This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
June 2013 Egyptian protests article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about June 2013 Egyptian protests. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about June 2013 Egyptian protests at the Reference desk. |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of 2013 Egyptian coup d'état was copied or moved into June 2013 Egyptian protests with this edit on 02:59, 21 February 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 17 February 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've removed from the very beginning of the page the following URL: http://carnegieendowment.org/sada/?fa=62627, because it was randomly placed. Feel free to place it somewhere, if relevant, or simply drop it. Zacchiro ( talk) 09:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I recall from similar discussions that the convention at wiki is to place the date first, as in "2013 Egyptian revolution". Tkuvho ( talk) 21:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Some sentences in the background section are incomplete; they currently read " . and rejection from Muslim Brotherhood supporters who founded another counter-campaign called Tajarod." and "The Strong Egypt Party, Ahmed Shafik." I looked at some of the older revisions, but I couldn't find the exact sentences. All of the info needs to be added for those sentences. David O. Johnson ( talk) 22:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I used info from one ref; and found two other sources to complete the sentences with. David O. Johnson ( talk) 23:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
The article gives a lot of misleading and wrong information, i propose the deletion Hans Franssen ( talk) 01:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The result of the merge request was: no merge. GreyShark ( dibra) 18:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)( non-admin closure)
I think the pages 2012–13 Egyptian protests and 2013 Egyptian coup d'état should be merged into here, all three pages are basically about the same thing anyway. Charles Essie ( talk) 19:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The article is unneutral and using unneutral naming,all medias agree that this wasn't a revolution ,but demonstrations by the opposition ,with numbers of 33 million as fake,and alots of votes have been conducted on the Egyptian 2013 coup d'état that wanted to named it a revolution but the majority disagreed and said that June 30 is demonstrations and that July 3 is a coup,which means this article breachs an agreed consensus and also violates neutrality and also goes against what most analyst and neutral news sources call it,but we will vote on this issue,with rename and neutralizing it or keep it.
Rename and Neutralizing it Alhanuty ( talk) 18:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC).
Weird, i thought you had a 4th option which is "vandalizing" by completely removing the article under an IP address and without consensus. Please correct me if i'm wrong here, but aren't these contributions yours or am i mistaken? Again, and for the third time, please check the discussion that was suggested for you before calling this article "unneutral" all the time. Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 00:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Check the tens of proposal to name the Egyptian coup as a "revolution" all of them have been rejected,and the writer of the article has written it without agreement of other editors',he should have propose this on the Egyptian coup d'état page before doing this unilateral move. Alhanuty ( talk) 02:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Alots of of source call it demonstrations ,also the demost rations occurred on one day June 30, the people who biased towards the events call it a revolution,the people against it a conspiracy,but neutral sources call it demonstrations by the opposition,so it would better to go with the neutral sources calling it the June 30 demostration,even other Wikipedia pages call it June 30 demonstrations. Alhanuty ( talk) 18:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC) And as i see two editors only call it a revolution,both from Egypt fitzcarmalam and amrtarek , while other editors call it demonstrations, and this article was made after 6 months of the events,so I will open it on the coup page,and let's see. Alhanuty ( talk) 18:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Technically the name coup d'état is also POV, maybe a we should consider a third option. Charles Essie ( talk) 01:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
let me put some notes here: 1- Alhanuty ( talk) said "the people who biased towards the events", i did not see that he said "everyone here is biased towards the events". 2- Another thing, it is true that persons who maintain, write and heavily defend in the article of "Egyptian_Revolution_of_2013" are from Egypt (you can check the edit history). 3- neutral sources are highly required to show the fairness of this article , 4- "Egyptian_Revolution_of_2013" article was made after 6 months of the events. Hence, the claim of "biasing" is there!!! the article credibility (as a whole) is under doubt Hans Franssen ( talk) 10:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Alots of of source call it demonstrations ,also the demost rations occurred on one day June 30, the people who biased towards the events call it a revolution,the people against it a conspiracy,but neutral sources call it demonstrations by the opposition,so it would better to go with the neutral sources calling it the June 30 demostration,even other Wikipedia pages call it June 30 demonstrations. And as i see two editors only call it a revolution,both from Egypt fitzcarmalam and amrtarek , while other editors call it demonstrations, and this article was made after 6 months of the events,so I will open it on the coup page,and let's see.← This was Alhanuty's last entry in this discussion.
Firstly the mass demonstrations where reported on the night of June 30,and lasted for 12 hours,the coup technically began on July 1 after Sisi's announcement threatening to impose a road map on both sides if the crisis isn't resolved,and the coup has occured on July 3,and we have never heard of a revolution that was 12 hours long,so best thing is calling the June 30 demonstrations.← This was Alhanuty's last entry on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Egypt
Rename and Neutralizing it or Delete as per Alhanuty ( talk). -- Hans Franssen ( talk) 17:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
This provisional title is most neutral, waiting to find a consensus. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 20:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
No, it's more than demonstrations. Wide people and mass media see it's a revolution, we can't ignore. I see no consensus about rename. Only you and some users cannot rename the article only because they want so. In the previous section, more than one proof has been given to prove that the current title is already used widely outside Wikipedia. I think that's enough to keep it here.-- Man of justice ( talk) 15:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
let us be practical, and make it clear through simple and understandable points here,
Who made this article?? it is not a revolution it is a coup and this article if not suspended and deleted will endanger our encyclopedia of being a trustful source. I ask the administrators to delete this article-- أحمد عصام الدين ( talk) 11:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
It will be better to delete this page or merge it with the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état User:qjahid ( talk), 18 February 2014 (UTC)
better to delete the Article of "Egyptian Revolution of 2013" -- Hans Franssen ( talk) 19:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | Consensus seems to be slightly in favor of the move, however the opposition's points should not be ignored. It seems the larger issue here is that this is a potential POV fork of 2012–13 Egyptian protests and/or 2013 Egyptian coup d'état. This requested move seems to be an attempt to address this, but it is an inappropriate avenue to do so. I suggest further discussion should approach the question whether this should be merged to one of the other articles or deleted. The term "riot" does not enjoy widespread use in reliable sources describing the events ("protests" seem to be the most common), and the opposition's points regarding WP:COMMONNAME are valid in that few sources have been provided that call it a rioting. That said, few English language sources call it a revolution either. While Arabic sources are equally valid, we must use them with caution when it comes to article naming, because translation can have a subjective element, as the same word in different languages can have vastly different connotations. In summary, even though numbers are in favor of the move, because the opposition has made solid policy based arguments against it, and because the intention of the move request seems to be driven by concerns that go beyond only the name of the article, my closure is to not move the article at this time, and immediately continue discussions regarding merging/deletion as a potential POV fork. Gigs ( talk) 17:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC) |
Egyptian Revolution of 2013 → June 2013 Egyptians riots – Neutral name. Panam2014 ( talk) 08:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.While I don't have that many sources for this apart from a few videos but I have to make my own argument about this subject as there seems to be a cover up of information, on purpose, about this: the institutions of the country were increasingly working against Morsi since he won the elections in 2012.
--The first being the military institution who used it's vast economic power in Egypt to fabricate crises like the fuel & electricity crises with fuel trucks being sent to imaginary fuel stations or having the fuel disposed off altogether. It's a widely known fact that the Egyptian military controls about 45% of the Egyptian economy so it's not a hard thing for them to pull of the previous. Also lets not forget the military sending Helicopters to film the anti-Morsi crowds in Tahrir square and throwing them gifts & drawing hearts in the skies using their fighter jets and even going as far as dancing with the protesters at El-Etihadiyah. Army jets uses smoke to draw Egyptian flag & a heart Army choppers throwing small flags for protests Army personnel dancing with protesters.
--The second being the police foundation which mostly stood by the side of anti-Morsi protesters apart from a few clashes by the Etehadeyah-Palace (and the infamous Hamadah incident) which ended with 8 dead from the Muslim Brotherhood themselves (Morsi supporters) & 2 others who are anti-Morsi who, by the way, Morsi is getting trialed for only the 2 but the 8 are ignored, which brings me to the judgement institution later on. The police also joined in the 30th June protests by getting on protesters' shoulders and chanting with them. police sit on protesters' shoulders on 30th of June . The police stood-by & ignored the protesters throwing Molotov cocktails inside the Etihadiyah presidential palace and trying to pull the gates down using a winch months before June both are obvious acts of violence that should be interfered in (which the gate guards did by water cannons but that's about it) Protesters throwing Moltov on the presidential palace Protesters try to pull down Etihadiyah Gates.
--The third is the judicial institution which, by supreme court orders, dissolved the parliament after the 2011/12 elections [2] (allow me to note that all the court judges were appointed by Mubarak) which Morsi overruled later but that got overruled again by the court [3] [4]. Don't get me talking about the Shurah council which got abolished altogether in the latest constitution.
--And last but not least, as a matter of fact probably the most important and efficient tool for the "true rulers" of Egypt; the military, the Egyptian Media. There is not that much to say about those other than that they projected the plans of the military's Supreme Council (the SCAF) in a positive way to the people watching and it charged the people against Morsi, let's just say they used non-professionalism to reach that. This of-course includes all of the official papers and many of the privately-owned ones, including their websites. One clue to that is when the Military sent the films filmed from their choppers of the 30th of june protests to all the Egyptian media channels [5] [6]. A reference to sources here won't be of use as it will be in Arabic & many of the editors and readers don't read Arabic but as I go on I'm looking for a suitable source.
This brings me back to the "Revolution" argument, how can it be a Revolution when it is backed by: The Military, the Police, the Court system and the Media? Doesn't this show these were all in cahoots to bring Morsi & his cabinet down? Remember those four were all against the demonstrators of 25th Jan in exception of the Military in appearance (which showed to take a neutral stance back then but showed their true colors later). I have never heard of a real revolution that is supported by those four institutions, in this case they even created it (the "Revolution"). If anything, this is the single biggest smear campaign that ever happened against a president in history, that resulted in hundreds of thousands to go for the streets to protest. StoneCold45 ( talk) 08:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
@
Greyshark09 - How can a title make an article a WP:FORK? Didn't we get over this in the AfD discussion? If you closely check the "June 30" or "July 2" sections in this article and then check the "June 30" and "July 2" sections in the coup article i'm sure you'll notice that it's not a fork and that this one discusses the protests while the other talks mostly about governmental actions like Morsi's location in a particular timing, how he was kidnapped that day, talks between him and the military, what did he say that day..etc. Anything else is unnecessary there and should be moved here.
There are no sources calling it "riots" as much as there are sources calling the events a revolution. How can this be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH when there are sources backing it? If you checked the links i provided you will find that there wasn't any irrelevant conclusion made up for it to be called a WP:SYNTH, and therefore the "revolution" name exists indeed, and may i add a few more sources →
The Washington Post
Brookings Institution
Washington Institute for Near East Policy
The Lede (NYT's blog)
Fitzcarmalan (
talk)
01:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
And there was only one notable event of rioting during these 4 days, which is the storming of the Muslim Brotherhood's HQs in Cairo and even sources simply call it "storming", "torching" or "ransacking".
Fitzcarmalan (
talk)
05:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
@
Lihaas - Care to show me an instance of something mentioned the same way in both articles? An event overshadowing the other could make it look like the "main" event but not the "only" one. This revolt was the "main" ingredient of the recipe for the coup to take place, so those institutional changes you're talking about (as a result of the coup) would have never taken place without these events.
Fitzcarmalan (
talk)
13:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
This article completely lacks pictures that are necessary, especially iconic ones such as Tahrir Square, the rallies at the presidential palace, Alexandria, the storming of the Muslim Brotherhood HQs in Cairo and perhaps even the laser helicopters phenomenon among many others. I hope someone can help. Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 17:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Morsi did a speech on 26 June which was supposed to calm protestors but it actually garnered criticism from many in the country as he insulted and accused judges, journalists, businessmen, the public prosecutor and politicians. This is an essential part of the event and actually has so much information surrounding it that it constitutes notability and could be its own article. Here are some links:
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)I think this is an important part that we shouldn't miss.-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 12:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | Consensus to move to "June 2013 Egyptian protests" While this move request was more sparsely participated in compared to the last one, there does seem to be enough participation. The majority are in favor of a rename, and the opposition makes arguments based on WP:COMMONNAME in sources. I have reviewed some of the cited sources in the article, and it seems that few of them directly call this a revolution, the same way that few called it "riots". Even the June 30 Front themselves do not directly call it a revolution, but rather "to continue on the path of January 25 Revolution". "Protests" are definitely a more common term applied to the public outcry that was associated with the coup. I suggest that there are still potential issues with overlap between this, the coup article, and the other protest articles that should be addressed, that are outside of the scope of this move request. Gigs ( talk) 21:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC) |
![]() | The request to rename this article to June 2013 Egyptian protests has been carried out. |
Egyptian Revolution of 2013 → June 2013 Egyptian protests – Compliant with the closure of the previous deletion proposal and first rename, there seems to be some majority in favor of renaming this article or merging it, however "protests" seems to be more descriptive and might get clear majority as a rename target. This rename also comes because of the concern that "revolution" title may present only a limited POV view on the topic and might as well be overlapping the topic of 2013 Egyptian coup d'état GreyShark ( dibra) 16:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC).
request to delete this article from Wikipedia, i propose delete because the article is not neutral source of information about what happened in Egypt in June 2013 and afterwards
Heroasawhole (
talk) 20:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Heroasawhole was confirmed to be a
sockpuppet of
Hans Franssen and was blocked indefinitely from editing. (see
here)
Fitzcarmalan (
talk)
07:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
"The June 2013 Egyptian protests, also called the June 30 Revolution (Arabic:ثورة ٣٠ يونيو) by some protesters, was a mass public unrest which erupted in Egypt on 28 June 2013, marking the one-year anniversary of Mohamed Morsi's inauguration as president."
It is not neutral the qualifaction of revolution. We could removed the word revolution. Strong support. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 19:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
article titles should be based on the most neutral sources- While totally agreeing with that, i still have to say that the current title is nowhere from being neutral because it is simply another politically correct "partisan" name (with all due respect to the ones who supported it) and those lifeless generic titles never made this place any close to being an encyclopedia because "revolution" is as neutral as this one. And just to make it clear, i'm not "defending" the word but i don't see any reason to dismiss it and i also don't think we are obliged to comply with the needs of certain POV pushers anymore who kept disrupting the process of this article's improvement ever since it was created. I agree "protests" is more common, but it is a common name when describing the 2011 revolution as well and many other events called like that. Many titles here are built on partisan names and after a few years they become more relevant and common. While this is not the case, a close example to this would be the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, which was basically a military coup, but was called a revolution by the ones who made it and this name became stuck to it by time. Back then there was no Wikipedia, but now several news websites pay a close attention to the developments that take place here ( this is a very good example) and i wouldn't be surprised if reliable sources based their naming of many events on our titles.
whether it was merely a coup, a coup as a result of a popular uprising that won the military over, or a full out revolution- Firstly, i would like to point out at another part of the problem, which is when we say it was a coup/revolution rather than saying there was, as if one event took place. [62] because what happened between June 30 and July 3 was by no definition a coup. It appears there is a wide community consensus here to avoid at all costs the word "revolution" when describing these particular events, but i honestly think this is ridiculous and i really don't care because consensus can change. I say what happened in Egypt was a revolution that included or was concluded by a coup and both are portrayed in separate articles because they are too notable to be merged and were met with different domestic/international reactions. By all definitions, Morsi's removal on the night of July 3 was nothing else but a coup. On the other hand, calling the whole events an "uprising" switches the balance in favor of those who deny a coup took place. If i were to summarize or make an index about what happened back then, it would go like this:
The Revolution day thing is unneutral and constitutes a pov , the phase must be removed and placed with a more neutral wording,such as the day of mass protest or the beginning of the events,and we already had a long conversation proving and consensed by the editor of the article that the event is mass protest not revolution. Alhanuty ( talk) 16:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
June 2013 Egyptian protests. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I cite statements from the article prior to the revision on 19th April 2016.
However, recent studies have shown how these exaggerate claims rather served to legitimize the military's coup d'état. For instance, after the coup, Sisi has faced on average five times as many protests as Mubarak in the period 2008 to 2010 and 'the five months following the coup against Morsi were characterized by the highest level of protests (107.5 per day) since the 2011 uprising that led to Mubarak’s ouster. By contrast, during Morsi’s year in power, there were, on average, 38.6 protests per day'[25]
I have since added tags to gain information on the supposed 'recent studies', and to outline the seeming doubtfulness that these statements bring to mind about their neutrality. I also adjusted the first sentence to tone-down its absoluteness. 'Recent studies' indicates primary research, which shouldn't be taken as absolute fact on Wikipedia.
I'd just like to point out that it is odd that such a statement in such an obvious position in this article was left untouched. It seems to provide information from a single (primary) source, and does not provide a surrounding discussion or elaboration. Being in the introduction of the page, it sets the tone and initial understanding for the reader, and it seems a heavily unsubstantiated piece of fact, if not unnecessary for the introduction. It would be beneficial for the veracity of this article if this material was removed until such time as its contents can be substantiated and a discussion provided. At the very least, it should be moved to the appropriate section, and not 'thrown' into the introduction amidst other relevant familiarizing introductory preamble.
On another note, it seems odd this article does not contain a section discussing the number of protesters. It was at the time a heavily discussed topic. Perhaps I have missed it in reading it? If someone could direct me to it, thanks.
Omnicon1 ( talk) 05:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved back to June 2013 Egyptian protests. And politely suggest that this probably shouldn't have been moved without discussion in the first place, given that the present title was expressly rejected in an RM above. — Amakuru ( talk) 21:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Egyptian Revolution of 2013 →
June 30 uprising or
June 30 protests – An editor moved the title from "June 2013 Egyptian protests" to the current form via
WP:Requested moves/Technical requests, despite the controversial nature of this move. While the term "protests" may be seen as too generic, understating and less WP:COMMONNAME than "revolution", it is, however, not as controversial in this topic area. So I believe that "uprising" would be a less controversial alternative to both (though less common), but I'm still keeping "protests" as an option.
Sources for "uprising" include: Brookings, POMED, Middle East Institute, The Atlantic, Daily News Egypt, Egypt Independent, Al Arabiya, Al-Monitor, etc.
Books with "uprising" include: [65] [66] Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 19:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on June 2013 Egyptian protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
One editor seems to have taken issue with the point about the wild exaggeration of the actual number of anti-Morsi protestors made in the lead section of the article and is constantly removing it without providing evidence to the contrary. The two sources I cite [1] [2] for that claim both show that the 32 million number claimed by the military is illogical if not impossible.
That being the case, I added this particular claim of the protestors being just over a million beneath the military's claim of 32 million protestors which seems to give a balanced point of view. If anyone disagrees, feel free to share your objections below. Faaraax ( talk) 01:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. ( non-admin closure) Adumbrativus ( talk) 03:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
June 2013 Egyptian protests → 2013 Egyptian Revolution – We already have the 2012-2013 Egyptian protests page, and this page, along with the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état page. It's also a more common name. Plus, the coup was part of the revolution, so you can't name this page 'protests'. Feel free to oppose if you want. It's like the Revolution of Dignity page, with the Euromaidan being the protests page. WikipedianRevolutionary ( talk) 06:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. SilverLocust ( talk) 10:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
It just links to the article again. Doesn't really say a lot. Genabab ( talk) 12:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
June 2013 Egyptian protests article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about June 2013 Egyptian protests. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about June 2013 Egyptian protests at the Reference desk. |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of 2013 Egyptian coup d'état was copied or moved into June 2013 Egyptian protests with this edit on 02:59, 21 February 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 17 February 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've removed from the very beginning of the page the following URL: http://carnegieendowment.org/sada/?fa=62627, because it was randomly placed. Feel free to place it somewhere, if relevant, or simply drop it. Zacchiro ( talk) 09:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I recall from similar discussions that the convention at wiki is to place the date first, as in "2013 Egyptian revolution". Tkuvho ( talk) 21:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Some sentences in the background section are incomplete; they currently read " . and rejection from Muslim Brotherhood supporters who founded another counter-campaign called Tajarod." and "The Strong Egypt Party, Ahmed Shafik." I looked at some of the older revisions, but I couldn't find the exact sentences. All of the info needs to be added for those sentences. David O. Johnson ( talk) 22:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I used info from one ref; and found two other sources to complete the sentences with. David O. Johnson ( talk) 23:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
The article gives a lot of misleading and wrong information, i propose the deletion Hans Franssen ( talk) 01:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The result of the merge request was: no merge. GreyShark ( dibra) 18:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)( non-admin closure)
I think the pages 2012–13 Egyptian protests and 2013 Egyptian coup d'état should be merged into here, all three pages are basically about the same thing anyway. Charles Essie ( talk) 19:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The article is unneutral and using unneutral naming,all medias agree that this wasn't a revolution ,but demonstrations by the opposition ,with numbers of 33 million as fake,and alots of votes have been conducted on the Egyptian 2013 coup d'état that wanted to named it a revolution but the majority disagreed and said that June 30 is demonstrations and that July 3 is a coup,which means this article breachs an agreed consensus and also violates neutrality and also goes against what most analyst and neutral news sources call it,but we will vote on this issue,with rename and neutralizing it or keep it.
Rename and Neutralizing it Alhanuty ( talk) 18:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC).
Weird, i thought you had a 4th option which is "vandalizing" by completely removing the article under an IP address and without consensus. Please correct me if i'm wrong here, but aren't these contributions yours or am i mistaken? Again, and for the third time, please check the discussion that was suggested for you before calling this article "unneutral" all the time. Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 00:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Check the tens of proposal to name the Egyptian coup as a "revolution" all of them have been rejected,and the writer of the article has written it without agreement of other editors',he should have propose this on the Egyptian coup d'état page before doing this unilateral move. Alhanuty ( talk) 02:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Alots of of source call it demonstrations ,also the demost rations occurred on one day June 30, the people who biased towards the events call it a revolution,the people against it a conspiracy,but neutral sources call it demonstrations by the opposition,so it would better to go with the neutral sources calling it the June 30 demostration,even other Wikipedia pages call it June 30 demonstrations. Alhanuty ( talk) 18:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC) And as i see two editors only call it a revolution,both from Egypt fitzcarmalam and amrtarek , while other editors call it demonstrations, and this article was made after 6 months of the events,so I will open it on the coup page,and let's see. Alhanuty ( talk) 18:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Technically the name coup d'état is also POV, maybe a we should consider a third option. Charles Essie ( talk) 01:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
let me put some notes here: 1- Alhanuty ( talk) said "the people who biased towards the events", i did not see that he said "everyone here is biased towards the events". 2- Another thing, it is true that persons who maintain, write and heavily defend in the article of "Egyptian_Revolution_of_2013" are from Egypt (you can check the edit history). 3- neutral sources are highly required to show the fairness of this article , 4- "Egyptian_Revolution_of_2013" article was made after 6 months of the events. Hence, the claim of "biasing" is there!!! the article credibility (as a whole) is under doubt Hans Franssen ( talk) 10:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Alots of of source call it demonstrations ,also the demost rations occurred on one day June 30, the people who biased towards the events call it a revolution,the people against it a conspiracy,but neutral sources call it demonstrations by the opposition,so it would better to go with the neutral sources calling it the June 30 demostration,even other Wikipedia pages call it June 30 demonstrations. And as i see two editors only call it a revolution,both from Egypt fitzcarmalam and amrtarek , while other editors call it demonstrations, and this article was made after 6 months of the events,so I will open it on the coup page,and let's see.← This was Alhanuty's last entry in this discussion.
Firstly the mass demonstrations where reported on the night of June 30,and lasted for 12 hours,the coup technically began on July 1 after Sisi's announcement threatening to impose a road map on both sides if the crisis isn't resolved,and the coup has occured on July 3,and we have never heard of a revolution that was 12 hours long,so best thing is calling the June 30 demonstrations.← This was Alhanuty's last entry on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Egypt
Rename and Neutralizing it or Delete as per Alhanuty ( talk). -- Hans Franssen ( talk) 17:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
This provisional title is most neutral, waiting to find a consensus. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 20:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
No, it's more than demonstrations. Wide people and mass media see it's a revolution, we can't ignore. I see no consensus about rename. Only you and some users cannot rename the article only because they want so. In the previous section, more than one proof has been given to prove that the current title is already used widely outside Wikipedia. I think that's enough to keep it here.-- Man of justice ( talk) 15:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
let us be practical, and make it clear through simple and understandable points here,
Who made this article?? it is not a revolution it is a coup and this article if not suspended and deleted will endanger our encyclopedia of being a trustful source. I ask the administrators to delete this article-- أحمد عصام الدين ( talk) 11:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
It will be better to delete this page or merge it with the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état User:qjahid ( talk), 18 February 2014 (UTC)
better to delete the Article of "Egyptian Revolution of 2013" -- Hans Franssen ( talk) 19:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | Consensus seems to be slightly in favor of the move, however the opposition's points should not be ignored. It seems the larger issue here is that this is a potential POV fork of 2012–13 Egyptian protests and/or 2013 Egyptian coup d'état. This requested move seems to be an attempt to address this, but it is an inappropriate avenue to do so. I suggest further discussion should approach the question whether this should be merged to one of the other articles or deleted. The term "riot" does not enjoy widespread use in reliable sources describing the events ("protests" seem to be the most common), and the opposition's points regarding WP:COMMONNAME are valid in that few sources have been provided that call it a rioting. That said, few English language sources call it a revolution either. While Arabic sources are equally valid, we must use them with caution when it comes to article naming, because translation can have a subjective element, as the same word in different languages can have vastly different connotations. In summary, even though numbers are in favor of the move, because the opposition has made solid policy based arguments against it, and because the intention of the move request seems to be driven by concerns that go beyond only the name of the article, my closure is to not move the article at this time, and immediately continue discussions regarding merging/deletion as a potential POV fork. Gigs ( talk) 17:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC) |
Egyptian Revolution of 2013 → June 2013 Egyptians riots – Neutral name. Panam2014 ( talk) 08:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.While I don't have that many sources for this apart from a few videos but I have to make my own argument about this subject as there seems to be a cover up of information, on purpose, about this: the institutions of the country were increasingly working against Morsi since he won the elections in 2012.
--The first being the military institution who used it's vast economic power in Egypt to fabricate crises like the fuel & electricity crises with fuel trucks being sent to imaginary fuel stations or having the fuel disposed off altogether. It's a widely known fact that the Egyptian military controls about 45% of the Egyptian economy so it's not a hard thing for them to pull of the previous. Also lets not forget the military sending Helicopters to film the anti-Morsi crowds in Tahrir square and throwing them gifts & drawing hearts in the skies using their fighter jets and even going as far as dancing with the protesters at El-Etihadiyah. Army jets uses smoke to draw Egyptian flag & a heart Army choppers throwing small flags for protests Army personnel dancing with protesters.
--The second being the police foundation which mostly stood by the side of anti-Morsi protesters apart from a few clashes by the Etehadeyah-Palace (and the infamous Hamadah incident) which ended with 8 dead from the Muslim Brotherhood themselves (Morsi supporters) & 2 others who are anti-Morsi who, by the way, Morsi is getting trialed for only the 2 but the 8 are ignored, which brings me to the judgement institution later on. The police also joined in the 30th June protests by getting on protesters' shoulders and chanting with them. police sit on protesters' shoulders on 30th of June . The police stood-by & ignored the protesters throwing Molotov cocktails inside the Etihadiyah presidential palace and trying to pull the gates down using a winch months before June both are obvious acts of violence that should be interfered in (which the gate guards did by water cannons but that's about it) Protesters throwing Moltov on the presidential palace Protesters try to pull down Etihadiyah Gates.
--The third is the judicial institution which, by supreme court orders, dissolved the parliament after the 2011/12 elections [2] (allow me to note that all the court judges were appointed by Mubarak) which Morsi overruled later but that got overruled again by the court [3] [4]. Don't get me talking about the Shurah council which got abolished altogether in the latest constitution.
--And last but not least, as a matter of fact probably the most important and efficient tool for the "true rulers" of Egypt; the military, the Egyptian Media. There is not that much to say about those other than that they projected the plans of the military's Supreme Council (the SCAF) in a positive way to the people watching and it charged the people against Morsi, let's just say they used non-professionalism to reach that. This of-course includes all of the official papers and many of the privately-owned ones, including their websites. One clue to that is when the Military sent the films filmed from their choppers of the 30th of june protests to all the Egyptian media channels [5] [6]. A reference to sources here won't be of use as it will be in Arabic & many of the editors and readers don't read Arabic but as I go on I'm looking for a suitable source.
This brings me back to the "Revolution" argument, how can it be a Revolution when it is backed by: The Military, the Police, the Court system and the Media? Doesn't this show these were all in cahoots to bring Morsi & his cabinet down? Remember those four were all against the demonstrators of 25th Jan in exception of the Military in appearance (which showed to take a neutral stance back then but showed their true colors later). I have never heard of a real revolution that is supported by those four institutions, in this case they even created it (the "Revolution"). If anything, this is the single biggest smear campaign that ever happened against a president in history, that resulted in hundreds of thousands to go for the streets to protest. StoneCold45 ( talk) 08:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
@
Greyshark09 - How can a title make an article a WP:FORK? Didn't we get over this in the AfD discussion? If you closely check the "June 30" or "July 2" sections in this article and then check the "June 30" and "July 2" sections in the coup article i'm sure you'll notice that it's not a fork and that this one discusses the protests while the other talks mostly about governmental actions like Morsi's location in a particular timing, how he was kidnapped that day, talks between him and the military, what did he say that day..etc. Anything else is unnecessary there and should be moved here.
There are no sources calling it "riots" as much as there are sources calling the events a revolution. How can this be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH when there are sources backing it? If you checked the links i provided you will find that there wasn't any irrelevant conclusion made up for it to be called a WP:SYNTH, and therefore the "revolution" name exists indeed, and may i add a few more sources →
The Washington Post
Brookings Institution
Washington Institute for Near East Policy
The Lede (NYT's blog)
Fitzcarmalan (
talk)
01:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
And there was only one notable event of rioting during these 4 days, which is the storming of the Muslim Brotherhood's HQs in Cairo and even sources simply call it "storming", "torching" or "ransacking".
Fitzcarmalan (
talk)
05:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
@
Lihaas - Care to show me an instance of something mentioned the same way in both articles? An event overshadowing the other could make it look like the "main" event but not the "only" one. This revolt was the "main" ingredient of the recipe for the coup to take place, so those institutional changes you're talking about (as a result of the coup) would have never taken place without these events.
Fitzcarmalan (
talk)
13:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
This article completely lacks pictures that are necessary, especially iconic ones such as Tahrir Square, the rallies at the presidential palace, Alexandria, the storming of the Muslim Brotherhood HQs in Cairo and perhaps even the laser helicopters phenomenon among many others. I hope someone can help. Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 17:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Morsi did a speech on 26 June which was supposed to calm protestors but it actually garnered criticism from many in the country as he insulted and accused judges, journalists, businessmen, the public prosecutor and politicians. This is an essential part of the event and actually has so much information surrounding it that it constitutes notability and could be its own article. Here are some links:
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)I think this is an important part that we shouldn't miss.-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 12:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | Consensus to move to "June 2013 Egyptian protests" While this move request was more sparsely participated in compared to the last one, there does seem to be enough participation. The majority are in favor of a rename, and the opposition makes arguments based on WP:COMMONNAME in sources. I have reviewed some of the cited sources in the article, and it seems that few of them directly call this a revolution, the same way that few called it "riots". Even the June 30 Front themselves do not directly call it a revolution, but rather "to continue on the path of January 25 Revolution". "Protests" are definitely a more common term applied to the public outcry that was associated with the coup. I suggest that there are still potential issues with overlap between this, the coup article, and the other protest articles that should be addressed, that are outside of the scope of this move request. Gigs ( talk) 21:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC) |
![]() | The request to rename this article to June 2013 Egyptian protests has been carried out. |
Egyptian Revolution of 2013 → June 2013 Egyptian protests – Compliant with the closure of the previous deletion proposal and first rename, there seems to be some majority in favor of renaming this article or merging it, however "protests" seems to be more descriptive and might get clear majority as a rename target. This rename also comes because of the concern that "revolution" title may present only a limited POV view on the topic and might as well be overlapping the topic of 2013 Egyptian coup d'état GreyShark ( dibra) 16:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC).
request to delete this article from Wikipedia, i propose delete because the article is not neutral source of information about what happened in Egypt in June 2013 and afterwards
Heroasawhole (
talk) 20:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Heroasawhole was confirmed to be a
sockpuppet of
Hans Franssen and was blocked indefinitely from editing. (see
here)
Fitzcarmalan (
talk)
07:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
"The June 2013 Egyptian protests, also called the June 30 Revolution (Arabic:ثورة ٣٠ يونيو) by some protesters, was a mass public unrest which erupted in Egypt on 28 June 2013, marking the one-year anniversary of Mohamed Morsi's inauguration as president."
It is not neutral the qualifaction of revolution. We could removed the word revolution. Strong support. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 19:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
article titles should be based on the most neutral sources- While totally agreeing with that, i still have to say that the current title is nowhere from being neutral because it is simply another politically correct "partisan" name (with all due respect to the ones who supported it) and those lifeless generic titles never made this place any close to being an encyclopedia because "revolution" is as neutral as this one. And just to make it clear, i'm not "defending" the word but i don't see any reason to dismiss it and i also don't think we are obliged to comply with the needs of certain POV pushers anymore who kept disrupting the process of this article's improvement ever since it was created. I agree "protests" is more common, but it is a common name when describing the 2011 revolution as well and many other events called like that. Many titles here are built on partisan names and after a few years they become more relevant and common. While this is not the case, a close example to this would be the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, which was basically a military coup, but was called a revolution by the ones who made it and this name became stuck to it by time. Back then there was no Wikipedia, but now several news websites pay a close attention to the developments that take place here ( this is a very good example) and i wouldn't be surprised if reliable sources based their naming of many events on our titles.
whether it was merely a coup, a coup as a result of a popular uprising that won the military over, or a full out revolution- Firstly, i would like to point out at another part of the problem, which is when we say it was a coup/revolution rather than saying there was, as if one event took place. [62] because what happened between June 30 and July 3 was by no definition a coup. It appears there is a wide community consensus here to avoid at all costs the word "revolution" when describing these particular events, but i honestly think this is ridiculous and i really don't care because consensus can change. I say what happened in Egypt was a revolution that included or was concluded by a coup and both are portrayed in separate articles because they are too notable to be merged and were met with different domestic/international reactions. By all definitions, Morsi's removal on the night of July 3 was nothing else but a coup. On the other hand, calling the whole events an "uprising" switches the balance in favor of those who deny a coup took place. If i were to summarize or make an index about what happened back then, it would go like this:
The Revolution day thing is unneutral and constitutes a pov , the phase must be removed and placed with a more neutral wording,such as the day of mass protest or the beginning of the events,and we already had a long conversation proving and consensed by the editor of the article that the event is mass protest not revolution. Alhanuty ( talk) 16:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
June 2013 Egyptian protests. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I cite statements from the article prior to the revision on 19th April 2016.
However, recent studies have shown how these exaggerate claims rather served to legitimize the military's coup d'état. For instance, after the coup, Sisi has faced on average five times as many protests as Mubarak in the period 2008 to 2010 and 'the five months following the coup against Morsi were characterized by the highest level of protests (107.5 per day) since the 2011 uprising that led to Mubarak’s ouster. By contrast, during Morsi’s year in power, there were, on average, 38.6 protests per day'[25]
I have since added tags to gain information on the supposed 'recent studies', and to outline the seeming doubtfulness that these statements bring to mind about their neutrality. I also adjusted the first sentence to tone-down its absoluteness. 'Recent studies' indicates primary research, which shouldn't be taken as absolute fact on Wikipedia.
I'd just like to point out that it is odd that such a statement in such an obvious position in this article was left untouched. It seems to provide information from a single (primary) source, and does not provide a surrounding discussion or elaboration. Being in the introduction of the page, it sets the tone and initial understanding for the reader, and it seems a heavily unsubstantiated piece of fact, if not unnecessary for the introduction. It would be beneficial for the veracity of this article if this material was removed until such time as its contents can be substantiated and a discussion provided. At the very least, it should be moved to the appropriate section, and not 'thrown' into the introduction amidst other relevant familiarizing introductory preamble.
On another note, it seems odd this article does not contain a section discussing the number of protesters. It was at the time a heavily discussed topic. Perhaps I have missed it in reading it? If someone could direct me to it, thanks.
Omnicon1 ( talk) 05:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved back to June 2013 Egyptian protests. And politely suggest that this probably shouldn't have been moved without discussion in the first place, given that the present title was expressly rejected in an RM above. — Amakuru ( talk) 21:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Egyptian Revolution of 2013 →
June 30 uprising or
June 30 protests – An editor moved the title from "June 2013 Egyptian protests" to the current form via
WP:Requested moves/Technical requests, despite the controversial nature of this move. While the term "protests" may be seen as too generic, understating and less WP:COMMONNAME than "revolution", it is, however, not as controversial in this topic area. So I believe that "uprising" would be a less controversial alternative to both (though less common), but I'm still keeping "protests" as an option.
Sources for "uprising" include: Brookings, POMED, Middle East Institute, The Atlantic, Daily News Egypt, Egypt Independent, Al Arabiya, Al-Monitor, etc.
Books with "uprising" include: [65] [66] Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 19:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on June 2013 Egyptian protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
One editor seems to have taken issue with the point about the wild exaggeration of the actual number of anti-Morsi protestors made in the lead section of the article and is constantly removing it without providing evidence to the contrary. The two sources I cite [1] [2] for that claim both show that the 32 million number claimed by the military is illogical if not impossible.
That being the case, I added this particular claim of the protestors being just over a million beneath the military's claim of 32 million protestors which seems to give a balanced point of view. If anyone disagrees, feel free to share your objections below. Faaraax ( talk) 01:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. ( non-admin closure) Adumbrativus ( talk) 03:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
June 2013 Egyptian protests → 2013 Egyptian Revolution – We already have the 2012-2013 Egyptian protests page, and this page, along with the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état page. It's also a more common name. Plus, the coup was part of the revolution, so you can't name this page 'protests'. Feel free to oppose if you want. It's like the Revolution of Dignity page, with the Euromaidan being the protests page. WikipedianRevolutionary ( talk) 06:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. SilverLocust ( talk) 10:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
It just links to the article again. Doesn't really say a lot. Genabab ( talk) 12:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)