![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
None of the western media portrays the american government behind all of this when it is. Oh, you say the fascist government isnt dying? You say their is no government under democratic policies? WRONG. America was once a communistic dictatorship, which defined democracy and liberalism. It changed into a quasi-democracy with democratic rules under a 'falsified' republic house majority (a house of imperialism because establishing a country couldnt exist with conquering soil). Keeping the old ways I see. The institution of intervention in the middle east, or hell on earth, so to speak is to exploit, eat alive, the 'dictatorships' or communistic systems of the middle east. Why does Mubarak and all these politicians from the 70s protect the younger generation and condemn the middle-class? Because the older generation don't want to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. 30 years of peace and now this? I think fear is involved, fear by this so-called lower nature. I notice that you are instituting western leaders. This will never work. Mohamet defeated you once, and he'll do it again. Life begets life, the young for the old. Maybe someone knows a super natural event which will occur, who knows. The US hides everything for their ego or satisfaction of their senses. That's the way the system really works. Sometimes your time is up and its time to leave (older generation). You are just polarizing the region and they will destroy your family if you choose the wrong sides. I mean come on seriously..protests in a christianized nation such as lybia? Hell no. They arent even close to being muslim. Shouldn't you be protecting the forces of the west? -- 69.255.42.105 ( talk) 16:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
This article, by a major newspaper in Egypt, states that the figure of inmates who had escaped during the security breakdown is nearly 23,000, and that so far, authorities have managed to capture 12,000. This needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article. -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 08:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the term “revolution” represents what was happening in Egypt from 25/01/2011 till Mubarak's resignation.
Overthrowing only the president while the rest of the system stays as it was, is just the beginning of a revolution, but it's a great step forward.
The statement that the Egyptian army was ordered to use live fire on demonstrators has no reference to reliable source.
I'm sure Mubarak would never give such order. This will ruin the reputation of the Egyptian military, the defending institution of secular Egypt.
“The military limited the violence, constantly separating anti-Mubarak and pro-Mubarak groups.”
I bet the incident when “Mubarak's supporters” were riding on camels and horses and attacking demonstrators, was staged by Mubarak and Tantawi just for showing that the Egyptian military is neutral. What is funny is that the men who were payed for beating Mubarak's opponents didn't know they were sent just for being beaten by the army.
Megaidler (
talk)
22:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Check statements about casualties in the time-line section, because words like "major" and "minor" casualties are not clear and may offend people who lost friends and family members. Any loss is a major loss. It is better to refer to official statistics or trusted sources like Human Rights Watch. MEMEhistorian ( talk) 02:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
There is absolutely no way that there are 1 million or 2 million people in either of the two labeled photos in the timeline section. I refer everyone to the following image of beaver stadium http://www.thecampussocialite.com/blog/images/penn-state-beaver-stadium.jpg. Beaver stadium's capacity is approx 110,000 people, and this photo is from the end zone and does not show about 15000-20000 people seated in that section (probably more are not shown, but I'm trying to be conservative). If you look at the two individual "million"-person photos in the article, you can easily see they contain far far less people than the 90,000 people shown in the beaver stadium photo. I think 40000 would be a very generous estimate for the first photo. The second photo definitely has more people, but it does not look like the amount in the beaver stadium picture. I'd say 80000 would be a high rough estimate for the "2 million" photo. In any case, the images are no where even remotely close to one- or two-million. We're off by a factor of more than 10. Either that or beaver stadium's capacity is close to 3 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.10.52 ( talk) 03:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
This page is getting updated day by day by a number of people and I don't think a lot of the content is up to par with the standards we'd hope to achieve on wikipedia. This article should at least be semi-protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.162.13 ( talk) 22:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid that the beginning of the timeline section constitutes far too close a paraphrase of this source for us to retain. It needs to be revised to remove taking of language and structure from the original. For a few examples (there are others):
The protests were generally non-violent, but there were reports of some casualties among both civilians and police.
Source:
The protests are generally non-violent, but there are reports of some casualties by both civilians and police.
Shortly after Friday prayers, hundreds of thousands gathered in Cairo and other Egyptian cities. Opposition leader Mohammed ElBaradei traveled to Cairo to participate. Some looting was reported.
Source:
Shortly after Friday prayers, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators gather in the streets of Cairo and other Egyptian cities... Opposition leader Mohammed ElBaradei travels from Giza to Cairo to participate in the protests. Some looting is reported
Protests continued as military presence in Cairo increased. A curfew was instituted, but protests continued throughout the night. The military showed restraint, reportedly refusing to obey orders to use live ammunition; there were no reports of major casualties.
Source:
Protests... continue as the military increases its presence on the streets of Cairo. A curfew is instituted..., but protesters continue their vigil throughout the night. The military shows restraint in its use of force, reportedly refusing to obey orders to use live ammunition, and once again there are no reports of major casualties.
After continued nationwide unrest, Mubarak addressed the people and offered several concessions. In addition to proclaiming he would not run for another term in the September 2011 elections, he promised political reforms. He said that he would stay in office to ensure a peaceful transition. Pro-Mubarak and anti-Mubarak groups began to clash in small but violent interactions throughout the night.
Source:
After another day of nationwide unrest, Mubarak addresses the people of Egypt and offers several concessions to the protesters. In addition to proclaiming that he would not run for another term and promising various political reforms, Mubarak also set September 2011 as the general date for the next set of elections. He also said that he would stay in office to ensure a peaceful transition. Pro-Mubarak and anti-Mubarak groups begin to meet in small but violent clashes throughout the night.
While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including structure and language - are. So that it will not constitute a derivative work, this content should be rewritten. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".
Alternatively, if the material can be verified to be public domain or permission is provided, we can use the text as it was.
Please let me know at my talk page if you have questions about this. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't Egyptian Revolution of 2011 be the name of the article instead of '2011 Egyptian revolution'? Given that earlier Egyptian Revolutions use the naming convention 'Egyptian Revolution of (year)'. 82.170.244.87 ( talk) 13:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
//
Not the big debate, just whether or not the word "revolution" should be capitalized. WP:LOWERCASE makes me think not, since even if this has been called a revolution, it's not in the history books yet. We need to fix this so the redirects and links all go to the right places. Ocaasi ( talk) 16:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
So, can we please move this to 2011 Egyptian revolution (and the other articles, too)? — Nightstallion 10:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Are we going to move Egyptian Revolution of 1952, Egyptian Revolution of 1919, and German Revolution of 1918–19, as well? While I think that the form "... of YEAR" is better, we would need some consistency here. Cs32en Talk to me 17:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that it should be capitalized because it's the name of the revolution "Egyptian Revolution"; names are capitalized. (UTC)
The purpose of an infobox is to accurately summarize an article so the reader doesn't have to read through the whole article to get the main facts.
Take a look at these three versions of the infobox. The exact text can be changed; don't focus on that. Which format best summarizes the content of the article for the readers? Note that 1 & 3 are similar, but 3 removes the "Lead figures" and "Parties" section. ~ Justin Ormont ( talk) 09:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
There are many more variants which can and do exist. Here are a few. Which format best summarizes the content of the article for the readers?
Option One | Option Two | Option Three | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was: Not moved. (Closed after this section was archived, to prevent this request from showing up at WP:RM.) Ucucha 02:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
This should be moved to 2011 Egyptian Revolution (notice the capitalized R) as other Egyptian revolutions also have proper nouns. Anyone? -- 92.4.64.200 ( talk) 16:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Should Rosetta revolution and Rosetta Revolution redirect here? It's been used in some places as a nickname for this revolution. 65.93.15.125 ( talk) 21:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Should those two section be merged our at-least one of them be deleted? The role of social media has no sources -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 16:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The "Women's role" section is very exaggerated and out of touch. I am not advocating removing the section, but I demand honesty. This includes good statistically balanced view of the whole situation. This amount to telling the whole truth, and not handpicking an article here and there. If one is to play this game and add "Men's role", one would fill ten times the size of this article.
The section reeks of feminist propaganda, sentences like "The remarkable overall peacefulness of the protesters, despite great provocations, was credited to the participation of a great many women and children. " or "while others revelled in the freedom to kiss a friend or smoke a cigarette in public." Need I say more. Some sentences are even down right lies like "among those who died was Sally Zahran, who was beaten to death during one of the demonstrations." You can check this for yourself if you speak Arabic at "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqvSohh4bWk". That is an interview with Sally's own mother saying that her daughter fell down a balcony.
I reverted from attempting to remove the current content of the section again to avoid a Wikipedia edit war, but I hope honesty prevails over childish "Online gaming". This is not about YOU or what YOU want so keep your agendas away. The sacrifices of people are not to be taken lightly. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
99.246.101.166 (
talk)
00:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
As for the MB role in the protests, in the News article it says "الجماعة قد قررت ألا تمنع أيًّا من شباب الإخوان" [1] which is different than supporting the protest. Saying that if thee youth wants join, they are allowed and saying we have going to all join is a different thing. I just always worried that about keeping the article NPOV so I might be wrong so I hope that it can be discussed to make sure of it. -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 15:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Just saw this on the Best of Craig's List. (Sad that B-o-C-L doesn't have the volume of material it used to have.) Anyone else think it merits inclusion in the EL section? -- llywrch ( talk) 15:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I just came across this post on BBC ( Egypt stock market halted again after sharp falls), and it made me think about including a section on this article about the financial and economics implications of the revolution in Egypt. Now, I am not so certain about the global impact of the revolution in terms of markets (I have rarely found any news articles on the matter), but it would be nice to complete the full spectrum of any key component in a country. Eug.galeotti ( talk) 20:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm moving this here from respective talk pages (I removed non-content pieces related to policy accusations on all sides and administrative issues). The question is whether the Category: [Nonviolent revolution] applies to this article. Carlos thought it did not, Egyptian thought it did, and I think it is much closer to the nonviolent side but still in a marginally gray area. Ocaasi c 19:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Moved conversation
{outdent) This is a nice philosophical debate, but the facts remain we have reliable sources to tell us of violence, deaths on both sides, and one calling the capital city a "war zone". The category "riots" was added apparently in accord with those reliably sourced facts. Now, Wikipedia can get its hands around non-violent deaths, perhaps, and non-violent war zones, and non-violent riots, but Wikipedia deals with reliably sourced facts, not philosophical ("how much violence ceases to be non-violent") facts. Where are reliable sources that say that the "2011 Egyptian revolution" - the subject of this article - was "non-violent"? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 16:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
(outdent, again) No joke, just facts. Police brutality seems fairly well documented. The extent and impact of the social/internet activism will likely be debated till long after we're dead (as will the role of the military, food prices, too many educated people for the few jobs available, religion, etc.). Few revolutions decades in the making have a single cause nor a single impetus to fruition. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
"2011 Egyptian Revolution"
1-It's grammatically horrible. It is very disturbing to the minds of the knowledgeable people. 2-It should be called "Egyptian Revolution of 2011" 3-Revolution should be Capitalized since it's the NAME of the revolution. You would say "The Egyptian Revolution is one of Egypt's three modern revolutions"...see my point?
Please fix ASAP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.1.92 ( talk) 00:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Shalgal has twice reverted to an older version of the final paragraph of this section. The material concerns Jack Shenker's experiences as detailed in this report. I re-worded the section as part of routine copy edits as the section did not agree with the source. Shenker does not say a bribe was paid, and he does not say he saw anyone being tortured. That is why I changed the section. Is there anyone watching the article who would like to review the source and give input on this wording? Currently Shalgal's version is in place. Thank you. -- Diannaa ( Talk) 17:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
The justification (re:Purpose of use) for the addition of the image of the woman there now is to "illustrate the participation by and the central role of women in the demonstrations." But ironically the presence of only a female who died effectively makes the numerous sacrificial deaths of men -- of which there were many more, btw -- pictorially invicible. Does no one have even one picture of a man who sacrificed his life for this? Considering that many men did it would likely be most appropriate, and it would also balance the currently female only representation of this matter. Alialiac ( talk) 14:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I propose that somewhere in the introduction we mention the role played by Asmaa Mahfouz [2] [3] [4] USchick ( talk) 2:11 pm, 11 March 2011, last Friday (2 days ago) (UTC−5)
This request was moved to be discussed in "Women's role." This is not a secondary topic if it is true. Would someone familiar with the subject matter like to comment about the importance of this online video? Did this 24 year old woman help start this revolution? USchick ( talk) 1:43 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)
I propose that somewhere in the introduction we mention the role played by Asmaa Mahfouz [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] USchick ( talk) 19:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Twenty-six year old Asmaa Mahfouz is credited [22] with having sparked the protests that began the uprising in Cairo. [23] On a video blog posted two weeks before the start of the revolution, [24] she urged the Egyptian people to join her in a protest on January 25 in Tahrir Square to bring down Mubarak’s regime. [25] In her video she said, "If you think yourself a man, come with me on January 25. Whoever says that women shouldn't go to protests because they could get beaten, let him have some honor and dignity and come with me on January 25.... [26] If you have honor and dignity as a man, come. Come and protect me and other girls in the protest." [27] The video was picked up and went viral. [28]
-- USchick ( talk) 21:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment I'm sure she played an important role in helping the protests become a reality, but so did many other activists and groups. Going as far as "crediting" her with starting the protests is a long claim. I suggest the text take a more neutral tone, and that the quotes be removed, and presented as a summary of her video blog. -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 21:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Twenty-six year old Asmaa Mahfouz was instrumental [29] in having sparked the protests that began the uprising in Cairo. [30] On a video blog posted two weeks before the start of the revolution, [31] she urged the Egyptian people to join her in a protest on January 25 in Tahrir Square to bring down Mubarak’s regime. [32] She used video blogging and social media that went viral [33] and urged people not to be afraid. [34]
Feel free to add people and groups that need to be mentioned. USchick ( talk) 00:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
We need to expand it so it will cover the effect of the revolution on Egypt's foreign relations. -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 10:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
We nee to expand it so it will cover the military's role role during the protests and after Mubarak's resignation. -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 10:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
We nee to expand it so it will cover the role on the internet (facebook, twitter and youtube) in organizing the protesters. -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 10:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect, fact wise, the Church Bombing did not lead to the protests. Tension between Muslims and Christians in Egypt have been high for years. So it would be incorrect to say that it was one of the factors that led to the Egyptian revolution. As the original FaceBook page had said, the January protests were for "Against corruption, torture, and social inequality". I am sure that many Egyptians will agree with me on this one (I am Egyptian myself). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.2.129 ( talk) 00:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Unfortunately, some editors try to make things appear more complicated than they truly are. The bombing was not a factor in the making nor the evolution of the protests. My proof is what the youth called for on their face book accounts when they were organizing the protests + the demands of the protests were merely focused on democracy and domestic demands. Moreover, political analysts (and I have listened and read to several of them) did not mention this event as a factor of the revolution. The religious cooperation mentioned is different from the bombing. Cooperation was however a sign of how the revolution's demands were universal for all Egyptians and it was not intended to dismiss any sector of the Egyptian people (please review the link provided by 'Ocaasi' as it repeat the same meaning). This revolution was directed towards demands for democracy, better living, condemning police brutality, and fighting corruption ... THAT IS IT. The timing of the bombing is merely a coincidental, because these same demands have been repeated for years. So, the whole section is not necessary. -- Osa osa 5 ( talk) 07:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The point is that there is not a nation in the Middle East where it has not been said that a revolution or a democracy would fail miserably because the country would either shut out or oppress the minority (which in some cases is the ruling party) or devolve into a long and bloody civil war (and/or perhaps wind up drawing other nations into that war) because of sectarian and religious divisions who "cannot live together without a hardline dictator". The indication that this would not happen — as the state-run media was threatening only a month earlier, as our ref noted — was established when the Coptic Christians first stood up to the police force in response to the bombing, and then their Muslim compatriots stood up alongside them. This was reinforced during the protests when Christians stood guard as Muslims prayed on Friday and then the Muslims stood guard as Christians prayed on their Sabbath. Abrazame ( talk) 01:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Early on New Year's Day 2011 a bomb exploded in front of a church in Alexandria, killing 23 Coptic Christians. Egyptian officials said "foreign elements" were behind the attack. [35] Some Copts accused the Egyptian government of negligence, [36] and following the attacks many Christians protested in the streets, with Muslims later joining the protests. After clashing with the police, protesters in Alexandria and Cairo shouted slogans denouncing Mubarak's rule [37] [38] [39] in support of unity of Christians and Muslims. Their sense of being let down by national security forces has been cited as one of the first signs of the 25 January uprising. [40] On February 7, a complaint was filed against Habib al-Adly, the Interior Minister until Mubarak's dissolution of the government during the early days of the protests, accusing him of having directed the attack. [41]
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: Text "publisher-Al Masry Al Youm" ignored (
help)
Great image! Good work finding and FAR-ing it, Egyptian Liberal! I've come here a few times in the past couple weeks, drawing up the sources and intending to craft a succinct edit in line with what has been discussed, but I keep getting called away. This time I've had a good bit of time, I just don't like what I came up with! But I wanted to say I've been here, haven't forgotten, and want to be sure this thread doesn't archive itself before we've had a chance to do this. I added a reflist above so I don't have to keep going back into article history to access the articles!
To the above comments, I think what we have currently—and what I worked on just now—was in line with the aftermath of the bombing, which while not being about the bombing itself seems well enough summarized as Ocaasi suggests. But it does seem like the relations aspect should be more than just implicit. To the IP's comment, if Muslim-Coptic is too obscure, Muslim-Christian is too generic. Maybe Muslim-Coptic Christian, if that were to become a title? Best, Abrazame ( talk) 09:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I feel that this section has a secular POV, by simply stating flat out that this is a secular revolution. I disagree that this should be stated as fact, when there are many commentators who disagree with this. A recent Pew Opinion survey (From June 2011), found:
If I can incorporate a source which criticizes the view that this is a primarily secular revolution, would the other editors here be okay with me incorporating it, instead of just stating the secular view as fact?-- Babank ( talk) 20:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Quick note from my part. Religion (or manipulation and misuse of which by various groups) is believed to have significantly influenced the recent referendum. That should go in somehow. -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 15:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey all, I added the religion and politics paragraph tell me what you think.-- Babank ( talk) 00:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, a commentary on the paragraph preceding it:
However, secular forces emerged from the revolution touting principles that religious groups shared with them: freedom, social justice, and dignity. Islamist organisations also emerged with greater freedom to operate. Although the revolution was no guarantee that partisan politics would not re-emerge, it represented a change from the intellectual stagnation created by decades of repression which simply pitted modernity and Islam against as conflicting and incompatible. Islamists and secularists both have been faced with new opportunities for dialogue and discourse, on matters such as the role of Islam and Sharia in society and freedom of speech, as well as the impact of secularism on a predominantly Muslim population
The following claims seem to me to be a POV, rather than a consensus view:
Would be interested in your thoughts on this Ocaasi, as you wrote those lines. I believe they should be changed to eliminate a POV.-- Babank ( talk) 01:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
A good policy to read here is WP:CRYSTAL. We're encouraged not to look ahead ourselves, and to trail the news or the mainstream consensus. Still, we can report on some speculation if we do it in a limited way, and with clear attribution. Also, we can report on the verifiable results of polls. We can't do our own WP:SYNTHESIS and say that the speculation, plus the polls, means X or Y. We have to be pretty reserved when it comes to any extrapolation. Two things we should avoid are sounding a) like a pro-democracy, Voice of America type overview, heralding the new free future; or b) sounding like a bad newspaper, closing the article on a note of suspenseful speculation (only time will tell whether the secularists will be able to hold off the islamist force, and if the delicate balance of freedom can be sustained). Babank, I think the best thing to do would be to list 5 or 6 good sources that represent the point-of-view you're describing, as well as links to those polls or articles that discuss them. Then we'll see where they fit and how to incorporate them. Ocaasi c 01:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey hoe! 86.24.9.104 ( talk) 14:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
None of the western media portrays the american government behind all of this when it is. Oh, you say the fascist government isnt dying? You say their is no government under democratic policies? WRONG. America was once a communistic dictatorship, which defined democracy and liberalism. It changed into a quasi-democracy with democratic rules under a 'falsified' republic house majority (a house of imperialism because establishing a country couldnt exist with conquering soil). Keeping the old ways I see. The institution of intervention in the middle east, or hell on earth, so to speak is to exploit, eat alive, the 'dictatorships' or communistic systems of the middle east. Why does Mubarak and all these politicians from the 70s protect the younger generation and condemn the middle-class? Because the older generation don't want to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. 30 years of peace and now this? I think fear is involved, fear by this so-called lower nature. I notice that you are instituting western leaders. This will never work. Mohamet defeated you once, and he'll do it again. Life begets life, the young for the old. Maybe someone knows a super natural event which will occur, who knows. The US hides everything for their ego or satisfaction of their senses. That's the way the system really works. Sometimes your time is up and its time to leave (older generation). You are just polarizing the region and they will destroy your family if you choose the wrong sides. I mean come on seriously..protests in a christianized nation such as lybia? Hell no. They arent even close to being muslim. Shouldn't you be protecting the forces of the west? -- 69.255.42.105 ( talk) 16:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
This article, by a major newspaper in Egypt, states that the figure of inmates who had escaped during the security breakdown is nearly 23,000, and that so far, authorities have managed to capture 12,000. This needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article. -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 08:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the term “revolution” represents what was happening in Egypt from 25/01/2011 till Mubarak's resignation.
Overthrowing only the president while the rest of the system stays as it was, is just the beginning of a revolution, but it's a great step forward.
The statement that the Egyptian army was ordered to use live fire on demonstrators has no reference to reliable source.
I'm sure Mubarak would never give such order. This will ruin the reputation of the Egyptian military, the defending institution of secular Egypt.
“The military limited the violence, constantly separating anti-Mubarak and pro-Mubarak groups.”
I bet the incident when “Mubarak's supporters” were riding on camels and horses and attacking demonstrators, was staged by Mubarak and Tantawi just for showing that the Egyptian military is neutral. What is funny is that the men who were payed for beating Mubarak's opponents didn't know they were sent just for being beaten by the army.
Megaidler (
talk)
22:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Check statements about casualties in the time-line section, because words like "major" and "minor" casualties are not clear and may offend people who lost friends and family members. Any loss is a major loss. It is better to refer to official statistics or trusted sources like Human Rights Watch. MEMEhistorian ( talk) 02:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
There is absolutely no way that there are 1 million or 2 million people in either of the two labeled photos in the timeline section. I refer everyone to the following image of beaver stadium http://www.thecampussocialite.com/blog/images/penn-state-beaver-stadium.jpg. Beaver stadium's capacity is approx 110,000 people, and this photo is from the end zone and does not show about 15000-20000 people seated in that section (probably more are not shown, but I'm trying to be conservative). If you look at the two individual "million"-person photos in the article, you can easily see they contain far far less people than the 90,000 people shown in the beaver stadium photo. I think 40000 would be a very generous estimate for the first photo. The second photo definitely has more people, but it does not look like the amount in the beaver stadium picture. I'd say 80000 would be a high rough estimate for the "2 million" photo. In any case, the images are no where even remotely close to one- or two-million. We're off by a factor of more than 10. Either that or beaver stadium's capacity is close to 3 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.10.52 ( talk) 03:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
This page is getting updated day by day by a number of people and I don't think a lot of the content is up to par with the standards we'd hope to achieve on wikipedia. This article should at least be semi-protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.162.13 ( talk) 22:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid that the beginning of the timeline section constitutes far too close a paraphrase of this source for us to retain. It needs to be revised to remove taking of language and structure from the original. For a few examples (there are others):
The protests were generally non-violent, but there were reports of some casualties among both civilians and police.
Source:
The protests are generally non-violent, but there are reports of some casualties by both civilians and police.
Shortly after Friday prayers, hundreds of thousands gathered in Cairo and other Egyptian cities. Opposition leader Mohammed ElBaradei traveled to Cairo to participate. Some looting was reported.
Source:
Shortly after Friday prayers, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators gather in the streets of Cairo and other Egyptian cities... Opposition leader Mohammed ElBaradei travels from Giza to Cairo to participate in the protests. Some looting is reported
Protests continued as military presence in Cairo increased. A curfew was instituted, but protests continued throughout the night. The military showed restraint, reportedly refusing to obey orders to use live ammunition; there were no reports of major casualties.
Source:
Protests... continue as the military increases its presence on the streets of Cairo. A curfew is instituted..., but protesters continue their vigil throughout the night. The military shows restraint in its use of force, reportedly refusing to obey orders to use live ammunition, and once again there are no reports of major casualties.
After continued nationwide unrest, Mubarak addressed the people and offered several concessions. In addition to proclaiming he would not run for another term in the September 2011 elections, he promised political reforms. He said that he would stay in office to ensure a peaceful transition. Pro-Mubarak and anti-Mubarak groups began to clash in small but violent interactions throughout the night.
Source:
After another day of nationwide unrest, Mubarak addresses the people of Egypt and offers several concessions to the protesters. In addition to proclaiming that he would not run for another term and promising various political reforms, Mubarak also set September 2011 as the general date for the next set of elections. He also said that he would stay in office to ensure a peaceful transition. Pro-Mubarak and anti-Mubarak groups begin to meet in small but violent clashes throughout the night.
While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including structure and language - are. So that it will not constitute a derivative work, this content should be rewritten. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".
Alternatively, if the material can be verified to be public domain or permission is provided, we can use the text as it was.
Please let me know at my talk page if you have questions about this. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't Egyptian Revolution of 2011 be the name of the article instead of '2011 Egyptian revolution'? Given that earlier Egyptian Revolutions use the naming convention 'Egyptian Revolution of (year)'. 82.170.244.87 ( talk) 13:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
//
Not the big debate, just whether or not the word "revolution" should be capitalized. WP:LOWERCASE makes me think not, since even if this has been called a revolution, it's not in the history books yet. We need to fix this so the redirects and links all go to the right places. Ocaasi ( talk) 16:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
So, can we please move this to 2011 Egyptian revolution (and the other articles, too)? — Nightstallion 10:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Are we going to move Egyptian Revolution of 1952, Egyptian Revolution of 1919, and German Revolution of 1918–19, as well? While I think that the form "... of YEAR" is better, we would need some consistency here. Cs32en Talk to me 17:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that it should be capitalized because it's the name of the revolution "Egyptian Revolution"; names are capitalized. (UTC)
The purpose of an infobox is to accurately summarize an article so the reader doesn't have to read through the whole article to get the main facts.
Take a look at these three versions of the infobox. The exact text can be changed; don't focus on that. Which format best summarizes the content of the article for the readers? Note that 1 & 3 are similar, but 3 removes the "Lead figures" and "Parties" section. ~ Justin Ormont ( talk) 09:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
There are many more variants which can and do exist. Here are a few. Which format best summarizes the content of the article for the readers?
Option One | Option Two | Option Three | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was: Not moved. (Closed after this section was archived, to prevent this request from showing up at WP:RM.) Ucucha 02:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
This should be moved to 2011 Egyptian Revolution (notice the capitalized R) as other Egyptian revolutions also have proper nouns. Anyone? -- 92.4.64.200 ( talk) 16:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Should Rosetta revolution and Rosetta Revolution redirect here? It's been used in some places as a nickname for this revolution. 65.93.15.125 ( talk) 21:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Should those two section be merged our at-least one of them be deleted? The role of social media has no sources -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 16:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The "Women's role" section is very exaggerated and out of touch. I am not advocating removing the section, but I demand honesty. This includes good statistically balanced view of the whole situation. This amount to telling the whole truth, and not handpicking an article here and there. If one is to play this game and add "Men's role", one would fill ten times the size of this article.
The section reeks of feminist propaganda, sentences like "The remarkable overall peacefulness of the protesters, despite great provocations, was credited to the participation of a great many women and children. " or "while others revelled in the freedom to kiss a friend or smoke a cigarette in public." Need I say more. Some sentences are even down right lies like "among those who died was Sally Zahran, who was beaten to death during one of the demonstrations." You can check this for yourself if you speak Arabic at "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqvSohh4bWk". That is an interview with Sally's own mother saying that her daughter fell down a balcony.
I reverted from attempting to remove the current content of the section again to avoid a Wikipedia edit war, but I hope honesty prevails over childish "Online gaming". This is not about YOU or what YOU want so keep your agendas away. The sacrifices of people are not to be taken lightly. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
99.246.101.166 (
talk)
00:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
As for the MB role in the protests, in the News article it says "الجماعة قد قررت ألا تمنع أيًّا من شباب الإخوان" [1] which is different than supporting the protest. Saying that if thee youth wants join, they are allowed and saying we have going to all join is a different thing. I just always worried that about keeping the article NPOV so I might be wrong so I hope that it can be discussed to make sure of it. -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 15:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Just saw this on the Best of Craig's List. (Sad that B-o-C-L doesn't have the volume of material it used to have.) Anyone else think it merits inclusion in the EL section? -- llywrch ( talk) 15:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I just came across this post on BBC ( Egypt stock market halted again after sharp falls), and it made me think about including a section on this article about the financial and economics implications of the revolution in Egypt. Now, I am not so certain about the global impact of the revolution in terms of markets (I have rarely found any news articles on the matter), but it would be nice to complete the full spectrum of any key component in a country. Eug.galeotti ( talk) 20:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm moving this here from respective talk pages (I removed non-content pieces related to policy accusations on all sides and administrative issues). The question is whether the Category: [Nonviolent revolution] applies to this article. Carlos thought it did not, Egyptian thought it did, and I think it is much closer to the nonviolent side but still in a marginally gray area. Ocaasi c 19:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Moved conversation
{outdent) This is a nice philosophical debate, but the facts remain we have reliable sources to tell us of violence, deaths on both sides, and one calling the capital city a "war zone". The category "riots" was added apparently in accord with those reliably sourced facts. Now, Wikipedia can get its hands around non-violent deaths, perhaps, and non-violent war zones, and non-violent riots, but Wikipedia deals with reliably sourced facts, not philosophical ("how much violence ceases to be non-violent") facts. Where are reliable sources that say that the "2011 Egyptian revolution" - the subject of this article - was "non-violent"? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 16:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
(outdent, again) No joke, just facts. Police brutality seems fairly well documented. The extent and impact of the social/internet activism will likely be debated till long after we're dead (as will the role of the military, food prices, too many educated people for the few jobs available, religion, etc.). Few revolutions decades in the making have a single cause nor a single impetus to fruition. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
"2011 Egyptian Revolution"
1-It's grammatically horrible. It is very disturbing to the minds of the knowledgeable people. 2-It should be called "Egyptian Revolution of 2011" 3-Revolution should be Capitalized since it's the NAME of the revolution. You would say "The Egyptian Revolution is one of Egypt's three modern revolutions"...see my point?
Please fix ASAP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.1.92 ( talk) 00:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Shalgal has twice reverted to an older version of the final paragraph of this section. The material concerns Jack Shenker's experiences as detailed in this report. I re-worded the section as part of routine copy edits as the section did not agree with the source. Shenker does not say a bribe was paid, and he does not say he saw anyone being tortured. That is why I changed the section. Is there anyone watching the article who would like to review the source and give input on this wording? Currently Shalgal's version is in place. Thank you. -- Diannaa ( Talk) 17:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
The justification (re:Purpose of use) for the addition of the image of the woman there now is to "illustrate the participation by and the central role of women in the demonstrations." But ironically the presence of only a female who died effectively makes the numerous sacrificial deaths of men -- of which there were many more, btw -- pictorially invicible. Does no one have even one picture of a man who sacrificed his life for this? Considering that many men did it would likely be most appropriate, and it would also balance the currently female only representation of this matter. Alialiac ( talk) 14:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I propose that somewhere in the introduction we mention the role played by Asmaa Mahfouz [2] [3] [4] USchick ( talk) 2:11 pm, 11 March 2011, last Friday (2 days ago) (UTC−5)
This request was moved to be discussed in "Women's role." This is not a secondary topic if it is true. Would someone familiar with the subject matter like to comment about the importance of this online video? Did this 24 year old woman help start this revolution? USchick ( talk) 1:43 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)
I propose that somewhere in the introduction we mention the role played by Asmaa Mahfouz [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] USchick ( talk) 19:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Twenty-six year old Asmaa Mahfouz is credited [22] with having sparked the protests that began the uprising in Cairo. [23] On a video blog posted two weeks before the start of the revolution, [24] she urged the Egyptian people to join her in a protest on January 25 in Tahrir Square to bring down Mubarak’s regime. [25] In her video she said, "If you think yourself a man, come with me on January 25. Whoever says that women shouldn't go to protests because they could get beaten, let him have some honor and dignity and come with me on January 25.... [26] If you have honor and dignity as a man, come. Come and protect me and other girls in the protest." [27] The video was picked up and went viral. [28]
-- USchick ( talk) 21:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment I'm sure she played an important role in helping the protests become a reality, but so did many other activists and groups. Going as far as "crediting" her with starting the protests is a long claim. I suggest the text take a more neutral tone, and that the quotes be removed, and presented as a summary of her video blog. -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 21:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Twenty-six year old Asmaa Mahfouz was instrumental [29] in having sparked the protests that began the uprising in Cairo. [30] On a video blog posted two weeks before the start of the revolution, [31] she urged the Egyptian people to join her in a protest on January 25 in Tahrir Square to bring down Mubarak’s regime. [32] She used video blogging and social media that went viral [33] and urged people not to be afraid. [34]
Feel free to add people and groups that need to be mentioned. USchick ( talk) 00:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
We need to expand it so it will cover the effect of the revolution on Egypt's foreign relations. -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 10:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
We nee to expand it so it will cover the military's role role during the protests and after Mubarak's resignation. -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 10:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
We nee to expand it so it will cover the role on the internet (facebook, twitter and youtube) in organizing the protesters. -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 10:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect, fact wise, the Church Bombing did not lead to the protests. Tension between Muslims and Christians in Egypt have been high for years. So it would be incorrect to say that it was one of the factors that led to the Egyptian revolution. As the original FaceBook page had said, the January protests were for "Against corruption, torture, and social inequality". I am sure that many Egyptians will agree with me on this one (I am Egyptian myself). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.2.129 ( talk) 00:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Unfortunately, some editors try to make things appear more complicated than they truly are. The bombing was not a factor in the making nor the evolution of the protests. My proof is what the youth called for on their face book accounts when they were organizing the protests + the demands of the protests were merely focused on democracy and domestic demands. Moreover, political analysts (and I have listened and read to several of them) did not mention this event as a factor of the revolution. The religious cooperation mentioned is different from the bombing. Cooperation was however a sign of how the revolution's demands were universal for all Egyptians and it was not intended to dismiss any sector of the Egyptian people (please review the link provided by 'Ocaasi' as it repeat the same meaning). This revolution was directed towards demands for democracy, better living, condemning police brutality, and fighting corruption ... THAT IS IT. The timing of the bombing is merely a coincidental, because these same demands have been repeated for years. So, the whole section is not necessary. -- Osa osa 5 ( talk) 07:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The point is that there is not a nation in the Middle East where it has not been said that a revolution or a democracy would fail miserably because the country would either shut out or oppress the minority (which in some cases is the ruling party) or devolve into a long and bloody civil war (and/or perhaps wind up drawing other nations into that war) because of sectarian and religious divisions who "cannot live together without a hardline dictator". The indication that this would not happen — as the state-run media was threatening only a month earlier, as our ref noted — was established when the Coptic Christians first stood up to the police force in response to the bombing, and then their Muslim compatriots stood up alongside them. This was reinforced during the protests when Christians stood guard as Muslims prayed on Friday and then the Muslims stood guard as Christians prayed on their Sabbath. Abrazame ( talk) 01:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Early on New Year's Day 2011 a bomb exploded in front of a church in Alexandria, killing 23 Coptic Christians. Egyptian officials said "foreign elements" were behind the attack. [35] Some Copts accused the Egyptian government of negligence, [36] and following the attacks many Christians protested in the streets, with Muslims later joining the protests. After clashing with the police, protesters in Alexandria and Cairo shouted slogans denouncing Mubarak's rule [37] [38] [39] in support of unity of Christians and Muslims. Their sense of being let down by national security forces has been cited as one of the first signs of the 25 January uprising. [40] On February 7, a complaint was filed against Habib al-Adly, the Interior Minister until Mubarak's dissolution of the government during the early days of the protests, accusing him of having directed the attack. [41]
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: Text "publisher-Al Masry Al Youm" ignored (
help)
Great image! Good work finding and FAR-ing it, Egyptian Liberal! I've come here a few times in the past couple weeks, drawing up the sources and intending to craft a succinct edit in line with what has been discussed, but I keep getting called away. This time I've had a good bit of time, I just don't like what I came up with! But I wanted to say I've been here, haven't forgotten, and want to be sure this thread doesn't archive itself before we've had a chance to do this. I added a reflist above so I don't have to keep going back into article history to access the articles!
To the above comments, I think what we have currently—and what I worked on just now—was in line with the aftermath of the bombing, which while not being about the bombing itself seems well enough summarized as Ocaasi suggests. But it does seem like the relations aspect should be more than just implicit. To the IP's comment, if Muslim-Coptic is too obscure, Muslim-Christian is too generic. Maybe Muslim-Coptic Christian, if that were to become a title? Best, Abrazame ( talk) 09:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I feel that this section has a secular POV, by simply stating flat out that this is a secular revolution. I disagree that this should be stated as fact, when there are many commentators who disagree with this. A recent Pew Opinion survey (From June 2011), found:
If I can incorporate a source which criticizes the view that this is a primarily secular revolution, would the other editors here be okay with me incorporating it, instead of just stating the secular view as fact?-- Babank ( talk) 20:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Quick note from my part. Religion (or manipulation and misuse of which by various groups) is believed to have significantly influenced the recent referendum. That should go in somehow. -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 15:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey all, I added the religion and politics paragraph tell me what you think.-- Babank ( talk) 00:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, a commentary on the paragraph preceding it:
However, secular forces emerged from the revolution touting principles that religious groups shared with them: freedom, social justice, and dignity. Islamist organisations also emerged with greater freedom to operate. Although the revolution was no guarantee that partisan politics would not re-emerge, it represented a change from the intellectual stagnation created by decades of repression which simply pitted modernity and Islam against as conflicting and incompatible. Islamists and secularists both have been faced with new opportunities for dialogue and discourse, on matters such as the role of Islam and Sharia in society and freedom of speech, as well as the impact of secularism on a predominantly Muslim population
The following claims seem to me to be a POV, rather than a consensus view:
Would be interested in your thoughts on this Ocaasi, as you wrote those lines. I believe they should be changed to eliminate a POV.-- Babank ( talk) 01:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
A good policy to read here is WP:CRYSTAL. We're encouraged not to look ahead ourselves, and to trail the news or the mainstream consensus. Still, we can report on some speculation if we do it in a limited way, and with clear attribution. Also, we can report on the verifiable results of polls. We can't do our own WP:SYNTHESIS and say that the speculation, plus the polls, means X or Y. We have to be pretty reserved when it comes to any extrapolation. Two things we should avoid are sounding a) like a pro-democracy, Voice of America type overview, heralding the new free future; or b) sounding like a bad newspaper, closing the article on a note of suspenseful speculation (only time will tell whether the secularists will be able to hold off the islamist force, and if the delicate balance of freedom can be sustained). Babank, I think the best thing to do would be to list 5 or 6 good sources that represent the point-of-view you're describing, as well as links to those polls or articles that discuss them. Then we'll see where they fit and how to incorporate them. Ocaasi c 01:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey hoe! 86.24.9.104 ( talk) 14:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)