Jump to content

Talk:Arab Spring: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Dynex811 (talk | contribs)
125 edits
Dynex811 (talk | contribs)
125 edits
Line 300: Line 300:
: '''Oppose''' The map proposed is even more confusing than the current map (If the current map is even) - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 19:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
: '''Oppose''' The map proposed is even more confusing than the current map (If the current map is even) - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 19:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
:: You don't see anything confusing about constant debates about whether a protest qualifies as "major" or "minor", instead of trying to put actual data in the map? Or about having Yemen depicted the same way as Jordan (blue), when they're polar opposites in what happened? [[User:Aris Katsaris|Aris Katsaris]] ([[User talk:Aris Katsaris|talk]]) 19:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
:: You don't see anything confusing about constant debates about whether a protest qualifies as "major" or "minor", instead of trying to put actual data in the map? Or about having Yemen depicted the same way as Jordan (blue), when they're polar opposites in what happened? [[User:Aris Katsaris|Aris Katsaris]] ([[User talk:Aris Katsaris|talk]]) 19:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
::: Nope, not even in the slightest [[User:Dynex811|Dynex811]] ([[User talk:Dynex811|talk]]) 19:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
::: Nope, not even in the slightest. The map represents the changes that have occurred, if you want to know details you should read the article. This is an encyclopedia after all. [[User:Dynex811|Dynex811]] ([[User talk:Dynex811|talk]]) 19:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


== Yemen: Major Protests or Government Change ==
== Yemen: Major Protests or Government Change ==

Revision as of 19:43, 23 March 2011

Template:Pbneutral

Name Specific Discussions

Arbitrary break 0

Agregated some of the discussions regarding the name of the article - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close some of them? Some of them are definitely resolved or stale. 184.144.166.85 (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name should be changed to "2010-2011 Middle East and North African unrest"

No longer is the Middle East and North African world facing simple protests, but now it is facing, and already has faced, revolutions and a civil war which has been seen in Tunisia, Egypt, and most recently, Libya. It would be unfitting to keep referring to the wave of unrest as "protests" while three countries have taken the next step up from protests. Hence, this article's name should change the word "protests" to "unrest" which would accurately refer to protests, revolutions, and civil wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.104.248 (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible name change to "2010-2011 Tunisian Revolutionary Wave"

I appreciate that a number of separate name changes are presently being considered, however I believe that this proposal already has some community support and is a genuine way forward for this article. I have previously expressed my case for the name change, but will summarise in this section:

  • "2010-2011 Tunisian Revolutionary Wave" is a far more elegant and simple article name than the present one.
  • The proposed name actually links all the current protest movements to their initial source -namely, the Tunisian revolution, rather than simply arbitrarily linking them on the basis of geographical location.
  • This name change would be final -if, for example, large scale protests sprung up in China, say, and these could be reliably described as having been inspired by the Tunisian revolution or later occurrences, a further name change would not be mandated.

Laika1097 (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree: It is quite difficult to put the line on what has been affected by Tunisia and what does not. Let us say that the change is made, how long will it last? Demonstrations after one year in Argentina, they are also influenced by Tunisia? Egypt had at least as much to add to the Libyans, and the Libyan for the Bahraini and Yemeni. Bahraini and Yemini for Syrian and vice versa. itbeganinafrica (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst individual protest movements may have been inspired by protests other than Tunisia, the protest movement as a whole traces its origins to the initial Tunisian Revolution, from which all protests ultimately derive. As for your hypothetical Argentine protests, if Wikipedia:RS's consistently defined the actions of the Argentine protesters as being inspired by Egypt, Tunisia or Libya, then yes, of course they would come under the scope of this article, if not, then no. Note that the name "2010-2011 Tunisian Revolutionary Wave" does not impose any geographical constraints upon the article scope, it merely stipulates that the criteria for inclusion is defined by a credible link to the Tunisian Revolution.Laika1097 (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree completely with Laika. Demonstrations a year from now are either related or they aren't, regardless of location. The title of the article doesn't determine inclusion of such demonstrations. Reliable sources determine what's related and what isn't. It's a wave, not a starburst. Inspiration spread and carried, it hasn't all spawned from a single point. Tunisia hasn't been the sole inspiration for all the protests. Some were inspired by Tunisia and Egypt, for example. The point is that this wave started with Tunisia, and that's what this article is about. That said, to answer your initial question of how long it will last; I would say that depends on when things calm down and the wave is considered to have ended. Sources will determine that. Any new protests or demonstrations after that which site Tunisia or others from this particular wave would likely be considered inspired by the wave as opposed to being a new part of it. Lara 17:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it has a greater community consensus than "2010-2011 Tunisian Revolutionary Wave", then why not? The only problem is that it disestablishes the direct connection with the Tunisian source of this protest movement. Laika1097 (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Against - Why lower the status and individuality of these other Revolutions and Protests by implying they ONLY happened because of Tunisia? I vote no, strongly against any "wave" name.--Smart30 (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This proposal does not attempt to 'lower the status and individuality of these other Revolutions and Protests', merely it links them to their initial beginnings -of course the other protest movements are not solely because of Tunisia, the Tunisian Revolution served only as an inspiration to subsequent protesters, a tangible demonstration of what the majority of protesters had believed impossible. If the other protest movements had not been motivated by the dire internal situation in their own nations, they would not have gained traction and the present situation would not have materialised. Laika1097 (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Against - Agree with User:Smart. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Against - For the above stated reasons. Czolgolz (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Smart's argument makes no sense to me. A title makes no such implication. This is a revolutionary wave, it was inspired by those in Tunisia, and it is an all-inclusive title, which the others are not. This is the best, most accurate title presented as an option thus far. Lara 17:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Against It may have been inspired by the Tunisian revolution but this is a diffrent battle that is unlike what happened in Tunisia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Against - A revolutionary wave implies a wave of revolutions. I.e. a revolution in Tunisia caused very many other revolutions with it. As of now, only one country other than Tunisia has reached such a status, Egypt, with Libya still in rebellion. Perhaps something along the lines of "Tunisian Political Cascade" would suffice. --Dalaru (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the lead indicates that this is a revolutionary wave! Specifically "an unprecedented revolutionary wave of demonstrations and protests". ZeLonewolf (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree strongly with ZeLonewolf; 'Revolutionary wave' is a clearly defined term, and the fact that the current Tunisian wave has resulted in the successful removal of Mubarak and Ben Ali, and shows little sign of losing momentum, is enough to warrant such a description -for example, the Atlantic Revolutions of the late 1700's included only three notable incidents, namely the American, Haitian and French revolutions. Evidently these were on an entirely different scale and level of resonance, however the point remains that the number of fallen governments does not define whether this is a revolutionary wave or not. Additionally a "Political Cascade" is not a clearly defined term and naming the article in such a fashion would probably count as Wikipedia:NoOR since no reliable sources have described it as such. Laika1097 (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Against - per Knowledgekid87 and others. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 12:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the current name is that it implies that this article is about ANY protest or unrest that occurs in the entire region, even if it is part of a long-standing dispute. Thus we are caught up debating all sorts of unrest that that is completely unrelated. Frankly, any name which does not somehow tie the article to the Tunisian origin has this problem. I support this name change as it would clarify that this article is about THIS revolutionary wave and not any of the other ordinary unrest happening within the MENA region. ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move Requested -- to: 2010-2011 Arab world protests

2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests → 2010-2011 Arab world protests — We already list all other countries in the "Impact" page, and the protests in Iran (main reason for the name change have died). Rename, and move Iran to the Impact.

Narrow? Does including only Iran makes it wider? 173.245.84.243 (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name change, still don't get it

After weeks have passed since the name of this article was changed to MENA protests, only the minor protests in Iran was included while all the rest are happening in Arab countries. So, my question is, can anyone tell me why isn't this article called "2011 Arab world protests"? You can always add Iran to the "Impact" page, can't you? 69.31.51.101 (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Personally, I think after this is over, there will be an article created for "2010-2011 North African revolutions," and then the rest will be put in an "impact"-type article. But yes, right now the focus of the article should certainly be the Arab World, and the title should reflect this. Macarion (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the events as they are described in 2011 Iranian protests, I'm inclined to agree. It's a blurry line between 'related' and 'inspired,' and Iran seems to be in the gray area in between. DerekMBarnes (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Iranian protests were not minor; they encompassed tens of thousands at one day of action. Iran is very much a part of this development, it is much more culturally connected to the other protests and is regarded as part of the same region. It would not make sense to include iran instead under the same category as, say, china and not to include it with the rest of the middle east simply because of certain, much less significant ethnic differences with the rest of the middle. None at all. The middle east and arab world are largely interchangeable, but not entirely, and middle east and north africa is much much more exact and accurate.
Re "North African Revolutions", the uprisings in Bahrain and Yemen are extremely significant and clearly connected to and part of the same event as egypt and tunisia. Jordan events are also very signifanct. Many are now predicting that saleh will eventually have to go in yemen. And just because a regime isn't brought down doesn't mean the event isn't just as historically significant.Nwe (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2011 Arab world protests is the way to go. MENA is business speak.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 07:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting title change

Can we please change the title of this article? This has moved far beyond "protests." Macarion (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Revolutions of 2011 is the name I suggest. --Smart30 (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is not the way to get things done here, if you want to propose a topic do it by requesting a move be made and consensus can gather from there, otherwise you will have tons of people suggesting topics that were already suggested and consensus was against them. My advice would to be to look through the archives to past discussions on why certin titles were not kept. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - i concur this is not the proper way to propose a title switch.--Smart30 (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan and Armenia

There have been protests in both Azerbaijan (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/11/us-azerbaijan-protest-idUSTRE72A43I20110311) and Armenia (http://www.eurasianet.org/node/62983) where anti-government protesters have explicitly linked their protests to protests going on in other states such as Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, etc. Should some info be included about these protests? Should Azerbaijan and Armenia be added to the map? It is arguable whether these countries are MENA countries or not, so... Vis-a-visconti (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is one of the reasons to expand the article to the Greater Middle-East.--Smart30 (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article could perhaps either be re-named to '2010–2011 Greater Middle East protests' or even to '2010–2011 West Asia and North Africa protests'. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see above, if you want to propose a title change start a move request to get consensus, there has already been a war raged on the title lets not have another one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I second what Smart30 said. These simply aren't MENA issues anymore...they're almost all of Asia, and certainly a vast majority of the Greater Middle East. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support - I would support '2010–2011 Greater Middle East protests' as a new title for the page, although strictly speaking, I don't think a change is absolutely necessary in order to include Armenia and Azerbaijan; Turkey has a significant Armenian minority and it's considered part of the Middle East, and Azerbaijan shares a name with provinces of Iran (which also boasts a sizable Azeri minority). Geopolitically, they're closely linked to the rest of the Middle East, and the only reason they're sometimes left out is because there's a popular insistence on identifying every former Soviet socialist republic as such. -Kudzu1 (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done with consensus. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We need a map change to reflect the agreement. Somalia should be re-colored and Armenia put in Orange, Azerbaijan in yellow.--Smart30 (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure...provided we can cite sources that note the unrest in those countries as part of the revolutionary wave starting with Tunisia. For Somalia in particular, I understood them to be long-running unrest, unrelated to THIS wave. ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

already in impact article

Adding Armenia and Azerbaijan to the map for this article seems fine to me.

However, adding prose (text) sections to this MENA article would mean recycling the unending discussion of "which geographically further locations are 'related' to the Tunisia/Egypt revolutions? Where do we put them if the 'relations' are existent but not so strong (well RS'd)?" After much wasted energy in AfD's, we finally converged on the "Impact..." article. My suggestion: first of all, add notable developments to:

At the moment these are placed (arbitrarily) in the Asia section there, please discuss on Talk:Impact_of_2010–2011_Middle_East_and_North_Africa_protests arguments for/against shifting to the Europe section. AFAIK either would be acceptable (based on wikipedia regional templates).

Secondly, if the events in one or either become notable enough, then they can split off "Impact..." into their own articles.

Boud (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why you put this title ?

why you don't change it to Arab world protests , it's shorter !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.248.98.125 (talk) 13:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I couldn't help but laugh when I read this comment and thought back to all the acrimony that title created. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should read the discussion above. Loro-rojo (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move -- to "Arab Spring"

2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests → Arab Spring — Simpler

Oppose

Oppose: it jst becuase something is simple doesnt mean its correct. the name we have is the most accurate and NPOV. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as per the following reasons regarding article title policy:

  • Recognizability - not recognizable by most as the term has rarely been used in global media.
  • Precision - ambiguous, does not properly identify topic.
  • Common names: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." This is not the case for "Arab Spring."
  • NPOV: Non-neutral ('Spring' carries a culturally positive connotation), not common enough to override.

The name we have is long, but neutral and accurate. DerekMBarnes (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it began in the winter anyway, not spring. Jmj713 (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone voting against moving the article cares what it goes down in history as. The point in question is whether that name is used enough now to justify renaming the article. If that term does become widespread, I will happily change my vote. --Khajidha (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This term is not in widespread enough use to justify having it as the page title. --Khajidha (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose How many people use that term? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We presently have 6 references in the article that use the name "Arab Spring". Is it widely enough used? Google on "arab+spring" 2011 gives "About 435,000 results" but "middle+east+protests" 2011 gives "About 2,870,000 results" on the first page and e.g. "Page 16 of about 6,650,000 results" on later pages. So "Arab Spring" is widely used, but it seems to be about an order of magnitude less common than one of the more descriptive names, at least for the moment. One WP:NAME criterion that would favour "Arab Spring" is the conciseness criterion. Prediction: i suspect that conciseness could be a factor in the future evolution of the names for this topic. How many people say United Mexican States when talking about a certain country in North America? Maybe try for this name again in 6 months' time? Boud (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move -- to: "2010-2011 Greater Middle East protests"

2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests → 2010-2011 Greater Middle East protests — "Greater Middle East" might better describe these protests than "Middle East and North Africa" at this point, plus it's shorter. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose When I asked this before an editor came up with saying that the middle east is the middle east, it is a broad word and applies to the middle east, the greater middle east, and areas sometimes associated with the Middle East so in a way it is a bigger area of scope. Another reason to oppose is that the Greater middle east is a G8 definition and thus not a worldwide view, Egypt in that context is also not part of the Greater Middle East. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.

IMO, I think something to the effect of "2010-2011 Tunisian Revolutionary Wave" would more accurately reflect what's going on here - a movement sparked by the Tunisia self-immolation. After all, the opener actually links to Revolutionary wave. ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose "Greater Middle East" is a controversial term coined by the Bush administration, and its use would be innapropriate here. Countries such as Morocco (which, it should be remembered, is to the west of France) and Libya (much closer to Italy than Iran) and other states of the Maghreb region are historically, culturally, politically, historically and geographically considered North African, not Middle Eastern in any extension of the term. The Celestial City (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I certainly agree that a change of name is an absolute requirement since restricting the scope of an article to arbitrary, geographical constructions is most unhelpful -If we were to change the name to "2010-2011 Greater Middle East Protests" or similar, would we then change the article name to "2010-2011 Southern European, Central Asian, North African and Middle Eastern protests" if Greek and Kazakh protesters suddenly joined the fray, claiming to be inspired by Egypt and Tunisia? We've already had one name change, and that did not help us in the least. Until a definite name is agreed upon by historians, the media and analysts, all Wikipedians can do is to record events as they happen and not define them according to their own agendas. Hence why I support ZeLonewolf's proposal of "2010-2011 Tunisian Revolutionary Wave" or similar. This will allow coverage of all protest movements defined by WP:RS's as connected to the Jasmine Revolution and not impose artificial limitations. After all, this is the most descriptive title we have; "2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa protests" does not imply any common source or link barring geography. This would be a final solution to all this name wrangling, hence why I will submit a final name change request to that effect. I look forward to hearing the community consensus.

Laika1097 (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move - 2010–2011 Middle East and Maghreb protests

2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests → 2010–2011 Middle East and Maghreb protests

Egypt is part of the middle eastPassaMethod talk 10:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syria: Major or Minor protests?

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.

We need consensus as to whether Syria should be considered major or minor protests. A user unilaterally changed Syria to orange on the map and updated the table (but did not change the lead). We should compare Syria to other yellow and orange countries to determine whether or not orange is an appropriate classification. Let's get consensus on this. ZeLonewolf (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Minor - at the present time, my verdict is Minor. It is nothing compared to those in Yemen & Bahrain. (also Iraq). However - it's remarkably similar to Morocco's protests (which are currently also minor).--Smart30 (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major - What is happening in Syria today is major if you look at the country's history. 40 years of one party rule, no demonstrations in Damascus since the 1980s. Ban Ki-moon and Barack Obama have commented on the attacks against civilians. Protests underway in the largest cities in the country. The regime has arrested hundreds of people, hence the well known regime critic profiles. Several dead as well.--Tonemgub2010 (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please constrain your analysis to comparisons with other orange or yellow countries. ZeLonewolf (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major: Protests in Syria are definitely larger than those in Iraq, more continuous and widespread throughout the country. Given what happened last Friday so should change the status of Syria to major. We might also need to recheck Iraq's status. itbeganinafrica (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus - I'd say that's darn near unanimous. I'll update the map, hoping someone else can deal with the lead-in, table, and anything else in the article that needs modification. ZeLonewolf (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Bahrain

Should we create a Category:2011 Bahraini protests subcategory? We currently have three articles for it, 2011 Bahraini protests , 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix and Pearl Roundabout... But with the inundation of Bahrain with Saudi police troops, that should change in the future. (such as an article about the Saudi operation in Bahrain) 65.95.13.139 (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is a good idea as well as the article about the Saudi invasion of Bahrain.--Smart30 (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "Saudi invasion" of Bahrain seems to be the use of the Peninsula Shield Force in Bahrain. The 2011 Saudi Arabian protests have developed into dual-aim protests: freeing prisoners-held-without-trial and opposing the entry of the Peninsula Shield Force into Bahrain. So anyone interested in adding more info about the "Saudi invasion of Bahrain" probably should consider working on the Peninsula Shield Force article. Boud (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Good idea, I agree. This should have been created already. itbeganinafrica (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since we seem to have a rough consensus, can an autoconfirmed user create the category an populate it with the four articles we've discussed here? 184.144.166.85 (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Country-by-Country Protests

I think an edit is needed on countries section. Let's rename it to "Summary by Location", move the Palestinian territories and Western Sahara there and get rid of the Somaliland and Northern Cyprus sections as they have nothing to do with this protest wave (they are part of other long-standing disputes). "Non UN Members" doesn't make sense as a section. ZeLonewolf (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • ZeLonewolf, I have sources for this and you insist on not seeing that Northern Cyprus Protests is unprecedented. You have your own idea about this and have not read anything but insist that you're right. That's not the way Wikipedia works. Please read that references. Your intention to see TRNC protest as part of other long-standing disputes is totally wrong. I urge to study the references I posted, before editing randomly and against RS. Can you explain what's the motive behind TRNC protest? Sorry? You haven't read it. But you think you know this. Why don't you edit on how earthquake happens if it is easy to edit without reading? Kavas (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First off, please avoid personal attacks. There are many people in here trying to do their best to edit a very touchy subject while maintaining WP:NPOV. If you have WW:RS of general coverage of the revolutionary wave that includes Northern Cyprus, then post it. All anyone seems to come up with are esoteric references in obscure, local language sources. A neutral survey of mainstream news sources shows that they universally DO NOT include Northern Cyprus as Somalia countries involved in this wave. For example [1] [2] [3] [4] are the top hits on Google for maps of the middle east / north africa protests. None of them include Northern Cyprus. A neutral analysis clearly shows that anything going on in NC is not related to this wave. If you have a reputable, english-language source with general reporting on the wave of protests that includes NC (not an esoteric source with an interview with a protester claiming to be inspired by Tunisia or Egypt), then please share it. ZeLonewolf (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To give some context here, I'll review how this section got started:
 • Some "countries" had activity but there was discussion that it wasn't clear or wasn't felt to have the same motivations as the rest of the items on this page, such as taking preventative measures without popular protests, having protests that were about similar things but were not directly motivated by Tunisia, or were protests that were not about changing the current government, etc. (To be honest, I can't exactly recall the details of why people felt these places were different, but there was discussion at the time, which can probably be found in the archives). These were places that didn't quite fit in with the main body of the article, but it didn't seem should be left out. The section was originally titled "Other Countries In the Region" or something like that.
 • This section originally contained Norther Cyprus, Palestinian Territories, Western Sahara, and Somalia. I was the one who made a semantic edit that I now regret changing the title from "Other Countries" to "Other Territories", since 3 of the 4 were not recognized countries. This caused the purpose of having these other areas in a separate section to be confused, as people thought they were isolated based on international recognition, rather than a distinction in the events that were happening these areas. Hence the change from "territories" to "non-UN members", which didn't really make sense.
 • If it is still felt that these areas deserve distinction from the main body, then a better title should be chosen for this section. If this distinction is no longer felt necessary, then they should be merged.
--68.7.78.64 (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Palestinian Territories and Western Sahara: IMHO it should be uncontroversial that these are part of MENA. There is controversy about their international recognition. i think there has already been much debate about these two - see the links to the Archives to try and find the previous debate. My guess looking at it now is that the title "non-UN members" is OK, since separating "countries" from "non-UN members" is probably a fairly NPOV way to deal with them. The "countries" section is organised alphabetically, not geographically or thematically. So having another non-geographically, non-thematically separated section seems reasonable to me. However, the introductory paragraph probably needs radical reduction or maybe full removal. Also, maybe "countries" should become "UN member states"?
  • Northern Cyprus - if there is RS'd evidence that protests there are inspired by the MENA protests/revolutions, then it can be shifted to Impact of 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests#Europe. Otherwise, shift any non-redundant info to some Cyprus-recent-history related article.
  • Somaliland - as per Northern Cyprus, but if RS'd evidence for a MENA relation exists, then it would go to Impact of 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests#sub-Saharan_Africa.
Boud (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Northern Cyprus is a Middle East territory, but the protest is not classified as Middle East and North Africa protests in sources. However, "if RS'd evidence for a MENA relation" is already done. See archives. I have the call for gatherings, the organizers say they are inspired by Arap World protests. Kavas (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, this article is not an umbrella article for all protests which happen to occur geographically in the MENA region during 2010-2011. Rather, it's about the protest wave starting with Tunisia. Further, as wikipedians, we do not get to do analysis (WP:OR) to decide what is and is not a part of this protest wave; we can only repeat what WP:RS reporting says is part of the protest wave. "See archives" isn't good enough, because the archives are huge for this article. Rather, you should post a specific source that shows WP:RS reporting on the protest wave which includes NC if you want to gain consensus. ZeLonewolf (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't read my posts and randomly edit regarding TRNC protests, but when I say this, you're attacking me by claiming that I'm attacking you. As you never read my posts, let me repeat, I never claimed that TRNC protests are part of Arab World protests, but what I say is like Albanian protests, TRNC protests are inspired by the Arab Spring, and at the same time TRNC is a Middle Eastern country (or non-UN member). See the sources I posted in the archive please, I don't have to post them twice if you didn't read when I sent a message directly to you. You're making OR by claiming that TRNC protests are part of the long-standing dispute since RS (in English) show that this protest is related to economy, that's not common in Cyprus dispute. Finally, you mention Turkish sources as esoteric references in obscure but in Wikipedia, if English sources are unavaliable, we can use sources from other languages. Also, I have some reliable English sources (but probably you won't read them). Kavas (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per your comment I never claimed that TRNC protests are part of Arab World protests I have to say we are in complete agreement, and that is the reason that NC should be excluded from this article. Just because a protest is occurring in the Middle East or North Africa, does not justify its inclusion in this article. This article is about the specific protest wave starting with Tunisia, not a general umbrella for any protest or unrest that occurs in the region. ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further, as a parallel example, many protesters participating in 2011 Wisconsin protests cited inspiration from the Egyptian revolts...however, coverage of the Wisconsin protests ARE NOT included in this article, because media sources do not include Wisconsin as part of the protest wave...and for that reason, Cyprus, Armenia, etc, protests simply do not belong in this article. ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Kavas (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libya start date

Why was Libya moved down in the overview table to February 15 when the protests there began on January 13? That's the date that always used to be in the table. Jmj713 (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fix it and source it, then. ZeLonewolf (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Libyan article mentions that the protests began on Jan. 13. Jmj713 (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Consider this your opportunity to contribute! ZeLonewolf (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current map is confused

The current map is confused. It currently tries to use a single method of presentation (color) to represent two different aspects: the level of success in the protests ("revolution" if the leadership falls or "governmental changes" if only partial changes are made) and the level of intensity in the protests ("armed conflict", "major protests", "minor protests" -- which is an arbitrary distinction).

I suggest that a new map be made, which will use color to represent the deathtoll (e.g. black for >1000 deaths, brown for 100-1000 deaths, red for 10-100 deaths, yellow for 1-10 deaths), and will use some symbols to depict the level of change succeeded.

This will avoid both the confusion, and the arbitrariness of dividing between "major" and "minor" protests. Aris Katsaris (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to create and propose an alternate map. I do agree that the current map could probably be improved, though it's been a long and painful slog to get it to where it is now :) That said, I don't think that death toll is the best way to provide a geographical overview. ZeLonewolf (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate map has been created, and I think it's a good one.Aris Katsaris (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, death toll doesn't neccessarily reflect what's happening in a countryCzolgolz (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - Death toll says nothing, when you compare Egypt (Revolution, population = 80 milion), Lybia (Civil War, population 6 milion), Bahrain (repressed revolts, pop = 1.2 million). 1000 deaths in Egypt are not the same as 1000 deaths in Bahrain - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Says nothing? It says how many people died, which is pretty darn significant. Do you really get *more* information from the current map which doesn't distinguish between the situation in Yemen (bloodbath) and the situation in Jordan (a peaceful dismissal of cabinet with no dead protesters at all), because they're both "governmental changes"? Aris Katsaris (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the alternate map I suggest we use. I just made it and uploaded it to wikimedia commons :

It tells you at a glance roughly how violent the transition was, what the outcome is, and whether there was a military intervention. Aris Katsaris (talk)

What do the various colors / symbols mean? ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clicking the image takes you to its description page which will explain the colors to you. It's getting too late over here for me to make the full template now, but in short the darker color, the more deaths -- and a white flag means overthrown leader, a blue flag means cabinet dismissal, an orange flag means a promise by the leader to seek no further terms, and the crosshairs means external military intervention. Aris Katsaris (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add up front that the current map color scheme was very carefully debated and is based on a long and excruciating process mostly revolving around color blindness. The color scheme you made will probably cause problems for some form of color blindness. ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's useful to keep in mind. Of course I'm not attached to the particular set of colors I used, and it could certainly use some improvement -- I just think we need stop the arbitrary distinction between "major protests" and "minor protests", and also need to stop trying to use the same element (color) to indicate two different things (intensity of protests and outcome of protests). The coloring details are easily fixed once that's determined. Aris Katsaris (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Current map is fine. Dynex811 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The map proposed is even more confusing than the current map (If the current map is even) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see anything confusing about constant debates about whether a protest qualifies as "major" or "minor", instead of trying to put actual data in the map? Or about having Yemen depicted the same way as Jordan (blue), when they're polar opposites in what happened? Aris Katsaris (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not even in the slightest. The map represents the changes that have occurred, if you want to know details you should read the article. This is an encyclopedia after all. Dynex811 (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yemen: Major Protests or Government Change

Here we go again... A user unilaterally changed the map to make Yemen blue for "governmental change" from "major protests" (which I have reverted for lack of consensus or sourcing). Is there any consensus for a change away from "major protests"? ZeLonewolf (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say not yet, but check again in 24 hours Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to ask about that. Seems the cabinet has been sacked and many important people are defecting: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110321/wl_nm/us_yemen How does this compare to say, Oman? Czolgolz (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support changing Yemen to blue in line with the resignation of several members of the General People's Congress, Cabinet ministers and senior military figures. Laika1097 (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The government was sacked, what argument is there for not changing it to blue? - 188.141.61.64 (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I will note that a number of government officials in Bahrain as well as a few in Iraq have resigned as a result of unrest in their respective countries. We need to be sure that we are drawing an appropriate line between the two categories and make sure that line is consistent. Is the same government fundamentally still ruling Yemen? Or is it under new management? ZeLonewolf (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I begin to think that the president of Yemen tried to do like Mubarak did and, like Mubarak, failed. Plus a good part of his military just defected. As such, I, for one, favor Yemen becoming a case of "uprising". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.80.242.93 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am hearing that the entire cabinet was sacked? Can someone source it? I'd say that should qualify as government change. ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change color Saleh is still in power (for now), yes, but he sacked essentially all of the upper ranking members of his cabinet. Other than him, it is a new government right now. Seems like a government change to me. SilverserenC 09:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: I've already suggested waiting 24 hours, which is up in about 5 hours, so I won't "vote" again, but if the head of state has sacked his government, and appoints a new one in chosen by him, it will be in the same image, so is there any real change yet? He is still as (un)popular as he was before. Lynbarn (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It still counts as government change for our chart. The other two countries with the same on the map also had the same sort of change happen to them. It means that the leader conceded to the protesters and changed the government. He might not make it any better in changing it, but there was still a reaction from the government. SilverserenC 09:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If Saleh is still in power but the gov't is sacked and a new one is appointed, it qualifies as a Government Change. If Saleh himself resigns (due to public preasure) it qualifies as a Revolution. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus - Sounds like we have it to me. I've made the change, let's make sure the rest of the article properly reflects it. ZeLonewolf (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring by Gregorik

Gregorik is POV pushing and edit warring with regards to the article lead. It would be nice if they could instead seek consensus for their edits here.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, my edits are far from "edit warring". Second, your rewording is not helpful. My input is almost always based on existing consensus. Stop trying to own the lead. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 10:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does an attempted Coup count as a minor protest?

A few hundred people were involved in Qatar's Feb. 28 incident...Ericl (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think it is more akin to the UAE intelectual's petition, in the sense that it's not a popular move, and hence it does not qualify as a Minor Protest. But it is worth mentioning - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better article organization

I would like to propose a better way to organize this article, though it's gonna take some work to do the reformatting and rewording of certain sections. Here is the article organization currently (last few sections ignored):

  1. Overview
    1. Summary of protests by country
  2. Background
    1. Motivations
    2. Recent history
  3. Self-immolation
  4. Countries
    1. Algeria
    2. Bahrain
    3. Djibouti
    4. Egypt
    5. Iran
    6. Iraq
    7. Jordan
    8. Kuwait
    9. Libya
    10. Lebanon
    11. Mauritania
    12. Morocco
    13. Oman
    14. Saudi Arabia
    15. Sudan
    16. Syria
    17. Tunisia
    18. United Arab Emirates
    19. Yemen
  5. Non-UN members
    1. Palestinian territories
    2. Western Sahara

As it currently stands, this doesn't flow very well, and there's repetitive information in various sections. The countries section in particular is just a giant dumping ground, and it gives equal weight to, for example, Tunisia or Egypt as it does to Kuwait or Mauritania. So here's what I would recommend to fix readability and really make it come together:

  1. Overview (includes summary of protests by country)
  2. Background (includes paragraph on self-immolation, but table moves to impact)
    1. Motivations
    2. Recent history
  3. Tunisian Revolution (Overview/background may need to be trimmed to make these 3 sections flow)
  4. Egyptian Revolution
  5. Libyan Uprising
  6. Wave of Unrest (Includes all countries that are orange or blue on the map)
    1. Algeria
    2. Bahrain
    3. Djibouti
    4. Iran
    5. Iraq
    6. Jordan
    7. Morocco
    8. Oman
    9. Syria
    10. Yemen
  7. Related Protests (includes just a bulleted list of all other countries in the wave with a 1-2 sentence summary of the happenings there.)

I think this will make the article alot more understandable. It also puts the three biggest events (Tunisia/Egypt/Libya) right up front, rather than buried. ZeLonewolf (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea. Maybe the Self-immolation section can be merged into the Mohamed Bouazizi article's Copycat incidents section, while retaining the first sentence (Since Mohamed Bouazizi's self-immolation in Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia, sparked an uprising that led to the ousting of Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, a number of self-immolation protests have taken place in other Arab countries.) in the (new) Tunisia section of this article. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map: Palestinian Authority

Palestine should be pale blue as it has had changes in its government due to the protests etc. this article states... "On 14 February, the Palestinian Authority's Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and his Cabinet submitted its resignations to President Abbas amid pan-Arab calls for reform. Abbas tasked him with forming a new government after consultations with other factions, institutions and civil society groups. The reshuffle was long demanded by Fayyad and some in Abbas's Fatah faction."--Found5dollar (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arab_Spring&oldid=420368889"