Talk:2011 Egyptian revolution/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Properly formatting references

At the moment, this banner message does not apply to this article:

but we will have a lot of novice editors coming here soon, so let's make sure to properly format references. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Properly citing sources; no more bare URLs!

Referencing may look daunting, but it's easy enough to do. Here's a guide to getting started. References are important to validate your writing and inform the reader. Any editor can remove unreferenced material, and unsubstantiated articles may end up getting deleted, so when you add something to an article, it's advisable to also include a reference to say from where it came. If you need any assistance, let me know. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Arabic Names

Please note that there are many ways of spelling arabic names in English. For example, Arabic: خالد سعيد can be spelled Khaled Saeed, Khaled Said, Khalid Saeed, or Khalid Said. All those spellings are correct so please keep that in mind while editing the article or finding citations. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but is "Abdou Abdel-Moneim Jaafar" the same as "Abdo Abdel Hameed"? The "Moneim Jaafar" versus "Hameed" seems like a non-trivial disagreement with the given citation. Dragons flight (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I was talking in general. In the case of Arabic: عبده, its a bit more tricky. Arabs have a different way of writing their names than those living elsewhere. In the arab word, your name could Ali Ahmad Nour Abdurrahman Mohammed Jaafar; Calling you "Ali Ahmad Nour" or "Ali Mohammed Jaafar" is correct. Anyways, I found another source :) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know that variants are fine. The problem arises when the only source being cited gives one suffix and the article gives an entirely different one. They could both be correct, but without a further citation it is difficult to verify. In general, it is better that the names not differ greatly from the transliteration in a cited source. Dragons flight (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

DDOS for Egyptian Government websites by Anonymous (group)

Government websites are being targeted by Anonymous Source:Internatinonal business times.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"A policeman is more dangerous than a criminal"

Using subtraction searches on Google, I'm fairly sure that nearly 500 mentions of this phrase on Google all trace back to this article and the article about Mubarak. I think it would be very helpful if someone who knows the language or is familiar with Egypt could source this back to an authentic source, because otherwise someone is bound to challenge the statement (and perhaps the entire section) and chop it out of the article. Wnt (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Khaled_Mohamed_Saeed_holding_up_a_tiny,_flailing,_stone-faced_Hosni_Mubarak.png

I came to this article to learn something about what is going on in Egypt without having to worry about reporting biases and POV and the first thing I see is a Carlos Latuff cartoon. Isn't there a better picture we could use?

~~SAB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.221.166 (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure there are better pictures that can be used. Let's assemble photographs of Egyptian citizens beaten by Mubarek's thugs and place them throughout the article. Qworty (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure let's this won't make us biased anymore, but how about adding pictures of those of Mubarak's thugs who were dead and injured as well!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.237.205.178 (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Some people disagree with Latuff's politics, but whatever else you say, he's a damn fine cartoonist. But yes, we DO want more photos of the actual events for the article! Flickr is just loaded with reams of terribly dramatic photos, but all of them I look at have some stupid licensing term (no attribution, noncommercial, etc.) or are just plain copyrighted and we can't put them on Commons. We might "fair use" a couple though, especially with the noncommercial use photos, but for fair use, theoretically, the photos are supposed to be special and not easily replaceable (which you could argue, since each shows a different event, but the deletionists have pretty much chilling-effected me out of even trying, because I don't want to spend ten full days debating it - yes, they are slowly succeeding in their mission to destroy Wikipedia). Even so, maybe there's a bot somewhere that can search through all the Flickr search hits and pull out only the ones with kosher/halal licensing terms? Wnt (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Jack Shenker's Continuation

Jack Shenker has released a more extensive report on his arrest, which includes some more details about his and the other prisoners' escape from the vehicle and how it was made possible. Silverseren^C 01:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Suez Jan 26/27

Reports of Army involvements are refuted on Twitter, sometimes quite strongly; all reliable tweets seem to mention paramilitary riot police only (using Fahd (armored personnel carrier) which the Army also uses, hence the apparent confusion).

Suez city center apparently cordoned off, curfew in effect, internet and phone (mobile and landlines) capped or intermittent at best, possibly blackout. Watercannons, dozens injured. Best source so far: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIfGGo6G-4Q (Arabic) possibly useful (mainstream media blog) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/jan/26/egypt-protests —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.206.14 (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Mubarak's presidency section

In the wake of Mr. Sadat's death, Mr. Mubarak continued a policy of maintaining ties with Israel, and cracked down on Islamic militants. His support for Israel won him the support of the West and a continuation of hefty annual aid from the United States. The crackdown on the Islamic Brotherhood forced the militants underground

That was taking from NY times article. so please stop editing that same line over and over again. thank you -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Emergency Law

The part of the emergency law is not updated with the new amendment of the People's Assembly in 2010, please review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.237.205.159 (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this an acceptable manipulation of tone for a definition of the law? "Under that 'state of emergency', the government has the right to imprison individuals for any period of time, and for virtually no reason, thus keeping them in prisons without trials for any period" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.115.82 (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Corruption paragraphs removed

I removed the following paragraphs:

While in office, political corruption in the Mubarak administration's Ministry of Interior has risen dramatically, due to the increased power over the institutional system that is necessary to secure the prolonged presidency. Such corruption has led to the frequent imprisonment of political figures and young activists without trials, illegal undocumented hidden detention facilities, and rejecting universities, mosques, newspapers staff members based on political inclination. On a personnel level, each individual officer can and will violate citizens' privacy in his area, using unconditioned arrests, common torture and abuse of power, depending on simply brute force, rather than law, to enforce order in the officer's designated area.

The rise to power of powerful business men in the NDP in the government and People's Assembly led to massive waves of anger during the years of Prime Ministers Ahmed Nazif's government. As a result, frequent laws and bills are passed, with undergiant monopolists (such as Ahmed Ezz's monopolizing the steel industry in Egypt by holding more than 60 percent of the market share) influence serving personal and corporate financial interests rather than the public's.

I fully suspect that there is a lot of corruption in Egypt, but that's no reason to ignore the need for sources. Allegations of torture, abuse, and institutionalized corruption are very serious. If they can be backed up, then that's a great reason to include them, but we shouldn't be including them without substantiation. Dragons flight (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I added the first part of it with sources -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

"From January 2011 onwards?"

Forecasting the future now, are we? It's still January 2011! 146.6.204.155 (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously not forecasting the future. But it would important to report the position of experts in Egyptian politics of where this can lead. It's an important aspect of the protest to know what are the changes of having a theocratic regime installed or a democratic government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.33.5.89 (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Mass Arrests

There are reports that the Egyptian government is arresting anyone who had anything to do with "Day of Anger" to stop the "Friday of Anger" from happening. anyone can confirm this? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be thousands of people? Silverseren^C 03:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Good question. I think they are arresting the organizers. I just got a phone call from one of my friends in Egypt (I dont live there) and he told me that so I wonna know if its true or not and if anyone has any sources. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't found any sources that say that they are currently actively arresting people. I found this, which says that the government has vowed to do so. But that's not confirmation that they are doing so. And, if you just got the call, then it's unlikely that any news reports have been made just yet. They have to be written and all. Silverseren^C 03:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Any news yet? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You know, you can look up news just as easily as I can. :P This would be the latest news. Silverseren^C 17:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Summarizing the government response and international response in the lead

Most sections in the article are fairly well developed, but the lead only covers the background and the protest details. I'd like to add a summary of the government's response (arrests, countermeasures, online blocking, etc), the government's stance on the protests (I believe it's that they must be stopped to prevent a fundamentalist uprising and to maintain order) as well as a summary of the international response from both inside and outside the Middle East. If someone wants to draft it here, I'd be happy to edit/co-write, but I'm a little short on background here to draft it well myself. This is my rough attempt. Can we use it as a rough version for the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the lead? Ocaasi (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Draft

The Egyptian government has attempted to break up and contain protests using a variety of methods. Anti-riot police groups have been responding to areas with shields, rubber bullets, batons, water cannons, tear gas and, in some cases, live ammunition. For the most part, the protest response has been non-lethal, although there have been at least some fatalities. The Egyptian government has claimed that minimizing disruption from the protests is necessary to maintain order and to prevent an uprising of fundamentalist Islamic groups elements.

International response to the protests has generally been supportive. The event, following highly publicized protests in Iran and, more recently, Tunisia, has captured worldwide attention due to the integration Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other social media platforms which have allowed activists and onlookers to communicate, coordinate, and document the events as they transpire. As the level of publicity increased, the Egyptian government has made increasing efforts to limit internet access, especially to social media. On the eve of major planned protests Friday June 28, a nationwide internet and cellphone 'blackout' began, and has been ongoing.

I have attacked your draft with commas. And it is better now. Shouldn't you have another sentence at the end there about there actually being an internet and cell phone blackout? I gave sources for it in this section. Silverseren^C 22:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, for the, edits. I wrote it last night so the blackout hadn't been confirmed. Updating. Ocaasi (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. We will likely be adding more onto it later, but that wouldn't invalidate this information. Silverseren^C 23:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

All communication shut down

I wanted to make this a separate section from the above Media Blackout section so it would get viewed, but it is now 100% definite that Egypt is blocking out the entirety of the internet and all non-landline cell communications. See here and here. This explains one of the ways that Egyptians are trying to circumvent the blackout. Silverseren^C 17:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's a much better source, New York Times, released 15 minutes ago. Silverseren^C 17:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

This source discusses some responses to the blackout and a bit of information about the use of proxies to circumvent it. Silverseren^C 18:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Battles in Alexandria

This source discusses the battles between protesters and police that have occurred in Alexandria today and how they, perplexingly, came to a peaceful conclusion. Silverseren^C 18:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Journalists being targeted by Egyptian police

Here's a report about the Egyptian police beating up journalists for BBC News and CNN and breaking their equipment. Silverseren^C 18:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's another one from the Guardian journalist who was attacked Jan 27th. EliF (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Mubarak family fleeing

Language for this section is problematic. Should reword or remove, given the information of Gamal fleeing is not verifiable and the article then says it is false. --BazaNews (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. This section contradicts itself. Can we wait until events are reliably reported? Midlakewinter (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Tried to improve somewhat (and make text match the reference) but it appears that this entire story came from one US arab language website and has since been contradicted. Particularly because this is about a living person, I think it should go unless/until later verified.--Sjsilverman (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Egyptian Presidential Guard

It's been suggested that it is the egyptian presidential guard on the streets rather than the regular army. Wikipedia has never heard of it. Could it be Republican Guard (Egypt)?©Geni 19:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly possible, but we'd need a reliable source saying so. Silverseren^C 19:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera English just said that the Presidential Guard is currently moving toward a State TV Station in Cairo. Silverseren^C 19:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Just mentioned on Al Jazeera that egyptian presidential guard and Republican Guard are the same thing.©Geni 21:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Massive Reorg

reverted this for a wholescale change. Some of it is fine, but some of it moved around content that should have been better placed in 1 section. the suez section was also removed instead of being moved.(Lihaas (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)).

Al Jazeera photos

Al Jazeera is posting photos and will be posting material on http://cc.aljazeera.net. It's under an incompatible license, requiring noncommercial use and no-derivatives. But, I'm in contact with them and if we can select a handful, they may give us permission to use under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, and we can clear permissions through OTRS.

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/aljazeeraenglish/

Anyone want to help select photos that would be useful? Cheers. --Aude (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

i like te night ones )As most pertinent to the climax tonight)(Lihaas (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)).

Looking at these more, these photos are from earlier this week which still would be useful. I'm interested to see if they post more and also what they post on http://cc.aljazeera.net that covers today. --Aude (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

One video is up (CC-BY) and they are working to post more. [1] Either myself or I'll try to find someone to help with converting this to ogg theora format and upload it. (Thank you Al Jazeera!) --Aude (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Mubarak will dissolve the government

According to this source,

"In Egypt early Saturday Mubarak announced he would dissolve his government in his first appearance on television since protests erupted."

More sources about the announcement will probably be released within the hour, but I wanted to give the heads-up about it. Silverseren^C 23:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's another one. Silverseren^C 23:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is not taking a neutral stance. I believe it is forged by anti-regime contributors who are taking the side of the protesters by any means available. I'm neither contributing nor will I contribute to the article, but for those who are doing so, have some Wikipedian ethics. Thank you. Maged Mahfouz (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well like it or not Maged, when a people rise up and overthrow a despotic regime, the facts of the matter are what they are. One is not anti-fascist by reporting on the Third Reich or the Italian New Order. Nor is there any "forgery". Your input as a defender of the regime will definitely help the article be a better report of the objective facts, but on the basis of the evidence and assuming no one is ready to provide such support, I suggest the NPOV tag be removed. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur that the NPOV tag should be removed. The facts are what they are, and the facts are not "biased." When or if Mubarek is revealed as the humanitarian savior of the world, then we can report on it. For now it is enough to report that his government is a corrupt and thuggish dictatorship. There is no disputing that. Qworty (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

And are these replies facts, too? :) Maged Mahfouz (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Maged, you raised a reasonable concern. The article shouldn't take a side for or against the protests--although it's not too much of a stretch to admit that most editors are probably rooting for them. That doesn't matter though, as long as we report what sources say and all sides of it. Are there specific places you think the language is skewed or perspectives are not being mentioned? We should include reporting on the Egyptian governments responses as well, so if that is lacking, we can look for sources to address it. Ocaasi (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) As of this post, the article appears to pass the requirements of WP:NPOV in my view. Events are developing quickly, of course. Agree with Ocaasi that Egyptian government responses would give balance, however.Jusdafax 06:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If a government spokesman makes a statement, it should be reported (as a statement, not as a fact) as well as coverage of and statements by the protesters. Edison (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

With full and proper citation, I feel this article will be more neutral. As it stands, it is adequately so. Karmos 01:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Joe Biden's comments on Mubarak and legitimacy of protestors

Please add his comments as described in CS Monitor

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/0127/Joe-Biden-says-Egypt-s-Mubarak-no-dictator-he-shouldn-t-step-down —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.12.112 (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

His comments "as described in the Christian Science Monitor" are a partisan POV twisting of his words, and such U.S.-partisan baiting does not belong in this article. Biden was asked two or three days ago, "if the time has "come for President Mubarak of Egypt to go?" Biden answered: "No. I think the time has come for President Mubarak to begin to move in the direction that – to be more responsive to some... of the needs of the people out there." This is not the same as the title of that smear piece characterizes, that Biden says he "shouldn't" step down. At the time, Obama had not personally made an official comment; now that he has, the CSM's twisting of the Vice President's words, which was never in proper context, are even less necessary or relevant. Responding to questions about "would you say this, and would you say that" as "no, that's not what I would say" doesn't mean you don't think those things, it simply means the Vice President isn't falling into the trap of letting people put words in his mouth at a time that requires diplomacy. That the CSM would put the opposite of those words in his mouth is no more relevant or appropriate to parade as if it were the Vice President's opinion.

What is relevant to this situation is the desire for continuity in peace treaties that Mubarak has adhered to as a U.S. ally, so rather than removing the section again in its entirety, I have left in the part that speaks to that legitimately relevant point. Abrazame (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss this and don't simply revert provocative POV back into this sensitive article. Abrazame (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

 Disagree This is not a smear piece, it made headlines of several unrelated reliable sources([2][3][4]) It really is important as a reflection of the US view towards Middle East authoritarian regimes from a high authority. There is no broader context to be had here (see transcript), Biden really meant to express his belief that Mubarak is not a dictator and that he should not step down. Missionary (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Surely you know that headline writers are there to be provocative in order get hits and/or sell copy, and that syndicates and the blogosphere thrives on such provocativeness, preferring to bandy about the broadest and bluntest conclusion-jumping if it fits into their "storyline", rather than actually read and comprehend the words and their context. It is not relevant to this developing story about Egypt that the Vice President of the U.S. doesn't want interviewers putting words into his mouth.

Biden is not asked if Mubarak is a dictator, he is asked if Mubarak should be seen as a dictator, and what Biden replies is that he "would not refer to him as a dictator" (emphasis is mine). Biden does not say that Mubarak "is not" a dictator, it is the headline writer who says that Biden has said this. It is not relevant, then, whether the news agency mistitles it as such, nor that Fox News and the Malaysian Sun run with the headline that claims Biden says something that he does not, particularly when we have the actual transcript to show us this.

But this is not merely an argument about semantics, it is one about diplomacy, one that Biden chose to approach diplomatically given the sensitivity of the relationship, given the sensitivity of the then-nascent situation there, and given that he didn't want to get out in front of a story by making clumsily bellicose characterizations of allies. The fact that the U.S. considers Egypt an ally (and a primary reason the U.S. considers Egypt an ally) is arguably relevant to this article (though arguably no less relevant to others who appreciate and wish to maintain the peace Egypt made with Israel), so I thought a good compromise was to restore that aspect of his comments. Would you argue that the use of the term "dictator" is more relevant than the underpinnings of this relationship? It strikes me that this is the approach of a tabloid, rather than that of an encyclopedia.

I may be wrong, but I'm not aware of either President Obama or Secretary of State Clinton saying that they would "refer" to him as a dictator (or, indeed, doing so), and the point is that this is what diplomacy is all about. All of them seem to be on the same page that they would like the outcome of this to be decided in a peaceful way by the Egyptian people without the U.S. calling for "dictators" to "step down" as they move toward elections to choose a new leader going forward. It is implicit that leaders who care about preserving lives, much less leaders whose countries have treaties and trade pacts with another country, would prefer a peaceful succession of government rather than a bloody upheaval that throws all of their mutual interests into question. Stating publicly that you're not going to use disparaging characterizations against such an ally, given that this ally has indicated he will hold such elections (thereby implying that he may be ready to stop being whatever sort of leader one may characterize him as), is a diplomatically appropriate choice. Using this article to amplify this aspect of the VP's interview seems POV. Doing so because it is your misperception that Biden thinks that Mubarak should remain in power for the foreseeable future is a misinterpretation of the interview, one that is fueled by the influence of the POV headlines and not by a nuanced reading and digestion of the actual words and their context, and shows a naive misunderstanding of the responsibility of speech by U.S. leaders. If they say one thing, they may be accused of fomenting another country's civil war or even implying tactical support for such. (Remember Iran not long ago?) If they say another thing, they may be accused of backing a leader over his people. I don't think that any responsible reading of this interview takes away that Biden is saying the latter.

Put another way, as it seems to be your assertion that the U.S. wants Mubarak to remain in power rather than hold those elections and have a peaceful transfer of power, or for Mubarak to be unyielding (dictatorial) to the demands of his people for however long he might hold onto his position in advance of such an election, can you cite any other reliably sourced, non-POV-twisting statement to support that? Because selecting this one aspect to misquote out of context is an irresponsible amplification of a position, that Biden — and by extension the U.S. government — actually wants Mubarak to stay on, and such a provocative statement should have more than one misreading of a source — no matter how many sites mirror this amplified misinterpretation — to support it. Abrazame (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobel Laureate Mohammed ElBaradei Under House Arrest

This is probably pretty big news, especially considering he was attacked by police with water cannons. Silverseren^C 17:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done(Lihaas (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

Alexandria battle turns to handshakes

Think that this story is worthy of inclusion in the article. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/world/middleeast/29alexandria.html?hp --BazaNews (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I already linked that above. :P Silverseren^C 18:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done added to 28(Lihaas (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

Invalid reference

Reference 32 in the References section is showing a cite error in the reference. Due to the fact that the article is semi-protected, I cannot view what is causing this error, and I suggest that someone who can view and edit the article fixes this problem. Thank you. Gaandolf (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

if you can figure out,ill correct it:

<ref name="Abdou Abdel-Moneim">{{ar}}{{cite web|url=http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7F5D64C8-241F-4F34-B36A-4F259CBF3371.htm?GoogleStatID=20|title=مصري يحرق نفسه أمام البرلمان|publisher=[[aljazeera]]|date=2011-01-17 |accessdate=2011-01-25}}</ref>(Lihaas (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)).

I believe the problem is where it should say "< ref >", it says "< ref ". (There is a chance I could be wrong as I do not cite references often. Also, please disregard the spacing in the text in quotations.) Please correct it. Gaandolf (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaandolf (talk • contribs) 22:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks leak amongst chaos

Wikileaks has released a new cable which claims that America has been secretly supporting the pro-democracy movement in Egypt since at least 2008. Also, it looks like major democratic reforms in Egypt were planned for 2011 through some sort of plot. Not sure if this plot counted in Tunisia's collapse or not. See here: [5] --Kuzwa (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

thats an american vioew, not a gospel fact. if its wiritten itll have to bewith that caveat(Lihaas (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)).

Think we should wait a bit on it for confirming sources. Nothing against the Vancouver Sun but this should be reported in multiple places if it's accurate and notable. Ocaasi (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually this is the Canadian press. --156.34.68.105 (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Kuzwa, you totally made that up. The link has nothing to do with wikileaks or the US backing protestors. You can just put any keywords in the URL that you want. 72.230.175.23 (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Pending Changes

I've enabled Pending Changes and taken the article off protection for two reasons. First, as a rapidly changing event, we ought to be allowing more frequent updating, not stifling it. Secondly, with the political climate being so tense, it is safer to remove protection, allowing users to edit while logged-out instead of being forced to log-in and use their personal usernames (which can then be tracked, hacked, etc.). Regards, ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

1)IPs are even more traceable. 2) one of the few solid conclusions of the pending changes trial was that it doesn't work as an aluturnative to semi on high volume articles.©Geni 22:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. An active article should be semi-protected. Also agree with Geni, an IP can be traced directly to the device used to edit, a username cannot. Yworo (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a concern of traceability --you can go to any random internet cafe and edit logged out. If you log in, and a hack like the Tunisia one occurs, every computer you've logged in from before is now potentially compromised. It's much safer in instances where specifically logged-in accounts are being traced, as opposed to the historical (and quite honestly overblown) concern that IP's will be tracked. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, anyone can log in still with PC and still edit. But there isn't a justification for protection without an extensive display of vandalism, which we haven't seen at this point. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes re-enabled

I protected with pending changes for three days. I was quite surprised to get home from work after hearing about Egypt all day to find that it was removed. Reviewing edits from new and unregistered accounts/IPs is, in my experience as an administrator, a no-brainer for maintaing an encyclopedic article. This subject has been, can be, and will be, a magnet for adding disruptive and POV information from all saids. Pending changes, a feature that I personally don't approve of, makes sense here. Geni, please contact me for discussion. Keegan (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well you are kinda in violation of our wheel waring policy and convention demands that I take things to arbcom however I'm going to assume it was acidental and you will revert yourself because I really can't be bothered with arbcom. One of the few clear results to come out of the pending changes trial was that it just doesn't work as an alturnative to semi protection on highly edited/targeted articles. Aditionaly protection is meant to be reactive. The low level of vandalism is well within what the editors working on this article can cope with.©Geni 02:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the volume of vandalism is manageable. Pending changes are not needed. If anything, maybe semi-protection but I don't see enough problems for that either. --Aude (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, my position was not of management of vandalism, but providing a neutral point of view article on the current event. As for wheel-warring, I'd hope that we've worked together enough for you to know that I do not war. I shan't remove my pending changes, but if you should, Geni, I will not consider it wheel warring nor would I threaten arbitration. If you wish to take my position to ArbCom, be my guest. Threatening disciplinary action over a pending changes of a highly political current event would be quite amusing, so much so that I would not participate in the case. The arbitration committee has nothing to do with this. A pleasant day to everyone. Keegan (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection to deal with POV pushing is definetly something that should be reactive. I think we've already delt with the only major POV isssue though. Wikipedia does current events fairly well because it can draw in a lot of people intested in editing. Pending changes kinda kills that.©Geni 02:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes would be particularly inconvenient, since even edits by reviewers have to be accepted. I don't see the need for it yet. Frankly, the level of attention at this article has been excellent, and the level of vandalism quite low. Ocaasi (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't you have that backwards? It was you who undid Keegan's implementation of pending changes, apparently without any discussion whatsover. Aren't you supposed to discuss with the original admin before making a change to the settings they implemented? I don't see any discussion at AN/I about it either. Yworo (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No I undid Swatjester's implementation. Per WP:Wheel thats allowed. The tripwire would be if anyone then reveted me. Changes to protection level without discussion are pretty common practice. Which is one of the reasons I wouldn't have got anywhere if I actualy had tried taking things to arbcom.©Geni 03:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, guess I misread the log... I see that now. Yworo (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. Pending changes to protect people who are protesting from having to log in seems to make sense to me. These are people who could be persecuted for adding info to this article, and forcing them to log in is just putting them at risk. Pending changes makes a lot of sense here. - Philippe 09:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting point Philippe, but at this point it's academic, since the article isn't even semi protected. Ocaasi (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is well watched - the one time I saw it vandalized, I couldn't submit an undo edit fast enough to beat the person who did it. I agree that due to real dangers of censorship, we want editing to be open - that said, however, editing from an Egyptian IP address might be more dangerous than using an account. Is it possible to specifically allow editing of this article by normally banned open proxies, in recognition of the need to outreach to the Egyptian public? Wnt (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Suez "massacre" reports

Currently we have: Eyewitness reports have suggested that the death toll there may be significantly higher, even rising to the level of a "massacre".

It's sourced to rawstory.com: [Anti-government protests in Egypt moved into their third day early Thursday, with unconfirmed reports of police "massacres" of civilians in the port city of Suez.] [6]

Due to the third-hand reporting from a decent but not bulletproof news organization, can/should we either a) use in-text attribution to make clear the reporting is coming from rawstory.com; or b) find some other sources that report on the situation in Suez. Ocaasi (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I just checked and I can't find any other articles on this "massacre" that isn't a copy of the Raw Story article. No more reputable news organization has run anything about a massacre. Silverseren^C 02:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait untill we get a better source I think. We don't need to be breaking news.©Geni 02:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It is only 15 dead as of date.[[7]]--Wipsenade (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes re-enabled

I protected with pending changes for three days. I was quite surprised to get home from work after hearing about Egypt all day to find that it was removed. Reviewing edits from new and unregistered accounts/IPs is, in my experience as an administrator, a no-brainer for maintaing an encyclopedic article. This subject has been, can be, and will be, a magnet for adding disruptive and POV information from all saids. Pending changes, a feature that I personally don't approve of, makes sense here. Geni, please contact me for discussion. Keegan (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well you are kinda in violation of our wheel waring policy and convention demands that I take things to arbcom however I'm going to assume it was acidental and you will revert yourself because I really can't be bothered with arbcom. One of the few clear results to come out of the pending changes trial was that it just doesn't work as an alturnative to semi protection on highly edited/targeted articles. Aditionaly protection is meant to be reactive. The low level of vandalism is well within what the editors working on this article can cope with.©Geni 02:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the volume of vandalism is manageable. Pending changes are not needed. If anything, maybe semi-protection but I don't see enough problems for that either. --Aude (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, my position was not of management of vandalism, but providing a neutral point of view article on the current event. As for wheel-warring, I'd hope that we've worked together enough for you to know that I do not war. I shan't remove my pending changes, but if you should, Geni, I will not consider it wheel warring nor would I threaten arbitration. If you wish to take my position to ArbCom, be my guest. Threatening disciplinary action over a pending changes of a highly political current event would be quite amusing, so much so that I would not participate in the case. The arbitration committee has nothing to do with this. A pleasant day to everyone. Keegan (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection to deal with POV pushing is definetly something that should be reactive. I think we've already delt with the only major POV isssue though. Wikipedia does current events fairly well because it can draw in a lot of people intested in editing. Pending changes kinda kills that.©Geni 02:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes would be particularly inconvenient, since even edits by reviewers have to be accepted. I don't see the need for it yet. Frankly, the level of attention at this article has been excellent, and the level of vandalism quite low. Ocaasi (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't you have that backwards? It was you who undid Keegan's implementation of pending changes, apparently without any discussion whatsover. Aren't you supposed to discuss with the original admin before making a change to the settings they implemented? I don't see any discussion at AN/I about it either. Yworo (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No I undid Swatjester's implementation. Per WP:Wheel thats allowed. The tripwire would be if anyone then reveted me. Changes to protection level without discussion are pretty common practice. Which is one of the reasons I wouldn't have got anywhere if I actualy had tried taking things to arbcom.©Geni 03:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, guess I misread the log... I see that now. Yworo (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. Pending changes to protect people who are protesting from having to log in seems to make sense to me. These are people who could be persecuted for adding info to this article, and forcing them to log in is just putting them at risk. Pending changes makes a lot of sense here. - Philippe 09:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting point Philippe, but at this point it's academic, since the article isn't even semi protected. Ocaasi (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is well watched - the one time I saw it vandalized, I couldn't submit an undo edit fast enough to beat the person who did it. I agree that due to real dangers of censorship, we want editing to be open - that said, however, editing from an Egyptian IP address might be more dangerous than using an account. Is it possible to specifically allow editing of this article by normally banned open proxies, in recognition of the need to outreach to the Egyptian public? Wnt (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarifications:

• "Thousands filled the streets across Egypt on Friday 28 January, dubbed “the Friday of Anger”.[56][57] Shortly before 1:00 local time, hours ahead of the expected massive anti-government protests, the Egyptian government shut down internet service, although some people were still able to communicate using alternative means." Is this 1:00 am or pm?

• "The demonstration that was in front of the Supreme Court was larger than usual and was able to break the security cordon and head to Midan Tahrir." What is Midan Tahrir? Ocaasi (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

1 AM their time. And Tahrir Square is Midan Tahrir. Silverseren^C 03:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I updated these. Ocaasi (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Questions

• The Domestic reactions section only has 1 sentence: "Mohammed ElBaradei called for ousting the regime, as in Tunisia." Is that all we mean to cover, or are we pissing pieces from the government, activists internally, etc.?

• The Stock section has commentary from an energy hedge fund partner. “If this can happen in Egypt, there is no reason that it can’t occur in Libya or Saudi Arabia,” said John Kilduff, a partner at Again Capital LLC, a New York-based hedge fund that focuses on energy. " Is this encyclopedic? [8] Ocaasi (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it is likely self-serving, as he has surely invested in shorts and/or volatility indexes. There's no reason that it can't occur in Texas or New Jersey either, only I wouldn't take a hedge fund manager's off-the-cuff comment to support adding that to their articles. Indeed, there is a strong economic aspect, both domestically in the impetus for these protests and internationally for the concerns of allies and competitors, but let's limit this article's coverage of that aspect to instances with direct relevancy to Egypt, huh? Abrazame (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hadn't even thought about possible conflicts of interest. I don't think it's adding to the article, since we already describe the risk of general regional unrest. I'm going to remove it unless there are objections. Ocaasi (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Reaction Arab World

It would probably be more important to have a section on the reaction from the Arab world. But this section is not here.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

We did add some!

• Libyan Leader Muammar al-Gaddafi during a telephone conversation with Mubarak expressed confidence in the stability of the Egyptian society and preserving the gains of what Egypt have achieved. He expressed his wishes for the completion of Egypt's march towards the greater good and progress for its people and to continue its central role in the defense of issues of its nation. (in Arabic) "دعم عالمي لحق التظاهر بمصر". Aljazeera. 27 January 2011. Retrieved 29 January 2011.

More for the American response

The USA has two warships with marines in international waters off Egypt. source --Guerillero | My Talk 05:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's not be alarmist, or draw incorrect conclusions. As your source notes, the ships just happened to be there for deployment of troops to Afghanistan and their use if any would be in the event it became necessary to evacuate Americans from Egypt, not a military response to the situation. Abrazame (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"Youth Revolutions"?

I can't read the foreign-language source, but I don't think that "Youth Revolutions" should be in the lead sentence. It is my understanding that Egyptians of all ages, intergenerational families, are interested and involved in these demonstrations. Is this really a widely used phrase? Abrazame (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be very widespread at all. There are barely any news sources when I did a search and it seems like the title is being applied to Tunisia, not Egypt. Silverseren^C 01:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless further discussion here arrives at a consensus in contradiction of our understanding, then I will remove the phrase (and the ref, which would seem to be for that phrase), from the lead sentence. If editors determine that the characterization of the movement as a "Youth Revolution" is wide enough to warrant comment (and interpretation) in this article, it seems as though it should be somewhere further down in the text. Abrazame (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think calling these protests is reasonable. While this could evolve into a revolution, I feel the decision of whether or not this is a revolution will be better made in the coming months(weeks? days? hours? who knows?) as the whole situation heads towards some form of conclusion. Many thought that the Iranian Protests of 2009-2010 would lead to a revolution, here we sit over a year later and nothing changed. Let's be patient and watch. --71.41.220.147 (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

We generally determine the title from what the majority of the sources are calling it. For now, it is still being called a protest, thus our current name. If most news organizations started calling it a revolution, we would have a case for changing the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.82.19 (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera video?

Why is an Al-Jazeera video embedded in this article? It is one thing to use a news network as an article reference, it is quite another to embed a video with commentary straight from a network. This raises all kinds of NPOV issues. Peter G Werner (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera English is dead center politically (relative to the New York Times and the Egyptian government); it's as well-positioned a source as we could hope for. Specifically, the video's content is merely descriptive of local surroundings and events and not editorializing at all. I like it here and don't see an NPOV issue. Ocaasi (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

And to make it even better the video is actually Free content too (it isn't being used under fair use, it's CC-BY) if we can use it I think we should, it allows people to get a better sense of what is happening with a different media. It is quite clear who is speaking (not us, them). James (T C) 09:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It's the only video coverage we have of events (and the only visual coverage with have of events on the 29th). It's under a free license so you can edit the sound/chop up the visual if you want.©Geni 17:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Copy-edit lead

I gave a significant copy-edit to the lead paragraphs. Please check that I didn't muck anything up factually (or otherwise). Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Venezuela

Should the takeover of the Egyptian embassy in Venezuela be added to the article? 65.93.15.80 (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

If we have a source for it, the Venezuela mention would fit in the reactions sections as well as perhaps briefly in the lead. It's definitely relevant to international reactions and the increasing scope of the protests. Ocaasi (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110128-715552.html Abrazame (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

But please, show restraint with the weighting and characterization. This brief and quickly defused event is a tangentially related factoid, and not as relevant (or as useful) as the peaceful protests in solidarity around the world. Abrazame (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"CARACAS (Dow Jones)--A group of young Venezuelans of Egyptian descent attempted to take over the Egyptian embassy in Venezuela, though the dispute was ended quickly, President Hugo Chavez said Friday in a televised speech." This seems almost trivial enough to be completely excluded. Maybe a very small mention in the reactions section, but not in the lead I don't think. Ocaasi (talk) 10:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, absolutely not in the lead; this ill-advised blip seems to be a tangential anomaly relative to the actual profound events in Egypt. Abrazame (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done, although that would never make it ot the lead unless it was the reason for mubarak's ouster or something.(Lihaas (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

Mubarak dismisses the government

Do you really think this deserves to be reduced to commingle amongst the domestic responses instead of getting a more prominent header? And as it stands now, it's out of chronological order, prior to the rumored departure of his family four days earlier. Abrazame (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

i think like tunisia it should be more prominent. (its going to expanded today, tomorrow, etc)(Lihaas (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

I think for now its fine. Mubarak did dismiss Ahmed Nazif government but incoming government is an NDP one. we should wait and see if any of the ministers change or just shuffled (for example, Habib Ibrahim El Adly. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but then, either way (if he merely reshuffles the deck), you're burying that fact by reducing the header. But I won't press that point.

On a related issue, as you're rearranging this hand, don't you think that the house arrest of Elbaradei deserves not to get lost in the shuffle? Don't you think it deserves its own header in the reactions, rather than (or in addition to) buried in the events of 28 January? Abrazame (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No matter what he does, it will a more prominent header. It's a big deal. We just have to wait. As for your secend point, I totally agree with you. to should go under the domestic responses. It should also mention the nation-wide curfew-- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. I think we need to create two sections in the Protest Section, one for Elbaradei, and one for Mubarak, so we can summarize both of their experiences. The Domestic Reactions section is just a holding tank while we figure out what is the best way to do that. Ocaasi (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree, sounds reasonable to have a section for Mubarak and one for Elbaradei. --Aude (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

elbaradei is not yet as porminent as mubarak. though his house arrest can be a subsection of arressts as "notable arrests" perhaps.(Lihaas (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

I added these and other ideas to the to-do list at the top of the talk page. Let's use it to try and coordinate some more structural changes. Ocaasi (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Where did the section go??? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It's currently in Reactions - Domestic Ocaasi (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I cant see it -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

29 January - Protest continue (demanding Mubarak to step down)

It needs to be added to the article. Aljazeera just reported on TV that 50,000 protesters are marching in Cairo -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It's ok if we stay one step behind today's events. Let's wait for some hard news copy, and we'll go from there. Ocaasi (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Added about the protests in Tahrir Square. Here they just say "large numbers" and on broadcast they say 50,000. Either sticking with the number or saying "large numbers" is okay. --Aude (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

update: policse station in alexandri burned down and attempt to burn intelligence HQ too.(Lihaas (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

casualty

based on eysterday al jazeera said the cairo morgue had at elast 50 bodies and another 23 and 26 in suez and alexandria (not sure which is which). anyone got a nother count?(Lihaas (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

I watching AlJazeera right now and they said that more than 100 protesters died; some very young (Kids). We should wait til the entire report is out. Maybe it will come out in the next few hours. we will wait and see. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

i though al jazeera was switched off in egypt?(Lihaas (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

I am not in Egypt; Thats why I can access the internet. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

ah yes, good point ;)(Lihaas (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

Arrests story

This is great:

Security forces in Cairo arrested Jack Shenker, a Guardian news reporter, who secretly recorded his subsequent journey in a police van. Shenker was beaten several times along with numerous other protesters, after which they were loaded onto one of the security trucks. Shenker was crowded with 43 others in the vehicle, whose only ventilation were thick metal grates. They were driven for hours, and one of the protesters, who was diabetic, fell into a coma. Others tried to get the truck driver to stop, unsuccessfully. After stopping near a government security headquarters far outside the city, a policeman unlocked the vehicle door, wanting a specific prisoner, Ayman Nour's son. The detainees managed to overpower the policeman and escape, flagging down cars to evacuate the unconscious man, while the rest worked to find their way back to Cairo.[51]

...but it seems way too detailed for an encyclopedia. I think as the article grows it has to go. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it's becoming more of like a news article than an encyclopedia article, when the article grows to an extent that it becomes confusing, I'll say we should really consider refining it. But I doubt it should be erased completely from the entire Wikipedia world.--Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done shrotened the bit

but for the most part the refinements will happen when the article is off ITN and less editors are around liek 2010 Copiapo mining accident(Lihaas (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

News Release Tag

The big yellow 'News Release' template was added. It's somewhat accurate but I'm not too keen on it. This is a phenomenally important global article and we're continually trying to integrate a ton of new information an encyclopedic way. I suggest we keep doing that but remove the tag, since it's an ongoing effort. And if not for that reason than just because perhaps this article is a little too important to be covered in templates addressing issues being improved anyway. It's something I'd vote to WP:IAR for while we work it out. Ocaasi (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, beside I think Lihaas has addressed the issue regarding the arrest section that was the cause for the tag -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

STRONG agree to remove on an ongoign event, it WILL be reviewed when events are done anyways./(Lihaas (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

Re-organize?

The Domestic Reactions section is all about really key events that are actually part of the protests, not just commentary on them. I think it needs to be integrated somehow into the Protest section, perhaps splitting Protest into a /Timeline half and a /Major aspects half. As it is now, I don't quite see how it makes sense. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think the protests section and reactions section needs major re-organizing. I think the protests should be the only thing in the protest section. So might need to move Arrest sand Suez (I dont know where to tho). any ideas? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Working on it, give me about 10. I think splitting Domestic from International reactions will free up room for a major issues section. Ocaasi (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

we did that in tunisia. though i dont think it should WITH protests, seperate from reactions would be feasible. seemsto have worked there.(Lihaas (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

removing the tag [er this unexplained addition [9](Lihaas (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

the reorg is pretty poor right now. we dont need subsections for reactions, ";" before the region name should do it as it clutters the contents box.

"Major issues " is a hodgeposh of everything and needs sorting. the first 4 can use their own section (although suez just jumps out since cairo and alexandria are not there.)

likewise " Internal responses" + "Mubarak dismisses the government" can seperate out (Lihaas (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

"Self-immolation" and the "Deaths" section should merge together. Same goes to "Media censorship" and "Internet blackout". -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

ive done these 2. but the section still needs cleaning. im moving the article tag to the section.(Lihaas (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

I'm not sure I agree with all of those suggestions. I think sub-sections in the reactions paragraph is helpful, and immolations and deaths are two very different things. I do agree that Major Issues is a hodgepodge and can be split as you suggested. We should add the Cairo and Alexandria subsections. Ocaasi (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

alright, give me 2 mions, see what i did and then change accordingly.(Lihaas (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

i like this,m although my concern would be that subsection tag coming back on(Lihaas (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

Fatalities

I'm trying to update the fatalities... we have them listed in the infobox and lead, the 29 January section, and we have the Self-immolation section. It's getting confusing with so many sources and so many places to update in the article. Of course, these numbers should stay in the infobox (7 refs) and lead, but maybe there should be a subsection of the Protests section with more detailed accounting and refs and consolidate the Self-immolation section? Thoughts? --Aude (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on it, give me one minute. I'll add a Deaths section and integrate it with the new outline. Ocaasi (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

New outline sounds good. --Aude (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a brutal cleanup with the edit conflicts. Aude, could you help me in the section below add back anything I pasted over to get the changes through? I'll have to check each one manually (there are about 20 total since things were moving so fast). Ocaasi (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The reorganization looks good. How about I work on going through all the references, trying to clean them up. (duplicates, etc.) and work on the Deaths section? I can also help check the edit conflicts. --Aude (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

PS - I saw on AJ English at 15:03 UTC: 25 in Cairo (less than what we have, not sure it's total), 38 in Suez (seemed credible), 36 in Alex. --Aude (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

One fatality this afternoon in Midan Tahrir. --Aude (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd go straight for refs and the death section. It's moving too fast to worry about the edit conflicts this second. Let's clean things up and when the dust settles (which it won't really) I'll see if anything didn't get put back in place. Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Aude, someone added a deaths table to the January 28th section. It can/should definitely be moved to the Deaths section. Ocaasi (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I moved the table and I also made the tabe ln question.Wipsenade (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

ive put a total here, so we can now carry a sourced nyumber isntead of dubious varaitions(Lihaas (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

International protests

(edit conflict x2; how the heck does this happen in new sections?!)We may eventually need a whole separate article for the "solidarity protests", perhaps comparable in magnitude to the 2009 Tamil diaspora protests. Mostly the events have occurred in the Arab world and outside embassies in North American/European countries. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup questions

1. Can we get the ref duplication out of the infobox?
2. How should we order the regions in the international section; alphabetically?
3. What will we have to do to remove the cleanup tag? Ocaasi (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Working on the refs and some copyedits. Once they are done, together with the reorganization, I think cleanup is sufficient for the tag to be removed.

The reactions section is too much of a laundry list, too much recentism, etc. I would have a paragraph (probably two or subsection) on US reactions, given the significance, try to summarize the others (Middle East; Europe/Asia/elsewhere) in paragraphs and condense it. --Aude (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The casualties reporting is a mess. One place says 100 dead. Another says 53. And the table adds up to 54. Glennconti (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Activists are also documenting missing people, but is the information reliable enough to include? cf. - @samerkaram's list - shared spreadsheet Andrewottoson (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the regions should be ordered as follows: Supranational Bodies, Middle East, and then the rest in alphabetical order. I feel it is logical to put the Middle East toward the top. Karmos (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed dates and numbers. I did the table in question to.Wipsenade (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Self-immolation table

Is this really needed? This table is not WP:Notable and just shows the names of four people, what makes those four stand out and how many reports are there about people who lit themselves on fire that were not news doc'd. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Some important mention of the immolations is needed. The protests all started in Tunisia with a self-immolation. The copycats were shocking and caused a reaction. The table is messed up because it links dates. I don't care whether or not a table is used but the immolations were notable. Glennconti (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the immolations being notable I just dont see why there needs to be a table for it showing each victim's status. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

if youw ant to prose-ify go ahead. though i too support the content being included.(Lihaas (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

 Done Put into prose - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It was removed for some reason as there were 2, but then both were gone. oso i merged it into deaths per above.(Lihaas (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

Edit conflicts

Cleanup resulted in some intermediate edit conflicts I couldn't fix. Can someone check these for me and help update anything I pasted over:

Sorry if I overwrote your edit. Will fix soon. Ocaasi (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, caught up and all of these are back in. I didn't add back in the Japanese reaction, since it was just a travel advisory. We're looking for political stances on some aspect of the protest, foreign policy rather than just safety guidance. Ocaasi (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Jordan, Algeria and Yeman

Discontent is also evident in Jordan, where King Abdullah II has announced reforms, and in Yemen, which is geting brutal to[[10]]. Protests also hit Algeria. Is the Moslem Brotherhood there to?--Wipsenade (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

We have pages on this already. I was trying to clean jordan. havent seen the algeria page in a while, ill get to tis soomn. Yemen also needs expansion

MB is there in jordan, not yemen (even their goals are different for the most part). not too sure about the islamic credentials of algerias protests.(Lihaas (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

Overstating El-Baradei's role?

I'm wondering if we're giving too much prominence to El-Baradei - Aljazeera's reports have seemed to be downplaying his role Theshibboleth (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

What parts would you like to see changed? The last sentence of the first paragraph? Or elsewhere as well? Ocaasi (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it would make sense to mention him after the first paragraph because although he is a possible replacement for Mubarak, it is by no means clear that he is the most likely or most popular replacement. Theshibboleth (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

What? I am confused. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible Outline

• ==Protests
• === timeline
• ==== day
• ==== day
• ==== day
• === casualties
• ==== arrests
• ==== self-immolation
• ==== injuries and deaths
• === regions
• ==== cairo
• ==== suez
• ==== alexandria
• === gov't response
• ==== media blackout
• ==== mubarak dissolves gov.'t
• ==== mubarak family relocation
• === miscellaneous
• ==== stock prices

Ocaasi (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Though, keep the "reaction" section though it needs major revision and summarization. Also, maybe combine self-immolation with injuries and deaths. --Aude (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, deaths and immolation was already combined by Lihaas, so that's done. Is 'Casualties' a good header for arrests/deaths? Ocaasi (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

i think the current version is good, althjough id be concernsed over that subsection tag coming back.(Lihaas (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

This proposal should be completed by == Background (reasons and main actors). Yug (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Cite does not support the claim: "socio-political protest in the country, when they occurred at all, rarely made major news headlines in the United States.[28]"

Can someone point to where in the article claims that they 'rarely made major news headlines'?

This is patently FALSE. As a counterexample: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=egyup#hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=egypt&cp=1&qe=ZWc&qesig=8SKWd3kUH04PiaaEp-VBWg&pkc=AFgZ2tndDMUIxEs3VQW03h1EmCAq1S6kVcTF-WAodA09R7OMtD9pkm3_YQq_LZpy5kz2Ni68f3NphKgzIWuihlB8qUL5lXwvIQ&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wn&fp=10f6603732373017

--69.123.205.100 (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't say this anywhere in the source given. I've removed "... and most instances of socio-political protest in the country, when they occurred at all, rarely made major news headlines in the United States." due to lack of source.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

CNN had it on about half the time or more yesterday. It is not true that major news sources ignored it. 66.183.11.233 (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Grievances

I'm working on the lead section, and finding cites for each specific grievance. There are still uncited grievances, and if can't be found, remove the listed grievances.

Also, I would like to change the lead from:

Specific grievances have centered around legal, political, and economic issues including police brutality, state of emergency laws, lack of free elections, corruption, restrictions on freedom of speech, high unemployment, low minimum wages, insufficient housing, food price inflation, and poor living conditions. Mohamed ElBaradei, seen as the most likely candidate for an interim presidency, called for the ousting of President Hosni Mubarak as the only objective.

to say (with missing cites added too):

Specific grievances have centered around legal, political, and economic issues including police brutality, state of emergency laws, low minimum wages, lack of free elections, corruption, high unemployment, insufficient housing, food price inflation, and poor living conditions. Demands from protest organizers included rights of freedom and justice, the end of the Hosni Mubarak regime and a new government that represents the interests of the Egyptian people.

Any objections? Thoughts? --Aude (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that 'demands' component is better than the current slant towards Elbaradei. Ocaasi (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

id agree if we were to take out "goals" because that is only elbaradei's view, and he is not the only person in this revoslt. THe MB hasnt stated its objective.(Lihaas (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

I dont know about that Lihaas. elbaradei, Ahmed Zewail, Amr Moussa and others have asked Mubarak to step down. The protester are still screaming "Down with Mubarak" -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

but that would be a result of protests, not the goal. (ie- it happened after the fact)(Lihaas (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

financial markets

we need a roundup of other ME market open today. i guess most sources will come later, but the tase is also down 2.5%, for which there is really just 1 reason.(Lihaas (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

Article size

Now over 100k. so I propose a split. it seems the best would be to remove reactions (domestic and foreign) with a summation here. We could move protests but that’s the main part of the article.(Lihaas (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

How about we wait until the 5th of February? I think by then we will be able to tell how big the article is going to get and if need to split it. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Split off Background information and International reactions?--Wipsenade (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I really think removing the background information is a loss for the reader. I'd recommend we wait at least one or two more days before splitting, and then start with the international reactions first. Ocaasi (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to move international reactions first, leaving a short summary of the most important reactions. Not sure how long to wait, the article is getting quite slow to load.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that the section on solidarity protests should also go into an international reactions article. - BanyanTree 04:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Kuwait reaction

I copy-edited someone's international reaction addition about Kuwait:

Kuwait Emir Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah condemned Saturday riots and affirmed Kuwait 's support to the Egyptian government and people. This came in a phone call Sheikh Sabah made with Mubarak to inquire about the developments in Egypt. Sheikh Sabah expressed to Mubarak the State of Kuwait's condemnation to all acts of "riots, looting and sabotage" as well as terrifying citizens, undermining security and stability of Egypt. Sheikh Sabah also said he was confident the "Egyptian brothers" would overcome this "critical" phase to reach security and stability.

...but there's no source for it. Ocaasi (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Google gives this one: [11]. Hope it helps. Kavas (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I'll add it if no one already has. Although it's a primary source, since it's from Kuwait's official website, I believe we can use it as a source for their own statements. Ocaasi (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

International reaction list format

[12][13] were de-bulleted without expmalantion as such. the reason it was bulleted was b/c some are not official/non-government reactions. which dont represent the view of the country officially.(Lihaas (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

Ok, that was me. I'd like to find a more attractive way of formatting multiple/long entries in that section. I also don't think the flag necessarily represents the government as opposed to the geographical/political area. Ocaasi (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

oh yeah, ive since corrected that. they should have gone now with the new subsection that collate all such related data.

right now it should represent the official view where the government in pwoer said so, for other members in government office but not in power (ie- in opposition) there is a double bullet (eg- israel)(Lihaas (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)).

wo! just saw the over emphasis of stars and stripes. ghenerally on these typo of lists we put all official govt stuff in one to avoid duplication and confusing the matter.(Lihaas (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)).

Background and Mubarak's presidency section

I propose moving the "Mubarak's presidency" text to the top of the "Background" section and remove the subheading, then followed by the subsection talking about emergency law, corruption, brutality, etc. which are aspects of Mubarak's regime and rule. Seems like a more logical order to me, but since it's rearranging sections I want to know if there are any objections or other suggestions. --Aude (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: I've reordered and combined some parts of the background section. Hope it's an improvement, but sure it's still only so good and needs work. (feel free to undo anything) The section needs to be more concise, flow together better, and we can use more solid references. Also, the economic climate section is looking better. --Aude (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

(I refactored as well, trying to keep things together) I like this change, since it's obviously the overarching political context. Should we add a sub-header with Mubarak's Presidency rather than leaving the text directly under the Background header? Ocaasi (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't see why we would need a separate subsection for his presidency when it is in itself part of the background. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Media Blackout

Newspapers websites are down

The Committee to Protect Journalists also said Wednesday that Egyptian authorities have shut down the websites of two popular independent newspapers, Al-Dustour and El-Badil. Source: Egyptian police crack down on second day of protests from CNN -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Facebook is blocked

Facebook is blocked in Egypt now.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Source please? --BorgQueen (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Facebook reported inaccessible in Egypt -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I can access Facebook now (from Alexandria, Egypt). --Meno25 (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Accessible now.. was blocked for a few hours in the morning.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Facebook wasn't blocked in Egypt I'm Egyptian live in Alexandria and my ISP is the biggest in Egypt TEdata and facebook isn't and wasn't close neither in the morning nor the evening !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.237.205.178 (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• According to this, it is still unclear on whether FB is being blocked, though it does seem to be having intermittent problems for a huge number of people. Silverseren^C 01:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Twitter is blocked

Twitter is blocked in Egypt now.-- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Facebook and Twitter Both Blocked in Egypt -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"During protests on Tuesday and again on Wednesday, many reported trouble accessing Facebook and Twitter, the social networking sites that helped organize and spread news of the protests. Twitter confirmed that its site had been blocked in Egypt on Tuesday, Reuters reported."

FAHIM, KAREEM (FAHIM). "Protesters in Egypt Defy Ban as Government Cracks Down". New York Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Twitter is now unblocked. --Meno25 (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Twitter and FB and other sites (including some proxy sites) are intermittently blocked. But there are instructions how to beat the censorship which ppl use quite successfully, so this might explain the conflicting reports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.206.14 (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Cell Phones

I am fairly certain that cell phones aren't working in Egypt either.Eiad77 (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

As of very late in the evening of 28 Jan (or perhaps after midnight the morning of the 29th) cellphone and smartphone service had been restored. Abrazame (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Resumption of cellphone, text, Twitter and Facebook service?

It's being reported that smartphone and cellular service has recently resumed. http://wireupdate.com/wires/14731/blackberry-and-cell-service-returns-to-egypt/ Abrazame (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

My apology for editing it to look as though the internet blackout had ceased, it's an important distinction to make that the internet blackout is still in effect. However, should we point out, as the source noted "Blackberry and cell service" that it is more than cellphone calls, and to my understanding includes the ability to text and post to sites such as Twitter and Facebook? And shouldn't we add this to the "Media censorship" section, which currently reads as though cell service as well as text messaging, BlackBerry messaging, Twitter and Facebook are still all jammed? Or are they? Abrazame (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just heard a reporter stationed in Egypt say on CNN that he can send e-mails from his BlackBerry there, but not make cellphone calls on it, nor texts. However, I'm under the impression that this is a repeat of an earlier broadcast and may not be the total current picture. Can anybody source just what kind of communications services are available?

And, better, why? Was it a government decision to suspend part of the blackout, or was it a corporate decision to work around the methods employed by the government, or is it just some quirk of the technology? Is it just BlackBerry e-mail service or is it other devices? Is it country-wide, or just in a particular region(s)? Abrazame (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)