Talk:2013 Egyptian coup d'état/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Number of protesters

Can any one come with exact number of protesters Alhanuty (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC) .

The number is not that much hopeful. Only thousands are protesting. Seems like Mr. Morsi will firm his place. Shah-E-Zaman (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Some are reporting between 17-30 million people actively protesting. One source is even reporting 33 million. I find these numbers hard to believe. Furthermore, multiple sources, 1 2, are claiming that 17 and 22 million (specifically) signatures were gathered in petitions. Not 17-22 million active protesters in the streets. I think a few people have misunderstood the info and are wrongly reporting things like "33 million protesters in the streets". Coinmanj (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Time to add it in. Feel free to do so(Lihaas (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)).

Why does information keep getting removed?

Why is information like this one (http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=July_2013_Egyptian_protests&diff=562702876&oldid=562696489) keep getting removed?99.232.63.252 (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring? It needs to stop and get discusse.d For the record I don't mind either way(Lihaas (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)).

What do you mean? This is important information to know. 16 people killed is a lot of people!! I think you should support that this information stays in the introduction.99.232.63.252 (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree discussion is better than removal (I did not removeit even once). But whether its in the lead or the article is fine by me. It could be important but now its been superceded by the coup and we don't want a bloated lead.(Lihaas (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)).

dear Lihaas,

wiki removes my good info all the time. but not always. the wiki-crats are very capricious in their zeal to have wiki look and read exactly like an encyclopedia. some doubtlessly are biased editors and some are _stupid_.

you need to cite correctly and add citations at the bottom of the page. need to be "neutral" in tone (and even give both sides of the story and let the reader decide, for news).

also they have "web bots" that can and have (to me) follow (stalk) users that delete anything they post until they change identities. these can be launched for political reasons.

i wouldn't take it too seriously. good luck in your writing and editorial attempts. don't be discourage. write more. some they will keep

 -- John

Unsourced coup rumors removed

I've removed a paragraph of unsourced material that asserted that Morsi had been arrested, and that there had thus effectively been a coup. Regardless of whether or not this is the case, Wikipedia's verifiability and reliable sources policies apply here, and any unsourced material is likely to be removed. If you want to submit this sort of edit, you must provide a citation for that information. See WP:CITE for how to do it. -- The Anome (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Its already in the article with sources in the section above. But good find that it was redundant there.

Accordingly I removed this as its already mentioned and sourced(Lihaas (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)).

See also

Fail to see how this is Point-y. WP:See also "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent". See also's are not exactly related, they are similarities. A comparison has been made by an analyst and it is also a democratically elected Islamist government that was stopped by the state institutions from carrying out its mandate. Sourced comparisons have been made as the debate continues(Lihaas (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)).

The article you cited in support of your comparison is titled "Why Egypt is not Algeria", and, as its title suggests, explicitly states that they are not comparable. -- The Anome (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

IOt also sates in the beginning that many comparisons have been made. It wsa his opinion to refute the many comments.Lihaas (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Passive voice

Protest paragraph is in the passive voice and currently states: "Morsi was removed from power, the draft constitution was suspended and Chief Justice Adli Mansour was named interim president." Would it be possible to make this statement less passive, by saying who removed Morsi from power, who suspended the consitution, and whonamed Mansour the interim president?? If there is no one person, perhaps we could state who may have declared these things to be true. Peace, MPS (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

done?Lihaas (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes sort of ... (Thanks for the edits, by the way!) ... now I kind of have a question about the way that the sentence fits with the previous one... (my bold emphasis added): "He added the army was standing apart from the political process but was using its vision as the Egyptian people were calling for help and discharged its responsibility. The Armed Forces move to remove Morsi from power, suspend the draft constitution and name Chief Justice Adli Mansour as the interim president and will be sworn in on 4 July. ... my question is: is the army the same thing as the Armed Forces? If so, should we use the same word in both sentences? There is also a bit of irony in having these two sentences together, since in the one the army is standing back, and in the other, the armed forces basically did not stand back. Were the statements true at different times, perhaps? Also, while I do not doubt that you are correct in saying the Egyptian armed forces said these things, and then did something different, perhaps there are some refs we could add??? It might resolve the tension. I will look for refs as well. Thanks! MPS (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, they are the same. I was just quick writing as I was hearing it and may have missed some points. Go ahaed and change it to the same word. Its late and im off to sleep.

That's the point though, the army claims its standing back (after performing the act), while it did perform the act as well. This was from live tv so some sources may come in a few hours.(Lihaas (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)).

Analysis

Theres a dude speaking on Al Jazeera EngLish right now talking about the repercussions and the slap to democracy regardless of what one thinks of MOrsi. He also mentions the papers in Syria that will now say "see this is what democracy does. it gets hijacked by Islamist" etc (important to Arab Spring repercussions) We need to add some off the repercussions to the article by analysts. He also drew the comparison with Algeria in the 90s. Hes from LSE.(Lihaas (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)).

2013 Egyptian coup d'état of 3 july

2013 Egyptian coup d'état happened only today before there were Protesters (supporters and opponents of Morsi) 3bdulelah (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry again for mistaking the articles. The Big Hoof! (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

We could move the protests now back to the 02012-2013 article but that is rather large. Originally we moved it here as it was title July protests more specifically. But the immediate 4 days are the catalyst for the coup so I think it suffices.(Lihaas (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)).

Edit request on 3 July 2013

Is there a source for this? "Human Rights Watch have alleged there that have been sexual assaults, including gang-rape, as a method to terrorise the anti-government opposition."

Although I'm on the side of the anti-government opposition, this doesn't seem to be the case. Unfortunately, it appears that the anti-government mobs are either the ones raping women, or are also raping women. See below:

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/07/03/egypt-epidemic-sexual-violence http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/07/03/egypt-tahrir-square-women-sex-assaults.html

This seems like a broader problem than just a "method to terrorize the anti-government opposition."

Please delete that sentence or cite. Thank you.

209.188.123.3 (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

TtYes ill remove that. Good spot Done(Lihaas (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)).

Reflinks

for some reason its suddenly gone down (was working 10 mins ago). But we need consistent ref formatting please. ill get it to tomorrow if no one else does.(Lihaas (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)).

WP:MOSBOLD

Please read policy before editting the lead sentence. The lead sentence should be about the issue itself, not about the title we have chose for the article. There is no reason (and it is against policy) to force a boldened "2013 Egyptian coup d'état" into the lead. μηδείς (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Wisdom from The Elders?

I have long hoped that The Elders involvement in African and World disputes would moderate conflicts. Does anyone have information about this situation from The Elders? (DaleEMoore (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC))

All I found was this...granted I didn't look much(Lihaas (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)).

Should the "International reactions" be moved to a separate article?

I think yes, as this quite long list makes it difficult to navigate through the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état. This would be in accordance with the "reactions sections" of numerous other events, as can be seen at Category:International reactions. I'd been bold and already created International reaction to the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état, but my edit was reverted. So I'm asking you: Is there consensus for the move? What would speak against it?--FoxyOrange (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Page splits occur per WP: Article size, this is no where near unreadable. Usually about 100k+ requires splits, not simply organization and readability. But kudos on being Bold.(Lihaas (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)).

Broad international condemnation?

The summary lumps the U.S., oddly, with Iran and Saudi Arabia as one of a handful of countries to support the coup. Read the individual "international reactions" section -- this simply isn't true. International reactions are mixed, with many countries as well as the U.N. simply urging restraint and openness. The U.S. mildly disapproves. --Smack (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The U.S. did not condemn it (unlike Europe and others), see the media reaction to Obama's statement (also sourced on the page). Saudi, Iran (and Jordan) did not condremn it either. Hence they are separate from a majority of reactions.

Seems to be some sort of POV seeing US lumped with Iran. That's besides encyclopaedic fact(Lihaas (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)).

Could you please tell me which countries exactly condemned the actions for it to constitute broad condemnation? And the sentence that Syria did condemn is not true but on the contrary Bashar himself praised it.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Reworded it. Youre right on Syria not condemning it, but I don't think it was praised per se. More neutral. He criticized Morsi and the MB, not supporting the military coup. Akin to Russia's stance on the events as a whole

Arg, Ger, Tuk, UK and AU condemnred it.(Lihaas (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)).

Great work on expanding that section :) I think though Syria's words are supportive to what happened as well as the UAEs. Don't you think we should move them to support?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Youre right on NUAE and good find too as I would missed (including my error in the lead with Syria). But while im inclined to see why Syria would say what they do, it doesn't come out as a support for the coup instead of the personal battle between Assad and morsi.

AI also reworded the lead to remove the names and give the broader Aarab world as support (with th enew additions) so as not to be controversial. Hope you like that.(Lihaas (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)).

Category:2011–2012 Egyptian revolution

Basically, this article is not related to the "Category:2011–2012 Egyptian revolution". This is not a part of that incident nor a consequence. I removed it but my edit was reverted.Farhikht (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the creation of separate category for this subject. Charles Essie (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Reasons?

The article does not state what the motivation for the protests is. Why do the protesters want Morsi to resign? 129.199.224.149 (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Good point. There have been sources that said theywere opposed to his Islamist policies. I added the military's reaction. But if you find a source add that.(Lihaas (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)). --Living conditions in Egypt have been terrible lately: barely any food, gas for cars, electricity, water. People would go days without power. The country was actually just crumbling.--

Is there a source citing this as the reasons? If so then please add it(Lihaas (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)).

See this New York Times' article Spurned Deals, Seeing Military as Tamed

Guardian

The Guardian's live feed on the events of the day in Egypt is pointing to this article to justify calling this a coup d'etat: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/04/egypt-morsi-removed-army-live. When the world turns to us for what something should be called, you know it's a mess... :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If the guardian is the world, then you know its a mess ;)(Lihaas (talk) 06:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)).

The military suspended the constitution and deposed the head of government. Is anyone still seriously claiming it's not a coup? Podiaebba (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Assem Abdel Maged

Is there any proof that sheikh Assem Abdel-Maged, prominent member of the islamist al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya party, has been arrested in egypt on 3rd of July? (he issued a fatwa in june decreeing the death against Hamed Abdel-Samad [1] [2] who compared “Islamism” with “fascism”) -- Cherubino (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Nno idea, but if we have soruces then it can go into the article(Lihaas (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)).

Egypt suspended from African Union

Add to the infobox, it is an outcome of the anti-democratic military coup. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2013/07/201375113557928109.html

 Done(Lihaas (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)).

As participant

I think the AU should be listed in this section of the infobox as it is siding with the Morsi faction and its international pressure with the suspension is more than mere rhetoric. Thus making it more relevant than the pope and al azhar imanm(Lihaas (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)).

Then we would have to add all the countries that are supportive as well. The AU was not a pressuring force in any way and played no role. Please don't add it. It's also not listed in any of the infoboxes of the other countries that are suspended now. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The UAU is a much more influential regional force. THe rest are just reactions. .This was a proactive response. uch more tha words(Lihaas (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)).

Internal official responses

Many parties within Egypt praised what happened as well as courts, the police, political scientists and analysts. On the other side of course there was some opposition from supporters of the MB. How about we add a section regarding that? If anyone wants to help please do.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Either as a "domestic responses" separate section OR a subsection of coup/aftermath (probs former). But lets get the sources fircst(Lihaas (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)). .

International reactions classified as "support", "neutral" etc.

Trying to label each country's reaction as "support", "neutral", "criticism" is going to be contentious. For example, Canada clearly called the removal of Morsi a coup, which is a label the military is desperate to avoid. So Canada's reaction can be considered "criticism" in a sense.

It's best to list the reaction without classifying them.Bless sins (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree that reaction classification smacks of Original Research. Suggest a neutral classification scheme such as each country in alphabetical order. Peace, MPS (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with the idea. It would look more like a session at the UNSC if nations are given such headings. The Big Hoof! (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Wholly agreed, and ai said as much in my edit summaries.Lihaas (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Project Egypt?

not sure if there is a community of wikipedians working on Egyptian Arab Spring type articles. Is there a "Project Egypt??" PS I just found the Aftermath of the 2011 Egyptian revolution article, and I think it would be a good "parent article" to summarize content / timelines / events from 2011_Egyptian_revolution + Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution under the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces + Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution under Mohamed Morsi (July–October 2012) + whatever we end up calling the recent coup-like event. Thoughts? Peace MPS (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Egypt -- The Anome (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Diaa abdelmoneim suggested a taskfoce and a catch all article. Both seem good ideas.(Lihaas (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)).

Sinai attacks may be irrelevant

The Sinai insurgency has been going on for a long time. There's no evidence in the sources[3] the attacks in Sinai are necessarily related to the coup.Bless sins (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

An Islamist warning was given and it happened in 24 hrs. Al Jazeera mentioned it int he same vein(Lihaas (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)).

According to Ahram Online, "Authenticated videos of Islamists threatening the army appeared online following a hundreds-strong demonstration in Al-Arish city on Thursday evening, with speakers broadcasting calls to form a war council to combat the army. Activist Hossam El-Shorbagy, who is close to Muslim Brotherhood, told Ahram Online that Islamist militias will not back down from confronting the army because they have flourished during Mohamed Morsi's period in office." [4] It does seem as though they are connected.

That source connects neither the videos nor the demonstration to the coup. It also doesn't connect the videos to the attacks on soldiers.Bless sins (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

On a related note, should the attacks be mentioned in the Sinai insurgency article? David O. Johnson (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the attacks to the Sinai insurgency article David O. Johnson (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure why nowt? its a different issue though(Lihaas (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)).

"Further reading" section

What do these four publictations mentioned there have to do with the current events in Egypt? Obviously, they were published earlier and are more suitable to describe either the Muslim Brotherhood or a more general subject like Politics of Egypt.--:FoxyOrange (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

FOR the record I afgree with you. But its better than a edit war.(Lihaas (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)).

When I removed the section you reverted it. I don't see any support here for keeping it.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes because there was this discussion going on. You need consensus not re-removing because 1 persons view on this.(Lihaas (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)).

Casualties & injured in infobox

Currently there is one source listed, with other numbers being mentioned in the wikicode without explicit citation. Those numbers should probably have a citation. If we do that, all of the casualties and injuries will have proper citations. I'll see if I can find the mentioned sources and add them. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This source <http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2013/07/04/health-ministry-11-dead-and-516-injured-at-rallies-on-wednesday/> mentions 11 died on Wednesday.David O. Johnson (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There were wildly differing numbers so I tried to take the source there and then added what I heard on tv so the math adds up. But feel free to add/change per sources.(Lihaas (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)).

I added what I could find, though a source needs to be added for the number of dead and injured on Tuesday. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained-

This doesn't explain the math. Its a media speculation. Previously we had math to explain the numbers, this jumps the gunLihaas (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Again we are going back to wildly differing numbers. If were gonna cite different sources at least do the math and show it here. [5](Lihaas (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)).

Egyptian crisis: a mix of coup d'état and revolution

The Egyptian crisis is both a coup d'état and a popular revolution. So I propose to rename the page "Egyptian revolution of 2013" --Luis Molnar (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Or, just "Egyptian crisis of 2013" --Luis Molnar (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Is this title suggestion based on your opinion, or do you have a source that says that it is both. Also, please participate in the discussion that is taking place above... specifically, Talk:2013_Egyptian_coup_d'état#Requested_move. Thanks again! Peace, MPS (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

We have 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. The fact is, this was as much a coup as Egypt 2013. Little to do with the constitution. The neutral title would be 2013 Egyptian constitutional crisis. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a constitutional crisis. In Romania 2012 was a constitutional crisis, because USL issued emergency ordinance for decrease the Constitutional Court's powers, as Basescu was easiest to be impeached. In Egypt 2013 is a revolution, composing popular protests and military coup. --188.27.32.161 (talk) 07:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

We can discuss this above but constitutional crisis is broader. Even a coup anywhere IS a constitutional crisis.(Lihaas (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)).

It is a coup d'état as declared by several national and international authorities and as declared by a major sector of the Egyptian people that made rallies and demonstrations today all over Egypt.--Ashashyou (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The opening paragraph should describe the event

WP:MOSBEGIN says that the opening paragraph should give the basic facts without being too specific, and if possible, give the location and time. Thus, the first thing should be the removal of Morsi, because that is what this article is about. Everything else should come in the subsequent paragraphs.Bless sins (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

RThe lead should represent the article. The link you quote also mentions the lead (not specifically the firt para but the lead itself). the lead does do that. And per chronoligical order to avoid repetition. As such this is against the grain of reason sicited.Lihaas (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:MOSBEGIN specifically says "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific." Right now the reader will be quite confused, as the removal of Morsi isn't mentioned until the end of the lead. The main subject of the article is the removal of Morsi, not the protests, which are covered in 2012-2013 Egyptian protests for that.

So, the first paragraph needs to give the basic information about the removal of Morsi. The link also says "if appropriate, it [the first paragraph] should give the location and time," so the date of the removal should also be mentioned in the first paragraph.Bless sins (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

"The lead section (also known as the lead, introduction or intro)..." and that's how iut STARTS.(Lihaas (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)).

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The link is clearly talking about the first paragraph of the lead. The entire lead is not the first paragraph, because the lead is made of several different paragraphs.

WP:BEGIN also says "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is."

Currently the first sentence is:

After ongoing public protests in Egypt against President Mohamed Morsi, on 30 June 2013, one year after Morsi was elected president, millions of protesters across Egypt took to the streets and demanded the immediate resignation of the president.

This does not tell the reader what the subject is. The subject is the removal of Morsi, not the protests that lead to his removal.

I suggest, the first sentence be,

On July 3, 2013, Egyptian Minister of Defense General Abdul Fatah al-Sisi announced the removal of President Mohamed Morsi and the suspension of the Egyptian constitution.

Bless sins (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to bring the contributors' (and readers') attention to the following sentence in the opening paragraph: The demonstrations, which had been largely peaceful, turned violent when five anti-Morsi protesters were killed in separate clashes and shootings. The tone of this sentence makes it seem that all protestors on both sides suddenly started fighting. From my following of the events, that was not the case. I propose that the sentence be changed to reflect the number and scope of the clashes. Also, the paragraph does not mention when the clashes happened or why. MArdaninEgypt (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The second half of the lsat paragraph of the opening section lacks citation. Please include your sources. Thanks. MArdaninEgypt (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Turkish Opposition comments

The comments of the Turkish opposition were removed.[6] They were sourced. If comments from opposition are being removed, presumably Al-Shabaab's comments should also not be in the section.Bless sins (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Sourced comments shiuld not be removed, period. No need to presume the rest should be removed for no reason(Lihaas (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)).

Egyptian Revolution Task Force

If you wanna help out in the Egyptian revolution task force please visit Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Egypt#Egyptian_Revolution_Task_Force.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

International Reactions: US

Republican chairman suggests supporting the Egyptian military actions. I guess this update should be added.

The statement: Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel Release Joint Statement on Ongoing Events in Egypt

How Washington Post describes it: Key congressional committee backs Egypt coup

Mohamed Magdy "Mido", Thank You! 20:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

About to DD IT(Lihaas (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)).

June 30th protests missing?

The protests on june 30th is missing from the main content and is only in the lead.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

2.5 hour speech on June 26

Morsi did a speech on 26 June which was supposed to calm protestors but it actually garnered criticism from many in the country as he insulted and accused judges, journalists, businessmen, the public prosecutor and politicians. This is an essential part of the event and actually has so much information surrounding it that it constitutes notability and could be its own article. Here are some links:

• "Egyptian President Morsi's speech criticized by opposition". The Reporter. 26 June 2013. Retrieved 6 July 2013.
• "Egypt's opposition criticizes president's speech". USA Today. June 27 2013. Retrieved 6 July 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Hendawi, Hamza (26 June 2013). "Mohammed Morsi, Egypt's President, Acknowledges Making Mistakes In Televised Speech". Huffington Post. Retrieved 6 July 2013.

I think this is an important part that we shouldn't miss.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article should be merged with 2012–13 Egyptian protests, because the protests are what led to the coup d'état. (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I strongly support this proposed merger. -- 46.233.72.86 (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - a military coup d'état (which is what this is, by definition) warrants having its own article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose: - a change in national president through military intervention is not merely part of the aftermath of something that happened over a year ago. If an election article is valid, so is this. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I Strongly oppose this merger. A coup is a very notable event in a nations history in and of itself, it is not something you merely mention in another article. Juneau Mike 21:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose per above. Something as significant as this warrants its own article.--Metalhead94 ^{T C} 21:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this merger. Anything as significent as a military coup d'etat deserves its own article, even if it is a part of a long series of protest. To merge this would be absurd and severely demean the historical and academic significence of this event. -TS, --99.104.188.245 (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - Space Shuttle Columbia disaster is an outcome of STS-107. Realizing this is not a policy argument, the point here is that outcomes and the larger events they spring from are both perfectly legitimate article topics. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Strong Oppose per above and per WP:SIZE, no need to merge two notable subjects into a huge un-readable article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Strong Oppose per above. This is a very major event that deserves its own article. 128.100.3.67 (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Strong oppose. They may be very close together but they are two separate events; both of which meet WP:GNG by having verifiability from independent and reliable sources. — -dainomite   02:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The protests were the begining of this revolution, it's not like the protests that led to Hosni Mubarak's ouster (which occured due to military intervention!) got a separate article, like the 2011 revolution, the 2013 revolution began with a protest movement. Charles Essie (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose this is a completely separate and notable issue of itself. As in other such coup pages. In the old incarnation of July protests I would support a merger (and almost proposed it until I saw the other article per WP:Article size(Lihaas (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)).

Support -- at a minimum, we should rethink the article titles. I also think we should consider how to merge and integrate content, perhaps taking inspiration from all the various articles and political transitions mentioned in the catchall History of Iraq (2003–11) article. We could even have a new article called History of Egypt (2011 - present). If you apply the ten year test heuristic, this series of "revolution after the protests and after Morsi elections but before Morsi got thrown out" is going to be confusing to navigate 10 years from now. Simplify! Peace, MPS (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• How about a task force on WP:Egypt regarding the whole revolution related articles. There is a lot of overlap.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Strong Oppose this article is too large to merge. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 16:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It would not be that much bigger if we got rid of the overlap. Charles Essie (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Post coup protests is if nothing else a counter-protest-protest and should be treated as such. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 21:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Charles Essie (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The content of this article covers events since the coup and on-wards including the current counter-protest-protest by Morsi supporters. Bundling that with the pre-coup protests is not a good idea. Article was very long already. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. --Waka Waka (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose: it's a major event and it deserve its own article 3bdulelah (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

There is something fundimental about my proposal that maybe I did not make clear, I am not proposing for military takeover itself to be sidelined (it would be the centerpeice of a combined article), I am simply advocating recognition of the fact that this more than just a military coup, it is the end result of an popular opposition movement against Mohamed Morsi that began in November 2012, this a revolution, with a military takeover as the defining moment (just like early 2011). Charles Essie (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no doubt about it but the coup is a notable enough milestone over events that started in November 2012 to break the article. All parameters that applied to the protests that lasted about half a year are different now. Even the infobox would be a serious mess. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If it's length everyone is worried about, maybe after combining the two articles it could be shortened, and a more detailed timeline page could created to accompany the main article (it's what we did with the articles for the other Arab Spring movements). Charles Essie (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

That defeats the purpose. I do not think anyone wants the articles to be shorter. The timeline article could talk about the contents of both of the articles maybe. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean it would be made that much shorter, besides, the two articles overlap tremendously, it wouldn't make that big a diffrence, the timeline page would house specific details of the events that took place. We're not going to be eliminating the contents of the two pages, just reorganizing them in a new format that acknowledges that both articles cover inseparable subject matter, that being the second phase of Egypt's historic transformation as well as a key moment in the ongoing Arab Spring. Charles Essie (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd call it the Arab Summer or How Egypt Killed Political Islam. But that is not the point. There is trivial amount of overlap the moment coup underwent. People protesting prior to the coup (for about 6 months) and after (for about half a week so far) have completely different goals. I kind of don't see why you want to mix them. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 19:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose per others. EkoGraf (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose:This coup is a notable enough event to be an independent milestone.It is a game changing event that should be marked clearly in Egypt's History --Hexacoder (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose as per Hexacoder, and Wikipedia is not printed, so we have no limits on number of articles. Kavas (talk) 11:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pro-Morsy protests

The wikpedia page is ignoring the pro-Mosy protests.--Ashashyou (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Pro-Morsy protests are protesting against the complete bias of the Egyptian Media and Foreign media by ignoring the pro-Morsy supporting demonstrations. For my self as a neutral Egyptian i feel ashamed of what is happening in Egyptian media.--Ashashyou (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added some info about the pro-Morsy demonstrations which are not headed by Islamists only but by many sectors of the Egyptian People as leftists, Christians and non-political Muslims.--Ashashyou (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Add the info,wikipedia is a neutral website that presents both sides Alhanuty (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Ya, we need more on that side.(Lihaas (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)).

User:CounterWikiLies --> Are you trying to tell me that the number of Christians in pro-Morsy rallies can reach more than 0.000000000000000000001% of the demonstrators?! Even the sources you once added to the section about the pro-Morsy demonstrations didn't mention any "Catholics" like you once wrote. Even the number of non-Islamists in pro-Morsy rallies wouldn't reach more than 20 and they're definitely NOT Christians or leftists. You can keep your lies to yourself about being neutral but you're the one who's biased yourself 5aroof, so stop fooling non-Egyptians because they don't know the situation here. And for God's sake stop pretending you're democratic! مش من الرجولة انك تخدع الاجانب و كفاياكو كذب

Please sign your posts. Also while you have valid points theres no need to get bitter and accusing others. See AGF(Lihaas (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)).

I have to deal with this kind of nonsense all the time here and unfortunately many of you (non-Egyptians) fall for it. Most of you actually believe the brotherhood cares about democracy, legitimacy and non-violence because CNN keeps telling you that.

I myself mentioned the pro-Morsy rallies in both articles even though I support the protests.(User:CounterWikiLies (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC))

During the last decade, the MB have been supporting democracy, legitimacy and non-violence with remarkable consistency. Whether or not they secretly despise all of the above is irrelevant. On the other hand, the Egyptian military has proven in the last 60 years that they not only despise all those things, but actually practice the opposite, i.e dictatorship, violence, and illegitimacy (not to mention censorship). Now they're beginning to kill peaceful protesters, which even Mubarak never did. Observer42436 (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Reorganizing the article

I think the article has a couple of overlaps for example between the protests and response section. I suggest reorganizing the article into a chronological event for example lead up to 30 June Mass Protests, Government and Military response, coup, new president, internal official responses to the coup, international responses.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. And I think the coup has happened -- it isn't ongoing. Morsi is no longer president; that was the coup. Obviously, we're seeing the aftermath of that right now, which is an event itself, but the coup isn't ongoing. So I'm going to change that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I have created an article to deal with the aftermath of the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

There should also be a section on the protests against the coup.Bless sins (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Need more pro=Morsi comments here int he article. But the article doesn't require a split off yet to aftermath section(Lihaas (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)).

Background on why the protests erupted

There is no information in the article about why the protests erupted I think this should be in the background section.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Add it with source(Lihaas (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)).

Republican Guard Casualties and losses

The numbers of Casualties and losses should be updated, ar-wiki created article about this event, also reuters and others 12 3--204.14.79.150 (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Egyptian Republican Guard clashes 2013

I created this article "Egyptian Republican Guard clashes 2013" since it is an important event with a lot of media attention and responses.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ive redirected it as its a stub with several 1 sentence paras . I t can easily fit into the aftermath page which is not overlong(Lihaas (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)).

Undid... I was still expanding it and hoped more editors would tune in. Please don't redirect again before discussion. There is enough media attention for it and many responses national and international. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You're adding a lot to the article regarding this incident. I really suggest moving that info to the new article since obviously it does have significant ramifications. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I t cant fit into the aftermath of the coup article. o no need for a split per WP:Size(Lihaas (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)).

The use of "[sic]" for various acceptable spellings of Morsi

I don't really feel like this is a good use of "[sic]". If they weren't accepted, such as "Moursi" or something, then I would understand. Does anyone else agree with the removal of these?

Now, if "[sic]" existed in the original quote and was used incorrectly, then we get into some tricky business... lukini (talk | contribs) 14:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sic means a different spelling. We would have contradictory spelling by using them on the page(Lihaas (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)).

The usage of sic isn't that broad. If it was, a quote saying "colour" on the color article or "armor" on the armour article would be marked with "[sic]". This is incorrect usage.

It generally indicates a mistake or unusual spelling/usage. Mursi and Morsy aren't incorrect and are quite common in news stories. I get that Morsi is chosen as the "correct" spelling on Wikipedia and should be used in the article text, similar to how pages are in only UK English or US English. Unless we are claiming that all other spellings are "incorrect", even though it says they are acceptable right on Morsi's page, it doesn't seem like it is needed to me. lukini (talk | contribs) 19:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree sic seems inappropriate in those cases. See also WP:SIC. Some of these appear to be translations anyway so I'm not even sure whether we need different spellings or we could find a source that quite legitimately uses a different spelling. Nil Einne (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Casualties and losses

The total numbers are at least 140 Killed & 3500 injured, please update [7].--204.14.79.136 (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

U can do it yourself! --BladeJ (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The article is WP:semi protected and has been since 5 July so actually they can't unless they register for an account ant wait a few days, or already have such an account. However I'm not sure what the OP wants as there is no general casulty list and it' been a while since their comment so may be it no longer applies. Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Tawadros and el-Tayeb in infobox

What's the reasoning behind including these gentlemen as "leaders" or "commanders" of the anti-Morsi forces in the infobox? Unlike El-Sisi (commander of the army which deposed Morsi), ElBaradei (representing the National Salvation Front) and Mahmoud Badr (representing Tamarod), Imam el-Tayeb and Pope Tawadros had not been calling for Morsi's ouster, had not been leading or encouraging anti-Morsi demos that led to his ouster and did not represent forces (Al-Azhar and Coptic Church) that did either of those things. All they did was give their backing to the military's decision along with several other national figures. The Nour Party also did this, but they're not in the infobox, nor should they be because they weren't active participants in the events, they just gave their stamp of approval to el-Sisi's decision. And in fact, Nour had been previously supported the idea of Morsi holding early presidential elections unlike el-Tayeb or Tawadros. That's to the best of my knowledge. Adding the pope and the imam to the infobox, although in goodfaith, is simply misleading. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Because they did sanction the events, that's clearly taking a side. If you want to add Nour then go ahead and do it.(Lihaas (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)).

I know that, but it's just not a enough of a reason to consider them as "leaders opposing" Morsi's side in the way of ElBaradei, Badr and el-Sisi. It's still misleading, kind of confusing and hurt's the article's credibility. If we do accept this reasoning, do we add the al-Azhar Mosque and the Coptic Church as participants since el-Tayeb and Tawdros are representing these chief religious institutions? Would that be accurate? It wouldn't, and I think it's best to explain their roles (and Nour's) in the article text because their roles are not black and white like the roles of the Brotherhood/Gamaa Islamiya and Tamarod/NSF/Military. The infobox is too arbitrary for us to include them because there's no explanation. If you simply don't agree with me, I could compromise by adding a footnote briefly describing their positions in the infobox. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Rename/Move/Change Title

If you want to discuss the article's title please don't start a new section, add your point to this section by clicking on the edit link above this note.

The Protests were all over Egypt in Tahrir, Al-Itihadeya which is the presidential palace, Alexandria and many more cities. I'll move the article from "2013 Tahrir Square demonstrations" to "2013 Egyptian Protests" until a better name is out there. The main driver for the revolution was the Tamarod movement which called for protesting on 30 June and signing papers that called for the president to step down. This is not reflected in the article and I'll change it to reflect that more. Please if you have any other opinions discuss it on the talk page. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

(Lihaas (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)).

How has it been resolved? The Big Hoof! (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You (or someone) moved the article title as suggested. And now its updated so I thought it resolved.(Lihaas (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)).

The name change was wrong. It should be 2013 Egyptian Revolution. This was no less a coup than '11.21:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

As was pointed out by another Wikipedian above, this is no less or more a coup than the 2011 Egyptian Revolution. While both are technically coups, it is a rather political bias and bifurcation to title one a revolution and the other a coup. Lestatdelc (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The article's title

Pardon me if I'm mistaken but I haven't followed events 100% and that what I have so far gleaned all comes from mainstream western media. Why are these demonstrations referred to as a coup d'état? All I see is a split community with one section pro-Freedom & Justice (ie. Morsi) and another section opposed. That is not a coup is it? The protests are ongoing but the events if successful would amount to a revolution or an uprising. A coup tends to be when the military has ousted the regime. Can someone correct me if I am wrong? The Big Hoof! (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You answered your own question : "A coup tends to be when the military has ousted the regime" that's exactly what happened. He did not resign in the face of protests or call another eletion, he was forcibly removed from power.

If the question was in regard to keeping the title, then fine. But as a general question, this is not a forum. Please keep those at the ref desk.(Lihaas (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)).

agree with Lihaas's answers. It is a Coup d'état from a title standpoint, Hooooof did answer his own question, and this is not a forum. Peace, MPS (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Posted something upthread before finding the same topic down here. As I said up higher in this talk page, this is no less or more a coup than the 2011 Egyptian Revolution. While both are technically coups, it is a rather political bias and bifurcation to title one a revolution and the other a coup. Lestatdelc (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If you think the 2011 was a coup argue on its talk page, not here. 128.100.3.67 (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes as Lihaas said the military removing the president and installing a new one (even if not military), suspending the constitution and seizing control over various state apparatus, e.g. state TV fits the normal definition of a coup, particularly since there doesn't seem to be anything in the constitution or other legal basis for these actions (to be clear I'm only referring to the legal aspect not the ethical or moral or whatever). In case you missed it, about an hour and a half ago the military annouced that had happened and it's reflected in our article. More to the point, the same Western media you refer to seem to be referring to it as a coup, e.g. CNN, BBC. I suspect in the hours to come governments will also call it the same. Nil Einne (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I know it isn't a forum so I apologise if my remarks made it appear like that. Had my statement been read carefully, all will have noticed that I haven't followed this 100% and believed the article only to reflect the demonstrations. In other words, I hadn't yet spotted that a coup really did take place. I haven't seen news today (3rd) for instance. Not to worry, all is now clear. The Big Hoof! (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources calling it a coup? Those that I've seen, for example BBC News and NY Times use the term only in inverted commas, and as accusations made by the ousted regime. In the absence of sources then I think the current title is jumping the gun a bit, until such time as the event becomes widely known as such. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Al Jazeera has called it a coup and with no caveats. And Marwan Bishara is quite passionate ;)(Lihaas (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)).

CNN calls it a coup in their front page. BBC is or was calling it a coup in the text of their live reports. That said, I do agree it may have been best to wait rather then move so fast, but I'm also not convinced there's much point having a lengthy discussion about moving it at this time and do strongly suspect this title will be the eventual consensus title. Nil Einne (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that we should have two separate articles, one about the protests and the other one about this coup. I think that these are two totally different political events. Farhikht (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

See 2012-13 Egyptian protests (and its linked on the pageLihaas (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

So those redirects was before creation of this new articles. I fixed them.Farhikht (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems like someone has a political agenda to call it a coup d'etat. By definition, a coup d'etat involves a small band of conspirators, not millions of protesters. The article title is deliberately misleading. The ouster of Mubarak should also be called a coup d'etat, since it was the military who officially removed him from power.

I think this is an on-going discussion whether or not to call it a coup d'etat. While most of the Anti-Morsy crowd including the military itself is declaring this not a coup d'etat, the Pro-Morsy crowd and the Muslim Brotherhood are. Western governments are scrambling to define exactly what happened here. Media, including western media, are also scrambling to find out what the proper label is. The definition of the question is the question of definition, as some commentators said yesterday. Based on this, I think the article should avoid labeling these events as a coup, at least until we get some consensus out there to call it just that. It's an unresolved question, and I think Wikipedia should reflect that.KRam41 (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, Section 17 of this Talk page revolves around the same question - so maybe we can merge these two Talk sections? Thanks!KRam41 (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that the use of the word "coup" here in this title is problematic, particularly given that it's not used in the title for the article on Mubarak's ouster. Mobarak and Morsi were removed from power under similar circumstances. Both involved a significant portion of Egyptian society out in the streets demanding they step down, and both also involved the military removing them from power.

To describe the events which allowed Morsi's rise to power as a "revolution" but those which led to his downfall as a "coup" is clearly biased and violates NPOV. A number of the comments by those defending the use of "coup" in the title and trying to shut down discussion frankly strike me as Wiki-lawyering. People don't need to go to the other page to request it be renamed to "coup" only to be accused of doing it to make a point. Let's have one central discussion here.

I suggest that the page be renamed something like Egyptian Revolution of 2013. More than 31,000 hits on Google News for "second Egyptian revolution." http://www.google.com/#tbm=nws&sclient=psy-ab&q=second+egyptian+revolution&fp=7ee05b84ff0fbb1c -Helvetica (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I am Egyptian and I can tell you the arguments that many people have in Egypt for and against this term are politically motivated. But Wikipedia is supposed to take an unbiased view and therefore I suggest that someone review the commonly accepted definitions of "coup d'etat" in English (since this is the English language article) and see if the circumstances fit that and base it on those grounds alone. Paying attention to what either side calls it is to be biased. You can always include a section where you give the various arguments for and against the labelling. --197.34.186.83 (talk) 06:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a WP argument.

Agree with the IP above that we can mention the conteroversy over the term. In fact, Ill add something now.(Lihaas (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)).

Coup D'etat. Definition: a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government: he was overthrown in an army coup (Oxford Dictionary) Definition: also known as a coup or a putsch, is the sudden deposition of a government, usually by a small group of the existing state establishment—typically the military—to depose the extant/democratic government and replace it with another body, civil or military. (Wikipedia) Definition: A sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force. (Dictionary.com) You may think this coup was popular. You may think Morsi's year as President was a disaster. That's fine. But a coup is a coup. No matter how you sugercoat it. And, a coup is the most undemocratic action you can take in politics. A sad day for Egypt.

Egypt have a population of 84 million. Overall, the number of protesters is said to have reached as many as 14 million making it the largest (2012–13 Egyptian protests Wikipedia) which means only 16% of the Egyptian people protested while 84% of Egyptian people didn't. So 84% of the people didn't protested and military just used the opportunity presented by the 16% population during the protest to illegally seize power from a democratic elected government and remove them and order arrest and crack down on them as well as the media. It a Coup D'etat whether you like or not and what ever you sugar coat it.

It's a coup because the army didn't just do what Tamarrud wanted, which is Morsi's resignation. The army disbanded the parliament, cancelled the constitution, closed TV channels, and arrested many people without court warrant. None of these was demanded by the demonstrators and that makes the event a coup, not a revolution. سرمد خالد (talk)

Edit request on 3 July 2013

Please change the title of Coup d'etat to Revolution or Demonstrations, as the army assured not a coup but a response to the demands of the people.

Egyptloyal (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

 Not done

Partisan politicas came make all the claims in the world but it doesn't change from the fact that it wwas by definition a coup and all other independent sources are saying it so.Lihaas (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

please change title of article '2013 Egyptian coup d'état' to '2013 third wave Egyptian revolution

please change title of article '2013 Egyptian coup d'état' to '2013 third wave Egyptian revolution Calling the recent developments in Egypt a Coup d'état undermines the will of the Egyptian people and misrepresents recent events in the country. The Muslim Brotherhood have succeeded in publicizing for this public movement as a military coup. Egyptians see this as a continuation for their constant struggle for freedom and democracy. According to Google Earth there were 33 millions who participated in the demonstrations fueled by a civil non partisan movement 'Tamarod' who managed to gather 22 million petition signatures calling for exactly the things announced by the military, hence the military has only protected the people's will against a president who for the past four days have repeatedly threatened using violence. Supporting source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/03/mohamed-morsi-egypt-second-revolution SaraRabie1 (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Calling it "third-wave revolution" is not a good idea, I think, because that term is debatable. It was a coup d'etat, and there's no disputing that. Moving the article will only cause arguments. Howicus (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It is called by the reliable media a coup d'état,deposing a president especially elected is a coup d'état ,and wikipedia only goes with neutral naming. Alhanuty (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but when an army replace the democratically elected president this is a coup d'état. I was watching Sky News yesterday and the called it a coup 3bdulelah (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

A "coup d'etat" is defined as follows by Wikipedia: "A coup d'état (/ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/; plural: coups d'état), also known as a coup, a putsch, or an overthrow, is the sudden deposition of a government,[1][2][3][4] usually by a small group of the existing state establishment—typically the military—to depose the extant government and replace it with another body, civil or military." I do not see the word "democratically elected" in the definition. That means your definition of a coup should require a name change to the 2011 Egyptian Revolution. 24.192.5.226 (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --ElHef (Meep?) 01:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: "Not done." – The move to coup d'état happened out of process. Where is the discussion? It would be best to restore the article to its former title, whatever that is. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

there is a lot of dconsensus by discussion aroind here on this title. (Lihaas (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)).

Coup or Revolution or Democratic Coup

What's happening in Egypt is untraditional and the word coup has usually been associated with being undemocratic. The untraditional thing about this coup is that it happened following millions of protests that asked for the removal of the president since there was no parliament to vote for his removal or impeachment. The constitution by which the country was operating was not supervised by most judges since they saw it as assaulting their rights. The president himself threatened that he would die before being removed and asked supporters to not let his removal happen.

My point is this is, contrary to the usual, a democratic coup due to massive protests or a Revolution. This Washington Post explains the issue more --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that a "democratic coup" exists. IMO what happened in Egypt was a classic coup with the intervention of the army.Farhikht (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I happen to agree with OP, this is a second Revolution. The first Egyptian Revolution was technically a coup as well, but Wikipedia sets precedent by calling it the 2011 Egyptian Revolution. Why should this situation be any different? If I were more active on Wikipedia I would go to bat about having the name of the article completely changed. 24.192.5.226 (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between a politician resigning due to public pressure and the military removing a politician due to public pressure. Morsi's removal, whether or not it was in the best interests of democracy, was a coup. Mubarak was not removed and, at least officially, gave power over willingly.--Hellosparta (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The point is clearly debatable. According to the strict definition given here this was a coup. However statements from the US and UK governments carefully avoided using the word 'Coup'. Given that US military aid would be at risk if a coup had taken place, coupled with the fact that both the US and UK have refrained from referring to it as a coup we can infer that the word 'coup' is politically very sensitive here and it may be best to avoid using it and use the term "military intervention" instead as the word used in the US and UK government statements. 109.68.196.229 (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Link to relevant discussion of this point on the BBC: [8]

Just because something is "politically very sensitive" does not disqualify it from being fact. The title should represent fact, not cater to political sensitivities. Samuel Peoples (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. And the voices of the government of US/UK is not that of God or an encyclopaedia. .For that matter no govt can have its diktats as fact(Lihaas (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)).

Yes it does not disqualify it as fact, however the main issue here is that the set of conditions under which this situation has occurred does not lend itself so readily to the description of coup, even with Wikipedia's simplified explanation of "Coup d'etat".120.150.19.197 (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Why not "impeachment"?

User:CounterWikiLies --> I think it's more accurate to call the page "Impeachment of Mohamed Morsi" instead of "2013 Egyptian coup d'état". If CNN and BBC call it something, does this mean it has to be the right one? The guy abused his power as president of Egypt so he was replaced by the military with the head of the Constitutional Court as acting president with an early election to be scheduled soon.

The president can be just impeached by the parliament, while what happened in Egypt was a coup. A.h. king • Talk to me! 20:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

User:CounterWikiLies --> There was no parliament in Egypt during this "coup". Can i call it a legitimate coup then? I'm just surprised by the heavy international criticism of this "coup".

By definition, a coup d'etat is the extraconstitutional/extralegal and/or forceful overthrowal of an installed ruler, be he elected, appointed, or whatever else. This is not an Impeachment. No amount of spin can redefine one of the most fundamental terms in regime change politics. "Replacement by the military" is a coup d'etat. -TS, --99.104.188.245 (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It should be changed to demonstrations or revolution. Sure it fits the definition of a coup, but IT WASN'T. When 33 million people (1/3 of egypts population) are on the streets thats called voice of the people, not a coup. The military gave Morsi a whole week to get itself together, and they didn't respond to anything. All they cared about was the chair and power. When that's the case, he doesn't deserve the chair nor the power, especially when the military itself came out and said it's not a coup, and the military isnt involved in the politics whatsoever.

Opinion aside, is there a source on 33 million? The military gave 48 hours warning and the voice of the people is called an election (which happened and MOrsi won, as did the constitution pass). Just because the military say its not a coup doesn't change fact. Noone calls a coup a coup when they do it.Lihaas (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

There are only a couple guys who keep defending the "coup" title, turning down a lot of protests, a lot of worldwide sources and disregarding at least 22 million people. Please note that wikipedia is among the very few that call this revolution a coup. Wikipedia is great for being neutral, please don't start to change that now 196.221.149.93 (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

We should not call this an "impeachment", as this implies there was a legal basis for Morsi's removal — there was not. Whether or not it was ethical or moral to remove the President does not make it legal. The fact of the matter is that there is/was no constitutional basis for Morsi's removal as President of Egypt by the military and therefore, it was a coup. It does not matter the intentions, democratic or not. Perhaps this article should be merged with the 2011 Egyptian Revolution (which, arguably, culminated in a coup as well). This is merely an extension of the events of 2011, anyhow. Just as the French Revolution lasted for years, so will Egypt's. It should simply be merged with the previous page, and they together should be called "Revolution of 25 January", or something of the sort.

Edit request on 5 July 2013

Please change the title "2013 Egyptian coup d'état" to "2013 Egyptian Revolution" or "Second Wave of Egyptian Revolution" or "Third Wave of Egyptian Revolution"

This proposed change is because what is currently happening in Egypt is not a coup d'état, this is a wrong description to what is happening in Egypt. There are so many reasons that it's not a coup and that this is Revolution of People; the following are only some of the reasons:

1- There is no coup is planned by a date. These demonstrations have been planned for months before it happened, planned by group of youth actively collecting signatures from Egyptians in the form called "Rebel" to sign that Mohamed Morsi is not representing us as Egyptians and to take him off presidency & call for early presidential elections.

2- Coup is meant that the military secretly plan for it and take over power and rule the country. This didn't happen, what happened is that 12 million signatures were the results of the the "Rebel" movement https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Rebel_(movement) which means that this held by the people (not the military) to overthrow Morsi.

3- All the demonstrations that are held in Egypt with millions and millions of people in the streets show that this is a popular revolution not a coup. Here is one of the videos http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lgqEl1lT9g

4- There was actually a a military intervention. The truth is that millions & millions of people went out to the streets & squares of Egypt protesting against Morsi & his Islamists allies and the huge protests & the power of the people forced the army to take a step & out of their national responsibility to defend the people from any attack so they defended people from Muslims Brotherhood's & Istlamists (Pro-Morsi) attack. Hence, they are forced by the huge numbers of people in the streets to come down to their popular demands. 41.196.207.55 (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree as an Egyptian. This is a coup d'état. I am a neutral Egyptian. I respect the Egyptian Army very much and my father was an officer in it. This is a coup d'état.--Ashashyou (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion is above. And its going against the grain of all said here, which is flatly wrong.

Also this is not a forum for emotional discussion.(Lihaas (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)).

Why are we insisting on a controversial POV title

The long discussions on this talk page has made it clear that around 50% of all users want to call this article a coup, 50% do not. By definition, then, calling it a coup reflect a certain POV. That would not be problematic if it were the established term, but it is not. Virtually all countries in the world refuse to call it a coup. Given that "coup" reflect a particular POV, how come we still stick to it? I agree that revolution can also be perceived as POV, but a title such as "2013 Removal of the Egyptian President" would be perfectly neutral. I'm well aware that many people think it's a coup, but since that title is controversial and not universally used, its use here violates Wikipedia's policies.Jeppiz (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The word "coup" precisely applies to what happened here: a government was ousted by its own military. It's not a question of POV; it's a question of simple fact. If it's not a coup, then what is a coup? Everyking (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You call this POV, yet you assert that we should do th bidding of GOVERNMENTS who each have their partisan political role in the world of international relations. Tthat is by far th emost POV. Governmetns are not neutral and not independent assessing authorities.Lihaas (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)).

Please stop putting words in my mouth, it only makes you look dishonest. I never claimed we should do the bidding of governments, I pointed out that there is no universal use of 'coup', neither by states or by the media.Jeppiz (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"As this is English Wikipedia, it may be relevant that neither the US nor the UK have (yet) called it a "coup"." Those are your words not mine. You have explicitly mentioned that the English WP should look to guidance that the US/UK regimes have not called it a coup. That was a reason you cited in yur vote.(Lihaas (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)).

Revolution or Coup d'état

Firstly, before we define the event in Egypt as a coup d'état, we must know what's the meaning of Coup d'état.In Wikipedia, coup d'état means A sudden deposition of a government, usually by a small group of the existing state establishment—typically the military—to depose the extant government and replace it with another body, civil or military ,but the event that occurred in Egypt didn't happened by a small group of the existing state .all the world saw that the Egyptian people have protested for 5 days and they had an only demand Step down of the president. So obviously it is a popular revolution, not a coup. --المصري الأصيل (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly why it should be called a coup. The demonstrators' only demanded the president to step down. The army arrested the president, along with others, cancelled the constitution, disbanded the parliament, and closed few TV channels. All that without any court warrant and without demonstrators demanding it. All this, with that fact that the Egyptian's people could have removed the president through the parliament, makes it a coup, not a revolution.

Admin Request: Being bold about title change

I think it is time now for an admin to decide. The title is obviously not supported by half of the editors here. While WP is not a democracy, the reasons for and against the move are equally strong. May I request that the page be renamed to something neutral such as
-Deposition of Mohamed Morsi
-Overthrow of Mohamed Morsi
-Fall of the administration of Mohamed Morsi
-2013 Fall of the Egyptian government

19:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC) TheWilliamson (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

We should not call this an "impeachment", as this implies there was a legal basis for Morsi's removal — there was not. Whether or not it was ethical or moral to remove the President does not make it legal. The fact of the matter is that there is/was no constitutional basis for Morsi's removal as President of Egypt by the military and therefore, it was a coup. It does not matter the intentions, democratic or not. Perhaps this article should be merged with the 2011 Egyptian Revolution (which, arguably, culminated in a coup as well). This is merely an extension of the events of 2011, anyhow. Just as the French Revolution lasted for years, so will Egypt's. It should simply be merged with the previous page, and they together should be called "Revolution of 25 January", or something of the sort.

You have looked down at the extensive discussion of exactly this immediately below, haven't you? The discussion there (a) has a majority of "oppose" opinions against moving the article that also make clear arguments for why it's a coup, and (b) there's no consensus at all for any particular alternative name. -- Chronulator (talk) 11:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Chronulator, more than half of the people who were involved in the discussion on the title renaming declared they were opposed to the renaming of the article. EkoGraf (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I should just point out that the article was only moved to this title very recently (the same day or the day before the move request was initiated). Therefore per WP:BRD and WP:RM rules, if that bold move was contested (which it clearly is) then the original title should be the default if no consensus emerges from the move title. Therefore to retain the page at the current title you need not just a majority of "oppose" votes, but a clear consensus (however the closing admin chooses to define that). If there is no consensus then the article should move back to the previous title of 2013 Tahrir Square demonstrations. Obviously that title is not necessarily the best, so after that we should then we would possibly want to seek consensus on a new and better neutral title we can all agree upon.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Recently is confusing here as everything is recent. The article was only created about 3 days before it was moved to the current title. It was created at the title 2013 Tahreer Square demonstrations (note sp) but then went through multiple moves eventually 'settling' (only for about a day and 15 hours) on July 2013 Egyptian protests. It has actually been at the current title longer than anything else although this doesn't mean much because move protecting and this discussion would mean it would be inappropriate to move it. While that title may have had consensus at the time and we normally go by the original contributor's choice when there is a dispute and no consensus for either title, I don't think this can really be said to apply here since I suspect there's close to a consensus the previous title is no longer suitable simply because it no longer accurately reflects what the article covers. This is not like say, colour or color nor Myanmar or Burma. You would note I'm neutral and most of the above suggestions would be fine with me but I would oppose July 2013 Egyptian protests and even more strongly oppose 2013 Tahreer Square demonstrations. Nil Einne (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Amakuru is completely right. Whether or not there is a slight majority for one opinion or the other, it is obvious that there is no consensus for the current and recent title and that many users perceive it to be POV. Nobody could reasonably contest that no consensus has been reached, thus by Wikipedia policies the article should revert to the previous, uncontested title.Jeppiz (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's highly questionable if July 2013 Egyptian protests can be said to be an uncontested title any more. Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Well contest it then. But the suitability or otherwise of the previous title has no bearing on the debate for this one. Only that it has primacy because it was the title before the current contested title was invoked. If a suitably neutral title is suggested (preferably not using loaded words such as "revolution" or "coup") then maybe we could all agree.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is easily and clearly in favour of keeping the current incarnation. As opposed to a non-proposed other name. Just because you don't like what is said doesnt mean its swrong and dismissed.(Lihaas (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)).

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Last time I checked the !votes were fairly evenly split. But anywAy I don't think you or I are qualified to make that call, having cast votes on the debate. I was just pointing out, in case anyone missed it, that the current title does not have the advantage of incumbency and should not "win" in the event that there is no consensus.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me from the discussions so far that there is a consensus that this event satisfies the definition of coup. Do you disagree that the removal of Morsi satisfies the definition of coup? And most reputable media organizations have been calling it so, i.e. it is the dominant name used in sources. As people have pointed out this is not a poll. Contesting the title should have merits acceptable according to Wikipedia policies. Simply not liking the title is not enough, the title should be also clear and accurate, see Wikipedia:POVNAMING. 128.100.3.40 (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Fairly evenly split? I don't know what you were counting, but 49 oppose votes against 20 support votes is clearly not an even split. That means 70 percent of editors are of the opinion, based on reliable sources (per Wikipedia procedure), that we should stick with the term coup. EkoGraf (talk) 08:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

First you say neither rof us can make that call. then you say it "should" not win in accordance with a view cite. There are conventions cited why ot should move. Either you have the right or not to mke that call. You can't make both choices. And if you have the right, so do I (or anone)(Lihaas (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)).

Overthrow of Mohamed Morsi

I think "Overthrow of Mohamed Morsi" is a neutral title. It has been argued that neither coup d'état or revolution are neutral titles, but I think overthrow is neutral in that it dosen't have the kind of political connotations. Charles Essie (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Though I think that technically what happened fits the definition of a "coup" well enough, I could definitely support "overthrow", if someone decides they want to move it there. —anamedperson (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)