Talk:2011 Egyptian revolution/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about 2011 Egyptian revolution. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Properly formatting references

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

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

Properly citing sources; no more bare URLs!

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

Arabic Names

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

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

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

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

DDOS for Egyptian Government websites by Anonymous (group)

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

"A policeman is more dangerous than a criminal"

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

Khaled_Mohamed_Saeed_holding_up_a_tiny,_flailing,_stone-faced_Hosni_Mubarak.png

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

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

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

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

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

Jack Shenker's Continuation

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

Suez Jan 26/27

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

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

Mubarak's presidency section

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

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

Emergency Law

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

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

Corruption paragraphs removed

I removed the following paragraphs:

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

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

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

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

"From January 2011 onwards?"

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

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

Mass Arrests

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summarizing the government response and international response in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

All communication shut down

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

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

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

Battles in Alexandria

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

Journalists being targeted by Egyptian police

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

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

Mubarak family fleeing

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

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

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

Egyptian Presidential Guard

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

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

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

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

Massive Reorg

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

Al Jazeera photos

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mubarak will dissolve the government

According to this source,

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

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

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

Neutrality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joe Biden's comments on Mubarak and legitimacy of protestors

Please add his comments as described in CS Monitor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nobel Laureate Mohammed ElBaradei Under House Arrest

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

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

Alexandria battle turns to handshakes

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

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

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

Invalid reference

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

if you can figure out,ill correct it:

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

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

Wikileaks leak amongst chaos

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

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

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

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

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

Pending Changes

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

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

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

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

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

Pending changes re-enabled

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suez "massacre" reports

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

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

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

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

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

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