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
Line 309: Line 309:


:It is here: [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2010-2011_Middle_East_and_North_Africa_protests_with_zoom.svg] [[User:ZeLonewolf|ZeLonewolf]] ([[User talk:ZeLonewolf|talk]]) 14:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
:It is here: [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2010-2011_Middle_East_and_North_Africa_protests_with_zoom.svg] [[User:ZeLonewolf|ZeLonewolf]] ([[User talk:ZeLonewolf|talk]]) 14:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

'''Agree.''' [[Special:Contributions/140.247.12.151|140.247.12.151]] ([[User talk:140.247.12.151|talk]]) 16:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


== Changing the name ==
== Changing the name ==

Revision as of 16:00, 29 March 2011

Template:Pbneutral

Requested move

2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests → Revolutions of 2011 — 69.31.51.141 (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree: per nominator. 69.31.51.141 (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree: this is the most important move. --Smart30 (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: revolutions are too specific; it would include only 2-3 countries and not the whole revolutionary wave. ZeLonewolf (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: actually it describes perfectly the impact of the protests, and it describes the events in 5 countries: Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Libya and now Syria.--Smart30 (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Its certainly an improvement upon the current, highly cumbersome title, but I agree with ZeLonewolf about it being far too specific and excluding nations such as Kuwait, Sudan, SADR, Morocco, Algeria, Mauritania, Djibouti, Jordan, Palestine, Iraq, Iran and others. My main qualm with this titling is the fact that it implies that any revolution that happened in 2011 would come under the scope of this article. What we really need (as I have already suggested but was archived and not closed after four rather than fourteen days of lapse) is a title which defines the scope of this article according to a title which links the protests to their common source. Laika Talk: Laika 06:13, 29 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]

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]

(minor edits changing section to subsection of previous section: Boud (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC), Boud (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Requested move -- to "Arab Spring"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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]
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.

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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]

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.

Requested move - 2010–2011 Middle East and Maghreb protests

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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]
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.

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]
Agree Death toll is important information, but it isn't an accurate measure of protests and certainly doesn't give you an accurate idea of the changes occurring. Dynex811 (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the alternate map I suggest we use. I just made it and uploaded it to wikimedia commons : Template:2010–2011 MENA protests deathtoll outcomes

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]
If the current map is supposed to represent the changes that have occurred then the colors for "major" and "minor" protests don't have a place there, since those aren't "changes", they're about the intensity of the protests -- an arbitrary, subjective, unclearly specified judgment about the intensity of the protests. Aris Katsaris (talk)
No they aren't changes to the leadership of the country but they give a snapshot of what happened. Deaths are just as arbitrary of a way of measuring the scale of a protest. Like someone else stated, 1000 deaths in Egypt does not equal 1000 deaths in Bahrain. There is already a chart with all this info below the map (including deaths and what the leaders have done), why do we need to change the map as well? Besides, visually the new map is much more cluttered, and as someone else said the current map took quite a long time to reach this stage. I think it is sufficient Dynex811 (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone PLEASE tell me what the PRECISE criteria for dividing a conflict into major/minor is? Right now "major/minor" isn't giving me any data at all -- only that some editor decided to label it such. If you arguing that the map should base its colors in some *other* criterion (e.g. deaths/total population) then that's one thing, and we could argue if some other criterion is more appropriate -- but right the current map doesn't use any specific criterion at ALL. You people just all take a vote and decide which protests qualify as "major" and which as "minor". Don't you see *that* as POV? That the current map took quite a long time to reach this stage, may have been exactly because nobody was thinking clearly about what should be depicted and what shouldn't. Aris Katsaris (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that the current major/minor distinction borders on POV and WP:OR as it is not based on source reporting. Frankly, I would rather get rid of the orange color and have one common category that represents protests, which would end the major vs. minor debate. ZeLonewolf (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just created a template and legend that clarifies the colors and symbols of my map. You can see above. Aris Katsaris (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is a little bit easier to read with the legend in but I saw the legend already and it still did not make much sense. Issues to me are why we need to track the number of deaths per country, confusion of the map, and a possible POV involving the crosshairs symbol being used here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard nobody suggest a different way of measuring intensity of conflict (though deathtoll/total population may have its merits). Taking separate votes on how each country's conflict should be categorized isn't actually a solution. Maps should depict actual data, not a judgment of consensus. Aris Katsaris (talk)

I like the idea, and I don't find it too confusing. The map carries twice the information, which naturally tends to make maps more confusing. I think, however, that the added information is worth it, especially in light of the major/minor discussion. Moreover, I think the idea to use logos (crosshairs and flags) for topical information, and reserve colors (shades of brown) for quantitative information, is inherently intuitive. The single element I found most confusing was to remember the meaning of the colors of the flags. How about if flags got replaced with symbols that represent the result more intuitively? That would also have the advantage that it would work for color blind people. Just to start some brainstorming, here are some ideas off the top of my head: For "leadership overthrown", a sideways chess king or crown could be used. For "leader promises to not run for another term" a crossed out calendar leaf. "Governmental changes" is pretty vague (and sounds like it includes some of the above); that could remain a flag, or have different symbols for different changes. — Sebastian 04:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also like the alternative map but then I like detail. My concern is that that much more information will make it more complicated to keep it updated with a 24hr news cycle. Perhaps it would be better to implement it when things slow down a bit. Veriss (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Separate Yemen

Well the Yemen uprising is listed down in the list (of the other nations impacted), but yemen has gone really severe.... The fragile peace that Saleh mantains with the northern geurillas might as well be broken, and the nation could plunge into civil war with who knows factions but thats my speculation Anyways things have gotten out of hand ever since the army started backing the protesters http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article1568024.ece http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/8480/World/Region/Dubai-says-bid-foiled-to-ship-,-guns-to-Yemen.aspx


So its way more severe than the other nations - maybe it should be separated out to the top!

Lets have a vote! --Pranav (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Until Yemen descends into actual civil war or Saleh resigns (making the protests effectively a revolution) I am opposed to any separation. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - first off, WP:NOVOTE. Secondly, the incidents in Yemen have not had the kind of global visibility that events in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya have had. ZeLonewolf (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not necessary. Al Jazeera (the main provider of News on the ground since Tunisia's revolution) only has one man on the ground in Yemen.--Smart30 (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - That's based on some degree of conjecture. - NickGrayLOL (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Yemen can be split when it is declared split. DerekMBarnes (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page cleanup

I think some of the discussions in the Name Specific Discussions section could be closed and archived. I would do it, but I lack the know-how. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just promote them to top level discussions and the bot will do it automatically.ZeLonewolf (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do I do that? (closed 3 discussions regarding the name) - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Use 2 equals signs instead of 3 around the title. 138.162.0.42 (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

The Guardian has a great timeline: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2011/mar/22/middle-east-protest-interactive-timeline Perhaps it would be useful to the article's editors. Jmj713 (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - but the timeline does have few loopholes...it for starters doesn't take into account anything in Oman at all! or in Kuwait!--Pranav (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main article too bulky, can no longer access it?

What's the size of it? It absolutely bogs down and crashes my browser (Google Chrome, then I tried it with Firefox), which is a shame since I wanted to see what I could do to possibly help clean it up or fix some grammar/remove outdated info. Does this happen to anyone else? Or just me. Teafico (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be your ISP. The metrics for this summary article are as follows as of today:
  • File size: 539 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 69 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 16 kB
  • Wiki text: 131 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 38 kB (6217 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 1194 B
Readable Prose Size is the main metric and is well within the parameters of WP:Length. Veriss (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. I'll chalk it up to my second-rate ISP then! Teafico (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First few words

"The 2010-2011 The Arab Protests are..." Two definite articles? Really? I would fix that but there's a load of scary comments in the article script so I don't want to touch anything in case I go against consensus. 86.6.193.43 (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have already been fixed by another editor. Veriss (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did Kuwait go!?

Where is the sub section on Kuwait - in other countries impacted I think the protests were somehow impacted by the Jasmine revolution - in the fact that until then stateless people there feared their opressers and din come out to protest. And I guess that section needs to be there. We have every nation except UAE and Qatar (thats justified), so Kuwait has to be there! --Pranav (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check the history. Probably someone dropped it accidentally while restructuring into "Other countries impacted" vs "Other regional incidents" sections. Boud (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Found it in an old version and pasted it into other regional incidents since that is where it seemed to fit best due to it's light content. May want to double check to make sure it is still up to date. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KSA: impact or incident?

Any opinions on whether Saudi Arabia should be in the "impact" section (more important protest) rather than the "incident" section (less important protests)? As the almost unique recent editor of 2011 Saudi Arabian protests (along with, i think, a large number of watchers who revert blanking vandalism within minutes and silently (usually) double-check my edits), i should let others make that decision. The protests have been small - 100s to a few 1000s - and mostly only in Riyadh and in and near Qatif near Bahrain - but the pattern seems to be sustained and linked to the Bahraini protests. So far the authorities are just arresting protestors - about 50% of the 100 participants in a recent Qatif demo were arrested - and arrested a human rights organisation leader this week. The biggest result of the protests so far is probably that the government decided to no longer "delay" the second election in KSA history - a men-only election for half the local councils' members - and to hold it quickly (presumably in order to defuse protest energies into electoral politics). The newspapers' metaphor "simmering" is probably accurate. Boud (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Morroco major protests

Hundreds of thousands (350K protesters) on March 20, therefore major not minor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Moroccan_protests

There are several sources provided on its wikipedia page for you to see if need

Please change to orange

Zenithfel (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Info Box Mispelling

In the Info box Listing of causes 'Secterianism' should bespelled 'Sectarianism'. This is unless arabs are really big fans of David Secter. 165.112.60.131 (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Western Sahara

Sahrawi people protested and rioted in November of 2010, forcing Moroccan forces to quash the possible rebellion. What evidence is there that points to Western Sahara protests inspiring the Tunisian protests? --Zulu, King Of The Dwarf People (talk) 06:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please search the archives of this talk page. This was extensively discussed.--216.70.233.34 (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian government to resign

Believe that qualifies Syria to turn blue on the map. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

concur for speedy change, this is clearly a governmental change. ZeLonewolf (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the image at commons? When I click on it here I get to other articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is here: [1] ZeLonewolf (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. 140.247.12.151 (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the name

I suggest to change the name to "2010–2011 Arab world protests", which will be shorter and have the same meaning. --MR.HJH (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arab_Spring&oldid=421333467"