Talk:2013 Egyptian coup d'état

Rename/Move/Change Title

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

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

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

The article's title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a WP argument.

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

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

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

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

Edit request on 3 July 2013

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

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

 Not done

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coup or Revolution or Democratic Coup

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to relevant discussion of this point on the BBC: [2]

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

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

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

Why not "impeachment"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request on 5 July 2013

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

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

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

2- Coup is meant that the military secretly plan for it and take over power and rule the country. This didn't happen, what happened is that 12 million signatures were the results of the the "Rebel" movement https://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)).

Revolution or Coup d'état

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

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

Admin Request: Being bold about title change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was not moved. After very robust discussion with good arguments on both sides, I find consensus against the move. Supporters have a good point that coup d'état can be a loaded term, but usage of the term among reliable sources makes this a WP:POVTITLE. It's also worth noting that this event fits our own definition of Coup d'état as expressed in that article's lede. Furthermore, as some thoughtful editors pointed out, neither "coup" nor "revolution" is a particularly neutral term. --BDD (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

Main Discussion

• 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.[3]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)

I think you're confusing matters. Have you actually read the article I'm referrng to? It clearly says a coup happened in the editorial voice. This isn't abnormal or a violation of any policy, in fact when the propenderance of reliable sources describe something in some way, it's a violation of WP:NPOV to only say it was described as such in some sources. The same way we call the September 11 attacks in the US terrorist attacks in the editorial voice rather than just saying some reliable sources describe it that way. To give other examples in case you're still confused, in the 2009 Honduran coup d'état and the related constitutional crisis article and in the 2006 Thai coup article and related articles we call it a coup in the editorial voice and in those cases where relevant the title. While this article is difficult as it always is because it's still early so we can't rely on the more historical sources and as I said below I'm not opposed to renaming the article, and perhaps it's still not quite as clear as I would have thought by now, I think it's clear leading towards a coup being the accurate and most NPOV compliant way to described what happened, whatever the title. Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 7 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

That's not right, Mubarak did not resign himself. The vice president (who is part of the military also) *said* that Mubarak resigned power to the military. Moreover, Mubarak's lawyer appealed several times during the trial that his client didn't resign office, and challenged anyone to show a signed document, or otherwise to prove that Mubarak resigned.196.221.149.93 (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

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: [4]. 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)

Some countries refuse to call it a coup because of diplomatic sensitivities. They're using diplomatic language. We should not look to national governments for guidance on what to name fact-based articles. 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) 15:32, 8 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 [5]. 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)

I am not sure if I understand the point. I don't think anyone here objects if you want to refer to those as coup. But if you want to use the fact that there is such a situation which is not coup and use it to justify that this shouldn't be called coup, that is a fallacious argument. Since this kind of argument has been stated several times here let me point it once again: coup has a definition, the current situation satisfies that definition. The argument that because some similar situation (whose similarity is arguable) is not called coup therefore this one shouldn't also is fallacious. If the goal is to show inconsistency it doesn't hold because many of editors here have not express any opinion regarding what some other situation should be called. So for the sake of logic, please stop repeating this argument. If you think that some other situation also satisfies the definition of a coup and want to make things consistent (according to your opinion about them) then please take the argument about their title to the talk page of those articles. 128.100.3.40 (talk) 03:04, 7 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)

A coup can be a revolution, of course, but that's a matter of judgement. A coup is a black and white thing; a "revolution" is something that is determined based on the event's perceived historical significance, and opinions may vary. For example, the Libyan coup of 1969 was declared to be a revolution, but our content on the subject seems to prefer describing it as simply a coup. Everyking (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• OpposeWhen the army moves to overthrow a government it is a coup d'etat. Sure it had a lot more popular support than most coups but the end result is pretty clear. "Mass demonstrations of 2013 and the resulting coup d'etat" is a possible compromise.Dejvid (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose- a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics; especially :the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group or a fundamental change in political organization; especially :the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed. I think description 1 fits the event better considering how this took place in a matter of days. Also repeating the points above.

Swordman97 (talk)

• Oppose - Security expert Joshua Keating clearly explains that the events were a coup by definition and that most security analysts held that belief, even while discussing the democratic pressure behind it. When the dust settles (name discussions are almost never productive during an on-going event), the name could be reassessed in a way which divides out the mass protests or includes them as becomes appropriate. AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Move, but Oppose suggested options on NPOV grounds: Coup d'etat seems biased against the military while revolution seems biased against the regime. The suggestions above along the lines of "2013 Egyptian constitutional crisis" seem more neutral... - Cheers, JCJ of Burwell (Talk) 01:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

But it's not a constitutional crisis. Very few people have brought up the Egyptian Constitution throughout this. Marechal Ney (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose it meets every definition of a coup, regardless of the POV-pushing in this discussion the title is correct.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose. 1) The popular protests proceeding the military takeover did not topple Morsi; popular opposition to Morsi was far weaker here than it was against Mubarak in February 2011. I base that assertion on simple estimates of protester strength given by most news outlets; these show that pro-government demonstrators were out in huge numbers alongside anti-government ones. This does not fit the criteria for a popular "revolution", as the anti-government protesters did not effect Morsi's fall, the military did.
• 2) The majority of the news media is calling it a coup. Just about the only agencies that aren't are Egyptian ones; this is only because the military arrested dozens of pro-Brotherhood journalists after the coup/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. Wikipedia should go with media convention, and in this case the word "coup" should be used. Marechal Ney (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

1) is false. Every single report I've seen so far agrees that the anti-Morsi demonstrations in Cairo and in other cities were at least an order of magnitude larger than the 2011 protests, and at least a couple of orders of magnitude larger than the single pro-Morsi demonstration in Rabia al-Adawiya. 2) is completely irrelevant to the discussion. 82.54.228.48 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

1) There really are no commonly accepted numbers on protester counts for these recent protests; excluding the ones by Tamarrud media that claim these protests were the biggest in human history, it doesn't look all that one sided. Just about every news outlet mentioned pro-Morsi demonstrations as well. Were they just being fair? Perhaps, but regime loyalists were visible enough to get that attention. In addition, considering that every election/referendum in post-Spring Egypt went in favor of the Brotherhood, I find it highly unlikely that millions of Brotherhood supporters suddenly swapped sides. I haven't heard any reports of significant segments of the Brotherhood turning fiercely anti-Morsi. That would be needed for this to be truly "popular". Morsi's supporters can always make a silent majority argument, especially with lack of evidence to the contrary.

• Strong Oppose The President was removed from his office and imprisoned by the head of army who had been appointed by the same President. Then the same head of army alone appointed the successor of his own liking. As of writing this, there is zero presentation of "revolutionaries" among the post-Morsi rulers, just elite members from the ranks of the existing establishment. Reasons to call this anything else but a coup appear only political. Drieakko (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is the literal definition of a coup. Renaming it just because it makes people upset would be wrong. --David G (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That hardly even matters, though. Even if it was popular it wouldn't be a revolution. February 2011 was; huge numbers of people shut down longstanding political and social systems in Egypt. The regime actually was crumbling, not in approval ratings but in authority, as a result of the popular protests before the military stepped in. Here, things were different. With the notable exception of protesters setting some parts of the Brotherhood HQ on fire with molotov cocktails (and, I believe, breaking inside for a while), these protests were protests, not a revolution, which is, by definition, extralegal (I'm talking about intuitive understanding of the term and its usage by political scientists, not the word-for-word definition you may find in a dictionary). The actual government change, shutting down of pro-regime TV stations, arrests of government officials, etc where done by the military.

There is some truth in thinking that this does not resemble a "typical" coup d'etat. The military just signed a document stating "Morsi is no longer President." and then he wasn't. If the SCAF can do that, then Morsi was hardly in charge in the first place. The military has held the final say of executive power in Egypt for years, so I suppose it wasn't so much a coup d'etat as General al-Sisi deciding he wants a more popular underling as President. This should account for the bizarre nature of the coup, but, as it is a change in government performed by the military, it is still a coup.

2) This is an Encyclopedia. We post the generally accepted truth among experts (provided it is sensible). This is not a journal where one or two maverick experts offer controversial new ideas. If the majority of media and political analysts it's a coup, then it's a good chance it's a coup. Marechal Ney (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Marechal Ney. "If the majority of media and political analysts [sic] it's a coup, then it's a good chance it's a coup". Please note the "if". Days ago I asked for a reliable source saying that the majority of media and political analysts say so. Despite that, no such source has yet been provided. In the absence of such a source, the argument is of course moot.Jeppiz (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It's no wonder there remains widespread diagreement about the title of this entry. What has occurred in Egypt remains fluid, imprecise, and dynamic. There's been autocratic rule, an invalid strong-armed constitution, a popular uprising in response, and then another response by the Egyptian military in support of the public will. Ousting Morsi seems to be a pragmatic move to carry on the 2011 Revolution after Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood violated the public trust. With all of this, and a potential civil war looming, a coup d'etat label is an unsupportable conclusion. Only hard line statists, by that I mean those who see government as separate and above the people, could suggest that. User:JZVan

• Strong Oppose It is a Coup d’état. Every coup has supporters in public. Besides, "revolution" is a biased word only used by anti-Morsi protesters, but "coup" isn't used only by pro-Morsi protesters. Kavas (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per 2006 Thai coup d'état which was basically the same thing as what has happened here (see Political crisis in Thailand (2005–06)). Shii (tock) 15:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Multiple reliable sources call it a Coup. It's not up to us to question the sources. We are not the experts, we report on what the experts say. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Not much to add to what has already said, but anyway: (i) this is a textbook coup d'etat; describing it in any other way is a POV. (ii) this would be consistent with the usages in reliable sources such as newspapers. -- Taku (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support We should stick to neutrality and according to both the US and the UK governments, it is still not a coup. So for now it would be more relevant to call it "Overthrow of President", the current title is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV Gaberola (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

We should never follow governments' lead when describing current world events. They have all kinds of partisan, political, and diplomatic bias. Samuel Peoples (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. My humble opinions. If the military stands with the government, then probably it leads to a crackdown or massacre, e.g. Tiananmen Square Massacre. If the (a group of, or the whole) military stands for its own interest, and overthrows a government, then this is a coup d'etat. If the military stands with the people, then it could be called a revolution (I'm not claiming it is always a revolution), e.g. Romanian Revolution of 1989. Note that standing with the people does not necessarily mean that the military takes actions for the removal of a government. In many cases, the non-involvement of the military, the refusal to carry orders of crackdown, the signal of alliance with the people, are already a death blow to the ruling government. FootballStatWhore (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Support There isn't a lot that hasn't already been said, but when the ex- government calls an event a certain title, then that is their political opinion. When the opposition (which had more demonstrators than Morsi had in voters) disputes that this was a certain even, we cannot endorse or refute the term "coup d'etat". Endorsing the term is supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, while refuting the term is supporting the Tamarod movement. To maintain the political neutrality of this article, we need to removed this current title. UncappingCone64 (talk)

You should understand that Wikipedia articles are not for propaganda. Choosing the title has nothing to do with supporting one side or the other. The article are based on reliable sources WP:SOURCES. The article's title should be clear and accurate and based on such sources. Put aside any political or emotional consequences of calling the event a coup, they are absolutely irrelevant to this discussion. If most sources refer to the event as coup that is what we should use. "Coup" is the most widely used term to refer to the event in sources, way more than any other term, and it is accurate and clear. That is why the title should remain as it is and political side taking and how we feel about the event should play no role in determining the article's title. And for policy on neutrality see WP:POVNAMING. 128.100.3.40 (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose a coup is indeed a better wording than revolution as things stand - since we're talking of a military army ousting an elected government (as good as it might have been as a government, but this is not the issue here). A more neutral wording, in the form "2013 Egyptian political crisis" or something like that, would however make better sense. (As an aside, this whole discussion has been mentioned in a Corriere della Sera article [6]). --Angelo (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia articles are not for propaganda; that's my point. If we call it a coup d'etat, then we're using Muslim Brotherhood talking points and endorsing their stance on it. If we point- blank say that it is not a coup d'etat, we're endorsing the opposition viewpoint on this. I am supporting the move because it will remove the bias from the article. I am not in favor of saying it is or is not a coup; I simply want the neutrality of the article restored. UncappingCone64 (talk)

Repeating: political consequences of the title has no importance in this discussion. The title does not use "coup" because Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood use it, it doesn't matter what they call it or what they don't call it. The title uses "coup" because its is the most widely used term in reliable sources by a large margin and is accurate and clear. 128.100.3.40 (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Why not call it a "Revolution by the army"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.67.175 (talk) 08:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Pro and Con arguments

Collecting pro and con arguments made so far.

Arguments Supporting Not Using "Coup"

1. Wikipedia article for 2011 removal of Mobarak doesn't call it a coup. We should be consistent.

There are similarities. However, there are also significant differences. The one of the most important differences is that Mobarak was not elected in a free election (it is well known), the elections were anything but free and fair under Mobarak. Morsi was elected in reasonably free highly contested elections just a year ago. But aside from these, if one believes that the similarities are strong enough so both articles should have the same name then the right thing to do is to try to change the title of the page about 2011 removal of Mobarak since the removal of Morsi by military satisfies the definition of a coup.

2. The removal of Morsi has public support. It followed large protests by opposition.

Yes, there were large protests against Morsi. However, it doesn't mean Morsi did not have public support. Right now the Egyptian society is highly divided between leftist, secularist, liberals, and remnants of Mobrak regime (most importantly in military and judiciary) on one side and conservatives and Islamists (Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi groups) on the other side about Egypt's feature. The only accurate way of evaluating the amount of support for each side is elections (under reasonably free and fair elections), most importantly the last presidential elections which Morsi won. The election was close and it is well known that the opposition to Morsi's becoming president was significant. And, in any case, having large public support for the removal does not mean it was not a coup.

3. Many countries including US avoid referring to the events as coup.

This doesn't change the fact that this was a coup. Historically, many coups were supported by US government and in many cases US government didn't refer to them as coup. Calling the removal of Morsi a coup has major implications for US government, in particular, if US government officially calls it a coup, the US laws would require the US government stop over $1bn financial aid it provides to Egyptian military under the peace treaty with Israel and it is reasonable that US government would want to avoid any move that may endanger the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. It is telling that many Arab monarchies like Saudi Arabia who supported Mobarak and opposed the 2011 overthrowing of him are fiercely supporting removal of Morsi.

4. The title is controversial. So let's use a neutral one.

The fact that some people do not like the title is not a reason for using an inaccurate title. If the removal of Morsi satisfies the definition of coup, then it is fine to use coup in the article's title even if some people disagree. See the examples given in Wikipedia:POVNAMING.

Arguments Supporting Using "Coup"

1. The even satisfies the definition of a Coup d'état: military removed an elected government.

2. The military and security forces are putting major obstacles for organization of a popular anti-coup protests. There is a serve crackdown on famous politicians and media organizations who might oppose the coup. Several hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood members who had no role in government have been arrested and televisions close to Muslim Brotherhood are shut down. This shows that military and security forces want to control the flow of information, unlike a revolution which results in more freedom in flow of information and political organization.

3. The forces leading the events (i.e. military) were in power before the events. So this is part of the preremoval power structure in Egypt replacing an popularly elected part of government with its selected appointees. It should be noted that military and judiciary did not undergone major reshaping after removal of Mobarak so what the forces in control are those who were part of Mobarak's regime. In this sense this coup is a counter-revolutionary not revolutionary.

4. Most political analysts and experts refer to the event as a coup as do most published sources.

I admit the word coup does not describe all complexities of the issue. It is possible that this is the will of majority of Egyptians (though previous elections show that the opposition to Morsi although significant and vocal has not been able to win any elections since Mobarak's fall, Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi parties has been the main winners of all elections, including the referendum on the constitution). I think the reasonable solution which would satisfy NPOV requirements is to express all major perspectives regarding the events inside the article. After all people come to Wikipedia to read the articles not just check if the title of a Wikipedia is X or Y. We can have a clearly stated section in the article expressing the published views challenging the the word coup. I think that should be a reasonable solution for this dispute about the title and maintain NPOV requirements completely.

128.100.3.40 (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Media

Please don't add sources that are op-ed or just quoting some unknown John Doe.

List of Reputable Media Organizations Referring to the Event as Revolution

1. 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)

2. "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)

This source is quoting a John Doe. 128.100.3.40 (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

3. The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/03/mohamed-morsi-egypt-second-revolution

4. Deutsche Welle: http://www.dw.de/revolution-in-egypt-again/a-16928333

5. ABC News: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-03/egypt-retracing-the-road-to-revolution/4796230

6. CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-202_162-10017408.html

7. Sky News: http://news.sky.com/story/1111358/egyptians-celebrate-revolutionary-encore

8. Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/4/egypts-chief-justice-sworn-pushes-keep-revolution-/

9. International Business Times: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/486506/20130704/obama-elude-word-coup-describing-egypt-s.ht

10. Irish Times: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/africa/egypt-celebrates-return-to-path-of-revolution-1.1451873

11. 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".[7] The link you provided actually says "what they say is a second revolution,"[8] 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[9], 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",[10] and Deutsche Welle writes "World leaders voice concern, optimism over Egyptian coup"[11].

---

List of Reputable Media Organizations Referring to the Event as Coup

1. The Ottawa Citizen says "it was a definitely a coup d’etat. Troops surrounding an elected leader...cannot be called anything else."[12]

2. The Washington Post says "there is no ambiguity about what happened in Egypt on Wednesday: a military coup against a democratically elected government".[13]

Then there are 200,000 Google News hits[14] for "Egypt coup". Bless sins (talk) 19:26, 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)

Here are more sources that use the word coup:

3. CNN: [15], When a coup is not called a coup,

4. CBC News: [16],

5. The Economist: [17],

6. Reuters: [18],

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

8. Wall Street Journal: [21],

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

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

11. BBC News: [24],

12. Los Angeles Times: [25]

13. Irish Independent: [26]

14. Maclean's: [27],

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

16. Hurriyet Daily News: [29]

17. Straits Times: [30]

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

19. France 24: [32] Bless sins (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

20. Stratfor: [33]

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

22. Independent: [37] 128.100.3.67 (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

---

List of Reputable Media Organizations Referring to the Event Using Neither "Revolution" nor as "Coup"

1. BBC News: [38]

2. New York Times: [39]

3. Reuters: [40]

Political Scientists and Analysts

Please add links to articles only by well-known experts.

List of Experts Using Revolution

List of Experts Using Coup

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

1. Paul Sullivan, an expert in international relations at Georgetown University in Washington.[41]

2. Abdallah Schleifer, a journalism professor at The American University in Cairo.[42]

Bless sins (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

3. Richard Falk on AJE Jul. 5, 2013 [43]

4. Tamara Cofman Wittes on Brookings July 4, 2013 [44]

5. Aaron David Miller on Foreign Policy July 5, 2013 [45]

6. Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson July 5, 2013 [46]

7. Jackson Diehl on Washington Post [47]

8. Daniel Levy (political analyst) on AJE 05 Jul 2013 [48]

9. Fareed Zakaria on CNN July 7, 2013 [49] 128.100.3.40 (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Other Countries and International Organizations

List of Countries and International Organizations Calling the Event a Revolution

List of Countries and International Organizations Calling the Event a Coup

Further Discsussion

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)

Reply - The thing is Mubarak did resign albeit being forced to. Morsi on the other hand was deposed by the army and that is why I strongly oppose a move. (Tory Jim 1996) (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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.

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) .

It is a military intervention At least according to some sources: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/07/egypt-obama-morsi-elbaradei-coup/2496669/

So can we rename to 2013 Egyptian military intervention? Hcobb (talk) 19:25, 7 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."[50]

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)

Note as I mentioned above that the 1952 Egyptian Revolution even if not titled as a coup does clearly describe the military's actions there as a coup. BTW, while this is fairly OT I think you're conflating the terms democracy and [Liberal democracy]], while these things aren't always clear, under most definitions you don't really need to respect the rights of minorities as an abstract concept, to be a democracy, hence why we have ideas like tyranny of the majority. The only real rights that are an important part of a democracy are those that relate to people participating in governing and legislative process. It would generally be suggested they do have the right to equal representation and participation (meaning in proportion to their population) so you can't disenfranchise them either directly (by preventing them from voting or making it difficult) or indirectly (by making their vote count less or perhaps by using a system of representation where the majority ends up with significantly disproportionate representation although this happens to some extent in many liberal democracies and is often accepted if it doesn't seem to be excessively targeted). And it may also be suggested they have the right to equal access to the media and to make resonable comment or protest without fear, as well as access to a fair judiciary since these would often be considered a part of being democractic (otherwise people can't make a genuine informed decision, and if they are unfairly prevented from participating they have no good recourse). In other words, all the parts which go in to allowing free and fair elections may be an important component of being a democracy and that icludes various things which don't necessarily disadvantage minorities like ensuring those in charge of the elections are not corrupt. But otherwise, not respecting the rights of a minority doesn't necessarily make a country undemocractic, even if it may not be a liberal democracy so may not be a good democracy in the eyes of many. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Somebody deleted my comment with the reason that "notaforum as to who did right or wrong. This is for discussion on the article itself". You are right user:Lihaas, but you should have deleted many other comments too. I rewrite my comment: I learned from you, although still fairly complex to me. What I understand is that the majority cannot prevent minority from gaining to be declared as majority; as minority has always have a potential to be majority. It seems to me common sense. In other words, majority may in some cases doesn't respect the wishes of minority, but it cannot prevent them from getting majority, like in an election. There are newcomers here and there around us that want to play democracy, because it is fashion. It is just a fashion for them, their ideology, deep down, doesn't agree with that, they play with words. They say they are majority; and when in control, they prevent any other fair election barking "haven't you seen in the past elections, that we are the majority"! I think the Egyptians didn't go for it and they did the right thing, even if some like to call it a coup.-Raayen (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Even if this is the will of the people, even if it is a continuation of the revolution, it still seems to me that the specific event in question, the fact of the president being removed from office by the decree of a military commander, backed by armed force from that military, meets the definition of a coup d'état (or maybe it's closer to a Pronunciamiento, or does that only apply in Spain or Latin America? It's essentially the same thing, anyway). I realize that there is controversy and political implications surrounding the naming of it as a coup, but ultimately it is most important to have a title to have a title that most directly identifies what the article is about. And it is entirely possible for a revolution to have many parts, one of which could be a coup. So the distinction has been used politically, and has political implications, but that is purely because of the context, and not the inherent meaning of the term "coup d'etat" itself. Not that people involved should care. Also, for what it's worth, most media I've heard seems to be calling it a coup, and really it probably makes sense to call it what everyone else is calling it if wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic. anamedperson (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Though I was thinking and maybe I would support a change to something other than "revolution." "Revolution" is certainly at least as POV as "coup d'etat." Ultimately, I think we will just have to wait and see how things turn out, but at this point there really isn't any reason not to classify it as a coup, so I still Oppose. anamedperson (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pro-Morsy protests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reorganizing the article

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

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

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

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

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

Background on why the protests erupted

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

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

Republican Guard Casualties and losses

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

Egyptian Republican Guard clashes 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Casualties and losses

The total numbers are at least 140 Killed & 3500 injured, please update [51].--204.14.79.136 (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Tawadros and el-Tayeb in infobox

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

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

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

International reaction, Post-coup: Thailand

Suggest a Thailand response be added with reference to current Asian Correspondent Bangkok Pundit article comparing and contrasting the 2013 Egyptian "coup" with the 2006 Thai coup d'état, specifically as regards classifying either as a "good coup."

—Pawyilee (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

See also works for me, especially since it directs me to an article I didn't know existed.—Pawyilee (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)