Talk:June 2013 Egyptian protests

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

randomly placed reference URL[edit]

I've removed from the very beginning of the page the following URL: http://carnegieendowment.org/sada/?fa=62627, because it was randomly placed. Feel free to place it somewhere, if relevant, or simply drop it. Zacchiro (talk) 09:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

date first?[edit]

I recall from similar discussions that the convention at wiki is to place the date first, as in "2013 Egyptian revolution". Tkuvho (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps "2013 revolution in Egypt". Tkuvho (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, maybe in this case it's not necessary? Articles about other revolutions in Egypt have this same format as well as tons of other newly created articles that don't have the date tags in the beginning. So i believe it's fair enough like that and i also believe it's easier to search for this way. Maybe we can create a redirect page called "2013 Egyptian revolution" that leads to this article? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete sentences[edit]

Some sentences in the background section are incomplete; they currently read " . and rejection from Muslim Brotherhood supporters who founded another counter-campaign called Tajarod." and "The Strong Egypt Party, Ahmed Shafik." I looked at some of the older revisions, but I couldn't find the exact sentences. All of the info needs to be added for those sentences.David O. Johnson (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I used info from one ref; and found two other sources to complete the sentences with.David O. Johnson (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still in development. Please be patient and i would be grateful if someone helps with the process. Thanks. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article gives a lot of misleading and wrong information, i propose the deletion Hans Franssen (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

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

The result of the merge request was: no merge.GreyShark (dibra) 18:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

I think the pages 2012–13 Egyptian protests and 2013 Egyptian coup d'état should be merged into here, all three pages are basically about the same thing anyway. Charles Essie (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Egyptian protests is about all protests against Morsi since his inauguration as president. you can't just mention a revolution in a section of an article. about merging the coup with the revolution it was discussed before that it's two different things, check here. Amr TarekSay Hello!, 21:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2012–13 Egyptian protests is not about random protests since Morsi's inauguration, it's about the protest movement that began after his controversial decree which led to the coup d'état, the protests were the first part of the Egyptian Revolution of 2013, the coup was the second part. Charles Essie (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - All three articles are too notable to be merged together in one article, in addition that this mixture will be too big to contain all three. This article is still in development and it will be even bigger than the previous ones i promise you, not to forget that merging them takes us back to the original disagreement on whether a coup happened or a revolution. Please check the discussion on the coup d'état's talk page. The 2012–13 protests page also has a lot of expanding to be done yet and it the November 2012 events called the "Ittihadiya clashes" had so much media coverage and so many sources that it could be expanded within the protests article or even maybe have an article of its own with all the trials in which the deposed government is currently involved. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I propose a fusion with the coup d'état's article. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Against This article is not reflecting the truth, so we can keep it this way or should be merged into the http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=2013_Egyptian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat . --Qjahid (talk), 26 January 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.213.217.10 (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think it is useful to distinguish the popular mobilization from the resultant intervention by the military. Q·L·1968 ☿ 21:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Against: by merging the articles, the credibility of Wikipedia will be at the edge because most of political respected institutions consider what happened in Egypt at 3 July 2013 as a coup. i noticed that Arabic version has the some debates about same issue here of merging. I can deduce that politics is playing a role in Wikipedia as well to be biased at one party and neglecting the other one. it is a coupe as per the political definitions.
    Today, The coup leader has announced that he may go for presidential elections, this is also a clue that it was a coup because the fact that military now is involved in taking over. The articles of "Egyptian revolution" and "2012–13 Egyptian protests" should be deleted completely after such clear evidences that it is a coup d'état. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans Franssen (talk • contribs) 22:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I visited the Arabic version of the pages about Egypt Coup (tried to translate it with Google translate), i noticed that there is a political rally on the discussion page with a lot political biasing, imposing the same rally on the English version will decrease the credibility of the page especially the contents are quite misleading when compared with Other version of the topic (e.g.: Dutch and French versions for example) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans Franssen (talk • contribs) 00:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you closely check this discussion first before attempting to enforce your personal views on everyone who worked so hard in those 2 articles by constantly vandalizing other people's work such as your edits on 2013 Egyptian coup d'état. The "same rally on the English version" existed in the coup d'état talk page and isn't present on this one, so basically you're the one imposing this on the pretext of "credibility", not us. And i also suggest you visit the discussion in the Arabic version of this article where most users have opposed a similar proposed merge with the coup d'état page. I will also repeat that this article is clearly incomplete and that the military's eventual involvement will be definitely portrayed here as the aftermath. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • i kept some days reading the discussion you referred to, Thanks anyway, what i can see that some insist to keep name of this article as "Revolution" although the fact the writer of the article has written it without agreement of other editors, this is really weird!!!. and this is quite strange behavior on the Wikipedia. most media sources and political references agree and describe that as this wasn't a revolution ,but demonstrations by the opposition , and number of 33 millions was fake. The correct name of it is still "Coup". Hans Franssen (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, but the correct name of what is still "Coup"? What are you referring to by "it" in your last phrase? The coup that happened on the night of July 3? or the revolution that took place in the 3 1/2 days before it?
And you said you checked the discussion, but i believe you didn't check the sources i put there, but anyway, 6 reliable and collapsed sources were added in the beginning of this article's intro that call what happened between June 30 and July 3 a "Revolution". I still don't know why is it that hard for many users to understand this. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You should check the rules of discussion on Wikipedia first, 1)Be polite, and welcoming to new users 2) Assume good faith 3) Avoid personal attacks, it is not a role of any user to judge the others understanding ability. some Questions here: the article of revolution came into picture on January 2014, which means that it came after almost 6 months of creation of the original page of "Coup d'etat", why? what were the trigger for such change? if there is a reason to merge the article (which i do not see) then it should be the deletion of the "Revolution" page not merging it with other pages. please keep your talk consistent with Wikipedia discussion rules. also, keeping the way of referring to sources and other discussions threads will lead to proliferate of writing and consequently to a misleading. i disagree to merge the content with "Coup d'etat" article. last remark, if MANY users see it hard to understand, it means that either information has been delivered and communicated in a wrong way or the information is wrong in its own. Hans Franssen (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The inability to understand something is no insult and should not be taken as such. It is called criticism. But vandalism by removing half an article without consensus is no violation of those rules? As for welcoming new users, i just noticed you were new through your contributions so i apologize if i were rude.
The article appearing 6 months or even a year after the events took place does not suggest anything. What is your claim here? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for your proposal to delete this article and the "2012-13 Egyptian protests" article completely, be my guest! You can simply nominate the page for deletion after citing good reasons to do so, though i don't find your claims convincing. I believe the easiest way is by activating WP:Twinkle in your preferences and you should also check WP:Guide to deletion and WP:Deletion policy. Someone should correct me if i'm wrong here. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • the article of "Egyptian Revolution of 2013" should be deleted if possible, this is my view. for some reasons, please check my points in the section below which explains why it was "coup d'etat" Hans Franssen (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this "Egyptian Revolution of 2013" seems to be a recent fork - has to be nominated for deletion ASAP.GreyShark (dibra) 18:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested merge. 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.

Unneutral Naming and content[edit]

The article is unneutral and using unneutral naming,all medias agree that this wasn't a revolution ,but demonstrations by the opposition ,with numbers of 33 million as fake,and alots of votes have been conducted on the Egyptian 2013 coup d'état that wanted to named it a revolution but the majority disagreed and said that June 30 is demonstrations and that July 3 is a coup,which means this article breachs an agreed consensus and also violates neutrality and also goes against what most analyst and neutral news sources call it,but we will vote on this issue,with rename and neutralizing it or keep it.

Rename and Neutralizing it Alhanuty (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Kindly check the discussion here Amr TarekSay Hello!, 18:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, i thought you had a 4th option which is "vandalizing" by completely removing the article under an IP address and without consensus. Please correct me if i'm wrong here, but aren't these contributions yours or am i mistaken? Again, and for the third time, please check the discussion that was suggested for you before calling this article "unneutral" all the time. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check the tens of proposal to name the Egyptian coup as a "revolution" all of them have been rejected,and the writer of the article has written it without agreement of other editors',he should have propose this on the Egyptian coup d'état page before doing this unilateral move.Alhanuty (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree with Alhanuty (talk), also keeping directing the discussion by saying "check the discussion" does not help to solve the issue and it wastes time , and this leads to keep the article for longer time without agreement about raised issues. it is not clear why some want to keep it without solution and they procrastinate it although editors refused the proposal of changing it to "Revolution"!!. As Alhanuty (talk) said, tens of proposal to name the Egyptian coup as a "revolution" all of them have been rejected,and the writer of the article has written it without agreement of other editors',he should have proposed this on the Egyptian coup d'état page before doing this unilateral move. this is really weird! Hans Franssen (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that NO ONE here suggested naming 2013 Egyptian coup d'état a "revolution". We suggested creating a new article (this one) which deals with a totally different subject. I'm really tired of explaining this all the time. User:Tkuvho, a little help here please? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1- there is no rigid source supports the claim that it was a revolution. By saying rigid sources, it means a credible political sources such as credible scientific article in an accredited political science journal. most of (if not all) "Revolution" articles sources are unreliable web-sites and personal views
2- there is no accredited sources (even no reliable websites) support the claim of 14 millions to 33 millions persons protested against the regime, those numbers are under great doubts and debates and no source confirmed such numbers, some confirmed that those numbers were fake.
3- the military was biased to one group of protesters (the group which was against Morsi) by throwing gifts coupons and foods to them, while the military was against other group (Pro-Morsi) and even some media sources claimed that military contributed in Rabaa crackdown, this gives a claim that military supported anti-morsi group and hence military is part of the event and consequently lead to the military involvement which is considered as a factor to define the events during 30 June 2013 till now as Military coup. Hans Franssen (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any user can go around calling any news website or document an unreliable source. I can give you articles by news networks that are owned/funded/controlled by governments like Al Jazeera, RT and Press TV, but i didn't. The military supporting the protesters does not (and never will) rule out that what happened in those 4 days before the coup was in fact a "revolution". The military DID contribute in the violent crackdown on pro-Morsi demonstrators, so again, what is your point by that? el-Sisi taking advantage of the revolution has nothing to do with the protesters even if most were glad with it. The military's involvement was not the goal of the protests, even if some of the demonstrators later found that Sisi's 48 hours ultimatum gave them hope and called on the army to protect them. By all definitions, this is (June 30 - July 3) a revolution and the main opposition groups during Morsi's rule joined the coalition government that was formed after he was ousted. Even if some sources now claim the military backed those political forces from the moment Morsi was sworn in (and even if it's true), it still doesn't rule out that a revolution took place no matter how short it was. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion to create separate articles for the june/july revolution and the subsequent coup was discussed in detail in a section above and had the support of a number of editors. Given that a number of sources refer to the june/july events as a "revolution" I don't see what all the hullabaloo is about. Merging it to the other article will lead to a new round of unnecessary arguments whether the page should be called a coup or a revolution. Therefore they should be kept separate. Tkuvho (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alots of of source call it demonstrations ,also the demost rations occurred on one day June 30, the people who biased towards the events call it a revolution,the people against it a conspiracy,but neutral sources call it demonstrations by the opposition,so it would better to go with the neutral sources calling it the June 30 demostration,even other Wikipedia pages call it June 30 demonstrations.Alhanuty (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC) And as i see two editors only call it a revolution,both from Egypt fitzcarmalam and amrtarek , while other editors call it demonstrations, and this article was made after 6 months of the events,so I will open it on the coup page,and let's see.Alhanuty (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright i will also take the discussion there since you claim that everyone here is "biased towards the events". Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the name coup d'état is also POV, maybe a we should consider a third option. Charles Essie (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The name "coup d'etat" is not POV if it is included in various sources, which it is. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

let me put some notes here: 1- Alhanuty (talk) said "the people who biased towards the events", i did not see that he said "everyone here is biased towards the events". 2- Another thing, it is true that persons who maintain, write and heavily defend in the article of "Egyptian_Revolution_of_2013" are from Egypt (you can check the edit history). 3- neutral sources are highly required to show the fairness of this article , 4- "Egyptian_Revolution_of_2013" article was made after 6 months of the events. Hence, the claim of "biasing" is there!!! the article credibility (as a whole) is under doubt Hans Franssen (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People who heavily defend the article are from Egypt, so? you should be responding to the discussion not looking up for discussants' nationalities. that's prove nothing. The article was made after reaching consensus in the coup talk page, the discussion wasn't open for Egyptians only. Personally, I defended both the coup and the revolution articles. am not biased against any side. even sources like the guardian call it revolution, is it biased? Amr TarekSay Hello!, 10:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Firstly. i would like to make sure this discussion stays here since i'm not willing to go to several locations to argue about it, so let's keep it here.
  2. Anyone can easily go to the coup d'état article and open up a new discussion there to name it "Overthrow of Mohamed Morsi" simply to "neutralize it" like many users here keep saying (even though it really IS a neutral title just like the titles everyone keeps proposing for this article). I don't get it, why should we dismiss facts surrounding a WP:COMMONNAME which is backed by many reliable sources just to call this NPOV? Irrelevant.
  3. User:Alhanuty - In order to keep the discussion here, i will simply copy/paste parts of my entry on Talk:2013 Egyptian coup d'état with a few modifications so we don't keep looking at different discussions in the same time:
  • Alots of of source call it demonstrations ,also the demost rations occurred on one day June 30, the people who biased towards the events call it a revolution,the people against it a conspiracy,but neutral sources call it demonstrations by the opposition,so it would better to go with the neutral sources calling it the June 30 demostration,even other Wikipedia pages call it June 30 demonstrations. And as i see two editors only call it a revolution,both from Egypt fitzcarmalam and amrtarek , while other editors call it demonstrations, and this article was made after 6 months of the events,so I will open it on the coup page,and let's see. ← This was Alhanuty's last entry in this discussion.
  • Firstly the mass demonstrations where reported on the night of June 30,and lasted for 12 hours,the coup technically began on July 1 after Sisi's announcement threatening to impose a road map on both sides if the crisis isn't resolved,and the coup has occured on July 3,and we have never heard of a revolution that was 12 hours long,so best thing is calling the June 30 demonstrations. ← This was Alhanuty's last entry on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Egypt
The argument that 2 or even 10 users here are from Egypt and that the article was created 6 months after the events took place is not really a relevant discussion. I'm not trying to "heavily defend" this article like User:Amrtarek claims, but not because Mohamed Morsi and his supporters said it was not a "second revolution" [1] means this is the case, otherwise THIS would be "unneutral" like what some users here always say. This is not neutrality and it gives us no right to deny something agreed on by millions of people who witnessed the events and to deny many reliable sources that call it "revolution" too. This revolution didn't last for 12 hours like Alhanuty claims, it lasted for 4 days and even if it did, it is undeniable that a revolution took place no matter how short it was. And even if this "revolution" DID last for 12 hours like he says, it doesn't mean we can rely on history all the time since history is being made everyday as we speak, so why shouldn't this be the first case (that's of course IF it lasted that long). There was also a war that lasted only 40 minutes → Anglo-Zanzibar War. The coup "technically" began and ended on the night of July 3, while the preparations for this coup that started on July 1 (or maybe even months prior) as Alhanuty says, had nothing to do with the eventual move itself. The people's demand from the beginning wasn't military involvement, since many people that joined the protests back then are now opposing el-Sisi. It was simply the resignation of Mohamed Morsi regardless of any method.
Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Charles Essie and User:David O. Johnson - Both titles are not POV and are both supported by several sources. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right, it wasn't really a request, more just a suggestion, I do agree that both titles work, I was just thinking out loud. Charles Essie (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I recall a quote of " If you can't convince them, confuse them", sorry guys i got confused now with the level of wrong information around, it is now long discussion with no where ... we need a solution for this non-credible article (for both the title and contents). Fitzcarmalan please refer to the definition of "Demonstrations" in Wikipedia and the event on 30 June was "Demonstrations" where: "A demonstration or street protest is action by a mass group or collection of groups of people in favor of a political or other cause; it normally consists of walking in a mass march formation and either beginning with or meeting at a designated endpoint, or rally, to hear speakers", and finally, most of media now call it "Coup", the question is now: which source else should we rely on when the source itself is under doubt? Hans Franssen (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but can you clarify what is confusing here? And if you see any wrong information you should point it out instead of leaving your claim open-ended like that. I suggest you also stop your off-topic replies if you don't want me to ignore them in the future, because i recall something too, which is a famous advice that says "Don't feed the trolls" so from this moment i think i'll stick to it (and i also don't believe i should apologize for anything this time since you obviously accuse me of deception by claiming that i try to confuse for being unable to convince, so i don't need to explain myself to you anymore).
Yes, that's the definition of demonstrations on Wikipedia, so again, what are you suggesting? Any revolution that involves people protesting can have "demonstrations". I wonder why you even care about the title's name since you already made it clear that you wanted the article "completely deleted", and i believe i already told you how to do so.
→ If someone found anything confusing in what i said earlier, please let me know and i'll try to explain. Thanks. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fitzcarmalan (talk), going back and forth like this would increase the debates without reaching an agreement, I appologize if you feel it personal while i did not mean that, i simply wanted to say "I got confused". I would explain pages like what you did. However, by human nature, most of people do not care to read the long arguments when it has wrong information. if you need more explanation we could have discussion out of this page in order to keep it clear and understandable for others. it is very clear that everyone is biased to his/her idea about the event (whatever/regardless the reason is). please read "issue and possible solutions" section below, so that we can make the Wikipedia project credible source of information to whole humanity. Hans Franssen (talk) 10:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone wants "the Wikipedia project credible source of information to whole humanity" but it seems that i'm not the one "going back and forth like this". Just wondering, would you like this article to simply look like this? Please correct me if i misunderstood. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be very clear and simple, I suggest deletion of the article or changing the name & reviewing the content to a neutral one. no need to write long pages of un-neutral debates, this will lead to proliferation which results in confusing others , i already made my point clear before. Once again; "Revolution" article is wrong in its name and contents, it misleads the reader by its wrong information/sources and it is not consistent with other Wikipedia corresponding pages (Wikipedia is a neutral & consistent source of information regardless of language, this is what millions/billions of humans expect!!). --Hans Franssen (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and Neutralizing it or Delete as per Alhanuty (talk). --Hans Franssen (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New title[edit]

This provisional title is most neutral, waiting to find a consensus. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • the title should be "2013 Egypt demonstrations", that is in case the article is neutral.Hans Franssen (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When will we rename ? --Panam2014 (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's more than demonstrations. Wide people and mass media see it's a revolution, we can't ignore. I see no consensus about rename. Only you and some users cannot rename the article only because they want so. In the previous section, more than one proof has been given to prove that the current title is already used widely outside Wikipedia. I think that's enough to keep it here.--Man of justice (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution is the official points of view. Could we make a neutral title look "Egyptians 2013 events" --Panam2014 (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this page is restricted to the events in late june--early may, as opposed to the 2013 events detailed in the "coup" page. Tkuvho (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or 2013 Egyptians protesters. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Egyptians 2013 Events" or "2013 Egypt Demonstrations" are both ok, this again in case the article is neutral Hans Franssen (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Coulds you rename ? --Panam2014 (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we can change Hans Franssen (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another added point here, the name of corresponding Arabic page of the article "Egyptian_Revolution_of_2013" is >>> "June 30, 2013 demonstrations in Egypt" (Sorry, I am not Arabic speaker and i can not read it in Arabic, I got that translation from Google Translate service, someone correct me please if i am wrong in this translation). based on this, current article is not even same as Arabic version!!!, other languages pages do not have even another article under name of "revolution" or "demonstrations", hence, This supports that other Wikipedia pages did not call it "Revolution". the point here is either to rename this Article of "Revolution" to be under name of "Demonstrations" and review the contents or completely delete "Revolution" article. please refer below to section of "issue & possible solutions" Hans Franssen (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The naming discussion is already in the above section, so i won't reply here any further.
Yes that's the title of the corresponding Arabic article, but i can simply go there and make a move request so that the new title could be renamed "Revolution" (which i actually plan on doing). Relying on an article in another language is no good source in this case, but it's definitely a good additional point for this discussion when we're about to reach consensus, and we're nowhere near that yet. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You give the impression that you own the Wikipedia! Be our guest then and show us how the users on the corresponding Arabic page will respond to your request of moving.!!! your argument now takes another dimension of biasing and giving authoritarian tone and command on Wikipedia. --Hans Franssen (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Issue & Possible Solutions[edit]

let us be practical, and make it clear through simple and understandable points here,

issue: The Title and The Contents of the "Egyptian_Revolution_of_2013" article confusing / non-credible, have wrong / misleading information, and/or not inline with other languages pages (on Wikipedia) of the same event (i.e.: 2013 Egyptian coup d'état).
Justifications: it has as been explained in the discussion through above sections of this discussion page. Additionally, this article gives double/misleading understanding for the events happened at the coup starting from 30 Jun 2013 (i would say this time, check the whole discussion here in this talk not anywhere else)
Possible solutions:
1- Complete Deletion of "Egyptian_Revolution_of_2013" article
2- Merging "Egyptian_Revolution_of_2013" under "2013_Egyptian_coup_d'état", then reviewing the new content after merging and finally deleting "Egyptian_Revolution_of_2013" afterwords
3- Change the title and carefully reviewing the contents under the new title, article should have credible sources (Academic and from scientific magazines, not non-reliable websites) Hans Franssen (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or delete. Possible title : June 2013 Egyptians events. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One thing you can't hide is the authoritarian inside → Really? So now it's we either do this or that just because you both say so? To be perfectly honest and no offense really, but you have not given me yet a single proposal worth discussing (apart from the naming issue which is already being discussed in a section above) and your arguments are a bit unclear. It also appears you are trying to impose a false dilemma which is unacceptable in this particular case. I don't see an "issue" really in order to consider any solution and you still didn't point out to this wrong information that appears to catch your attention. I also feel you're making a big deal out of something that doesn't exist and this won't probably work out here unless you specify what the problem is, sorry. You can simply wait for the merging proposal by Charles Essie to expire and then feel free to nominate this article for deletion anytime you want if it bothers you that much. But i am still not convinced by any of your possible "solutions" and i don't think you have any good reasons to do so, so i will leave this for other users' to discuss because maybe they would understand better than i do. I already mentioned before that the article is still under construction and that whole sections like the "Early protests" part could be rewritten. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "revolution" and "coup" articles are on different subjects. Note that material has already been deleted on the assumption that it already appears in the other article. I think this article is here to stay because there is ample evidence of notability and no shortage of RS sources. "Academic and scientific magazines"? User:Hans Franssen must have mistaken this page for Talk:Scientific revolution. Tkuvho (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not demonstrators not revolution but events. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on Deletion or Changing the Title and reviewing the content as per Panam2014 (talk), -- Hans Franssen (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable and very subjective[edit]

Who made this article?? it is not a revolution it is a coup and this article if not suspended and deleted will endanger our encyclopedia of being a trustful source. I ask the administrators to delete this article--أحمد عصام الدين (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@أحمد عصام الدين: Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Egyptian_Revolution_of_2013.GreyShark (dibra) 19:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the article about the revolution (June 30–July 3) that preceded the coup. This is the article about the coup (July 3). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It will be better to delete this page or merge it with the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état User:qjahid (talk), 18 February 2014 (UTC)

better to delete the Article of "Egyptian Revolution of 2013" --Hans Franssen (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

rename[edit]

Requested move 25 February 2014[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Egyptian Revolution of 2013 → June 2013 Egyptians riots – Neutral name. Panam2014 (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
That's in addition to it being WP:COMMONNAME and it's called a "revolution" by most Arabic websites, so why deny this just to call it NPOV? There is more info in this section above. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - same opinion as Fitzcarmalan's. Amr TarekSay Hello!, 15:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - unless sources can be found describing the events as "riots", the sources indicate that the current name should be kept.David O. Johnson (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There are a lot of reasons but I'll put that in discussion section bellow. StoneCold45 (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
strong support as a POV fork. Its a process as part of protests not a revolution. The arrest of a leader is not called a revolution, revolutions needs institutional change. Were basically back to square one from 2 years ago. There was one "main" event, and that was the remOval, hence the coup article. Everything is already mention in the protests pages.Lihaas (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong support as per Lihaas (talk), also only one Wikipedia editor - Fitzcarmalan (talk) - who is heavily editing, defending and writing this article. i noticed that he is cutting-paste/removing from Coup article to support his revolution article (Apologize again for making it personal, but if anybody review the history , will find that Fitzcarmalan (talk) is the big - if not only one - who managing the article and contributing to it) this raise the doubts about this article more and more, it is skeptical article on Wikipedia. sorry but this is also a factor of non-neutrality of the article of revolution. Hans Franssen (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)--[reply]
  • Support - in current form it is a WP:SYNTH or WP:FORK. Perhaps if we rename it to coup-preceding riots, there is some reason to keep this article; otherwise merge into 2013 Egyptian coup d'etat.GreyShark (dibra) 22:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

While I don't have that many sources for this apart from a few videos but I have to make my own argument about this subject as there seems to be a cover up of information, on purpose, about this: the institutions of the country were increasingly working against Morsi since he won the elections in 2012.

--The first being the military institution who used it's vast economic power in Egypt to fabricate crises like the fuel & electricity crises with fuel trucks being sent to imaginary fuel stations or having the fuel disposed off altogether. It's a widely known fact that the Egyptian military controls about 45% of the Egyptian economy so it's not a hard thing for them to pull of the previous. Also lets not forget the military sending Helicopters to film the anti-Morsi crowds in Tahrir square and throwing them gifts & drawing hearts in the skies using their fighter jets and even going as far as dancing with the protesters at El-Etihadiyah.Army jets uses smoke to draw Egyptian flag & a heartArmy choppers throwing small flags for protestsArmy personnel dancing with protesters.

--The second being the police foundation which mostly stood by the side of anti-Morsi protesters apart from a few clashes by the Etehadeyah-Palace (and the infamous Hamadah incident) which ended with 8 dead from the Muslim Brotherhood themselves (Morsi supporters) & 2 others who are anti-Morsi who, by the way, Morsi is getting trialed for only the 2 but the 8 are ignored, which brings me to the judgement institution later on. The police also joined in the 30th June protests by getting on protesters' shoulders and chanting with them. police sit on protesters' shoulders on 30th of June . The police stood-by & ignored the protesters throwing Molotov cocktails inside the Etihadiyah presidential palace and trying to pull the gates down using a winch months before June both are obvious acts of violence that should be interfered in (which the gate guards did by water cannons but that's about it) Protesters throwing Moltov on the presidential palace Protesters try to pull down Etihadiyah Gates.

--The third is the judicial institution which, by supreme court orders, dissolved the parliament after the 2011/12 elections [2] (allow me to note that all the court judges were appointed by Mubarak) which Morsi overruled later but that got overruled again by the court [3] [4]. Don't get me talking about the Shurah council which got abolished altogether in the latest constitution.

--And last but not least, as a matter of fact probably the most important and efficient tool for the "true rulers" of Egypt; the military, the Egyptian Media. There is not that much to say about those other than that they projected the plans of the military's Supreme Council (the SCAF) in a positive way to the people watching and it charged the people against Morsi, let's just say they used non-professionalism to reach that. This of-course includes all of the official papers and many of the privately-owned ones, including their websites. One clue to that is when the Military sent the films filmed from their choppers of the 30th of june protests to all the Egyptian media channels [5] [6]. A reference to sources here won't be of use as it will be in Arabic & many of the editors and readers don't read Arabic but as I go on I'm looking for a suitable source.

This brings me back to the "Revolution" argument, how can it be a Revolution when it is backed by: The Military, the Police, the Court system and the Media? Doesn't this show these were all in cahoots to bring Morsi & his cabinet down? Remember those four were all against the demonstrators of 25th Jan in exception of the Military in appearance (which showed to take a neutral stance back then but showed their true colors later). I have never heard of a real revolution that is supported by those four institutions, in this case they even created it (the "Revolution"). If anything, this is the single biggest smear campaign that ever happened against a president in history, that resulted in hundreds of thousands to go for the streets to protest. StoneCold45 (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:StoneCold45 - All of what you said has a special section in this article called "Allegations of previous military involvement" where i added the media part, and for which i would be grateful if you contributed yourself by giving a brief description about it (and by giving a more detailed description in 2013 Egyptian coup d'état since it is more subjective there than it is here).
Secondly, i want you to define the word "revolution" for me. Because while this is not really the case in this particular article, a revolution can also be a coup d'état (Carnation Revolution, Saur Revolution.. and of course you know the Egyptian Revolution of 1952) and it can be a series of state reforms (Corrective Revolution, White Revolution.. ).
No matter what the motivations of the state and the media were, there was still an enormous number of protesters with one goal: the resignation of Mohamed Morsi, which is and always will be an undeniable fact along with the millions (a probable record in Egypt) taking to the streets for the sake of this. The state was previously planning for this, so what? Does that erase something as notable as this just because someone behind the curtains had different motivations? Did those millions demonstrate because some choppers were giving them candies and cheering them? I don't think so. My point is that no matter what was being previously prepared (even by the media) had nothing to do with the determination people had to remove the guy and should be rather described in detail in the coup d'état article. Because i find the coup article to be the one missing essential information about how there were allegations that the military and the state as a whole planned this from the very beginning.
And please friend, try to understand that Wikipedia is not a forum because our main goal on the talk page is to discuss ways to improve an article, not to have political debates that might violate WP:NPOV. The reason why i am asking you this is also a reference to the discussion we had in the Rabaa article. Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the wall of text but I have to make my point clear. How I define a revolution is any movement that directly results in the change of power which most people would say is what happened in 30 June-2 July. But when such movement is used, moved and created by the powers I mentioned it fails to be a revolution in my book , it may succeed in becoming a fake revolution or a counter-revolution (to the 25th of January) (Definitions change with time, history is written by the day). Those people who were in the streets were tricked by the systems/institutions to oppose Morsi, who was made to fail by the institutions to fake a failed ruler. The millions numbers is shady because public figures like Nagib Saweras have stated that BBC have announced those figures but it later appeared that no such thing happened and the claim was voided by BBC Twitter, @Naguib Sawiris, also another example, the channel Dream TV, owned by a Mubarak associate Ahmad Bahgat announced that CNN stated that 33 million number which is also a fabricated story since CNN never announced that at that time, I'm simply saying those numbers are fabricated. By the way, those demonstrators demanded early elections not the instant removal of Morsi.
Other than the Raaba article, this discussion is for the sake of improving the article but again I apologize for the large wall of text. StoneCold45 (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Greyshark09 - How can a title make an article a WP:FORK? Didn't we get over this in the AfD discussion? If you closely check the "June 30" or "July 2" sections in this article and then check the "June 30" and "July 2" sections in the coup article i'm sure you'll notice that it's not a fork and that this one discusses the protests while the other talks mostly about governmental actions like Morsi's location in a particular timing, how he was kidnapped that day, talks between him and the military, what did he say that day..etc. Anything else is unnecessary there and should be moved here. There are no sources calling it "riots" as much as there are sources calling the events a revolution. How can this be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH when there are sources backing it? If you checked the links i provided you will find that there wasn't any irrelevant conclusion made up for it to be called a WP:SYNTH, and therefore the "revolution" name exists indeed, and may i add a few more sources → The Washington Post Brookings Institution Washington Institute for Near East Policy The Lede (NYT's blog) Fitzcarmalan (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And there was only one notable event of rioting during these 4 days, which is the storming of the Muslim Brotherhood's HQs in Cairo and even sources simply call it "storming", "torching" or "ransacking". Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lihaas - Care to show me an instance of something mentioned the same way in both articles? An event overshadowing the other could make it look like the "main" event but not the "only" one. This revolt was the "main" ingredient of the recipe for the coup to take place, so those institutional changes you're talking about (as a result of the coup) would have never taken place without these events. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I guess you're suggesting no radical changes took place, but that is clearly wrong. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And can you please define "revolution" for me? Because i don't know how you came up with that conclusion that the arrest of a leader is not a revolution? → Egyptian Revolution of 2011
  • I also want you to point out at this POV, because you don't simply tag an article and run without any explanation. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

This article completely lacks pictures that are necessary, especially iconic ones such as Tahrir Square, the rallies at the presidential palace, Alexandria, the storming of the Muslim Brotherhood HQs in Cairo and perhaps even the laser helicopters phenomenon among many others. I hope someone can help. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2.5 hour speech on June 26[edit]

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) 12:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Rename[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Egyptian Revolution of 2013 → June 2013 Egyptian protests – Compliant with the closure of the previous deletion proposal and first rename, there seems to be some majority in favor of renaming this article or merging it, however "protests" seems to be more descriptive and might get clear majority as a rename target. This rename also comes because of the concern that "revolution" title may present only a limited POV view on the topic and might as well be overlapping the topic of 2013 Egyptian coup d'état GreyShark (dibra) 16:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note that 2012–13 Egyptian protests exists. Gigs (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, however this article is dealing only with June events - this proposal is keeping this article as a subarticle of the 2012-13 protests. The alternative is to merge this one into 2012-13 protests article.GreyShark (dibra) 17:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal to make this article as a subarticle of the 2012–13 protests looks legit. But this article does overlap the coup d'état, because the coup was being planned since July 1 while the protests were occurring simultaneously; and that's what the coup article is specifically about: the steps of Morsi's removal during the days of protests. Like i said before, take a look at the "June 30" section here and the "June 30" section in the coup article as well as the following days and you'll notice the difference. The Euromaidan were protests that ended with a revolution, and there were only 5 sources calling Ukraine's events a revolution back then, while this was called a revolution even before the events took place [7] [8] [9] [10]. The words "protests" or "demonstrations" might look neutral but too vague, and "revolution" is the bigger name backed by many RS and is WP:COMMONNAME as i stated before, so let's go ahead and keep dismissing that just to call it "neutrality" because the majority says so. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support and agree to rename or delete, the justifications for rename or delete have been stated many times before [please check above discussions sections], and almost Only one user who is stopping the whole Wikipedia, i believe he is always coming with irrelevant discussion and justification to keep the consensus is difficult to reach. without naming; please stop writing irrelevant comments (to me or others) to keep the Article the way you [only] want it to be. Hans Franssen (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support Neutral. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per WP:COMMONNAME I see the word revolution a common name used by several reliable sources including The Guardian, DW,...... Amr TarekSay Hello!, 10:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
strong support per above. This is a POV fork of the coup article that has seen continual name changes by partisans. Then this article was created to bypass the agreed coup page. Content here can go on the multitiude of Egypt protests pages.Lihaas (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Show me something here that is similar in context to the coup article instead of calling this a POV fork all the time. Have you even bothered to check out this article before making such void claims? I guess not. And simply wondering, but who are the ones you're calling "partisans"? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fitzcarmalan (talk), it is obvious that Lihaas (talk) meant you by "partisans". and as per many users above and the article edit history, it is clear that you are the only one who ruins the whole Wikipedia truthfulness by this article. Sorry if you would feel it personal, but I am answering your last question! you always ask others to provide evidences while you ignore some strong arguments that answer your request of providing evidences, for example as happened in discussion section above (please read that section carefully and do not ask for repentance of evidences). one more advise, do not push people to act the way you like. thanks Heroasawhole (talk)
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.

2nd DELETE request[edit]

request to delete this article from Wikipedia, i propose delete because the article is not neutral source of information about what happened in Egypt in June 2013 and afterwards Heroasawhole (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Heroasawhole was confirmed to be a sockpuppet of Hans Franssen and was blocked indefinitely from editing. (see here) Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not permitted to make parallel rename and delete votes - this is disruptive. Please start the deletion procedure when rename procedure is completed.GreyShark (dibra) 10:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Thanks Heroasawhole (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC) Heroasawhole was confirmed to be a sockpuppet of Hans Franssen and was blocked indefinitely from editing. (see here) Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not neutral passage[edit]

"The June 2013 Egyptian protests, also called the June 30 Revolution (Arabic:ثورة ٣٠ يونيو) by some protesters, was a mass public unrest which erupted in Egypt on 28 June 2013, marking the one-year anniversary of Mohamed Morsi's inauguration as president."

It is not neutral the qualifaction of revolution. We could removed the word revolution. Strong support. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly don't get to eliminate the word "revolution" from existence just like that, especially when it's backed by many reliable sources. It is important to add alternative names in lead sections and feel free to add a paragraph somewhere else in the article if you want. "It is not neutral" is your own politically correct POV and this is not acceptable and should be avoided if not backed by enough reliable sources, so please take your time and define "neutrality" for me. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know arabic, but how literal is the translation to "revolution"? English language sources seem to rarely call the June 30 events "revolution", and in the English statements of the June 30 front they only speak of it as a continuation of the spirit of the earlier events which were definitely called a revolution. As a side note, I am recusing myself from future administrative type actions on this subject such as closing RfCs or RMs, so that I may become more directly involved in the discussions. Gigs (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gigs: - First, i strongly apologize for the late reply. The Arabic translation of "revolution" is "ثورة" and most Egyptian and Arabic news websites call the overall events "June 30 Revolution" (ثورة 30 يونيو) or sometimes simply "June Revolution" (ثورة يونيو) and this has become a very common name in those websites → [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] and those are among many others..
  • The sources provided here are not the only ones dubbing it so, but they might however be regarded by some editors as a bit more reliable than the others since they are more independent from the subject. English language sources don't rarely call the events a "revolution" and these include the 3 biggest and most reputable Egyptian news websites in English (Al-Ahram [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28], Egypt Independent [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] and Daily News Egypt [35]) as well as governmental websites [36] [37] [38] which mostly depict high profile partisan opinions (and those views should also be taken into consideration since many Wikipedia titles are based on them). Other possibly non-independent and partisan sources include this, this and this among many others. I personally didn't want to use those websites with the sources provided for the name "revolution" to avoid being accused of biasing by users like Hans Franssen, but now i'm less worried about that and i won't give any consideration to similar attacks from now on.
  • The events are also called a "revolution" by many other sources, some that i personally prefer not to use with current Egypt-related topics like Al-Arabiya [39] [40], Arutz Sheva and The Jerusalem Post that are widely used as reliable sources on Wikipedia. There are lots of sources, like some of the ones mentioned in the point right above, using alternatives of the word like "revolt" [41] [42] [43], the adjectivized version "revolutionary" (as in "revolutionary movement" [44] or "revolutionary wave" [45] and also calling the people protesting "revolutionaries" [46]..etc) as well as the word's close synonym "uprising" [47] [48] [49]. Other more neutral sources using the word (sometimes quoting it) include [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] and several others.
  • Many sources (not the ones mentioned above) don't necessarily refer to the 2011 revolution when saying Egyptian Revolution. They normally mean by that the general "spirit" of revolution among Egyptians like you said, not the earlier events in particular. That being said, the 2011 revolution is now considered by many sources a "first wave" while the June 30 one a "second wave", but that doesn't mean they can't be both considered "revolutions" within a wider revolutionary movement (e.g. the February Revolution and October Revolution, both part of the Russian Revolution). A good article here might explain things further. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your reply. As you point out, it seems to be primarily partisans who want to foster the idea that it was a revolution, for one reason or other. Other partisans favor "coup" in order to discredit the role of the popular uprising. While we can and should give such views consideration, article titles should be based on the most neutral sources.
  • Your sources have given me a better idea of the dynamic involved than either this article or the coup article have. This shows a weakness in our coverage here due to us having two articles with somewhat partisan titles about what amounts to the same event. We should be covering the debate over whether it was a military coup, or a popular revolution, or both, who are the high profile people and groups arguing for one name or the other, instead of presenting both of the partisan views in separate articles like this. We should cover this in a neutral way that does not take one side or the other, but just presents the facts of who is claiming what.
  • The coup name is slightly more popular in western media, but that does not mean we need to have an article named coup. I suggest that both articles might be merged into something more neutral such as "June 30, 2013 Egyptian uprising", which could neutrally cover the debate over whether it was merely a coup, a coup as a result of a popular uprising that won the military over, or a full out revolution. An alternate outcome, less ideal in my eyes, but that requires no article moves, would be to retain the coup article but strip it down to only information about the military actions of the time, and change this article into an article regarding the debate over the role of the popular protests in the coup. Gigs (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • article titles should be based on the most neutral sources - While totally agreeing with that, i still have to say that the current title is nowhere from being neutral because it is simply another politically correct "partisan" name (with all due respect to the ones who supported it) and those lifeless generic titles never made this place any close to being an encyclopedia because "revolution" is as neutral as this one. And just to make it clear, i'm not "defending" the word but i don't see any reason to dismiss it and i also don't think we are obliged to comply with the needs of certain POV pushers anymore who kept disrupting the process of this article's improvement ever since it was created. I agree "protests" is more common, but it is a common name when describing the 2011 revolution as well and many other events called like that. Many titles here are built on partisan names and after a few years they become more relevant and common. While this is not the case, a close example to this would be the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, which was basically a military coup, but was called a revolution by the ones who made it and this name became stuck to it by time. Back then there was no Wikipedia, but now several news websites pay a close attention to the developments that take place here (this is a very good example) and i wouldn't be surprised if reliable sources based their naming of many events on our titles.
  • whether it was merely a coup, a coup as a result of a popular uprising that won the military over, or a full out revolution - Firstly, i would like to point out at another part of the problem, which is when we say it was a coup/revolution rather than saying there was, as if one event took place.[62] because what happened between June 30 and July 3 was by no definition a coup. It appears there is a wide community consensus here to avoid at all costs the word "revolution" when describing these particular events, but i honestly think this is ridiculous and i really don't care because consensus can change. I say what happened in Egypt was a revolution that included or was concluded by a coup and both are portrayed in separate articles because they are too notable to be merged and were met with different domestic/international reactions. By all definitions, Morsi's removal on the night of July 3 was nothing else but a coup. On the other hand, calling the whole events an "uprising" switches the balance in favor of those who deny a coup took place. If i were to summarize or make an index about what happened back then, it would go like this:
  • Please note that the sources still using "revolution" refer to the overall events between June 30 and July 3 as such (both the popular uprising and the coup). There is no 100% accurate definition of the word "revolution" and many things can be called so, including armed conflicts, state reforms, scientific breakthroughs..etc. And it can certainly be a coup d'état, whether solely a coup, a coup combined with protests (e.g. Carnation Revolution) or protests combined with a coup, which appears to be the case here. Both infoboxes make it clear that the coup is a "secondary event" no matter how notable it was and how overshadowing it was to the popular uprising (the "main event") which contradicts what Lihaas said before (whom i'd like to join our discussion so we can get over this "POV fork" argument and avoid further AfD or merge proposals). This, along with a good Reuters article calling the events a "revolution of the state", technically makes the coup article a split from this one, even if it was created months after the events took place (which i believe is the main reason behind all this mess) due to unfair coverage in the coup article and also the 2012–13 protests article. Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Revolution day thing is unneutral and constitutes a pov , the phase must be removed and placed with a more neutral wording,such as the day of mass protest or the beginning of the events,and we already had a long conversation proving and consensed by the editor of the article that the event is mass protest not revolution.Alhanuty (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again with this "unneutral" thing. I will compromise and replace it with "Day of uprising", because the whole events are referred to as a revolution, not just this specific day. Yes, the word exists believe it or not and is still backed by a lot of sources. The RM was to move the title, not to change any content inside the article, that was the consensus.
  • @Gigs: - Please correct me if i was wrong here. I also hope you can participate in the discussion while you can, so we can reach a consensus and get over this issue. Do you think the word "revolution" should be eliminated from Wikipedia that easily because the majority of editors apparently just don't like it and think it is POV? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a pretty loaded question. Since I have recused myself from judging any more consensus on this issue I can participate in the discussion now. You have only pointed out sources calling this particular thing (June 30) itself a revolution in opinion pieces for the most part. There is a feeling that it is a continuation of the earlier revolution among many it seems, but the idea that it itself was something that could be called a revolution seems to be a minority position not widely accepted by mainstream or non-partisan sources.
    • I will not say that the word should not be used, but rather that we should provide coverage on the debate itself over whether June 30 was a revolution or not. We should explain who claims it was a standalone revolution, and what their rationale is, while speculating as little as possible on ulterior motives. We should also report on those who claim it wasn't a revolution. Our job is not to decide who is right, it is to report on contentious issues in a neutral way. This doesn't mean we always need to "tell both sides", but in a case like this, where it has become a significant point of political contention, it is our only neutral option. Gigs (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gigs: - I apologize if you felt I was trying to put you in a tough position. I was simply asking if the word is that illegit and problematic to have this kind of unexplained community consensus against it, especially with all the non-partisan sources I provided earlier (hope you checked them). I agree that it is neutral to make a section about the debate of whether it was a revolution or not. But where exactly is this debate? If this part you propose will be about revolution vs. coup, then it won't be relevant since there is already an article about the coup which clearly states it happened on the night of July 3, and it is not logically possible to consider what happened in the earlier few days a coup. If it will be revolution vs. protests, are there any sources discussing that? If so, will they be enough to counter in number the many RS calling the events a revolution? I know that some parts of my previous entries were a bit long, so i'll make it simple: I believe this is an umbrella article dealing with the overall crisis that includes the coup but is different in context, and the latter would have been too notable to be included here (probably because of the international reactions which make up 2/3 of its content). The debate over there was to move it from "coup" to "revolution", which I find irrelevant because it is about events that took place in one specific night and this makes "revolution" the default name for this article. Also as a side note, the current title is factually inaccurate because there were huge anti-Morsi protests on July 3 as well, so no matter how weird this might sound, but "June 30" is more accurate than "June 2013" because it is a symbolic name and doesn't necessarily describe this day in particular. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You could call it something like "Debate over classification of events". There do seem to be sources discussing what the events should be called, many of them you linked to earlier. Such a section has to be written carefully, but it is possible to cite POV sources while maintaining NPOV, and still avoiding synthesis. Obviously it would be ideal to find a source that discusses the debate itself neutrally, but that is not always possible. Gigs (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Gigs: - I don't see any sources where the debate is revolution vs. protests, so you probably mean whether it was simply a revolution or not. But those appear to be a minority view and I don't think they have the potential to affect an article's title and/or context, even though I find the idea of a section called "Debate over classification of events" a good one. However, some think tanks like the Brookings Institution published stuff like How the June 30 Uprising wasn’t the January 25 Revolution possibly covering a different debate. The same Brookings Institution released two articles calling the July 3 events a "revolutionary coup" [63] [64]. It also called the events 3 days before they took place a second revolution and used the same term another time on July 1. However, I still insist on considering this article an umbrella because of several independent non-partisan sources, such as this one for example which uses both "revolution" to describe the whole events and "coup" to describe July 3. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on June 2013 Egyptian protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory comments regarding number of protesters[edit]

I cite statements from the article prior to the revision on 19th April 2016.

However, recent studies have shown how these exaggerate claims rather served to legitimize the military's coup d'état. For instance, after the coup, Sisi has faced on average five times as many protests as Mubarak in the period 2008 to 2010 and 'the five months following the coup against Morsi were characterized by the highest level of protests (107.5 per day) since the 2011 uprising that led to Mubarak’s ouster. By contrast, during Morsi’s year in power, there were, on average, 38.6 protests per day'[25]

I have since added tags to gain information on the supposed 'recent studies', and to outline the seeming doubtfulness that these statements bring to mind about their neutrality. I also adjusted the first sentence to tone-down its absoluteness. 'Recent studies' indicates primary research, which shouldn't be taken as absolute fact on Wikipedia.

I'd just like to point out that it is odd that such a statement in such an obvious position in this article was left untouched. It seems to provide information from a single (primary) source, and does not provide a surrounding discussion or elaboration. Being in the introduction of the page, it sets the tone and initial understanding for the reader, and it seems a heavily unsubstantiated piece of fact, if not unnecessary for the introduction. It would be beneficial for the veracity of this article if this material was removed until such time as its contents can be substantiated and a discussion provided. At the very least, it should be moved to the appropriate section, and not 'thrown' into the introduction amidst other relevant familiarizing introductory preamble.

On another note, it seems odd this article does not contain a section discussing the number of protesters. It was at the time a heavily discussed topic. Perhaps I have missed it in reading it? If someone could direct me to it, thanks.

Omnicon1 (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 May 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved back to June 2013 Egyptian protests. And politely suggest that this probably shouldn't have been moved without discussion in the first place, given that the present title was expressly rejected in an RM above.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Egyptian Revolution of 2013 → June 30 uprising or June 30 protests – An editor moved the title from "June 2013 Egyptian protests" to the current form via WP:Requested moves/Technical requests, despite the controversial nature of this move. While the term "protests" may be seen as too generic, understating and less WP:COMMONNAME than "revolution", it is, however, not as controversial in this topic area. So I believe that "uprising" would be a less controversial alternative to both (though less common), but I'm still keeping "protests" as an option.

Sources for "uprising" include: Brookings, POMED, Middle East Institute, The Atlantic, Daily News Egypt, Egypt Independent, Al Arabiya, Al-Monitor, etc.

Books with "uprising" include: [65] [66] Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support "uprising" "June 30 protests" as nom. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support anything not pretending to be a proper name like the current one does. Dicklyon (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • decap User:Dicklyon this certainly shouldn't be capital R. But we can fix that in a second, I'm tempted to do it right now. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why not just restore to June 2013 Egyptian protests where the article was before. Perfectly okay title. There were other protests in June 2013 and the article covers more than June 30 so oppose proposal, worse that the perfectly okay stable title. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • 2012–13 Egyptian protests covers the pre-June 30 events. This article's scope is limited to the June 30 protests with a minor "Early events" section that serves as a background by including some developments in the couple of days preceding June 30.
"June 2013 Egyptian protests" is merely descriptive and too broad for a title. And even descriptive titles should be backed by sources (see WP:NDESC). Such titles are designed by Wikipedians for subjects that have no proper name(s), and this clearly isn't the case here, as evidenced by the sources provided. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on June 2013 Egyptian protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute on the number of protestors mentioned in the lead section[edit]

One editor seems to have taken issue with the point about the wild exaggeration of the actual number of anti-Morsi protestors made in the lead section of the article and is constantly removing it without providing evidence to the contrary. The two sources I cite [1] [2] for that claim both show that the 32 million number claimed by the military is illogical if not impossible.

That being the case, I added this particular claim of the protestors being just over a million beneath the military's claim of 32 million protestors which seems to give a balanced point of view. If anyone disagrees, feel free to share your objections below. Faaraax (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/07/03/how-egypts-generals-used-street-protests-to-stage-a-coup/?utm_term=.758a39f739bb. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ "Morsi myths: Re-examining justifications for Egypt's coup". Middle East Eye.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 July 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Adumbrativus (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013 Egyptian protests → 2013 Egyptian Revolution – We already have the 2012-2013 Egyptian protests page, and this page, along with the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état page. It's also a more common name. Plus, the coup was part of the revolution, so you can't name this page 'protests'. Feel free to oppose if you want. It's like the Revolution of Dignity page, with the Euromaidan being the protests page.WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 06:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. SilverLocust (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Relisting because these titles have been debated in previous move requests. SilverLocust (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above discussions which resulted in the present title and rejected titles including "revolution". estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

resulted page is circular?[edit]

It just links to the article again. Doesn't really say a lot. Genabab (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Genabab: To explain, the move request above is proposing that the article June 2013 Egyptian protests should have its title changed to 2013 Egyptian Revolution. The link (redirect) is simply what is currently at that title. {{replyto|SilverLocust}} (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ah ok Genabab (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:June_2013_Egyptian_protests&oldid=1205331983"