Jump to content

Talk:2011 Egyptian revolution/Article name

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move request

[edit]
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: move to Egyptian Revolution of 2011, executed by Tariqabjotu. Labattblueboy (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{adminhelp}}I don't think this template is needed, if the help you requested is the page move, there is a page for that and bot already placed the article there, no need for alert and template is not for talk pages in this space Petrb (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Egyptian protests → 2011 Egyptian uprising — Both CNN and Al-Jazeera now call the events an "uprising". (See the videos of both news outlets.)  Cs32en Talk to me  06:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The article is move-protected, only administrators can change the title.

Old discussion

[edit]

Copied from the first half of the discussion (currently located at: Talk:2011_Egyptian_protests/Archive_3#Move_request) which appears to have been archived by mistake.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that the name of the article is changing and that it's going to be a problem in the future, we need to discuss it now -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, the popular protests that brought down the government in Tunisia are named "2010-2011 Tunisian protests" and the popular protests that have accomplished NOTHING (for the time being) in Egypt deserve the name "2011 Egyptian revolution"? Puh-lease.

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

We generally determine the title from what the majority of the sources are calling it. For now, it is still being called a protest, thus our current name. If most news organizations started calling it a revolution, we would have a case for changing the name. SilverserenC 20:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hosni Mubarak has dismissed the government because of the events. What is occurring has gone beyond mere protests. I wouldn't say that it is a revolution yet, but an uprising at least. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as sources call it an uprising rather than just protests, we can too. For now, every source I've seen is still just using 'protests' though. Ocaasi (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please let's follow article naming conventions and not vault every interested party's chosen moniker to boldface, lead-sentence status prior to this actually being widely accepted. Last night I removed "Youth Revolutions" and this morning I have removed "Lotus Revolution". Either may yet become what this becomes popularly known as, but it is not so now, and would be unencyclopedic to elevate a particular faction's preferred characterization so early in this developing story. If individuals or groups are seeking to "own" or co-opt these protests, that should first be covered with cites and appropriate relative weightings in the body of the article; if and when one such name seems to have stuck to the satisfaction of those involved, then it shouldn't be difficult to develop consensus to represent it that way here. Abrazame (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say yes at least maybe later. However, we will see during the following days or weeks if these protests will emerge towards the revolution which they called the Lotus revolution or the Youth revolution
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/01/28/egypt.press.club/
Kartasto (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's time to change the name to "revolution" from protests
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/29/egypt-mubarak-tunisia-palestine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.166.157 (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, she's still well ahead of the pack. It's also an opinion piece and she has been acting particularly in a punditry/advocacy role supporting the protests throughout rather than as a neutral journalist. Still watching for sources, but thanks for that tip. Ocaasi (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mona Eltawahi Eltahawy is not a remotely WP:NPOV source in this matter and quoting her words should be done cautiously. [email protected] (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

time to call it Revolution?

[edit]

There must be sources supporting it. It seems like it. --Athinker (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although a revolutionary outcome has not yet been achieved (of course that is a distinct possibility) the developing events certainly have many characteristics of a revolution, and for that reason I would personally be happy to see the word added in the Characteristcs section of the infobox. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources, just sources. We can't be pushing that needle any further than it's already gone. Revolution is a very 'big' word, and until governments are overthrown or replaced--and sources start using the term explicitly, I don't think we should. Ocaasi (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait till the president is completely gone...and maybe some actual reforms or changes are put in. Like maybe if Mubarak is either pushed out or maybe he simply does not run for president in the next "election". (Those rigged jokes of "elections"...where mysteriously he gets more than 98% of the "vote"...though most people don't like him and wanted him out...hence why a lot of the outrage and anger).
As of yet, it's an uprising, violent protest, unrest, riot... That sorta thing. But an attempted "revolution" is not quite yet an actual "revolution" per se, I would think. What happened in Iran not that long ago kinda proves that. Ahmadinejad is still "president" of Iran, despite the uprising and protests that happened there. So we'll see... This might be different though. With Egypt. Time will tell. Archiver of Records (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mubarak is still in control, so there has been no "revolution." So far it is vandalism, rallying and whinging. Let us know when Mubarak is no longer in control, so we can make the name change for the article. Edison (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm presuming the new name would be "Egyptian Revolution of 2011", in the event of Mubarak's removal from power (let's not kid ourselves, it's imminent at this point). Master&Expert (Talk) 06:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If and when Mubarak leaves, then it becomes an "Uprising", Not a Revolution. We need have NPOV. If and when it becomes a full-blown revolution, then we will name it a "Revolution" -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If and when a diversity of RS' call it so. even tunisia had no consensus for it. though i was just about to nominate a move to "uprising" isntead of protests. but scratch that, Egyptian Liberal's comment makes more sense.(Lihaas (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Forgive me for perhaps misunderstanding what has been said, but I fail to see how the term "revolution" would appear as biased. It implies dramatic change, whether positive or negative. If it comes to be identified with the term, then we can potentially follow my suggestion above and rename the article. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's only biased because it's premature. So, suggesting it now seems to prefer that outcome. Otherwise, if/once RS start using that term, we probably will too. Ocaasi (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I currently Oppose calling this a revolution, take for example the Tunisian uprising article the president there stepped down, there was no viuolent takeover or anything there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be violent to be a revolution anyway. Look at Velvet Revolution for example; it had nothing to do with violence, but it was a revolution because despite being non-violent there were changes (from communism to democracy) and the changes were dramatic. Also, if the stated goal of the Egyptian protests is to oust Mubarak that can hardly be named a revolution; it doesn't change the existing systems, does it? It only replaces the man/men currently at top with someone else. Roofred (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to call it a revolution, Millions of people, with different ideologies requiring the regime to step down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.248.56.1 (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am placing this here as well (originally made the post at the bottom of the talk page): For what its worth: A February 14 TIME issue (vol 177, no 6) went even further and called the crisis in Egypt a Revolution (or more specifically: "The Revolution - by Fareed Zakaria", page 12).Calaka (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a mere protest. Rename it.

[edit]

This is not a mere protest. Almost all sources title it TURMOIL. In my opinion it's a dictionary definition of a Revolution but I'm aware sources are afraid to say it. --Athinker (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example of a similar case with their name/title? Dinkytown talk 18:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
we dont use editor opinion, and for such a big thing we need multiple and DIVERSE RS. Tunisia is still not a revolution, no way egypt will bveLihaas (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If they call Paris: May 1968 a revolution then this is.Ericl (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yes, but we cant cite "they" we need such RS.(Lihaas (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

If the government is still in power, it is not a revolution by definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.154 (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uprising?

[edit]

CNN seems rather fond of calling the events an Uprising. Personally I think this is a good middle ground between 'protest', which it is in my opinion evolved beyond, and 'revolution,' which implants a physical attempt to seize power. DavidSSabb (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a rough guide, Google News search limited to the past 7 days for Egypt protests: 27,693; for Egypt uprising: 11,305 (note: similar breakdown of about 2.5:1 for egyptian protests, egyptian uprising). See also Google Trends (egypt protests, egypt uprising) [1]. And check out the Google Trends regional breakout at the bottom, where the 'uprising' term has indeed caught on more in the US than the UK or Canada: [2] Ocaasi (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Revolution" is totally unsuitable and "uprising" arguably has a POV connotation. "Protests" is a straightforward, NPOV description of the situation. Everyking (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support renaming it "uprising". I don't see it being "POV connotated", it's exactly what's happening: an uprising of millions of Egyptian people against Mubarak.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for "uprising". Seems a good middle path. Midlakewinter (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the single events taking place are often called "protest", or, if they take place in several cities simultaneously, for example, are referred to as "protests", a Google search can't really answer the question of whether the movement as a whole is being seen as an uprising, a revolution, a revolt, or as (a number of) protests. We have to look carefully at the context in which reliable sources use words such as "protests" or "uprising". Also, internet search may well include outdated information and analysis.  Cs32en Talk to me  13:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I commonly understood an uprising to involve violence, which isn't really the case yet. This could very well change but I don't think the case has been made that either A) it is an uprising and B) that is the common name being applied to the current events.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Protests are expressions of opinions, while an uprising is an attempt to change the existing power structure. Such an attempt may be peaceful, but often, as it implies a power struggle, it is violent. Violence can emerge for different reasons, and a violent uprising does not imply that the movement behind the uprising intended it to be violent.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From webster: "Uprising - an act or instance of rising up; especially : a usually localized act of popular violence in defiance usually of an established government" wikidictionary has a similar thing on it. In other words it appears that this meets the definition here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, my impression is that it normally employs large-scale violence. To reach this conclusion, I searched other wikipedia articles that employ the term uprising in the title and I had difficultly finding any that did not involve armed struggle.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2010–2011 Tunisian uprising would be an example without much violence on the protesters' side... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A perfect example indeed, because it started off as 2010–2011 Tunisian protests and when it became conclusive that it was a uprising the article was renamed 2010–2011 Tunisian uprising. That didn't happen until over a month after those events started. The protest in Egypt have been taking place for just over a week. Patience.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per above, and my comment - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postpone definitely and see what happens. If this prevails, it may be consensus to call this a Revolution (with a flower name all its own - Lotus, I suppose) by the end of the week. If it fizzles, it may not even become known as an uprising. If a consensus name emerges, present evidence for it; if not, let us reconsider this time next week. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I too agree with the previous statements caling for a name change. Although there is no easy way to quantify "protests" versus "uprising" or "revolution", in my opinion several hundred violent deaths doesn't seem like a protest to me. But, like above, a revolution requires some level of success that the anti-Mubarak crowd has not yet achieved. If the name of the article must change again to reflect further development in the days ahead, so be it. but for now these are not protests. It is revolt. Sixer Fixer (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion

[edit]
  • Support For all the reasons stated above, 'protests' is clearly now a very considerable understatement.
  • Support The scale of the events and the international attention they attracted and most importantly the previously unthinkable decisions now taken by the government mean that this has gone beyond just a continuous protest. Its a full uprising and once it succeeds should be moved to a revolution.NMKuttiady (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7 supports (incl. nom.) seems unanimouos for amove.Lihaas (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still find twice as many Google hits for "Egyptian protests" as for "Egyptian uprising". I think this supports adding the "uprising" phrase to the lead sentence, as in "The 2011 Egyptian protests, or Egyptian uprising," but not just yet a move of the article name. Like the use of the "uprising" phrase, I realize I am in the minority here, but it's worth pointing out that some things are supposed to be based on what's actually happening in the world, and not on what interested editors vote for. The incremental shift of adding the secondary phraseology to the lead sentence now for the first time, rather than jumping ahead of that preliminary step and moving the whole article to what is still only a secondary phraseology, seems to be what is called for. Abrazame (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Reading the article I think current name is better Petrb (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There's more reliable sources (guardian, bbc, reuters, nytimes, huffington post) that use the word "protest" in their headings / headlines and refer to this event often as protest, not as "uprising" (and so does the majority of other sources in comparison to those that started referring to it as "uprising", google hits to the rescue: protests' hits are 8x time more than uprising ones). Also, the nominator is known for his pro-right Israeli edits, uprising is a label to show that it wasn't the voice of the people but rather some sort of riot by bunch of rioters. Better keep it as it is, no need to make the title biased (I'm not opposed, however, against a redirection from the page 2011 Egyptian uprising which already exists) let alone the fact, that in other sources in different languages since the beginning was used the word "Protest", for example russian ones: gazeta.ru, lenta.ru, 1 state channel, Russia. So I think we can manage without this cliche / label from mainly pro-right Israeli side. Userpd (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first five sources (The Guardian, BBC, Reuters, New York Times,Huffington Post) all were published in January, so I would advise against using them to determine how reliable sources describe the events.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should remove you previous vote I suppose previous discusion was canceled; if not there are many users who voted more than one time Petrb (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstaining following User:Silver seren sourcing. Midlakewinter (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for all oppose voters to address: All of the sources that Userpd put forth are from January, a very long time ago in the time scale of what's happening in Egypt. And, yes, in the beginning, all sources referred to it as a protest, which is why there are so many more labeled protest than uprising. However, have you noticed which term is used more within the past few days? Here's some examples of the use of the word uprising within the past few days.
All of these sources are dated from February 3rd onward. And, with them, I think i've made my point. And I should also note, before someone needles me with it, that the people of Egypt are doing acts that are called protests, but the entire process is currently being called an uprising. SilverserenC 21:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From today's (6 february) CNN news, they refer to them as "protesters", Also today, BBC, refers to it as "street protests", euronews, also today, uses the term "protests". And outside of the anglo-world, the event is more known as "protest" not as "uprising", at least in Russia. google hits for protests in Egypt, google hits for uprising in Egypt I think it needs no comment. Userpd (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The CNN and Euronews are inconsequential, because they just use the word protesters. What else are they going to use as a term? Uprisers? Uprisingers? I'm fairly certain neither of those are words. And, yeah...BBC has pretty much stuck with calling it a protest. They haven't really deviated from that. Trying to stay neutral, I suppose? But one source isn't enough to make any conclusion.
As for Russia, i'm not sure what you're expecting to find there. Of course they don't use the term Uprising. That is a term that Russian media does not want to go throwing around. Russia might not be being as extravagantly censorist as China is, but they are still being careful of what they say. Not that Russia has to worry about that as much from the main population, they love Russia, but more from the outlying territories, the former bloc countries. Believe me, I know how Russia works. Go read my article on the War of Laws. SilverserenC 21:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rough google news searches indicate that "Egypt protests" still beats "Egypt uprising", 3,024 to 753. Furthermore:
Thus, I still find it a bit early to make a definite call for a move. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are your thoughts on my suggestion above and below? Surely at some point prior to an actual move (should that come to pass) it would be appropriate to mention in the lead. Abrazame (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me work through each of your links.
  • The Guardian one is a blog article.
  • The Reuters Africa one is using a quote for ElBaradei, which is why the title is preceded by ElBaradei:.
  • Your Daily Mail link also seems to be blog-ish, considering it is written as the opinion of a single reporter.
  • AlMasry seems legitimate.
  • Asia One seems legitimate.
  • The Belleville one is an opinion piece, it even has Guest view in the title.
  • Associated Press articles can be found in many places because a bunch of newspapers copy the article verboten.
  • Al Jazeera Blogs. I think Blogs is my point.
  • "Press TV takes revolutionary steps as the first Iranian international news network, broadcasting in English on a round-the-clock basis." I would watch for bias on this one. They likely would not want to use the term uprising either, for political reasons.
  • Huffington Post seems legitimate.
  • New York Times Blogs. Blogs again.
And, for the ones that I said were legitimate, you still have to consider that the actions of what the people are doing are called protests, while the thing in its entirety is an uprising. You have to read in that context. And I also notice that the links you gave had to, largely, be a bit of a stretch for reliability compared to the ones I gave. SilverserenC 23:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are widely cited in this article as is– something like 20 are already used in the refs section. I was following the established practise in providing them. I believe that the Reuters Africa one is only quoting "more vicious", hence the quotation marks around that phrase only. Also, I think you mean "verbatim", not "verboten" (the latter means "forbidden"). I realise that AP articles are widely syndicated, but I don't think that that makes them not RS. I was only including one manifestation of the article. Point taken about the Press TV article, though. I didn't look too deeply into these articles; I just chose a few the ones that looked legitimate after a quick scan of the page. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment for oppose and new voters I think the logical next step is what I suggested, which is essentially a compromise between the two and which could be a stepping stone to a full move in a few more days or however long should that become the preponderant usage. The wording is used four times in the article (counterintuitively twice relating specifically to Suez). It seems logical that at some point prior to a full move it's appropriate for the wording to be metioned in the lead, no? To put it a different way, does anyone who does not/did not support a move think it's reasonable to put the "uprising" word into the lead in advance/instead of a move? Abrazame (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources being used in the lead call it an uprising call it an uprising, if they call it a protest then call it a protest.--76.214.104.173 (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite outrageous that Wikipedia is not allowing editing of this article. Further, there have many instances where the major media are not even reporting how severe the government's actions have been. How can the facts be proved when the media don't even report what we can see on video with our own eyes? In one article I saw a claim of a major news source "dozens of injuries" when it was clear from the videos it is at least in the hundreds or the thousands. If Wikipedia does not allow full reporting, that makes it complicit in this reporting. That is sad and horrible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.154 (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't whine, act. Find a source which would report what you saw, then include in an article as an alternative suggestion. Userpd (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian revolution

[edit]

Is it fair to call this a revolution now? There are diffrent types of revolutions and this appears to be more than just ousting the president in Egypt. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It keeps looking so, inside the arab world the term revolution is gaining more and more popularity in regards to this event. aljazeera, the main live broadcaster of this event, El Fagr, a major Egyptian newspaper, from today's news, also, El Fagr, today, used the term "revolution". I think it's important how inside the Arab world and in Egypt this event is seen, as they should know better than some remote newspaper (excluding highly reliable sources such as Reuters, Washington Post, BBC) in some foreign country that is thousands of miles away. Userpd (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admin action on move request needed

[edit]

As the article is protected, it can only be moved by an administrator. Therefore, it would be helpful if we either close the move request with a definite result (i.e. supported, rejected, or "no consensus"). Then, an administrator may implement the decision, if a move is supported.

2011 Egyptian protests → 2011 Egyptian uprising —

  • "Uprising in Egypt Equals Downfall in Tourism" NPR
  • "Egypt's government attempted to placate a reinvigorated uprising" [The Telegraph
  • "Record Turnout, Joyful Participants in Egypt Uprising" CBS
  • "Egyptian uprising enables jailed Hamas militant to escape" Guardian
  • "Egypt's uprising stirs fears of persecution of minority Coptic Christians" Washington Post

  Cs32en Talk to me  02:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(There's an ongoing discussion above. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I have started this new discussion, as in the discussion above, a number of sources dating from January 2011 have been cited to argue against moving the article. New sources (i.e. sources dating from February) that support describing the event as "Egyptian protests" are welcome, of course.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what its worth: A February 14 TIME issue (vol 177, no 6) went even further and called the crisis in Egypt a Revolution (or more specifically: "The Revolution - by Fareed Zakaria", page 12).Calaka (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the move discussion template. You can not simply start a new discussion when there is one ongoing. The first discussion must conclude and that decision should likely only be done by an admin in this case. It certainly shouldn't be done by the mover of the past discussion because they are unsatisfied with the discussion progress. --Labattblueboy (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In other circumstances, starting a new discussion would indeed be inappropriate. This is a situation in which the coverage by reliable sources changes quite rapidly, so that old comments quickly become outdated.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is, in onto itself, an opinion on the matter. It's not entirely certain that this opinion would be shared by all participants at this time. Starting new discussion simply restarts the WP:RM clock and only further delays any conclusion to the discussion.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion (with a request to move the article to "2011 Egyptian revolution") was started on January 26. So in my view, the discussion should have been closed around February 3, possibly as "rejected". Then, a new discussion could have been started. So I hope that we will be able to close this discussion on February 13. Cluttering the talk space with outdated comments is, in my view, not helpful for anyone who wants to close this debate.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, your argument for a new section is weak, as a rough search on google news gives a lot of fresh hits by the keyword "protests". That being said above, the references "protests / protest" are being met in news sources more often than "uprising", which have come to use by some sources only recently. Also, even that "some sources" continue referring to it as "protest", see guardian, from today's news. Userpd (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Lead compromise

[edit]

Though it still strike me as early to move the article (and there's no clear consensus to do so), I don't see a problem with adding an alternate name in the lead. I sourced it with a few major news org.'s articles. See if the phrasing works. Ocaasi (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True Revolution

[edit]

"Our Egyptian Revolution", says Egyptian Journalist Ethar el Katatney. At the night before 11. February 2011 (C.E)/Jaum al Yumma 7. Rabi' al-awwal 1432 (A.H.)/4. Meshir 1727 (A.M.) the Egyptian protests quite univocally are termed an ongoing revolution (in the global Media). It has not yet got a name, but anyhow this article is about becoming ripe for being moved. The Blanket Revolution is another suggestion. --Xact (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely at least a major uprising: police overwhelmed nationwide, massive army deployment, more than 300 dead, two weeks of continual tension and counting... "Protests" is not a good rendition of what is really happening. Specially so if we consider what the demands of the so called (millions of) "protesters" are, nothing less that the overthrow of the political regime. In the other hand, to say it is a revolution may be somehow premature. I think “revolution” implies that those who revolted are successful in their commitment of defeating those in power and able to implement a new political order.(Sorry for the clumsy syntax, not english native)190.19.240.214 (talk) 04:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check the talk archives for extensive discussion of this. It's changing, but 'Revolution' is not yet sourced, and likely won't be until Mubarak is actually out. We added 'Uprising' as an alternate name in the first paragraph, but Protests and Uprising are still at least even if not 60-40 towards Protests among last week's major news sources. In a few days/weeks we'll know for sure. Until then, it makes sense to stick with the current article title, which has plenty of sourcing for it as well. Ocaasi (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time Magazine Prominently Labels Protests "Revolution"

[edit]

Time Magazine's Feb 14th issue is simply title "Revolution", in reference to the events this article describes.68.45.210.104 (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC

this discussion is currently ongoing (see note in the header), as for now the consensus s against such a move, though uprising has more consensus.(Lihaas (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
sometimes those things need to be taken with a grain of salt, even if it's from what's considered "reliable sources." Because hyperbole, hasty views, and SENSATIONALISTIC language still go on with "reliable" news media. As I said before, an attempted revolution is not quite an actual full-fledged total "revolution" per se, I would think.
As of yet, nothing substantial has really "changed" necessarily. Are food prices lower? Are jobs more available? Better-paying jobs? No "emergency law" where people can be literally arrested and tortured by secret police for nothing? No more rigged "elections"? Or is it just vice president who will be just like Mubarak? And just maybe some flowery words? Did a real "revolution" happen quite yet? Or is it still technically just an uprising and protest?
Regardless of what "Time" Magazine likes to say to attract buyers and readers. Archiver of Records (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As of 11AM ET Feb 11, all news outlets are now labeling this a revolution. A revolution is also officially defined as an over throw of the head of state. Please unlock and move the page to a new title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstorman (talk • contribs) 16:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution

[edit]

Aljazeera and other sources are calling it a "revolution". Surely time to rename this page "Egyptian Revolution"? Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obviously, we shouldn't jump the gun (we're not even calling the Tunisian one a revolution), but on a totally unrelated note, there's more than one Egyptian Revolution; this would have to be the Egyptian Revolution of 2011. Lockesdonkey (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much every media outlet is calling it a revolution now. Jmount (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed renaming of article

[edit]

It's clear that the protests have led to the removal of the old regime, suggesting that this article's title is obsolete.

Possible new titles might be:

etc.

What would people suggest here? -- The Anome (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, it's been decided for us. Look at the lede. SilverserenC 17:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I undid that. There needs to be consensus first. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Does anyone have any objections to renaming this article to Egyptian Revolution of 2011? -- The Anome (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This decision needs to be based on more than asking if anyone objects. We need to see what the media calls it, how the people refer to it, etc. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone needs to submit a formal renaming proposal. I think it's obvious that this is a revolution. To cohere with other Egyptian revolutions, a proposed renaming should be to "Egyptian Revolution of 2011." fishhead64 (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you? I'm not sure how to do it.Ericl (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Egyptian_revolution/Article_name&oldid=1089040052"