Talk:Arab Spring

Deletion of sourced content

I had to point to this issue. As I see that the date issue is controversial, I would asume good faith as we discuss the issue, but what I cannot understand is the deletion of sourced content, or I can only understand it on terms of violation of Wikipedia policy. Some even had used the argument of consensus, when as long as I know there was never a consensus on erasing relevant sourced content giving information to an article. I even saw in the article false statements (intencionated or not), and they had not been erased as quickly as the sourced academical info I talk about.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a consensus between WP users that the starting point was Tunisia, and you are the only one who is opposing it.

Medias and sources cite Tunisia as the starting point, but your edits are based on a minority opinion among specialists (then sources) that it was Western Sahara.

In other words, you are starting and contributing to an edit warring.

Omar-Toons (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

How many times do we have to keep telling you that your sources aren't reliable and that TUNISIA was the starting point? Not only that, but you were conflicting the page by adding the October Western Sahara protests to the table but didn't change anything about the starting point which said it started in Tunisia on December 18. How many more months do we have to keep doing this? I'm surprised you haven't been blocked yet. TL565 (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I know that you're working to block me, that type of lobby you had. It is curious to see that what it is supposed to be a mediation (an administrator) is asked by one of the parts and made the changes wanted by one of the parts. That's neutrality?. You dont want to discuss, only to impose your view, and what it is worse, to hide other points of view. So now academic and media sources RELATED to the article are not reliable?. Could you give REASONS, please?. This point of view could be minoritary, but if we had to erase minoritary views in Wikipedia, perhaps half of it had to be erased. I was not the one who started edit-warring, as I was not the one who started deleting sourced content.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You are completely BLIND. Do you know how many discussions we had on this issue. It wasn't just me, at least five other people gave reasons on this. We gave plenty of reasons, you just dont want to hear it. As for your "sourced content", once again a few opinions of two people are not reliable compared to MANY other sources saying it started in Tunisia. Other than you, who else is trying to add what your adding in? Exactly, the consensus is against you. I suggest you stop edit warring, your just embarrassing yourself at this point. TL565 (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

TL, I understand your frustrations at this point, but please don't be rude. HCP, you are changing main portions of the article: the info box, the lead, etc., into making it seem as if the protests began in October in W. Sahara on the basis of a few sources. While those opinions should be duly noted (perhaps in the W. Sahara section), it is simply not ready to be displayed so prominently as fact. --haha169 (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It began with Tunisia, when this is over - we can add a note that some specialists say it all began with Western Sahara, but as of right now there is a gigantic consensus that Tunisia is the starting point.--Smart30 (talk) 03:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

In TL's defense, HCPUNXKID has been extremely rude, and has a long history of edit warring on wikipedia. He has been given many patient replies with links to wikipedia policies on why people disagree with his frequently non-WP:NPOV contributions, but keeps up this behavior over and over again. Just look at his contribution history, his talk page, and the history of this article and archived talk page.--68.7.78.64 (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, what I am surprised is that some users, as they want to avoid some information at any cost, has erased EVEN THE POV AND UNBALANCED BANNERS, that clearly stated that they should not be removed until the dispute is finished. About the ones who said that they had replied my arguments, that is false, they had not answered to any concrete argument I gave, no one. All I was asking was for an exchange of opinions about the issue, wich was denied by some popular (as I see) editors. I had never pretended that the version about the current events starting in W. Sahara was the unique one, as some others had do. As long as I know, different points of view on articles are welcome in Wikipedia, when they are sourced and verified. "the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased", thats not me, its Wikipedia policy. Confronting sources saying events started in Tunisia with sources saying that started in W. Sahara, and giving the numerical superiority of the firsts to made it an argument supporting the exclusion of the seconds...Im not gonna qualify it, but.... I perhaps had been rude and so vehement, and I regret if that offended someone, but the question is that some users AVOID not the inclusion of sourced relevant information, but even discussing it reasonably. Edit-warring? Some users here had also that reputation, I am not gonna point them.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Name Specific Discussions

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• 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)

Comment - i concur this is not the proper way to propose a title switch.--Smart30 (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Maybe you should read the discussion above. Loro-rojo (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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)

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)

• Oppose per DerekkMBarnes, renaming it to this title would be a NPOV issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - it is not exclusively Arab and thus Arab Spring is not an accurate nickname let alone title. --Smart30 (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Query: What is the convention as far as how the media refers to the events?—Biosketch (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - haven't even heard of the term before now... --haha169 (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - what does that even mean? Is that a seasonal reference? Lara 12:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

And it began in the winter anyway, not spring. Jmj713 (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Map specific discussions

New colour for Algeria and Morocco

There should be a new colour for Algeria and Morocco; "Major reforms or concessions" or something like that in light of king's concessions in morocco and state of emergency revoking in algeria. It's also likely that we will see more of this sort of thing, as rulers try to preempt a revolt by introducing more democracy voluntarily. This is in many senses much more significant that "governmental changes" or such like as have occurred in jordan, oman. Also, west bank should be in blue. Nwe (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

West Bank should be blue. Morocco saw major protests today. Algeria should stay the same so half-assed reforms doesnt pass as governmental changes. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

oppose : A 200 persons' protest isn't a major protest. However, I support the idea of creating a new label for major political concessions --Omar-Toons (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

But don't you think that the concessions are the most significant event at this stage in algeria and morocco? I also think we should do this as a way of anticipating what's likely to come; arab leaders are scared shitless and this may lead to democracy in itself gradually. Remember how democracy came to most countries in europe; most didn't have revolutions, but the fear and possibility of a revolution in itself led to a restructuring of power in those countries. Nwe (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There's been discussion before of eliminating the 'governmental changes' category, since said changes have by and large failed to satisfy protesters in the countries marked as such, and protests within those countries (namely Jordan) are still ongoing. From what I'm reading, so-called 'major reforms' have yet to quell unrest either. DerekMBarnes (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Quelling of unrest isn't the point. The point is that it's a significant development as a result of the protests. Nwe (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - neither Morocco nor Algeria have provided legitimate reforms and government changes. The de-facto definition of government changes is Jordan which is why Oman is also now blue. So until Morocco/Algeria have reforms and changes comparable to Jordan/Oman there shouldn't be any changes to them on the map.--Smart30 (talk) 05:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

New colour for West Bank and Morocco

Do you agree tho that West Bank should be blue and Morocco "(Moroccan police break up rally, hurt dozens-witness)" should be updated to Major? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Why should the West Bank be coloured blue? 168.91.255.100 (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

oppose both --Omar-Toons (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

from the article: "On 14 February, the Palestinian Authority's Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and his Cabinet submitted its resignations to President Abbas" hence a light blue for Governmental Changes. It was blue at one point but during the big turmoil on the page and in the map about a month ago it must have been changed accidentally.--Found5dollar (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Western Sahara again

Western Sahara Flagicon

The Western Sahara entries in the two tables (Summary - currently removed - & Self-Immolation List) would need a flagicon, as all of the other countries have one. I know that this is a disputed territory so there are 4 options in my view:

• 1. Using the Moroccan Flag/flagicon (I don't think many people would agree on this one)
• 2. Using the Western Sahara (SADR) Flag (Some people might agree, but it would seem a bit biased towards the pro-independence camp)
• 3. Using both, something like / - would seem more ballanced, but would put two falgs instead of one in the table
• 4. Using a hybrid such as this: Template:Image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Morocco_and_Western_Sahara.svg (I personally favour this one, but there is no flagicon version afaik)

Any thoughts? - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

For the last one, you can use the 20px image instead of the flagicon, I think it is the best solution to avoid GF-PoV editing --Omar-Toons (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I used the third one on Mohamed Lamine Ould Salek Ould Said Mahmoudi's section of that part of the article, but it was deleted. I used a Morocco flag only. It got deleted. I used a Western Sahara flag only. It got deleted. Mohamed Lamine Ould Salek Ould Said Mahmoudi needs a flagicon next to his name. What can we use?

I, for one, think the case depends on what the person was believed to be protesting. If it's the person is Sahrawi, but protesting Morocco's government only, then a Moroccan flag. If he's a Sahrawi and protesting Western Sahara issues, then a Western Sahara flag only. If she's a Sahrawi, but protesting both Sahrawi and Moroccan governments, then the hybrid, which should be made into a flagicon.

Now, I'm going to keep re-adding the Moroccan flagicon () to Mohamed Lamine Ould Salek Ould Said Mahmoudi, until someone gives me a definitive reason why it should be the Sahrawi flag, the hybrid, or none. Because right now, people are just leaving him without one, and it's getting annoying. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding a Moroccan flag will be reverted as it is considered as PoV since the territory is disputed and that there is no official flag, but two flags belonging to the two claimants.

Omar-Toons (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the fused flag is original research, and also fails the manual of style for image usage. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Western Sahara edits by HCPUNXKID

User:HCPUNXKID has made some edits to the article removing the Western Sahara section from the Table and adding two tags (POV and Unbalanced) tho the Summary Table and the Overview, which I see as a bit of an overreaction. As I recall, the discussion regarding Western Sahara has been settled, and I feel this is an attempt to impose a minority POV. Chomsky's POV is stated in the Western Sahara subsection, while the article mantains the overall consensus of that the Wave of Protests were ignited by the self-imolation of Mohamed Bouazizi. Where's the big controversy? - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

the guy is for several weeks disrupting this page by adding that Western Sahara stuff. Just see his recent contribs. I ask he be blocked--78.2.52.249 (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This is starting to be boring, I cant understand that obsession on avoiding different points of view. Had I talk about imposing it as the only POV? NEVER. My edit simply added other POV (minoritary, but not irrelevant) to the main and generally accepted POV. If we only accept one POV on Wikipedia articles, half of it should be erased. I put the tags when I see that it seems to be the only way to made users to really discuss (not denying without reasonable thoughts) the issue. Then, I saw that the same tags that remained months on some articles were deleted inmediatly, without any discussion, although the POV one states literally: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved". No comment on that. About deleting the W. Sahara section on the summary table, its curious that while my edits were deleted speedly, citing as only reason that it was earlier than the Tunisia events, now some try to push a new version on the events, in wich as long as I can see, the W. Sahara protests started in February 2011, without any relation with the protests on precedent weeks, in the same places and by the same people. I had never heard that version on the events except here. No source stated it, or draw that suppossed line between the protests, perhaps because they are an ongoing chain of protests since the Gdeim Izik camp events in October and November 2010. It also contradicts the information on the W. Sahara subsection, but as it was redacted in part by me, it wouldnt be strange to be erased by some users, although it is sourced. How sad so much intolerance.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Copy-paste of a precedent comment of me:

There were many users who "tried", many times, to discuss this issue with HCPUNXKID (here[1], and here [2]), however he chose to continue his editings...

Omar-Toons (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not about intolarance. The Western Sahara subsection AND the Background section both contain your POV, ot at least references to the WS october protests, but adding the 2 tags (POV and Unbalanced), twice, no less, is adding undue weight to the idea that there is a big controversy, which there isn't. This is not about exclusion or censorship, but about undue weight. Just because you can contradict other other Wikipedians ad infinitum does not mean there is a big controversy raging in the world - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a deaf dialogue. You said that "The Western Sahara subsection AND the Background section both contain your POV":

• Its not my POV, its the POV of Noam Chomsky (well known philosopher) and Bernabé López García (Contemporary Islam university professor), wich I think are reliable sources, and a valuable opinion. I dont think that every edit a user made is its personal POV, excepting someones.
• Lets be sincere, much people who reach the article will not read it all, but the general overview. If that theory, POV, or how you wanna call it, made a different overview of the general issue, I think that its logic to be mentioned there. Also, including it on the W. Sahara subsection is reiterative, as the main article of the Sahrawi protests mention it.

Finally, I beg for some debate, only thing I read is recriminations, threats and avoiding any discussion ON THE FACTS. This is disgusting.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Enough complaining already. If you want something changed, if you want debate on certain content, I invite you to clearly state "I would like to add the following information to the following section. I think this is supported for the following reasons." As a suggestion on your style, I recommend you refrain from communicating PARTS OF THIS INFORMATION IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS when you want to emphasize your point, because it ends up reading as if you are yelling and being emotional rather than trying to make an intellectual argument. The same goes for bold text. Most of us will understand a clearly worded debate without having special words directly pointed out to us. I also recommend that you leave out your commentary criticizing other editors, whether specifically or generally, and leave out your commentary on how obvious it is that your opinion is the correct one (yes, even if you think other people are doing that to you). Things will sort themselves out through discussion to generate a majority opinion, even if your opinion in the end is not the one that is represented in the wikipedia articles text. In general there is a good bunch of people who have contributed to this article, trying to do the right thing. Like any article, there is also some chaos that gets introduced from time to time that confuses things. This usually gets sorted out over time in a civil way. In the end, whether people agree or disagree with you, please accept the consensus as a part of the wiki editing process, and don't unilaterally try to makes edits that you know are controversial. I know you don't think that's what you are doing, but because of the way you have tried to communicate your points in often inflammatory ways, there are a growing number of editors who are less likely to want to listen to you now - you will have to be a bit patient and gracious to undo that damage at this point. Alternatively, there are a number of free blogging tools where you can write whatever you want without having to compromise with anyone. Switching gears, I will say specifically about your points, as has already been said by others, that the Chomsky quote etc. already exists in the Western Sahara section, and does not need to be in the main content of the article. Every opinion does not need to be represented in the main body, or the article gets difficult to understand. One could argue, just to be silly by example, that the article should also say "Some heads of state, such as Moammar Gaddafi, believe that the uprisings are caused by Al Qaeda operatives giving hallucinogenic pills to teenagers", and I could give a sourced reference to this information. No, I am not equating that statement with what you are arguing, I'm exaggerating to try to make the point that the article is not enhanced or made more balanced by adding every minority opinion. I feel many of us have already given thought to what you are trying to suggest, and respectfully disagree. (This comment should probably go on your talk page instead of here, but I'm not sure how to do that yet, and I have not decided to have my own account yet and therefore have no talk page of my own)--68.7.78.64 (talk) 07:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Western Sahara timeline

The information on the Timeline table is simply false, there are dozens of sources about precedent protests in W. Sahara, and even what happened in Dahkla was similar to the events in El Aaiun on late 2010. It also mixes Sahrawi protests on the territory, Moroccan protest on the territory and Sahrawi protest on the refugee camps, in Algeria. It draws a line between the Dakhla protests and the precedents, wich I aint seen anywhere else but here. If avoiding the W. Sahara events is wanted, ok, but dont made supposed divisions that no other source made.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

In 5 words: You are acting against consensus.

In 4 word: You edits are PoV.

Too many users tried to discuss this issue with you, and you are still editing articles following you own PoV. It is not surprising if too many people undo your edits.

Omar-Toons (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As usual, you aint refuted any argument, but only impose your POV. You talk about consensus, ok. When had been a consensus about the Sahrawi protests starting in that date? Any source confirming that POV?. Or what you are saying is I dont have the right to edit?. I simply dont know what to think about this.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Restart

About flag - Western Sahara is a physical region and not an political entity - so it doesn't have a flag and a Template:Noflag should be used - when you refer to the physical region. If you refer to the Moroccan administration you should use Morocco flag and when you refer to SADR - you should use SADR flag.

About inclusion in the article - it depends. If the events there were protests against SADR administration of the Free Zone or against Morocco administration of the western part - then yes. If the events were part of the Sahrawi-independence-struggle-against-Morocco then Western Sahara War or something like this is more appropriate place.

So far, IMHO, the protests have more characteristics of 'people-against-governance-practices' than 'people-against-occupier' - so I think we should include these in the article (of course, if it's the opposite - then it should not be included). But usage of a flag is more complicated - while the protests are against Morocco authorities in the region using Morocco flag would imply that this is Moroccan territory - and this is disputed. Using SADR flag would imply that either this is SADR territory (but this is disputed) or that the protests are against SADR authorities in the Free zone (but I haven't seen any source suggesting such thing). So, I think that a 'noflag' is the best solution in this case. Alinor (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree : No flag should be used --Omar-Toons (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian

Gaza protests

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4042870,00.html

please include it --78.2.52.249 (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of the protests seem to have ended- rewrite?

in the last few weeks many of the protests seem to have ended. There doesn't seem to have been much activity in Iran or Algeria, for example, in over a month. I am not at all suggesting that we should be writing off the protests as finished, but I think it might be a good idea to rewrite many of the sections with a sense of finality. It is no longer useful for the Algerian section to end with a statement claiming that the Algerian Authorities might try to quiet their protests with their "oil and gas wealth", since, well, that hasn't happened and the protests there have peeered out.216.252.75.144 (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)