07/08/2013
Yes I'd like "How to write/rewrite history the way you'd like it to read" for $1000, Alex...
In recent days, the protests and clashes over the Egyptian military's July 3 ouster of President Mohamed Morsy have transpired amid a parallel battle over semantics -- specifically whether the dramatic events of the past week constituted a "coup." Adopting the loaded word has very real implications for everything from the future of Egypt's fledgling democracy to the more than $1 billion in aid Washington sends to Cairo each year. And, as with past international crises, nowhere is the debate fiercer than in the dark netherworld of Wikipedia forums. The heated back-and-forth over the title for the English-language page "2013 Egyptian coup d'état" (at least that was the title at press time) is a case in point.
In arguing for a title change, some Wikipedians have asserted that it's hypocritical to call Egypt's first popular uprising in 2011 a "revolution" and second in 2013 a "coup," given that both required military intervention to realize popular demands for a change in political leadership. "To describe the events which allowed Morsi's rise to power as a 'revolution' but those which led to his downfall as a 'coup' is clearly biased and violates NPOV [Neutral point of view]," one user writes. "A number of the comments by those defending the use of 'coup' in the title and trying to shut down discussion frankly strike me as Wiki-lawyering."
Others have argued that it's biased not to call the overthrow of Morsy a coup: The "military removing the president and installing a new one (even if not military), suspending the constitution and seizing control over various state apparatus, e.g. state TV fits the normal definition of a coup, particularly since there doesn't seem to be anything in the constitution or other legal basis for these actions (to be clear I'm only referring to the legal
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.foreignpolicy.com ...
h/t: nickcarraway
Yes I'd like "How to write/rewrite history the way you'd like it to read" for $1000, Alex...
In recent days, the protests and clashes over the Egyptian military's July 3 ouster of President Mohamed Morsy have transpired amid a parallel battle over semantics -- specifically whether the dramatic events of the past week constituted a "coup." Adopting the loaded word has very real implications for everything from the future of Egypt's fledgling democracy to the more than $1 billion in aid Washington sends to Cairo each year. And, as with past international crises, nowhere is the debate fiercer than in the dark netherworld of Wikipedia forums. The heated back-and-forth over the title for the English-language page "2013 Egyptian coup d'état" (at least that was the title at press time) is a case in point.
In arguing for a title change, some Wikipedians have asserted that it's hypocritical to call Egypt's first popular uprising in 2011 a "revolution" and second in 2013 a "coup," given that both required military intervention to realize popular demands for a change in political leadership. "To describe the events which allowed Morsi's rise to power as a 'revolution' but those which led to his downfall as a 'coup' is clearly biased and violates NPOV [Neutral point of view]," one user writes. "A number of the comments by those defending the use of 'coup' in the title and trying to shut down discussion frankly strike me as Wiki-lawyering."
Others have argued that it's biased not to call the overthrow of Morsy a coup: The "military removing the president and installing a new one (even if not military), suspending the constitution and seizing control over various state apparatus, e.g. state TV fits the normal definition of a coup, particularly since there doesn't seem to be anything in the constitution or other legal basis for these actions (to be clear I'm only referring to the legal
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.foreignpolicy.com ...
h/t: nickcarraway
No comments:
Post a Comment