Talk:Post-coup unrest in Egypt (2013–2014)

Background too long

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)

I originally put that in there to sort of show the background of what military rule has meant in the past and the backstory behind the tensions between the army and the Islamists. I'm going to try breaking that section up into sections and see how it looks. Thanks for the input. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I would support to keep it separate, as it was an outstanding event that might be referred to in many other articles. IbrahimNemsi (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge

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)).

• Merge. It is part of the aftermath. Having separate articles about every single incident contradicts Wikipedia's claim to be an encyclopedia with a long-term, historical perspective and not a news outlet. Neither of the two articles is too long, so there is no need to "outsource" the material. --RJFF (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Merge. The event doesn't seem notable enough to have it's own separate article. ElectrifiedSpork (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Merge. The event isn't notable enough to have it's own separate article. merik egy (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Don't Merge It's a notable event and deserve it's own article. 3bdulelah (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - seems notable.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per others. EkoGraf (talk) 05:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• weak merge it should be part of the aftermath, as it was not a big killing like the 2013 security clashes.BrandonWu (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Merge Doesn't deserve a new article it's part of the events. this is a news article.amrtarek (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. 2013 Republican Guard headquarters clashes - it is part of the aftermath and one can merge it indeed, but at that time (July 8th) it was an "bisher beispielloses Massaker von Armee und Polizei an Demonstranten der Muslimbrüder" (Martin Gehlen/Tagesspiegel; in English: "so far unexampled massacre by army and police against Muslim Brotherhood's protesters"), "Egypt's bloodiest state-led massacre since the fall of Hosni Mubarak" and "one of the bloodiest incidents in Egypt's recent history" (Patrick Kingsley/Guardian). It is true, it was followed by other "state-led massacres of several hundred Islamists over the summer" (Alastair Beach/Daily Beast), two of them even worse as measured by victims (July 27th, August 14th), but it is still the first of the two "Massentötungen von Muslimbrüdern" (Reuters Deutschland, in English: "mass killings of Muslim Brothers") in July, then the first of the "three mass killings since Morsi was overthrown in early July" (Ian Black and Patrick Kingsley/Guardian). It is first and it "deserves" - as far as I can judge - special regarding in the Encyclopedia. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - The notability of the incident is without doubt, even if the August raids were more notable. This was the first kind of mass killing since the ouster of Morsi and i think it deserves an article of its own. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Fitzcarmalan (talk) reasoning. --Hans Franssen (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Rename as Government Crackdown User:qjahid (talk), 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Foreign Policy says death toll is much higher than our other news reports

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/07/27/egypts_death_toll_skyrockets

"Since the June 30 demonstrations against Mohamed Morsy, at least 265 people have lost their lives to political violence. That total includes both pro- and anti-Morsy protesters, security forces, Copts killed in sectarian violence, and police and civilians killed in attacks in the restive Sinai Peninsula. The true death toll is probably higher. This count relies on media reports and Health Ministry statements, which may not provide a complete accounting of the dead. Furthermore, doctors at the pro-Morsy sit-in say 127 people were killed in last night's clashes, so the official count from that attack could still rise significantly." (July 27)

EllenCT (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Title

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)

I changed the title, see below.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Update needed

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)

2013 Egyptian massacre

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)

Yes, but certainly not naming it "2013 Egyptian massacre", this is too broad for a name and may easily be confused with other violent events in Egypt 2013.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It is part of this, so why split? What we need is a better title for this article. The one we have is too convoluted. FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I took initiative and changed it to political violence per media [1],[2],[3]. Hope it is not controversial.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I like it better. But with the date in parenthesis, it appears it is about political violence in general that year. Perhaps "2013 political violence in Egypt" would be better? FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

i don't know, i had the same dilemma. We have 2009 Hamas political violence in Gaza, Political violence in Germany, 1918–33, Political violence in Turkey (1976–1980). I don't see a clear pattern for such kind of titles.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:25, 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)

Number is way to low

stop hiding the good news 209.236.86.201 (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC) happy happy happy209.236.86.201 (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

We need to keep updating the most fortunate numbers

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)

Police officers killed

This article [4] says 57 police officers have been killed "since Wednesday".John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Civil War

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)

Agree. As far as I know, there is mainly one user (now temporarily blocked) who has insisted that this is a civil war. The consensus has been to not call it a civil war (yet, at least). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

As with Syria, we wait until most sources call it a civil war before we implement it. FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 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)

Article name misleading - aftermath of the coup was better

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)

Dittom everything id in relation to the coup since july and into agust.(Lihaas (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)).

I've restored the pre-move war title:Political violence in Egypt (July 2013–present).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:40, 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)

See section above. It was convoluted and hard for outsiders to understand. FunkMonk (talk) 01:16, 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)

Why this change in name?

"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)

I agree that those 2 titles fit better but you and i know very well that those liberals, socialists, anarchists and others are an extreme minority (more like 1%) and that they don't stand with the MB and the Islamists. They stand for their "anti-military dictatorship" principle not for Morsi. And by the way, the political violence DOES come from all the parties involved in the events. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Links

>> 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)

Size of the protest

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)

From outside Egypt or non-Egyptian.--Ashashyou (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Title

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)

Agree - The term "protests" doesn't fit anymore. Titles i suggest now include:

• 2013-14 Islamist uprising in Egypt or simply Islamist uprising in Egypt
• Post-coup violence in Egypt (2013-14)
• 2013-14 Egyptian post-coup unrest
• 2013-14 Egyptian uprising
• 2013-14 Egyptian crisis
• And many others..

For a while i've been supporting the return to the first title which is "Aftermath of the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état" because it satisfied both sides. But nearly all pages starting with "aftermath" aren't necessarily conflict-related and may not be specific because it can refer to economic crises, market crashes, domestic responses..etc.

"Islamist uprising" might not satisfy many users but i find the situation in Egypt nearly parallel to Syria's during the 80s when most of the deaths were caused by security forces with significant violent attacks by Islamists, just with a lower death toll ratio.

"Crisis" is also a suitable term in my opinion but i think it should be kept for now because i was thinking about creating an article called "Egyptian revolution of 2013" about the 4 days of protests that preceded the July 3 coup and then i wanted to create another page called "2013 Egyptian crisis" bringing both the revolution and coup pages in one article. So i'm currently waiting for the approval of users to do this (I would also appreciate it if someone joined this discussion). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• I somewhat disagree. Protests can be violent or non-violent. However, I think changing the title to Post-coup unrest in Egypt (2013–present) is a good compromise.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It's true that protests can be violent while still keeping the name "protests". But not to the point of reaching this:

July 24 - Mansoura bombing: (1) (2) (3)

August 14 - Kerdasa massacre: (video) (1) (2) (3)

September 19 - General shot dead in Kerdasa: (1) (2) (3)

November 18 - Assassination of Mohamed Mabrouk: (1) (2) (3)

December 12 - Ismailia bombing: (1) (2) (3)

And others including this latest one.

I understand the MB isn't necessarily involved in those but they're not the only Islamists opposing the military. And if some of those attacks are perpetrated by groups based in the Sinai that still counts as part of this conflict because they just didn't occur in the Sinai.

The title you proposed seems fair enough but in my opinion i'd still vote for "Islamist uprising" as i find it very similar to Syria and because "unrest" is also a bit close to "protests". But that's just my opinion of course..

Thanks and i hope an agreement can be reached on this soon. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see sources using the word "uprising" to describe the current events in Egypt. I do however, see many sources using the word "unrest". I think we should just go with what the sources say.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright then, "unrest" it is.. But i do believe the fact that the acting opposition is almost all exclusively Islamist should be portrayed in the title. "Islamist unrest in Egypt (Post-coup)", "Islamist unrest in Egypt (2013-14)" or "2013-14 Islamist unrest in Egypt" are options i suggest. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Since this is an ongoing event, I think the word "present" should be in the title. How about "Islamist unrest in Egypt (July 2013–present)"?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Perfect title but i have just one final addition that may sound silly, which is to remove "July" because date tags should be as short as possible in my opinion. We can keep "present" but not both so that the title could be easier to digest. Sounds cool? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, since the other Egyptian unrest articles don't specify the month either. The hatnote should be good enough to inform the reader what the article is about.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and performed the move.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Sounds perfect now. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose new title, it's not just Islamists that are protesting against the government, they're also Liberal/Leftist groups such as the Third Square, Masmou3, the April 6 Youth Movement, the Road of the Revolution Front, ect. Charles Essie (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Their numbers are very minimal compared to the Islamists and their sympathizers. They can be added in a third column if you want but their involvement is minor and they are not involved in bomb attacks or ambushes on security personnel, unlike the Islamists. They also don't support either the MB or the military and even if some groups support them, it wouldn't make any difference either because it's normal when some liberals or left-leaning activists support any kind of opposition against a government they see as authoritarian. The April 6 Youth Movement is currently having an internal disagreement between pro-MB, pro-Sisi and anti-both with many splits within the group. The "Revolutionary Path Front" consists of many Islamists as high-ranking officials in the movement and they are also not very notable. The Third Square has no significance in the political scene as the number of its activists is very small and many of their supporters are also Islamists. Masmou3 may have a fair number of likers on their Facebook page but the number of their activists involved in the unrest is unknown and is also suspected to be minor. In addition, there's Costa Salafis now opposing the military, but the thing is they're still simply Salafists (evident) and there's nothing more to say about them. Ultras Ahlawy also staged some demonstrations against the military from time to time, but it was related to the Port Said Stadium riot and had nothing to do with the unrest. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Please check deeply into each bit of information mentioned in the media because many Egyuptians can not discuss or write in politics now in public. This is due to many reasons. Perhaps someone that knows the Arabic language can detect what is really happening.--Ashashyou (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm Egyptian, i speak Arabic and i know very well how biased our media can be. But just because a bunch of liberals oppose military rule doesn't mean they support the MB. Also, the Rabia sign is an exclusively Islamist symbol now which is notably used by almost every single protester. And if you know 1 or 2 Christians, anarchists, liberals or leftists who waved it once (which i highly doubt), doesn't mean they support the MB and it will never change the current demographics of anti-Sisi protesters who bother taking to the streets or rule out that the unrest is dominated by MB-supporting Islamists. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as i know, Rabia Sign is not exclusively Islamist sign, there are other political groups (even here in the west) use it as kind of solidarity with victims of Rabia massacre. I agree that it started to appear by Pro-Morsi supporters as i know. However it started to take the attention of people who are interested in knowing Egypt news. --Hans Franssen (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose new current title, I agree with as per Charles Essie (talk), the title of "Islamist unrest in Egypt (2013–present)" is misleading, giving the impression that only Islamists are making it, in order to say that number of a protesters group is higher than others, we need reliable source of information. Personally, I know a journalist who is in this chaos and he admits the Egyptian media is just spreading lies and rumors about the protests and current situations in Egypt, they do not present true info, most likely as what happened during Nazi's media at second world war. As per some other sources, researchers and journalists do not depend now on the official Egyptian media (TV channels or other means) to acquire neutral information. --Hans Franssen (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2014 (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)

Disagree, this article more about the protests, and it's not just the Muslim Brotherhood who's out on the streets. Charles Essie (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Again, not because some anti-coup liberals are slightly involved (even those rarely support the Brotherhood) means we should dismiss Islamist dominance over the protests. Morsi supporters are called "Islamists" by the majority of international media websites. "Police, Islamists clash in Egypt" → [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
2. But if we want to keep this article about the protests only, we should first create a new article called Islamist uprising in Egypt (the Muslim Brotherhood previously called for an uprising on July 8 and per Islamist uprising in Syria) or maybe Islamist insurgency in Egypt (some websites calling it "insurgency" → [16] [17] [18] [19])
3. Then we should move from this article stuff like this, this, this, this and many similar incidents to the newly created article.
4. In this case we might reconsider neutralizing the title to Post-coup unrest in Egypt for example, to deal with the protests only. But if this remains the only article dealing with the events that followed the coup, then i think we cannot rule "Islamist" out of the title. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

About new title - I agree about the changement of the title: I'm glad about it. I also agree with people that consider the term "islamist" "reducing". (talk) 01.13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose new title. There's no point specifying that this is specifically "Islamist" unrest unless there's a separate article for Non-Islamic unrest in Egypt, 2013-14; unless all references to liberal groups are purged from the article, it is not really "Islamist"; there's no clear majority of English-language reliable sources that prefer calling it "Islamist unrest" to "Post-coup unrest", "Post-Morsi unrest" or just "unrest" (or if there is, the burden of proof is on those claiming such a majority exists); and there's no point picking an article title such as Islamic unrest in Egypt (2013-14), which is technically inaccurate, apparently contentious, and not the clear common name for the subject of the article, when simply dropping the first word of the title would be an improvement in each way and more concise. Charlotte Aryanne (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• There appears to be an overwhelming consensus here that the word "Islamist" is inaccurate for the title. Even though I still disagree with that motion, I have decided not to disrupt this place any further with my point. Therefore, I have boldly Y moved the title to Post-coup unrest in Egypt (2013–14). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Arab Spring?

Any sources still refer to the violence as part of the Arab Spring?GreyShark (dibra) 20:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It's worse now, there is no reference on this page to the Arab Spring. That should probably be in the first sentence. I'm not comfortable editing this page. Jeff Carr (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

dispute about death toll

The infobox says 1,300 people have been killed, giving four sources for the figure:

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/jul/08/egypt-dead-injured-toll-so-far

("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.")

• http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/04/us-egypt-protests-idUSBRE9930HV20131004

("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...")

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/10359766/Egypt-51-dead-in-as-rival-protests-turn-violent.html

("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.")

• =http://bigstory.ap.org/article/egypt-turmoil-street-clashes-leave-51-dead

("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)

This source claims 1295 were killed in only three days: August 14, 15 and 16. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Kerdasa Storming?

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)

I was going to create an article about it, but i'm in the middle of exams right now. You can write a paragraph about it for now if you're interested and later we can think bigger. Sounds good? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok I will try to find some sources, there are many incidents should be also mentioned like Minya events... Amr Tarek^{Say Hello!}, 16:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Some sources for Kerdassa Massacre : Egypt Independent,Ahram Online,YNet NewsAmr Tarek^{Say Hello!}, 16:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Good, i will start working on this as soon as i'm done with my preoccupations. In the meantime, you can add it to this article. If you're thinking about creating a new article about it, please do so in a sandbox till it's well developed in order to avoid merge proposals. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Name

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)

There is already a discussion above but we can revive it here. This article isn't just about the protests and now there are more sources calling this an "insurgency" than the ones calling it "unrest". And I don't believe I've heard of any non-Islamist insurgents in Egypt in the last few months. Did you? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Check this page Christians Against the Coup--Ashashyou (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen this article before. It looks very similar to the one about the Egyptian Nazi Party that was deleted a while ago. The article also portrays no one but a person called Ramy Jan (who was by the way a member of the Nazi Party) and there are no details about the exact number of Christians in this group who appear to be minor. They are also affiliated with the Anti-Coup Alliance (an Islamist alliance), but again, how significant is their role in the current 'civil' conflict? Let's be realistic here for a second, there are many non-Islamists who are against the coup but it doesn't mean they support the Brotherhood and it certainly doesn't mean they are part of the insurgency (the armed part of the conflict), which quickly becomes more significant than the non armed element. This article is not just about the protests. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

When will the brackets be closed?

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)

Not a non-POV article

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)

request move

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

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)

• Oppose - This article says that Egypt underwent 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)

@Fitzcarmalan: the are a new protest. Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Changes to the article

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)

Requested move 7 December 2015

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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 think it is worth to keep the article focused in the protest movement. I have a question for you as an expert: do you consider the Egyptian crisis over now? When you write that governement wants to put an end to the crisis (ended in 2014 in the article title) it seems it is not over. Thanks Wykx 21:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what I deem more appropriate. The majority of contemporary sources seem to suggest that the "Egyptian crisis" is something of the past. Current events look nothing like the ones that took place during the 2011-13 revolutionary period nearly two years ago. The political situation has largely stabilized (the Egyptian crisis is a political conflict). The security situation, however, is the part that has worsened and is currently being dealt with in the article that we've agreed to create in our discussion on Talk:List of ongoing armed conflicts#Egypt. You'll probably need to rephrase your last sentence. I didn't say that the government wants to put an end to the crisis, I said that it did put an end to it, and that the crackdown which helped the government achieve that goal is still ongoing (if that's what you meant). I've reverted your title move because I already explained in the other discussion that the clashes occurring annually on January 25 represent the anniversary of the 2011 revolution and are not a continuation of the Egyptian crisis (unless you have reliable sources saying otherwise), and that they are expected to persist for years to come even if in some years the violence was deadlier than in others. There was a similar problem with the Gezi Park protests article (originally titled "2013 protests in Turkey"), where the argument was whether to include every single individual protest that occurred in 2014 or 2015 as part of the same subject, which was a violation of WP:NOR till the current name was agreed upon. In Egypt's case, protests and street clashes (before, during and after the Egyptian crisis) just happen to be more fatal than the ones in Turkey or elsewhere, and casualties are sadly part of the norm. But that doesn't mean we get to pack every occasional demonstration that followed a notable and specific X protest movement, whether in Egypt or elsewhere, as part of one single "crisis". Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree but it means then that the section Chronology of this article should be stopped somewhere in 2014 (maybe November) and the comments upon 2015 shall be moved into a new article - if needed to be kept - or be put into another section (something like 'subsequents events'). Wykx 16:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Why exactly November 2014? Right now the chronology of this article supposedly stops at June 2014 because it deals primarily with the street unrest and political violence (it excludes the government crackdown and the insurgency). This proposal is meant to extend this date and broaden the scope to include/summarize both ongoing and non-ongoing post-coup subjects. A bit like what Egyptian crisis (2011–14) does with the 2011-14 events, but this one will deal with the aftermath of the coup and overall crisis. The only thing in common between this article and the Egyptian crisis article would be the period between the coup (July 3, 2013) and Sisi's ascent (June 2014). Thoughts? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Why November 2014? From I have read [[20]] the November 2014 protests were the last ones backed by the Muslim Brotherhood.

At the end of the Egyptian crisis (2011–14) there is already a section Egyptian_crisis_(2011–14)#Impact including Sinai insurgency and Insurgency in Egypt (2013–present). It would maybe be enough to add an description on the ongoing crackdown and this crackdown will have its own article once it has enough length about it. My opinion is that this current article Post-coup unrest in Egypt (2013–2014) is already huge to be broaden more and would have different belligerents, which would add confusion in the infobox. Wykx 19:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The "Muslim Youth Uprising" of November 2014 almost never took place and was a significant failure for the Muslim Brotherhood and allied Islamist factions. If anything it should be further proof that the unrest was already over. We don't have a WP:SIZE issue yet to worry about this article being "huge" (which I don't think it is). Having multiple articles one for each post-coup subject might confuse some of our readers if the whole topic is badly organized. If moved, this would become an umbrella article, with three main sections that summarize each subject: unrest, crackdown and insurgency. Each subject can later have its own article if the corresponding section becomes too large. Also, the "infobox" is already problematic and should be the least of our concerns right now. I'm of the opinion that it should be removed as a whole, as it is both redundant and misleading. The whole point of this proposal is to make this article look a bit like Egyptian crisis (2011–14), but to cover the events that followed the coup instead. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

As for the size, WP:SIZE indicates WP:SIZE "> 100 kB: Almost certainly should be divided" and "> 60 kB: Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)" and the page now stands at 91kB. Why is the infobox misleading? Wykx 20:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick glance shows that the article contains stuff related to the insurgency, not the unrest. I will trim the article of those parts (as they are irrelevant here), then we'll see how far things go. If it is still too large for further additions, we can create a new article called "Aftermath of the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état" and keep this title and its subject (the unrest) the way they are. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Wykx that it's better to keep this article focused on the post-coup civil unrest, which is important enough in itself. Otherwise, only the insurgency would have a dedicated article. The ongoing crackdown on the opposition can be treated in a new article, or in an "aftermath" paragraph in this article or in the Egyptian crisis (2011–14) article. Nykterinos (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC: Infobox

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)

• Oppose inclusion - While I have not had the chance to check each entry, the sources which I have checked (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Israel, Qatar) do not verify that these nations provided either military or material support - which is what a reasonable observer would expect inclusion to mean. NB: On that basis, I will also remove these lists, pending formation of a consensus. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

So please check sources first and even latest sources as [21] confirm also economic support.Wykx 09:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Which part of that source supports the assertion that Saudi Arabia provided military or material support to a side in the civil conflict covered by this article? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Article removed on Saudi Arabia, for example: "The kingdom has backed its words with money, and oil. It has already put together an $12bn (£7.7bn) aid package along with the UAE and Kuwait which is four times as much as the military and economic grants from the US and the EU combined ($1.5bn and $1.3bn respectively)." "why back the coup leader General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi so publicly? Sisi thanked the kingdom in fulsome terms. He said that the Saudi intervention was unprecedented since the Yom Kippur 1973 war with Israel." "King Abdullah fears the Muslim Brotherhood, which challenges the kingdom's claim to be the protector of Islam" Article from Bloomberg, for example: "Salman said Saudi Arabia is open to all options to support Egypt’s economy. Along with Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, the oil-rich kingdom has provided billions of dollars -- including deposits at the central bank and oil products -- to support the Egyptian economy since the 2013 army-led ouster of Islamist President Mohamed Mursi." Wykx 13:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed that source, and cannot concur that it shows military or material support for one side in their pursuit of this conflict. It does verify Saudi Arabia providing aid for Egypt, but not that that aid was used for one side to progress this conflict; which is how inclusion as a supporter in the Infobox would be understood by the reader. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Why should it be understood as such? In the other way the article about Qatar states "Months of tension between Qatar and Saudi Arabia over Qatar's continued support for the Muslim Brotherhood came to a head last week. It has been reported that a Saudi official threatened to close Qatar's border with Saudi Arabia if the emirate does not cease supporting the Muslim Brotherhood." The support is also clearly mentioned. Why a support should be only military and not with money? I would like also to remind you that this article is about political protests and not about a military conflict.Wykx 22:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a civil conflict; the Infobox explicitly so. I reject the validity of the question 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)

Even in military conflict infoboxes we generally prefer not to list military or material aid without direct involvement. Let alone this "civil conflict" infobox. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: one thing is to provide aid and/or economic benefits to a country (be it on idelogy, geopolitics or other grounds), and another is providing material support targeted at specific actions of unrest, which is what I believe Wykx is implying. Both statements can be tested and if there are reliable sources which support this notion they could be included, with article structure and overall contents in mind while doing so. Let's discuss sourcing and what the user is actually trying to convey while making these edits. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't imply they provide material support targeted at specific actions. They provide money and then each party of the conflict is managing this money. A part of this money is of course for political purposes and support the unrest or fight against the unrest (depending on which side). Wykx 23:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

With respect, other editors hold the opinion that inclusion in the Infobox as "supporters" does 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)

Infobox itself

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)

I agree, and specifically for this article where there is in fact two different conflicts and are widely different, which then infers that the protestors killed those 500 officers.

The 500 officers, who where claimed to be killed by militants was Libyan border violence or Sinai, which is a different event,location, and militants and not to be attributed to the anti-coup protestors. 67.149.245.62 (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• From Template:Infobox civil conflict: 'A civil conflict infobox may be used to summarize information'. If information displayed in the infobox is incorrect, you're welcome to suggest corrections. Wykx 11:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Move number of casualties to relevant articles.

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)