Talk:Arab Spring

I've decided to make a massive change

There's an article called 2010-2011 Worldwide protests and since this article here is getting to unwieldly, I figured that splitting it up into "arab" and "non-arab" articles would be a good idea. Ericl (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Massively Against - That article will be deleted soon. It's unnecessary and completely over-stating the Protests. All of the aforementioned edits should be reversed.--Smart30 (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There does not need to be list on this page of other countries. If the protests outside MENA are notable enough, they can have their own pages and all be mentioned in short paragraph here. Chesdovi (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

AGAINST The Afd on that page has almost a 100% delete consensus, editors DO NOT WANT IT for a number of reasons. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Against. In principle, i would be in favour of a WP:SPLIT, but shifting the material to an article that is likely to be deleted in about 6 days' time (29 February) is not a split; it is a de facto removal of the content. A split would require consensus that the material is coherent enough and does not constitute WP:SYNTH. A straight-out removal of the material from this article would need to be proposed properly and wait for consensus. Boud (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I have gone ahead and readded plus changed the section title for protests that were a result or related to the middle eastern ones. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Could not oppose more strongly The article was renamed last week to end the "Arab vs. non-Arab" thing. I'm glad you sought consensus before making that massive change you decided on. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• If such protests occur throughout the world to the same degree as they are in the Arab World, I would support creating a general article entitled "Revolutions of 2011" (similar to the article "Revolutions of 1989"). At this time, the conflict is still largely isolated to the Arab World with significant (though relatively minor) incidents in China, Iran, Serbia, and Albania. I would not support such a name change at this time. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose that article is a new article on the same subject of an older article 2010–2011 anti-government protests, so should have been speedily deleted as a dupe. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Rename to 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa unrest

Propose Rename to 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa unrest. Eeven (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• against. "Unrest" sounds to me like a wiktionary:euphemism, possibly also a WP:WEASEL word. It's true that the word is popular in WP:RS for this type of topic, but we're supposed to get the information from those sources, not their euphemisms. Mainstream media may choose that organised-group-of-people-X are freedom fighters while organised-group-of-people-Y are terrorists, but they usually they give more concrete details. In that case we can use the information (group X or Y killed 12 people of group Y or X, respectively) and avoid using the labels. Readers can interpret the events and apply the labels they wish in their minds. If the labels are really needed in an article, then they can be quoted, but 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa "unrest" seems like a poor replacement for 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests. There are many possible alternative names, finding one that is simpler and more NPOV and RS'd and applies to all the places seems to me difficult, at least for the moment. Boud (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not a euphemism - it's a catch-all term which includes protests and revolutions and uprisings, etc. The events so far have included more than just protests which is why the rename is proposed. Eeven (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• in favor. This is the title that CNN is currently using to categorize these events. ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

MENA?

This whole MENA thing has a narrow scope, firstly there is no "standardized definition" of what countries are considered part of MENA; so putting "other MENA nations" on a map is probably not a very encyclopedic way of presenting something. It seems that just highlighting any nation in Northern Africa or the traditional Middle East and far Western Asia that is having protests makes more sense. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree (as I noted in a section above). Turkey and Cyprus are part of the Middle East, and Mauritania, Djibouti, and Somalia are not part of North Africa. If we drop the green color, then we'll have the freedom to include nations that are arguably part of this geographically-related protest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeLonewolf (talk • contribs) 23:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagree MENA is as comprehensive a geographic area as we're going to get. kencf0618 (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• So we just ignore any other country in the region because it is not part of this "MENA", to conventionally delimit an area for no apparent reason goes against common knowledge. In addition "MENA" can't be "comprehensive" if there is not "standardized definition" of what MENA really is. Take Cyprus for example, it is considered part of the traditional Middle East, but not MENA - considering there have been some hefty protests in the Muslim part of Cyprus, it would be nice to include that on the map but since we only allow MENA that can't happen. I don't get why we can't just apply common sense to this, instead of all these political limitations. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Just so. MENA is a standard category used in business and academic literature, and on Wikipedia, citations are destiny, not "political limitations," savvy? kencf0618 (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

From our own article, "MENA has no standardized definition; certain organizations define the region as making up different territories."; by the way that is cited in the article. Then all you have to do is look at other academic sources like this this book and you will see it lists different countries as part of MENA like Turkey and Afghanistan; and Djibouti and Somalia aren't even included. The fact is, MENA has no standard definition. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

To continue on with my preceding comment, this political paper does not include Somalia or Djibouti but our definition does. And this book clearly states, "the Middle East & North Africa (MENA) region includes members of the Arab League, with the exception of Mauritania, Comoros and Djibouti plus Iran, Israel and Turkey. Hello, we have those in the maps now...clearly there is no standard definition of MENA, academia is making conflicting statements. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree- We should find a consensus how far this specific article should cover states (as it seems we don't want to cover all the world). MENA, as pointed out, is not a commonly defined region. Either we define it ourselves or aggregate defined regions, for instance "Western Asia + North Africa", which seem to be more acknowledged regions and would cover all current countries on the map minus Somalia plus a few additional. It's hard to satisfy everyone on this topic... --Elllit (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Western Sahara (Revisited)

The following content has been at the center of a dispute:

Protest camp; major street demonstrations; attacks to government offices

Negociations between Morocco Interior Ministry and the protest camp commission (Nov. 4-5), Intervention of Moroccan forces to dismantle the camp (Nov. 8), Riots in El Aaiun and other towns, clashes between Sahrawi protesters and Moroccan police and civilians (Nov. 8-9), Removal of El Aaiun governor (Nov. 26)

14 (Morocco official)
20 (Polisario Front)

So I ask other editors should Western Sahara be included or not? Support and Oppose would be nice with a summary of why you feel the way you do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. There shouldn't be an argument really. HCPUNXKID who is the only one trying to add this in. He is trying to say that a protest that started in October in the WS, is what started the Arab world protests. The article clearly states that the Tunisia protest that started in Dec. 18, is what sparked the current protests, so any protests before Tunisia should not be included. In that case we should just add all the protests that happened decades before because they were similar. However if there are any protests in the Western Sahara that happened AFTER Tunisia, then it could be included.TL565 (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Also note that he only included it in the overview but not anywhere else including the start date in the info box and therefore contradicting the article that states it started on Dec. in Tunisia.TL565 (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose As per TL565. It's current presence is in fact quite misleading, I didn't pay too much attention to the dates and assumed they came after the Egypt protests, but I just missed it on Al Jazeera. The user should be warned /banned if they continue to add this content if we decide not to keep it. - Dalta (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per TL565, + the user who included WS is well known for his POV pushing. The protests in WS weren't linked by any way to the current protests, even the articles on en.WP and other WP's never mentioned WS protests as linked to the current before HCPUNKXKID added this information. Sources (at least, the neutral ones) don't link these two protest movements. --Omar-Toons (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support Leaving apart personal attacks like the ones from TL565 and Omar-Toons (well-known pro-Moroccan POV), I had only heard one reason against including them, and that's the date, wich is even dubious, avoiding it because it happened only one month before the Tunisia events. The other 5 weight reasons I gave (I can give more) seems to be insignificant to some here.

They just dont give a f*ck that the type of protest were the same (protest camp like posterior ones in Tahrir square or Bahrein), the slogans were similar (democracy, stop discrimination on jobs), the organization of the youth in the protests was the same (dialogue committee, cleaning committee, security committee), there were similar riots, attacks to government offices, etc...what evidences more you want?. And what is completely ridiculous is that the same people that want to avoid at any cost mentioning the 2010 Sahrawi protests, mention the actual minor protest in Western Sahara, wich are simply a continuation of the 2010 ones (participants on that movilizations show photos of Sahrawis detained on the 2010 protests)!!! How can we understand that?. It's totally illogic. Sincerely, I hope that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort enciclopedia, not a group of people trying to impose their vision and making lobbies.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any countries were inspired or even heard of this isolated protest in October. Everyone including all media sources list Tunisia as the starting place, period. Now if you want to list the WS minor(yellow) protests starting on February 2 in the overview, you can. Not to mention when you were editing it in, you never touched the intro section and therefore contradicted the starting date that was still at December 18. I don't usually argue this much, but I know when something is out of place.TL565 (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I repeat, mentioning a 2011 CONTINUATION of the 2010 Sahrawi protests while avoiding even mentioning the 2010 Sahrawi protest is ridiculous. It's like for example, if you only mention the post-ouster of Ben Ali protests on Tunisia, while avoiding mention the whole majority of the protest after the fall of Ben Ali. Clearly, it has no sense. I agree that the majority of the media didnt mention W.S., but let's be honest, do they mention W.S. anyday? Even in October 8-9 2010 the information in english about the protests was few, due to the media blockage and the lack of interest. But that doesnt mean that was sacred, or even true. I thought that no one had defended this position, but I recently see an interview in Al-Jazeera in wich Noam Chomsky defend the same arguments as me (http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/empire/2011/02/20112211027266463.html). Perhaps I'm not as alone as I thought.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

An article was recently written about these protests here, but there still no indication that they were related to the current protests other than it was pre-Tunisia.TL565 (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

strong support highly pertinent arab/mena reactions, although sarhwai protests could be merged in(Lihaas (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)).

Protests in Croatia

There are also ongoing Tunisia/Egypt-inspired protests in Croatia. It started on 22 February with protest in Zagreb (capital of Croatia) and continued today (24 February) at 18:00 (local time) with protests in some other mayor cities as well. Unfortunately, sources in English cannot be found yet, only in Croatian.

Some sources in croatian: [1], [2], [3], [4]. --78.0.228.24 (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Finally some sources in English, but only about the protest in 22 February: [5], [6]. Also, there are reports of police officers beating some of the protesters in Zagreb. [7] --78.0.228.24 (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If a RS source compares it then add it to the requisite section(Lihaas (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)).

Wisconsin

What about the protests in Wisconsin? They are related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.65.165.120 (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• against. The protests in Wisconsin are about labor unions primarily...completely unrelated to the MENA unrest. ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

But many of the Wisconsin-Ohio protesters admit to being inspired by the protests and revolutions in Middle East-North Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.65.160.237 (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If a RS makes the comparison ten be bold and add it.(Lihaas (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)).

Against - A LOT of protests seem to be "inspired" by the protests in Middle East and North Africa. But just because people gain confidence seeing other people fighting for their rights doesn't make it related 'per se'. --Elllit (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does, look at China, that stuff is added, and it is no different from the Wisconsin and Ohio protests. So add it please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.66.203.108 (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You make me laugh, whoever you are. The Chinese protests ARE related and WERE inspired by the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings. Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, they are about LABOR UNIONS. 2 different issues. And where do you get the source that people in Wisconsin were inspired? Kanzler31 (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

De facto guideline: related protests in Western countries must be excluded

There is what seems to be a de facto guideline for this article that related protests in Western countries must be excluded. I believe that this is enforced in good faith and speculate that it is related to the demographic profile of en.wikipedians and media filters, especially in the USA. I suspect that there is an implicit assumption that Western countries are democratic and are not involved in systematic, massive human rights violations, while the rest of the world is mostly undemocratic and has serious human rights problems, despite the fact that reality is much messier and not so Manichean ("black-and-white").

• A few examples regarding democracy:

1. USA: Duverger's law - US plurality voting systems strongly discourage the development of multiparty democracy in the US, allowing only two marginally different pro-business parties; 2004 United States election voting controversies
2. European Union: the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was rejected by citizens of two European countries, and the Treaty of Lisbon was also rejected by citizens of a European country permitted to vote but European political elites validated the treaty using the principle of "either you vote 'yes', or you vote 'no' and then you get asked again to vote freely once you're ready to say 'yes'" and by avoiding popular votes.
3. Tunisia had elections in 2009, 2004, etc.
4. Egypt had a presidential election in 2005 and confirmation referenda 1999, 1993, etc.

• It's easy enough to find wikipedia articles on systematic and massive human rights violations by Western countries, both internally and externally, but going into details risks making this a forum about human rights, which is not the aim here - this should be more of a meta-discussion.

A consequence of this assumption is that it is accepted that talk page debate about protest movements in Iran, sub-Saharan Africa, P.R. China, Albania, Bolivia, etc. being related to the Arab world protests can take place without requiring instant removal of their entries in the article, pending consensus on the talk page, but sections of the article on massive protests in e.g. Template:Sec link auto, USA, Template:Sec link auto archive that (in at least the two latter cases) are inspired by the Arab world protests according to WP:RS must be quickly removed from the article prior to the normal convention of tagging, discussing on the talk page, etc. rather than after achieving consensus.

Because of our demographic profile, i am sceptical about our chance of obtaining consensus to change this guideline, even though there do seem to be a few other editors who disagree with it (i.e. in addition to me), because we are not going to miraculously and rapidly (few days) balance our demographic profile. i don't have any obvious solutions to propose. Edit warring is obviously not a solution. Starting a WP:SPLIT by creating related articles that violate this guideline is unlikely to be a solution, and well-intentioned attempts look like leading to deleted articles. But in the spirit of African/Persian-Arabic culture, a.k.a. mathematics, maybe stating the problem could be the most important step in solving it. So if i have stated the problem clearly enough, maybe that will help find a solution.

Maybe posing the problem as the following question might help:

Should we have a de facto guideline that Any Western country with allegedly related/inspired protests must first be removed from the article and then discussion to reach consensus on the talk page may happen, while any non-Western country with allegedly related/inspired protests should remain in the article and first achieve consensus on the talk page before possibly being removed ?

Boud (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not Italy. Albania maybe, but I also highly doubt the protests in Wisconsin was inspired by this. It was going to happen anyway, maybe not at as large a scale. The protests there are about unions, not about leaders spending lavishly and wastefully and disregarding their citizens. --haha169 (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality of this Article ?

I'm really concerned about the Quality and the frequent changes that keep affecting this article? Also the map just makes no sense anymore! (ButJ (talk) 08:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC))

I think you should be more specific. Of course there are frequent changes, because there are frequent changes in the states involved. As for the map: It shows the current state, what doesn't make sense? --Elllit (talk) 08:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Frequent changes are to be expected, as the article even says.--Smart30 (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, too. The Libyan uprising article has too many grammar errors to forgive :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.108.89.122 (talk) 12:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

WESTERN SAHARA status

Suggestion to add Western Sahara under "Minor protests" in the Map, as protests have taken place in that region and are ongoing as stated by the article itself. Currently Western Sahara is Labeled as unaffected (ButJ (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC))

I repeat, it's non-sense to add a part & continuation of the 2010 Sahrawi protests while avoiding the major part of the protest with the argument of the date. It has no logic.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Updating article(s)

I've seen protests here in Amman and am watching massive protests in Iraq on Al Jazeera. We should update this article so it catches up with today's changes.

Some source material: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/2011225102748578436.html - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Title

I suggest the title be changed to "MENA Protests" for two reasons: title is too long and we do not know when this protests will end. If they extend to other regions, it will be another trend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassan hsn (talk • contribs) 12:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Jordan

I heard from a trusted source that protests are being held in the Jordanian capital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkewan (talk • contribs) 16:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I'm from there. I've seen the protests. EDIT: Source from Aljazeera: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/2011220105658153939.html (94.249.0.66 (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC))

Inconsistent labelling of major and minor protests

There is very inconsistent labelling of major and minor protests. According to the general standard that is set, Morocco should be described as seeing major protests and in orange on the map. Conversely, Kuwait has not had any major protests, by the commonly applied standards of the term in the article, so far and should be in yellow.

Nwe (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Iraq

To date, In Iraq are now major protest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.244.243.106 (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Following today's events, I completely agree: [8], [9], [10]. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Its been orange on the map for a while already. --haha169 (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Map-specific Discussion

Making this topic to aggregate the various discussion topics which are exclusively focused on changes to the map. ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Green map coloration

Green color should instead be: "Unaffected" , or take it out all together, also Western sahara is green?? Why? There are protests there, should be marked as minor as it was before!

Let's remove the green coloration. This is an article about protests, not about the MENA region in general. ZeLonewolf (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Against - The main reason for the green color was initially this was just protests in Tunisia-Algeria, and spread to Egypt and Yemen, and now to all MENA countries except Qatar and UAE. It is now needed to distinguish Qatar and UAE from the other countries. --Smart30 (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Against - What? We are covering the MENA protests, and Qatar and the UAE need to be distinguished. 99.37.158.123 (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The current map includes countries such as Somalia, Djibouti, and Mauritania which are neither in the Middle East NOR are they in North Africa. By using the "other MENA" category, it implies that those 3 countries are part of the MENA region and they are not. I realize where they came from, but as it currently stands, the green category on the map doesn't make much sense to me. Middle East includes Turkey and Cyprus, but neither are colored green. If we must designate the region, let's draw a boundary shape in a dashed line around the MENA region. ZeLonewolf (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Support The protests have clearly gone beyond any geographical or cultural area, so should we just have a map of the protest countries themselves instead of trying to fit them into a pre-defined region or entity. - Dalta (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Depends If we change anything we would also need to change the title of the article. What would it be called after this ... World protests? I think its fine right now, but if it changes we would have to change the title as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.215.158.151 (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Libya needs a new colour and category

"Government change" or "Major protest" no longer cuts it. It's not even an "uprising", but a "civil war". Black would be a good colour. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess ending this difficulty is a minor additional reason why I hope Libya goes burgundy really soon. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason it should not be burgundy now. Perhaps change it to burgundy now and if it does become a civil war(which I don't think the government has the strength to do) change it again. I am against it being red though. There have been people defecting but no change to the government. Plus the previous 'governmental change nations' never got this violent. I vote it be changed to burgundy perhaps with a note in the legend that revolutions may be ongoing to distinguish it from Egypt and Tunisia. --Wilson (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely with Bobthefish2. Start a new category: Civil War, and colour: Black. --108.66.199.141 (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should stay orange as long as Qaddafi is still in power. ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Against - There was no consensus to rename the article as a civil war so why should we call it one here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Mauritania and Senegal

Note: Bringing this back from the archives since it had support but no action taken yet. ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Mauritania is on the map but Senegal is not. Both countries[11] [12] have had a single instance of self-immolation (which in my opinion, does not alone rise to the level of even a minor protest). I think we should either have both countries on the map, or neither. Since we are including a few Horn of Africa countries such as Somalia and Djibouti, it's OK to also have some borderline west Africa as well in terms of geography. My vote is to remove Mauritania unless a legitimate protest (at least a few hundred people?) occurs. ZeLonewolf (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

For - I agree it is problematic to include Mauritania as it does not meet our criteria for inclusion. It is not a part of North Africa, and it is not a Middle-eastern country, it's not on MENA. --Smart30 (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Mauritania is probably included because it's an Arab League member, like Djibouti and Somalia but unlike Senegal. Ucucha 14:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Right - but unlike Djibouti, Mauritania is not a part of MENA. Somalia's addition was indeed as a result of being arab-league, however that country is too volatile not to have it on the page.--Smart30 (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

For - Let's set the focus of the article on MENA (as title suggests). There is plenty of room in the "related protests" section. If protests spread the title should change to include all Africa, for instance. --Elllit (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

its arab-speaking hecnce more than notabel. it should be added here for mauriatania. Senegal is better suited to the "related" section(Lihaas (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)).

Again there is no specific countries that are part of MENA, view my comments above. We need a firm guidline as to what can be put in the map and article, and what cannot. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You are totally right! I withdraw my former vote. --Elllit (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Even with the geography aside, again, a single act of self-immolation doesn't rise to the level of even minor protest. ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I would propose that self-immolations be represented on the map with an icon, perhaps a small flame, to separate them from mass protests. Then we can still note Mauritania's self-immolation but not color it in. ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I was bold

I have taken decisive action to end the constant bickering over the colour Libya is on the map. Along the way, I found that I somehow did not have a Wikimedia account, and so despite being a Wikipedian for a few years, could not upload the new map under the same name! Quantum Burrito (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think black should be for revolution and dark red for uprising.Makes more sense to me and technically all the countries with protest are uprisings.--Gunshot123 (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Gunshot123 (talk)

I have a problem with calling this an uprising(which it is). Looking at the wikipedia defition of uprising it stated it was a synonm of rebellion which is itself a synonm of revolution. Why not call it a revolution and save having to add another colour? --Wilson (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The situation in Libya is too distinct from that in Tunisia and Egypt. Gaddafi is still in power in parts of the country, and there appears to be no countrywide new government, as there is in Tunisia and Egypt. Ucucha 04:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, Uchucha is right. The situation is different entirely.--Smart30 (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The map

The black and dark red colours should be switched, since the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions progressed farther than the Libyan "uprising" has. Macarion (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I was kind of thinking the same thing. The lighter colors represent incidents that are less important (gray for other territories, green for other MENA states, yellow for minor protests) while major incidents (orange for major protests, red for governmental changes, dark red for the head of the state being overthrown) are darker. An uprising is refusing to obey order and a revolution is a change in order. If anything, Libya's uprising should be dark red for the uprising and Egypt and Tunisia should be black, for the revolution. — Moe ε 07:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Against - keep it black. No reason to change colors.--Smart30 (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Can the black color please be change to another? Like purple, for instance, or something else. Black just stands out too much and has morbid connotations. Jmj713 (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a reason to change colours. Putting black between bright red and dark red on the "spectrum" breaks the existing pattern and makes the map more confusing. Macarion (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In favor I agree with this logic. Libya still has its leader in power; black should represent the furthest possible revolutionary step. I think Minor, Major, Revolt, Government Change, Revolution should be the progression and Yellow through Black should represent these stages. That makes the most logical sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.21.51 (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, black stands out too much for uprising. No need to change the legend, just make the Governmental change red, Uprising as burgundy and countries where people deposed their leaders should be colored black to state that it's a big change that makes it stand out! ;)(94.249.0.66 (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC))

Why has orrange changed to pink?

  Government Overthrown

  Uprising

  Governmental changes

  Major protests

  Minor protests

  Other MENA nations

  Other nations

The color for major protests which used to be orange has changed to pink. I think it should be changed back for two reasons. The first is that orange fits with the color scheme of darker equals more serious protests (gray, green, yellow, orange, red, burgundy). The second is that pink makes it hard to distinguish between the newly created category "popular uprising" (for Libya) which is colored magenta. Can Pink be changed back to orange? Dynex811 (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  Government overthrown

  Open Revolt

  Significant government change

  Major protests

  Minor protests

  Other MENA nations

  Other nations

I agree with you.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think they changed it for a person who was colorblind. I still think it should have the original colors as it showed which were more serious the darker the colors became.TL565 (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Except for the fact that the uprising in Libya was originally black and the revolutions countries were dark red. I really don't think pink and purple are the best colors. How do people change these colors? Splent (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that these new colors look terrible. The contrast is way too low. The yellow-to-black scale was much better. Please revert!! ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

They must be reversed back. The vast majority of Wikipedians are not colorblind and so we should not cater to the colorblind.--Smart30 (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The colors as they stand now are hard to see for colorblind and regular vision alike. The pink, red, and purple shades are far too close. In addition, the yellow-orange-red-maroon-black made sense as a color progression which was consistent with the degree of unrest. ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

These Colours are terrible, not just aesthetically, but practically. I can't tell the difference between the two different shades of pink/purple ("Uprising", "Major Protests"). Some sort of Rainbow type colours would be better, with no different shades of one colour being repeated. --Hibernian (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The colours were changed because a purple/magenta was suggested previously to replace orange for accessibility purposes (Talk:2010–2011_Middle_East_and_North_Africa_protests/Archive_4#Overview_map_accesibility) and there were no disagreements at that time. Please suggest a new colour range and amend the legend at the top of this section. There was very little comment for the colour change, and it would be nice to have some reasonable discussion about it. gringer (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought I was pretty clear with this request change pink to orange but I've added a legend regardless. Dynex811 (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

My recommendation

I suggest the following breakdown:

  Government overthrown

  Open Revolt

  Significant government change

  Major protests

  Minor protests

  Other nations

I would drop the "other MENA" category as it does not add value. ZeLonewolf (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm colorblind myself, and it seems like they didn't take into account blue/purple color blindness (which is mine). While the new scheme works for red-green color blind people, I'm having trouble distinguishing between the two shades of pink that form Egypt/Libya. We can do better than this. I suggest something like what they have for the same sex marriage in the US map. --Watchreader (talk) 04:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps something like this?

  Government overthrown

  Significant government change

  Open Revolt

  Major protests

  Minor protests

  Other nations

ZeLonewolf (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this would work well. Macarion (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems fine Easy on the eyes for everyone. I'd prefer the yellow to black scale but as people have been saying that might be hard for the color blind. Honestly, anything is better than what is up right now Dynex811 (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay done, colour changed to this one. gringer (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok my problem is I am colour deficient so the colours that are similar look the same to me, can something be done about that please. Thanks Enlil Ninlil (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget to change the key Dynex811 (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Concurrent protests

Greece - NO! Protests because of the lack of youth rights in Greece have been going on for years. They are not related.

Italy - Has NOTHING to do with these protests. They were about Berlusconi's sex scandals, NOT regime change.

Ivory Coast - Protests over there have been going on for months now (before Tunisia). They also have nothing to do the these protests.

Serbia - Why do we keep adding Serbia? They are almost unnotable and were planned for MONTHS before the Tunisian uprising. I think this section needs to be watched more. Kanzler31 (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

timeline

Is there a timeline article to replace the section that was on this article? There should be a unified timeline article that highlights the major events in a timeline manner, across all the protests. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 05:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)