Jump to content

Talk:2011 Egyptian revolution: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Coordinates: 30°2′N 31°13′E / 30.033°N 31.217°E / 30.033; 31.217
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 392: Line 392:


Should those two section be merged our at-least one of them be deleted? The role of social media has no sources -- [[User:The Egyptian Liberal|The Egyptian Liberal]] ([[User talk:The Egyptian Liberal|talk]]) 16:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Should those two section be merged our at-least one of them be deleted? The role of social media has no sources -- [[User:The Egyptian Liberal|The Egyptian Liberal]] ([[User talk:The Egyptian Liberal|talk]]) 16:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


== Please keep your personal agendas out of this ==

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.

Revision as of 00:31, 26 March 2011

Template:Pbneutral

Talk:2011 Egyptian protests/Notes

Rosetta revolution?

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)[reply]

I'd say no. A Google search brings up only a few hundred hits, and all of those on the first page seem to be mirrors of a single usage, an otherwise unexplained usage in a section title of an article in The Economist. Abrazame (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard many name for this revolution; that one is not one of them -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In a Rosetta Revolution, would they throw....Rosetta Stones? Sorry, couldn't resist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.74 (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some Suggestions For Improvement

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Analysis (Outline)

Women's role

Asmaa Mahfouz

I propose that somewhere in the introduction we mention the role played by Asmaa Mahfouz [1][2][3] 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 [4][5][6] [7][8] USchick (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

write a draft here a lets see what it looks like. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about something like this:

Twenty-six year old Asmaa Mahfouz is credited[1] with having sparked the protests that began the uprising in Cairo.[2] On a video blog posted two weeks before the start of the revolution,[3] she urged the Egyptian people to join her in a protest on January 25 in Tahrir Square to bring down Mubarak’s regime.[4] 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....[5] If you have honor and dignity as a man, come. Come and protect me and other girls in the protest."[6] The video was picked up and went viral.[7]

-- USchick (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Would you like to draft something? Feel free to copy and paste my references if you'd like. USchick (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about

Twenty-six year old Asmaa Mahfouz was instrumental[8] in having sparked the protests that began the uprising in Cairo.[9] On a video blog posted two weeks before the start of the revolution,[10] she urged the Egyptian people to join her in a protest on January 25 in Tahrir Square to bring down Mubarak’s regime.[11] She used video blogging and social media that went viral[12] and urged people not to be afraid.[13]

Feel free to add people and groups that need to be mentioned. USchick (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Asmaa or Khaled Said should be in the lead much, beyond perhaps a quick mention, despite the fact that both were phenomenally important to the revolution. Asmaa's contribution seems to fit best in the Lead-Up section, in the National Police Day subsection. Feel free to add a description of her role there. I think 1-3 sentences is an appropriate fit. Ocaasi (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is everyone happy with the 3 sentences written above? USchick (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with them. --Sherif9282 (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just add it somewhere to the women's role -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's already in the National Police Day subsection, which is appropriate. USchick (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign relations

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)[reply]

The military's role

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)[reply]

Online activism

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)[reply]

Church Bombing protests did not lead to the Revolution

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)[reply]

I agree. Maybe there is some speculation to that effect in some commentary in news media, but I would very much doubt that multiple reliable sources would have reported this as a fact.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This church bombing seems to be a sticking point for some reason. I don't know enough about the politics to understand exactly why, but if the bombing has nothing to do with the lead-up to the protests, then what is it doing in this article at all? If we want to create a background section about Muslim-Christian relations, then let's call it that and maybe mention the church bombing as one event in a longer trend. I do think it's important to know that there were religious tensions in Egypt prior to the protests, because it makes their multi-denominational nature that much more significant. Ocaasi (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was living in Sidi Bishr at the beginning of the revolution. When the big protests started on 28 January, there was a very strong focus on Christian-Muslim unity, reflected in the chants of the protesters. I also talked to my neighbors, who seemed to agree that part of the reason turnout was so good was a desire to symbolically get back at whoever attacked the church. While certainly the church bombing protests did not directly lead to the revolution, at least some of those out in the streets, especially in that particular part of Alexandria, did have the Saints' Church in their minds. I recognize that this is OR, but the point remains that for some small part of the revolution, the church bombing was a factor. Lockesdonkey (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The background of, or lead-up to, these protests includes the fact that there were anti-government protesters clashing with police a mere few weeks earlier over a variant of the same issue, the failure of the government to adequately provide for the needs of its people; and that in those protests, the Coptic Christians who were the aggrieved party in the bombing were joined in these clashes by Muslims. This revolution didn't originate on a FaceBook page, its origin was a deep-seated, long-standing and widespread, cross-cultural/-sectarian sense that the government was not at all responsive to the needs of its people in a modern world of democracy, capitalism and freedom. If we can establish some other background of significant clashes wherein Muslims joined with Christians against Mubarak's government, and that this wasn't a rare occurrence and something of a turning point, I'd be all for that, but in that case this episode would still be one important point on that curve and relevant to the article. I agree with Ocaasi that we need to explain a bit about what makes this a remarkable shift from the tensions that existed previously.
Note one of the articles we sourced that section to, which quotes Egyptian government sources as whipping up the fear that the bombing would create a "religious civil war" between Christians and Muslims such as what waged in Lebanon for a decade and a half; this, too, is a bit OR on my part, but it seems as though the government may have been counting upon (and stoking) factional tensions to necessitate the perpetual emergency law hold on the country, and when it became apparent to many from the Alexandria church bombing scuffles that there were Muslims willing to stand by their Christian countrymen, that canard, that paradigm, shattered. If my take on that is not so, it would serve the reader to know what reliable sources say is relative to these points. This element should be added to, not removed. Abrazame (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't seen it yet, watch this: [9]. The religious cooperation and secular cooperation is the reason these protests succeeded. That and the military. And the internet. Ocaasi (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

We can work on clearing up the misleading 'direct connection'. Let's pull together a few sources, both from the aftermath of the bombing as well as any that mention it in the context of the protests. Then we'll re-draft the section, or draft a new section and put it in the Background section (Muslim-Christian relations, e.g.) Ocaasi (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyone, focus on what is being said. We are not talking about "why the revolution succeeded", we are talking about LEAD UP events. This revolution, that was started by a call against injustice on FaceBook, had NOTHING to do with Muslim-Christian relations. It's all about freedoms and democracy. I don't know what source could say this other than the FaceBook page that called for it. Otherwise, it's common sense. Just look at the slogans that the people were saying. Nothing about the Church bombings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.2.129 (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ocaasi; It seems to me that you did not fully understand my comment. The whole section is not necessary and if you will to replace it with a "Muslim-Christian relations" section, it would be even worse. We are basically looking at a clear case of Wikipedia:No original research. Conclusion: No relationship between Alex church bombing and revolution, however religious cooperation is related to the revolution. So, the later should the one be included, which is the case as it appears in many places (for example: Timeline page). Regards. --Osa osa 5 (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, Osa, that is the point. I'm not sure how you see it otherwise. If you just need a source to spell it out explicitly, it shouldn't be a problem to find one. Ocaasi (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Draft

Crescent and the Cross united Graffiti
Main article: 2011 Alexandria bombing

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.[14] Some Copts accused the Egyptian government of negligence,[15] 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[16][17][18] 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.[19] 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.[20]

  1. ^ Arab Women Lead the Charge
  2. ^ "Women play vital role in Egypt's uprising" (transcript). National Public Radio. February 4, 2011. Retrieved 2011-02-06.
  3. ^ "Revolutionary blogger Asma threatened". Gulf News. February 5, 2011. Retrieved 2011-02-06.
  4. ^ The New York Times
  5. ^ The Canadian Charger
  6. ^ Democracy Now
  7. ^ Egypt: The viral vlog of Asmaa Mahfouz
  8. ^ Arab Women Lead the Charge
  9. ^ "Women play vital role in Egypt's uprising" (transcript). National Public Radio. February 4, 2011. Retrieved 2011-02-06.
  10. ^ "Revolutionary blogger Asma threatened". Gulf News. February 5, 2011. Retrieved 2011-02-06.
  11. ^ The New York Times
  12. ^ Egypt: The viral vlog of Asmaa Mahfouz
  13. ^ The Canadian Charger
  14. ^ Staff writer (4 January 2011). "Egypt Church Blast Death Toll Rises to 23". Reuters. Retrieved 4 February 2011.
  15. ^ (registration required) Slackman, Michael (4 January 2011). "Clashes Grow as Egyptians Remain Angry After an Attack". The New York Times.
  16. ^ Staff writer (2 January 2011). "Egypt Media Warn of Civil War after Bombing". Agence France-Presse (via Google News). Retrieved 28 January 2011. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  17. ^ (registration required) Stack, Liam; Kirkpatrick, David D. (2 January 2011). "Egypt Orders Tighter Security After Church Bombing". The New York Times. Retrieved 28 January 2011.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  18. ^ Jouini, Hassen (8 January 2011). "Muslims Protect Churches". National Post. Retrieved 28 January 2011.
  19. ^ Interview. "Vivian Ibrahim of the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London". BBC News 3 February 2011; 12:55 UTC.
  20. ^ Heba Helmy (February 8, 2011). "Tuesday's papers: Funeral for martyr journalist, Ghoneim release, al-Adli under investigation". {{cite news}}: Text "publisher-Al Masry Al Youm" ignored (help)
Comments
Question. What would be the title--Alexandria Church Bombing (in the lead-up section), or Muslim-Coptic relations (in the background section). I think it's the first one, but since that's up for discussion, too, I just want to check. Ocaasi (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the title should Muslim - Christian relationship (94.202.111.5 (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

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)[reply]

I believe the the church bombing is either part of the Lead-up, or should be included on a section on [Religion]. We're also missing coverage of the role of religious extremism, namely Al-Qaida, which is also related to the Church Bombing, and a part of the landscape of the revolution, in which those forces were marginalizes and actually in opposition to much of what happened. Let's now draft a separate section on Muslim-[Jesus believer] relations, and then see if the two topics should be separate or merged. Thanks Abrazame! Hopefully Osa will see where this is going. Ocaasi (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim-Christian relations (working title)

Draft

protection

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)[reply]

Hi, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and pages are not protected due to many people working on them. Indeed, the opposite is likely true: pages get better, because many people are working on them. You can read more at Wikipedia:About and Wikipedia:Protection. Ocaasi (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You still may want to consider semi-protecting the page; 173.165.233.1 apparently just vandalized the page a few minutes ago (edit: assuming I didn't misread the article revision history, but said user has been blocked for vandalism before). The edits were reverted pretty quickly, but something as high-profile and politically significant as this seems like a perfect target for vandals. Baronofcheese (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone changed the casualty statistics to "at least 384[1][2] including at least 135 penises, 12 policemen,[3][4][5] 12 escaped prisoners, and one prison chief." Baronofcheese (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing

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)[reply]

Infobox proposal

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)[reply]


I think option one would be the best option, as it seems to sum up the events in a more visual manner than the other two. If we are to stick with the current infobox, (option 2?) adding "| partof = [[2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests]]" IMHO, is essential. Lebowbowbowski (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article

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)[reply]

Support -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support-That makes more sense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.1.239 (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - The article already had the name Egyptian Revolution of 2011 and was later moved to 2011 Egyptian revolution on February 22. See the talk in the archive for reasoning. 1exec1 (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I disagree with the previous name change. The proposed name change is a better fit.Jbower47 (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The other titles are the ones that are not named right here keeping the title as is will help solve this problem. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is it still capped? That has been gone over as well but just to get my 2 cents in: sources vary on caps (and don't include Title case at the top of a story that has everything besides or even including "of" capped in your rebuttal). 1952 Egyptian revolution might be working out just fine. I can't support any title that has "revolution" capped. Maybe our grandkids can revisit it to see if it has the staying power title wise that the French or American revolutions receive now. Since "revolution" was even edit warred over until a day before he left I am surprised that it actually kept (even though I do agree it could easily be called a revolution with a lower case r).Cptnono (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Jbower47. Also, while the capping is a secondary issue, here are French Revolution, July Revolution and French Revolution of 1848. Or is it that these articles need a title change? --Sherif9282 (talk) 12:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They very well might. But since we are talking about this article (those ones might have earned the cap in their sources as I mentioned above if you take the time to read my comment) the sources, as a whole, to not clearly apply "Revolution" as a title. I personally think it could be argued that the 952 Egyptian revolution has had more impact then this one and it is not capped. Seems like a little bit of focus on recent events instead of keeping a focus on the historical perspective.Cptnono (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, we've had 60 years to experience and evaluate the impact of the 1952 revolution, and barely two months to analyze this one, and it hasn't reached its conclusion yet! Also, that article's title was capped before the move. --Sherif9282 (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This shouldn't be controversial. It reads better and is in consistency with other articles on revolutions including a more recent one: the Iranian Revolution. We should stress first whose revolution it was in the title; then the year it took place should come after the words "Revolution of". Also, we shouldn't be the ones to judge whether or not this was a revolution because the international media and of course the people of Egypt and the greater region refer to it as a revolution. Since it has been recognized as such, we should capitalize the word in the title per MoS. I don't think revolutions have to "deserve" capitalizations based on decades of evaluation or by scholarly sources since none exist for this one currently. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support "2011 Egyptian Revolution" is a proper noun/name as it refers specifically to a unique example (as per WP:MOS-PN and the Oxford Dictionary definition) and therefore ought to be capitalized in accordance with WP:CAPS, insofar as the title as is concerned. Baronofcheese (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

//

Revolution or revolution

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)[reply]

Per the manual of style, this should be at 2011 Egyptian revolution (and other articles should be similarily formatted). —Nightstallion 18:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what most seem to think, but look at this: Egyptian Revolution. -- Ocaasi (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, other articles should also follow that format. —Nightstallion 08:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, missed that. I actually looked around at WP:MOSNAME, WP:MOSCAP, WP:MOSTITLE, and WP:MOSDATE, and even WP:NCNUM, and I didn't actually find the definitive stance on the date-event format. The guidelines were to include where and when, with enough detail for both to disambiguate, but no mention of which goes first. In fact, there was even a counterargument presented that putting the date first can overemphasize the time rather than the happening. So I'm not sure where this consensus on policy is coming from, even though I think it has advantages just because it's short and consistent. Ocaasi (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support occassi and nightstallion (and most advocated of the revol. change). the link above goes to the disamb so its not of much conern really. accepted format to use the dates like this for such incidents as the copiapo mining accident, earthquake, haiti cholera epidemic, attacks, etc. (1 aexceptionm being elections which have the date AFTER)Lihaas (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided with regard to the capitalization of the "R", but opposed to renaming the article to "2011 Egytian revolution". This sounds as if revolutions would happen in that country on some kind of time schedule.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see 2011 North Africa and East Asia protests. Every single other protest article mentioned there has the year in front. Ocaasi (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. "[Date] [Place] [noun]" is a normal phrasing for an article title. (It's not that revolutions happen on schedule, but that they've happened more than once.) —WWoods (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i was just gonna say the same as wwoods to the query by cs32en, its not about frequency but the fact thats its already occurred numerous times (see the template) and ofcourse MOS.Lihaas (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, can we please move this to 2011 Egyptian revolution (and the other articles, too)? —Nightstallion 10:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Since no one supported the Capital-R name of the article. —WWoods (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other Egyptian revolution articles

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)[reply]

I think there's a recentist bias here, and names which start with the year just sound more 'current' than at the end. Like, the 1919 Egyptian revolution, just sounds less historical for some reason than 'the Egyptian revolution of 1919'. The reason I mention it is that before we move all of the historical dates, we should see if other historical events have the same old/new split, and if so resolve that more broadly. Assuming there is room for a consistent policy choice here, starting with the date seems most efficient to me. Ocaasi (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few days ago, I moved Egyptian Revolution of 1919 and Egyptian Revolution of 1952 to 1919 Egyptian revolution and 1952 Egyptian revolution, respectively, in order to format the titles consistently with 2011 Egyptian revolution. However, after Ocaasi's recommendation about looking at how other articles about revolutions and rebellions are titled, I noticed on List of revolutions and rebellions that there is no consistency on whether "revolution" should be capitalised, but (except for a few articles) the vast majority of the articles appear to have the year at the end of the title. Examples: Siamese revolution of 1688, French Revolution of 1848, 1932 Salvadoran peasant uprising. Although I prefer having the year at the beginning of the title, consistency seems to favour placing it at the end. Matt (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it should be capitalized because it's the name of the revolution "Egyptian Revolution"; names are capitalized. (UTC)

Capitalization

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)[reply]

Anyone have a picture of a man who died to be placed in the Death section of the article as well?

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)[reply]

Give me one of their names and I will see what I can do. The reason I added Sally was because NASA reportedly plans to name one of its Mars exploration spacecraft in Zahran's honor. I also added a picture of a nameless victim here if you want to add him. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 05:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Police Day protests: MB Role

As for the MB role in the protests, in the News article it says "الجماعة قد قررت ألا تمنع أيًّا من شباب الإخوان" [10] 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)[reply]

We need to distinguish between whether the organization encouraged the protests versus whether or not MB members participated. The second, I think, is definitely a yes. The first question, is less important, but appears to be 'they gave permission but not explicit support'. We'll need more sourcing to back all of this up. Ocaasi c 15:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The role of social media and Online activism

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)[reply]


Please keep your personal agendas out of this

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.

  1. ^ a b c d e f AFP (25 January 2011). "Egypt braces for nationwide protests". France24. Retrieved 29 January 2011.
  2. ^ a b c d "Egypt activists plan biggest protest yet on Friday". Al Arabiya. 27 January 2011. Retrieved 29 January 2011.
  3. ^ a b c d e f AFP (27 January 2011). "Egypt protests a ticking time bomb: Analysts". The New Age. Retrieved 29 January 2011.
  4. ^ "Revolution might not be a cure for Egypt's extreme poverty". Los Angeles Times World. Retrieved 22 February 2011. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  5. ^ "Estimated 2 Million People Protest In _ Around Tahrir Square In Cairo Egypt.mp4 | Current News World Web Source for News and Information". Cnewsworld.com. Retrieved 20 February 2011.
  6. ^ a b International Institute for Strategic Studies, The Military Balance 2006, p.183
  7. ^ "Rights group: Egypt's revolution death toll more than 680". AlMasry Alyoum. Retrieved 2011-03-10.
  8. ^ a b c "Egypt: Documented Death Toll From Protests Tops 300 | Human Rights Watch". Hrw.org. 28 January 2011. Retrieved 9 February 2011. Cite error: The named reference "autogenerated3" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  9. ^ a b c "Unrest in Egypt". Reuters. 28 January 2011. Retrieved 28 January 2011.
  10. ^ a b c "Egypt: Mubarak Sacks Cabinet and Defends Security Role". BBC News. 29 January 2011. Retrieved 29 January 2011.
  11. ^ a b c "Protests in Egypt — As It Happened (Live Blog)". The Guardian. 26 January 2011. Retrieved 26 January 2011.
  12. ^ News Service, Indo-Asian (30 January 2011). "10 killed as protesters storm Cairo building". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 30 January 2011.
  13. ^ a b c Davies, Wyre. "Egypt Unrest: Protesters Hold Huge Cairo Demonstration". BBC News. Retrieved 1 February 2011.
  14. ^ a b c "Egypt's revolution death toll rises to 384". Al Masry Al Youm. 22 February 2011. Retrieved 22 February 2011.
  15. ^ "Revolution might not be a cure for Egypt's extreme poverty". Los Angeles Times World. Retrieved 22 February 2011. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  16. ^ "Rights group: Egypt's revolution death toll more than 680". AlMasry Alyoum. Retrieved 2011-03-10.
  17. ^ News Service, Indo-Asian (30 January 2011). "10 killed as protesters storm Cairo building". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 30 January 2011.
  18. ^ "Revolution might not be a cure for Egypt's extreme poverty". Los Angeles Times World. Retrieved 22 February 2011. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  19. ^ "Estimated 2 Million People Protest In _ Around Tahrir Square In Cairo Egypt.mp4 | Current News World Web Source for News and Information". Cnewsworld.com. Retrieved 20 February 2011.
  20. ^ "Rights group: Egypt's revolution death toll more than 680". AlMasry Alyoum. Retrieved 2011-03-10.
  21. ^ News Service, Indo-Asian (30 January 2011). "10 killed as protesters storm Cairo building". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 30 January 2011.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Egyptian_revolution&oldid=420741104"