Talk:2013 Egyptian coup d'état

Are we silently pretending this entire article isn't a huge POV-piece?

 * 'In a poll published by PEW research center in May 2013, 54% of Egyptians approved of Morsi against a 43% who saw him negatively, while about 30% were happy with the direction of the country, 73% thought positively of the army and only 35% were content about local policy authorities. In the lead up to the protests, a Gallup poll indicated that about a third of Egyptians said they were "suffering" and viewed their lives poorly.

When I read this article, I thought to myself "somebody pinch me" but if this is a dream, I don't wanna wake up because my real life has actual responsibilities & stuff. I'd much rather spend time in vain attempts at trying to make this piece of the internet more accurate and less pov. I care much more about debating stuff with numbers (such as acid values of organic molecules) but as a sincere Wikipedian (and former super-duper-wikipedian who has since WP:Vanished) I cannot just revert to apathy and look the other way when there is blatant disregard for the years of investment I have put into the project, only to have it disregarded at certain niches where various power-dealers are in charge of how things are run in their nice, cozy corner.

Luckily, Wikipedia isn't supposed to work that way and I look forward to announce my intent to change this article into a neutral one. If anyone would like to chime in and start a discussion, please let that process formally begin so that a consensus may be organically formed and that the changes made to the article can be reflective of that discussion herein below. Adwctamia (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

You're right. This article is in serious need of improvements. Here's my draft version, which is much better. Here: User:Zakawer/2013 Egyptian political crisis Zakawer (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I would strongly oppose any mass changes to an entirely different draft; individual discussions, such as those below, are a much better way to ensure wide community agreement. In addition to the below discussion, notices on related projects such as WikiAfrica ought to be posted in order to solicit wider feedback.
 * I would also caution against strong language. While the article in its current form might have some flaws (I haven't looked at the issue closely), the current version is the product of numerous RfCs spanning a few years. While it's entirely possible that some of those had been error, to claim that the article is a "huge POV-piece" requires us to believe that a massive failure of Wikipedia's policies and dispute resolution processes massively failed at all levels on a very significant article for three years. A fantastic claim such as that requires fantastic evidence, though it would be more moderate (and much easier for the claimant) to leave aside said claims and focus on improvement. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright dude. I've come up with a new section for

Citation does not match the text
The leaked audio tapes are marked as unverified in the citation, that makes it unverified. no reason to run with it as a fact.

uncorroborated biased statements
in "3 July: Day of Action" An uncorroborated statement, on a talk show of a former government official that was removed surely requires additional validation

the organisation is literally unknown
"Egyptian Centre for Media Studies and Public Opinion" The article from an islamist newblog links to an organisation that doesn't exist, I cant accept that is appropriate level of balanced reporting

Also, why the absolute hell does the third paragraph of the introduction mention massacre of Morsi supporters when there were 10x as many massacres by said supporters and the supported man himself? This places a clear bias on the article by placing this event in the introduction for any reader of this page. The protests in the lead-up to this coup were some of the most peaceful in world history, with record-breaking numbers of protesters, and yet the introduction doesn't mention this at all, and instead mentions this one event which, though tragic, changes the meaning of the article entirely by giving this event such attention. 129.96.87.216 (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

"NOOOO YOU CAN'T MENTION THE SINGLE WORST MASSACRE OF PEACEFUL PROTESTERS IN RECENT HISTORY THAT'S BIAS NOOOOOOO" 212.237.121.90 (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Israel in the infobox
Quoting Manual of Style/Infoboxes: ''When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. Avoid links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function.''

Not to mention that the source given is an opinion piece.

Israel does not belong in the infobox. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Reading the opinion piece, it contains some pretty unlikely comments — for instance a reference to Israeli aircraft and soldiers participating in the August 2013 Rabaa massacre. That sounds like a total conspiracy theory. Trying to follow up on the Haaretz reference, I can't actually find a Haaretz article of any kind stating that Israel promised Sisi US aid would continue if he launched the coup... nor can I find a Haaretz article stating that the Israeli foreign ministry lobbied western governments in favor of the coup. -Darouet (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Both of you are arguing about it not being fully confirmed. There was never a direct "support" mention in the infobox. It only stated alleged support, which is what the article is talking about. Placing a single belligerent as supportive does not bloat the infobox as well. And there are no other countries with alleged support provided to the either side during the coup except for Israel, it needs a mention. Jim7049 (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This sort of thing does not belong in the infobox (or, in this case, in the article at all). Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Several countries are mentioned in a similar fashion under 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt for their alleged support. This is no different than it. Jim7049 (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Violations of the infobox guidelines elsewhere is no justification for violating them here. Besides, the nature of the source is dubious at the very best. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * So you are saying you don't care basically, even as it is present in another article you still insist that what you wish to revert is a correction of a violation and also accuse another article of violating as well but take no action to correct it. Calling a source dubious is interesting as well, do you have a source which calls the source dubious? Otherwise it's original research. Jim7049 (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Read my opening quote, and read what wrote. This sort of thing does not belong on Wikipedia, let alone in the infobox. Take your conspiracy theories elsewhere. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source which calls it conspiracy theory? Your personal judgement of a source does not allow you to remove it. Jim7049 (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Regardless of anyone's opinion, this sort of thing does not belong here, ref. the policy I quoted. Besides, you have previously stated that Israel is involved in every war in the Middle East, so I guess it would be a waste of time explaining what a conspiracy theory is. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

You have no right to remove the tags while there is an ongoing discussion (See Help:Maintenance_template_removal, point 3). Not to mention I have explained why it is not a good source multiple times. Please revert. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I see no valid reason for the placement of the tags other than your original research that the source is unreliable. If you present a source which call the source unreliable I'll put the unreliable tags. Jim7049 (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't care if you see no valid reason. You broke the rules by unilaterally removing the tags, please self-revert. (Also, please read Fringe theories.) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * So you don't care about making original research edits and now you call it fringe theory, again original research. Why should I revert and add unsourced unreliable tags by your own original research? Jim7049 (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not in your place to remove the tags, please self-revert. I have explained multiple times why this sort of thing does not belong in the infobox, including by referring to policy. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I think I've been clear, if you are calling a source unreliable you need a source for it. You can't call a source unreliable without a source that's original research. Jim7049 (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

the Egyptian military remained an extraordinarily powerful institution under Morsi's presidency, and no doubt was in communication with all sorts of governments prior to taking power, as would be expected. I have no doubt that there were countries who clandestinely supported the coup. However, to place such an allegation in the article requires strong evidence and strong sources. Jim, the source you provided is trash, I am sorry to be so blunt. If you can find strong sources that discuss the variety of external support for the coup we can consider those. -Darouet (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You can't call a source trash because you don't like it. If you wish to place unreliable tags you need a source which claims the source is unreliable, otherwise it's original research. Jim7049 (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You don't need a source to prove that an opinion piece is not a reliable source. Please self-revert your removal of the maintenance templates. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (Since Jim is blocked and cannot self-revert: Given the rules I quoted and the input by and, am I free to implement the consensus, or would that constitute edit warring?) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * it's just the two of us so I don't know if you have "consensus," but you're wholly right in removing the bad source and poorly sourced claim. -Darouet (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - I started a discussion about Middle East Monitor on RS/N (Reliable_sources/Noticeboard). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 12 June 2020

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

2013 Egyptian coup d'état → Overthrow of Mohamed Morsi – See Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom and Overthrow of Slobodan Milošević. This proposed title is less biased and describes the main event of the incident (Mohamed Morsi was removed from office). Additionally, it would be preferable to fully merge this article with June 2013 Egyptian protests, as both articles concern topics that are extremely closely connected (you can't talk about the anti-Morsi uprising of June 2013 without talking about the overthrow of Morsi or vice versa). Zakawer (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 23:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * What is biased about the current title? Srnec (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Read this, and I guess you'll know why it's contentious. That said, while it can be useful to mention that the incident is often described as a "coup d'état" by non-Arab media outlets (and MB sympathizers like Qatar and Turkey), I don't think it should be called one in Wikipedia's voice. Merely describing it as the "overthrow of Mohamed Morsi" is accurate, the term "overthrow" has been used in both Arab and non-Arab media, and it works per WP:NDESC. Zakawer (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. As a bit of context, for those who've looked at Zakawer's drafts, their position is that the protests and the overthrow are one and the same thing, that they grew out of each other, which is why they say that the articles should be merged.  The current topic split is more defined - there were protests (event 1, June 2013 Egyptian protests), and then these protests were used as an excuse for a military coup (event 2, 2013 Egyptian coup d'état).  While I'm not wholly against moving this article, I am opposed to Zakawer's proposed merge, a change of focus, or his proposed changes to add more apologia for the coup.  In other words, even if moved, this article should continue to describe the military coup side of things.  (Note that many of the factions protesting Morsi got absolutely nothing from Sisi's new government but a crackdown and renewed oppression, hence the shakiness of declaring these events were really two facets of the same thing.)  SnowFire (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Per every academic assessment and coup database, it was a coup d'etat. This is not a study in a peer-reviewed journal. The author of the PDF cites Tony Robbins at the start (just to demonstrate how absurd the PDF is). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This has been debated ad infinitum in the past, and nothing has changed. Per Snooganssnoogans, the sources still regard this as a coup, nothing has changed. I think I maybe opposed the term "coup" for this myself back in 2013, but it's clear that it has now stood the test of time. Assuming this RM doesn't go through, I would also politely suggest that the nominator WP:DROPTHESTICK on this one. Looking at the talk-page archives, it seems they aren't willing to accept that consensus has been against them on this issue. Time would be better spent on other things than constantly rehashing the same argument. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Why is Alazhar and many other bodies not mentioned as supporting El Sisi under the "Parties to the civil conflict?" It should be added. Arthur B (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox
The military was involved and more than 1000 deaths happened. The infobox should be changed to a military conflict one. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)