This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Post-coup unrest in Egypt (2013–2014) 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 |
![]() | A news item involving Post-coup unrest in Egypt (2013–2014) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 28 July 2013. | ![]() |
![]() | A news item involving Post-coup unrest in Egypt (2013–2014) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 15 August 2013. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nice work on the article. I just would like to comment that the background focuses too much on the whole 2 years since the revolution including the parliament elections that has been dissolved and so on. I suggest removing most of that info and keeping only a summary of the lead up to the coup and the coup itself since this is the background of this article. -- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 23:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
The other article is misnamed firstly as there was 1 headquarter not multiple locations of the incident. Secondly the rartivle is just about a stub with content and mostly reactions. .This easily fit in here per WP:Size instead needlessly adding a harem of pages on the events since 2011. Content would fit into a subsection here and would be nether too long not too short as some section are. Just because X people died doesn't mean its naturally bequeathed with an "honor" of an other article . Redirects can serve that.( Lihaas ( talk) 14:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)).
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/07/27/egypts_death_toll_skyrockets
EllenCT ( talk) 19:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
The title seems to be completely made up, and not based on what the media is referring to it as. A new, more concise title would be appropriate. FunkMonk ( talk) 11:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The article need to be updated about the visit of American senators and officials both meetings and statements in Egypt. As forexample frank statement of a senator "it is a coup. When you see a duck and hear a duck, it is a duck and no one can call it something else" as far as i remember. I can not find enough nerves to add these words. Please someone do add the exact words beside other updates.-- Ashashyou ( talk) 23:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
A separate article is needed for the Wednesday massacre of Morsi supporters/protesters, the killing of journalists, and the resignation of ElBaradei as it is a standout event among the others listed on this page. Is anybody going to start this? Crtew ( talk) 16:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The massacre is best covered at August 2013 Egyptian raids. This article is better as a timeline for the events that led up to Wednesday's violence after the military coup. Crtew ( talk) 20:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
stop hiding the good news 209.236.86.201 ( talk) 01:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC) happy happy happy 209.236.86.201 ( talk) 16:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
come on you guys have been stuck at 816-917+ killed for the last 5 hours. It is time to update. 209.236.86.201 ( talk) 02:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
This article [4] says 57 police officers have been killed "since Wednesday". John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Is this a Civil War? Someone has to ask, especially since a category using that name has been created. This CNN article [5] suggests whatever has happened so far is not a civil war, this Fox News article [6] points to Germany's foreign minister suggesting civil war could develop, this businessweek article [7] also mentions the spectre of civil war without implying we have it. So, there is no claim yet that Egypt has civil war. We need to avoid the term until reliable sources start to use it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Waiting for government run media to state truths in this age... I wouldn't hold your breath. Waiting to call the Egyptian coup article a "coup" for example, because many were waiting on western media to call it that first. Wikipedia should start refering to dictionaries and not CNN to determine critereas that are already well defined. Especially when dealing with politics.
Civil War noun A war between political factions or regions within the same country.
The Brotherhood is an established political party as is its opposition. Both parties have political officials, judges, presidents, generals, ambassadors. So the question is then, "Are they at war?" 1000 dead. Tanks. Fires. Bombings. Overthrowing of elected officials. UN meetings to negotiate peace treaties... You guys decide. But I'll say this. The "Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia" tagline that gets overused is starting to sound more and more each day like "Wikipedia is a sounding board for western mainstream media" 75.92.102.144 ( talk) 09:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
We have to take into account the fact currently the opposition to the military are not actively armed or organized themselves under a military platform. These are very violent protests right now and a few incidents of ambush, a part from this though it does not qualify it as a civil war. As well for those who say we need to have sources name it a "civil war" I understand in part, but we should stick to our own agreed definition rather than popular opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.76.158 ( talk) 05:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Since the Guardian provided detailed numbers of the dead in Egypt, we should use the term Civil war. More than 1000 dead? Yes!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.183.206.138 ( talk) 13:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
from the analysis and observations of previous historical events that were same as Egyptian case, then 'Yes' it would be a Civil War but on the long term. we can not call it for now as Civil War rather than huge unrest in Egypt. -- Hans Franssen ( talk) 21:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The former article name was better since the article is the subsequent events due to the coup. A lot of political violence was before the coup as well so terming whats happening in the past two months as the 2013 political violence is misleading. I suggest renaming it back to aftermath of the 2013 coup.-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 10:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The previous name (Aftermath of the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état) was entirely accurate. It was specific, it was informative. Additionally, it follows format. There is an articles called "2011 Egyptian revolution", and an article for "Aftermath of the 2011 Egyptian revolution" yet here we have an article called "2013 Egyptian coup d'état" and instead of "Aftermath of 2013 Egyptian coup d'état" which it already was... it was changed to "Political violence in Egypt (July 2013–present" How is that correct? It isn't. It just serves someone's agenda. Shameful. 75.92.102.144 ( talk) 01:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
So are you also changing the titles to "Aftermath of the 2011 Egyptian revolution"? Maybe you should start with "Aftermath_of_World_War_II"... or is this just a special case, so it doesn't need to follow the same format? 75.92.102.144 ( talk) 03:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree, "Aftermath of the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état" is more accurate because so far, we don't know what will the events be termed eventually, whether it's going to be "Islamic uprising in Egypt" or even (and hopefully not) "Egyptian civil war". Why rush and call it something else right now without even any reliable source? Another thing, if it is to be called "Political violence in Egypt" then i suggest replacing "(July 2013 - present)" with simply "2013" since there is no other page called "political violence" in a different month this year. But i still think the original name was better.. Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 22:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree, "Aftermath of the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état" fits better and follow the format set by " Aftermath of the 2011 Egyptian revolution.-- PLNR ( talk) 05:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Fitzcarmalan ( talk), the whole events in this article happened after the coup in 2013. -- Hans Franssen ( talk) 20:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
"Aftermath of the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état" or "Political violence in Egypt after coup d'Etat"fits better. Protests include "most of" Islamists, "some" Liberalists, "some" Socialists and even "some" Anarchists. Also the political violence comes from all the political parties and groups in Egypt not merely from a certain group. -- Ashashyou ( talk) 19:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
>> Tear gas fired in Egypt's Tahrir Square >> Egypt draft constitution alters roadmap >> Does history repeat itself in Egypt? Lihaas ( talk) 20:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
If someone has access to Egyptian sources and can read Arabic, it may be worth adding information (to the infobox) regarding the number of pro-Morsi protesters (at their peak in July and August) as well as similar info pertaining to the participants in the student protests. If I am not mistaken, prior to Morsi's ouster, there were demonstrations of his supporters that reached over 100,000 people, but I am guessing that in part due to the army crackdown a smaller number are currently out in the streets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.228.191 ( talk) 14:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I do not think "Islamist protests" is a good title to describe what is happening in Egypt. I would use other terms, for example "internal conflict", or "violences". Protest is "a statement or action expressing disapproval" [8]. This is the definition of Armed Conflict by Uppsala University: "An armed conflict is a contested incompatibility that concerns government and/or territory where the use of armed force between two parties, of which at least one is the government of a state, results in at least 25 battle-related deaths in one calendar year" [9]. This is the case of Egypt, and the Egyptian violences can't be considered simple "protests". SigmaK ( talk) 14:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
New Title is not correct I recommend to use Egyptian Government Crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood instead. Qjahid ( talk) 03:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Any sources still refer to the violence as part of the Arab Spring? GreyShark ( dibra) 20:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The infobox says 1,300 people have been killed, giving four sources for the figure:
("Using agency, news and NGO sources we have counted at least 117 dead and 1,166 injured in clashes across Egypt since 23 June 2013.")
("Four people were killed in clashes in two neighborhoods of Cairo, an interior minister spokesman said...On August 14, Egypt's military-backed authorities smashed the two pro-Mursi sit-ins in Cairo, with hundreds of deaths...")
("Violence quickly broke out in Cairo, where at least 45 anti-coup protesters were killed ...In Delga...medical sources told Reuters that police fired live rounds into a crowd of Morsi supporters, killing five.")
("A string of attacks killed nine members of Egypt's security and military forces...A suicide bomber struck a security headquarters in the town of el-Tor, in southern Sinai, earlier Monday, killing three policemen...In another attack, masked gunmen...opened fire, killing six soldiers, security officials said..."
I found an Al Jazeera story saying 278 had been killed, and [ USA Today said there had been "at least 638". — rybec 13:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I see what you mean; the 638 should be added to the infobox. Maybe there is a source somewhere that has compiled a total death toll? David O. Johnson ( talk) 19:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Why is nothing mentioned about Kerdasa Police Station storming? anyone has sources can add it? Amr Tarek Say Hello!, 15:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
What on Earth got into whoever wrote this to call the unrest 'Islamist'? There are dozens of demonstrations around the country that are as islamist as 2011.-- عبد المؤمن ( talk) 15:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
What parameters would we use to define when the brackets should be closed? I mean i see that the word unrest doesn't describe the events anymore. it was unrest in such major incidents like Rabaa Sit-in or Republican guards HQ's clashes but now news websites rarely talk about islamist demonstrations. Sinai Horus 〉〉〉 00:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
This article is not neutral and is worded in a way that is sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.19.228 ( talk) 19:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree. However, I am editing the article to fix this POV, as I have done with many other articles (and got reverted by triggered editors over the content) Zakawer ( talk) 13:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below; note that at the moment, "the present" and "2014" are synonymous. Dekimasu よ! 23:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Islamist unrest in Egypt (2013–14) → Islamist unrest in Egypt (2013–present) – Move without consensus and the protest still continue. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 21:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
a period political tumult, marked by economic decline, social unrest and a flirtation with popular democracy that effectively ended with Sisi's ascent.Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 21:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Changes to this article (including a title move) were proposed here. Feel free to join the discussion. Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 04:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
No consensus to move. bd2412 T 15:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Post-coup unrest in Egypt (2013–2014) → Aftermath of the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état – This is an attempt to broaden the scope of this article by renaming it to its original title "Aftermath of the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état". That way it can serve as an umbrella article that would cover all the post-coup subjects we have: 1) the ongoing insurgency, 2) the now quelled protest movement and 3) the ongoing government crackdown that put an end to the Egyptian crisis. The article, as it currently stands, deals primarily with the second point (the anti-coup protest movement that was largely contained in the period between the November 2013 signing of the Egyptian protest law and Sisi's election in 2014). Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 19:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 ( talk) 13:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I do not have the time nor the energy to engage in another lengthy and pointless discussion with Wykx who keeps adding two "supported by" lists to each column in the infobox.
How relevant are they in the box? And why should they be kept? Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 14:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Why should it be understood as such?as a straw man; I do not claim that it should be so understood, but that it is likely to be so. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
imply they provide material support targeted at specific actions; specifically, the pursuit of the civil conflict covered by that Infobox; and that this is not supported by the sources referenced. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm against the use of such infoboxes as a whole, but I won't be too WP:POINTy about it (not yet). Template:Infobox civil conflict was nominated for deletion in 2011; one of the concerns was that it can be easily misused, leading to inevitable POV violations. And so it has. The "supported by" lists are just one example, but there's many other things, like the end date of a conflict (while this particular unrest did end, we still have no universally agreed upon date). There's also the casualties, which most likely include those of the Insurgency in Egypt (2013–present) as well. Why don't we simply expand the lead section with all the facts we have at hand? Why should we abide by certain parameters of this box, even though most of them don't really apply here in this article? Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 06:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Although both fall in the same timeline, completely different scenarios, locations, and backings.
The 500+ lives claimed by militant was never really sourced in any of the articles I found, just citing " the government reported", and the government was "reportedly" citing violence on the Libyan/Egyptian border and the attacks in Sinai. Completely irrelevant to the casualties that happened within Egypt.
Committing the 500+ number next to the casualties of the protestors definitely infers that the protestors are the ones who killed them, or clashes in Egypt caused this.
Even if the numbers are true, they should belong to a different article consistent to reporting of border/sinai violence. 67.149.245.62 ( talk) 01:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Post-coup unrest in Egypt (2013–2014) 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 |
![]() | A news item involving Post-coup unrest in Egypt (2013–2014) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 28 July 2013. | ![]() |
![]() | A news item involving Post-coup unrest in Egypt (2013–2014) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 15 August 2013. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nice work on the article. I just would like to comment that the background focuses too much on the whole 2 years since the revolution including the parliament elections that has been dissolved and so on. I suggest removing most of that info and keeping only a summary of the lead up to the coup and the coup itself since this is the background of this article. -- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 23:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
The other article is misnamed firstly as there was 1 headquarter not multiple locations of the incident. Secondly the rartivle is just about a stub with content and mostly reactions. .This easily fit in here per WP:Size instead needlessly adding a harem of pages on the events since 2011. Content would fit into a subsection here and would be nether too long not too short as some section are. Just because X people died doesn't mean its naturally bequeathed with an "honor" of an other article . Redirects can serve that.( Lihaas ( talk) 14:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)).
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/07/27/egypts_death_toll_skyrockets
EllenCT ( talk) 19:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
The title seems to be completely made up, and not based on what the media is referring to it as. A new, more concise title would be appropriate. FunkMonk ( talk) 11:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The article need to be updated about the visit of American senators and officials both meetings and statements in Egypt. As forexample frank statement of a senator "it is a coup. When you see a duck and hear a duck, it is a duck and no one can call it something else" as far as i remember. I can not find enough nerves to add these words. Please someone do add the exact words beside other updates.-- Ashashyou ( talk) 23:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
A separate article is needed for the Wednesday massacre of Morsi supporters/protesters, the killing of journalists, and the resignation of ElBaradei as it is a standout event among the others listed on this page. Is anybody going to start this? Crtew ( talk) 16:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The massacre is best covered at August 2013 Egyptian raids. This article is better as a timeline for the events that led up to Wednesday's violence after the military coup. Crtew ( talk) 20:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
stop hiding the good news 209.236.86.201 ( talk) 01:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC) happy happy happy 209.236.86.201 ( talk) 16:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
come on you guys have been stuck at 816-917+ killed for the last 5 hours. It is time to update. 209.236.86.201 ( talk) 02:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
This article [4] says 57 police officers have been killed "since Wednesday". John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Is this a Civil War? Someone has to ask, especially since a category using that name has been created. This CNN article [5] suggests whatever has happened so far is not a civil war, this Fox News article [6] points to Germany's foreign minister suggesting civil war could develop, this businessweek article [7] also mentions the spectre of civil war without implying we have it. So, there is no claim yet that Egypt has civil war. We need to avoid the term until reliable sources start to use it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Waiting for government run media to state truths in this age... I wouldn't hold your breath. Waiting to call the Egyptian coup article a "coup" for example, because many were waiting on western media to call it that first. Wikipedia should start refering to dictionaries and not CNN to determine critereas that are already well defined. Especially when dealing with politics.
Civil War noun A war between political factions or regions within the same country.
The Brotherhood is an established political party as is its opposition. Both parties have political officials, judges, presidents, generals, ambassadors. So the question is then, "Are they at war?" 1000 dead. Tanks. Fires. Bombings. Overthrowing of elected officials. UN meetings to negotiate peace treaties... You guys decide. But I'll say this. The "Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia" tagline that gets overused is starting to sound more and more each day like "Wikipedia is a sounding board for western mainstream media" 75.92.102.144 ( talk) 09:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
We have to take into account the fact currently the opposition to the military are not actively armed or organized themselves under a military platform. These are very violent protests right now and a few incidents of ambush, a part from this though it does not qualify it as a civil war. As well for those who say we need to have sources name it a "civil war" I understand in part, but we should stick to our own agreed definition rather than popular opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.76.158 ( talk) 05:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Since the Guardian provided detailed numbers of the dead in Egypt, we should use the term Civil war. More than 1000 dead? Yes!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.183.206.138 ( talk) 13:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
from the analysis and observations of previous historical events that were same as Egyptian case, then 'Yes' it would be a Civil War but on the long term. we can not call it for now as Civil War rather than huge unrest in Egypt. -- Hans Franssen ( talk) 21:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The former article name was better since the article is the subsequent events due to the coup. A lot of political violence was before the coup as well so terming whats happening in the past two months as the 2013 political violence is misleading. I suggest renaming it back to aftermath of the 2013 coup.-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 10:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The previous name (Aftermath of the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état) was entirely accurate. It was specific, it was informative. Additionally, it follows format. There is an articles called "2011 Egyptian revolution", and an article for "Aftermath of the 2011 Egyptian revolution" yet here we have an article called "2013 Egyptian coup d'état" and instead of "Aftermath of 2013 Egyptian coup d'état" which it already was... it was changed to "Political violence in Egypt (July 2013–present" How is that correct? It isn't. It just serves someone's agenda. Shameful. 75.92.102.144 ( talk) 01:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
So are you also changing the titles to "Aftermath of the 2011 Egyptian revolution"? Maybe you should start with "Aftermath_of_World_War_II"... or is this just a special case, so it doesn't need to follow the same format? 75.92.102.144 ( talk) 03:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree, "Aftermath of the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état" is more accurate because so far, we don't know what will the events be termed eventually, whether it's going to be "Islamic uprising in Egypt" or even (and hopefully not) "Egyptian civil war". Why rush and call it something else right now without even any reliable source? Another thing, if it is to be called "Political violence in Egypt" then i suggest replacing "(July 2013 - present)" with simply "2013" since there is no other page called "political violence" in a different month this year. But i still think the original name was better.. Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 22:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree, "Aftermath of the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état" fits better and follow the format set by " Aftermath of the 2011 Egyptian revolution.-- PLNR ( talk) 05:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Fitzcarmalan ( talk), the whole events in this article happened after the coup in 2013. -- Hans Franssen ( talk) 20:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
"Aftermath of the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état" or "Political violence in Egypt after coup d'Etat"fits better. Protests include "most of" Islamists, "some" Liberalists, "some" Socialists and even "some" Anarchists. Also the political violence comes from all the political parties and groups in Egypt not merely from a certain group. -- Ashashyou ( talk) 19:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
>> Tear gas fired in Egypt's Tahrir Square >> Egypt draft constitution alters roadmap >> Does history repeat itself in Egypt? Lihaas ( talk) 20:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
If someone has access to Egyptian sources and can read Arabic, it may be worth adding information (to the infobox) regarding the number of pro-Morsi protesters (at their peak in July and August) as well as similar info pertaining to the participants in the student protests. If I am not mistaken, prior to Morsi's ouster, there were demonstrations of his supporters that reached over 100,000 people, but I am guessing that in part due to the army crackdown a smaller number are currently out in the streets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.228.191 ( talk) 14:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I do not think "Islamist protests" is a good title to describe what is happening in Egypt. I would use other terms, for example "internal conflict", or "violences". Protest is "a statement or action expressing disapproval" [8]. This is the definition of Armed Conflict by Uppsala University: "An armed conflict is a contested incompatibility that concerns government and/or territory where the use of armed force between two parties, of which at least one is the government of a state, results in at least 25 battle-related deaths in one calendar year" [9]. This is the case of Egypt, and the Egyptian violences can't be considered simple "protests". SigmaK ( talk) 14:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
New Title is not correct I recommend to use Egyptian Government Crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood instead. Qjahid ( talk) 03:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Any sources still refer to the violence as part of the Arab Spring? GreyShark ( dibra) 20:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The infobox says 1,300 people have been killed, giving four sources for the figure:
("Using agency, news and NGO sources we have counted at least 117 dead and 1,166 injured in clashes across Egypt since 23 June 2013.")
("Four people were killed in clashes in two neighborhoods of Cairo, an interior minister spokesman said...On August 14, Egypt's military-backed authorities smashed the two pro-Mursi sit-ins in Cairo, with hundreds of deaths...")
("Violence quickly broke out in Cairo, where at least 45 anti-coup protesters were killed ...In Delga...medical sources told Reuters that police fired live rounds into a crowd of Morsi supporters, killing five.")
("A string of attacks killed nine members of Egypt's security and military forces...A suicide bomber struck a security headquarters in the town of el-Tor, in southern Sinai, earlier Monday, killing three policemen...In another attack, masked gunmen...opened fire, killing six soldiers, security officials said..."
I found an Al Jazeera story saying 278 had been killed, and [ USA Today said there had been "at least 638". — rybec 13:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I see what you mean; the 638 should be added to the infobox. Maybe there is a source somewhere that has compiled a total death toll? David O. Johnson ( talk) 19:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Why is nothing mentioned about Kerdasa Police Station storming? anyone has sources can add it? Amr Tarek Say Hello!, 15:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
What on Earth got into whoever wrote this to call the unrest 'Islamist'? There are dozens of demonstrations around the country that are as islamist as 2011.-- عبد المؤمن ( talk) 15:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
What parameters would we use to define when the brackets should be closed? I mean i see that the word unrest doesn't describe the events anymore. it was unrest in such major incidents like Rabaa Sit-in or Republican guards HQ's clashes but now news websites rarely talk about islamist demonstrations. Sinai Horus 〉〉〉 00:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
This article is not neutral and is worded in a way that is sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.19.228 ( talk) 19:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree. However, I am editing the article to fix this POV, as I have done with many other articles (and got reverted by triggered editors over the content) Zakawer ( talk) 13:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below; note that at the moment, "the present" and "2014" are synonymous. Dekimasu よ! 23:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Islamist unrest in Egypt (2013–14) → Islamist unrest in Egypt (2013–present) – Move without consensus and the protest still continue. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 21:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
a period political tumult, marked by economic decline, social unrest and a flirtation with popular democracy that effectively ended with Sisi's ascent.Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 21:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Changes to this article (including a title move) were proposed here. Feel free to join the discussion. Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 04:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
No consensus to move. bd2412 T 15:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Post-coup unrest in Egypt (2013–2014) → Aftermath of the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état – This is an attempt to broaden the scope of this article by renaming it to its original title "Aftermath of the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état". That way it can serve as an umbrella article that would cover all the post-coup subjects we have: 1) the ongoing insurgency, 2) the now quelled protest movement and 3) the ongoing government crackdown that put an end to the Egyptian crisis. The article, as it currently stands, deals primarily with the second point (the anti-coup protest movement that was largely contained in the period between the November 2013 signing of the Egyptian protest law and Sisi's election in 2014). Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 19:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 ( talk) 13:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I do not have the time nor the energy to engage in another lengthy and pointless discussion with Wykx who keeps adding two "supported by" lists to each column in the infobox.
How relevant are they in the box? And why should they be kept? Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 14:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Why should it be understood as such?as a straw man; I do not claim that it should be so understood, but that it is likely to be so. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
imply they provide material support targeted at specific actions; specifically, the pursuit of the civil conflict covered by that Infobox; and that this is not supported by the sources referenced. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm against the use of such infoboxes as a whole, but I won't be too WP:POINTy about it (not yet). Template:Infobox civil conflict was nominated for deletion in 2011; one of the concerns was that it can be easily misused, leading to inevitable POV violations. And so it has. The "supported by" lists are just one example, but there's many other things, like the end date of a conflict (while this particular unrest did end, we still have no universally agreed upon date). There's also the casualties, which most likely include those of the Insurgency in Egypt (2013–present) as well. Why don't we simply expand the lead section with all the facts we have at hand? Why should we abide by certain parameters of this box, even though most of them don't really apply here in this article? Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 06:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Although both fall in the same timeline, completely different scenarios, locations, and backings.
The 500+ lives claimed by militant was never really sourced in any of the articles I found, just citing " the government reported", and the government was "reportedly" citing violence on the Libyan/Egyptian border and the attacks in Sinai. Completely irrelevant to the casualties that happened within Egypt.
Committing the 500+ number next to the casualties of the protestors definitely infers that the protestors are the ones who killed them, or clashes in Egypt caused this.
Even if the numbers are true, they should belong to a different article consistent to reporting of border/sinai violence. 67.149.245.62 ( talk) 01:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)