | 0 | [16] |
Ismailiya | 0 | [15] |
Monufia | 0 | [15] |
Sheikh Zoweid, North Sinai | 1 | [17] [17] |
Abu Simbel | 1 | [11] |
Aswan | 0 | [3] |
Luxor | 0 | [4] |
Rafah | 3 | [4] [4] |
Giza | 0 | [3] [4] |
Sharm El-Sheikh | 0 | [4] |
Hurghada | 0 | [4] |
Mansoura | 2 | [18] |
Other places hit by protests (if any) | 15 | [17] [17] [19] [3] [4] |
Total | 138 |
My doubel counting of HRW's totals is fixed and Asianet.it's non backed up by others information is suspended pending a reliable source issue. Wipsenade ( talk) 18:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Feel free to ad more deaths as they happen. Wipsenade ( talk) 18:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Now it looks quite reasonable, but the problem is... it will be corrupted if re-inserted. As always. It will end with a huge random figure, again. -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 18:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I think I have a way of fixing that. We will put the table in a Template and anyone who wants to edit it, must do so through a request. any thoughts? -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 18:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I forgot to add: several references there are randomly doubled for some reason and there's no need to have cities with 0 reported deaths. -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 19:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Fixed version (only these issues, I didn't check the sources):
Major flash point | As yet uconfirmed death toll as of 1 February 2011 |
Sources |
---|---|---|
Alexandria | 22 | [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] |
Suez | 31 | [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] |
Asyut | 3 | [9] |
Beni Suef | 17 | [10] |
Thebes | 1 | [11] |
Atfih | 1 | [11] |
Cairo | 44 | [3] [12] [13] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [20] |
Kharga Oasis | 1 | [11] |
Sheikh Zoweid, North Sinai | 1 | [17] |
Abu Simbel | 1 | [11] |
Rafah | 3 | [4] |
Mansoura | 2 | [18] |
Other places hit by protests (if any) | 15 | [17] [19] [3] [4] |
Total | 138 |
Here you go -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 19:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
O.K., it was exsesive to put in those said to be at 0 deaths, missing them off would be just as good as saying the declaired a score of 0 dead. I agree with the above chart. Wipsenade ( talk) 03:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Yep!-- 82.14.54.247 ( talk) 11:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
why change it to petty 'protest' -- 194.219.254.43 ( talk) 16:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
From BBC live updates:
Ans so almost half of the entire section is about Israel now, because discussing Israel "is important" even when it is not at all. My proposition to keep it short, without singling out any countries for no valid reason:
International reactions have varied with most Western states saying peaceful protests should continue but also expressing concern for the stability. Many states in the region expressed concern and supported Mubarak, while others like Tunisia and Iran supported the protests. Israel was most cautious for change, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asking his government ministers to maintain silence and urging Israel's US and European allies to curb their criticism of President Mubarak [21] [22]; however, an Arab-Israeli parliamentarian supported the protests. There were also numerous solidarity protests for the anti-government protesters around the world.
NGO's also expressed concern about the protests and the heavy-handed state response.;Solidarity protests and evacuations. Many countries issued travel warning or started evacuating its citizens from the country. Even multinational corporations started to evacuate their expatriate workers. [23]
into
International reactions have varied with most Western states saying peaceful protests should continue but also expressing concern for the stability. Many states in the region expressed concern and supported Mubarak, while others supported the protests. There were also numerous solidarity protests for the anti-government protesters around the world. NGOs also expressed concern about the protests and the heavy-handed state response. Many countries issued travel warning or started evacuating its citizens from the country and even multinational corporations started to evacuate their expatriate workers. [24]
-- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 18:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd suggest to mention the following countries and institutions in this article: U.N., European Union, U.S., Arab League, Israel. If any other international reaction would be widely reported in reliable sources, we would add those statements as well. The international reactions in turn influence the events in Egypt, so they deserve more space here than in other instances, in which those reactions are more akin to commentary. Cs32en Talk to me 01:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Add the reaction from the
Gaza Strip, remenber an Egyptian cop was killed at Raffa on the border.--
82.14.54.247 (
talk)
18:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC).
The Committee to Protect Journalists has collated a list of attacks on the media since the protests began: Mubarak intensifies press attacks with assaults, detentions. Chesdovi ( talk) 18:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Here you go. It seems that the Ramses Hilton hotel has been telling the journalists staying there to not broadcast from the hotel. However, the more important bit is that it seems the hotel has been allowing the seizure of equipment on their property (presumably often while the occupants are out).
Also related to that, which was linked from there, is this article, which discusses that Vodafone, the cellular company that had shut down its stuff in Egypt at the behest of the government, has been allowing pro-Mubarak supporters to send out text messages and tweets through their phones, while still blocking everyone else. Silver seren C 20:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Yes, but we should cover it. Ocaasi ( talk) 00:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
My initial feeling is that this item is undue with regard to the overall scope of this article. However, we may have a sub-article about the Battle of Tahrir Square or something similar at a later time. I have no further information, but the hotel management may well have felt under duress and did not want to risk having the building burnt down. Cs32en Talk to me 01:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
This article from Forbes discusses that 24 reporters were arrested on Thursday and 21 were assaulted. It also explains that at least 30 human rights group members, such as Amnesty International members, were arrested on Thursday. The article also goes into much more detail about the fighting and other information for what happened on Thursday. Silver seren C 04:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
From our article "Since police forces disappeared from Cairo," and also from TV reports, I understand that Cairo police "disappeared".
Is there any reliable information on why this happened, and for how long?
Thanks, Wanderer57 ( talk) 18:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Dr. Ahmed Khaled Tawfik is referring to the yesterday night events as (Ash Wednesday) as in the christian calender. A name to adopt I guess to tell a lot of what happened at Tahrir square at this terrible night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.68.33.98 ( talk) 23:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
am i missing some discussion (as i could well be after a ton of "tidy" edits)? where was concensus on forking the timeline section? from what i read on this talk page of earlier forking discussions above, there was no concensus; the mood was leaning toward waiting a while longer (even though size has quickly crept back up past 120+ kilobytes and is guaranteed to bloat even more with citations fully formatted) to give some perspective as an "encylopedic" article. perhaps i'm all wet. -- 96.232.126.111 ( talk) 06:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it should be mentioned.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/dave_zirin/01/31/egypt.soccer/index.html
And the full story on James Dorsey's blog (he's mentioned in the SI article):
http://mideastsoccer.blogspot.com/2011/02/egyptian-ultra-tactics-evident-in.html Edgar ( talk) 06:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
How about a media section that contains info about when the internet was banned and how it contributed to the protests? It can also contain the information about the reporters harassment and so on... any ideas?-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 09:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
someone went though the entire article and removed all the overlinking (well done), and now that the page ahs opened up the IP has gone and slowly undone all of it. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]( Lihaas ( talk) 11:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)).
Here is a reference for the details of how the prison break was done by human rights watch-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 12:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I've just been shortening the lead slightly, but it's quite out of date - it doesn't mention the most recent protets, or the violent clashes with Mubarak supporters this week. What do you think are the most important points to cover (in very few words), and how can we do it neutrally?-- Physics is all gnomes ( talk) 15:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Women protesters number anywhere from 20% to 50% participation, depending on the time of day. I think this is relevant, considering that traditional participation of Egyptian women in public life is less than 10%. Is anyone interested in including a section about women's participation?
Article [ [10]] Photos [ [11]] Egyptian woman kissing a police officer (on the cheek) [ [12]] CBS report [ [13]] USchick ( talk) 17:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The ref simply does not exist at all and yet corrupts the references, I have no idea how to fix it. -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 17:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
This Renesys video graphically illustrates Egypt's bandwidth withdrawal. I've played with this in the sandbox for a while, but for the life of me I haven't been able to get the link to work properly. Given the time difference it should illustrate the 28th.
External videos | |
---|---|
![]() |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_jRcxuemtg
kencf0618 ( talk) 17:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I've been away since yesterday and this section disappeared. What happened? Attacks on journalists are a significant theme in the international attention on the Egyptian uprising. ScottyBerg ( talk) 17:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
A section on attacks on the news media was removed to a separate article, Domestic_responses_to_the_2011_Egyptian_protests#Arrests_and_harassment_of_foreign_journalists_and_NGOs. I believe it is a significant aspect of the Egyptian protests and belongs in this article. It was moved without consensus or (as far as I can see) discussion, so I'd like to get the sense of the editors here on whether they feel it belongs here.
I'll get the ball rolling by endorsing inclusion in this article. ScottyBerg ( talk) 19:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The Health ministry will publish tomorrow the accurate number of deaths and injuries, for now the minister told al arabiya it's 5000 LA times-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 18:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Besides a small amount of info in the Religious Institutions section of the split-off Domestic responses article, there is practically nothing on Coptic Christians in here. Which should be rectified, since there are a number of news articles about them and their support for Mubarak because of their fear of an Islamic regime forming after his ouster. And then how that has changed a bit in recent days. I'll just list the sources here and let you guys pick through them. I really think there should be a sub-section, maybe an expansion in the domestic responses article? Not sure where exactly.
Those are just a few. Silver seren C 21:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
According to this report, journalist Ahmad Mohamed Mahmoud, who worked for state-owned Egyptian newspaper Al-Ta'awun, died earlier today after being shot by a sniper. It also states that there has been at least 101 direct attacks against journalists during the course of the protests. It also explains that earlier today, the Cairo office for Al Jazeera was burned down and a number of their journalists were arrested.
And there's also this article that discusses how a group of journalists are stuck in their hotel because of the armed thugs outside. Silver seren C 21:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, the previous news piece wasn't specific enough. According to
this article, the man who was shot by a sniper was shot last week and just died today. So it should still be in the info for today's events, but it should be clarified that he was shot last week and not today.
Silver
seren
C 22:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Done
Lihaas (
talk)
23:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
asianews1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).autogenerated2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Text " 9:48 am" ignored (
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
reuters2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).bloomberg3feb
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).bloomberg1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).autogenerated1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Thousands protests in Egypt
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).reuters1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).egypt1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).