Talk:Abdel Fattah el-Sisi

So, it started with @Firecat93 editing the introduction to Sisi's page making it "Abd el-Fattah el-Sisi (born 19 November 1954) is an Egyptian politician, dictator and retired military officer who has been serving as the sixth and current president of Egypt since 2014". Hosni Mubarak who was for the record more authoritarian than Sisi, just has his introduction being described as just a politician. Firecat93's justification is that "Sisi is a military dictator. He should be described as an Egyptian politician, dictator, and retired military officer. Please see the Wikipedia pages of Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, Augusto Pinochet, and Benito Mussolini as examples". I disagree with him because describing Sisi as an outright dictator does not have universal acceptance like for example Mussolini. Should we make Firecat93's edits permanent or should his edits reverted? Dylam X (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

They should absolutelly not be reverted. This page has swamped in dictatorship apologism for long enough. There are extensive reliable sources that describe el-Sisi brutal ruling. Thank you @Firecat93 for working on fixing this.

P.S. If others dictators are not described as such we should fix that as well. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Please, to both editors @Dylam X and @Firecat93, develop a discussion here on the talk page on new sections, not through reversion comments, it makes it easier for other to chip in with their opinion. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The issue had ended and both of us had reached a reasonable compromise. Thank you. Dylam X (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello I recently came across the wikipedia article and noticed the relatively recent change adding "dictator" to the introduction of Sisi's page. I believe this makes no sense as the fourth paragraph already describes his regime's authoritarian policies, it is not standard for wikipedia articles to list the word dictator in the introduction of a country's president.

To further clarify my point, there are 40 countries with a worse democracy index than Egypt (link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices). For the vast majority of those countries, their presidents and leaders are not referred to in the introduction as dictators, why then the exception for Sisi?

This is not to claim that his rule isn't authoritarian, but it is already explained in the fourth paragraph and I'm asking for the article to adhere to the standards that exist in the other wikipedia articles for presidents. Serienwiki (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Serienwiki, They make a very good point about other leaders of less democratic countries than Egypt not being referred to as dictator, but describing Sisi as a dictator is now all of a sudden a legitimate exception? Even in the region, brutal leaders like Bashar al-Assad, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi and Zine El Abidine Ben Ali are all referred to as just politician. All authoritarian actions of theirs are mentioned on the page, but not the introduction. This is also the case for Sisi's page. Authoritarian actions are mentioned all over the page already, so are his accomplishments.

What I just want to say is, Wikipedia is a trusted encyclopedia because it provides information from a neutral standpoint. So, what we must not do is force people to believe in a certain biased view. Let the people read the article and make assumptions about the person themselves. Dylam X (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

For a generic policy, Yes and no - it depends where in the lead and where in the article. One problem with using this in the first sentence, already stated above, is the range from autocracy to anocracy to democracy: lots of discussion energy risks being spent on leaders in the middle of the range. Another problem with putting "dictator" in the first sentence is that this can become out-of-date before the person's death, making the lead more sensitive to whether or not anyone bothers to do an update.

While this particular article should be considered on the merits of its own WP:RS, it can't hurt to look at the most extreme dictatorships: 1e. Mohammed bin Salman (MBS; worst dictatorship per V-Dem 2024 'electoral', the main suspect for command control of a journalist being chopped up into little pieces) only has Mohammed leads an authoritarian government; 2e. Isaias Afwerki (2nd worst per 'electoral'; worst per 'liberal') has Western scholars and historians have long considered Isaias to be a dictator in the third paragraph; 3e. Xi Jinping (3rd worst per 'electoral') does not have "dictator" at all in the lead, and the closest is As the central figure of the fifth generation of leadership of the PRC, Xi has centralized institutional power by taking on multiple positions; 2l. Kim Jong Un (2nd per 'liberal') has "dictator" in the first sentence; 3l. Min Aung Hlaing does not have "dictator" in the lead, but does have ... Myanmar under Min Aung Hlaing as the second-most authoritarian regime in the world... at the end of the lead. For a more "moderate" dictator, Bashar al-Assad (16th 'electoral' and 16th 'liberal' worst per V-Dem 2024) has Academics and analysts characterized Assad's presidency as a highly personalist dictatorship,[2] only in the third paragraph. It does look very much like the most extreme dictators of countries that are too rich and geopolitically powerful for the West to upset them have enough WP:RS to avoid being consensus-described as a dictator in the first sentence of their lead (MBS, Xi Jinping), but the actual meaning of being a dictator is still present later in the lead. Some of the worst dictators who are "Western enemies" and happen to have one or more editors "defending" them thanks to the diversity of Wikipedians have also avoided "dictator" in their first sentence.

Given the practical impossibility of getting consensus to describe MBS or Xi Jinping as "dictator" in the first sentence of their lead, despite the extensive support in sources, and given that el-Sisi is a dictator geopolitically supported by the West, and that Egypt is 32e (32nd worst 'electoral') and 47l (47th worst 'liberal') per the V-Dem 2024 rankings, i.e. it's not among the most extreme dictatorships, my prediction is that consensus to use "dictator" in the first sentence for el-Sisi is unlikely. Keep in mind that academic sources will tend to be more objective and neutral than mainstream Western media and think tank sources. My prediction for an RfC for a generic "dictator-in-first-sentence-of-lead policy" on en.Wikipedia is that there would be little support for a formalised policy - most people would prefer a case-by-case basis per the sources (my predictions are often wrong, however). Boud (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC) (edit Boud (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC))

Perhaps, if supported by RS, autocrats like MBS should also be described as dictators, although, while Egypt is a military dictatorship, Saudi Arabia is a monarchy.

Here are a few more examples of autocrats described as dictators in the lead: Pinochet, Hafez al-Assad, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo Firecat93 (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Other pages suffering from a similar problem is not a convincing reason to remove it from here. They should be labeled as either dictator or "ruling xxx country in a dictatorship" in the first paragraph because that is by far one of the most notable aspects of their life and well described by sources. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The most notable aspect (and what made them signifcant) is being presidents of their countries, how they preside it is what users should read more to find out. If you wanted to test my knowledge and asked me "Who is El-Sisi", I would answer "The president of Egypt", my answer would not be "The dictator of Egypt". I might add that he's presiding over an authoritarian regime and so on but this is what we have in the fourth paragraph. Serienwiki (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The opening paragraph can use more then one word. "ruling xxx country in a dictatorship" is fitted for the opening paragraph, after a more general "politician" label for example. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Support dictator in the first sentence in this particular case (for el-Sisi), given the current four sources. Despite the lack of consistency (see my previous comment) with articles on other dictators, looking at the actual sources currently used for el-Sisi: BBC^[1] has autocratic leader, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi ... Sisi's governments have ruled Egypt with an iron fist; The Economist^[2] has military dictatorship ... The Sisi government is building a more modern autocracy; Sharan Grewal in an OUP book^[3] says the Egyptian military staged a coup to end the country's democratic transition in 2013 ... al-Sisi in turn actively organized counter-revolutionary protests and staged a coup to abort the transition; HRW^[4] Sisi's governments have ruled Egypt with an iron fist: all four sources support el-Sisi as a dictator. Boud (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand the points you're making and as I already mentioned, it is not my argument that Sisi is leading a democratic regime.

However, looking at your sources, they do not directly refer to him as a dictator either, they let the readers conclude that based on the events they list (Similar to the fourth paragraph in this Sisi article's case).

To me the term dictator might be politically charged and I reeiterate @Dylam X's point where they ask to let the people decide. We're clearly stating the authoritarian policies in the fourth paragraph already. It is not wikipedia's job to make the judgement for the reader, only to inform. We already state:

Sisi leads an authoritarian government and

He has won landslide victories in three presidential elections, each one married by irregularities and repression of the political opposition

Regarding your third source (Grewal), there is a strong argument to be made that the end of the country's democratic transition happened long before the overthrow, the regime prior to Sisi's was not democratic even if it was originally elected by the ballot box. Eric Trager lists the examples of the Morsi regime attempting to give itself absolute power over Egypt (including legislative powers)https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/egypts-new-president-moves-against-democracy

Here is the Atlantic:

It was not to be. In power, Morsi—who died yesterday after collapsing in court—and other senior Brotherhood politicians rammed through unpopular laws and wrote a new constitution that was anathema to liberal and secular Egyptians. There was no consensus, no consultation. Morsi tried to place his own decision making beyond any accountability or oversight, like every other dictator and tyrant in Egypt’s history. Eventually all but his most doctrinaire supporters turned against him.https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/06/mohammed-morsi-hope-flaws-egypt-revolution/591928/

Further more the term "dictator" is not really that easy to get consensus on. Is it a person with absolute power? In that case, I could make the argument that Sisi does not have absolute power but rather relies on the military generals to stay where he is, he does not have a cult of personality the way Nasser did.

Indeed, he has arguably forged a more coherent power bloc with the military than any previous President. Yet even as he has asserted himself as first among equals, he is also hostage to his military partnershttps://www.ispionline.it/en/publication/the-changing-role-of-the-egyptian-military-under-el-sisi-156254

"Dictator" is not Sisi's occupation, Politician and former military officer is, adding it as the second noun in the first sentence makes the article appear more biased than it should be. We should keep the fourth paragraph that clearly displays the authoritarian policies of his government and let the readers conclude based on that. Serienwiki (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding they do not directly refer to him as a dictator either: This is not a title debate. It's a debate about the content of the article. The content uses sources for meaning, not for the sources' choices of linguistic style. Whether or not the sources use the particular word "dictator" or not is irrelevant. The meaning in the four sources is to assert that el-Sisi is a dictator. The word wikt:dictator is probably the simplest English word for an authoritarian leader with absolute power apart from wikt:king or wikt:queen in non-constitutional-monarchy contexts.

If we were to insist on the particular style choices of sources, without using quotation marks, despite those style choices being arbitrary, we would in some cases be doing mini-(or worse) copyright violations.

Regarding does not have absolute power but rather relies on the military generals: All dictators (and democratic leaders) need cooperation from people around them, and indirectly on cooperation from the wider population; this is Hume's paradox. Boud (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC) (edit see below Boud (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC))

Also, many sources do refer to him as a dictator

• The Economist: "Last month Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi, Egypt's military dictator, tried out a bleak slogan for his upcoming election."
• Vox: "Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the brutal military dictator who overthrew his country's democratically elected president..."
• Politico: "Why Is Trump Helping Egypt’s Dictator Entrench His Power"

Firecat93 (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify the case of using arbitrary style choices: these would not necessarily be mini- or micro- copyright violations (my own term, not a generally accepted term), but they would be pointless - and closer to what an LLM would do rather than what a good encyclopedia should write. Boud (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand and fully agree with your first point, for the second point I agree as well, I just meant that there are levels to it, someone who built a cult of personality and based the dictatorship around their persona would be more of a dictator than Sisi for example. Where should Wikipedia editors draw the line then?

My other points still stand however. Serienwiki (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Firecat93 Why did you re-add "dictator" rather than await consensus (when there has been no consensus so far)? You cannot just force your opinion through

In any case since this is starting to become exhausting for me, I'm suggesting the following compromise @Dylam X, @Firecat93 and @Boud:

Remove "dictator" from the first sentence but also start the fourth paragraph with "Many observers see Sisi as a dictator." and list the different articles as sources, the way it exists on the Ilham Aliyev page.

In my opinion this is a fair compromise that takes all arguments listed so far into account. Hopefully you all agree with it as well! Serienwiki (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's try to resolve this through a Request for Comment (RfC) discussion. I have created one below. @Boud@Cinemaandpolitics@Serienwiki@Dylam X @Bishonen Firecat93 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok I assume you opted against the compromise. Can you at the very least revert the page back to not having "dictator" in the first sentence since that is the contested change. The page did not have dictator originally before you changed it and you're making it look like it was the default state, thanks. Serienwiki (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I support this compromise. It helps readers see reliable sources on why Sisi is a dictator without just forcing them to believe so by just straight-out introducing him as dictator in the first sentence. This further proves my point, which is respect the reader's mind in having themselves create their own opinions and assumptions about the person.

Do you know why somebody like Kim Jong Un is introduced as dictator in his article? because there is universal acceptance to that, there no debate about it. But when you get to more democratic but still authoritarian countries than North Korea for example, this subject starts to become shakier, and you'll even start to have disagreements. So here we resort to having the readers form their own opinions about the person and leave it at that.

Thank you @Serienwiki for proposing this compromise. Dylam X (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Please feel free to indicate this in the RfC below Firecat93 (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

"Do you know why somebody like Kim Jong Un is introduced as dictator in his article?"

I can tell you why. Because editors added it recently, he wasn't until few weeks ago. Reliable sources are equally polarized about el-Sisi. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm generally against the push to have dictator in the first sentence for most (if not all) leaders however it is not true, in my opinion, that "sources are equally polarized about el-Sisi". There have been multiple democracy indices posted in the discussion, and Egypt would rank on average around 40th least democratic whereas North Korea is almost always in the bottom 3. Serienwiki (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not a competition to get bottom 3. First paragraph should adequatelly describe the subject and their ruling, which is the most notable aspects of their life. Not make a vague definition that pleases investors. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Support Dictator in first sentence as, per the consensus of RS, Sisi is the leader of a military dictatorship. Here are a few more examples of autocrats described as dictators in the lead: Pinochet, Hafez al-Assad, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo. Firecat93 (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Against adding "Dictator" as a noun in the first sentence as it makes the article appear biased, is hard to define and the user may conclude that already based on the facts of the fourth paragraph. Here are examples of autocrats most of which are more authoritarian who are not listed as such in their first sentence: Saddam Hussein, Mohammed bin Salman, Ilham Aliyev, Vladimir Putin, Isaias Afwerki, Min Aung Hlaing, Muammar Gaddafi, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Serdar Berdimuhamedow, Ali Khamenei Serienwiki (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps some of these individuals should also be described as dictators.

A few examples from reliable sources that justify this descriptor:

The Economist: "Last month Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi, Egypt's military dictator, tried out a bleak slogan for his upcoming election."

Vox: "Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the brutal military dictator who overthrew his country's democratically elected president..."

Politico: "Why Is Trump Helping Egypt’s Dictator Entrench His Power" Firecat93 (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

These are not academic sources, they are articles using the term Dictator for the sake of simplicity (and since it is not inaccurate per se), they operate a completely different role from Wikipedia, it is much easier to use "dictator" than describe the fourth paragraph the way Wikipedia does. If anything these articles should be listed as references for "Several Commentators have described Sisi as a dictatory"

I also take issue with the wording of Vox here for the reasons I explained in my reply to @Boud above, they make no mention of Morsi's authoritarianism (not just in your quote but in the article as a whole)

I can find you multiple articles describing people with all sorts of words, can I add for Recep Tayyip Erdoğan former watermelon seller in the introduction and then list the reliable sources that describe him as such (because it was theoretically the case)? Or for a more serious example; why not make it "western-backed Dictator" for Sisi then? Once we start adding things beyond the occupation of the person, we open all sorts of doors.

Frankly, it feels like the desire to have dictator on his first sentence is politically motivated and not done for the sake of informing the user, if that were the case, people would focus on the fourth paragraph rather than adding an unusal word in his introduction. I do not find that corresponding to what I imagine Wikipedia's goal to be. Serienwiki (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Serienwiki Please consider reviewing Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources Firecat93 (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I already did, I did not say the sources are not reliable. I said they should be used to support something like "Several Commentators have described Sisi as a dictator" and that their role is different from Wikipedia's Serienwiki (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia should label dictatorships as such. It already does. Anyway the placement is what matters here. Whatever the definition it has to be on first paragraph.

Note that currently the first paragraph is swamped in official qualification that serve the only purpouse of watering down Sisi brutal ruling.

Before retiring as a general in the Egyptian military in 2014, Sisi served as Egypt's deputy prime minister from 2013 to 2014, minister of defense from 2012 to 2013, and director of military intelligence from 2010 to 2012. He was promoted to the rank of Field Marshal in January 2014.

This should be grately shortened. And luckly for us there is a simple way of shortening all of this "he has been ruling Egypt in a dictatorship since etc". Simple summarization of the sources.Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The opening to the Abdel Fattah el-Sisi article read:

Abdel Fattah Saeed Hussein Khalil El-Sisi^[a] (born 19 November 1954) is an Egyptian politician, dictator,^[1] and retired military officer who has been serving as the sixth and current president of Egypt since 2014.^[2]

(The word dictator been been removed for now while the RfC discussion takes place)

Should Sisi be referred to as a dictator? Some of these options are not mutually exclusive, so more than one can be selected:

• A. Yes he should be, in a similar way as described above or found in the the leads of Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, Kim Jong Un, Hafez al Assad, Pinochet
• B. No he should not be, but he should be described as an authoritarian ruler, leader of an authoritarian regime, or leader of a military dictatorship somewhere in the lead, similar to the leads of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Mohammed bin Salman, Ilham Aliyev, Isaias Afwerki
• C. No he should not be, but some variation of "Many observers see Sisi as a dictator" should be included in the lead.
• D. No he should not be, and he should not be described as an authoritarian ruler. Instead, different arguments regarding his form of rule should be summarized in the body.
• E. Other (please elaborate)

Firecat93 (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Option A (Strong Support) Sisi leads a "military dictatorship"^[3] and has, according to Human Rights Watch, "ruled Egypt with an iron fist."^[4] The lead should reflect this reality. Firecat93 (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

C. (Compromise) It describes the nature of the opposition to Sisi. And it shows that this is the main point referred to by Sisi's opposition against his rule as leader of Egypt. In addition, internationally renowned organisations like Human Right do describe Sisi as a dictator, which makes this topic very relevant when discussing Abdel Fattah El-Sisi. Dylam X (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Option C: "Dictator", unlike "Politician" and "Former Military Officer", is not an occupation and is not usually written in the first sentence of Wikipedia articles. The authoritarian nature of Sisi's regime is already well listed in the fourth paragraph. Adding dictator at the start appears politically charged and casts doubt over the neutrality of the article, and opens a door to other contentious variations such as "Western-backed dictator".

Adding that observers regard him as a dictator in the fourth paragraph would offer the best of both worlds, allowing the user to see that he is commonly considered a dictator without listing it as if it were his occupation. Serienwiki (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Option A He should either be described as a "dictator" or "ruling Egypt in a dictatorship" in the first paragraph. Placement is mandatory to ensure that the notablity of this will not be watered down. The main argument against this have been "other similar people are not labeled as such", well, they should. --Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Option A. El-Sisi is clearly a dictator per most of the WP:RS, so option A is justified under WP:VERIFIABILITY, the use of plain language rather than euphemisms, while keeping in mind WP:BLP. To what degree should we consider that other stuff exists? It's a fact that consensus editing for several of the most extreme dictators per the 2024 V-Dem Democracy rankings (under the 'electoral' or 'liberal' parameters), which include Mohammed bin Salman, Isaias Afwerki, Xi Jinping, and Min Aung Hlaing, have led to option B as the emergent consensus, with Kim Jong Un as a rare exception having consensus for option A. Option A tends to be for dictators of countries that are poor, not strongly supported by the West, and don't happen to have any Wikipedians arguing against option A. However, an argument favouring option A over option B is WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS: we shouldn't try to correct the 'wrong' (the objectively worst dictators, several of whom happen to be dictators of rich powerful countries, are under option B) by also putting el-Sisi under option B. The sources are clear that el-Sisi is a dictator. Boud (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment - just to add some academic sources: "Abdel Fattah el-Sisi – The one and only Egyptian dictator (born 1954)", Robert Springborg 2022;^[5] "The Case of Egypt: Revolution, Counterrevolution, and a Return to Brutal Dictatorship" Joseph J. Kaminski 2017 Boud (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I know It's not the main focus of your argument (which I otherwise understand) but I just wanted to mention it regardless: Joseph J. Kaminski is a very biased person for this topic given that he wants and argues for an islamically ruled state. We cannot just take him saying "Sisi is a dictator" as a reliable academic source.

(His twitter is also public and he's a very controversial person to say the least.) Serienwiki (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. Looking at the Editor's introduction to that book describing Kaminski as arguing for the viability of a modern state that is "Islamically governed", "democratic", but "non-liberal", and the context of Morsi vs Sisi, I agree that Kaminski's views on democracy versus autocracy are likely to be non-mainstream, so this is a weak source for this particular debate (except for possible use with Option C, with opinions attributed properly rather than vaguely assigned to "some", if Joseph J. Kaminski (Q131575803) becomes WP-notable). Boud (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option B as Sisi is like those leaders. Setarip (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Option A : He was popularly elected once upon a time after a bloody military coup but quickly consolidated power and established a authoritarian government with him as the dictator according to many reputable sources. His current administration has been described as even more draconian than Mubarak, and Egyptian Spring and democracy have been declared to have completely failed by observers. None of this is my original research but I won't engage in source bombing. Theofunny (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

A) yes, he is a dictator by literal definition of the word and his actions for the past 11 years forcing gripping egypt by force. 197.53.203.213 (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Option A: Absolutely, this is already done for Kim Jong Un. It isn't done consistently in the case of Putin and Xi, but I think it should be. RisingTzar (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

A. The clear consensus among reliable sources is that he is a dictator. The article should reflect that appropriately. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

C. most of the article already talks about how Authoritarian (and perhaps dictatorial) his rule is, but it cannot be added in the first sentence as an introduction, that should be, as @Serienwiki said, to the occupation that the person of the article holds and formerly held. Plus, most articles discussing authoritarian leaders do not add the label "dictator" in the first sentence unless it's very obvious, meaning that there has to be a true general consensus. But then you see Sisi just weeks ago touring Northern Europe, being welcomed and greeted by the leaders of very democratic countries. https://www.sis.gov.eg/Story/202469/President-El-Sisi-European-Tour-(Denmark%2c-Norway%2c-Ireland)?lang=en

I'm Egyptian, and I remember during the 2014 election, Sisi was genuinely a popular figure among the Egyptian public (some even adored him, see Cult of personality in the article). This was mainly because, even though Sisi overthrew Morsi, the first democratically elected president, Mosi was incredibly unpopular by June of 2013 due to his disastrous presidency. So, any support he had left was just among Islamists and followers of the Muslim Brotherhood (which had a large following at the time due to Egypt's religiously conservative nature). So you cannot compare the numbers of the people who protested at Rabaa compared to the hundereds of thousands (some even say Millions) who protested against Morsi in June 2013 (and it was arguably a revolution). Western media had always focused on how bad and wrong Sisi's decision was to overthrow the first democratically elected president, while ignoring how unpopular Morsi was and how large were the protests against him before the overthrow. So even if the 2014 election results were a sham, Sisi would have still won regardless.

But to be completely honest, Sisi is not as popular now as he was in 2014, and there has been no improvement in the state of democracy in Egypt during his rule. many in Egypt started to call his rule a dictatorship and like @Dylam X said, it is main and biggest factor of the opposition to Sisi. that must be highlighted at the start of the article and leave it at that. WalkingPie7 (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Option C: There is no requirement to label the leader of a country as a 'dictator', especially in the lead sentence.

see examples

Kim Jong Un (North Korea); B-class, first sentence, first paragraph: Kim Jong Un is a North Korean politician and dictator...

Alexander Lukashenko (Belarus); B-class, second sentence, fourth paragraph: Lukashenko has since presided over an authoritarian government and has been labeled by the media as "Europe's last dictator".

Nicolás Maduro (Venezuela); C-class, first sentence, fourth paragraph: Maduro heads an authoritarian government, and has been described as an autocrat and a dictator.

Vladimir Putin (Russia); B-class, the article's lead section does not label Putin a dictator; the government of Russia is called an authoritarian dictatorship

— Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 12:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC) —

I'm leaning towards Option B: References seem to lean towards at least this designation (if there is not a consensus outright labeling him a dictator), and it seems to have some overlap with options A and C (all dictators in this sense are authoritarian rulers, for example, so regardless of the label applied here, authoritarian ruler or dictator, the meaning will stand). It also acts as a middle ground between options A and C, which appear to be the most commonly preferred choices above. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 02:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option E - don't go on a rant Starting off with a vague pejorative just makes the article look ranty and untrustworthy. It is encyclopedic information if the article does enumerate his powers and actions, but I don't see a value to showing emotional language -- so skip saying 'dictator' unless that is his official title. See WP:LABEL and WP:BLP, and generally I suggest using restrained language and statements of fact. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  C per User:Neonorange. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• A: keep the current last paragraph of the lead as it’s, just add more sources to the first sentence of that paragraph. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the first sentence from Abdel Fattah Saeed Hussein Khalil El-Sisi[a] (born 19 November 1954) is an Egyptian politician, dictator,[2] and retired military officer who has been serving as the sixth and current president of Egypt since 2014 to Abdel Fattah Saeed Hussein Khalil El-Sisi[a] (born 19 November 1954) is an Egyptian politician and retired military officer who has been serving as the sixth and current president of Egypt since 2014

in line with what it was before. Serienwiki (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Done Firecat93 (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Abdel Fattah El-Sisi met with Ahmed al-Sharaa, March 2025.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the frame where the names of the wars are written

You named the war in which the Egyptian president was present as the Gulf War It was called the Persian Gulf War If I am wrong, you can ask your Excellency President Sisi to make sure Please let's not lie to the future generations HamedhasanzadehHHH (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

The name seems ok. See Gulf War#Names meamemg (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

> He grew up in Gamaleya, near al-Azhar Mosque, in a quarter where Muslims, Jews and Christians resided and in which he later recalled how, during his childhood, he had heard church bells and watched Jews flock to synagogue unhindered

This is strange because the Egyptian state became more hostile to Jews after the 1952 revolution. Sisi was born in 1954. By the 1960-70s, especially after Egypt's various losses to Israel that really intensified and started to turn into full on denaturalization and expulsion of Egypt's Jewish population.

I think that the claim might be untrue and should be removed, at least the part concerning Jews. It might be propaganda to make his rule more palatable to Westerners but before I make any changes I think this should be discussed more as the source seems trustworthy (Al Jazeera English). RisingTzar (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

> he later recalled how

Nevermind, the claim is probably true then. RECALLED is the key word. I am not sure if this should be mentioned then as it's a bit deceptive and I think likely never actually happened. RisingTzar (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2026 (UTC)