Talk:2011 Egyptian revolution/Archive 8

Western Intervention
None of the western media portrays the american government behind all of this when it is. Oh, you say the fascist government isnt dying? You say their is no government under democratic policies? WRONG. America was once a communistic dictatorship, which defined democracy and liberalism. It changed into a quasi-democracy with democratic rules under a 'falsified' republic house majority (a house of imperialism because establishing a country couldnt exist with conquering soil). Keeping the old ways I see. The institution of intervention in the middle east, or hell on earth, so to speak is to exploit, eat alive, the 'dictatorships' or communistic systems of the middle east. Why does Mubarak and all these politicians from the 70s protect the younger generation and condemn the middle-class? Because the older generation don't want to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. 30 years of peace and now this? I think fear is involved, fear by this so-called lower nature. I notice that you are instituting western leaders. This will never work. Mohamet defeated you once, and he'll do it again. Life begets life, the young for the old. Maybe someone knows a super natural event which will occur, who knows. The US hides everything for their ego or satisfaction of their senses. That's the way the system really works. Sometimes your time is up and its time to leave (older generation). You are just polarizing the region and they will destroy your family if you choose the wrong sides. I mean come on seriously..protests in a christianized nation such as lybia? Hell no. They arent even close to being muslim. Shouldn't you be protecting the forces of the west? --69.255.42.105 (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Prisoner escapes
This article, by a major newspaper in Egypt, states that the figure of inmates who had escaped during the security breakdown is nearly 23,000, and that so far, authorities have managed to capture 12,000. This needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article. --Sherif9282 (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

Check statements about casualties in the time-line section, because words like "major" and "minor" casualties are not clear and may offend people who lost friends and family members. Any loss is a major loss. It is better to refer to official statistics or trusted sources like Human Rights Watch. MEMEhistorian (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way that there are 1 million or 2 million people in either of the two labeled photos in the timeline section. I refer everyone to the following image of beaver stadium http://www.thecampussocialite.com/blog/images/penn-state-beaver-stadium.jpg. Beaver stadium's capacity is approx 110,000 people, and this photo is from the end zone and does not show about 15000-20000 people seated in that section (probably more are not shown, but I'm trying to be conservative). If you look at the two individual "million"-person photos in the article, you can easily see they contain far far less people than the 90,000 people shown in the beaver stadium photo. I think 40000 would be a very generous estimate for the first photo. The second photo definitely has more people, but it does not look like the amount in the beaver stadium picture. I'd say 80000 would be a high rough estimate for the "2 million" photo. In any case, the images are no where even remotely close to one- or two-million. We're off by a factor of more than 10. Either that or beaver stadium's capacity is close to 3 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.10.52 (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * 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 About and Protection.  Ocaasi (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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):

Source:

Source:

Source:

Source:

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 Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article 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)

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)
 * Support -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support-That makes more sense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.1.239 (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Support - I disagree with the previous name change. The proposed name change is a better fit.Jbower47 (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

//

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)
 * 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)
 * That's what most seem to think, but look at this: Egyptian Revolution. -- Ocaasi (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, other articles should also follow that format. — Nightstallion 08:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

So, can we please move this to 2011 Egyptian revolution (and the other articles, too)? — Nightstallion 10:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Since no one supported the Capital-R name of the article. —WWoods (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Are we going to move Egyptian Revolution of 1952, Egyptian Revolution of 1919, and German Revolution of 1918–19, as well? While I think that the form "... of YEAR" is better, we would need some consistency here. Cs32en  Talk to me  17:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Other Egyptian revolution articles
 * 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)
 * 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)

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

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)  Open this for the options

There are many more variants which can and do exist. Here are a few. Which format best summarizes the content of the article for the readers?


 * 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)

Capitalization

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (Closed after this section was archived, to prevent this request from showing up at WP:RM.) Ucucha 02:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This should be moved to 2011 Egyptian Revolution (notice the capitalized R) as other Egyptian revolutions also have proper nouns. Anyone? -- 92.4.64.200 (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support The current title is grammatically incorrect according to WP:MOS (as stated above). Baronofcheese (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, per MOS. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - also per MOS.--76.168.104.141 (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support See American Revolution, Singing Revolution, Tunisian Revolution, etc. -Lebowbowbowski (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The articles alluded to above (Egyptian R/revolution of 1919 and Egyptian R/revolution of 1952) were actually moved with WP:LOWERCASE cited as the reason. Without discussing the merits of those moves due to my lack of familiarity with the relevant historiography, the policy cited applies here. The opaque references to MOS do not make clear which guideline they're invoking given this isn't yet a proper noun in the preponderance of sources. There are different names floating around, and the current location reflects the most common terminology and capitalisation -- for now. Let history sort itself out. Gonfaloniere (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.101.166 (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that the news reports on the matter disagree with your assessment. And Youtube isn't really a good source to use to refute news reports. Silver  seren C 00:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

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" 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)
 * 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. Ocaasic 15:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * MB as an organization supported the protests according to my research. Last night, I cited three different sources (one of them is MB official site) which reports that same massage. According to these sources, both Mohammed Badie (chairman) and Mohamed Al-Beltagie (one of its top leaders) expressed the organization support and confirmed that "it will partake in the Day of Rage protests scheduled for January 25". --Osa osa 5 (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed external link
Just saw this on the Best of Craig's List. (Sad that B-o-C-L doesn't have the volume of material it used to have.) Anyone else think it merits inclusion in the EL section? -- llywrch (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Humorous links, and those from craigslist, and those with no RS coverage are probably not going to work. Though it's very funny. Ocaasic 16:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Section on financial/economic implications/impact?
I just came across this post on BBC (Egypt stock market halted again after sharp falls), and it made me think about including a section on this article about the financial and economics implications of the revolution in Egypt. Now, I am not so certain about the global impact of the revolution in terms of markets (I have rarely found any news articles on the matter), but it would be nice to complete the full spectrum of any key component in a country. Eug.galeotti (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see Domestic responses to the 2011 Egyptian revolution. There is a section on the financial repercussions there.  We should provide a brief mention of that in our summary section, if we don't already. Ocaasi c 22:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Category: Non-Violent Revolution
I'm moving this here from respective talk pages (I removed non-content pieces related to policy accusations on all sides and administrative issues). The question is whether the Category: [Nonviolent revolution] applies to this article. Carlos thought it did not, Egyptian thought it did, and I think it is much closer to the nonviolent side but still in a marginally gray area. Ocaasic 19:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Moved conversation
 * You may think that the 2011 Egyptian revolution was non-violent, but the article - well sourced- proves otherwise; there were deaths, and Cairo is described as a "war zone". That may be non-violent to YOU, but it is not objectively so. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a reasonable disagreement about what non-violent revolution means... non-violence in a revolutionary context almost always refers to the protesters, not the regime they displace. In Egypt, the vast, vast majority of protesters were non-violent.  That they were occasionally fired on or harassed does not mean they used those tactics themselves, and certainly not primarily.  A Category is broad enough that it can encompass events that match up well, but not 100%.  Is a peaceful revolution in which one person throws a rock violent?  What about a country of millions where a few hundred are killed after protesters are attacked by the police or regime loyalists in an otherwise non-violent uprising? Ocaasic
 * If the category is so amorphous to incorporate some level of violence, then non-violent is probably the wrong title. Nevertheless with hundreds of dead on one side a dozen on the other, the capital described as a war zone, it takes "non-violent" to a whole new meaning (what would Gandhi think?), and makes the category sufficiently subjective to be useless. Non-violent is probably best reserved for those that were actually non-violent, e.g., Velvet Revolution: no mass violence, no deaths on either side, no war zones in the capital, etc. To label a something non-violent because it is less violent (than what? the Russian Revolution, the French Revolution) becomes a slippery slope that our categorization scheme cannot support without POV and subjectivity. Perhaps a better category would be along the lines of revolutions without the death of the head of state (clearly separating the Russian and French on the one hand from the Egyptian and Tunisian on the other) but still not requiring a death toll of zero. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Gandhi? Seriously?  Gandhi and his non-violent followers were sometimes violently attacked.  Rev. Martin Luther King's followers were savagely beaten, attacked by police with dogs, lynched.  Jesus and his followers were violently beaten.  They were all assassinated or put to death.  Does that mean we characterize their efforts, movements, lives, as violent?  No, even when violence is turned on someone, the point is their intent and the degree to which they were able to stick to that intent; the Egyptian revolutionaries never intended to take up arms, to bring guns and scythes or whatever, and they never did so.  There were some people in the movements I mention that diverted from the path in self defense, as happened in Egypt.  But the frame of reference to the events of those weeks in Tahrir Square is not those same weeks in Columbus Circle, so wow, yeah, hundreds of civilians and twelve police dead, that's violent.  The frame of reference is other revolutionary movements and actual revolutions, and yes, in that pantheon, this qualifies as nonviolent.  That does not do an injustice to the lives lost, it does a justice to the methods employed that turned out ensuring many thousands or even millions of lives were not lost.  The military did not bring their firepower upon the people as we are seeing in Libya; the Egyptian revolutionaries did not arm themselves with the aid of foreign governments to fight a bloody multi-year war as we saw in the American Revolution.  Let's not even get into Iraq, no pun intended.  Thanks to both the revolutionaries and the army, the Egyptian Revolution was nonviolent relative to the players in the revolution.  Abrazame (talk) 06:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a great point. In fact, in the philosophy of civil disobedience and ahimsa, being attacked is actually part of the mechanism for success, since it forces the oppressor to commit acts of violence, to see themselves in a violent role, and to see the suffering of those they hurt.  Even if the attackers themselves do not observe this, those around the situation--the moderates, the press-reading or press-viewing public, the international community--do see it.  That process of humanization is a critical part of what makes non-violent methods successful.  The Alabama civil rights riots were more effective after the water-cannons and dogs were captured in media.  The Vietnam war protests were more effective after the atrocity of Kent State.  Even the Boston Massacre, which turned a peaceful revolution into an armed revolution, was a catalyst.  But Egyptian protesters never crossed the violence-threshold, and the fact that their attackers did is still consistent with how the term nonviolent is usually used. Ocaasic 14:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If someone raped another person, do we call both side rapists? During the entire revolution only one police man died and the investigation into his death have not showed yet if he had died due any attacks from the protesters or was it a friendly fire. BTW: The Egyptian protesters are nominated for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Egyptian, I'm going to play devil's advocate for a second, though I strongly agree with your logic. Were there exceptions (however minor) in Suez, or other places where protesters stormed police offices and prisons? I still don't think those would disqualify the revolution from the non-violent descriptor or category, but if we can pinpoint those it could make the argument more clear. Ocaasic 14:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I honestly cant comment on Suez because I will be biased because I lost a family member there (there was a mini-massacre there and death toll list has not been completely released yet). but yes, people did burn police stations, cars, and some NDP HQs. but it goes again to the definition of what is non-violent movement. if you definite as a movement that had no violence whatsoever, then I dont know any movement the qualifies as non-violent because Ghandi and MLK followers did commit some violence (seeing how Ghandi and MLK are the examples of non-violent). P.S: We need to work on the draft above. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

{outdent) This is a nice philosophical debate, but the facts remain we have reliable sources to tell us of violence, deaths on both sides, and one calling the capital city a "war zone". The category "riots" was added apparently in accord with those reliably sourced facts. Now, Wikipedia can get its hands around non-violent deaths, perhaps, and non-violent war zones, and non-violent riots, but Wikipedia deals with reliably sourced facts, not philosophical ("how much violence ceases to be non-violent") facts. Where are reliable sources that say that the "2011 Egyptian revolution" - the subject of this article - was "non-violent"? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Carlos, it's more than philosophical. Reliable sources also describe the revolution as largely, primarily, nonviolent.  Many simply call it peaceful, nonviolent, or remarkably peaceful, distinctively nonviolent.  I've collected several sources for your investigation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ocaasi/notes.  Feel free to add to that page, or move it to a talk subpage here. Ocaasi c 19:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to preempt this debate, but after my research, I added several categories to the page (not the one in dispute). The added Cats include: Protest deaths, protest marches, nonviolence resistance movements, nonviolence advocates, and nonviolence organizations.  I believe they are uncontroversial, since even if the revolution in total was not nonviolent, it certainly had major recognized components which were.  If necessary, we can expand on the role of Kefiya, the April 6 movement, CANVAS, and Otpor!, Mohammed Adel, Gene Sharp, specific non-violence training, pamphlets, and tactics, etc..  None of that supercedes the debate we're having, but I believe it's a lesser bar that sources already show we've met.  So, not to be pointy, but just to move in the direction I've seen in sources. Ocaasi c 19:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your sources tend to show that numbers of the protesters were non-violent, the non-violence was taught or provided inspiration, but several had the weasel words "largely non-violent" etc. If non-violence is relative, then the Libyan goings-on is largely non-violent when compared to the efforts required to remove the Japanese government in 1945. The category seemed to have once had a purpose, that is now being degraded to permit revolutions we like to be labeled non-violent, regardless of whether or not there was violence and whether or not it was perpetrated on one side or both. How did the 12 policemen die? non-violently one expects from all the crowing of the non-violence advocates; perhaps they died of old age? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Phrases such as 'largely non-violent' are much more like 'primarily non-violent' than your comparison between Libya and Japan circa 1945 suggests. In Libya it is an armed civil war; an all-out military campaign and resistance have broken out.  It's not war like World War II, but it's not largely non-violent.  There are major differences of type and degree.  In Egypt, the predominant method was peaceful marching.  On the outskirts, in a few isolated locations, and almost always prompted by the police/regime, there were several hundred deaths in a population of millions.  By historic standards, this is remarkably low-violence.  And again, the primary method was non-violent; non-violence was encouraged; non-violence prevailed in the majority of places and scenarios.  This was a peaceful revolution, even if it was not a "zero-violence" revolution.  I don't think you're weighing the totality of those sources by just focusing on the few that acknowledge the small amount of violence that was present.  I'd encourage you or others to take another look at them.  At the very least, there is a dispute among reliable sources.  To my understanding, Categories don't require unanimity, since they are organizational and not definitive. Ocaasi c 05:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Categories are both; because there are reliable sources that say some of the violence is attributable to Islamic fundamentalist groups, one could - in the organizational but not definitional view of categories - tack on categories relating to Islamic terrorism, etc. but however well that may add to the organization of knowledge (which I question: if we add categories that aren't strictly accurate, how does that help organize information), it isn't defining of the revolution - much like adding "deaths in 2011" or "deaths in Egypt" type categories since those properly belong to biographies of anyone notable who died in Egypt in 2011 in the revolution or of old age. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * note also from WP:Categorization: "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." If nonviolent revolution category is added, you should remove all references to violence. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be taking the slippery slope, both with reference to Libya/Japan and Islamic Terrorism. There are many more and better sources which speak of the revolution as nonviolent than those that can only speculate Islamic Radicals were behind the violence that did occur.  (Though your example may be unintentionally accurate in part, since the Alexandria Church bombing in December was Islamic Terrorism).  We have a primarily peaceful revolution recognized by multiple RS for being so, many call it nonviolent specifically, and all RS that I have seen identify the methods which predominated and succeeded as distinctly those of nonviolent resistance.


 * With "deaths in Egypt", you're confusing a meta-category with a sub-category. I think we agree that a significant aspect of the revolution was nonviolent--at the worst, using the category would be too narrow organizationally, since it was not only nonviolent. (Though I still argue that the violence which happened would not necessarily be attributed to the protesters anyway, nor disqualify the revolution from the nonviolent category). I think the category is both definitional and organizationally appropriate, but it's definitely not a uselessly overbroad, since [nonviolent revolution] would identify the majority aspects which were about nonviolence.  Whether it's definitionally inaccurate is what we're questioning.  That requires both agreeing on the definition, and weighing the sources to determine which fits.


 * Re: verification, there is plenty of information in the article about how nonviolence was the predominating nature and approach of the revolution. We can add more, but you have assumed that nonviolent revolutions are not permitted to have any violence, regardless of how little.  If you accept that even nonviolent revolutions can have have brief, isolated, or provoked pockets of violence/defense--within a much larger nonviolent movement--than the article is already well supporting such a category.  We can always add more info on the nonviolence if necessary, but suggesting that mentioning the violence which happened runs afoul of Category-Verifiability is simply assuming the strictest definition you want to use as correct, rather than discussing whether that definition is appropriate here, or reflective of actual usage, or significant usage in reliable sources.  To invoke WP:WEIGHT, it matters that many sources identify the revolution as nonviolent, whereas very few identify it as Islamic Terrorism.  On those grounds, the Category may be appropriate.


 * If none of this is remotely coming together, then I think an outside opinion or two would be helpful. We could ask at WP:Category, or bring in some editors we mutually find helpful. Ocaasi c 17:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * yes, more opinions would be useful - why don't you quickly add all the non-violence categories to 2011 Mazar-i-Sharif attack since most of the thousands protesting there were non-violent and only a few rotten apples seem to have spoiled the lot. Using a double standard is what is most troubling to me: 2011 Egypt was no Velvet Revolution. It just wasn't; to categorize them identically is POV. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I couldn't tell if you were joking about Mazar-i-Sharif; I'll check the page and get back to you. The double standard may have more to do with sources than dictionary definitions.  The perception of events as nonviolent may depend less on whether there actually was some than other factors such as the proportion of violent to non-violent activity, the emphasis placed on non-violence, the source of the violence, the duration, etc...  (While we're at it, what do you think about any of the following as Cats: Police brutality, Twitter, Facebook, internet activism/activists.  Which are too broad or minimally relevant?) Ocaasi c 22:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

(outdent, again) No joke, just facts. Police brutality seems fairly well documented. The extent and impact of the social/internet activism will likely be debated till long after we're dead (as will the role of the military, food prices, too many educated people for the few jobs available, religion, etc.). Few revolutions decades in the making have a single cause nor a single impetus to fruition. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Please fix the title
"2011 Egyptian Revolution"

1-It's grammatically horrible. It is very disturbing to the minds of the knowledgeable people. 2-It should be called "Egyptian Revolution of 2011" 3-Revolution should be Capitalized since it's the NAME of the revolution. You would say "The Egyptian Revolution is one of Egypt's three modern revolutions"...see my point?

Please fix ASAP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.1.92 (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "r" does not need to be capitalized since it is not a proper noun. Cptnono (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from Cptnono, but I'd like to point out that in this case it would be considered part of a compound proper noun. If you're supposed to capitalize the "north" in North Carolina, then I don't see much reason not to capitalize "revolution" in this case, previous changes aside. Baronofcheese (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe you might say, "The 2011 Egyptian revolution was one of Egypt's three modern revolutions" as well. I don't see a clear right or wrong here, just convention. Ocaasic 17:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Convention, in this case, seems to be in line with WP:MOS. To elaborate, "2011 Egyptian revolution" is a compound noun that, in this case, would refer to a group of Egyptian revolutions in 2011, or any nonspecific example thereof. If that were the context of the article then this would be perfectly fine, but the article describes a single, unique Egyptian revolution that took place in 2011. Since it refers to the 2011 Egyptian Revolution, and not a 2011 Egyptian revolution, the phrase is therefore a proper noun. Baronofcheese (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe the issue is not whether it is a compound noun but whether all of it is proper. There clearly was only 'one' revolution, which is why it takes 'the' but the 'revolution' piece is not necessarily proper.  Comparable examples are "the 2011 Japanese tsunami", "the 2011 Egyptian constitutional referendum", "the 2011 Lady Gaga album".  These are compound nouns when used after 'the' but the actual subject of the sentence doesn't automatically receive the capitalization of the preceding part.  Again, I think this is a matter of discretion, and ultimately of historical determination, since WP:COMMONNAME will determine whether revolution is canonized as Revolution.  I could be mistaken on this--maybe ask over at WP:WikiProject English or WP:WikiProject History--but I still think the counterargument makes sense.
 * I could be wrong, but as far as I can tell WP:COMMONNAME doesn't seem to have any bearing on the distinguishing of a noun as proper or common. Pending elaboration on that point, I'd also like to point out that whether or not the word is capitalized, depends entirely on whether it's the subject of a phrase (such as "record" in your Lady Gaga Example", or part of a compound proper noun such as "American Civil War." That said, WP:COMMONNAME only seems to mandate that the same name be used in articles as in secondary sources, so capitalizing revolution as part of a proper noun wouldn't really conflict with WP:COMMONNAME or [[WP:CAPS].
 * As for whether or not the name of this event is a proper noun as a whole or not, that depends on whether it refers to a specific entity, or denotes a non-specific example of a class of entities (excuse the repetition). Lady Gaga might release more than one record in 2011, but the name of one of those records would be considered a proper noun. If Egypt undergoes more revolutions this year, then yes it would be a moot point, but as of now "2011 Egyptian Revolution" refers specifically to the example detailed in this article. I'd imagine that the same applies to the secondary sources as well, no? Baronofcheese (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Police brutality section
User:Shalgal has twice reverted to an older version of the final paragraph of this section. The material concerns Jack Shenker's experiences as detailed in this report. I re-worded the section as part of routine copy edits as the section did not agree with the source. Shenker does not say a bribe was paid, and he does not say he saw anyone being tortured. That is why I changed the section. Is there anyone watching the article who would like to review the source and give input on this wording? Currently Shalgal's version is in place. Thank you. -- Diannaa (Talk) 17:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The article's last paragraph includes: "Later it emerged that we had won our freedom through the efforts of [Ayman] Nour's parents, Ayman and his former wife Gamila Ismail. The father, who was also on the demonstration, had got wind of his son's arrest and apparently followed his captors and fought with officers for our release." As long as it's clear that it wasn't Shenker's father, I think we're okay.
 * Shalgal, please use British-English spellings and date formats. We're using 26 January 2011 rather than January 26, 2011. Ocaasi c 20:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am going to stop the copy edit now. Someone has just replaced the Timeline section, which I had already edited, with a completely different version. It's like trying to hit a moving target. -- Diannaa (Talk) 20:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since this event is still very current, it does change frequently, although I'm not sure the recent changes were improvements and have to check them over. Thanks again for your work and if you don't stay (which I'd rather you did), please check a few months from now when hopefully GA will be on the horizon.  Cheers, Ocaasi c 21:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you would like to re-post it at the WP:GOCE Requests page once things have settled down, one of our team will pursue some more copy edits. Right now the lack of sources for large sections of the article will be a real stumbling block for GA. It's unfortunate the people who added the material did not include their sources as they went along. Regards, -- Diannaa (Talk) 03:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The article will be getting some odd edits for a while (Maybe until the 2011 Egyptian presidential election) and we might have few edit wars (Hope not); but I agree with Diannaa that the article biggest problem is going to by "sources". I am going to be busy for the next couple of days but after that I am going to try to fix the deadlinks and lack of (some) sources in the article. I dont know if can get an ongoing event to GA standards tho. That's why I think our best shot to get anything to be GA is Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution up to the resignation of Mubarak. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)


 * Alright, I'll try to find some names for you. And wow, NASA plans to name a spacecraft after Zahran? Just curious, how is she so important relative to others who have died and what did she do to deserve such distinction? Alialiac (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I dont know about the reason NASA picked her out the rest but the reasons Zahran is better known is with the bloggers are:


 * She is a woman.
 * The Mubarak's regime made her family lie and say she killed herself (First her family said she died due to police brutality, then they claimed she killed herself and then they said that the government made them say she killed herself).
 * Her photo was retouched after her death to make her have a hejab around her head (She was not a Hejaby).


 * Because of the above reasons she is better known than some of the others. We also have the case of Khaled Mohamed Saeed (Another victim of police brutality); He died before the revolution and he is one of the reasons behind it -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should add something about those details to either the caption or the section, since otherwise it's a bit confusing why she of the other hundreds is mentioned. Ocaasi c 10:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Women's role

 * On International Women's Day, Egyptian women demand revolutionary role

Asmaa Mahfouz
I propose that somewhere in the introduction we mention the role played by Asmaa Mahfouz 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  USchick (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * write a draft here a lets see what it looks like. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * How about something like this:

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

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

Comment I'm sure she played an important role in helping the protests become a reality, but so did many other activists and groups. Going as far as "crediting" her with starting the protests is a long claim. I suggest the text take a more neutral tone, and that the quotes be removed, and presented as a summary of her video blog. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * How about

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

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


 * 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)
 * Is everyone happy with the 3 sentences written above? USchick (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with them. --Sherif9282 (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just add it somewhere to the women's role -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's already in the National Police Day subsection, which is appropriate. USchick (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * If you haven't seen it yet, watch this: . 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)

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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 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)

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)
 * 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)

Draft


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. Some Copts accused the Egyptian government of negligence, 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  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. 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.

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)
 * I think the title should Muslim - Christian relationship (94.202.111.5 (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC))

Great image! Good work finding and FAR-ing it, Egyptian Liberal! I've come here a few times in the past couple weeks, drawing up the sources and intending to craft a succinct edit in line with what has been discussed, but I keep getting called away. This time I've had a good bit of time, I just don't like what I came up with! But I wanted to say I've been here, haven't forgotten, and want to be sure this thread doesn't archive itself before we've had a chance to do this. I added a reflist above so I don't have to keep going back into article history to access the articles!

To the above comments, I think what we have currently—and what I worked on just now—was in line with the aftermath of the bombing, which while not being about the bombing itself seems well enough summarized as Ocaasi suggests. But it does seem like the relations aspect should be more than just implicit. To the IP's comment, if Muslim-Coptic is too obscure, Muslim-Christian is too generic. Maybe Muslim-Coptic Christian, if that were to become a title? Best, Abrazame (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I 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)
 * So when are we going to work on it exactly? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, my apologies for limited and superficial presence at Wikipedia in the midst of a few serious and ongoing discussions in a variety of articles. Catch me up to speed on what sources and approaches the two (or more) of you have gathered up relative to this issue.  Part of my problem was that the more I read, the more confusing and contradictory (and perhaps self-serving) the sources become; to ignore certain elements may be best; to ignore others may not be; yet to present any opens up a Pandora's box of having to explain it in enough depth and context so as to aid the general reader yet without giving it undue weight for that reader.  In the meantime I have begun, and continue, to read the thread below, which I had not followed but which I have some thoughts on which I will present there.  Abrazame (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Muslim-Christian relations (working title)

 * Draft:

Religion and politics
I feel that this section has a secular POV, by simply stating flat out that this is a secular revolution. I disagree that this should be stated as fact, when there are many commentators who disagree with this. A recent Pew Opinion survey (From June 2011), found:
 * 59% back Islamists
 * Only 27% back Modernizers
 * 50% support Hamas
 * 30% support Hizbullah
 * 20% support al Qaida
 * 95% would welcome more Islamic influence over Politics

If I can incorporate a source which criticizes the view that this is a primarily secular revolution, would the other editors here be okay with me incorporating it, instead of just stating the secular view as fact?--Babank (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's take a look at the text and sources. I'm sure the intent was not to say that the participants in the revolution were all secular, simply that the rhetoric, the stated goals, the multi-denominational nature made the revolution secular.  Again, as in not-religious-in tactics (as opposed to not-religious in beliefs).  We can probably fix this with a simple rephrasing, perhaps calling it multi-denominational rather than secular, or saying "a primarily peaceful, collaborative movement which expressed no particular ideological goals and integrated groups from secular, religious, traditional, and reformist paths, from many different parties, and from all socioeconomic strata." Ocaasi c 21:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On what basis can we say the goals were secular? For many the goal might be democracy for its own sake.  For people like the Muslim Brotherhood or other Islamists, the goal might be to extend the power of Islamism.  A lot of commentators have been talking about how the revolution might lead to a more Islamist country.  And yet that doesn't seem to get mentioned.--Babank (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm saying we should present multiple views on the goals of the revolution. The secular view that you just summarized seems to be more common, but we should probably note that "other commentators have expressed doubts about the purported secular aims of the revolution."  What do you think of modifying your wording a bit to show that its the mainstream view, but then add my sentence afterwards.  I can give a citation for mine.--Babank (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the revolution's goals in the short-term were secular, insofar as they were centered on ousting Mubarak, and then instituting a real democratic process and protections for civil liberties. I think it'd be fair to say that commentators expressed concerns that the revolution would lead to Islamism (that's the whole right-wing critique of democracy in countries with 'radicalized' populations).  And Egyptian elections could result in more MB seats in parliament or more Islamism.  But that's all looking forward, whereas this article is only focused on the role religion and politics played in the actual revolution.  We can't divine (no pun intended) what the motivations of protesters were, only their blatant cooperation with eachother and their public statements.  Pretty much everyone was promoting peaceful advancement towards democratic reforms, including general civil liberties protections.  If you have some sources that single-out religious or political motivations among protesters, I'd like to see them, but what you're getting at seems more like a concern for the reform/aftermath section that the revolution itself. Others' commentary would be helpful here.Ocaasi c 01:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Two questions-- First, would you consider the constitutional and political changes part of the revolution, or only the protests? Here's an article from the New York Times which shows the role of Islamism, and the competition between islamists and secularists in the constitutional/political changes. Second, where would you say long-term views of the revolution should go?--Babank (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the constitutional and political changes are appropriate here in the Domestic Responses (reform process) section specifically, which will probably be split or summarized once the first elections occur. You might also check out 2011 Egyptian constitutional referendum, which is definitely appropriate for what you've described, or 2011 Egyptian presidential election.  If you want to make a direct connection that the revolution/protests itself were not secular, I'd have to see some other sources, and probably get feedback from other editors.  At the least, I know there are multiple reliable sources (RS) which describe the revolution as non-religious in motivation/approach/style/tactics, etc.  The underlying goals, and future political machinations, are in my eyes more for the next chapter than this one.  Feel free to ask around, propose a draft, or make a WP:BOLD change yourself, which of course, may not last.  Ocaasi c 21:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to me like the idea that the revolution will end in Islamism is an "analysis" of the revolution and therefore would belong in that section. I can also see your perspective, though, that the article should focus on the more short term.  However, if that is the case, how do you justify such forward-looking analyses in that section such as:
 * "Shlomo Ben-Ami argues Egypt's most formidable task is to refute the old paradigm of the Arab World that sees the only choices for regimes as between either repressive, secular dictatorships or repressive theocracies. However, being a central part of society, any emergent regime is bound to be more attuned to religion. In his view a democracy that excludes all religion from public life, as in France, cannot succeed in Egypt, and that no Arab democracy could disallow the participation of political Islam if it is to be genuine.[187]"
 * "One analyst however, while conceding that the military is change-resistant, states it has no option but to facilitate the process of democratization. Furthermore, the military will have to keep its role in politics limited to continue good relations with the West, and must not restrict the participation of political Islam if there is to be a genuine democracy.[187]"
 * --Babank (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for waiting. Future, go ahead and add it, source it, and leave a note.  Everyone's free to take a stab at things here, although your patience was noted.  Very admirable, but don't hesitate once you get the hang of things to interpret WP:SILENCE as a weak form of consensus.  If no one wants to argue your point further, it usually means you've got a window of opportunity.


 * More importantly, I reread the section and although it caught the secular 'spirit' of the protests well, it was a bit triumphant for my taste and I edited it slightly.  I notice what you mean about it lacking any reference to ulterior motives of MB and other groups which might have seen the albeit peaceful secular revolution as a stepping stone for getting their foot in the political door (and who knows, maybe closing it behind them--though I doubt it and hope not).  So feel free to make any changes you think will improve the coverage and tone.  A paragraph noting those fears you mentioned, or just the more Realist strategy at work is indeed a good counterpoint to the idealism which existed but was going to at some point transfer over into more conventional looking debates and elections.  Just be careful to distinguish between the revolution itself and the aftermath.  Here are some more recent articles about MB involvement .  Good luck!  Look forward to seeing it.  If you want to draft it here, that's cool.  If not, I'll see it pop up in my WP:Watchlist.  Cheers, and thanks again for sticking around for a response. Ocaasi c 09:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Quick note from my part. Religion (or manipulation and misuse of which by various groups) is believed to have significantly influenced the recent referendum. That should go in somehow. --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Added
Hey all, I added the religion and politics paragraph tell me what you think.--Babank (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, a commentary on the paragraph preceding it: "However, secular forces emerged from the revolution touting principles that religious groups shared with them: freedom, social justice, and dignity. Islamist organisations also emerged with greater freedom to operate. Although the revolution was no guarantee that partisan politics would not re-emerge, it represented a change from the intellectual stagnation created by decades of repression which simply pitted modernity and Islam against as conflicting and incompatible. Islamists and secularists both have been faced with new opportunities for dialogue and discourse, on matters such as the role of Islam and Sharia in society and freedom of speech, as well as the impact of secularism on a predominantly Muslim population"

The following claims seem to me to be a POV, rather than a consensus view:
 * 1) The major religious groups support freedom
 * 2) Modernity and Islam weren't combined prior to the revolution
 * 3) The revolution represents a change from #2

Would be interested in your thoughts on this Ocaasi, as you wrote those lines. I believe they should be changed to eliminate a POV.--Babank (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I did some copy-editing to the section, so check it--maybe some of the claims are lessened. Also, I didn't write that paragraph, I actually tried to edit it down to size and with an appropriate tone.  Specifically, the major religious groups supported the rights of all Egyptians to protest and to have their voice heard in the country.  Of course, it's not clear if this will change once elections happen, but the commentary I've read did not take seriously the idea that after such a coming together Islamists would just slap back on a repressive religious regime, nor that the youth/secularists/military would let that happen.  So I think the emphasis in that paragraph, again, is on the themes they supported during the revolution.  What comes afterwards is speculation, but what was observed and said during the revolution itself seems less controversial for the first claim.  The second claim is sourced to that article--not sufficient for such a broad claim--but nonetheless the reality of Egypt was that Muslims were prohibited from seeking meaningful political representation under Mubarak.  To the extent that the MB demilitarized or deradicalized, there was an element of 'combination' between modernity and Islam, but the revolution was an operating test of that.  What follows in the political reorganization will be yet another.  As for 3, the revolution represented an affirmation of the possibility of Islam working alongside secularists and Copts in an inclusive civil discourse.


 * Ok, so those are my own justifications, and maybe it's sufficient to just rephrase things with less certainty. Other options are to source the views expressed in the first paragraph specifically to their author, and just attribute it as 'commentary' as we do below.  Or, we can go dig around for sources to see if those claims have broad support.  I take it you've seen some contradictory sources, so NPOV would require we at least describe that dispute.  What do you think? Ocaasi c 01:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for the response, and also for the improvements on the text I added. I could find sources to challenge point #1 (beyond the Glick article, or the article which talks about Islamists attacking Christians and liquor stores), but I presumed you were familiar with the argument that groups like the Muslim Brotherhood use calls for freedom/democracy (and social justice) mainly as a means to power and realization of their oppressive interpretation of Islamic law, not that those are their actual values.


 * Additionally, I think more than a few sources support the idea that the aftermath of the revolution may involve more open conflict (rather than peaceful dialogue/discourse) between secularists and religious forces than in previous years under Mubarrak, where such conflicts were restrained. Thoughts?--Babank (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The argument that Islamist groups take advantage of democracy to advance their interests (the foot-in-the-door-to-Sharia theory) is well known, although Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has long been a different breed than MB in other communities. To be a bit crude about it, MB was essentially neutered by Mubarak.  They adapted a non-violent, social-service oriented approach that focused on education, aid, and good-neighbor type basics.  The minimal political organizing they did took place in the background of this everyday religious organizing.  MB in Egypt was reported to have made this change at first reluctantly but then somewhat as a core shift in approach; they stated that their goals had changed and they no longer sought the radical transformation that other members in other countries were pursuing.  Now, you can't take political speech as a sign for anything except the most expedient thing to say at the moment, so this is not a comment on the absolute and enduring accuracy of MB's intent, but still, the broad critique of Islamism applied specifically to Egypt is largely in different territory.


 * The revolution itself helped to confirm this position, as it embodied and displayed the pinnacle of secular-religious cooperation--the alliance between ideological enemies to guarantee eachother access to fundamental civil rights is one of the hallmarks of transition to a universal rights-based polity. So, will it last?  Did MB just use the revolution as a convenient excuse to take over?  Obviously, I don't have the answers here, and we really shouldn't be using Wikipedia's voice to suggest one.  I think the answer is likely just better attribution.  We'll have to add some 'he said', 'she said', 'many commentators', 'most critics', etc.  Whatever gives context where we can support it.


 * Also and again, the revolution is different from the aftermath, and the analysis section should make such a distinction clear. The fall of Mubarak was a turning point, and what operated prior and during cannot be seamlessly connected to what follows.  Everyone worked together to achieve a common goal, and now they're trying to either set up a polity that keeps letting them work together, or set up a polity that benefits one of their individual interests.  We can describe both of these views, the intermediate reality, and the support the each received among sources.  I think it's fair to say the revolution inspired a tremendous amount of optimism about the potential for an enduring platform of civil rights, but that there are also concerns about the political proceedings intentionally or unintentionally resulting in a society which is somewhere closer on the spectrum to Sharia, or a Constitutional Islamic Republic than to an American style secular democracy.  Then again, I think most commentators think would say Egypt is as likely to wind up looking like Iran as it is like France... but that most likely is somewhere in the middle (Turkey, Indonesia, England?) given the balance of interests between the secular youth and military, the general Muslim population and MB groups, and the broader and very intense domestic and international scrutiny placed on the political process.  My thoughts.  So... Ocaasi c 03:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Cool, I think we're basically on the same page then in saying that different voices should be heard in regards to all those points I listed. I think an NPOV way of updating this would be to basically change the above points to: A) Note the cooperation between secular and religious forces, rather than ascribe it to shared values, and B) Note the increasing dialogue/cooperation as well as more open conflict.  From there we could add sources which stake out the particular views.--Babank (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We're definitely on the right track. I'm not sure we can completely separate the cooperation from the shared values, but we can separate 'stating they shared values' from 'reporting that commentators said they shared values'.  At the least, that will remove WP's endorsement of such endogenous and complicated factors.  All we really know is what sources told us the protests meant.  Some thought it meant that universal democratic values had triumped over religion or faction.  We should report that view.  Others thought (IMO more cynically) that MB would take whatever opportunity was presented to institute the most traditional or radical version of an Islamic Regime that they could.  Most acknowledge that both of these were operating, often simultaneously, and even within groups themselves.  Many secularists felt that MB could not be trusted as an ally, while others saw their change in approach as genuine and lasting.  Many islamists felt that secularists needed to be put back into their heathenous cave (didn't say this much publicly though), but others realized that the principles necessary for all people to have their voices heard and freedoms ensured required universal civil protections regardless of faith.  I'd like to get Egyptian Liberal, Lihaas, or Abrazme's opinion (if you're listening! or anyone else's), as they worked a great deal on the article and know the politics more deeply than I do.  Meanwhile, if you like, go ahead and draft or add in whatever you think is a step in the direction you described.  Ocaasi c 04:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * After reading the discussing above, here is my opinion: The revolution has four stages:


 * Before the revolution started
 * The revolution itself (From the 25th of Jan. until 11th of Feb.)
 * The immediate aftermath of revolution
 * The long term effect of the revolution


 * Writing about the last one RIGHT NOW will be reporting about speculation. The Islamist forces are not one voice; even the MB has internal issues at the moment (The reformist wing VS. The conservative wing & The old guards VS. The Youth). There are many Islamists voices in Egypt and There are many voices that are secular. Some are radicals from both sides and some are moderates. The radical secularist want a French like system (The american system is NOT as secular as the French one) while the radical Islamist want an Iranian system with a Saudi twist to it (Iran is Shia while Egypt is most a Sunni country). The majority of the country tho falls somewhere in the middle. The idea of an Islamic take over only freaks out the west but in Egypt, it cant happened (Even the MB knows that). Egyptian for the most part are are moderates so I dont see an Islamic take over in my life time for many reasons stated by Ocaasi already. We (Egyptian) are already talking there about a Turkish style were the army would interfere if they see an non-democratic force getting elected. But what I wrote so far is speculation and I always have a problem when writing about speculation in Wikipedia. I think we will be able to see the long term effect after the 2011 Egyptian presidential election (Because the 2011 Egyptian constitutional referendum made sure the president has superman powers). If I was going to place a bet on who will win it, my money will be on ElBaradei or Amr Moussa. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If the speculation is notable, isn't this the place to put it? Especially since it's not obvious where the line is between #3 and #4.. It wasn't long after the revolution that dialogue and conflict began between religious and secular forces.


 * I'm sure you (and others here) know more about Egyptian politics than me, so would you care to explain how you reconcile your view with the opinion polls of Egyptians? Those polls find that the majority support Islamists and Islamist policies over secularism.--Babank (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

A good policy to read here is WP:CRYSTAL. We're encouraged not to look ahead ourselves, and to trail the news or the mainstream consensus. Still, we can report on some speculation if we do it in a limited way, and with clear attribution. Also, we can report on the verifiable results of polls. We can't do our own WP:SYNTHESIS and say that the speculation, plus the polls, means X or Y. We have to be pretty reserved when it comes to any extrapolation. Two things we should avoid are sounding a) like a pro-democracy, Voice of America type overview, heralding the new free future; or b) sounding like a bad newspaper, closing the article on a note of suspenseful speculation (only time will tell whether the secularists will be able to hold off the islamist force, and if the delicate balance of freedom can be sustained). Babank, I think the best thing to do would be to list 5 or 6 good sources that represent the point-of-view you're describing, as well as links to those polls or articles that discuss them. Then we'll see where they fit and how to incorporate them. Ocaasi c 01:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I feel like the POV I was trying to incorporate on religion and politics is well represented at this point. I don't feel like there's any WP:CRYSTAL issue because the speculation about the revolution there is not unverified. My only reservations on those sections are the ones I listed above about the article taking the POV that the religious groups value freedom, or that the future favors dialogue over conflict.--Babank (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey hoe!86.24.9.104 (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)