Talk:Arab Spring

Name Specific Discussions

Arbitrary break 0

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

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

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

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

Strong Support: The current title does not fully encapsulate the events the article is describing. NickGrayLOL (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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

• Agree: per nominator. 69.31.51.141 (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

• "2010-2011 Tunisian Revolutionary Wave" is a far more elegant and simple article name than the present one.
• The proposed name actually links all the current protest movements to their initial source -namely, the Tunisian revolution, rather than simply arbitrarily linking them on the basis of geographical location.
• This name change would be final -if, for example, large scale protests sprung up in China, say, and these could be reliably described as having been inspired by the Tunisian revolution or later occurrences, a further name change would not be mandated.
• As per ZeLonewolf's 22/03/11 explanation -this title draws a clear line between the current protest wave and other background unrest or protest movements such as the Somali Civil War, Southern Sudanese guerillas, the Palestinian conflict and others. (Laika Talk: Laika 20:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC))

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

• Disagree: It is quite difficult to put the line on what has been affected by Tunisia and what does not. Let us say that the change is made, how long will it last? Demonstrations after one year in Argentina, they are also influenced by Tunisia? Egypt had at least as much to add to the Libyans, and the Libyan for the Bahraini and Yemeni. Bahraini and Yemini for Syrian and vice versa. itbeganinafrica (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Whilst individual protest movements may have been inspired by protests other than Tunisia, the protest movement as a whole traces its origins to the initial Tunisian Revolution, from which all protests ultimately derive. As for your hypothetical Argentine protests, if Wikipedia:RS's consistently defined the actions of the Argentine protesters as being inspired by Egypt, Tunisia or Libya, then yes, of course they would come under the scope of this article, if not, then no. Note that the name "2010-2011 Tunisian Revolutionary Wave" does not impose any geographical constraints upon the article scope, it merely stipulates that the criteria for inclusion is defined by a credible link to the Tunisian Revolution.Laika1097 (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• I agree completely with Laika. Demonstrations a year from now are either related or they aren't, regardless of location. The title of the article doesn't determine inclusion of such demonstrations. Reliable sources determine what's related and what isn't. It's a wave, not a starburst. Inspiration spread and carried, it hasn't all spawned from a single point. Tunisia hasn't been the sole inspiration for all the protests. Some were inspired by Tunisia and Egypt, for example. The point is that this wave started with Tunisia, and that's what this article is about. That said, to answer your initial question of how long it will last; I would say that depends on when things calm down and the wave is considered to have ended. Sources will determine that. Any new protests or demonstrations after that which site Tunisia or others from this particular wave would likely be considered inspired by the wave as opposed to being a new part of it. Lara 17:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Alright, then how about 2010-2011 Revolutionary Wave? Macarion (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• If it has a greater community consensus than "2010-2011 Tunisian Revolutionary Wave", then why not? The only problem is that it disestablishes the direct connection with the Tunisian source of this protest movement. Laika1097 (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment - the lead indicates that this is a revolutionary wave! Specifically "an unprecedented revolutionary wave of demonstrations and protests". ZeLonewolf (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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.

• Strongly Agree Look at the Iranian protests page and you will very soon realize that the protests there have faded. Move Iran to the Impact and rename into 2010-2011 Arab world protests. The current title does not make sense anymore. 173.245.84.199 (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Too narrow of a scope here - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

• Oppose - for now. After things cool down, we might rediscuss the issue. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support — I was coming on to propose the same thing. Really, the protests have only gained any real momentum in the Arab World. The protests in Iran were significant at the time, but they've essentially died down shortly thereafter. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:35, 26 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)

2011 Arab world protests is the way to go. MENA is business speak.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 07:50, 18 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)

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)

Done with consensus. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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:

• Impact_of_2010–2011_Middle_East_and_North_Africa_protests#Armenia
• Impact_of_2010–2011_Middle_East_and_North_Africa_protests#Azerbaijan

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)

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 -- to "Arab Spring"

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

---

---

Oppose

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

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)

• It's in literally the first sentence of the body of the article, people. In bolded text. With sources cited. Macarion (talk) 09:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

  Ah, so it is. Though it shouldn't be. Lara 14:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

  Why shouldn't it be? It's well sourced. Macarion (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

  It violates MOS:BOLD. Lara 12:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

  It doesn't, but if it did, you initially implied it shouldn't be there at all. Why not? Macarion (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

  Actually, it does violate the MOS. We don't bold in the body for emphasis. And my comment was regarding the "in bolded text", specifically. I can see that it is sourced to reliable sources, so it's perfectly legit for inclusion in the article. It's not explained in any of them, though. And it's not immediately clear to all readers what it even means. So should that be the title of the article? I don't think so. Lara 19:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

  There are loads of articles with titles that aren't "immediately clear." Macarion (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

  Perhaps. But I'm sure they're eventually explained. This one isn't. And, as per the above and below discussion, it doesn't make sense to many readers. Even now having a better idea of what it means, it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense; nor do I think it's inclusive enough to be an accurate title, as these protests haven't been limited to Arab nations. Lara 03:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support - The Arab portion of the wave will go down in history as The Arab Spring whether you WP folks like it or not. It will be renamed eventually, same as in textbooks. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 13:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• Oppose How many people use that term? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

• 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)

.

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)

• Support - this is a must. It is larger than just MENA.--Smart30 (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Support - Greater Middle East does sound more elegant than Middle East and North Africa, and it has spread to fringe countries - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• Oppose - Current name is far more widely used in third party sources, in fact I don't believe that I have ever seen the label 'Greater Middle East protests' used.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, "Middle East" is Euro centric and to go even further and apply it for North Africa as well is not appropriate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Euro-centric and Bush-centric. 173.245.84.199 (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Arguments already stated: Greater Middle East is a Bush Jr term according to the wikipedia article, and the term would increase the euro-centrism. Also, the article Impact of 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests evolved as what seems to be a consensus title for "beyond MENA" Tunisia-Egypt revolution related protests, after much chaos including multiple article creation, AfD's, etc. If at some time in the future it becomes RS-ly obvious that the beyond-MENA protests are just as revolutionary as the MENA ones, then "strengthening" the name of that article, or splitting into revolutionary vs impact-only parts, will make sense. Until then, we can avoid WP:CRYSTAL by just putting beyond-MENA Tunisia-Egypt-inspired protests into the Impact article. Boud (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Closed discussion. Almost unanimous opposition - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

• Support - per nominator PassaMethod talk 15:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Maghreb is not a well-known term, and in any case, the media is not using it to describe the protests. ZeLonewolf (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not a well-known or widely used term. Czolgolz (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Maghreb excludes Egypt and Sudan - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

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

• Oppose - Not used in third-party sources.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - while Maghreb is a commonly used term in many places, it excludes Egypt, Sudan and Eritrea. --Smart30 (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - The word "Maghreb" is not being used to describe the protests as per above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Closed discussion. Almost unanimous opposition - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bahrain

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Support - This is a good idea as well as the article about the Saudi invasion of Bahrain.--Smart30 (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Support - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The "Saudi invasion" of Bahrain seems to be the use of the Peninsula Shield Force in Bahrain. The 2011 Saudi Arabian protests have developed into dual-aim protests: freeing prisoners-held-without-trial and opposing the entry of the Peninsula Shield Force into Bahrain. So anyone interested in adding more info about the "Saudi invasion of Bahrain" probably should consider working on the Peninsula Shield Force article. Boud (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Support: Good idea, I agree. This should have been created already. itbeganinafrica (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

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

•  DoneDone (should be checked, as it's the first time I do this) - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Checked, looks good, did some sorting. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

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)

Alternate map has been created, and I think it's a good one.Aris Katsaris (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, death toll doesn't neccessarily reflect what's happening in a countryCzolgolz (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Oppose Current map is fine. Dynex811 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Edit warring by Gregorik

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

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

Correction, against consensus you changed the description for Libya to 'civil war' and that for Yemen to 'revolution'. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Better article organization

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm working on the reorganization now. Please help with the editing. I fear there will be much angst as the article size gets cut down, however, YET AGAIN the article has gotten unwieldy. This article should be a summary and overview of the wave of unrest with specific timeline and detail information left to the individual country pages. ZeLonewolf (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok...the major structure changes are complete. Some of the cutting was a bit painful, but I think necessary to get this article under control and save it from being a dumping ground for news reports. It still doesn't flow quite yet, in particular, the Tunisian Revolution section I think needs an overhaul. ZeLonewolf (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Rewrote most of the Tunisia section, using info from the Tunisia article. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Good work -- I updated the flow of that section and I think it works quite nicely. ZeLonewolf (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Map: Palestinian Authority

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

• Noted and marked with a blue flag in my alternate map. Aris Katsaris (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:2011 Libyan War and subcategory up for discussion

Category:2011 Libyan War and subcategory up for discussion, see WP:CFDALL. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 06:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Oppose - That's based on some degree of conjecture. - NickGrayLOL (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Somalia

Somalia is still clickable on the map, but does not leads to a missing section. — Moe ε 17:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Morocco

In the map Morocco is still signed as "Minor protests", but the King Mohammed VI announced his decision to undertake a comprehensive constitutional reform aimed at improving democracy and the rule of law, and underlined his "firm commitment to giving a strong impetus to the dynamic and deep reforms... taking place" on 9 March, so we should change the status "Minor protests" in "Governmental changes". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.93.242.137 (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Concessions by the king (or president in other cases) do not qualify as Government Changes. Only when the government is sacked, or substantially changed does it qualify as such - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - please check the archives, this was already voted on.--Smart30 (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

Just promote them to top level discussions and the bot will do it automatically.ZeLonewolf (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)