Talk:List of Presidents of Egypt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Mohamed Hussein Tantawi[edit]

Is Mohamed Hussein Tantawi the president, or just the de facto head of state? The Wikipedia bio does not call him president.   Will Beback  talk  01:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I've amended it to say "acting president".   Will Beback  talk  01:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Again: according to whom is Mohamed Hussein Tantawi the President of Egypt? Has he sworn an oath of office and been formally inaugurated? Is he called "president"? Anything like that? This is not a list of heads of state or rulers. It is a list of "presidents".   Will Beback  talk  22:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You've prolly got a point here. He's "de facto", at best. See: {{Presidents of Egypt}}, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I've just checked:
and it's currently saying:
  • This site is under development and reconstruction
It is all in flux, a current event. Jack Merridew 01:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
OK. On that basis, and seeing no explanation for its deletion, I'll restore "acting president" to the notes column. In the long run, we might change to lead to say this is a list of presidents and other heads of state since the end of the monarchy.   Will Beback  talk  02:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


The format of the table is one thing, but false information is another:

  • The table states that Nasser was President of the UAR to 1962 (no date) and immediately again from 1962 (no date) till his death. Obviously this is motivated by him changing his ruling party. But that is of no concern to the list of presidents
  • The same game is played with Sadat in 1978 (this time with detailed dates)

The section "affiliation" is a badly out shape, hardly legible mess, which also lists half a dozen parties that are not relevant to this list of Presidents at all, a) because no incumbent ever belonged to them, b) because many of them actually existed only prior to 1953.

And who's supposed to read strings like "Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi" - this can be worded better.

Deposuit (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


I used the formatting used by the List of presidents of the United States of America for the list here with a list of terms, vice-presidents and elimination of the oblivious affiliations. Can we agree on a format instead of repeated reverts? Essam Sharaf 17:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Essam Sharaf (talkcontribs)

First of all, tags should only be removed until a dispute is settled, Sundostund.
As pointed out above, Essam, my main points are:
1. That change in party filiation (always simply a redubbing of the government party) should not be considered grounds for a separate item on this list. Hence both Nasser and Sadat get three items (Nasser: Chairman, President of Egypt, President of UAR; Sadat: Acting President, President of UAR, President of Egypt)
2. The removal of the mess called "Affiliations" section. Of the parties mentioned in the table, only two do not have articles of their own that can be linked to, with the National Union being more or less identical with its successor, the ASU.
3. The width of the columns should conform to the information included. The "tenure" should be wide enough to include all dates in one line or always place the second date in a second line. "To" should be replaced by " - ".
4. The note about how "Abu Taleb was the acting president for eight days, following the assassination of the previous president, Anwar El Sadat, in 1981.[1]" seems point less. But if it is needed, it should be turned into a proper < ref >. Currently is not linked with the text at all.
A secondary point is the current sequence, placing a set of dates before the name of the incumbent, which seems illogical and disrespectful to the person.
Deposuit (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Having seen your edits, Essam, I mostly agree with them.
I might disagree with the listing of all the terms but your inclusion of Vice Presidents makes sense of that too. Except you do not list Nasser's Vice-Presidents and split Mubarak's terms despite the long vacancy in the VP.
The only real error in your list is the party affiliation of Nasser and the ommission of the military status of the first and the current ruler. Deposuit (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no real reason to change format of this list. This is most common format for list of African leaders. Every important information can be added to this format. Also, List of Egyptian presidents has this format for a very long time (since it's creation), and it can't be changed just because two users want that. --Sundostund (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a close copy of the "featured" list of presidents of the United States. Essam Sharaf (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
What about assigning different background colors to represent the change in the type of government from the republic to UAR then to Arab republic? Essam Sharaf (talk) 12:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Essam, I don't think that's feasible given that all Presidents thus far (with the exception of the first) have been of the same mould. Despite all changes, LR is basically NU is basically ASU is basically HDW. Deposuit (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I really see no reason to copy format of list of presidents of the United States. As I said, current format is most common for African leaders. As for different colors for different states, I think there's no need for that. There's many lists of leaders where names of states changed several times, and no different colors were added to reflect these changes. It's enough to mark with letters and dates when a state was founded and when ceased to exist. --Sundostund (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Format is governed by consensus and consensus may change. Sundostund, here are two idependent editors who happen to prefer another format and all you - and YOU ALONE - have done thus far on this (and other pages) is say "why not!" and revert. Now you finally show up on talk but it is a bit too little after all your reverting.
I have given you several reasons why the format of your version is faulty: it thinks Presidents need to be mentioned twice just because their preferred party changes its name. See my posting above.
What the "preferred format for African leaders is" is of little concern. Where does it say that all African leaders need the same format. Why not "all Mid-East leaders"?
Either you begin to engage in dialogue or there will be some reporting!!!
Deposuit (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Deposuit, we can engage in edit war and both of us can ended up blocked. If you want it, OK. As I can see, you are the only user who is ready to go to edit war because these issues. Now, about the issues: If you look lists of African leaders, you'll see it's common to have Presidents and Prime Ministers mentioned twice because their preferred party changes its name. It's normal for this type of list. I suppose you are not informed very well, so you don't know that. Next, this format is here for a very long time (since this list is created), and it can't be changed just because two users want that. --Sundostund (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Wrong, there is at least one other editor edit-warring here and he has done little in arguments.
Other things exist on WP and just because other articles do it wrongly, doesn't mean we have to do it here. It is NOT NORMAL for this type of list.
And no, it is not just about the format. You are editing in inanities. Deposuit (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Again, it is normal for this type of list. It's not other articles do it wrongly, it's just part of this type of lists. Look around WP, and you'll see that for yourself. And there's only one editor edit-warring here and that's you. --Sundostund (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The active edit war here needs to stop and folks need to talk moar, here. Jack Merridew 18:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Bonk. I must say, I don't much like either version in the recent history. Users should mellow, and talk this out. Jack Merridew 19:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
May I just point out another factual error in Sundostund's version. 18 June 1953 is the first date listed although we finished our first revolution on 23 July 1952. Anyway, how about this as middle ground? It may contain minute factual errors to be agreed upon once we agree on a format. User:Essam Sharaf/Egypt Essam Sharaf (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure, you may; I was only commenting on the formatting (and the edit warring). The article remains unprotected and I've no dog in this. I did go fuss with the US presidents article, and fixed some nits, there. See also: meta:Wrong Version ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Essam Sharaf, I'm really surprised that you, as an Egyptian, don't know the historical fact that Republic of Egypt was proclaimed on 18 June 1953. On that day, Kingdom was abolished and General Naguib become the first President of Egypt. That's the reason why 18 June 1953 is the first date on this list. Egyptian Revolution of 1952 started on 23 July 1952, but Kingdom of Egypt lasted until 18 June 1953. If you need some more clarifications, I'll be happy to answer you. As of your "middle ground", I really don't like it. I see no need to model this list after list of US Presidents. Present format of this list should be preserved, and we can talk about everything else. --Sundostund (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Sundostund, I've looked, again, and while I don't like either (I'd like to see sortable, for example), I believe the other version was a step in the right direction, so no, we can talk about the format, too; that's what this section is about. Jack Merridew 21:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Jack, believe me, my version is the best thing for this list! After all, it's here since this list's creation. If you want to place sortable here, it's fine with me. --Sundostund (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Having edited it, I know that it can be improved. Kindly don't get back into your edit-warring habit; I'm the one that got you blocked for it, last time. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Whatever. Block or not, my mind won't change. By the you didn't blocked me, it was User:NuclearWarfare. You can check my block log to see that. If you want to improve, OK, but why removing yellow colors? Just place sortable if you want. --Sundostund (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Again, stop with removing of yellow background. --Sundostund (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
The MOS says to not use gratuitous colours: WP:Deviations. Jack Merridew 12:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Give me a break! Colors like that exist on almost all lists of African leaders. --Sundostund (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Look Sundostund, I admire Wikipedia too much to enter in a war over formatting tables & I have more important things to do. Keep your format but please I'd like to add some comments about it:

  1. Vice-Presidents should be on this list.
  2. The terms should be mentioned with links to the referendum & elections.
  3. The affiliations part is dubious. As stated before by Deposuit, most of these parties didn't even have any political office and deserves no mention in this list. (Again, if you check the featured list for the US you'll notice just 5 parties in the top of the table although the US have more than 30 political parties. It should be deleted or majorly modified.
  4. In the affiliations, the al-Hizb al-Watani al-Democrati is abbr. HDW, any reason for that? I think is should be HWD if everyone decides to keep the affiliations.

and you are right about the declaration of the republic. Naguib ruled as the chair of the Free officers till they renounced the monarchy in 1953. Thank You & Good Luck. Essam Sharaf (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Essam Sharaf, I'm glad to see that you decided not to enter a edit war over this, and that I can keep my format, as you said. I'm also very glad because I had opportunity to taught you something about your country's history. It's really sad that someone who live in Egypt don't even know when Republic of Egypt was declared, so I'm happy because I helped you with that. If you have some more questions about your country, I'll be glad to help you. As for your objections, I really think it's unappropriate to have discussion about this list with someone who, until recently, didn't even knew when Republic of Egypt was declared. Thank You & Good Luck. --Sundostund (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Stick around, Essam., you've some good points. Sundostund, you don't WP:OWN this. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Essam, I think you can go from here. Jack, you also don't own it to change it as you please. --Sundostund (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Why are you making a personal attack there !! It is pretty hard to keep track of history of a country spanning 7000 years especially if I'm not a political or a history student. And my comments regarding the format doesn't require exact prior knowledge. Another editor (Mewulwe) edited the affiliations to a reasonable version. I don't think you now have the right to revert it again, a consensus is made. and Jack, may I suggest that we hold a vote on every aspect of the format? Is this appropriate according to Wikipedia regulations? Essam Sharaf (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Also having review most of the list of African Leaders, you are right. Most of them is like this format. AND THEY SUCK!. Look at the Somewhat developed countries in Africa. South Africa & Nigeria (Personally I adore the Nigerian ones. I suggest we reformat the list here to match that one). Then look at ones like Gabon, Gambia, Chad, Eritrea, Mali & Mauritania. Even your own Yugoslavia and most of the European & American & Asian nations use other formats. I really think that ALL of List-Of for AFRICAN LEADERS should be changed into a more appropriate format. Essam Sharaf (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Essam, I didn't look at them all, yet; Nigeria's not even a proper class="wikitable", so I don't want to go with that. This is not a 'vote', it's a discussion about what's right for the project. The scope here isn't really this article, or all African (or Middle Eastern) leaders, it's Wikipedia. I'm pretty good with tables, and other wiki-things, so I'll lend a hand with all of these concerns. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jack. The piss yellow background color is ugly and non-standard. The MOS clearly instructs us not to do such things. The fact that they're on other articles doesn't make it right, it's simply WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The fact that it's been like this for a long time also doesn't make it right, consensus can change. I think it should be changed back to standard colors and font sizes. SnottyWong comment 17:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried cleaning it up. Have a go at it; I'm not going to touch it while Sundostund is blocked. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I've edited the article to comply with WP:MOS as best I can. I've left comments in my edit summaries, but I'll summarise the significant issues here:
  • WP:OVERLINK: There was excess linking, sometimes as much as six links to same article in three lines. The table is not sortable (unfortunately) so there is no justification for multiple links.
  • MOS:BOLD: Text was bolded all over the article for no reason that fits with MOS.
  • MOS:ITALIC: Ditto for italics.
  • MOS:ACCESS: Tables need to have a least some sort of structure if we are going to make it easy for blind readers to make use of them, and text needs to be a reasonable size if the visually-disabled are to be able to read it without difficulty.
  • WP:Deviations: There was a large amount of unnecessary markup employed for purely presentational effects. We have a 'wikitable' class for good reasons: to give the encyclopedia a consistent 'feel', and to allow simple reformatting for other user agents and skins. Articles with this sort of 'presentational enforcement' present both usability and accessibility issues as soon as the reader moves away from traditional browsers. It would be hugely helpful if editors spent even half the time improving accessibility that they spend making the page look 'pretty'.
Please feel free to disagree with me on any of these issues (or any I've forgotten), but it would be courteous to at least discuss any disagreements before another edit war gets launched. Cheers. --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I am quite busy right now so I will have to keep this short:

  • Good that the colour is gone. The affiliations section, pointless as it is and unprecedented as it is, has also improved. All the irrelevant parties are gone. However, the language employed still leaves something to be desired and still still quite POV, especially regarding the HDW. "authoritarian" is no way to describe a party why is it only "nominally socialdemocratic"? Where is the National Union and was LR the only legal party after 1957? I don't think so!
  • Regarding the table, I still think that
    • the incumebent (or his picture) should always come first, before the dates and the office.
    • changes in party affiliation - thus far only cosmetic - should not be reflected in the tenure column. Sadat didn't step down when he turned the ASU into the HDW but stayed in office without interruption.
    • the notes section should be trimmed down
    • I agree with the gist of what RexxS has said.

Deposuit (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't help with the POV of the language employed as I have no background in the topic. I can, however, re-structure the table to place the key field (the name) in the first column and mark it up as a row header; I can also remove the spanning by introducing another field, or by making use of the notes column to deliver the information. You would then have a sortable table that also better complies with MOS:ACCESS at the cost of a wider table. The table could be narrowed again by reversing my move of the long notes into the notes column, and incorporating them into the table in the "Affiliations" section, thus converting that into a legend for the table. Similar considerations could apply to combining the apparently multiple tenures of the same persons into a single row with an explanation in notes. That would depend on whether one considered the tenure of the person as the most important way to organise the data, or the name of the country at the time as the primary organisational sub-unit (as at present). I understand that there is no consensus yet for a large restructuring, and given the article history, I'm loathe to invest time in boldly making such changes, if I'm going to be immediately reverted without discussion. For what it's worth, I think that most of the changes I describe would improve the article (especially the sortability and conversion of 'Affiliations'), but I'd like other opinions before I make any further radical changes. I hope you understand. --RexxS (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I can support that. You've taken the structure in the appropriate direction, and have good ideas for going forward. If either table gets too cluttered, that would be a sign that stuff should be broken-out to plain prose, which is generally preferable to tabled-text, anyway. I'm most surprised to see Sundostund back making contentious edits without discussion, here. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 17:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I support changes suggested by RexxS Essam Sharaf (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Acting president[edit]

Why does "Acting president" keep getting deleted? Mohamed Hussein Tantawi is not president. He is only on this list be cause he is acting as president, the de facto head of state. His military title is not why he's on this list. "Acting president" is used for other unofficial heads of state.   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Will, Field Marshal Tantawi is the Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, and that's his proper title. He's not an civilian acting President, like Sufi Abu Taleb was. That's it. --Sundostund (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
He's not president. And stop reverting or you'll be out of here. Jack Merridew 11:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Jack, I'm saying the same thing as you: Tantawi ISN'T PRESIDENT, BUT CHAIRMAN OF SCAF. You are the one who puts the line "acting President" at his name. I really don't understand you. And, please, don't make threats. --Sundostund (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Yet you've reverted both Will and I on clarifying that? See #Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, above, for more talk on this. Jack Merridew 20:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
It's undoubtedly true that Tantawi is the Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces but that's not why he's on this list. He held that position last month too, and he might also be chair of the Egyptian Bridge Association. He's on this list because he's acting as president/head of state. He is not a sworn president, which is why it's important to say "Acting president". I'll restore it again, but leave the Supreme Council too for additional identification.   Will Beback  talk  22:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Will, I am not aware that there was a Supreme Council of the Armed Forces last month. Tantawi is neither President nor Acting President, he is acting head of state (apparently not of government, since the former PM still seems to be in office) in the capacity of chairing the Supreme Council. He's in this list because he's head of state. He is not president. Deposuit (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed this without noticing this discussion. A "list of Presidents" cannot include somebody who is not President. Tantawi is not acting, effective, or actual President. His role is wholly outside of the constitution of Egypt, which has been suspended, and which defines the role of President. He is not "acting" as head of state, he is the head of the council that is acting as the executive authority in the country. If you would like to change this to a list of heads of state that is one thing, but it is a list of presidents and Tantawi is not one. nableezy - 21:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
This has been repeatedly re-added. Tantawi is not President of Egypt, or acting President of Egypt. The office of president is defined by the constitution. The constitution has been suspended and the office vacated. There is no President of Egypt, acting or otherwise. Tantawi is effective head of state. Not president, and no those things are not synonyms. nableezy - 12:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
This has been restored again without any comment here. I am removing it again. Tantawi is not President, acting or otherwise. nableezy - 15:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Then, I have included Tantawi as the last item in the List of rulers of Egypt. Againme (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I dont have that big of a problem with that, but Im not sure it is accurate. Tantawi is the head of the council that rules Egypt. I dont know that he can be called the ruler of Egypt. The SCAF has not exactly been transparent in how it makes whatever decisions it has made, so it is unclear just how much power Tantawi has compared to the other members of the council. nableezy - 00:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Restored again, without comment. As Tantawi is no more President, acting or otherwise, of Egypt than I am, I am, again, removing that entry. nableezy - 13:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

And again. Sundostand, can you please discuss the issue here? nableezy - 19:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This keeps getting added without even an attempt at explaining it. Sundostand, why are you adding somebody who is not president to a list of presidents? nableezy - 16:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

And again, Tantawi is not the president of Egypt. He is head of the ruling military council. The office of President is vacant. nableezy - 20:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
And again. Sundostand, I do not know why you think you can ignore this page and keep reverting, but Tantawi is not the president of Egypt and as such does not belong on this list. nableezy - 16:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Mohamed Morsi[edit]

The Election Redults haven't been announced yet, so he ise't a president-elect, I'll take him out of the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


The liberation Rally, National Union, and the Arab Socialist Union are diferent parties, so they sould have diferent colors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Mohamed Hussein Tantawi...President?[edit]

Mohamed Hussein Tantawi is listed as "Acting President of Egypt" in his infobox. Shouldn't he be in the infobox here as well, but specifically listed as acting president? Trinitresque (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


Like any other Wikipedia editor, I think that tables are great, and they've got many uses. But although having one table for multiple sections such as in this article is an interesting idea, in the end it's a bad one because it just goes too far. There's just no need to have one massive table when the article looks just as good when you set up three tables in three sections. In fact, I think it makes it easier to read and reduces wasted time as readers try to understand why in the world there are multiple sections in one table, something that I've personally never seen before on Wikipedia. Trinitresque (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Trinitresque, I share your opinion that tables are great, I like them a lot myself. But, I strongly prefer to have one table for multiple sections such as in this article so far. Its better that to have multiple sections broken in several pieces. I don't think it goes too far, nor it makes hard to readers to understand this table. I think its not good to have three tables in three sections, if we can group them in one, massive table. In my opinion, its much better esthetically to have them together. --Sundostund (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Alright, first of all, if you're going to arbitrarily reverse my edit, then at least make sure that you're not also reversing other unrelated edits. You've reversed my tables edit twice, and each time you've also reversed my URL modification, small tags cleanup, and my removal of Morsi from the rank by time in office list, because he isn't yet president. Second of all, you haven't actually given a reason for why it's better, except that it's better aesthetically. But that isn't a very good reason by itself. Now, the following list is my argument for why the tables should be split.
  • It's not actually better aesthetically. It's just different. And different is not by itself a good thing.
  • It doesn't provide any benefit. You're claiming that it's aesthetically pleasing, but does it provide any functional benefit? Certainly none that I can think of.
  • Keeping the tables together creates a structural problem in the article. By having one large table, we have to put the table under a section titled "List of Presidents of Egypt (1953–present)". But that's already the name of the article itself, which overall also only covers presidents from 1953 to present. This creates a huge redundancy, but we can't fix it because if we remove the section title, the table of contents gets moved into the presidents table. With multiple tables, we'd have a more normal and straightforward table of contents.
  • It makes the list more dificult to navigate because the massive table structure makes the article less clear and coherent, and because readers just don't expect multiple sections in one table. There's a reason that the lists promoted to Featured List status never, as far as I can tell, do this. If you look at featured lists like Jennifer Lopez filmography, List of extant papal tombs, Goldfrapp discography, or hundreds of other lists, you see that they could easily combine some or all of their sections that contain only tables into one. But they don't. Because it would have no positive benefit, and it would have the negative benefit of making the article as a whole less clear and coherent.
  • Separate tables just make more sense. Since becoming a republic, Egypt has existed under three entities, and we have three sections here for those three entities. But if there have been three separate entities, why shouldn't we have three separate tables as well? Trinitresque (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Vice President[edit]

Can some one add a vice president section in the table for me? ( (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC))

Independent ?[edit]

I can find nothing on him being independent just that he steped down as chairmen should that be changed — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sufi Abu Taleb[edit]

Why is Sufi Abu Taleb not the 4th president but acting? source? (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Zakaria Mohieddin[edit]

According to Arabic Wikipedia Zakaria Mohieddin was the acting president of Egypt from 9-11 June 1967 after Gamal Abdel Nasser's resignation after the 1967 war. Nasser then renege after popular demonstrations calling for him to remain in office.
This from Nasser era page: Egypt's defeat in the 1967 War compelled Nasser to resign on 9 June, naming Vice-President Zakaria Mohieddin as his successor. However, he relented following massive popular demonstrations of support
So Zakaria should be added as acting president from 9-11 June 1967. 3bdulelah (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)