Talk:2013 Egyptian coup d'état

Rename/Move/Change Title

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.

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: [1]

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)).

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)

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://en.wikipedia.org/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)).

Requested move

2013 Egyptian coup d'état → 2013 Egyptian revolution – As discussed above, it is not necessarily a coup - or at least, "coup" is not the most neutral wording. The proposed title would fit better with the 2011 Egyptian revolution article. StAnselm (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose to soon to settle on that title, we have to let the history play out. But 2013 Egyptian coup d'état is even worse. I suggest Deposition of Mohamed Morsi.μηδείς (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Reliable sources have called the move a coup d'etat. This includes Paul Sullivan, an expert in international relations at Georgetown University in Washington and Abdallah Schleifer, a journalism professor at The American University in Cairo.[2]Bless sins (talk) 04:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose this is part of an ongoing change in Egyptian politics. If anything, it should be another part of the "2011 Egyptian Revolution". The ultimate fate of Egypt has yet to be resolved and given the chain of events I find it hard to conclude this is a second revolution. Coinmanj (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose All successful coups have varying degrees of public support, otherwise, they would inevitably fail. The fact remains here is that the army has forcibly removed and appears to have arrested a democratically-elected president who was just one year into his first four-year term. Not to mention they have also thrown out a constitution that was passed through a referendum just last year. It might be politically inconvenient for Western governments to label what happened in Egypt as a "coup", but Wikipedia shouldn't succumb to these same pressures. --Tocino 05:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

strong oppose per my comments/explanations above. And speedy close?(Lihaas (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)).

Comment From Coup d'état definition, a "[a] coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder." The government was not displaced by a small segment of the state apparatus. The people were the primary drivers.

• Comment I would like to point out that being part of a revolution, whatever people mean by that doesn't preclude a coup happening. For example our Egyptian Revolution of 1952 while titled that way clearly describes the military's actions there as a coup. In terms of the 2011 and Mubarak, some sources do call it a coup, the primary reason stopping others from doing so appears to be because Mubarak eventually resigned even if under strong duress (but not AFAIK direct physical duress unlike in some other cases where a person was made to sign some document under gunpoint). That and perhaps also the fact that Mubarak's hold on power was often viewed as illegitimate anyway whereas the military moved the country towards free and fair elections after it (the later may happen here, but the former isn't generally the case). Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

WE as wikipedia don't call things coups, we say certain sources describe them as coups, unless there is long-standing consensus, which we won't have for years. I suggested deposition of Mohamed Morsi above, and I'll also support ouster of mohamed morsi. In the context of the suggested merge, I would suggest having one article on the ouster and one on the protests is the best course. How to enforce that when we will not lkely get consensuses on the titles for years is another question. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

We should probably have some paragraphing in the article that discusses (and cites reliable sources about) high-level political debates about whether this should be considered a coup. For example: this article Peace, MPS (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for the moment- pro-coup politicians always call it a revolution! But I think we should wait some days for the consensus of the medias, Google hits, etc. Then we decide. For the moment coup is the appropriate title.Farhikht (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support – strongly oppose coup d'état. – Yes, some sources say coup, but it is only a small part of a process and is not the main topic of this article. The article was created four days ago, long before that army played any part.

As to the question of a true "revolution"? All non-violent revolutions happen with the army yielding to revolutionaries. The same happened in Eastern Europe in 1989. As to the legitimacy of the revolution? Morsi may have his supporters in the countryside and only people in Cairo took part in the protest. But then again, how many people had a say in the French Revolution of 1789–1799? Power always changes hand in the capital. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

So the resignation of the Romanian premier this year (or last year?) due to protests was a revolution? Did Bulgaria also have a revolution this year? Did el Gringo's (whatshisname) departure in Bolivia constitute a revolution? Nope. But a coup is clearly defined (and on WP too), youll find it fits thisLihaas (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Both terms are presumptive, speculative and specious. Use a truly neutral term for the title. While I prefer revolution to coup, since coup has negative connotation, it is best to find a term that does not inject more meaning than can be objectively attributed to the news. 2013 Egypt Government Crisis or something similar seems like a suitable alternative. 07:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.68.238 (talk • contribs)

a revolution has to have institutional changes, IMO (its a RE-evolution, change has to happen) not just a resignation and same old cycle. And here Egypt is the case in point. This is mubaraks' military background back in power after sadat. A REJECTION OF civilian control of the military...if the military forces bush to resign because of the unpopular Iraq war and institution a new regime with suspension of constition what would that be?Lihaas (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I agree that "coup d'état" is not the most accurate description of the event nor the most impartial. I'm not certain we can't do better than "revolution", but it would be a step in the right direction. Zcbeaton (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support – How is what happened in 2011 a revolution and not a coup, but what happened now a coup and not a revolution? --Article editor (talk) 08:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Because if you see the discussion here, the prez was FORCED, and rejected, his resignation. In 2011 Mubarak resigned himself. That should be patently obvious if you ve been reading whats written on this page

For the record that incident in 2011 was not a revolution. In WP timeline, the moment Mubarak resigned an admin unilaterally moved the page without discussion and then the move was locked. (a regular ITNn admin still arnd)Lihaas (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support move to neutral title per User:66.87.68.238. The majority of media and reliable sources simply aren't referring to this as a coup, except when quoting directly from Morsi's supporters, and any argument otherwise (it's obviously a coup, because of X, Y and Z) is both original research and a violation of WP:NPOV. I don't think Revolution is the right word yet either, for similar reasons, although arguably you could call all the events since 2011 an "ongoing revolution" of which this is part. Bearing in mind that the page was moved here without any consensus, I don't think the page should stay here at this POV title even if there is no consensus for a move in this discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Coup is defined on WP and elsewhere (and see WP:Common sense), that's not POV to state it as such, that's an English language definition.

Consensus has been mentioned with numerous editors on this talk page. That followed a WP:BOLD move which was right by the moverLihaas (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

comment if this is npov and OR, then what sources are calling this a revolution? THtat is just the same and more npov and OR(Lihaas (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)).

As I stated above, I don't favour the "revolution" term either. It's not usually clear how to express support for a "third way" in an RM discussion. I have qualified my support above in bold to emphasise that point.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Your support however expresses support for th emove proposal above.(Lihaas (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)).

• Comment: I oppose both "coup d'état" and "revolution". There is no consensus in the "media world" how the current events in Egypt should be called, so Wikipedia should refrain from using any such term and stick with a more neutral one, which best sums up what happened, without any interpretation. Why not name it something like Ousting of Mohamed Morsi, or government crisis like it has been brought forth by User:66.87.68.238 and supported by Amakuru.--FoxyOrange (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Describing this as a "coup d'etat" shows how biased is WP getting lately. Some alleged that Mubarak resigned, OK, why he did that? Because the "people of Egypt forced him to do so"? Because of Facebook? Of course not, you had to be so candid and innocent if you believe that western world "journalist" agit-prop stories. If Mubarak resigned was because the Egyptian Army told him that they are not going to continue killing disarmed protestors. Nothing more, nothing less...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The armed forces did not come out and arrest Mubarak. Mbarak did not then say he rejected the army statement. Hhe acquiesced, plain and simple. Morsi is actively rejected it and that is sourced on the page. Please read the definition of a coup. THis was and is coerced in every way, form and mean.(Lihaas (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)).

As far as I know, in a coup d'etat the army takes control of the government of the country, wich is not whats happening now in Egypt. Its a judge who had assumed the presidency, not a member of the army as happened with Tantawi in the presidency after the ousting of Mubarak (Are we going to call that a coup d'etat because an army leader took the presidency without voting? Of course not). And Im curious, if it wasnt the army, who arrested Mubarak? The same police who had been widely accused of being his armed wing?--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I just note that per policy we can use non-neutral but common names.Farhikht (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.(Lihaas (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)).

• Oppose Realistically, it was a coup. PatGallacher (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

comment per reactions, everyones calling it a "coup"/setback to democreacy except the partisan gulf arabs (which is more clear of their view in recent years). This Is not my personal view, its reading what is cited in the reactions section(Lihaas (talk) 11:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)).

The US is also shying away from calling it a coup: [3]. You may argue that is purely for political reasons, but it does show there it's more than just "partisan gulf arabs" who are shying away from the term. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ive ujsut added to the page. Yes Qatar opposed it. But the majority are calling it non-democratic setback/condemned, etc. Interesting to not ethe Saudi-Qatar split )which I recently read over Sria too)Lihaas (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support – strongly oppose coup d'état, may I remind you that the Egyptian army also intervened to overthrow former president Mubarak , so why call not calling the Ousting of Mubarak a coup d'état too ? . Anti morsi call it a second Revolution , pro morsi call it a Coup , While World Media differs how the current events in Egypt should be called . Wikipedia should stay neutral , and choose a neutral name for the article--Eskandarany (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:POVNAME allows the usage of non-neutral names that are common.Bless sins (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• strong oppose This is what references tells us.This step is fundamentally different form the revolution.The comparison to The revolution on Hosny Mouabarak is inaccurate.Hexacoder (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose This was certainly a coup. If President Obama were removed from office by the military and placed under house arrest by the army, we wouldn't be asking if it was a coup or not. The same is true in Egypt. AlaskaMike (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose It is clearly coup. neo (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This is what a coup is. Politically, for reasons having to do with aid money and membership in certain organizations, the term coup is being avoided at an official level, but that does not negate the reality of the situation. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose If the military intervening to remove a constitutional head of state is "not necessarily a coup" then I don't know what is. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. A democratically-elected leader was ousted by the military. Coup d'état is the more accurate term in this case. ,,n (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support The coup was a preceded a popular uprising (like the Romanian Revolution) and as with the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, the coup had popular support. That said I think the title Egyptian Revolution of 2013 would be bettter and perhaps this could be merged with 2012–13 Egyptian protests which details the beginning of the anti-Morsi movement. Charles Essie (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia already sets precedent for this by citing the original removal of Mubarak as the 2011 Egyptian Revolution. There is no definition of a "coup d'etat" that states that the system must be democratic. The Egyptian Military supported both transitions at the will of the people Therefore, if this is a coup, then the original revolution was a coup. Either this article's title should be changed or the 2011 Egyptian Revolution should be changed. 24.192.5.226 (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Extremely Oppose it is called by world media a coup d'état ,when a military deposes an elected president it is called a coup d'état,and coup d'état would be the best wording for what happened,and for anyone who wants the article name changed to so-called revolution,must know what a so-called revolution is,and what a coup d'état,and wikipedia is not a place to place an opinion over the fact what happened and what it is really called Alhanuty (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC),and also to my notice that some of the people who are voting support are just IPs who registered just yesterday,those should be considered meat puppets they are just trying to influence the vote for their desire.Alhanuty (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment First of all, this is not a vote. Second, please assume good faith about other editors. Third, your argument about the world media is nul and void, as one can easily find lots of media outlets saying the one and the other.Jeppiz (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral as this discussion is about the title of the article, I'm not completely opposed to renaming it to something neutral like political crisis, however IMO we should still call the military ouster a coup within the article, as we do for example with the 1952 Egyptian revolution article. It seems clear the consensus in RS is moving in this direction. Even those opposed to the term in the media don't seem to have a good reason for not calling it a coup, e.g. saying it was not violent (which plenty aren't), the military is saying they will move towards new elections (again not uncommon), the protestors supported it (well only the anti Morsi ones did and while the pro Morsi ones appear to be in a minority this doesn't guarantee they are electorally which is irrelevent anyway and again not the only coup where some protestors were calling for it), Egyptian democracy or the new government are too new (fairly irrelevent). Nil Einne (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support The current title is a rather blatant violation of WP:NPOV, as there is an ongoing international debate about whether this is a coup or not. Wikipedia should remain neutral, and the current title violates that policy. As this is English Wikipedia, it may be relevant that neither the US nor the UK have (yet) called it a "coup". It is not for Wikipedia to decide, Wikipedia should use neutral language and not take sides.Jeppiz (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:POVNAME allows the usage of non-neutral names that are common.Bless sins (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Quite true, but not relevant to this discussion as it refers to established names, not recent events. The Boston Massacre took place almost 250 years ago and the name is well established. I'm not suggesting we have to wait 250 year. If, in six months, this has become the standard name, then we should use it. Right now, it is not the standard name, it is not called a coup by any major Western state.Jeppiz (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support since this was caused mainly by popular movilizations.--Eduen (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• The definition of a coup is the overthrow of a government by the military. Regardless of the motivations, how does this not fit that description? — SwedishPenguin | Talk 20:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. This move request is preposterous. Morsi was deposed by the military. This is literally the definition of a military coup. Look up "coup d'état" in any dictionary and you'll find a description of what just happened in Egypt. That the military was supposedly motivated to commit the coup by popular protests is entirely irrelevant, as it does not change the fact that it was the military who removed Morsi from power, not the people. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. The army subverted the legal institutions and removed the elected president. Regardless of your opinion or how many supported it, it follows the definition of a coup. --Simfan34 (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• I oppose both Coup and Revolution, as those names are attached with specific POVs either supporting or opposing Morsi, per 66.87.68.238, Amakuru, and FoxyOrange. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 20:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment A worryingly large number of those who favor using "coup" build their argument around the lines of "I think this is a coup so we should call it a coup". That reflects a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works; just as we cannot insert the WP:TRUTH into articles based on our own beliefs, neither can we call articles what we want based on our own beliefs. As long as both the US and the UK (the two countries most immediately relevant for English Wikipedia), just like almost all other countries, continue to refuse to call it a coup, Wikipedia should not do so either. I call upon those who want to call this article "coup" to stop saying that they think it's a coup and instead mention which countries and international organizations call it a coup.Jeppiz (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose: a revolution is different than a coup. One occurs when the people themselves take back the government, and a coup is when the military (a branch of the government) takes over the government. So this move is not appropriate.Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment And here we go again. All you say above is that you think it's a coup. So do I, for the record, but it is completely irrelevant. Which countries and international organizations call it a coup? That is the relevant question. As anyone following media knows, it is a hot potato for many countries if this is a coup or not. For some Wikipedians to impose that name just because they have decided it's the WP:TRUTH is contrary to WP:NPOV. So once again, which countries call this a coup, and are those the countries most relevant for English Wikipedia?Jeppiz (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• strongly support: coup is a loaded definition that is currently being pushed by one of the parts. A more neutral description (ousting, for example) should be used until things settle in a few months. Ghepeu (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose- As has already been pointed out, this is, by definition, a coup.--Metalhead94 ^{T C} 22:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment According to whom? We know that some Wikipedians think it's a coup. We also know that some newspapers use the term, while others use revolution and still others use different terms. So there is no media consensus, and very few states call it a coup. So who has defined it as a coup?Jeppiz (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment A revolution is when a leader or Government is deposed by the people, and while the people did play a large role in the military's decision, the fact that he was unseated by the Army makes it a coup.--Metalhead94 ^{T C} 22:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Technically, the Egyptian Revolution of 1952 was also a coup, but because it had popular support and was accompamied by civil unrest, it is refered to as a revolution. Charles Essie (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME The wording coup has been used in the majority of sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - 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) 00:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - The people were the primary driver of the event. It should rightly be called a revolution.

• Strong oppose: This is clearly a military coup. Protests or else doesn't change that. The power is in the hands of the military and it was the military that removed Morsi with the support of some protests. And Morsi was elected less than a year ago in a free popular election. The fact that the groups who lost that election support the coup doesn't make it a revolution. Many military coups had some amount of public support, for other examples in middle east see the history of coups in Turkey and Pakistan. Intervention of military to remove a recently elected president is a coup. 128.100.3.67 (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: As the proposer, I want to state that I would be happy with User:Medeis's suggestion of Deposition of Mohamed Morsi. But it sound like most of the oppose !votes are strongly in favour of the word "coup", and not just doubtful about "revolution". StAnselm (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: The problem with "coup" is that Sisi is not seizing power himself, which is implied by the term. I am not about to start arguing the point, but one could say Morsi violated the standing constitution many times. Removing him from office would be more like a military arrest. Terms like deposition, ouster (which I actually like better) or overthrow avoid the unnecessary POV implied in coup. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that military didn't select a general from military to become the new president doesn't mean it is not a coup. The military got rid of an elected government and replaced it with one it selected and that is a coup. See Coup d'état. 128.100.3.40 (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: The military has deposed a democratically elected leader. They have suspended the constitution that had been approved by the people in a referendum. 300 senior party members of the Muslim brotherhood are targeted for arrest. It seems the army is trying to break up the party. On top of that Abdul Fatah al-Sisi has named the interim president and will no doubt heavily influence the decision of the interim cabinet. On top of that, no early election dates have been fixed. Could be soon… could be next year. So to recap: removal of those the army doesn’t agree with while influencing the new government. This is most definetaly a coup d’état.
• Comment: I have already !voted, but can we speedy close this discussion? It's clearly pointless. There was a coup in Egypt, and this article reflects that. Let's end this. Juneau Mike 03:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

At this point, by my count, 20 editors are in favour of having the word "coup" in the article name, and 18 are opposed to it. StAnselm (talk) 03:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the real reason some people don't like calling this a coup is that they didn't like the Islamist government of Morsi, so they are happy that he got overthrown, and they don't want this to be called a coup because coup has negative meaning. But this is a coup by definition, it doesn't matter we liked Morsi and his party or didn't like them. Some argue that then 2011 should also be called a coup, that is arguable (since Mobarak was not elected in a real contested election, Morsi was elected in a real election, moreover, he resigned, unlike Morsi who opposed his forceful removal by military). But even putting that aside, if someone really thinks that the title of the article for 2011 should be coup then they should fix that title, not try to use what they claim to be an incorrect title to justify moving this article to an incorrect title. 128.100.3.40 (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment the term coup is almost always used negatively, that is why we have an article on the 2011 revolution, not coup. I think we need to have two articles. One on the 2013 summer demonstrations, and another on the July 3rd Overthrow of Morsi, both with barely factual titles. Look at the French Revolution, which lasted a decade or two, depending on how you look at Napoleon. Imagine arguing that the article French Revolution should be called and merged with Execution of Louis XVI. We don't have the historical perspective yet. μηδείς (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support Move - 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. The use of "coup" is also not clearly established as the common name. 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) 04:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you looked at the results of your search but almost all of the articles by reputable media organizations on the first pages of the results either use 'second revolution' or ask if it is a coup or a revolution. If you add -coup to your search half of the result are gone and the remaining ones by reputable newspapers and television channels have it inside quotes. I think your search shows exactly the opposite of your claim, i.e. almost no one calls this a 'second revolution'. I think the definition of a coup is clear. I am sure people who supported other coups don't like those events being called coups, should we go and change their titles also? Neutrality doesn't mean we should ignore the facts just because some don't like them and the fact in this case is that this is a coup by definition. 128.100.3.40 (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Support based on the definition of a Coup by Encyclopedia Britannica, it says that it is a sudden and violent act by a small group to over throw the government and it is unlike a revolution where a large number of people working for basic social, economic and political change. A coup rarely changed the nation's fundamental social and economic policies and the group orchestrating the coup usually ends up holding the power in their hands. What happened in Egypt is definitely NOT a coup. An uprising of approximately 22 Million people, which took months of preparation is by far not a sudden act.--Menuiv (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Most reliable media calling it a coup or an overthrow by the military (in essence same thing even by Wikipedia's definition). EkoGraf (talk) 09:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - A democratically elected leader got unseated and arrested by the military. That's coup d'etat, no debate. --bender235 (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - Just because the overthrow was popularly supported (although even that remains debatable) does not disqualify it from being a coup. The military forcibly ousted a leader. That is a coup. Yes, it may have been popularly supported. It is still a coup. Samuel Peoples (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

So how come the US, the UK and most other countries refuse to call it a coup? You think it's a coup, ok, but Wikipedia builds on WP:RS. As long as all major states refuse to call it a coup, why should Wikipedia?Jeppiz (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose -- for now The coup preempted a popular revolution. It's clear that the coup has the support of millions of Egyptians, but it's also clear that Morsi still has a very large number of supporters. The usual way that this gets resolved in a revolution involves large amounts of violence in the streets until one side or other wins; this visibly hasn't happened. Until reliable sources can get their act together and decide between themselves what to call this, we are on our own: for the moment, "coup" is the best of a range of awkward options, and is also the one which is currently used more often by the mainstream media than any of the alternatives. It's interesting to consider that a subsequent massive electoral victory by the anti-Morsi forces in a free and fair election may well be regarded by the world as retroactively legitimizing this coup into a popular revolution. -- The Anome (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose -- I would support a re-naming this article using words such as 'deposing' or 'overthrow' ... but we should not use the article title (or words like revolution or impeachment) to preemptively grant legitimacy to the event. We need a more neutral word; I believe that calling something a coup is like calling something a genocide... not a word to be used lightly. Also, many of us agree (personal-opinion-wise) that this was definitely a coup (By definition, the military overthrew a democratically elected government -- not a popular revolution or an impeachment -- a coup). There are ample reliable sources that also call this a coup, but there are ample reliable sources that say that using the word 'coup' to describe this is VERY sensitive. I am sure there are wiki policies about using contentious terms as article titles. Perhaps something like 2013 overthrow of the Morsi government in Egypt. Peace and Wikilove, MPS (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Many sources are calling this a coup.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - What we have here is the military deposing the elected president by force, that's called a coup as far as I know. Remember that the corrupt military leadership has been in power since 1952 and counting, i.e., they are an essential part of the old order with all their economic/political interests and have every reason to resist democratic change. Their leaders are not elected and not responsive to any civilian government and their budget is immune from any sort of oversight. Also, for those of you who mention the anti-Morsi crowds in Tahrir square, looking back in history most coups were preceded by huge demonstrations of pro-military mobs. Chile 1973 and Iran 1953 come to mind. Vekoler (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

We can't be sure what the military's intentions are yet, this only just happened two days ago. You can cite past examples like the 1973 Chilean coup d'état, but that only had some public support (the 1953 Iranian coup d'état hardly had any), not the overwhelming support we just saw in cities across Egypt, the fact that the Egyptian people demonstrated in record numbers against Mohamed Morsi throws this into the category of revolution. Remember, there were also pro-military demonstrations in the Revolution of 2011 and the military played a key role in forcing Mubarak's resignation. Charles Essie (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support - The Egyptian crisis is both a coup d'état and a popular revolution. So I propose to rename the page "Egyptian revolution of 2013" or, just "Egyptian crisis of 2013". The dismissal of Morsi was requested by the Egyptian people. The army just deposed the unpopular elected president, respecting the popular demands. --Luis Molnar (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Not "the Egyptian people" but a group of them. The only way to know the real amount of support for each side is balot box and Muslim Brotherhood has won all elections that has been conducted since Mobarak was overthrown. And the second to Muslim Brotherhood was Salafies which didn't participate in the protests. Egypt has 80 million people, just because 5-12 million people protested d oesn't mean the rest of the population share their views. See also [4]. They have arrested hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood politicians and are helding Morsi in an unknown location and are cracking down over the Egyptian media. I don't think anyone in their right might can deny this is military coup. 128.100.3.40 (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment: If this is a military coup d'etat, which are the army's interest for power, since it appointed Constitutional Court's chief to be the acting President? This is a revolution, because it has popular support and the army doesn't assumed the power. Also, the media refers to the movement as the "second revolution" of the Arab Spring and the world's heads of states avoid to name it a "coup d'etat". --Luis Molnar (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

In a military coup the military itself doesn't need to take the official government positions directly. There has been many coup where the military has appointed someone outside military to become the official face of the state. It still satisfies the definition of a military coup: military removed an elected government and replaced it with one it selected. Media doesn't refer to it as "second revolution" as I explained in reply to another article. And the fact that some part of Egyptian society support the coup doesn't change the fact that it is a coup. Roughly half of Egyptians voted against Morsi, no surprise they don't like him being the president. This military coup has some popular support, but so does Morsi and Muslim Brotherhood as all elections since toppling of Mobarak has shown. If they have the support of majority they could have one some election and they haven't won any. 128.100.3.67 (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

And let's not forget Thailand had a popular coup and there was no question of whether it was a coup or not. Of course that has since been reversed at the ballot box. And if there is a free election no doubt this will be too.(Lihaas (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)).

• Support - this is a revolution, if I remember correctly millions of people protested for the removal of the president. There are also some news articles that call this the "second revolution" (even though if you look it up this would be maybe the fourth). I think both the articles on the coup and the 2013 revolution can remain, with the coup being a part of the revolution. We can also rename the article 2012-13 Egyptian protests to the 2013 revolution. --Gimelthedog (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose The military has deposed a democratically elected leader. They have suspended the constitution that had been approved by the people in a referendum. 300 senior party members of the Muslim brotherhood are targeted for arrest. It seems the army is trying to break up the party. On top of that Abdul Fatah al-Sisi has named the interim president and will no doubt heavily influence the decision of the interim cabinet. On top of that, no early election dates have been fixed. Could be soon… could be next year. So to recap: removal of those the army doesn’t agree with while influencing the new government. This is most definetaly a coup d’état.

I think the real reason some people don't like calling this a coup is that they didn't like the Islamist government of Morsi, so they are happy that he got overthrown, and they don't want this to be called a coup because coup has negative meaning. But this is a coup by definition, it doesn't matter we liked Morsi and his party or didn't like them. It is a Coup d'etat since Mobarak was not elected in a real contested election, Morsi was elected in a real election, moreover, he resigned, unlike Morsi who opposed his forceful removal by military

*Strongly Oppose 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.

*Strongly Oppose 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 with. All of the Coup have these type of characteristics maybe your should study history.

Strong support This is more of a continuation of revolution than anything else. Egypt is a state in great flux. It really has no experience with democracy for the people to gauge their actions on. This whole situation is non-standard. A state authority has installed an interim civilian president in response to largely peaceful protests by millions of Egyptians; this qualifies as a revolution. There was no sudden violent seizure of power. The military clearly set out expectations for a presidential response to the popular protests. These were not met, and so the army acted in support of the people. Taroaldo ✉ 19:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You've given (yet struck) strongly factual reason why it wasn't a revolution. Then you say its a continuation? Whether Egypt is confused and they don't know democracy (and it seems the Arab world is NOT ready for democ (Tunisia and Lebanon ecxcepted) that doesn't change the fact that there was a coup while theyre discovering themselves and the fact that democracy yields results you may not like. If Bush was overthrown for his Iraq debacle it would still be a coup (he wouldn't be , as a the USA knows democracy yields good and shit). A state authority also DEPOSED a democratically elected government, regardless of who they hand picked to come in. The fact that the MILITARY (an apolitical body) sets out terms when it has no right to, and its job is the barracks, is in fact a coup. An extraconstitutional non-popular democratically ELECTED ouster. Thats why democracies have term limits. And thats why you have civil society groups to challenge abuses not the military FORCE. Seriously, the rejection of the label is purely partisan politics.Lihaas (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that one of the largest protests in human history is simply partisan politics. I defy you to tell me what makes this a simple coup when the Egyptian Revolution of 1952 and the Romanian Revolution of 1989 (both of which could also be described as coups, but they had huge popular support) are almost universally refered to as revolutions. Charles Essie (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

To quote below: "All neutral media is calling this a coup d'état ,the military sent its troops,deposed a elected president,and made enormous amount of undemocratic decisions,and the military is trying even to impose a media blackout on the pro-morsy protest,this definitely a coup d'état" As for the others, that is a discussion for those pages. See WP:OSE(Lihaas (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)).

• Oppose. Regardless of one's personal views of the situation, to call this anything but a coup would be an abuse of language. The ousting of a government by its own military is a coup—whether it's right or wrong, good or bad. I oppose any kind of obfuscating language. Everyking (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

By that logic the same would apply to the Revolution of 2011. Charles Essie (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Ummm no. The military did not force Mubarak. Mubarak came out and SAID he resigned. Morsi actively rejected the move. Is that not apparent? Its sourced to say so(Lihaas (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)).

Many people have resigned from various positions with a proverbial gun held to their heads. Taroaldo ✉ 01:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose The military forcibly ousted the president who refused this. Most neutral media called it a coup ( Sky News, BBC ... ) + the African Union suspended Egypt after the coup. 3bdulelah (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Cuba was suspended from the Organization of American States after the "Cuban Revolution", many in the United States called it a hostile takeover, and Fulgencio Batista wasn't anxious to be ousted either. Charles Essie (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)\

Aand youre seriously gonna say with a straight face that Cuba is not a partisan politics issue in the US? Please yu know that's laughable. Even the Barardi people supported it at first.(Lihaas (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)).

• Strongly Oppose The military coup can not be considered as revolution. There is no such the definition in democracy and law. -- Maurice (talk) 00:00, 06 July 2013 (UTC)

Revolution rarely does occur within the frame of law, and it dosn't always lead to democracy. Charles Essie (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

And so is the same for coup(Lihaas (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)).

Revolution always leads to democracy? Come of it, pelase. Yyouve got Yemen as an example here itself. that's not to mention historyLihaas (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose This was clearly a coup. The military gave the democratically elected president, Morsi, an ultimatum, overthrew him, and arrested him and 300 top members of his ruling party. Looks like a coup to me (and all independent organisations) — 205.206.129.52 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This IP has made no other edits since November 2007

So why don't you link to those "independent organizations". Seriously, it is getting very tedious with all the comments saying "This is a coup according to me". That is, once again, a failure to understand how Wikipedia works. It's not for us to decide it's a coup. "Coup" reflects a particular POV, which is why most countries in the world refuse to call it a coup.Jeppiz (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

No, some countries refuse to call it a coup because of diplomatic sensitivities. They're using diplomatic language. The article's title should call the event what it is on a factual basis. Wikipedia is not a nation with diplomatic ties to worry about. We shouldn't tip-toe around things or sugarcoat them like nations do in diplomacy. As editors, we must present facts as they are. On a factual basis, this was a coup. Period. Samuel Peoples (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Generally support to move. As per user:Jeppiz, I also suggest we wait for an established name. I think we better use a neutral one for now. And I think that was not a coup. The exclusive attribute of coups is their quickness, as reflected in the Wikipedia article. The incident was not quick. See my comments below. -Raayen (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Many more reliable sources are calling this a coup than are calling it a revolution and we have to go with the most WP:COMMONNAME. Both terms could be viewed as POV by their opponents but Wikipedia does allow POV terms to be used if it is commonly used (WP:POVTITLE). Coup and revolution aren't mutually exclusive, many revolutions start or end with a coup (e.g. Carnation Revolution). By any definition this event is a coup but it does not currently have any of the hallmarks of a revolution. That may happen in the coming months.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is another rather nonsensical argument unless you have a link to a WP:RS that supports your claim that "many more reliable sources" say coup. Is that really a fact, or is it your own idea? Unfortunately, almost all those who argue for using "coup" continue to use language like this, making bold claims with zero support. Yes, some reliable sources say coup. Some use other terms, I just saw that New York Times uses "Egypt crisis". I for one has no statistics supporting that one is more that the other. Unless you have any such statistics, can I kindly suggest that you strike your comment above as non-factual?Jeppiz (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but it si fbacked by fact which is cited in the discussion below. On the contrary you are not citing your claim. On the contrary your "vote" indicated we should follow the whims of the US and UK govt yet you call this version POV. Theres not greater POV than using gospel fact of partisan governments to cite what we shoul d be directed to do(Lihaas (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)).

Where is it cited? Lihaas, kindly provide the link that claims most media use "coup". Above you put words in my mouth that I never said, here you are claiming there are cited facts, yet don't refer to them. No offense, but you seem to dislike presenting facts as much as you seem to like to make up claims about others.Jeppiz (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Do I like not presenting fact? See the above where I quoted you exactly. And as I said right here "cited in the discussion below". it seems "No offense, but you seem to [not to like to read whatyou reply to attack instead and accuse]"(Lihaas (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)).

I beg your pardon but I have no idea what the above means. Would you please rewrite it using English syntax? I'm not trying to score a point, nor do I usually comment on language mistakes, but I honestly do not get what you are trying to say.Jeppiz (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose

It doesn't matter whether or not people took to the streets, it doesn't matter whether it's right or wrong, we should call things what they are. A leader elected by popular vote being deposed by the military is the exact definition of a coup Seektrue (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for telling us the WP:TRUTH once again.Jeppiz (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You don't determine wht isa valid criteria for others to say yay or no. As you have your [valid] reasons, so do others.(Lihaas (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)).

You are absolutely right. I don't determine the valid criteria, Wikipedia's policies do that. All I'm doing is to point out that virtually everyone arguing for "coup" use one of two arguments. The first is "I think this is a coup so we must call it a coup" and the second is to claim that coup is universally used yet always failing to provide the slightest support for that claim. Saying that neither of those two arguments is strong is not a criterion I made up.Jeppiz (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I though we were past the point of "Verifiability" a long time ago. Judging from the sources out there as well as the major news organizations, it is certainly being labeled as a coup. As for "slightest" support, what kind of support were you looking for? what "publishable" source has not labled it as a coup? Seektrue (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, it was definitely coup according to the international media. "Revolution" term is only a propaganda phrase by the Egyptian army and anti-Morsi protesters. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment Per the arguments used by most supporters of the current title, Carnation Revolution should be moved to 1974 Portuguese coup d'état. And the "democratically-elected" status of the previous government doesn't matter at all, historically most coups happened against governments who took power after a previous coup, while many revolution ended with the military changing side, deposing the old rulers and setting up alternative administrations. It's ridiculous that the article still hasn't been moved to a neutral title waiting until its name settle (in a few months, at least), and it's even more ridiculous that some users are justifying this clear NPOV violation with such pedestrian arguments. 94.247.8.10 (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Democratically elected Morsi doesn't make this a coup. Next democratic election will determine this. We wanted you, we don't want you anymore. That is a re-revolution. There are similar cases like Hitler. Hitler was democratically elected. Democracy is not just election, There are many more to it. Please accept this. Read democracy. A coup just should be quick. The event was not quick. At best we should wait for an established name-Raayen (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• This Associated Press article may be of interest: Was the Overthrow of Egypt's Government a Coup?. In particular:

  So far, The Associated Press is not characterizing the overthrow as a "coup," using purely descriptive terms like "the overthrow of Morsi by the military."

• So this it at least one RS that is explicitly not using the term coup.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Here are scholarly sources that agree that it was a coup:

1. Professor Paul Sullivan, an expert in international relations at Georgetown University in Washington.[5]

2. Professor Abdallah Schleifer, a journalism professor at The American University in Cairo.[6]

There are non-scholarly but reliable sources that justify their decision to use the word coup:

3. The Ottawa Citizen says "it was a definitely a coup d’etat. Troops surrounding an elected leader...cannot be called anything else."[7]

4. The Washington Post says "there is no ambiguity about what happened in Egypt on Wednesday: a military coup against a democratically elected government".[8]

Then there are 200,000 Google News hits[9] for "Egypt coup".Bless sins (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

"This is a new revolution," said 20-year-old college student Islam Ihab, using the phrase widely repeated by President Mohammed Morsi's opponents who refuse to describe his downfall as a coup — which is exactly what Morsi and his backers say has happened. So Wikipedia should find some other neutral wording. --Niemti (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• • WP:POVNAME allows the usage of non-neutral names that are common.Bless sins (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Bless sins:

• The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/03/mohamed-morsi-egypt-second-revolution
• Deutsche Welle: http://www.dw.de/revolution-in-egypt-again/a-16928333
• ABC News: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-03/egypt-retracing-the-road-to-revolution/4796230
• CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-202_162-10017408.html
• Sky News: http://news.sky.com/story/1111358/egyptians-celebrate-revolutionary-encore
• Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/4/egypts-chief-justice-sworn-pushes-keep-revolution-/
• International Business Times: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/486506/20130704/obama-elude-word-coup-describing-egypt-s.ht
• Irish Times: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/africa/egypt-celebrates-return-to-path-of-revolution-1.1451873
• Financial Times: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/855dad54-e26d-11e2-a7fa-00144feabdc0.html

etc. etc. So the Washington Post claim of "there is no ambiguity about what happened in Egypt on Wednesdayy: a military coup against a democratically elected government" is clearly incorrect, and just silly. --Niemti (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Some of your sources are misleading. For example, Sky News consistently calls it "Egypt coup".[10] The link you provided actually says "what they say is a second revolution,"[11] which shows that Sky News is only quoting someone else calling it a revolution but not calling it a revolution itself. The Guardian link you quoted[12], actually calls it a revolution, but later says "Sisi strove to paint the coup as the fulfilment of the popular will." Similarly, International Business Times calls it "Egypt Morsi coup",[13] and Deutsche Welle writes "World leaders voice concern, optimism over Egyptian coup"[14].

Here are more sources that use the word coup:

1. CNN: [15],

2. CBC News: [16],

3. The Economist: [17],

4. Reuters: [18],

5. The Daily Telegraph: [19], "There is no doubt this was a military coup. Attempts to claim otherwise are absurd."[20]

6. Wall Street Journal: [21],

7. New York Times: [22], "Yes, this is a military coup."

8. Toronto Star: [23], "Make no mistake. This was a military coup..."

9. BBC News: [24],

10. Los Angeles Times: [25]

11. Irish Independent: [26]

12. Maclean's: [27],

13. Bloomberg: [28], "We should be honest about what has come to pass in Egypt...this is a coup d’etat."

14. Hurriyet Daily News: [29]

15. Straits Times: [30]

16. Speigel: [31] "The events of Wednesday night are clearly a coup -- the army has deposed a democratically elected president and suspended the constitution"

17. France 24: [32]

Bless sins (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

18. Stratfor: [33]

19. Guardian: [34] [35] [36]

20. Independent: [37]

128.100.3.67 (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – Although Mubarak "resigned" in 2011, it was only for the intervention of the army that he did. The effects of the army in 2011 and in 2013 are no different. --Article editor (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, it is true that news media has been debating the use of the word "coup", so I would not say the usage of the word coup by a journalist of a newspaper means that that outlet believes that it's a coup.

BBC News: [38]

New York Times: [39]

Reuters: [40]

• It is a Coup d’état The military has deposed a democratically elected leader. They have suspended the constitution that had been approved by the people in a referendum. 300 senior party members of the Muslim brotherhood are targeted for arrest. It seems the army is trying to break up the party. On top of that Abdul Fatah al-Sisi has named the interim president and will no doubt heavily influence the decision of the interim cabinet. On top of that, no early election dates have been fixed. Could be soon… could be next year. So to recap: removal of those the army doesn’t agree with while influencing the new government. This is most definetaly a coup d’état.

I think the real reason some people don't like calling this a coup is that they didn't like the Islamist government of Morsi, so they are happy that he got overthrown, and they don't want this to be called a coup because coup has negative meaning. But this is a coup by definition, it doesn't matter we liked Morsi and his party or didn't like them. It is a Coup d'etat since Mobarak was not elected in a real contested election, Morsi was elected in a real election, moreover, he resigned, unlike Morsi who opposed his forceful removal by military

• It is a Coup d’état

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.

• It is a Coup d’état

Strongly Oppose 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 with. All of the Coup have these type of characteristics maybe your should study history.

• It is a Coup d’état

All neutral media is calling this a coup d'état ,the military sent its troops,deposed a elected president,and made enormous amount of undemocratic decisions,and the military is trying even to impose a media blackout on the pro-morsy protest,this definitely a coup d'état Alhanuty (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC) .

Apparently there is no basis for using "coup"

Yesterday I encouraged the people who insist on calling it a coup to mention which states and which international organizations have called it a coup. One day after, I am still waiting as none of those insisting on "coup" has presented any source. They have prevented their own WP:TRUTH, claiming that since they think this is a coup we must call it a coup. That is not how Wikipedia has worked, nor should it be. "Coup" is a particular POV and there is no need to use it. I agree that if it was universally called a coup, we should use that term. That is why I encouraged those favoring it to mention who has described this as a coup. The resulting silence is deafening, all that the "coup-camp" has continued to do is to argue that they think this is a coup.Jeppiz (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Jeppiz, I agree that the article title should eventually change from 'coup' to a more neutral term... but I would also suggest that "no basis for using 'coup'" over-plays your hand a little. Major reliable media sources are calling this a coup, and most countries seem to be silent about labelling it at all (they do not call it a coup or a revolution or a deposition). Because this is a fluid and ambiguous situation, I would suggest that we wait about two weeks and see if any countries come to consensus about what to call this. In the mean time, I think everyone can agree that whatever it is, we should work together to document events in a NPOV fashion as they happen. Peace, MPS (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Your request doesn't make any sense. A coup is not defined by the diplomatic double-speak used by active political entities looking to interact with the Egyptian situation. The term has a more objective definition. It means, according to the OED, "a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government", often done so by the military. Egyptian law does not allow for what happened (it was illegal), it happened in a very short period of time (it was sudden), and has involved military suppression of the people and some leaders (it was violent). If you are linking the event's definition solely to the diplomatic tip-toeing and gentle wording of the US, UN, and others, then you are moving away from objectiveness.Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

As for sources, try CNN or the Brookings Institute.Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the section above, I have provided no less than 21 reliable sources, and an anon provided 3 more after that. WP:V doesn't require the sources to be states or international organizations - only that they be reliable.Bless sins (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

A lot of the debate here has been completely irrelevant. There are specific naming guidelines that can be followed. "[S]ome topics have multiple names, and this can cause disputes as to which name should be used in the article's title. Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." (from WP:COMMONNAME). There is a list above of many reliable sources using the term "coup" to describe this, so there is no strong evidence that the title needs to be changed (and the burden of proof is ultimately on the people who want to change it, not the people who want to continue to call it a coup, so your demands are a little strange). However, it could be argued that there is really no common name for this event, that people use different names for it. In that case, it is best to go with a descriptive title (see WP:NCE). Maybe something like "Deposition of Mohamed Morsi." But there is no reason to hurry. It's more important to improve the content of the article. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 19:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

*Strongly Oppose 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.

• strongly oppose coup d'état. – as an Egyptian, it hurts me and i see it insulting to disregard 33 million people going to the streets against to oust Morsi, and then people giving credit to the army for doing so... if this was a coup, why wasnt 25th of January 2011 called a coup??? this is a disgrace for the ENTIRE Wikipedia community, i truly feel ashamed to have been part of this community for the past 7 years... i hope the title changes soon to a revolution... as previous debates states, no country ever recognized this as a coup... and has only been recognized as so by the Media...

~~--

Please sign your posts

Also Wikipedia doesn't cater to nationalist sentiment per WP:IDONTLIKEIT this is exactly what you are saying that as you are Egyptian your hurt that youre side is not represented as they want. That doesn't disgrace the neutrality of WP but ehnhances it.(Lihaas (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)).

I think, we should wait for an established name and use a neutral one in the meantime. This is very complex. The exclusive attribute of coups is their quickness, as reflected in the Wikipedia article. The incident was not quick. Here is a definition used in Wikipedia: "A quick and decisive extra-legal seizure of governmental power by a relatively small but highly organized group of political or military leaders, typically by means of the unexpected arrest or assassination of the incumbent chief executive and his principal supporters within the government. For the coup to be successful, the rank and file of the police and military have to be willing to take orders from the new government leaders once the coup is accomplished, so typically the organizers of successful coups have previously recruited important military and police commanders to their cause prior to going ahead with it. Most frequently, coups are initiated and led by high-ranking military officers. They are most apt to be successful in countries where both the general population's and the government bureaucracy's ideological dedication to upholding established constitutional procedures is relatively weak and consequently there is little danger of massive civilian resistance or non-cooperation by the rank and file of soldiers and other government employees."[41]

I use N if I think the item agrees the incident was not coup, and Y if I think it says it was coup and "????" if I am in doubt.

• "quick seizure" N. "quick" here refers to sudden ploy and success, and not sudden announcement. Revolutions also usually have sudden announcements of overthrows of governments. In the incident, the long-lasting demonstrations of many people were very effective.
• "decisive" ????. We don't know yet. It is a current event.
• "a relatively small group but highly organized leaders" Y. Leaders are always a small group, but in this incident, many people demostrated and clashed for a long time.
• "by means of the unexpected arrest or assassination" ????. This also happens in revolutions. By the way, the incident was not happened "by means of ... arrest"; arrests happened after.
• "the rank and file of the police and military have to be willing to take orders from the new government leaders" Y (but again happens in revolutions too, as in Egyptian Revolution of 1952 and even in 2011 Egyptian revolution)
• "so typically the organizers of successful coups have previously recruited important military and police commanders" N (This also happens in revolutions as in Iranian revolution)
• "Most frequently, coups are initiated and led by high-ranking military officers." ????. The incident was not surely initiated by military officers. It was initiated by clashes and big demonstrations.
• "there is little danger of massive civilian resistance" N. You see pro-Morsi supporters are demostrating now.
• "non-cooperation by the rank and file of soldiers and other government employees" Y.

We should wait for a established name (although wrong), meanwhile we can use a neutral one.-Raayen (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Egyptian Revolution of 1952 also should be moved to "coup". The main problem of users who think that was a coup, is to assume Morsi was democratically elected. Democratically elected is not the sole criteria for democracy. You cannot be democratically elected and then begin to establish dictatorship. That is shown by many clashes and demonstrations against Morsi. Even if you think they were minority, the government should accept the rights of minorities. The way Moris behaved didn't showd that. Still we should wait for an established name and it takes many months. That was not a coup but we should accept mainstream after several months, not now.-Raayen (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge

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)

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

"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)).

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)

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. [42](Lihaas (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)).

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)).

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)).

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))

Why does information keep getting removed?

Why is information like this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/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)

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 [43] [44] 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)). .

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)

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[45] 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." [46] 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)).

Turkish Opposition comments

The comments of the Turkish opposition were removed.[47] 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)).

Useful References and Articles for Political Analysis of the Situation

To improve the contents of the article we need more references. Please add links to articles only from well known commentators and political analysis: 128.100.3.40 (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

* [48] by Richard Falk on AJE  Jul. 5, 2013
* [49] by Tamara Cofman Wittes on Brookings   July 4, 2013
* [50] by Aaron David Miller on Foreign Policy   July 5, 2013
* [51] by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson   July 5, 2013
* [52] by Jackson Diehl on Washington Post
* [53] by  Daniel Levy (political analyst) on AJE 05 Jul 2013

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)

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)