Jump to content

Talk:2013 Egyptian coup d'état/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Morsi dissolved parliament

There is no background information on why people ousted Morsi. This article reads like you are in the twilight zone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.157.63.184 (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

US role in the coup

This article completely overlooks the US role in the coup, even though that role is well documented, thanks to a NY Times article. That article also makes clear, by the way, that this was indeed a coup, despite all the denials of that in discussions above.

An article in Salon makes the significance of the account given by the NY Times clear:

New York Times shocker: The truth about Egypt slips out
In a rare moment of candor, the paper exposes U.S. involvement in the coup [...]
Hacks like me call minute-to-minute accounts of events “tick-tocks,” and the New York Times did one from Cairo in its edition last Sunday, four days after Morsi’s ouster. I wonder if the commissars are upset. Buried in the details is a plain and simple re-creation of the moments during which Washington gave the Egyptian army authorization to move against its government.

Here is the relevant passage from the NY Times article:

[Morsi's] top foreign policy adviser, Essam el-Haddad, then left the room to call the United States ambassador, Anne W. Patterson, to say that Mr. Morsi refused [the demand to replace his cabinet]. When he returned, he said he had spoken to Susan E. Rice, the [US] national security adviser, and that the military takeover was about to begin, senior aides said.
“Mother just told us that we will stop playing in one hour,” an aide texted an associate, playing on a sarcastic Egyptian expression for the country’s Western patron, “Mother America.”

The article currently does not even cite this NY Times article, which provides crucial details that are absent from the Wikipedia article. The NY Times article makes clear that the Egyptian military did not start its takeover until it was given the go ahead by the United States. – Herzen (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree, this article could use more information about the role of the United States. However, we would need more than one source for such a section (the NY times article alone is not enough. Charles Essie (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It is interesting to see Morsi's group in such close communication with the U.S. about an "internal" Egyptian matter. However, Wikipedia is not about scooping the news. If relevant information becomes widely developed, then it should be included. "New York Times shocker", and such, doesn't exactly inspire encyclopedic confidence. Taroaldo ✉ 02:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Rread the artucel and you will find there ISs mention of the us role. No need for an UNDUE special section however. Thatll be pov-pushingLihaas (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move (July 12)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

A move just closed (36 hours before), no need to keep opening up a debate till you get the result you like. Recent consensus is for this to stay. Couple of months down the line one can reopen this. WP is not Egyptian "democracy" that you argue and protest till you get a preferential result(Lihaas (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)).

2013 Egyptian coup d'état → Overthrow of Mohamed Morsi – A previous request discussed the use of coup vs. revolution, but have found both to be a loaded term. Another section proposed "Overthrow of Mohamed Morsi", which only describes what happened without using either term. Article editor (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support for now. As I said above and in the earlier discussion, though I think that "coup d'etat" is more accurate and a bit less loaded than "revolution", "overthrow" is more NPOV than either of them, and is still acceptably accurate, and would thus be an ideal compromise. Primarily, I think it is important to wait and see how these events play out and how they are labelled with sufficient hindsight (or at least wait for people in general to decide what exactly to call them), and to ensure that Wikipedia, as a website, not take a specific side in an ongoing debate like this. Obviously, at some point it becomes appropriate to give a controversial name to a page, but given that there is no base of terminology yet, we should probably wait and go with this very reasonable compromise. anamedperson (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment – There were several comments in the earlier discussion to the effect of saying that while they would not support a move to a title containing "revolution", they would support a move to a title title not using "coup" or "revolution", such as "Overthrow of Mohamed Morsi", "Deposition of Mohamed Morsi", etc. --Article editor (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support - I'm largely neutral, because I do absolutely think coup d'etat accurately describes Morsi's ouster, but since the use of the term has taken on a POV connotation, I think it may be best to adopt a less contentious title. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose another move discussion: This is essentially the same as previous move request. It has been discussed extensively and decided. I don't see any new argument, no need to repeat the previous discussion. POV does not apply, the title satisfies the NPOV requirements, see the previous discussion. 128.100.3.40 (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
**I would say that some of the factors in this discussion are a bit different than the last one. The difference in meaning between "overthrow" and "revolution" are significant enough to warrant some discussion, I think at least. They are different enough that I changed my position from the last one, so maybe other people have such opinions too. That said, "coup" works too, and usage is an entirely different issue that I probably should be accounting for but am not. anamedperson (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
This view was expressed in the previous discussion and was discussed. It is not a new suggestion. Also the base of the argument is similar. 128.100.3.40 (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Calling something a "coup" definitely passes judgment against it. Many writers in reliable sources in the media have judged this event, but history has not done so yet. Until it does, neither should Wikipedia. Nor is it like "Jack the Ripper" or "the Corrupt Bargain", where a loaded term has become a proper name regardless of anyone's opinion about the original merits. The previous move request was rejected partly because the suggested alternative was also unsatisfactory, rather than because of a consensus that no move was desirable. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey, if this article is about the coup, where the military removed Morsi, period, with no involvement of the Egyptian people at large, that means that Tamarod and the NSF are irrelevant to this article, or at most just background. We could just have a new article for the events before and after the coup. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Coup doesn't mean people were not involved. And as I wrote before: political and emotional consequences of the title are irreverent. The name of the title should be clear and accurate and based on reliable sources and coup is. 128.100.3.40 (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure we can find a batch of sources using highly POV terms for pretty much any article you feel like. Shall we let the first admin to pass judgment on a subject move any article to a slogan for or against the subject as suits their own POV, as long as they can find some sources using the slogan? This is nothing like the examples in WP:POVTITLE. You can say "the Boston Massacre wasn't a massacre" and no one will blink; say "this coup isn't a coup" and you've contradicted yourself. I actually came to this article trying to find out whether this "coup" is a coup or not, but the pro-Morsi forces have swamped this discussion, so the question is not to be answered neutrally. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. In retrospect, neither "revolution" nor "coup" satisfy NPOV at this point. The proposed title describes the event accurately and in neutral terms. Taroaldo ✉ 01:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
The current title is fine and satisfies NPOV, see WP:POVTITLE and the examples given there. It is the dominant term used in media, political experts and analysts, and other reliable sources by a wide margin and is accurate and clear. 128.100.3.40 (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy procedural close. This new move request was started on the false premise that the supposed POV-ness of both 'coup' and 'revolution' was the reason for failure of the previous request. The true reason for the previous discussion resulting in the article not being moved was (quote the closing admin): "usage of [coup d'état] among reliable sources makes this a WP:POVTITLE. It's also worth noting that this event fits our own definition of Coup d'état as expressed in that article's lede". So the decision not to rename the article was well argumented and does not warrant a new discussion this soon. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Spedy closing it as this was opened without hours of the previous close. We don't keep voting till we like the result.Lihaas (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

The size of anti-Morsi protests

Here is a report on AJE that claims the reported numbers of protesters are bloated: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/07/2013717115756410917.html 128.100.3.40 (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh Come On, Al-Jazeera ????? This Channel Is Biased, Google Earth Said The Numbers Were Above 33 Million, And Were Filmed By Military Helicopters . --CaeserKaiser (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
It seems that you are new to Wikipedia editing. I suggest that you check WP:5 and WP:Introduction. We are not fact checking here directly, see no original research. Articles should be written from natural point of view, notable different perspectives can be presented as long as they are supported by reliable sources. AJE is a major mainstream news organization and is considered a reliable source. The author of this report, who is not affiliated with AJE, claims that all estimates putting the number of protesters in tens of millions reported in western media are based on military and oppositions sources, which are stakeholders in this event. It would be nice to find and cite a reliable source which independent of Egyptian military and opposition figures puts the number of protesters over 10 million. And no, what "Google Earth Said" (whatever that means) is not considered a reliable source. 128.100.3.40 (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
AJE And The Rest Of Its Family No Longer A Reliable Source To Who's Living In The Arab World And The Arab Viewers Because Of Its Bias Toward The Muslim Brotherhood And Political Islamic Parties And Groups [1], TV Reporters And Major Leaders Resigned From Al-Jazeera Because Of "Dishonesty And Deception" [2] .. Try Another Reliable Source . 10 Million, Are You Alright ?? Many Peaceful Villages And Towns That Didn't Take Part In January 25Th Revolution Participated In June 30Th Mass Demonstrations . This Number Is Much Much Higher Than Only 10 Million . Anyway, Thanks For Fast Reply . --CaeserKaiser (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Until you read the guidelines I linked above and understand how Wikipedia works there is no point in replying to you. 128.100.3.40 (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'm Telling You That AJE Is Not A Reliable Source Anymore.. --CaeserKaiser (talk) 07:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
And I told you it doesn't matter if you think it is biased. What matters here is that it is what we call a "reliable source" according to Wikipedia's guideline WP:Sources, read the guideline. And I also told you the author of the report, Max Blumenthal, is not affiliated with AJE, AJE only published it. And if you want to understand what is really going on in Egypt, I would suggest watching this short interview: http://www.stratfor.com/video/conversation-implications-egypts-coup Also please stop starting every word with a capital letter. 128.100.3.40 (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
As I told you before, AJE twists The Facts Because its bias, tries to visualize What happened on July 3Th to the Americans and Europeans As a coup, but it's not .. --CaeserKaiser (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Then seek consensus at WP:RSN if you feel its not appropritate here(Lihaas (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)).
It looks like that either you didn't read my replies or you are not able to understand them. Thus there is no point in continuing this discussion with you. If you want to avoid being ignored in future read the Wikipedia guidelines I linked above and try to understand them. 128.100.3.40 (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Note

This page is not a forum nor for debate. Do not use this page for political declarations. Only post material that are relevant for improving the article according to Wikipedia guidelines. Arguments for any change must be based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines not your personal opinions. Using Wikipedia for propaganda or political advocacy is against Wikipedia guidelines. Please use normal English for discussions. If you are new to Wikipedia editing please read the articles linked on top. You should at least read and understand What Wikipedia is not and Five pillars if you want to contribute.

The title was discussed extensively (now archived) and the decision was to keep the current title and that decision is unlikely to change any time soon. 128.100.3.40 (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the title please read the previous archived discussions about the title so you don't repeat what's already been discussed. Also note that the amount of participation on this talk page has decreased significantly after the original discussion reached a decision, so you should not interpret silence as agreement, specially about those issues that have been discussed. 128.100.3.40 (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Closure of the second move request

I am confident that there was good faith in the decision to close discussion of a move to "Overthrow" after a move to "Revolution" had been rejected. But I regard it as problematic. Imagine that the principle behind the close were elevated to the status of a guideline -- that one failed move suggestion precludes all subsequent move proposals. Such a guideline would be an invitation to abuse.

In the previous discussion, there was not a consensus that the current title should be kept. Although a majority thought the events should indeed be condemned as a coup, a substantial minority opposed both the current title and the proposed one. More importantly, a majority VOTE is not a consensus. Discussion should be free to continue until consensus is reached, although a polling-format discussion of a particular proposed title was not the best way to continue it.

However, if the disagreement is general enough, perhaps discussion should move to WT:TITLE. I think WP:POVTITLE does not apply here, but I acknowledge that it can reasonably be interpreted as applicable. Thus (if I'm right) we should consider either revising WP:POVTITLE or supplementing it with a link to an essay. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

If you disagree with the decision to close you are able to challenge it at Wikipedia:Move review.Labattblueboy (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm entirely content to have the specific polling-style discussion of a specific alternate title remain encased in archive green. What I'm not content with is a flagrantly POV title, when there's no consensus either for or against it, and no justification for it in the guidelines as I understand them. If there were consensus, and I was a lone dissenter (or nearly so), I would just accept it. But there isn't. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
As I wrote before, the title is chosen because it is clear and accurate and the most widely used name in reliable resources by a wide margin. I consider it a very bad practice to change the title of articles just because some people don't like them even when they are accurate and widely used in sources. WP:Consensus does not mean everyone agrees. As stated in WP:POVNAMING and WP:POVTITLE, NPOV doesn't mean widely used names should be avoided because some contest them. "Coup" is very widely used in reliable sources and is accurate. As the policy states, NPOV "must be balanced against clarity". I am sure no one supporting any coup would like that coup to be called a coup. However, neither what they like nor what they don't like is relevant here. Same applies to those supporting of Morsi. We don't choose titles based on what some editors like or don't like. We use the title which is most accurate and most widely used in sources. Editors participating in the previous discussion didn't support the current title because they supported Morsi. We don't have time to come here every day and discuss the same issue with people who want to argue about it till they get what they want. Opening a new move request and discussion about the title just after the previous one was closed with a decision to keep the title as it is (a discussion which is essentially going to be a repeat of the previous move discussion, if you read the previous discussion you will see that other possible titles aside from "revolution" and "coup" were also discussed and the decision was still to keep the current title) seems very inappropriate to me and not respectful to those who participated in the previous one. 128.100.3.40 (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not widely used as a name. It's widely used as a description. WP:POVNAMING says If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. ... Some article titles are descriptive, rather than being a name. Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic ... . --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC) (originally posted as my IP at 11:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC))
I disagree, it is used as the name of this event, not as a description of it. I am not going to get into a linguistics argument over this here. This is the most widely used name of the event and is clear and accurate and no other alternative comes close. NPOV does not apply as explained in WP:POVTITLE and WP:POVNAMING. I strongly dislike people trying to change titles just because they don't like them. It is a bad practice and should be avoided. Requesting a new move just after the previous one was closed is neither respectful nor appropriate. We can revisit the issue a few months later and see if "coup" is still the most widely used name for the event or not. But for now the title should remain as decided by the previous discussion. I don't see that you have any real points but even if you did you should have brought them up during that discussion, not after it is closed. You can't restart a move discussion just because you think your arguments were not good enough then. Period. 128.100.3.40 (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. And if "2013 Egyptian Coup d'Etat" is used as a name, rather than "coup" as a description, I expect you can find sources using the whole phrase? Otherwise I see no basis for your claim that "2013 Egyptian Coup d'Etat" is a name. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no need for it to be used in that form, usage like "the coup in Egypt" is good enough but as I wrote I am not going to get into a linguistics argument here. I don't suppose bad faith about other editors. I am stating the action was and is inappropriate. Starting a new move discussion was and is inappropriate and not respectful to other editors. Period. 128.100.3.40 (talk) 05:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
128.100.3.40, respectfully, you have your opinion and others have theirs. Putting sentences in bold text, or saying "Period" at the end does not make them any more or less valid. You may well have a point that new move discussion was inappropriate, I don't know. But either way, it should be left for someone not involved with this or the previous discussion to determine that. What happened here was a fairly clear case of WP:RMCI#Conflicts of interest, and it would be much easier to put the matter to bed if we didn't have that uncertainty hanging over our heads. I have left a note on the closer's talk page asking him/her to reopen the request. Then if another uninvolved person closes it again, so be it, but at least we'd have seen a fair process take place. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I didn't meant to be disrespectful. I added bold to emphasize my point since Dan seemed to ignore it and engage in a new discussion about the title. "Period" meant to show that I am not interested in discussing the title here. It should be clear that here we are not discussing the title but the appropriateness/inappropriateness of starting a new move discussion and its closure. I agree it would have been a cleaner close if an editor who did not participate in the previous discussion closed the new discussion (note that the editor who closed the new move discussion did not participate in it so the editor might have thought the conflict of interest does not apply as the rules only explicitly state the editors who are involved in the discussion have a conflict of interest). However, let me add that the potential conflict of interest doesn't mean that the closure was inappropriate. The procedure for reviewing closure is explained in WP:MR. I believe that other editors who are not involved in these discussions will agree that starting a new move discussion in these circumstances was an inappropriate action. Move discussions have a duration and that should be respected, editors should not cheat when they don't like the result of the previous one by restarting a closed discussion as a new one. 128.100.3.40 (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
You said you didn't want to have a linguistics discussion. I took that to refer to discussion of what constitutes a name vs a description. So I asked for substantive, non-linguistic, support for your claim. If you don't want to discuss it at all, fine. But opinions merely stated without arguments, as the guideline says, "carry little to no weight in the formation of a final consensus." --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I meant that I am not going to argue with you if it is used as a name or not at this point (it is very clear it is and I can argue why but that is not important at this point). I am not interested in endless discussions. There is a reason why these move discussions have limited durations. There are editors with whom it is impossible to reach an agreement because e.g. they are motivated by political/ideological reasons and not by Wikipedia policies. Demonstrating that their arguments do not hold will lead nowhere. They will keep generating new arguments whenever their previous argument is debunked. There is no way of satisfying these editors other than accepting their demands. I simply don't have time for such discussions. We had an extensive and highly participated discussion about the title which resulted in a decision. We can revisit the appropriateness of the title a few months later. However, restarting the move discussion at this point is inappropriate and disrespectful towards those who participated in the previous one. You cannot restart discussions with limited duration and repeat them until you get what you want. 128.100.3.40 (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
So this -- There are editors with whom it is impossible to reach an agreement because e.g. they are motivated by political/ideological reasons and not by Wikipedia policies. Demonstrating that their arguments do not hold will lead nowhere. -- is what you describe as "I don't suppose bad faith about other editors."?
I honestly think "2013 Egyptian coup d'etat" is a descriptive phrase, not a name, in the sense of WP:POVTITLE. I asked about the need for clarification on the talk page for POVTITLE, and got the following response: "At this point, it is too soon for this event to have a settled commonly used proper name. Anything we call it at this point will be a descriptive title". So it seems unlikely that I'm just deluding myself because of being "motivated by political/ideological reasons".
RMs -- requested moves to specific titles, echoed by bot at WP:RM -- have limited duration. Otherwise, that page would be congested with a large number of ongoing disagreements. Discussion on a talk page does not interfere with discussion on another talk page; accordingly there is no guideline against continuing discussion. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Dan, I am not sure I followed all the details of the above, but if you are still arguing in favor of a "Morsi ouster" type of title, I think that's an exceptionally poor idea. The thrust of the events in Egypt was the ouster of Islamic brotherhood leadership which will still be mentioned in history books when Morsi's name has been long forgotten. Focusing on Morsi is narrowing the scope of the page unnecessarily. Tkuvho (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Good point. I'm not arguing in favor of any particular title, because I haven't heard one that's really satisfactory. I just want something NPOV, a title that neither condemns nor legitimizes, that refers neither to only the illegality nor to only the popular support.
By the way, we're getting rather far indented here, and this section is getting long again. Let's switch to the bottom of the page --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any contradiction there, I don't assume bad faith about other editors, but that doesn't mean there are no editors who have political/ideological motivations and are impossible to reach an agreement with other than giving up to their demands. What I would expect from a reasonable editor is that when they see their main arguments do not hold they would not keep generating new arguments.
There is something called common sense even then there are not explicit rules and guidelines. I appeal to common sense when I say restarting the move discussion was inappropriate.
You continue to try to argue about the title and whether it is name or description despite the fact that I have written I am not interested in having that discussion right now several times, and once in bold. I am not going to spend days arguing over this with you, but just give an example and leave it there: John the Ripper is used as a name, the fact that it also describes doesn't matter. A name can be descriptive, that doesn't mean it is not a name. Many names are descriptive. There is even a descriptivist theory of names. If the phrase is not used for describing the event but for referring to it, that counts as using it as a name. When people understand what we refer to when we say "the Egyptian Coup" that means it counts as a named of this event for them. The point of the policy is that the phrase must be used in the source to refer to the event and not in some part of it to explain and describe what is going on. If the title of a news article is "Egyptian Revolution 2013" and then inside its writer wrote "and the Egyptian military performed a coup to remove Morsi" that counts as using it as description and does not count as using it as a name. While "in the Egyptian coup of 2013 military supported by popular protests removed Morsi" would count as using it as a name because it is not used for describing but to refer to the event. The point is what do reliable sources call this event? How do they refer to it? And in this case the most widely used phrase to refer to this even is "coup" not anything else.

128.100.3.40 (talk) 06:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

While I agree a move discussion is not a vote, I don't think his helps you here. While I felt early on that the original move discussion presenting two stark choices was not the best option, it was what we ended up with. The RM drew very wide participation (and there were also other concurrent discussions on the title). It's clear some proponents considered alternative titles but rejected them. Others were less clear but from many of them it sounds like the current title was the considered the best title not simply something that seemed okay. That being the case, it's difficult to see any chance for consensus being reached on a different title, so the best we will get would be a 'no consensus'. Nor did the closing admin suggest there was need to look for an alternative title. Also, while it's true that one failed RM does not completely preclude futher attempts, it's generally considered disruptive to hold RMs in to quick succession except in special cases like where something has recently changed or the move discussion suggested close to consensus for a move, but not a specific title and sufficient followup discussion and consideration of the RM has found what may be the best title. So closing any RMs is IMO only fair. This doesn't prevent continuining discussion but this should be kept to one thread and you should expect many people may not participate given the lengthy discussions that have already taken place and this silence doesn't equal consensus (and opening up a RM as a result of this discussion is still likely disruptive). So whaever happens in that discussion is not likely to achieve much in the short term. For that reason, I personally suggest the title issue is dropped for now. This is still a very recent article and things are still in quite a flux. In two months or more, depending of course on what else happens, discussion can begin again. Hopefully this discussion will either establish the best alternative discussion or that the current title is best. If it's the former, an RM can be opened at that time. Nil Einne (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Were those technically RMs, or were they just polls on an article talk page? If they were actual RMs, that appeared on the RM list while active, then closure was definitely improper: "1. Don't close requested moves where you have participated in the move survey". WP:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't quite get what you mean 'those'. There have been two RMs. The first one was closed by a neutral admin who had not participated in the discussion. The second one, opened a few days after the closing of the first, was closed by Lihaas who participated in the earlier RM closed by a neutral admin but had not participated in the second RM opened a few days later. Personally I would have preferred someone else to close it but Lihaas had not participated in the new RM. I'm not sure whether the second RM was properly listed, if it were not this is even more reason to close. Nil Einne (talk) 10:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
"Those" refers to the two RMs. The question is whether they were what I'm describing as "really RMs." That is, were they listed on the page WP:requested moves and then automatically removed from that page when they were closed? They don't show in the page history there, but I'm not sure whether they would if that page is updated automatically via a template or something. I'm just trying to give benefit-of-the-doubt about whether the guideline applies, against closing a RM after participating in it. If it's just a poll, I think it's ok for an admin to close it once it's clear that there is no consensus. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I found an old revision that shows the template: the first one, at least, was indeed an RM. I didn't realize bots could edit pages without having it show up in the revision history.
I disagree with the statement that if the second RM wasn't really an RM, "this is even more reason to close." RMs can reasonably be closed as soon as it's clear there's no consensus in favor of the move. Discussions, on the other hand, are exactly what is supposed to happen when there is no consensus. It was certainly right to move away from a poll format, but not to close the discussion. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I would have been a bit more comfortable with the close if it had been performed by an editor who hadn't taken a strong position in the previous move discussion. Taroaldo ✉ 04:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Taroaldo and some sentiments above. The move request is to a new destination, and one of the biggest problems with the previous RM was that many people opposed or ignored the debate because they didn't like "revolution" any more than "coup" and there was no way for them to express this. It may well be that the correct procedure is to close this speedily, but if so that is for an uninvolved neutral editor to determine. It is certainly inappropriate for such a strong opponent of the proposed move to do so, and I suggest that editor should reverse the close and either allow the debate to take place or wait for another uninvolved party to perform the close.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That section was getting so long as to be unwieldy, so I'm adding a section break. My indented comment immediately below, from 16:36, 15 July 2013, was originally posted as a reply to Amakuru's comment of 12:21, 15 July 2013. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Polls are to evaluate whether consensus exists on a question. Here, I think it's clear that it does not. Reopening the poll, as a poll, therefore seems fruitless. What we need to do is build a consensus. I offer these propositions:
  • For the purposes of this discussion, it can be stipulated that there was indeed a coup. Some people prefer to use the word more narrowly, including me. But such disagreement does not pose any difficulty, for any competent speaker of English, in figuring out what event the article is focused on.
  • "Coup" is POV. Very often, the same events can be described in two ways, both factually accurate, that emphasize different aspects of the situation and suggest opposite judgments of it. "Coup" emphasizes the fact that President Morsi's ouster was not done by legal means, and that it was the military that took the decisive final step in removing him from office. We could equally well have emphasized that the process leading to Mr. Morsi's removal involved some of the largest peaceful demonstrations in history, and that a large majority of Egyptians thought he should go. We should emphasize neither in an article title, and give due weight to each in the body of the article.
  • "2013 Egyptian coup d'etat" is a description, not a name. You can say that the Boston Massacre was not a massacre; that the Corrupt Bargain was not a bargain and, furthermore, involved no corruption; or that the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. But if you refer to "the coup in Egypt" or "the 2013 Egyptian coup d'etat", you're saying that it was a coup. If "2013 Egyptian Coup d'Etat" were really an established proper name, like "Boston Massacre" the question of whether it was a coup would be irrelevant. Yet that question is precisely what the previous move discussion centered on.
WP:POVTITLE licenses only POV names as article titles, not POV descriptions. The next section immediately below it is WP:NDESC, which says that descriptive phrases used as article titles should reflect a neutral point of view. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
It would be helpful to provide sources as to the size of the protests. This is frequently an issue cited in support of the coup, but I haven't actually seen any estimates of protest sizes from neutral sources, currently our article only includes estimates from the Egyptian military who are clearly not a neutral party and estimates of protest sizes are generally contentious with highly varying estimates depending on who's estimate it is. Definitely there's no clear evidence I'm of aware that a 'large majority of Egyptians thought he should go'. Even the estimates of protest sizes cited by supporters of the coup don't generally claim a majority of Egyptians were involved in the protests (for example the number cited in our article is 14 million) and you can't conclude that just because there were more protestors in favour of one side than the other that means more people favour that side, and even if that is the case we still don't know how many people are neutral on the issue. The only real reliable evidence would be a scienctific poll but there's no such poll I've ever seen on the issue and I'm not entirely sure the feasibility of reliable polling of that sort in Egypt. Note that polls conducted after the coup may tell us what people support after the coup but not what they thought before the coup. In other words any discussion grounded on the claim of the what the majority of Egyptians wanted is most likely flawed as I'm not sure we know. Nil Einne (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, "thought he should go" is somewhat stronger than the exact description I was remembering from The Economist: Asked to name the best decision Mr Morsi had made, 73% of the population told pollsters that he had made no good decisions. [1] That's a fairly strong statement of disapproval, but it's not directly about his removal. The same article says, Yet judging by the ecstatic roars with which the crowds in Tahrir Square have greeted flypasts by army helicopters, a great many Egyptians have decided to bury their doubts and ugly memories and accept the army’s intervention as in the national interest. With a 94% approval rate in one recent opinion poll, the army remains by far the most trusted institution in the country. The protests, of course, did not involve a majority of Egyptians, but they were historically huge. The article says, Most of the Egyptian press put the number of protesters that poured into streets across the country on June 30th at around 14m; even the lowest estimate of 10m would have made it the largest street protest in the country’s history. I think that if the estimates were all wildly inflated, the Economist would not have cited them without saying so.
More to the point, even if we take that 94% as reflecting approval not only of the military itself but of its action in deposing Mr. Morsi, the article still should not be titled "revolution". That would be POV in favor of the ouster, just as titling the article "coup" is POV against it. As a descriptive phrase rather than a proper name, the title should emphasize neither. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Another bit of opinion polling, from a different Economist article: Opinion polls from before the recent protests gave Mr Morsi an approval rating of around 30%. [2] --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Once again, if you disagree with the decision to close the requested move you challenge it at Wikipedia:Move review. That is the only mechanism that would see the discussion reopened, otherwise expect a future request to be promptly closed. If you are just discussing for the sake of discussing than fill your boots, it just won't result in any name change.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Once again, I'm content to have the poll-style request for a move to a specific destination remain in archive green, for the time being. If anyone can explain to me why "2013 Egyptian coup d'etat" should be considered a "name" rather than a "descriptive phrase" (in the sense of WP:POVTITLE), then I'll be content to have the article remain at this title indefinitely. Then there's the question of what title to move the article to. None has been proposed that's entirely satisfactory. Going through procedure to get the closure officially condemned as improper, just to open a discussion of a move to a specific title that has absolutely no prospect of gaining consensus -- now that would be far more futile than trying to find some points that we can get consensus on. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Coup d'etat characterization and consistency

I know this has been mentioned a million times before, but I'm concerned about referring to the actions as a "coup d'etat" in the title. My concern is motivated more by consistency though.

An analogous situation, I think, is what happened in 2009 in Madagascar (the "2009 Malagasy political crisis", per Wikipedia.) The elected president there carried out a number of greatly unpopular actions that seemed to consolidate his power and increase authoritarian tendencies. The opposition called for a series of rallies that escalated towards violence. Eventually, the army commander called for political leaders to solve the country's problems and return peace within a several-day deadline, or else he'd take action. In the end, the president was forced out of power, allegedly at gunpoint, when the army stormed his palace, and the opposition leader immediately took control.

Sound familiar? Of course the two situations weren't carbon copies of one another, but still. What happened in Madagascar was condemned as a coup d'etat by the African Union, the deposed president, and other nations (though others, including the U.S., gave a more nuanced approach.) Many outside observers concluded that the ouster was not done by legal means (the nation's constitutional court concluded that it was legal, without giving justification.) As it is, I don't see an obvious reason why Wikipedia refers to the incident in Madagascar four years ago as a "political crisis" while Egypt is unambiguously a "coup d'etat", and I feel that internal consistency demands that we rename one of the pages. 140.180.253.192 (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:OSE and maybe that should be a coup too then(Lihaas (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)).
WP:OSE mostly isn't directly relevant, being focused on creation and notability. However, it does mention title selection, saying In cases such as these, an "Other Stuff Exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent. And consistency is explicit policy in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It's Not A Coup !!!

The Military Council Is Not Leading The Country, An Interim President And An Interim Government Has Been Placed With The Full Consent And Satisfaction Of The 33 Million Demonstrators ..

Please, Change The Article's Title To "30 June Mass Demonstrations In Egypt" .. --CaeserKaiser (talk) 06:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

A solid majority of reliable sources describe it as a coup. WP isn't a compendium of truth. It's a compilation of what reliable sources say. For the purposes of this discussion, it should be stipulated that there was a coup, even if you or I would prefer not to use that word for this event. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

33 million? Are you well? Where did you get such a high number?

Well, A Public Coup, Not A Military Coup, The Military IS NOT RULING THE COUNTRY, A Civil Judge Is The Interim President Who Is Ruling Right Now, A Military Coup Happens Suddenly (It Was Obvious That There Were Mass Protests First Demanding The Removal Of The Regime), When The Military Rules, Not The Ordinary Civilians, Don't Tell Me That Al Jazeera Is One Of Your Reliable Sources, Google Earth Said It Was Above 33 Million Protesters . Plus, The Military Helicopters Filmed This Whole Thing .. --CaeserKaiser (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


This is an Egyptian revolution .. It is not a military coup as named by the Brotherhood liars ... 33 million Egyptian protesters are in the streets against the Muslim Brotherhood

I am an Egyptian citizen This is an Egyptian revolution .. It is not a military coup as named by the Brotherhood liars ... 33 million Egyptian protesters are in the streets against the Muslim Brotherhood

Tell this To those Mind-controlled, Brain-washed, CNN, American media followers Who Call it a coup here in Wikipedia . --CaeserKaiser (talk) 11:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Popular support or not, the military deposing a president is, by definition, a coup d'état. The argument about "American media followers" is preposterous. If you've been following the news in the slightest, you'd know that the Americans would actually like us to *not* use the term coup (as accepting that it's a coup would mean that the American government would have to stop funding the Egyptian armed forces). - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Please AJE is a reliable source,and even its Arabic version is quite that ,when a military no matter what goes and deposes its president,its higher commander,it is a coup d'état .Alhanuty (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Title

Then, why was the Egyptian revolution of 1952 called a revolution, although this one is not as near to a coup as 1952's. In 1952, military ruled, wide arrests, exile of King Farouk of Egypt, and more?Mohamed Magdy "Mido", Thank You! 01:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


Title doesn't exactly reflect scope of article

When the coup happened, this article was moved from a title referring to the protests. The article now consists of five sections, with current word-counts of 301, 1099, 1261, 1541, and 5195 words. The third section is called "coup": the supposed subject of the whole article is covered in a section amounting to less than one-seventh of the whole. The protests themselves are less of a focus than the coup, but the protests still get over four-fifths as much word-count as the section directly addressing the coup.

The article is fine. The lengths are a reasonable reflection of due weight, if the inconspicuous placement of the international-reaction section is regarded as balancing its length. The coup and the protests can reasonably be in the same article: it's all Egyptian political upheaval of July 2013. The international reaction can reasonably be in the same article, although it's long enough that a summary here and a split to a main article would also be reasonable.

The title, though, suggests that the article is specifically about the coup, as though intro and section 3 were the entire article. A different title is desirable. Some editors may feel that it's morally important to focus condemnation on the coup, just because it's a coup -- but such a motive should be pursued in other venues, not Wikipedia. And the policy states it as a goal that article titles should "define the topical scope of the article".

However, that goal has to be balanced against recognizability, naturalness, conciseness, and consistency. I don't currently have a really satisfactory title to suggest, but it seems clear that the current one is unsatisfactory, both for the scope mismatch and for WP:NDESC's requirement that it be NPOV. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 11:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The article is about the coup. If its content does not match the topic then the issue is with the content. It has been discussed and decided that this topic have its own article. 128.100.3.40 (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed and ive never seen word count been used to justify any proportion of the article. If there is encyclopaedic content that fits then it will be added (with sources of course). Time and again there have been such reactions lists deemed noteworthy enough for inclusion. There is no moral judgement or focus to supporting the coup (the content box at the top is equal weightage to section) or opposing it, its simply that certain sourced, factual, encyclopaedic content happens to be longer.
And per WP:Article size this doesn't require a split page just yet. we don't need to split for the sake of of how it is presented/looks(Lihaas (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)).
You've probably never seen another article whose putative subject is treated specifically in one relatively-small section, either. As for the international reaction section, I said only that a split would be reasonable (it would), not that one is required (it isn't).--Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 02:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The article was about the protests, when it was first created. Moving a page to a new title, and then removing the original content as you propose on the grounds that it does not match the title, is somewhat clever as a way of getting around policies about article deletion. But in no way is it legitimate. Expanding the subject matter to include the coup as well as the protests was reasonable: the article, although focused on the protests, was about the political state of affairs in Egypt, which naturally includes the coup. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 02:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
It is definitely not me who is trying to get around the policies. This article is about the coup. Protests has its own article. The issue of merging with protests was discussed and firmly rejected. It was decided that the coup (or whatever you like to call it) deserves its own article. If you believe that the content doesn't match the topic the appropriate action is to make the content fit the topic of this article which is the coup. (You should know that since you have argued for changing the title a number of times it does look suspicious that you are suggesting these, it creates the suspicion that your real goal here is changing the title and political advocacy and the rest of what you write are arguments generated to achieve that end.) 128.100.3.40 (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The article at first was only about the JULY protests that culiminated in the coup. That's protest stuff is thereLihaas (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
As I state above, this issue has been discussed previously and the decision has been made that this article is about the coup. The 2012–13_Egyptian_protests has its own article. If someone is claiming that the title doesn't match the content then the problem is with content which should be modified to match the topic of this article which is the coup. 128.100.3.40 (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

What other titles might be acceptable?

Even if "2013 Egyptian Coup d'Etat" is deemed to be a name rather than a description, so that WP:NDESC is not applicable and WP:POVTITLE is, POVTITLE merely allows article titles to use otherwise-POV terms, rather than requiring it. Recognizability should be balanced with other desirable features of a title. Please brainstorm possible other titles, entering them in the list with only a bullet, the title, and a signature; and discuss them in the following subsection. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We know that you (and also User:Amakuru) don't like the title but titles are not chosen according to the personal preferences of particular users. You have stated your opinion enough times. The decision to keep the title is not going to change anytime soon and without a major shift in how WP:Sources refer to it (which honestly is unlikely to ever happen). I am not going to argue with you about the title anymore, I see no point in doing so. I will just monitor this article and will react if you or someone else moves the article disregarding the previous move discussion and the decision to keep the title. I would advise you not to do so. 128.100.3.40 (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
What I like is irrelevant. If I Wikipedia policy says we should change the title, we should change the title even if Hitler himself rises from the dead to speak in favor of it. If Wikipedia policy says that after one RM is rejected a title is graven in stone forever unto the breaking of the world, then the title should be kept -- even if everyone arguing otherwise is proceeding from pure innocent error and has no likes or dislikes whatsoever. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 12:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

List

Discussion

"2013 Egyptian Revolution" is included only for completeness: it's just as POV as the current title, and less recognizable. A requested move to it was closed after extensive discussion, mostly focusing on the fact that the coup is called a coup by most sources. "Overthrow of Mohamed Morsi" was the proposed in the July 12 RM, which was speedily closed. "Coup against Morsi" is notable because it seems to be the most way sources most often refer to the event, with over 20 times as many Google hits for the exact phrase as there are for the exact phrase "2013 Egyptian coup d'etat". (Not that I've tried to sort out what's a reliable source referring to the event, but most of the top hits for the current title refer to this article rather than to the event itself.) However, note that I'm asking that this be used as a brainstorming list, so include anything you can think of. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We've just had a wide discussion. We cant keep discussing till every user gets the result they like.
Tthat sadi 2013 revolution is not the commonname and coup against has not precedent here. A coup is a coup regardless of who it is against.Lihaas (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Sheer quantity of words on a talk page doesn't tell whether the relevant points have been made and rebutted. Both RMs had a ton of discussion of whether it's a coup or not, which is not something we should be deciding: the vast majority of sources describe it as a coup, end of discussion on that point. (Or rather, it should be.) There's been almost no discussion of the difference between NDESC and POVNAME: one person has claimed that "2013 Egyptian coup d'etat" is a "name" rather than a "descriptive title", but declined to provide any argument as to why WP:POVTITLE should be interpreted that way. There's also been almost no discussion of whether coup is "judmental" in the sense of NDESC: I asserted that it is, and no one has even tried to rebut that. If both largely-unchallenged points are correct, then policy says we should change the title, no matter how many bytes have been spilled here rehashing unrelated topics. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 10:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what your position is here, Dan. Are you saying the article is not just about the coup, it's about the whole process, starting with the June/July protests and moving through to the coup and then the aftermath? Hence calling it "coup" is not describing the full scope of the article?  — Amakuru (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Titles mentioning coup or revolution are those that are POV. Many agencies, including the US government, have not characterised it as a coup, so arguments like "a coup is a coup" don't really hold water. The overthrow title is probably the best, as it unambiguously defines the event without giving undue credence to one or other side's position on the nature of the overthrow.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No other title is acceptable. A coup is a coup. Choosing any other title would mean denying that it was a coup, and that is in itself POV. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

A coup is a coup. A crisis is a crisis. A role in a revolution is a role in a revolution. Stating these tautologies tells us nothing about Wikipedia policy. And Wikipedia policy says we have to use neutral titles when the title is a descriptive phrase rather than a proper name. There can be many accurate descriptive phrases for the same thing, some highlighting the negative and others highlighting the positive. In articles, we should give each due weight; in article titles, we should do neither. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
If my remark were to be taken as a stylistic error, it would be a circular definition rather than a tautology - but that is beside the point. What it comes down to is that what has happened in Egypt (the military overthrowing the extant leadership) is, by definition, a coup d'état. The very article on coup d'état on Wikipedia defines it that way. That means that any other title than 2013 Egyptian coup d'état would be less accurate and therefore less acceptable. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Something wrong with archiving, or inappropriate deletion? -- Nope.

I've been away from this discussion for several days, and I wanted to check whether anyone had replied to my previous. But the most recent archive page seems to be Talk:2013_Egyptian_coup_d'état/Archive_3, posted by the bot at 00:40, 22 July 2013‎, and the section in question was still here in a subsequent revision timestamped later that day (18:34, 22 July 2013). However, it's gone in the next revision after that one. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 06:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Ask on the bot's talk page. You may get the technical query there.(Lihaas (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)).
Section headings are not owned by any user and can be changed. Sections on the same topic can be merged. You should not rely on finding the exact section headings. You can look up your comment to see if anyone has replied to you. 128.100.3.40 (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This has been cleared up on 128.100.3.40's talk page: the comments in question weren't removed. The heading I was trying to use to find them had been removed, but the comments were just buried in the middle of a section. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect sourcing in section 2. Protests -> 1 July: Army ultimatum

Source given for "millions of demonstrators against President Morsi gathered in Tahrir Square and outside the presidential palace" is the BBC article. However, the source states that "tens of thousands of people massed in Tahrir Square and outside the presidential palace", and not "millions of demonstrators". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuxedo black (talk • contribs) 03:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done(Lihaas (talk) 05:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)).

edit request

Currently there's a red link category (Category:Egyptian civil war) that needs to be removed or created. Also Category:2013 protests is missing the end brackets. 204.111.20.10 (talk) 06:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

"The scenes of protests are unprecedented in size and scope ..."

Describing the protests demanding Morsi's removal, the Guardian offered these data points: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/30/mohamed-morsi-egypt-protests

"The scenes of protests are unprecedented in size and scope, and seemingly surpass those during the 18-day uprising that toppled Mubarak," said Michael Hanna, a fellow at the Century Foundation and a longtime Egypt analyst.
A military source told Reuters that as many as 14 million people in the country of 84 million took part in the demonstrations. There was no independent way of verifying that estimate, though the armed forces used helicopters to monitor the crowds.


Under these circumstances, "tens of thousands" as a description of the protests against Morsi understates the magnitude of the protests by a factor of 100. (10,000 times 100 = 10 million) Ocdctx (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's a misquote, because there are many sources that says that "tens of thousands of people massed in Tahrir Square" and many agree that there were "Millions of protesters across the country" for example: bbc and NYC --PLNR (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


First, "millions" seems to be overlooked by our Wikipedia article.

Second, the characterization of the magnitude of demonstrations as tens of thousands is also an understatement by an order of magnitude, even for Tahrir Square, where "several hundred thousand" would be a more accurate statement:

e.g., according to thestar.com, http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/06/30/egypt_protests_thousands_gather_at_tahrir_square_to_demand_morsis_ouster.html

CAIRO—Millions of Egyptians flooded into the streets on the first anniversary of Islamist President Mohammed Morsi’s inauguration on Sunday to demand that he resign in the biggest challenge so far to rule by his Muslim Brotherhood.
Waving national flags and chanting “Get out!”, a crowd of nearly 500,000 massed on Cairo’s central Tahrir Square. It was the largest demonstration since the 2011 uprising that overthrew Morsi’s predecessor, Hosni Mubarak.

Check the picture in this article by The Telegraph, taking in an awesome assembly of humanity at Tahir Square, with the caption,

Fireworks explode over hundreds of thousands of Egyptians gathering in Tahrir Square in Cairo (AP)

The full article with photos is at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/10152780/Egypt-protests-Army-issues-48-hour-ultimatum-for-agreement-amid-clashes.html

A glance at the stunning assembly in the photo makes plain that "hundreds of thousands" is quite accurate, while "tens of thousands" grossly understates the magnitude of the massive Tahrir Square protests against Morsi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdctx (talk • contribs) 00:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


I am not certain what is your point, I agree that millions is more accurate per source above. As for "overlooked" - then change/add it(with sources). --PLNR (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Add a section about Israel exerting influence

Influencing through lobbying

Israel is working hard to save Western aid to Egypt. The Israeli government's lobbying, buttressed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), comes as reports emerge about the Obama administration potentially cutting off aid to the Egyptian armed forces because of its brutal crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood.

Israel Escalating Efforts to Shape Allies’ Strategy By Jodi Rudorn. Retrieved August 18, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/middleeast/israel-puts-more-urgency-on-shaping-allies-actions.html?pagewanted=all

Egypt's Rulers Have a New Friend in DC: The Israel Lobby Posted By John Hudson. Retrieved August 19, 2013
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/19/egypts_rulers_have_a_new_friend_in_dc_the_israel_lobby

Israel urges US not to freeze Egypt aid: report. Published July 09, 2013 AFP
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/09/israel-urges-us-not-to-freeze-egypt-aid-report/#ixzz2cq2pjkvr

From a historical point of view

- Lavon Affair. It refers to a failed Israeli covert operation, code named Operation Susannah, conducted in Egypt in the Summer of 1954. As part of the false flag operation, a group of Egyptian Jews were recruited by Israeli military intelligence for plans to plant bombs inside Egyptian, American and British-owned civilian targets, cinema, library and American educational center. The attacks were to be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood and others.

Preferable choice regarding who should rule Egypt

- Israel rallies to support of Egyptian regime (Mubarak)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/8293536/Egypt-crisis-Israel-rallies-to-support-of-Egyptian-regime.html Telegraph UK

Israel urges world to curb criticism of Mubarak and seeks to convince its allies that it is in the West's interest to maintain the the Egyptian regime
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-urges-world-to-curb-criticism-of-egypt-s-mubarak-1.340238 Haaretz

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered his cabinet ministers "not to release public statements or grant interviews regarding the coup against Morsi," according to Haaretz
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/07/04/f-egypt-world-reaction.html CBC.ca

    • This comes from someone who is editing in favor of Israel in all articles regarding Israel. Then lectures me about Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, how thoughtful. Anyway all the links provided above show that Israel is trying to somewhat "influence" what is happening in Egypt.Liesbeth98 (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
      • So you are accusing me of violating NPOV simply because I disagree with your conspiracy theory that Israel was involved in the military coup in Egypt? That's pretty pathetic. But getting back to the issue at hand, you've missed the point - there is still no evidence that Israel has anything to do with the coup (Israel may have an interest in the course of events in Egypt, but so do a lot of other countries - were they all involved in the coup as well? ). Your repeated attempts to promote your conspiracy theories through your original research is a violation of Wikipedia's policies (Wikipedia:No original research). Anyway, I certainly don't hide the fact that I support Israel's right to exist and that I support the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You are free to disagree with me on these issues, but you still have to respect Wikipedia's guidelines - of which I continue to lecture you about until you follow them.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC))
The NY Times one in the preceding sub-section is relevant under the "International Reactions" section, though. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Good point. In fact, almost all the articles dealing with this issue cite international reactions.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC))

Polling data:

So far the only reference we have to polling data is a quote from Frank Wisner stating: " So we want to be very, very careful before we go out and condemn an event that has, by the most recent polling of Egypt’s best pollsters, 80 percent support in the population." I've no found any evidence that these polls exist.

In contrast, there is a poll which reports that 63% of respondents opposed the military's action:

http://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/africa/6543-report-shows-that-most-egyptians-oppose-morsis-removal

Should we not insert a reference to this polling data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.213.131 (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Judging by their gross inaccuracy in predicting election results, no. --عبد المؤمن (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Number of people killed in aftermath

The current version of the Wikipedia articles says: "In mid-August, the violence against Islamists by the army escalated further, with thousands killed, and the government declaring a month-long nighttime curfew." One reference (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21583702-generals-killing-spree-reckless-denial-lessons-arab-spring-battle) says that "The Muslim Brotherhood says more than 2,000 people died in Wednesday's violence." whereas another (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23700663) says "Hundreds were killed and nearly 3,000 injured". I therefore would prefer "with at least hundreds killed" as "the MB says more than 2,000" might not be a reliable, neutral source in this polarized conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.49.214.26 (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation. If you don't get to it yourself, I'll try to get it in the morning (I tend to take any combatant casualty claims with a grain of salt, but it's all about reliable citations to provide both balance and factual information). It's rather late here in the Eastern US.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

it is NOT a coup

Please, I think the Egyptian people have talked enough and said that what happened on 30/6 was NOT a coup but a revolution by the people's will not El-Sisi's. We Egyptians are the ones who removed Morsi NOT El-Sisi alone. He did that because the Egyptians wanted that so in other words, it isn't a coup. Please change the title to "Egyptian revolution of 2013" and remove the section that says that is is a coup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.72.102.95 (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It's clear that the coup was very popular with a very substantial fraction of the population. It's also clear that it was very unpopular with another very substantial fraction of the population. I imagine very many others are presumably keeping their heads down and trying to keep as far away from getting involved in it as possible. The relative proportions of those groups, and exactly who gets to be considered "the Egyptian people" in this context, if anyone, are areas of massive contention. This article does not exist to resolve this issue, but to report the whole affair, including this conflict of opinions. See WP:NPOV for more details. -- The Anome (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
A revolution involves a significant portion of the populace in armed revolt against a government. In this case, a case may be made that it was a revolution by proxy via a coup, for it was indeed a coup and it was indeed quite popular with a significant portion of the populace. Of course, there is also a significant portion of the populace who are dissatisfied with the coup. Only time will tell how it will end, but it doesn't look like it will end peacefully very soon.Wzrd1 (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
well said(Lihaas (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)).

Neutrality proposal

I propose a rename of this article to the neutral "2013 Egyptian ouster" since some people call it a coup d'etat and others call it a revolution (note: in my opinion, the ouster of Morsi was a revolution). Calling the ousting of Morsi a coup is one-sided and obviously biased. Zakawer (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The ouster was accomplished by the military, not by the populace. Hence, by definition, it is a coup d'état. That there was popular support is irrelevant, as it was the military that accomplished it. That isn't POV, it is usage of the definition of the term.Wzrd1 (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, but wouldn't mind a redirect and themention (already present) of the opinion differences.(Lihaas (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)).

"the constitution is suspended" suggests a coup, unless it can be convincingly argued that Morsi first attempted a "self-coup" and this was resisted, the constitution prior to Morsi's self-coup being restored. The idea of a self-coup being rolled back has some plausibility but is rather too strained an argument. The Muslim Brotherhood was not just reined in from any alleged excesses here but actively suppressed. "the constitution is suspended" is not the same thing as "the constitution is restored." A title change has already been discussed and rejected. That decision could potentially be revisited if the Muslim Brotherhood and/or Morsi were given a "do over" election opportunity but at the moment it looks like they will remain suppressed. As such, what did them in? The ballot box? One can't say it was the ballot box. One can say it was popular opinion but a coup doesn't become a non-coup just because it has popular support.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Title, again

Wikipedia policy says Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors (WP:POVTITLE). It seems clear to me that the title "2013 Egyptian coup d'état" is a descriptive title, not a name. Reliable sources refer to the event as a coup, but not as "2013 Egyptian coup d'état". Search results on that exact phrase nearly all deal with this article, rather than simply referring to the event itself.

It also seems clear to me that the word "coup" carries a strong negative connotation. Using the word in the article is appropriate, because the article as a whole can be neutral by including balanced coverage of both positive and negative aspects of the event. Thus the policy to avoid judgmental and non-neutral words (WP:NDESC) implies that we should use a different title. Note that the two WP policy links are to the same page, just different headings.

The WP:TRUTH about whether it was really a coup is irrelevant, because reliable sources describe it as a coup. The fact that reliable sources describe it as a coup is irrelevant, because accuracy isn't what the policy on article titles is about: the word coup carries a strong negative connotation, so it should be avoided in descriptive article titles if a reasonable alternative is available. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This tired ol discussion has been done before and wee not going to keep eopening to do the same. Nothing new has come to lightLihaas (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Lol. Last time, it didn't matter what new reasons were raised: the name could not possibly be reconsidered because a move request to an even worse name had just been rejected. Now, it doesn't matter how long it's been, simply because you didn't allow consideration of those reasons then. If that reasoning were binding precedent, it would protect absolutely any name whatsoever. A vandal could create an article with an obscene and irrelevant name, and a move request to an even worse name, then raise every reasonable argument in favor of a move. The move request would be rejected, the arguments would all have been raised already, and the first name would be carved in stone for ever and ever until the breaking of the world. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 06:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that naming it a "Coup" carries a strong negative connotation. but the term Coup should be used though. I Suggest naming it the Egyptian Revolution of 2013 and describing it like : "Egyptian Revolution of 2013 ended with a military coup" like the Egyptian Revolution of 1952 as an example. specially it had some revolutionary acts by the support of millions. specially there are some sources describing it as a revolution, reliable sources too like The Guardian : http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/03/mohamed-morsi-egypt-second-revolution Amr TarekSay Hello!, 03:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
It is objectively defined as a coup and even in RS. Nno amount of partisan bickering can change that. Like it or not, its here to stay Lihaas (talk) 18:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Move request history

A move request was made on 11 July 2013, in which discussion focused almost exclusively on the question of whether the events covered in the article constitute a coup. The closure statement cited the policy for titles that are proper names, and noted that the proposed alternative was no less POV. Another move request was made 36 hours after the first was closed, attempting to address the latter concern. In that discussion, I pointed out that the cited policy doesn't apply, because the title is not a proper name. The second move request was speedily closed (by an admin who had taken a side in the discussion) on the grounds that (supposedly) once a move request has been closed no new move request can be made for a couple months. I don't believe that there is any basis for that, either in policy or in common sense, when the new request is different in a way that addresses the basis for rejecting the previous move. But I waited a few months anyway. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

kidnapping

An earlier version states appropriately that Morsi's "children accused the military of kidnapping him". However, recently the article has been edited to include an unqualified claim that "Morsi was kidnapped", as well as many other changes. It would be helpful to discuss this type of dramatic editing first. Tkuvho (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

True however in that case there were just new claims not an introduction of a certain opinion or event by an edit.--Mohamedhp (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

I think the political parties and groups on the military's side in the infobox shouldn't be listed because they didn't actually "make" the coup. They were just decorations that appeared on national TV during al-Sisi's delcaration but they didn't participate in the coup process itself. They are already mentioned in the 2012-13 Egyptian protests page which is enough because in this case it was a confrontation between political movements. The list should only include the military and the interior ministry because they were the ones who "physically" removed Morsi, not Tamarod, the NSF, Al-Nour..etc Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed but then they were in Military conference announcing the coup. On a different matter Anti-Coup Alliance is one of the still acting opposition to the military and the coup. I think it should be restored.--Mohamedhp (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, like i said, they were present at the announcement, but that's all.. They were just garnishing the military's image and they had nothing to do with the actual removal of Morsi. They are already mentioned in the protests article and can be easily found in this article's introduction so there's no need to add them in the infobox. They shouldn't be even listed in "Supported by" because there were many different parties and movements that supported the coup.
As for the Anti-Coup Alliance, they shouldn't be mentioned here because they appeared AFTER the coup. It's as simple as that.. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Unregistered users

Is it possible to protect this article against unconstructive edits to it. Keeping track of their entries can later develop into an editing job by itself. Some of them go as far as deleting whole paragraphs others just remove words they don't seem to like.--Mohamedhp (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Well that's something to agree with but i find it quite ironic that you mention "unconstructive edits". You should probably consult yours first because what you're complaining about pretty much describes most of your edits on pages like Mohamed Morsi for example. Perhaps you're suggesting the page should be protected or semi-protected by your edits?
Anyways, i do agree that this page needs a certain kind of protection and there's no doubt that "unconstructive edits" and vandalism are taking place. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Well I see. But you may have misunderstood what I meant is people coming to remove a word and bring it again more than 2 times. Anyways I am sorry for any mistakes I have done. I have been editing Wikipedia for long time but still don't have enough experience like you do.
For me its ok if people edit as usual, its their right, if there is a way to come back to them. Like discuss their edits with them or others. --Mohamedhp (talk) 07:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Well i've only been here since July this year so i'm not experienced either and i've made a lot of mistakes myself since then. But this isn't about mistakes because anyone can make them, and it has nothing to do with experience either. It's about neutrality, a subject i noticed you continuously accuse other users of violating on their talk pages. Your good gesture is much appreciated but they are the ones you should be apologizing to, not me.
Back to the original point again, i think this page should be semi-protected for the moment from a number of unconfirmed users who often resort to vandalism. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ www.alalam.ir/news/1479104/ Al-Jazeera Viewing Rates Descends To The Lowest Since Its Launch‎
  2. ^ http://www.almasryalyoum.com/node/1929491/ Mass Resignations Faces Al-Jazeera TV Channel
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_Egyptian_coup_d%27état/Archive_3&oldid=1140567844"