Talk:2013 Egyptian coup d'état/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

RfC: Should the ouster of Morsi be called a removal instead of a coup?

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

---

Should the ouster of Morsi be called a removal instead of a coup? Zakawer (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose this is an attempt to circumvent the last three proposals and decisions on this topic (here here and here), and the one you started immediately above. The military's removal of a democratically elected government is a coup. Your RfC is not about whether Morsi was removed in a coup, but about the semantics of whether coups exist, or only military removals of democratically elected governments (in English and French we call these coups). -Darouet (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: We don't need two separate RfCs on the matter. Just merge this with the other one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree, Ricky81682, if you want to go ahead and merge them. -Darouet (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

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

RfC: Should Morsi's removal be called an impeachment or removal instead?

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

---

Should Morsi's ouster be called an impeachment or a removal instead of a coup? Zakawer (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose It is referred to as a coup in many reliable sources. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Impeachment implies some sort of legal basis/process for the removal. The definition of coup d'état (illegal seizure of government by the military) appears to fit this well, besides being used in the sources. It's not up to us to judge whether those sources are right in their terminology. clpo13_(talk) 21:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support for using "removal" instead, 2013 Egyptian army removal of Mohamed Morsi perhaps. This RFC suggestion came from me following this MFD and there is an argument that per WP:LABEL, "coup" is contentious (not against Morsi but really against Mansour and el-Sisi and the ones who took over). Moris's lead uses "removal", el-Sisi's lead section uses the term "outster" with the results section here using the term "deposed" which I think are better and more neutral (we don't always just go by what the sources say) than going with coup d'etat. Is it really a coup d'etat if the military takes over and install a judge as an interim President before having elections? Is it really "illegal" if the presiding judge takes control? This isn't exactly the same as 2014 Thai coup d'état where it's clearly the military taking complete control. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Given the great number of newspapers that call the event a coup, sometimes a "popular coup," I think it's fair to ask for even a few sources arguing that Sisi's military overthrow of the elected government was not a coup. Even using COMMONNAME, the google news search terms "egypt", "coup" and "2013" return double the results of substituting "coup" with "overthrown" or "removal", the the term "removal" usually not used in relation to Morsi and Sisi. -Darouet (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Okay, Ricky81682. I agree with you. Let's call it a removal instead. Perhaps the title of this article could be "Removal of Mohamed Morsi" instead? With this edit, I've simultaneously added another RfC with that in mind. Zakawer (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: This proposal in its various forms has been rejected three times in the past, here here and here, because international media and scholars describe the the military overthrow of the democratically elected government as a coup. Ricky81682 we have no obligation to take seriously the inevitable, pseudo-legal justification for the military's overthrow of the only democratically elected President in Egypt's history. Every military government declares its actions to be constitutionally legitimate. A better RfC would ask whether Sisi should be described as a dictator, since many, many RS describe him as one. -Darouet (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Sisi's page doesn't so if you want that, then it should be there. I doubt reliable sources are calling him a dictator but go prove it. The point is to have a single WP:NPOV across the encyclopedia. We can't have this page call him a dictator who took control after a coup if nothing else describes him as such. Right now, we have "outster", "removal", and some "coup" wording across many different pages. I'm suggesting removal for the title when Aljazeera English used "overthrown" (and stated that Morsi called it a coup) and the NY Times just calls it "ousts" and again states that Morsi calls it a coup. From there, the text can reiterate that Morsi called it a coup. Are we just calling it a coup because that's Morsi's wording? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Upon further review of the prior discussions, the last discussion was in 2014 and this was a clear rejection of "roadmap announcement" (which is just odd) but none of the three seem to have actual sources that describe it as a coup (the 2014 one had numerous sources without that word used). It seems like all the arguing is based on the same here: "it's obviously a coup! the military clearly took over, it's a coup!" and assertions of WP:COMMONNAME but where are the actual reliable sources that called it a coup? The BBC again states that Morsi alone calls it a coup so there's three reliable sources that don't use that term. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that call Sisi a dictator, if you want "proof," but Ricky81682 as you yourself note these questions are best addressed by reading the news. Flagship papers in the US, UK, France and Germany describe the event as a coup:

• Der Spiegel - "The events of Wednesday night are clearly a coup - the army has deposed a democratically elected president and suspended the constitution. Yet Sissi acted as if the generals had been compelled by the Egyptian people to intervene." - [1]
• Los Angelos Times - "It was the first in an expected series of verdicts and sentencings of the ex-leader, an Islamist who was removed in a coup led by the then-Defense Minister and now President Abdel Fattah Sisi." - [2]
• Foreign Policy - "Sisi... counted on Gulf money, an initial precondition of the coup that toppled Morsi... absorbed upward of $32 billion from the Gulf monarchies ever since Sisi’s coup." - [3]
• Financial Times - "Mr Sisi led the military coup that overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi in July 2013." - [4]
• Financial Times - "The organisation also has support from Turkey, where some brotherhood leaders fled after the 2013 coup in Egypt, led by president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, in which elected Islamist president Mohamed Morsi was ousted and his Muslim Brotherhood group was outlawed." - [5]
• Financial Times - "Interior ministry spokesmen have repeatedly denied torture or the illegal detention of people. But activists say forced disappearances have become a feature of the harshest security crackdown on dissent in Egypt’s recent history, which began in 2013 after the popularly backed coup against Mohamed Morsi, the elected Islamist president." - [6]
• Financial Times - "The international uproar over the apparent abduction and killing of a foreign national (there is no record of Regeni being officially arrested or detained) has highlighted human rights abuses under President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. After the Islamist president Mohamed Morsi was ousted in a popular military coup in 2013, the Muslim Brotherhood was outlawed and unauthorised demonstrations were banned. Mr Sisi was elected in 2014 as the crackdown broadened to include civil society organisations, liberal activists and journalists." - [7]
• Huffington Post - simple labels all news about the event under the heading, "Egypt Coup" - [8]
• Forbes - "Coup D'Etat In Egypt: Military Removes President Morsi And Suspends The Constitution... stocks had rallied on initial rumors of the coup, crude oil, which broke the $100 mark for the first time since April 2012..." - [9]
• The Daily Beast - "Secret Tapes of the 2013 Egypt Coup Plot Pose a Problem for Obama. Ever since the overthrow of Egypt’s elected president, the U.S. administration has tried to avoid the word “coup.” Hard to do that now, but it’s still trying... The list of plotters included Deputy Defense Minister Mamdouh Shaheen and Gen. Abbas Kamel, the chief of staff to Gen. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the top military commander regarded as the mastermind behind the coup, who is now president of Egypt... etc." - [10]
• The Independent (by Robert Fisk) - "Egypt coup: Leaked tape proves defence minister tried to conceal Morsi’s true location in military prison... Egypt’s generals always denied their 2013 power grab was a coup d’état. But now the UN will consider devastating tapes that expose their story as a lie." - [11]
• Informed Comment by Juan Cole - "2 Years after Coup... Barakat’s assassination comes almost exactly two years after the start of the June 30 coup that ousted Morsi and brought al-Sisi to power." - [12]
• NPR - "The coup led the U.S. State Department to warn U.S. citizens today "to defer travel to Egypt"... All Things Considered also talked with NPR's Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson and Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Abdul Mawgoud Rageh Dardery about some of the questions surrounding Wednesday's coup... Morsi's ouster may present a prickly situation to the U.S. government, reports NPR's Michele Kelemen, who notes that U.S. officials might hesitate to call the incident a coup... Sen. Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Budget Committee for the State Department and Foreign Assistance, stated today that U.S. funds cannot continue after a coup." - [13]
• The Economist - "Egypt’s coup: The second time around... Egypt’s support in the West will be less easily maintained now that its first democratically elected leader has been deposed in a coup." - [14]
• Haaretz - "The Root of Egypt's Coup: Morsi Giving Free Hand to Sinai Islamists. A series of interviews by AP with defense, army, and intel officials reveals the coup that removed the former president was the culmination of nearly a year of acrimonious relations between him and the army." - [15]
• The Wall Street Journal - "Mr. Regeni’s murder drew global condemnation of Egypt’s worsening human rights record, including rights organizations’ reporting of forced disappearances since President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi came to power in a 2013 military coup." - [16]
• Editorial position piece of Le Monde - "More than 1,400 protestors were killed after the general Sisi's coup d'etat." - [17]
• The New York Times - "Kerry Says Egypt’s Military Was ‘Restoring Democracy’ in Ousting Morsi... Mr. Kerry’s blunt comments represented the strongest endorsement yet by the United States of the military intervention, which the Obama administration has refused to call a coup. Using that term would require the United States to suspend its annual $1.5 billion aid package..." - [18]

There are a great number of sources that describe the event as a coup - more than can be posted here - some even apparently sympathetic or supportive. On the other hand, el-Sisi has been adamant that the military's overthrow of the elected government was not a coup, and some within the U.S. government were reluctant to use the word (they did in the end). Newspapers have been forthright that the event was a coup, however, and we should be too. -Darouet (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The NY Times piece at the end says the US has refused to call it a coup. They explain that the technical reasons for that but it's basically speculation why that is so. Again, the media section notes that it is not called a coup so I think giving it that title is basically going with "it's a coup and here's media denying it" rather than "this is the about the removal of Morsi, most media call it a coup, the US does not for reasons X." The second option to me is much more neutral and better. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The idea that we should ignore what most media sources write because the US government doesn't want to suspend military aid is bizarre at best. -Darouet (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Are we supposed to go "50% + 1 of media sources", no other sources matter? Isn't the US government itself a source? Isn't how Obama describes something relevant? Same with the UN? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Where does your "50%" number come from? I've not yet seen you cite a single source besides one article in the NYT you take issue with, and it seems that your whole argument appears to specifically require ignoring sources. Obama is not a neutral source, and there's no evidence that any papers chose to follow the US government's lead, since many major American left, right and center papers called the coup a coup, and international papers did too. -Darouet (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. The overwhelming consensus in reliable sources is to refer to the event as a coup. In response to Ricky81682, it's not Wikipedia's place to be attempting to make a political-scientific judgement on the issue, especially given that there's no ambiguity in the common name. —Nizolan ^(talk) 13:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

2013_Egyptian_coup_d'état#Media shows that there is ambiguity in that the US State Department nor the UN doesn't use that term, nor does certain newspapers. The fact that individual politicians have and other newspapers have as well tells me that we should be more nuanced than just go with "well a majority say coup, we'll call it a coup" when there is an explicit section about the lack of that usage. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The great majority of papers do, and the section you're referencing does not say that media chose not to call the coup a coup. The section describes the US government's refusal to use the term because it would require the suspension of military aid to Egypt. -Darouet (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't explicitly say that. It gives a rationale and a reason but why won't the UN call it a coup? Does the UN care about the US's military obligations? -- 05:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It does explicitly say that, because a great many papers wrote it. It is not a coincidence that you and Ricky base your arguments on ignoring what any and every source write about this coup: the media and other reliable sources describe the military takeover as a coup, but you don't want to. Presumably the UN does care what US officials say because they have to maintain a relationship, but no explanation has been given for the UN's position. When they were explicitly asked after the UN condemned Sisi's August 2013 Rabaa massacre, a UN spokesperson said they had no comment. -Darouet (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: It is an overwhelming majority, not "50% + 1", regardless of what the State Department may have to say out of political tact. A couple of contrary sources do not make the common name ambiguous, and common names take precedence over official names. —Nizolan ^(talk) 09:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - Most sources call it a coup. And it's a textbook example of a coup d'etat, with the military arresting the countries leaders and putting in their own instead, so this is rather uncontroversial. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I did a scan of both media and scholarly sources, and it seems like "coup" is significantly preferred by both those kinds of sources. I cannot see an argument not to follow WP:COMMONNAME in this case. Yes, the US government does not use this term, but the US government is not a secondary source, and we should be careful not to give it undue weight. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Can you point out the scholarly sources? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

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

RFC: biased POV

The article as it stands provides an opinionated view on the events, rather than providing the facts on the matter. My edits including citations to reputable sources were reverted as "blatantly partisan and blatant apologia" Reverted Page I am asking for a fair discussion on the topic and providing a balanced unopinionated stance.

• "Some nations condemned" Cited news outlets, edits to highlight they are the news' outlets POV, was reverted without explanation
• There are opinion polls in the article that support a position, adding contradictory opinion polls from reputable Egyptian polls, were reverted, as "does not belong"
• Adding a possible reason for the demonstrations, supported by citations, was reverted
• "Leaked audio tapes" section, incorrectly implies where the money was withdrawn from and provided to whom, also highlighting the tapes are unconfirmed, was reverted
• A position in the article is supported by a citation to the "www.economist.com", which does not provide a source of it's information, was reverted
• Providing an alternate view as to the reason Jazeera Misr wa shutdown was reverted
• Proving creditable opinion polls as to how Egyptians in Egypt view is at fault, something clearly important in providing a balanced article was reverted
• marking " Public Opinion revealed that 79% of Egyptians believe the massacres on 14 August were crimes against humanity. 73% hold General Al Sisi, the Defence Minister, responsible for the massacres." as Citation required, the existing link is dead and could have said anything, the source is also of unknown credibility, pointing this out was reverted.
• Proving an alternative opinion poll from a credible source was reverted as unrequired/pointless as blanket "blatantly partisan and blatant apologia"
• "even though these failings are widely attributed to Mubarak-regime loyalists in many parts of the state organizations" pointing out it Cites a random blog, was reverted

I think the version I edited provides balance to a biased article.

• The view of Egyptians in Egypt, regardless of your and my views are of value
• Citing links that don't support the statements made in the article, affects the credibility of the neutrality of the editors
• Shutting down other POV because an editor has a firm stance doesn't belong in wikipedia
• Citing dead links, Citing links with unknown credibility, Citing links to a random blog is not a balanced approach

--Samir-the-fair (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

203.158.45.143 (talk) Samir 203.158.45.143 (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't looked at all the contributions you made, but at least some of them looked good to me. Perhaps they can be added and discussed one at a time? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Planning

The wording smeers the Tamarod organisation as a lacky or artificial construct. Without providing evidence other than an unverified tape. Perhaps Tamarod is funded by groups, perhaps it was in alliances, does that make it a fake movement ?

The Citation clearly states that the leaked tapes are un-authenticated "The recordings, which could not be authenticated" in the citation, the section implies otherwise.

While the position advanced in the section may well be true, more leg work is required to prove so, neutral articles need to provide the facts and less distilling the opinion of passionate editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.45.143 (talk) 09:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC) --Samir-the-fair (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

"The wording". What wording? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The wording is "[Tamarod], the *supposedly independent* grassroots group", I find the sentence to be inflammatory and subtly reduces Tamarod's credibility. 118.211.192.60 (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC) --Samir-the-fair (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right. The correct word is "ostensibly". --OpenFuture (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

References

RFC: Arrests

I don't have information as to the widely accepted figures, I find that citing a source that effectively says someone said, is bellow the acceptable citation standards and of questionable neutrality — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.45.143 (talk) 10:13, 26 April 2016‎ (UTC) --Samir-the-fair (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Once again we have no way of knowing what you are talking about. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Please bare with me as I learn about wikipedia editing " ... and as high as more than 40,000 by one independent count" references an article in the economist, the economist goes on to also say "by one independent count", I am not sure if citing a link that doesn't provide it's source or reasoning is at the right standard for controversial topics, it's too close to Weasel word — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.45.143 (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2016‎ (UTC)

No, that's acceptable, but it's of course better if we can find the original source. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

14 August crackdown

Not surprisingly for this article, a statement is made, the citation doesn't support the statement (it's a dead link) and the googling the organisation returns nothing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.45.143 (talk) 10:13, 26 April 2016‎ (UTC) --Samir-the-fair (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

"A study conducted by the Egyptian Centre for Media Studies and Public Opinion revealed that 79% of Egyptians believe ...", the Citation is to a dead link that could have said anything or nothing about the topic. I am not sure if 'Egyptian Centre for Media Studies and Public Opinion' actually exists or what it's credibility is, a web search does not find it. A similarly named 'Egyptian Centre for Public Opinion Research' exists and provides very different statistics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.45.143 (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2016‎ (UTC) --Samir-the-fair (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

nations labelling it a coup

"It has been variously described by most Western nations as a coup" The Citation links to the opinions of news outlets, with the statement claiming it's the view of "nations", is it hair splitting ? I think there is a difference between the opinion of the media and the opinion of a country, it should be called what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.45.143 (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2016‎ (UTC) --Samir-the-fair (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

RFC Causes

• "even though these failings are widely attributed to Mubarak-regime loyalists" Is wikpedia's standards to Cite a random blog with unknown credibility as representative of a broad consensus on a topic ? Can't anyone spend $10 to have a hosted blog and link to it as authoritative for any view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.45.143 (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2016‎ (UTC)

--Samir-the-fair (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• "The declaration was later abrogated before referendum due to multiple protests and public anger", I have no view on the topic, what I see is a citation provided to support a statement, the citation doesn't back the statement. In this instance the citation is for a '17 June 2012' constitutional addendum, while the statment is for a '22 November 2012' constitutional declaration, are they the same? surface reading says they refer to different things — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.45.143 (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2016‎ (UTC)

--Samir-the-fair (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Opening section

The opening section makes a claim that "journalists,[16] and several hundred to a few thousand[17] protestors were killed by police and military forces.[18][19]" The citations are 2 by al-jazeera and the third by theguardian which asserts that 'Human Rights Watch says it documented at least 817, and suspects there may be more than 1,000'. Two references from the same al-jazeera doesn't add credibility thou it creates the impression to those that don't check the assertion is from different sources and hence a majority view. A more credible source hrw.org says "Human Rights Watch documented 817 deaths in the Rab’a dispersal alone. Human Rights Watch also reviewed evidence of a possible 246 additional deaths" it's a horrific number and it's not thousands Again this is another example of the article subtly creating an impression, the impression appears to be backed by multiple credible sources. The sources are not credible and a majority view.

118.211.192.60 (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC) samir --Samir-the-fair (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Requesting Good Article review

After cleaning this article of anti-revolution bias, I want to nominate this for Good Article status. Thank you. Zakawer (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Your Sisi crusade will require cleaning out Wikipedia's neutrality policies too. -Darouet (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

But what I'm doing is not vandalism. It's an attempt to ensure that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. NPOV means that while Wikipedia uses reliable sources (or what its editors think are reliable sources), it stays neutral in most debates, controversies, and disputes, describing events without editorial bias. It does not use terms and labels that favor either side (coup is contentious and POV, you Sisiphobe), nor does it condemn controversial sides that people in the English-speaking world (which is where most Wikipedians come from) widely condemn, but it involves describing all major viewpoints according to their prevalence. Darouet, you can't revert my edits simply because they clean out your stupid Western liberal POV that millions of Wikipedians share. I'm a moderate left-winger that sorta dislikes the opinions of others, and kinda agrees with Republicans on the MB and Egypt. I disagree with what Western media says about Sisi, the revolution, the sit-in dispersal; this is why I came to correct their bias on Wikipedia. Zakawer (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2013 Egyptian coup d'état. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130914005112/http://www.presstv.com:80/detail/2013/05/22/304778/7-abducted-egyptian-officers-released/ to http://presstv.com/detail/2013/05/22/304778/7-abducted-egyptian-officers-released/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130709000520/http://www.france24.com:80/en/20130705-turkey-pm-blasts-egypt-coup-enemy-democracy? to http://www.france24.com/en/20130705-turkey-pm-blasts-egypt-coup-enemy-democracy
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130919011804/http://everything-pr.com/john-mccain-steps-up-big-on-egypt-coup-dialogue/244673/ to http://everything-pr.com/john-mccain-steps-up-big-on-egypt-coup-dialogue/244673/#.Ughr5Sq6aM8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Reaching a consensus

Should I replace this current article with my own draft? If the result is either that there is no consensus or that the article should remain as is, then I'm fucking doomed. Zakawer (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

While I'm far from being a supporter of the previous regime I think labeling it a coup d'état is pretty accurate. Even a coup d'état backed by popular support is a coup d'état, political sugarcoating aside. I do support mentioning that there are conflicting opinions regarding this label howeber. I think it's better to work on improving the current article to level out any existing bias rather than going for a completely new draft, you could of course add parts of this draft to the article. It's also worth pointing out that "successful" can't be the outcome, since this is a subjective term. I'm sure the Muslim Brotherhood and their supporters wouldn't consider it successful for example. Turnopoems (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Zakawer, I don't want to block you from contributing positively to this article, but there have already been 4 RfCs on this topic, every one of them with the same outcome, and you were blocked a few months ago for disregarding those outcomes. -Darouet (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I share Darouet's concerns. Zawaker, you were already blocked and then warned for trying to push the same changes you're suggesting now; the difference is that back then, you implemented each edit separately while asserting ownership of the article, and now you just drafted your same version independently and want to replace the whole thing in one clean sweep.

My only interactions with you have been pleasant and civil on a personal level and you absolutely deserve commendation for that, but what I'm seeing here - after your block, warning regarding this topic and rejection of four RfCs establishing an existing consensus - is a possible issue of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The community has already expressed multiple times that what happened in Egypt (whether it was right or wrong) was a coup. It's good that you're trying to work things out but you're essentially promoting the same changes that were rejected by the community before. Why should they be considered again, after only a few months? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Update: Looks like there's no consensus. Fuck it. Also, it's weird when people misspell my username as "Zawaker." Zakawer (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)