Talk:Arab Spring

Rename the thing

With the Government of Tunisia having fallen and Egypt's about to (Mubarak publically fired everybody, but that's not going to satisfy anyone), it might be wise to change this to Arab revolutions of 2010-11.Ericl (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that's extremely premature. Jmj713 (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I also think that "revolutions" is premature, but I would suggest "upgrading" the article to "2010-2011 Arab World uprisings", which would certainly fit better as of now than just "protests". --Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

So far all the individual articles carry the "protests" name except Tunisia. I think it's fine as it is. Maybe, however, lowercase "world". Jmj713 (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The article Arab world uses the lowercase world. I think that this article should also lowercase world in its title.--Pengyanan (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

definately premature, even the tunisia article (the precursor) has no consensus on that yet.(Lihaas (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

What about "The Great Arab Revolt of 2010-2011"? It connects with similar region-changing events back during WWI that broke Ottoman control of the Arab World, so perhaps it would fit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.172.228.44 (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Not unless it gets that name as time moves on. The generic name we have now is fine. Jmj713 (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.currentintelligence.net/gulfstream/2011/1/31/the-great-arab-revolution-and-the-gulf-states.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.172.228.44 (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait 12 months and then let's see. Meanwhile, check out WP:NAME. For the moment we have a descriptive name. Getting a "widely used historian's" name could require waiting 5-10 years, at least. Compare to the 1848 West European and 1989 Central/East European domino-revolution-chains and see what Wikipedia names we have for them. Boud (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

They're the "Revolutions of 1848" and "Revolutions of 1989" respectively (no mention of their geographic location at all...how's that for Eurocentrism!) Nevertheless, the latter were all actually successful at overturning governments / political systems, and the former were initially successful before (mostly) being crushed or coopted, so it's best to wait, for sure. Cjs2111 (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

In light of the major protests in Tehran I would change it to islamic world protests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.149.186 (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The word "protest" more fully includes the political situation and intention of all parties discussed in this article. Using "uprising" suggests a violent intention to overthrow governments, which is highly disconnected from all given situations. The only change necessary is the capitalization of "world" and "protests" for "Arab World Protests" as a title.Zachomis (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the new name of the article, since there are major protest now in Tehran. Since the "Arab world" does not include Iran, the current title is appropriate. 128.227.41.144 (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Iran is not Arab. This title suffices. Although it doesn't roll off the tongue easily 173.33.166.58 (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd also vote for renaming it more inclusively: "2010–2011 Islamic world protests" Frimmin (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Frimmin

Saudi Arabia

The article should mention the 2009, 2010, and 2011 Jeddah floods -- 94.202.111.162 (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There should be a general section for any precursors to this overall movement.Jmj713 (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The overview section shows 4 deaths for Saudi Arabia, although the actual Saudi Arabia section claims 12 deaths. Which is up-to-date? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.68.184 (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV/Language

I'm placing this section here to deal with all matters regarding neutral-point-of-view and use of language in the article, hopefully keeping it all in one location. I'd like to start off with this bit: "The 2010–2011 Arab world protests[1] are an unprecedented[2] series of major uprisings...etc." While these events have been a surprise to many, the word 'unprecented' in an encyclopedic setting seems inappropriate and possibly biased. I would propose removing the word and move the reference into the titular phrase like so: "The 2010–2011 Arab world protests[1][2] are a series of major uprisings...etc." DerekMBarnes (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

yeah, i supposed that needs to be soiurces specificallyLihaas (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"Unprecedented" is cited. Jmj713 (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I read the cited article; it only uses the word 'unprecented' when quoting the interviewee. It is emotional language, not encyclopedic. DerekMBarnes (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Bahrain?

There have been protests in Bahrain, yet Bahrain in not on the map. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The country is at crisis, the biggest protests attracting thousands at the village of Malkiya. These are the biggest protests since the 1990s uprising, I think that its time to change it to Major Protests, btw 14 were injured. Calicoosat (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree bahrain is now under major protest: http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/blog/2011/feb/17/middle-east-protests-live-updates?CMP=twt_gu http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/201121714223324820.html

Important Historical View

Hello. I am an outsider and will not edit this article. I think that the information from this article I just read will be very useful about the historical context. Revolution: Is 1848 Repeating Itself in the Arab World? -- 09:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Unsuccessful/repressed movements, and Iran

Hello, I think emphasis should be put on the fact that most countries are not active because opposition are effectively repressed or control by governments. 2. Iran may maybe be add to the list, since the opposition try to set up manifestations agains dictatorship, but is de facto forbidden to do so, the government allowing only one manifestation of support, the Iranian government backed and pro-government one. See : Thomas Erdbrink (2011/02/11), Iranian opposition leader Mehdi Karroubi placed under house arrest, WashingtonPost.com {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Yug (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

My two cents, not mixing the Arab World with the Arab League

There is no doubt that Comoros, Somalia and Djibouti are members of the Arab League, and Eritrea is an observer but that mere fact does not make those countries part of the Arab World. Those countries have Arabs, but only as minorities, same thing with Chad and Israel to that matter, yet they are not on the map. In a historical and most importantly cultural aspect, the Arab World stops with Sudan and the horn of Africa is not included. Just take a look at a reality TV show where people call to cast their votes, and you'll notice that not one time those countries are included, and that is due to the cultural and linguistic differences. So, as an Arab, I doubt very much that these countries would be in any wave the might sweep the Arab World, and I see no point to including them in the map just because they are members or observers in the Arab League. 69.31.51.205 (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That sounds plausible, but maybe it should be discussed on the Arab World talk page. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Somalia or Djibouti ought to be included (which I would, reflecting on their membership in the Arab League), Comoros certainly should be. In addition to Arab League membership, Arabic has its status as the Comorian lingua franca. Eritrea does not consider itself an Arab nation, but has observer status out of concern for developments within Arab countries — many of which are adjacent to Eritrea and have a significant impact on the country's foreign affairs. Really, the "Arab World" doesn't necessarily have a specified political definition; one could even say it encompasses the entirety of North Africa (largely excluding Niger and Mali) and Western Asia (excluding Turkey, but including Israel for its significant Arab minority, and also Iran's western states). To put this in perspective, look at Chad. It is not a member state of the Arab League, but many people throughout the country (especially in the north) speak Arabic informally. Chad is arguably an Arab country on a cultural basis.

To sum it up, we should ensure that the countries identified in the political map are specified as member states of the Arab League. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

So, following that logic, shouldn't the article be renamed into 2010-2011 Arab League protest? 69.31.50.24 (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... you do have a point there. I never thought of it that way before. In semi-contradiction of what I said above, the Arab League is almost synonymous with the Arab World. So no, I would not support renaming this article. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Sultan Oman

There were no outcomes of oman's protests. The sultan didnt plan to go India. The credibility of source is weak, which claims to sultan having wives. I will delete the outcomes. GM25LIVE (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The sultan of oman did plan to head to India in the month of February. Both the newspapers are one of the most well read in India, and above that - the wives thign is obviously wrong - was outrageous for me too - but thats a totally different thing. Jodhpur authorities; ummaid bhavan officials as well Diwan of Royal court employees have confirmed it about the visit! And if you really care about Oman's local media referring about this trip.....did the local media even highlight egyptian protests!?? The Guardian went on to seriously criticise Omani state-controlled media for its neglect of the topic to ward off dissent! SO PLEASE - FORGET ABOUT "LOCAL MEDIA OF OMAN" Pranav21391 —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for responding. I looked in the newspaper's articles and I tried to look for a source for their contribution but I really didn't find where get their information from. Frankly, I don't know or care if the newspapers in India usually publish a false statements or news such as saying that the Sultan of Oman is married to several women and he is a "King". As for Jodhpur authorities, ummaid bhavan officials and Diwan of Royal court employees confirming the visit, I looked and goggled over the internet and I didn't find any confirmation about the visit. In fact, I only found these two of "one of the most well read newspaper in India" saying about the trip and again without giving a reliable source. As for the Omani Local Media, first I don't know why your telling me about the media highlighting Egyptian protests. Its called Oman "Local" Media not World news. The Omani local media always report if the Sultan is planning to have a major trip to another country and clearly the Guardian criticism on Omani state-controlled media have nothing to do with this subject and if there was so, why the Omani authorities want to hide a friendly trip that Sultan having to India?? Simply because there is no such thing.

If you have a reliable source saying that Jodhpur authorities, ummaid bhavan officials and Diwan of Royal court employees confirming the visit. Please share it with us, otherwise just don't. GM25LIVE (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

table of contents and subsubsections (====)

In the edit Template:Sec link auto someone replaced subsubsections in the Libya section by bold. The reader sees no difference except in the table of contents (TOC). i agree that it's reasonable not to have this detailed substructure in the long enough as it is table of contents, so i've added {{TOC limit|limit=3}} at the top of the article. i've reverted the bold to subsubsections, because these makes sense structurally - e.g. for any sort of automatic analysis, edit buttons - and in case the events in those countries turn out to be notable enough (or long enough) to require WP:SPLITting. See Wikipedia:Table_of_contents#Limiting_the_depth_of_the_TOC for more info about TOC depth. Boud (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Lihaas: probably you did the edit Template:Sec link auto to try to rapidly correct my error with a missing = symbol, so i reverted your edit and added the equals. i wasn't sure what an "eklad" is, so i assumed that correcting the = sign was what you meant to do. If you disagree with the TOC depth limit, then please discuss it here. At least one person doesn't want the table of contents to have too much structure. i can see arguments both for and against the depth limit. An argument against a TOC depth limit is that having no limit can help decide if/when a subsection needs to be split, since it's easier to see which subsections seem to have more depth. An argument in favour of the depth limit is that it avoids giving possibly arbitrary overemphasis to some countries, especially since countries with already split main articles do not have substructure in this article nor in the TOC. So i tend to agree with the depth limit. Boud (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Filled in missing URL and corrected slightly confusing wording. Boud (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Article does not need subsections for the countries

The reason I bolded all of the subsections for the countries in this article is because some of them are doubled as you can see there are two protests sections one for their country the edit summary does not show this so it adds to confusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I think what you are trying to say is that your argument against subsections of countries is that the edit summaries become ambiguous. For example, it becomes unclear in the edit summary if someone is editing e.g. Bahrain or Sudan. Checking this requires comparing the different revisions.

i understand the argument. i'm not totally convinced that it justifies not using properly coded headings. Also, RS info we have on protests in the different countries do not structure in quite the same way in each case, so the ambiguity will not happen in every case. However, at least we understand your reasoning, and people who feel strongly enough either way can discuss further here. Maybe someone knows a general guideline on the issue.

i substructured (not bolded :) your == heading here on the talk page since it is a sub-topic of the previous point.

Boud (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Change dead to 600+

I think that 607 is to precise. How did it count? And how accurate is it? It can be that people that are arrested are killed. 16:16, 12 February 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.81.169.202 (talk)

Agreed. I've gone ahead and changed it. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

600+ definitely beats 607, but how did we get any of those numbers if the (probably inaccurate) Arab World overview table says the total is 535? We need a unified death count. 76.126.68.184 (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC) On Wikipedias page on Bahrains deaths, there are 3, and here there are 2. Needs to be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.227.111 (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Iraq

A political map gauging the protests in Arab League countries.

  Government overthrown

  Governmental changes

  Major protests

  Minor protests

  Without incidents

Do you suppose the current protests in Iraq are becoming significant enough to be identified as "major" in this image? Hundreds (if not thousands) of people took to the streets in several Iraqi cities, and it resulted in the government subsidizing electricity costs. [1] Master&Expert (Talk) 03:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

done see anything on the page taht suggests big protests. all it says is a couple on 1 day, and the rest is preventaive measures. if so it first needs those cites/updates.Lihaas (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a country should only be listed as "Major" once a separate Wikipedia article exists for the protests in the country? Just a suggestion. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldnt have a problem with this, i suspect some people may see it as a pov. but go aehad and be WP:BOLD.Lihaas (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

the News paper haaretz says some one died of self-immolation in Mosul, also a planed "Revolution of Iraqi Rage" on the February 25 near the Green Zone. http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/iraq-man-dies-of-self-immolation-to-protest-rising-unemployment-1.343162 should this be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAXWELL217 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm now in agreement with Vis-a-visconti, in that we should wait until the protests in Iraq are covered in a separate article. But it may not be too long until it has to be created. Master&Expert (Talk) 20:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Lebanon

I think the recent Lebanese protests need to be included somewhere on this page, if only as context to explain perceptions of wider regional instability, say on the part of Israel, for example. The historical record would be lacking without it. Cjs2111 (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

i digtress, instability there is about domestic politics alone and not of the same grievances. although id support a "see also" to Lebanese government of November 2009 that is duly updated (buy me in fact)Lihaas (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That's what I mean. There just needs to be some reference to what's happening in Lebanon, even if it's not connected. Cjs2111 (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Article move discussion: 2010–2011 Arab world protests → 2010–2011 Middle East protests

2010–2011 Arab world protests → 2010–2011 Middle East protests —

• As the article notes, there have been concurrent and similar protest actions in Europe and even South America. Iran may be just about to join in. All have been linked at least to some degree with the protests in Egypt and Tunisia, to a more significant degree than, say, the minor protests in Libya have. Should this article be expanded to something more general than "Arab world" protests, either now or after the scheduled Iranian demonstrations, at the least? Cjs2111 (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
• I concur. Nobody can be sure that this is an Arab phenomenon only. We live in the globalisation age.--78.3.216.50 (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

think we should wait to see if the other protests expand. With Iran we could call it "ME protests" or something, with the others we need to see possible names.Lihaas (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Why was the article re-named? Countries such as Algeria and Tunisia are in the Maghreb and North Africa...but they are not in the Middle East! Vis-a-visconti (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Please note: Some edits occurred just after the move that allowed 2010–2011 Arab world protests and 2010–2011 Middle East protests to exist separately. I have reverted this former back to a redirect to prevent a messy divergence. Please be aware of this in any future moves. --Natural R_X 18:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

agree with Vis-a-visconti the move was wholly unilateral and the mover didnt even discuss it. He has alo purely WP:Crystal Balled. there is no reason for the move. Arab world is the accated normLihaas (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I also strongly oppose this article move, by Vis-a-visconti's arguments. Should there be consensus that Iran should be included, we'd better rename it Muslim world protests which would include both Tunisia and Iran. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You could always just drop the location modifier entirely and just call it 2010-2011 political protests. Ocaasi (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Since when do we move articles, and then have a discussion about moving it. WTF. Jmj713 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Even though I've edited the article some since it was moved (copyediting is all), I also oppose the move until consensus has been reached. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The move makes the article title deceiving. The protests encompass much of the Arab World, which includes the Middle East. It's best to move the article back to the previous title unless they're being split. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose — The protests have thus far been largely isolated to the Arab world, not the Middle East as a whole. Even if they did spread to other countries like Iran, I would recommend covering it on an entirely different article. Master&Expert (Talk) 20:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Reasons:
  1. procedural: a heavily edited page should not be moved without first getting consensus on the talk page unless the move is extremely non-controversial;
  2. content: the first revolution occurred in Tunisia, which is not part of the traditional definition of the Middle East, it's only a part of the Greater Middle East, which also includes Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, etc.
  3. RS: we would need most WP:RS's to claim that the networking/cultural/regional aspect of this is better defined as "Greater Middle East" rather than "Arab world"; AFAIK RS's have generally described this as an "Arab world" phenomenon
  4. length: the page is long enough as it is; if there is justification for a wider geographical region page, e.g. 2010–2011 African-European-Asian protests, then a summary of this page can constitute one section of that new page.
• (As of 21:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC), someone has already reverted back to "Arab world", but i'm commenting anyway.) Boud (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose another more generic article should be built to cover other regions. Expansion to "Middle East" still would not cover the points mentioned in the rationale (ie. Europe is still not part of the Middle East). This article is relatively tight in orientation since all these locations speak Arabic, and can be linked with the Al-Jazeera inspired protests following Tunisia. Those regions outside the coverage area are a secondary expansion (such as Iran, Serbia, etc) should be covered in a more generic article. Say 2011 anti-despotism protests in oppressed regions or whatever. 64.229.101.183 (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment the protests in Europe, S America, Africa etc seem relatively minor at the moment. Most of the issue here focuses on Iran, and whether use of the term Middle East would make sense or make Tunisia, for example, an outlier. Greater Middle East has been suggested as an alternative, but a less cumbersome (and more often used) term that should work is MENA. The new article would be titled something like 2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa protests. It could even be a separate meta article, with Arab world protests existing as an independent entity if people determine there are too many common links between the Arab countries not present in the Iranian protests to not have extensive commentary on them - though I don't really think that's the case. Cjs2111 (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

italy protests

italy has veen reverted pending discussion. the revolt over there doesnt seem the least bit related (or have any parallels veen made). we cant add ALL protests that happen concurrently.Lihaas (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Berlusconi seemed quite desperate to defend Ben Ali AFAIR, and the peoples on the north and south sides of the Mediterranean have had strong social/cultural/political interactions/relations for thousands of years. i think the hypothesis that Italians were re-motivated to protest by the south-of-the-sea revolutions is reasonably credible. Berlusconi holds a near monopoly on private and state television (AFAIR), so that's not so far from being a dictator. On the other hand, my arguments in the previous talk section still apply. Encyclopedic knowledge about a network - human society - has to be divided up in some ways in order to fit conveniently in encyclopedia pages, even if they're electronic. The best efforts at being NPOV + RS about this are what we need. If someone finds enough RS who claim that there's a pattern in the 2010–2011 African-European-Asian protests, then maybe try starting that page. Don't expect it to be easy - it might even get a speedy delete. Wait 12-24 months and if Africa-Europe-Asia has undergone a widespread revolutionary fervour (maybe North America too?), then new pages would be justified. Boud (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

i just looked at the "concurrent protests" section. Italy is not the only country with no RS claim to being inspired by the Tunisia/Egypt revolutions in the present version Template:Sec link auto:

• Albania - literally, the 150 injured protestors (= "the latter") stated that they were trying to carry out Tunisia-style unrest; guessing what is really meant, this was only the prime minister trying to use Tunisia as a criticism
• Bolivia - source 174 only says "Popular pro-democracy protests in Tunisia, Egypt and other parts of the Middle East have put Latin American rulers on guard and Morales ... " - this is a vague association - protests overthrowing rulers in Latin America, mostly with electoral followups, have been happening for about two decades there.
• Ethiopia - i didn't check the source, but i don't see any Tunisia-Egypt link in the wikipedia text at all
• Former Soviet Union - sourced crystalballing seems a bit weak for an entry here
• Serbia - no link with Tunisia/Egypt at all in the text

Almost all of this should go to some other page like List of anti-national-government protests in 2011. Excluding Italy in the context of the Albania/Bolivia/Ethiopia/Former Soviet Union/Serbia entries makes it sound like the subsection title should be Similar concurrent protests in non-Western countries outside the Arab world. Either Italy should be reverted or all these non-RS'd or vague links should be removed. Boud (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed IF that was the case. Italy clearly has links there (paid libya $50b (so theyre clearly making more)), BUT the reasons cited here suggest its just a protest of some women complaining about him (how does that have to do with poverty reasons cited for most protests.?)

albania was added by me to the tunisia page and moved here by someone else.

bolivia suggests links already as does ethiopia and the former soviet union. serbia doesnt mention links but the reasons are the same ie= change in govt. italy doesnt event have that. the non-western part sounds plausible though.Lihaas (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I oppose adding Italy here, since I don't see anything their protests have in common with those in the Arab world, apart from being, well, protests. Berlusconi is not a dictator either, although he sometimes acts as if he were one. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Governmental Changes in the West Bank

The cabinet was just dissolved.[2]

Map should be amended.

--Found5dollar (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Main page

Our article made it to the Main page of Wikipedia. Good work! Jmj713 (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to burst your bubble, but it really isn't that hard if your article is based on the biggest world event going on right now :P --haha169 (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, but if it was poorly done, it wouldn't have been linked to from ITN. Jmj713 (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Iran

300k or more on the streets of Tehran. It looks like there might be a siege like Terir Square. Ericl (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

350,000 from the reports i've seen. Not to mention the protests in all the other cities. Silverseren^C 21:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Iran is not part of the Arab world

Whatever your definition of the Arab world is, Iran is not included. Therefore, Iran should be removed from the table. Iran has a Arabic-speaking minority, but so does Israel, yet we do not consider Israel part of the Arab World.99.35.48.66 (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The article specifically has Iran in the section with other countries labeled as "outside the Arab world". These countries are still having protests as a result of the protests inside the Arab world, though it is clearly defined that they are outside of it. I don't see the issue. Silverseren^C 23:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I mean the "Overview" table. Not by "Outside the Arab world". In the table I was specifically taking about, Iran is included, even though that table is for Arab world protests. Therefore I think Iran should be removed. 99.35.48.66 (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That's true. First, we need to split off the article into Arab world and non Arab world protests, which we are working on. Silverseren^C 00:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Does it really matter which of these protests are Arab and which are not? Isn't there a more common thread between them than ethnicity, namely political discontent with authoritarian regimes? Why not just use a more inclusive category? Ocaasi (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Current events is flexible. Just because it is called "Arab world protests" now doesn't mean it can't be expanded (nifty little move page). From what I know, those protesters were inspired by the events in Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, and Yemen. Seems like a pretty clear link to me. Refusal to include Iran is akin to, for example, if Wikipedia was around back when Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated and we refused to expand the scope to include its effect on starting WWI. Of course, this is all my own opinion.--haha169 (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I will be honest, I agree, but let's hypothetically pretend that in China, they decide to overthrow Hu Jintao. They will say that they were inspired what happened in Tunisia and Egypt (like in Iran), so does that mean they should be in the article? I say no, since China is NOT in the Arab world. Unless you want to change the article to "2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa protests", I keep my opinion that Iran should be removed from the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.35.48.66 (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, if this happens in China, then the protests will have gone worldwide similarly to how an assassination in Sarajevo turned into a worldwide conflict. --haha169 (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps '2010-2011 Pro-democracy protests' would be a more descriptive name. Flatterworld (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed Iran from the lead. Iran should not be part of this article's lead, this is misleading, and would fuel popular misconception Iran is an Arab country. Kurdo777 (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Bahrain and the West Bank

I think it's time to recognize Bahrain's protests as significant enough for a separate article, and to be codified orange on the political map (representing major protests). I also think the West Bank should be codified red because the government is being reshuffled. I would do it myself, but I'm not sure what program is used to edit the image. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I just created a page for Bahrain. It's a stub at the moment, but I could use some help in expanding it. Does anyone have any fair-use images to use in the infobox? Master&Expert (Talk) 01:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe Bahrain should be pointed out by a bigger orange dot, as are tiny countries in Europe.--78.2.29.139 (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You can't even see Gaza on the new map. I have no idea why the old map was taken down - it was better than this one. There have been protests in Gaza...and yet Gaza isn't even shown on the map. Gaza should be added and shown in yellow.

http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=235833

Vis-a-visconti (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I also think it would be nice to see Bahrain somehow magnified on the map. Right now, it's practically invisible. Cjs2111 (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Renaming of article proposal

These protests started in Iran. Iran, as many have pointed out, is not even Arab. So we need a new title for the page. I've suggested:

• 2010-2011 worldwide political protests
• 2010-2011 populist uprisings
• 2010-2011 pro-democracy protests

... or any combination therein--basically anything which can open this up to Iran but also potentially Cuba or who knows, maybe Zimbabwe will get in on it. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest Greater Middle East Populist Uprisings. You can argue that Iran is not part of the ME, or that Algeria is not part of the ME, but it's hard to argue that they are not part of the "Greater Middle East". They are not quite at the level which deserves "worldwide" status. I may vote for that if it spreads to El Salvador or Burundi. But for now, these movements are clearly constrained to the Muslim countries in and near the Middle East. Colipon+(Talk) 04:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I like it. Although sources on "populist uprisings"? --haha169 (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the article needs to be renamed to "Middle East and North Africa protests" or something similar, since there's clearly a link from Tunisa to Egypt to Iran.Froo (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, see my comment in the renaming proposal above suggesting MENA as the best choice as a commonly accepted for a catch-all region including both the entire Arab world and Iran. Cjs2111 (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Middle East and North Africa protests seems an accurate article name. Midlakewinter (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to rename, I'd prefer "North African and Middle East protests" (to show the chronological order of the protests), or just "Muslim world protests". --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Clarity: I renamed this section so more people will find it. (I just suggested '2010-2011 Pro-democracy protests' in an earlier section on this page, before finding this.)Flatterworld (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• I would support either "North African and Middle East protests" (or vice-versa) or "MENA protests". Silverseren^C 17:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would support "2010-2011 protests in North Africa and the Middle East" as a big improvement on the current title, but I do wonder whether we should not just drop the geographical reference entirely? Why not simply "2010-2011 pro-democracy protests"? This article already has a number of countries listed which are not Arab and not in the Middle East or north Africa.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I also agree with "2010-2011 pro-democracy protests". Xashaiar (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see this discussion until after I moved the article, anyway "Western Asia" is better then "Middle East" as "Middle East" is euro centric. Fell free to move it back if you disagree. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia, and in English, including in North American, South African and Australian useage, Middle East is an extremely well-established geographical description. 'Western Asia' is almost never used. However I do think that we should circumvent all of these geographical issues by using a title such as '2010-2011 pro-democracy protests'. Numerous countries outside of North Africa and the Middle East have already been impacted, as is clear from the contents of this article. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Iran added to the map?

I think Iran needs to be included in the map/discussion of the arab world protest--there are clearly some significant protests going on and they are definitely involved in this wave of revolt and revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.43.189.89 (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

..orange--78.2.29.139 (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not Arab. Chesdovi (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If not arab, with Muslim tradition. Iran must be include. This is the country with the biggest demonstrations, protests and resistence to the (political) police. --147.84.132.44 (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Iran should be removed completely from the article, the links, the external links, see also, .... The things happening in Iran are different (started differently, caused differently, aims differently). We should avoid wp:synth. Xashaiar (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Iranian protests have been periodic for at least the last 4 years. Protests in Iran should have it's own separate article. 72.14.228.129 (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera

The problema is that Al Jazeera broadcast from Qatar, a non free country. It (or a similar channel) would broadcast from Tunisia or Egypt. --147.84.132.44 (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Constitutional model

Which is the constitutional model ?. Mali is a democratic country, speak French (i.e. as Tunisia) and it is in the north part of Africa. --147.84.132.44 (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Arab Leage Countries

"The 2010–2011 Arab world protests[1] are an unprecedented[2] series of major uprisings, demonstrations and protests in the Arab countries ", I would change to "The 2010–2011 Arab world protests[1] are an unprecedented[2] series of major uprisings, demonstrations and protests in the Arab League countries" or "countries that belong to the Arab League" . --147.84.132.44 (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Why? It's not exactly accurate. There are several Arab League countries that have not seen protests, the Arab League has not been involved in any significant way, etc. Also, we're legitimately debating moving the article to a title that encompasses a wider region than even the Arab world. Cjs2111 (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Page move

Watching this debate play out every time a template gets added is wasting a ton of time, so I changed the name per the discussion above. It's not perfect, but I think it's an improvement. Iran is not Arab, and the affected region is continually expanding. We may have to eventually just change it to 'global pro-democracy protests' or something like that, but for now I think this will avoid problems. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

a bit quick for the move, the non-Arab protests are still minor at this point (iran's seems to be growing granted but we have to see the scope of that). We also need to chang eother things like the map to reflect the new article and the lead and infobox need to match please.Lihaas (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"Middle East" is euro centric terminology, "2010–2011 North Africa and Western Asia protests" would be better. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous name. I think we should have stuck with "Arab World protests" even if we risked offending Iranians. You can argue Iran is not part of the Arab world but the cause and effect of these protests are still largely contained within the Arab world. If a protest started in Tonga as a result of solidarity with Egypt, we can still include that in the article as part of the section "effects outside of the Middle East" or "effects outside of the Arab World". I.e., the name itself does not have to be strictly inclusive of every single country that has been affected by the protests, if the essence of the protests are still limited within a region (here, the ME, Arab World, or Muslim world, but most certainly NOT "Western Asia and North Africa"). It seems to me the only reason we have compromised on the terribly awkward name is Iran and Iran alone. Also, I disagree that "Middle East" is "eurocentric". It is the term widely used in the English language, even by the Middle Easterners themselves, to describe the region. This is political-correctness and pedantics gone amok. Colipon+(Talk) 20:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Current title is fine. Since the current title includes Iran, it should stay as it is. 128.227.41.144 (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The article, as it stands, specifically talks about protests in the Arab World. Iran's protests are linked to in the "concurrent protests outside the Arab World" section. Either the article is renamed back to the original, or Iran is included in the body of the text. I would vote for keeping the article as it is, and renaming it back to Arab World protests, but do not have great objection to the inclusion of Iran. --Fjmustak (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The "concurrent protests outside the Arab World" section also has Albania, Serbia, Bolivia, Bangladesh, so Iran fits there with them, "2010–2011 Arab world protests" is probably the best name. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

there was no consensus for the current incarnation, the Middle East and North Africa had consensus. (and its not my opinion as i was against the gran of consensus) we get consensus TEHN move, not th other way around. please get consenssu first.Lihaas (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see the above discussions before I moved it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

'2010–2011 North Africa and Western Asia protests' would seem a very odd title indeed to most English speakers in North America, South Africa and Australasia as well as Europe, where Middle East is a very well established name. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The current title is accurate, non-biased, and extremely unfamiliar. But it solves the "Arab" problem. Given the growing scope of the protests, it very well might make sense to avoid geographical terms entirely and just go with 2010-2011 global democracy protests; something like that. Ocaasi (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What in the love of crap's name is going on with this article? It not revolutions nor is it "pro-democracy" protests. Bahrain wants reforms, Yemen wants Saleh's ouster. (nothing about a change in governing structure). Other countries mention nothing. This is pov/synthesis. the region based name was best and by consensus.--Lihaas (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest move protection be put in place until a consensus is formed this is crazy. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we please stop the ping-pong moving? Jmj713 (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

New map

Since the protest have now moved to Iran, and the article is now renamed "2010-2011 North Africa and Western Asia Protest", a new map should be made which shows Iran. 128.227.41.144 (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you make one of these pretty maps that change with time so that we could see the development of events acording to time? It would be cool if we could see a map in which we would see tunisia with minor protests then the goverment change and all the other protests. Thanks Federico C

Moved Iran

Moved Iran from "Protest outside the region" category to "Countries". The current title would include Iran under the region of the protest, so I believe this move was appropriate. 128.227.41.144 (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup, good move. Ocaasi (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Self-immolations

The self-immolations table is well-done and important. I'm not sure it belongs in its current place in the article. Also, should we have a deaths/injuries/arrests table as well? Ocaasi (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I thinkwe should keept it. Wouldnt mind deaths/injuries/arrests on a transcluded page like on the egypt article.Lihaas (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Usage of "Middle east" in title

  Traditional definition of the Middle East

  Greater Middle East

  Central Asia (sometimes associated with the Greater Middle East)

How is it defined in the article? There is more than one view on where the middle east lies. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In this instance, it doesn't matter. The focus is on the Arab World, which spans Western Asia (the traditional political definition of the Middle East) and Northern Africa (oftentimes included in the Greater Middle East). Master&Expert (Talk) 02:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Current consensus compromise: 2010-2011 Pro-democracy protests, new title and a way forward

Per talk I renamed it. Advise that if another government falls a separate split be made called 2010-2011 Pro-democracy revolutions. Each time a nation "graduates" from protest to overthrowing the government, slide it over and leave lighter info on the parent. CHEERS. Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What talk? I saw maybe two editors that agreed here. I oppose this title as it is too vauge okay where are these pro democracy protests taking place? Are they taking place on the moon? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

They take place on Earth, silly. They are now on at least, what, 3 continents? As of this week, THIS title at 2010-2011 Pro-democracy protests is accurate. Africa, Europe, Asia affected. Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

These current changes and the name of the article change are ridiculous.128.227.41.144 (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is a linguistically accurate title ridiculous? Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a good compromise until there is a generally accepted name for these protests. I think I changed all the various pages to redirect to this one, so the main page link works again. Chris Quackenbush (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

no, there is no consensus for this whatsoever the discussion above supported north africa and the middle east, only two person suggested something of this sort. Please partake in discussion BEFORE not afte a move.Lihaas (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like concensus just formed. Consensus isn't uniform acceptance. Some people lose, regretfully. Just ask Mubarek. Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And being serious, we can't call it the "Arab" or "Middle East" or "Africa" protest. It's gone to Asia and Europe now. Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you really say 100% certin that ALL THE PROTESTS IN EACH COUNTRY were Pro-democratic? In some countries protests were for diffrent things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority were/are democratic reform. Feel free to remove the handful that aren't. Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87 - please name which countries you feel a desire for greater democracy was/is not the main motive for protests so that others can better understand where you are coming from.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think 'populist protests' is more accurate than 'pro-democratic'. 2010-2011 Global populist protests. That's about as accurate as I can get it. But it sounds like poo. Ocaasi (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Some countries like Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, and Saudi Arabia have economic issues to blame for protests. Rising food prices I also have been seeing alot here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It can be fine tuned but it's flat dumb to call it out by Arab, African, Asian, Middle East, or anything specific. Hell, we got Bolivia now. In a week or two we may be calling it 2010-2011 Global democracy protests ! Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Pro-Democracy protests can refer to any number of protests around the world, including in Burma/Myanmar, SE Asia (PAD/yellowshirt protesters), etc. This article should stick to related protests in the MENA/Greater Middle East region. I prefer the old title that specifies this rather than the new title '2010-2011 Pro-Democracy Protests'. #JustMyOpinion - Kylelovesyou (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This refers to more than just teh Arab WOrld though, as now IRan is involved. - Kylelovesyou (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This title is pov and "Merrill Stubing" has shown his pov and diktats as an exuse for consensyus seeing the baove. consensus is not formed by you and this makes it ahrd to AGF. either you get consensus FIRST or the title stays. wikipedia consenss doesnt develop AFTER the move. Lihaas (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. It's not a democracy, unlike these protests and all. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarity. imo 'pro-democracy' is appropriate because all these protests seem to be about people wanting more of a role in their governments. That's what 'democracy' means. If any of thee protests are about people wanting no change in their government at all, just protesting against the price of food or something, take them out. 'Protesting for change' is not necessarily pushing for an 'overthrow' or 'revolution'. That's why Pro-democracy protests is, imo, the most accurate. Flatterworld (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I asked for immediate 911 on protection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#2010-2011_Pro-democracy_protests_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#HELP_MOVE_WAR Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There is NO CONSENSUS at least 3 editors oppose the title you are the one who changed the title to this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Uh, you're mistaken. I got a lot of agreement here and another on my talk. Beyond which, your title is inaccurate. How does "Africa and Middle East" account for South America, Europe, and Asia? Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not all world protests are somehow interconnected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.41.144 (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You made these changes, without any consensus!!!!! 128.227.41.144 (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. Then people agreed. That's how it rolls. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Some may have agreed, but judging from the talk page a lot of people also disagreed, and nowhere have I been able to find anything resembling consensus. In the "bold, revert, discuss"-cycle the fact that there are people disagreeing and that your bold move has been reverted by interested parties means that consensus has not yet been achieved, and then you need to discuss your move on the talk page, not engage in a move war. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it should stick to Arab World/MIddle East/MENA 2010-2011 protests (NOT general 2010-2011 pro-democracy protests) - Kylelovesyou (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I dont like the new title either. -206.126.56.131 (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would agree to any title but this as it is not accurate and too vauge. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there could be a 2010-2011 pro-democracy protests article AND a separate section for just MENA/MIddle East - 206.126.56.131 (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• note - not certain why but Merrill Stubing has reported this issue to the Administrators noticeboard, here. Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My view: four continents

If we call it North African/Middle East we may as well call it Australian/New Zealand for accuracy. It's spreading all over--the title HAS to reflect that. That's my sole and only bone to pick. Nothing more. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

NO!!!!! The dynamic and circumstances of the protest in the Middle East and North Africa are not the same of the protest in other parts of the world. Why can't you understand that?! Loro-rojo (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the above post - 206.126.56.131 (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Reasons for/against each title

Let's leave this where it is as of my writing this until we all agree on a new home accounting for 100% technical accuracy, yeah! Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

MerrillStubing, you had no right to delete an ongoing vote on the title. Nobody died and made you king. If you don't know how to work with others, you may find yourself banned. Consider this your official First Warning. Some of us are getting sick and tired of trying to work towards a consensus and then finding you're wildly deleting discussions and claiming you're 'being bold'. Go read the Wikipedia guidelines. Flatterworld (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

restoring,..--Lihaas (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but now 'Knowledgekid87' has decided to 'be bold' and archive it, so we can no longer use it as a summary of the discussions going on below. And of course it was first reverted so it's an out-of-date version - how useful, right? So much for Assume Good Faith - the entire discussion today has been nothing but "I know! Let's start ANOTHER section so we can keep everyone confused! Anything to avoid getting to a consensus!" This has not been Wikipedia's finest moment. Flatterworld (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

A summary of what? You and me can both count the amount of For and againt's here and this shouldnt be tallied as a vote but rather a discussion and the strength or weakness of the arguements. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that all you wanted to do (same as everyone else, apparently) was start your own little 'voting section' - which you've now done, and for which you have one (1) supporter. Congratulations. Flatterworld (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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.

---

Closed discussion per WP:VOTE get a consenses on this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Re-Closed Discussion, I have no problem with the consensus reaching below but there is no reason to keep a vote here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

How about...let's leave it as is until we have a vote. The redirects are getting too much. First, are these the only two options or is there support for any others?

A. 2010-2011 Pro-democracy protests

B. 2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa protests

C. 2010-2011 East Asian and North Africa protests

D. 2010-2011 Populist protests

E. 2010-2011 Arab world protests

F. 2010-2011 Great Middle East protests

• A Flatterworld (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• D for technical Accuracy. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• E Personally, I prefer the original name. Jmj713 (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• B Loro-rojo (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• B This should not be a vote, and more titles can be thought up than just these two. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• E although b is cetainly better than the rest--Lihaas (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• E major events take place in Arab countries, and this is what most reliable sources are using  Cs32en Talk to me  23:14, 15 February 2011 (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.

A. 2010-2011 Pro-democracy protests

For: technically more accurate. Global in nature. Against: 100% of them (but most!) are not pro-democracy. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Against: is pov/syntheis on wikipedia editors. im sure the mubarak fans have their own idea of democracy nmever mind what others think (elections sdid exist). see the al jazeera article on the "elitE" who support mubarak.--Lihaas (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Against: Protests outside of the MENA/MIddle East are NOT AT ALL related to the Middle East/Arab World/MENA protests. (if you must, then create a separate article for other countries) - 206.126.56.131 (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Against The demands are broader than democracy. In particular, people are protesting against corruption, a rise in the prices of food and other basic needs, and against economic injustices. The name "Pro-democracy protest" just highlights the one aspect that appears to be most compatible with how Western government prefer to see the protests. While some media may have chosen to describe the protests as "pro-democracy", most do not use that as a definition. CNN, for example, referred to the protest in Egypt as "Uprising in Egypt", then to "Revolution in Egypt". Arguable, the situation is much more fluid with regard to the varied protest in the different countries of the region, but that, to me, rather suggest to choose a more generic, and indeed less specific, name.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Strong against - same reason as User above. "Democracy protests" reflects a poor understanding of the whole situation and is overtly ideological. I don't believe the earlier protests to be ideology driven and bent on "democracy" per se, even if the character of the protests has evolved to something akin to that. Colipon+(Talk) 23:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Against Not Accurate and too vauge, also per above - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

For: Less subjective, more flexible, more reflective of the reality (as is actually described in the article itself). Rangoon11 (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Against: This is incredibly vague and not descriptive at all toward what we're talking about. They are not all pro-democracy, they are all reformist. Just using the term democracy in reference to this sounds incredibly POV. Silverseren^C 23:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Against — It remains yet to be seen if the protestors are rallying for greater influence over government (although I suspect they are). Regardless, the title of major revolutionary movements should include the year (or years) of occurrence and the country (or countries) in which it has occurred. This particular unrest is best described as "Arab World protests", while Iran is better covered in a separate article altogether. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Against to add to the reasons above, many of these countries already have democratic elements (see Politics of Bahrain for example) but the protests are pressing for reforms. And to echo above sentiment, economic and anti-corruption rationales are a more clearly articulated driver in many of these situations than democracy, specifically. Cjs2111 (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Against after reading the comments above. Obviously the term has been totally (and perhaps purposely) misinterpreted, so there's no point in using it if it's just going to be used as an excuse to get people all ginned up with anger and hate so they can insist 'Westerners' are insulting them. Unbelievable. Flatterworld (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

B. 2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa protests

For: more familiar, what this was originally considered as.

Against: Not even slightly accurate geography any longer. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

For: MENA/Arab WOrld/Middle East are the areas this article should concentrate on due to their related protest reasons, related cultures, influence on each other, geopolitics. Protests outside the Greater Middle East are unrelated to the main series of protests across the Middle East/MENA region. - 206.126.56.131 (talk)

For - This is my 'second best' solution, infinitely better and more accurate than 'Arab protests' but still too narrow for my liking. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

For - widely accepted terminology and accurately reflects geography of the principal interrelated protest actions (i.e. Arab world + Iran) Cjs2111 (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Against as too long to be a 'commonly used name'. I'm surprised you didn't throw Maghreb in there and make it even longer. None of these terms have a single agreed-upon definition, which is why the news media I cited earlier have been using 'Middle East' to refer to the protests as a group, or avoiding any sort of 'grouping'. This demand for perfect accuracy isn't realistic. Flatterworld (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously we can't go for perfect accuracy, but what do you propose instead? "Middle East" is just as fraught, but few definitions of that term would be inclusive enough. MENA is commonly used in many settings; "MENA" itself gets 33m Google hits and MENA with "Middle East" quoted beside it gets 12.6m. You don't need to get any more specific at this point; "Maghreb" overlaps with "North Africa". Cjs2111 (talk) 07:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Against Doesnt the middle east also include Africa as it is? See the map above for my point there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

For This seems to be the best option, as these protests are localized in MENA. However, I'd phrase it 2010-2011 protests in the Middle East and North Africa. A little long, but not necessarily too long. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

For As Muboshgu and others have said, the protests are no longer 'contained' within the Arab world, and thus, the article's title should be changed to reflect that fact. Rickington (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

C. 2010-2011 West Asia and North Africa protests

Resolved

and  Not done east asia is abhect.--Lihaas (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Against: not geographically accurate at all. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Against: East Asia (Burma, THai, etc.) not relative to MENA/Middle East - 206.126.56.131 (talk) note: sorry, it was supposed to be west asia Ocaasi (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Against awkward terminology, not as widely in use as MENA. Cjs2111 (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

D. 2010-2011 Populist protests

For: Simple, most accurate. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Against: Populist protests in East Asia, Europe, Bolivia, etc. are uncorrelated with the protests in MENA/Middle East - 206.126.56.131 (talk)

E. 2010-2011 Arab world protests

Against: not just Arabs anymore. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

FORstarted with the arabs, mosltly arab. change is just for rian. and the old "similar protestS" adequetaely places it under thsi unbrella page.

EVERYONE in this latest section is gainst the move except for one person who claims "consensus" WP:BRD is beyond the initial bold and AGF edit. You are clearly against the grain of consensys.--Lihaas (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

For This all started in the Arab world and i have seen in the media the protests still being referred to in the arab world. Section and new articles can always be made for other areas of the world. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

For: However, protests in Iran ARE related to the Arab WOrld protests (Iran is not in the Arab WOrld), this should be considered - 206.126.56.131 (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Strongly against - Events in Iran make this title untenable. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

thats the point. the article is NOT aout iran. thats wht everyone is saying.--Lihaas (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Iran has two paragraphs in the article and the events in Iran are clearly just as relevant as events in Yemen or any other country in the area. An Arab Middle East/Non-Arab Middle East article split would be quite absurd. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

your e referring to the new reorg, that is under dispute. the old version was stable and fine.--Lihaas (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

For Most important events clearly take place in Arab countries. Reliable sources use this or very similar wording, even after protests in Iran intensified.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Weak against Iran would seem to make this untenable, but there's still a sense that the protests that are happening in the Arab world are more closely linked (i.e. articles referencing a "new pan-Arabism". It might make sense to construct a meta-article for MENA that could encompass a broader range of protests in Iran, etc. while leaving this article alone. Cjs2111 (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

F. 2010-2011 Government protests

For Probably better than pro/anti democracy. The protestors all want more of a role for the people in their government, which imo is the definition of 'democracy', but 'government' is less likely to imply this is some pro-Western partisan thing. I was thinking ancient Greeks, but from the discussion it here, it's clear not everyone else was - which means that name wasn't clear. Flatterworld (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Against: This title makes no sense. Again, I'd like to express the geopolitics of the situation. - 206.126.56.131 (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Against doesnt account for the anti-government stance--Lihaas (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

G. 2010-2011 Middle East protests

Point of order being added as this is what The Guardian, New York Times and Washington Post are using, and they include Iran in this. Flatterworld (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Please show references. Jmj713 (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

lol If you don't know how to find the websites of three of the most major news media in the world, perhaps you shouldn't be working on this Wikipedia article - where are you getting your info? Are you still on AOL? ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should re-read Wikipedia:Etiquette. Jmj713 (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Against: There's no reason Wikipedia can't be more precise than minute-to-minute journalistic liveblogs; in fact, it practically has a duty to be such. This is still better than all the other proposals save for "Middle East and North Africa" though. Cjs2111 (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

H. 2010-2011 Global protests

For: I just thought of this one. Since we're all concerned about the addition of countries that are outside the middle east and northern Africa, we could just make it generalized like this. It makes no assumptions about what the protests are about, since there are varied reasons in different countries, and stays away from any POV terminology.

The good thing about this option is that we can still totally have subarticles for specific regions. So we would be able to have a Middle East protests article, a Northern Africa protests article, and wherever else we need, with this being the single overarching article that connects them all. Silverseren^C 23:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Against People can protest about all sorts of things, including animal rights, racism, gay rights - but that's not what these protests have in common. Flatterworld (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Against Too unspecific, not nearly "global" yet. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Against Broad much? This is not a global event as of yet as was pointed out. Also the fact that unrelated protests happen around the globe alot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I. 2010-2011 [Muslim/Islamic] World protests

For The protesters aren't all Muslim, yes, but then again, neither are they all 'Arabs', even in the "Arab world". 'Muslim/Islamic world Protests' is much appropriate than 'Arab world Protests', because religious language and concerns about Islamist takeovers are much more prominent than language or concerns about 'Arabs'. The protests aren't expressly about religion, but that isn't so important since a title about protests in the 'Muslim world' is drawing attention to the fact that these countries share a common majority religion and somewhat similar religious culture, rather than any religious motivation.theBOBbobato (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Against The involvement of Egyptian Christians was widely reported, and this overgeneralizes. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

J. 2010 - 2011 Protests

I saw this idea in the discussion and placed it here for debate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Article reorganization

Because of the dynamism of the current situation in the Middle East and given the fact that there is 90% probabilities it will escalate I propose for the article 2010-2011 Pro-democracy protests to be reorganized in the following way:
--Name of country--

Hatnote to main article

Small introductory paragraph

Link to timeline of the protests inside that country as a stand alone article.

I also think there should be a major timeline of the most important protests in this main article. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

that would be WP:Crystall ball to preclude it as such. right now its arab and some in iran (althouh ica n bet you bottom dollar nothing will come off it.)--Lihaas (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Article name

Hi ,please stop moving the article name its a bit disruptive. Find a name that there is consensus for here and then more it - please return to discussion and leave the page wherever it is. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This name "pro democracy protest" is wrong. I believe the protests are taking place in some places for specific reasons. Revert to Arab world protests as a more general and appropriate one --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What, if anything, is the predominant name used by the sources to describe this series of events? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

most sources mentions the arab spread (although not exactly to the name here)--Lihaas (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarity As of today, the various news media are changing their names. Their earlier consensus has fallen apart, same as here. And apparently for the same reasons. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Aljazeera: nothing

BBC: nothing

Guardian: Protests in the Middle East

NYT: Latest Updates on Middle East Protests

Washington Post: Unrest in the Middle East

Note: those using 'Middle East' are including Iran, Bahrain, Yemen. Perhaps 2010-2011 Government protests would work? Don't they all have 'government' in common? (I really don't like '2010-2011 Protests'.) Flatterworld (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Which governments are protesting right now? ;-)  Cs32en Talk to me  22:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably all of them. Mubarak, for example, protested for 2 or 3 weeks, before finally giving in and deciding to retire at the age of 82. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok guys, i think this article should have a general name such as 2010 - 2011 Protests such as Revolutions of 1989 is a general term for a bunch of events that took place all over Europe. I disagree with the Pro-democracy title as the concept is too narrow for the different kind of protests that are taking place. (Are they all for democracy? what if one of those protests is in favor of the head of state?). 2010 - 2011 Protests are significant and important enough that by definition get to be served as the article request and if the user is not actually looking for this protests then a disambiguation page will do the job for him/her. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Then add that option as 'G.' and include your reasons. Flatterworld (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Also the last consensus was on ME and NA not the current incarnation. WP:Consensus can cahnge, but until then we have to go b y consensyus not the lone woplf.--Lihaas (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be reasonable, since it seems to be the focal area of these protests even if some of them are elsewhere. You could also call it simply "2010-2011 Protests" for now, and watch the evolution of the coverage. "Pro-Democracy" carries a built-in assumption that may not be correct. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

protests are too vague, the old incarnation some 12 hour ago worked damnw ell. iran is the only menae and its not even big enough to cover yet. 2 days. big whoop!

but the consensus for the ME NA article is for the THIRD time gathering consensus above, it seem s not arab world is the strongest--Lihaas (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Council on Foreign Relations, an authoritative organization, calls this phenomenon Arab World Protests. Jmj713 (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was true a couple of days ago - my point was that everyone's changing now. Flatterworld (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Although Iran would bristle at being called "Arab", the focus of it all still seems to be primarily the "Arab world". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I will maintain that the protests this article talks about is still Arab world. Those in Iran are a continuation of the earlier protests there and there is a separate article for that. By the logic being used here by some, I'm surprised Italy hasn't yet been added to the list of countries. Jmj713 (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

theres a discussion above about tialy wholly idfferent reasons. its split 1-1 right now..--Lihaas (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

With this megillah it's a little hard to tell what's what. Maybe a list of the most popular titles could be presented, with a comment for each by interested parties, 25 words or less. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Scroll up. Flatterworld (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

People have come up with a dozen or so names, it seems like, but no one has backed those names with any kinda of references and citations. I just cited the name "Arab world protests". I haven't seen any others in media, unless I'm not looking in the right places. Certainly I haven't seen this wave of protests being referred to as "Pro-democracy protests" by any reputable source. Jmj713 (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I listed what the news media is now using - scroll up. Flatterworld (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Middle East protests works best as title. Protests in Europe, Latin America, East Asia, Central Asia are UNRELATED to the protests in the MIddle East. - 206.126.56.131 (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I tried moving the article but it didn't let me --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"Middle East" seems to have the greatest currency at the moment, as noted by Flatterworld. There should be some kind of consensus here, though, before attempting any moves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah well, let's do this now, because I really can't focus on an article when it doesn't have the right name --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Then make a redirect for it, if there isn't one already. :) Content is more important than titles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, and I'm not sure if this has any bearing, as far as I can understand them, the non-English language versions of this article all seem to use the Arab world name. Jmj713 (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

wikipidea consistency should count for something--Lihaas (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Move the article back to its former name, "2010–2011 Arab world protests". Since the move, this article has become an incoherent mess. We should just focus on the Arab World, where the protests are clearly linked to each other because the countries in the region share many of the same problems. These regional protests have not been proven to be the beginning of a Trotskyist-like worldwide revolution, so we should not jump to that conclusion in the title. It is really far-fetched to link the likes of Serbia and Albania to these protests. --Tocino 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

strongest damn possible support also the mumbo-jumbo list of states screws with the org we had before. and the self--immolations!--Lihaas (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with User Tocino. Unless this movement spins totally out of control and starts toppling governments in Sub-Saharan Africa or Latin America, I would say it is good to have this remain at the original name - "Arab World Protests". The only other alternatives that deals with the subject accurately is probably "Muslim World" or "Greater Middle East", but those names don't seen to be gaining a lot of traction due to some (what I believe to be unsubstantiated) accusations of "Eurocentrism". I still hold that Iran alone does not suddenly change the nature of the protests to something global. Colipon+(Talk) 22:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done you are welcome --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone will stop reverting my edits..people want to leave it as 2010 2011 Arab world protests! --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok guys this is impossible, they are disregarding the move. I am trying to put it back to 2010 2011 Arab world protests, but a user keeps reverting my edits --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus isn't there yet. There's no big rush. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

WHAT? consensus was there before the move to what is currently is. if anything consensus is NOT at its current state. again and again the regular editors of this page are in full agreement that the current versin is WRONG.--Lihaas (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is really non-controversial. Go to Google News, and search for:

• arab world protests
• pro-democracy protests

Restricted to "Past month", the first search yields 22,600 results, while the second only 12,400. So I'd say the consensus in the worldwide English-language media (ie, Reliable Sources) is for the article title we had at the beginning. Jmj713 (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah well, I tried but leave it to this User to lock the article and prevent the move, he says he is "reading around" to "see" if there is consensus. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware that I protected the "wrong" title. However, no consensus will ever be reached if users continue to move the article to their preferred name and refuse to discuss. Let's all calm down and reach a consensus at one location. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You were right to protect it, as the well-meaning but overzealous user Camilo fomented another edit war. That had to stop.

Users here, please, just do this: Make a list of the most popular titles, and ask everyone here to comment on them. Then we can get consensus and get the "right" title in place quickly. And if someone messes with it after that, unilaterally, ask that they be blocked for disruption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This situation is absurd. The unilateral action by one editor appears to be rewarded, based on the logic that there would be no consensus for moving the article to some other place.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

to give credit EVERYWHERE its due. the lock was appreciated big time. but camillo's move was NOT unilateral it was based on consensus of participatory editors. the ?right" title is ALWAYS what consensus is agreed, and i was not part of the consensus that ageed to the move yt i support consensus. cs32eb was on the all we cant reward one nutcase taht everyone disagrees with is and is , quite franyl, a this point NOT AGF.--Lihaas (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree with Camilo's sentiment in the matter, but he should not have fomented another edit war. I think this matter will be cleared up soon and then all will be swell. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I screwed up the move with a copy and paste. It was a desperation move (a la KOF). But the only one to blame here is whoever made the move to "pro democracy" in the first place. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

agreed 110 gazillion$% ;)--Lihaas (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Restoring previous title, pending the discussion on the move request(s)

Resolved

 – Per consensus, the page was moved to the previous title. As this discussion was on the procedural question on what the appropriate course of action would be with regard to the request for page protection, any move request should be made in a new section, using the template {{Requested move}}.

Note: The previous title was 2010–2011 Arab world protests.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on the determination of the previous title, resulting in 2010–2011 Arab world protests

Previous title was "2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa Arab world protests". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC) The original title, however, was 2010–2011 Arab world protests, and reliable sources, as I illustrated above with Google News, support that. Jmj713 (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC) This page move, from "2010–2011 Arab world protests" to some other title, was the first move of the sequence of several moves that did not have consensus.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Can all editors supporting a page move specify the desired target? (2010–2011 Arab world protests or 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests) Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Please do not specify a desired target. This is not a move discussion. It's a discussion about restoring the last stable title of the page, pending further discussion.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC) There needs to be a firm definition of what the "previous title" was. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC) As there was a title, i.e. 2010–2011 Arab world protests, that was stable for several days, if not weeks, and all other alternatives were stable for a few hours, or even minutes, the status quo ante is, as far as I can see, the title that was stable for most of the time. I thought that this was obvious, and can be determined from the move log of the page, and I did not insert the title here, because I thought it would be best to decide on the principle of reverting to the last stable title of the page, in this case.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I have corrected my original comment. Sorry for the confusion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Support

• Support No consensus for the unilateral move, therefore status quo ante should be restored.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Wael.Mogherbi (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• STRONG support PERA ARAB WORLD thoguh ME an NA is nt bad. its stable, its consensus, its not unilateral mad-hatters (not really WONDER alnd it st?--Lihaas (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support 2010–2011 Arab world protests This is amazingly ridiculous. I propose restoring the original title and restoring the original structure of the article. This is worse than vandalism. Jmj713 (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • structure restored.--Lihaas (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Agree with all the above. Middle East and North Africa seems somewhat better than Arab world, but go with what the sources call it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support:Either name as pro-democracy is POV and narrows the article to a very specific characteristic of the upsrising. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The Arab world protests are connected to each other (rooted in Tunisia). The protests in Iran have been going on since disputed elections. While, pro-democracy, they have little to do with the protests in the Arab world. Besides, most sources I've read call "protests in the Arab world"/"Arab protests". Bless sins (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Other suggestions

• Suggest creating a page about worldwide protests, and having a separate page for the protests that occured in Arab ountries. Chesdovi (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note that should be "Arab World", not "Arab world". Ucucha 00:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    • No, the article we have is Arab world. Jmj713 (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I just noticed; sorry for that. Ucucha 00:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, I had been thinking about that. There could be a List of global protests 2010–2011, or something like that, with links to articles on the individual regions or nations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    • That sounds very reasonable to me. Jmj713 (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
      • wed need expansive non-arab protests for that. right now even iran is mellow.--Lihaas (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I actually proposed that above in the proposed titles section, under H. Silverseren^C 00:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Continue discussion

I suggest we continue name change discussions above, regardless, because there does seem to be the feeling that either this title is inappropriate as it is or the extraneous content that it has in it is inappropriate for the topic. We could solve this either by a name change or by the creation of other, related articles. Silverseren^C 00:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm of the view that we should let the dust settle on this one first. Unless in the current realm these protests engulfs and begins to threaten the governments outside of the Greater Middle East (including N. Africa, Iran etc.) there is no reason to move this anywhere else until it has been branded as something else by major authoritative media and academic sources. Note that the Iraq War used to be known as the "Second Gulf War" but this use petered out as media and academia eventually converged onto the Iraq War. What is happening seems to be of a grand scale and an overarching name for the event will come by in due time. The current job of Wikipedia is to use the most general name possible the describes the nature of the events until this "overarching name" can be found. Fifty years from now it might be known as "The Arab Revolutions" or the "Regime Domino" or the "Fall of Egypt" or something of that sort, then we can make a collective decision to move it to that name. Colipon+(Talk) 02:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, but since so many here are so ooh! ooh! excited about any chance to start yet another discussion section, we'll probably soon be buried again by the people who have 'very strong feelings' about whether or not Persians should mix with Arabs. Reminds me of Jim Crow. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

We had to deal with something similar at 2011 Tucson shooting with some wanting to call it a massacre, others an assassination attempt, terrorist incident, others getting hung up on the fact that it took place in Casas Adobes and not within Tucson itself. Things settled down and the page remains where it is. For lack of a better solution, we should probably stick with the name as is for now, keep Iran in the template and the template on the Iran page, and see if a name emerges in discussion and the media. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Article Picture

Surely the main picture should be more of a collage of some of the most prominent pictures from each of the major demonstrations in the affected countries? Rather than just showing Egypt's March of the Millions. Just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.21.19 (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Collages usually do occur after the event has settled for a while and iconic pictures have been widely accepted. --haha169 (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Fall of Neoliberalism

The Revolutions of 1989 had one common factor, the defeat of authoritatian communist government's which ultimately led the events to be called he Fall of Communism. It seems as if even though the protests originally started due to corruption and lack of commodities in 1989 they ultimately are remembered as being a worldwide rejection of a poltical/economic ideology. Recent articles suggest that the 2011 Revolutions are infact the rejection of another political/economic ideology, neoliberalism. This is at the moment the same economic theory of, you guessed it, the United States. There are now fears of these revolutions completly undermining the United States' global influence and some are believing ending the epoch of the American superpower. I think that these articles should address some of the Neoliberal undertones of these protests. See: [3] for more details. --Kuzwa (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Also see: [4]. This may look like socialist crazy theory. But none the less makes sense. --Kuzwa (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to see how things shake out first. These states were neoliberal to different degrees (Egypt had a huge state sector) and many of the protests had to do with the fact that they were corrupt/kleptocratic more than laissez-faire. You could have probably classified Egypt as an oligarchy more readily than as an ideal neoliberal state. Still, the main reason I would say we should wait to mention anything like this is because we have no idea what kinds of policies successor governments will wind up implementing at this point. Cjs2111 (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Tunisia Effect for deletion

The article Tunisia Effect is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tunisia Effect until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Expansion to cover the Greater Middle East

I am suggesting that the map and the article be expanded to cover similar protests across the Greater Middle East, because there are similar protests in Iran inspired by the Tunisian and the Egyptian revolutions. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see the giant discussion above. Cjs2111 (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Split proposal

I am proposing that the non arab countries be split into their own article to be called: 2010-2011 Concurrent protests outside the Arab world (Unless someone can think of a better name). Who is for and againt this split, nevermind the name for now as that can always be tweaked as this goes along, I am just looking for Support or Against opinions here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• (Please place your opinions here, feel free to remove this message with your own if you reply)

• Support Wael.Mogherbi (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Against - I think some of these protests are more clearly related to the Arab world protests than others. I would support creating a meta-page that included both Iran and the Arab world protests, and also splitting off other concurrent protests, but I think it's a mistake to lump Iran with, say, Serbia, Bolivia, etc. in this case. Cjs2111 (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

oppose doesnt warrant another article, not yet anywaysl. the samlkl parts is constitutes is p-lenty good here.Lihaas (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• This subject certainly has its foundation with the Arab world. A new page about the effect in other countries should be called Repercussions of the Arab protests or something. Chesdovi (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Against- This article's title should be changed to include Iran and other regional protest. Loro-rojo (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Against - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support split, not title. "Concurrent" doesn't belong in a title, as it ought to be referring back to something, and there's nothing in context for it to refer back to. I like the "reprecussions" idea, but am open to others as well. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Against - The problem is the article name, which has still not been properly resolved. I am really puzzled as to why 'Middle East' is not now in the name, the media have clearly moved on [5] and this article should too. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Against - none of the news media is doing that, so why should we? BBC News gets it, yet we have some people here insisting it's 'their' protest, and no one else can be part of it. That isn't how the world works. Flatterworld (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I see the arguement of this article's title here, there is a huge discussion going on above for that with no clear consensus on what to do, If the name Arab or middle east is used in the title then I do not see why other countries need to be listed here as well as some are considered not a part of either but yet have huge protests going on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Against I have a better name, maybe nobody will like it, but here I go. If there is to be a separate article, it should be "Revolutions of 2010-2011". Sure, it doesn't sound good, but it's better. Not to mention we have "Revolutions of 1989". Kanzler31 (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Against The movement is simply growing beyond the Arab states, but it is recognized as part of the same phenomenon. Change the title, but don't split the article. Frimmin (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment How about simply 2010-2011 anti-government protests? {Heroeswithmetaphors talk} 15:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Heroeswithmetaphors. This is becoming a global phenomenon and there's no reason why the current article should continue to refer to the Arab World. I would support either a renaming of this article to reflect the term 'Middle East', and then move other countries to another article, or to rename the entire thing 2010-2011 Anti-government protests and leave it as it is.Haku8645 (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

INDIA

There hasnt been anything goin on in India....<sadly> neways....the India section makes no actual sense

there were no protests and with current phase of negotiations there wont be

so lest there are protests you cant put india under concurrent protests — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranav21391 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes we can. because there was a call and the similarities was already made by RSLihaas (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the criterion for a "minor" protest compared to a "major" protest? For example: File:2010-2011_Arab_world_protests.PNG.

What is the criterion for a "minor" protest compared to a "major" protest? For example: [ [ File:2010-2011_Arab_world_protests.PNG ] ]. 99.190.84.7 (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's just something rather subjective. Also, it is really time to add Iran to the map, in my opinion. In addition, can we make Bahrain a circle rather than a dot on the map? It's become awfully significant as of late. Colipon+(Talk) 20:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree with all of Colipon's comments. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to start a big debate again, but we should move the article to "2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa protests" if we are to include Iran, maybe call it "Revolutions of 2010-2011". Kanzler31 (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: We seriously have to clearly define what protests we are covering. Kanzler31 (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a fear I have deep down myself, there are protests that happen in the world over small things and there needs to be a line placed on what connects to what if it even does. I am looking at some of the proposed titles above and am saying how do you know that no other unrelated protests will occur this year? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Serbia and turkish republic of northern cyprus

Why are we putting a section for these protests? According the their outlines, they don't seem related. What's next? Are we going to put a section for protests against Chinese control in Tibet, or SB1070? The protests in Serbia are NOT related and the Serbs do NOT want to overthrow their government, they only want some economic change. And the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus seems unrelated, and are like Serbia. Thank you. Kanzler31 (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I would just remove them then and place in the edit summary why, I have to agree though I dont want to see this get out of hand. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sudan on the map

Seriously, Bahrein needs a circle big as this one--78.3.208.182 (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

At least some sort of division must be made to point out that South Sudan isn't yellow--78.3.208.182 (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Southern Sudan is not yet an independent nation - it will achieve independence on 19 July 2011. Until that time, Sudan is still represented on all maps as a united entity. Haku8645 (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The Economist map

I saw a great map from The Economist ([6])that I would think would be very useful as a reference on the map we have (as an interesting thing, I see that they have added Comros to it which I was not aware of before).Calaka (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Should be called "Muslim world protests"

Not all these protests are in the Arab world; the Iranian protests are not. This should be moved to "2010-2011 Muslim world protests". Springlyn (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Pearl Square

The naming of the Pearl Square article is under discussion, see Talk:Pearl Monument.

64.229.100.61 (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)