Talk:Arab Spring

Bahrain

The text of the Bahrain section does not concur with the sources used to justify it. At the end of the first paragraph of the Bahrain section states: "On 14 March, at the request of the Crown Prince, GCC Saudi Arabian troops entered the country,[231] and opened fire on the protesters, several of whom were killed.[232][233]" In the next paragraph, it states: "On 16 March 2011, the protesters' camp in the Pearl Roundabout was evacuated, bulldozed, and set on fire by the Bahraini Defense Force, riot police, and the Peninsula Shield Force, the military arm of the Gulf Cooperation Council, which intervened reportedly at King Hamad's behest.[239]" The articles cited do not support either sentence. They make no claims that Saudi troops were definitely part of the group that opened fire on protestors nor that they were involved in bulldozing the Pearl Monument. Additionally, none of the articles support the (probably true, but still unsourced) claim that the Crown Prince of Bahrain requested the Saudi troops. Finally, there is no evidence in these citations that supports the statement that King Hamad requested either the Saudi intervention in general (though that claim makes sense) nor their participation in razing the protestors' camps. If no one objects, I will change the first sentence to read:

"On 14 March, presumably at the request of the Bahraini government, over 1,000 Saudi Arabian troops entered the country. Operating under the aegis of the Gulf Cooperation Council's Peninsula Shield Force (PSF) the Saudi troops moved to protect Bahraini government facilities. There is no evidence that the Saudi troops fired on protestors, although there were rumors of a PSF operation against the protestors. The United Arab Emirates sent 500 police officers to assist Bahraini efforts.."

I will change the second to read: "On 16 March, the Bahraini Defense Force evacuated, bulldozed, and set fire to the protestors' camp at the Pearl Roundabout, killing at least three."

If anyone can provide sources that support any of the original claims, I'll gladly support leaving them intact.

Change form Israel to occupied palestine

WE are in the context of the arab spring, it is thus more reasonable to refer to the the palestine/ israel region as occupid palestine.Philoleb (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No, we're not doing that. Massive WP:POV issue there. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

How is not POV to put Israel when we are talking about Palestinians? If my knowledge is correct, it is palestinians that are protesting at the borders of what they call occupied palestine/territories.Philoleb (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what they call it. The name of the country is Israel. It's a member state of the United Nations. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesnt matter what the UN calls it what matters is that we are in the context of the arab spring, with palestinian demonstrators. If there was unrest in the West Bank what would we have written? Its not a recognised country at the UN... What about western sahara? To my knowledge this is in Morroco according to the UN... if you want we can take out the flag like we did for western saharaPhiloleb (talk) 06:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

So, you undid the change, I don't understand why?Philoleb (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I undid the change. There is a discussion going on. You shouldn't change the topic of the discussion in the middle of the discussion. Wait for consensus to emerge before you change it. If there is no consensus, they you don't change it. Jeancey (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I explained my reasoning: It doesnt matter what the UN calls it what matters is that we are in the context of the arab spring, with palestinian demonstrators. If there was unrest in the West Bank what would we have written? Its not a recognised country at the UN... What about western sahara? To my knowledge this is in Morroco according to the UN... if you want we can take out the flag like we did for western sahara. I think thats valid to enough to call it occupied territories...Philoleb (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The difference is, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a significantly charged issue. Calling it Occupied Palestinian Territories make its non NPOV because it puts us on the OTHER side of the issue. Using Israel Borders IS NPOV because we are using the designation of a neutral party, in this case the UN, in order to describe it. It doesn't matter about the context of the arab spring. We don't call the US the east in china related articles simply because it is in the "context of china". Jeancey (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You do not refer to the us as the west because the west encompasses much more than just the us. Then if this is our reasonning, there should be no western sahara column. I think it is more NPOV to put borders of occupied palestinian territories, the arab league refers to it that way, and the arab league is neutral and more knowledgable about middle-eastern affairs.Philoleb (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually the arab league is extremely Non NPOV in this case, as they side entirely with the palestinian side of the argument. Using the Arab League declaration wouldn't be neutral in any way. Jeancey (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

But the UN is?? what about the partition plan (resolution 181) that's not very neutral... what about America's enormous influence in the UN and the securtiy concil... its not a very NPOV... why dont we put borders of israel/occupied palestine? Philoleb (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Security council is NOT the entirety of the UN. Honestly I think if it was put to a general assembly vote, Palestine would be recognized. Until that happens, the UN recognizes that area as being part of Israel. The US and the UN have been trying to work out a deal between Israel and Palestine for years, with little success mainly due to Israel. I'm not trying to take sides on this, I'm trying to point out the most neutral wording, which is using the UN recognized state, and the specific part of that state. We aren't going to reach consensus with just the two of us, so I suggest we just hold off and wait for more people to come and comment and add more points of view. Jeancey (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually putting the Israeli flag for stuff that happened in the Golan heights seems POV. I previously thought that Israel's entry was about the protests that occurred in Tel Aviv, but since it's about the Golan heights (which is recognized as an occupied territory by the U.N or if you hate the term "Occupy", is at least disputed) there should be no flag there. Or it should be included in Syria's entry since the protests happened from the Syrian side to which the Israeli army responded with fire. Nothing inside Israel proper happened a part from the Tel Aviv demonstrations last summer, which it seems, are not considered part of the Arab spring. Tachfin (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so let us not put israel, but occupied golan height or delete israel and include that protest in syria section like Tachfin suggested Philoleb (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing the flag seems to be an acceptable compromise. If we remove the flag and leave it as Israeli border clashes. Jeancey (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think saying Golan height border is better, saying israel border, ignores the fact that the protesters came from syria, but saying syria borders ignores the fact that the soldiers came from the occupied territories... Golan Height is the best compromisePhiloleb (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Are the protests in the Israel border regions located ONLY in the Golan Heights region? If this is the case, then Golan Heights clashes might be best. Avoid the word Occupied though. Jeancey (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Essentially, and i think Occupied Golan Height is correct according to the United nation: United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 declared the Golan Heights an Israeli occupied territoryPhiloleb (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

UNSCR242 was in 1967... according to the article on the topic, Israel withdrew from the area in the 1990s even to the point of the Israeli President at the time saying that Golan Heights belonged to Syria. This might not be the current status of the area, but 242 is definitely NOT current enough to base anything off of. Jeancey (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The wikipedia article about israeli occupied territories says the golan is occupied... and the article on the golan height says that the resolution 242 still applies...Philoleb (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that in this case, Golan Height Clashes is the MOST neutral. Adding in Occupied seems to me to be pushing a point of view. There were clashes, and they happened in the Golan Heights. Calling this Occupied implies that israel is in the wrong to even be there, and while it might be the case, it doesn't really effect whether or not there clashes. It is likely that if it was solely controlled by Syria there would STILL be clashes in the area. Jeancey (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure so lets change Border of israel to Golan Height?Philoleb (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Golan Heights Clashes? With no flag whatsoever? Just Golan Heights in the table though. But in the subsection on it, clashes. Jeancey (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

PerfectPhiloleb (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm new to wikipedia, sorry i screwed up the tablePhiloleb (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I fixed it. Jeancey (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Is the Countries collapsible in the Golan Heights row intentional (or necessary)? It overlays part of the cell text on lower resolutions (1024 width and possibly 1280 as well, observed on IE8). Is it relevant to the table or should it be put somewhere else? If the former, can it be fixed in some way to not cause overlaid text? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if that was part of it either, so i left it alone. If it's not, it can probably be removed. Jeancey (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You guys can say in details something like "Golan heights boarders which have been occupied by Israel since.." ignoring the fact that this area have been occupied by Israel might give a wrong idea about why these people were demonstrating there. I believe ignoring this fact is a POV. Bahraini Activist (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I noticed it already says that in details. Bahraini Activist (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, from what I have read, that ISN'T the reason why they are protesting, atleast not directly. They are protesting for the same reason as everyone else, the people in charge aren't doing the will of the people, they are just helping themselves. It's unlikely that any of the people in the area who could be in charge would have the same result. It's not just because it is israel. Jeancey (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed the Golan Height and the Western Sahara from the Summary of Protests by Country section because they were not countries. They are territories. 60.49.56.153 (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I've restored them and note that there is a 1RR restriction in place on this article. Golan Heights and the Israeli border disputes have been listed without a specific country being mentioned because both areas are heavily disputed and the most neutral approach Wikipedia can take is to not get involved in placing POV labels on territorial disputes. The information is nonetheless appropriate for the table despite this minor technicality. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree of what you said. If so, then why wasn't the Palestinian territories are also part of what you said? It's also a dispute territory between Israelis and the Palestinians, although currently controlled by Israel. And wrong, the information is illegitimate to put Western Sahara and Golan Heights (Israeli border area whatever you like to call) as a country since there are disputes between two countries. If there's no fix ownership then I have to remove it. Besides, if you wanna check Israeli border, one can check the Israeli border through this place and also the Western Sahara in this place too Arab_Spring#Others. 60.49.56.180 (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The Palestinian territories aren't listed in the table. You can see the process and discussion that was used to gain consensus on this issue in this very section. I understand that you disagree, but there are more people than you that support these places being listed in this way at the moment and that is what we use for determining whether we do something or not. If you want this changed, you need to change consensus by convincing people that the change is a good one. At the moment that's not the case. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

However, this is not about the Palestinian territories. The Nabkah day suicides took place not only in the Golan Heights, but the Lebanon/Galilee border, which is only considered "Occupied Palestine" if you don't accept the existence of Israel or the Jews at all.Ericl (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Kuwait's status?

The country has witnessed its largest political protests ever, there's been violence between demonstrators and security forces, and now the government has resigned: [1] I think it's time to give the 2011 Kuwaiti protests their own page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support - clearly notable.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Shouldn't be upgraded? --Smart (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Article probably needs some work, but I'm slammed in RL and I'd appreciate someone else stepping in. Might help to know Arabic. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support — Kuwait is experiencing major protests relating to government corruption. It should absolutely have its own page. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Page reform?

Their are various sources including BBC and CNN claiming that Syria maybe inching closer to civil war. Maybe we should change the syrai to red for civil war.

Maybe we should define civil war as any country with a rebel army and government fighting the mainstream army and government.

What about a new map with a more fluid color...

Has anyone thought about posting death rates in the maps.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15769804 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15149133 http://www.newsfeedcentre.co.uk/sky/world-news/un-syria-in-civil-war-as-deaths-exceed-4000/ http://news.yahoo.com/un-syria-state-civil-war-163757327.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/01/us-syria-un-rights-idUSTRE7B01M720111201

Here are some base images that are free to use:

Danalm000 (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with defining Syria as a country in civil war, however there is really no need to list death rates of any sort.

Scruce (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no very good paint skills and have never done formating in my occasional edits or i'd do it myself but i agree syria is in civil war... or is extremely close... in the last 2 weeks there have been multiple attacks on loyalist forces by the FSA, many casualties.96.50.10.234 (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• The term "civil war" is not yet ubiquitous among major media outlets when they are reporting on the situation in Syria. Once it is widely used, then we can update this image. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Old or new flag?

I just want to make it clear about this. I'm wrong about changing the flag, especially when it comes to Libya. The Summary of Protests by Country country section depicts about the historic country which starts the uprising, not the current one. The thing about flag displayed on Libya is different from this article bcuz this one belongs to an article which talks about history while that Libya talks about the current one (although separate with its history section). Therefore it's true that the war started with the old Libyan flag, not the new one. So don't change the Libyan flag.

In the future, any country's uprising which results in the new flag, like if Syria revolution will win soon, given that the opposition uses their pre-1963 flag, do not attempt to change it in this article. Leave it be the same. If you do not believe what I said then I guess we should hook up all the war articles, like World War I and World War II. Those articles, how did they end up with those old flags?

60.49.56.180 (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Dohuk Riots

Over the weekend there was an Islamic inspired riots all over northern Iraqi province of Dohuk. There is already a wikipedia page on it, and I'm wondering if it should also be mentioned here as it is a recent islamic inspired movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.63.195 (talk) 07:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

We would need sources associating it with the Arab Spring movement. I haven't looked but if the sources you've seen do that already, please do feel free to add it. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it fits. Maybe sources say otherwise, I haven't checked...but my feeling is that these were riots by Islamists bent on destroying private property, not demonstrations for political reform or civil liberties. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of Arab Spring

Hi, I need help from you to update this template. At this point in time, it isn't added into any articles. One of the concerns is that this timeline might get overloaded with text. If that's the case, key events are sufficient. Thanks in advance! Hytar (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Redirect from Dayof Rage

(noted here since Day of Rage is not monitored.) Any objection to removing the redirect and instead making a reference link to Arab Spring from the Day of Rage page? Rationale: Other movements have sprung from that event that don't have a Middle East focus. --DeknMike (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Syria - Armed Uprising?

I don't think Syria should be changed to civil war until the FSA holds a large amount of territory, but I think it should be treated like Libya was before it was called a civil war. It was called an "armed uprising", which I think is quite a fair way to describe the situation in Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.62.65 (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Syria should be changed to a civil war. The reason is that ANY armed uprising is a civil warEricl (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Syria certainly should not be changed to 'civil war' until we have multiple reliable sources calling it such. We don't decide on things based on our interpretation of the definition of the term (and 'civil war' hardly has a universal definition in any case). When our sources start calling it a civil war, then we can assess changing it. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Homs Syria Protests 2011 - 03.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Homs Syria Protests 2011 - 03.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Subdued vs. Ended

A lot of the "current state of protests" sections in the table claim that the protests have been subdued. However, this implies that the government arrested/killed or something along those lines and ended the protests, usually by force. Ended would mean the protests simply died down. The page seems to claim that certain protests were subdued when really the protests just ended. This should be fixed. I'm not an expert on which nations actually did have their protests subdued, so someone else should do it. I also fixed Tunisia, which claimed subdued instead of ended, a few weeks ago as an IP. Dayshade (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Updates

There are several things that need to be updated:

1. The sentence regarding about Ali Abdullah Saleh in the third paragraph of Overview needs to be changed.

2. The map color of Bahrain should change to dark blue.

3. The sentence "As of November 2011" In the same Overview section should change to December.

60.49.63.145 (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

So do it yourself. No one's stopping you....Ericl (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't because I'm not an autoconfirm user. So I request somebody with that user to do it. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

mohammed bouazizi

why is mohammed bouazizi not mentioned

75.68.82.58 (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

He's mentioned 4 times in the article. Did you read it? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Saleh has stepped down, please update the article

It appears that Saleh is mentioned to still be in power while he had signed the GCC initiative and started the transfer of power. Please update the article. I find that the Yemen section is up-to-date but the Overview is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsaqaf (talk • contribs) 11:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Saleh has not yet stepped down. --Smart (talk) 03:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Please view this before making such hasty and pre-mature statements:

Talk:Arab_Spring#Yemeni Uprising or Revolution?.

Saleh never steps down. What really happens on November 23 is that Saleh just signed the deal, and agrees to step down only, that means he's not really stepping down yet. Besides, if you check most of the reliable sources and news media they will keep mentioning "...outgoing President Ali Abdullah Saleh..." which is another evidence that he hasn't step down yet. About the power transfer thing, you have already mentioned "started the transfer of power", so he may have transferred 10% of his power, but still there are 90% of the cabinet which he keep to himself. How's that suppose to mean he has step down already? What if he started to break his promise again? Please read this: Talk:Arab_Spring#About Yemen

60.49.63.145 (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if Saleh steps down, he appointed Abd al-Rab Mansur al-Hadi as his successor. Al-Hadi was vice president since 1994 (over 17 years), so it's not really a revolution or even overthrowing of the government. Also, unlike interim leaders in Tunisia or Egypt (Mebazaa and Tantawi), al-Hadi will probably stay in power for a full term after next elections. HeadlessMaster (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I move that Yemen be changed to light blue on the map (Governmental changes) since Saleh has officially stepped down and the vice president is now in power. This should not be considered a revolution. User: Heresbubba53190

I absolutely disagree with Heresbubba53190's statement. Ben Ali left his prime minister in charge, Mubarak left the armed forces in charge. We still call those revolutions. The 1905 revolution in Russia left the Tsar still in power and we still call the Hungarian Revolution a revolution. Why then, is Yemen not a revolution? User: Dweedman —Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC).

Agree with User: Dweedman here. If Saleh has stepped down, then it was obviously due to the popular uprising against him, and meets the criteria for a government overthrown designation. And if we're going to call Hungary 1956 a revolution, then Yemen 2011 certainly should qualify.74.131.99.14 (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

For HeadlessMaster, it really doesn't matter if Hadi has ruled Yemen as a VP for 14 to 99 years (just exaggerating saying) but the policy of the Yemeni protesters is to bring down the regime of Ali Abdullah Saleh, which means starting his ouster. If Saleh steps down, then it's consider a government overthrown. Likewise when it comes to Tunisia, when Ben Ali steps down, then although the Prime Minister Ghannouchi who has ruled Tunisia since 1999 has take over, we still call it a Government Overthrown. Saying Hadi takes over Yemen is not consider a Government Overthrown is actually consider a POV (point-of-view). Wikipedia is based on reliable media and sources only.

For Heresbubba53190 and Dweedman, yes the Yemenis are calling it a revolution. They are already asking the overthrow of the regime. Even until now the protesters keep claiming that they want to "continue their revolution", so its irrevelant to call it Governmental Changes. Besides, isn't Yemen has already implementing governmental changes long time ago? That's the reason why we labelled as "Sustained civil disorder and governmental changes".

But nobody has make any official statements such that Saleh has step down, so we cannot call it Government Overthrown for now. We cannot assume that because the GCC deal has expired in December 23 then we can say "Saleh has steps down already". Like I said earlier in this topic. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)#

Saleh is gone, as it says in this article, [2] "Since Saleh handed over the reins to his deputy under the Gulf peace accord, a new government headed by an opposition leader has been formed. A presidential election is scheduled for February." Goltak (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope, dude. Saleh is not gone. According to that source you show it, you forgot the word "outgoing President Ali Abdullah Saleh" which means he is still the "king" (just mockingly saying) of Yemen. Let me ask you a question, do you remember June 3 when Saleh got attacked in his presidential palace? Before he was sent to Saudi Arabia for medical treatment, he transfer most of his power to his buddy VP Hadi, but did he really step down? No, I don't think so. All transferred power were return back when he came back to Yemen at September. So the one thing the people should realize is that: "Transferring power ≠ Stepping down". Because Saleh forms a new government and he may lose his power it does not mean he was overthrown. Also remember in Egypt February 10? Mubarak once also transfer power to his VP Suleiman but he hasn't gone yet and claims wants to held office until the next election, but only later to formally decided to step down at next day. Besides, most mainstream media and reliable sources, when talks about how many were overthrown, until now they keep saying "Tunisia, Egypt, Libya" this 3 countries, but hasn't mention Yemen yet. I think you know why is that already. Saleh needs to formally step down on February, then we can call it Government Overthrown in this article and the Yemeni article as Yemeni Revolution whatever you all want to call it, depending what the reliable sources says if Saleh is really overthrown or not.60.49.63.145 (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Can't wait for Feburary. Goltak (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be cruel with you for a while but we don't CARE if you can't wait at February. Thats your own problem. I hate to say that but most people just always seems to rush, rush, rush like Sonic the Hedgehog and eventually, what happens? Splash all the "paint" through the wall and run like a madman because they say "MOM, DAD, I CAN'T WAIT"? I want to make it clear for you. This article is not a NEWS article, this is a HISTORY article, articles depicts historic events with historic people and places. Also, Wikipedia is always about WP:RS. Repeat, Reliable Sources. You say you can't wait, but the protesters, news and the world can wait, even me and other users can too. Why must the article be changed just because there are some people here cannot wait? Come on, don't you have other important things to do other than just editing Wikipedia all the time? I know there are important things in our lifes that we "can't wait" rather than can't wait for February!

Quite so, as of this date where I'm gonna sign this signature soon, has the article talks about "ousted President A.A. Saleh", or "former President..." or "Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen"? All I see until now is just outgoing President Saleh. Besides, the protesters and the officials, through their point-of-view already starts to worry that Saleh is going to take back the power again!! Here, take a look: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/suspicions-rising-that-yemens-president-seeks-to-scuttle-deal-meant-to-end-his-rule/2012/01/05/gIQAL7cxcP_story.html 60.49.63.145 (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• FACEPALM**FACEPALM*FACEPALM*. No genius, I did not mean I could LITERALLY not wait for Feburary so I'm going to change NOW, NO!!!! I MENT that I'm LOOKING FOWARD to when that muderer steps down.... I'm sorry if this EXPRESSION is not commonly used from your native country... Geesh calm down a little please. Try not to take it so literally, of course I can wait until Feburary to update the article, ALL I was saying was that I was looking foward to it. Although I hope Saleh doesn't try to seize power yet again. I'm sorry if you've never heard this expression before I was just simply innocently making a statement.(talk) 14:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. If you say so. Sorry for that. Well you could at least tell us that you aren't mean literally about "can't wait for February". After all, we don't know if you simply meant it directly or indirectly.

Its true. While you have that feeling, I guess me too. Because through my analysis the international media does not cover the Yemeni uprising more than the Syrian uprising (which I believe there was an alleged political bias among these medias) so I tend to focus more on Yemen. Tho so I don't have much time to really pay attention to Wikipedia as I have other things to do. Like you, I also want the fall of Ali Abdullah Saleh, and knowing by timeline and analyze you can notice Saleh has better tactics and tricks to stay in power than the defiant late Libyan leader Gaddafi. I may cross the line, so again, sorry for that. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Arab Awakening?

Can somebody provide a scholarly citation for calling this "the Arab Awakening"? I have been studying the Middle East for years, and the Arab Spring since its beginning, and I have yet to actually come across somebody seriously coining the events as "Arab Awakening." The Arab Awakening usually refers to this, an Arabist movement that began in the 19th century. I won't remove the label and simply ask for discussion for now, but I will edit the Arab Awakening page from redirect to a disambiguation page. -- Crushti (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Sudan

Sudan has recently just suffer another small wave of protests because of the dam proposal by the government to build it. Now some are asking for the overthrow of Bashir. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Covered on 2011 Sudanese protests. I'm a bit unsure whether they should be put into a new article or lumped together with the earlier protests. If they continue into the new year, my preference will probably be for splitting them off. I haven't seen them directly linked to the Arab Spring yet. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Sudanese activist arrested days after heckling ruling party official.

http://www.sudantribune.com/Sudanese-activist-arrested-days,41152

60.49.63.145 (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Parties to the civil conflict and Lead figures

Hello. Why is the Parties to the civil conflict and Lead figures are placed in the Arab Spring box? This is not a united Arab conflict, rather this is a separate Arab country conflicts. You can't put something like "Riad al-Asaad are allies of Sadiq al-Ahmar" just because they were both opposition leaders. Where is the evidence that Sadiq or Riad are helping each other sides? Likewise who says the King Hamad is the good friend of Muammar Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad? He blasted both of them and declare as their enemies. Try not to do prejudice where all leaders will unite together and all opposition leaders too. In reality, there are leaders hates another leaders. If you wish to do so then do it at the separate articles but not on this general article. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Map Color Changes For Improved Viewing Quality?

Why are the colors for the Arab countries on the map all so very strange and unorthodox? Shouldn't primary and some secondary colors be used? (e.g. this cartogram- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EU_net_budget_2007-2013_per_capita_cartogram.png) That'd make the map a bit clearer and less eye-weary, as well as conform to normal map standards. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm no cartographer. As a side note- Mauritania is the only Arab country without its own protest page. Should one be made? Or is nothing of relative importance happening there? Thanks— Mike44456 (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any strange and unorthodox colour here, my friend. Its fine for me actually. We start our colour from the bright colour which shows their country has no protests before, then by going darker and darker the country is said to have experience a major protests and then uprising and then regime overthrown. This map and that map you show it all the same MAP (as long as users can identify better). The same thing I checked on the CNN Unrest On The Arab World. They all have the same strange and unorthodox map just like us.

As for the Mauritania its goes the same way as Palestinian Territory too. Both has protests before, but because very little amount (if coveraged by media) of protests happen in those country, so its no point we make such huge article, instead we go by a simple and small text under this section Arab_Spring#Others, which to me this is enough for countries like Mauritania already. If, by hypothetically speaking Mauritania has turned into the Kuwaiti pathway then maybe we would consider making an independent article, but until now no such page is needed. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

News Update (2)

Seems like many people tend to focus more on popular uprisings and revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria and Bahrain, this is my discovery of those infamous Arab countries which suffer smaller protests. Any edits are welcome, if wish to.

Algeria:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ic2rj6WFjN-Y4BuxjoEoECmPaBRg?docId=CNG.4e49b326c0b56a603281add8e86b2b2d.631
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/12/us-algeria-housing-protests-idUSTRE80B12A20120112

Jordan:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/12/us-algeria-housing-protests-idUSTRE80B12A20120112 60.49.63.145 (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not certain that there's enough to add to the main article yet, given the summaries in this article are short and the articles seem to say "there's still problems here," but we definitely need to keep the main articles updated 2010–2011 Algerian protests and 2011–2012 Jordanian protests. You've also reminded me that we ought to check the status of the Moroccan, Kuwaiti, Sudanese, and Iraqi protests, whose main articles are listed as ongoing, but are still named for last year. Or have you done that already? --Quintucket (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I have updated the main page for Algeria. I may do the same for other countries, unless someone else gets to it first (*hinthint*) --Quintucket (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Damn it! I accidentally paste the wrong link about Jordan. Two self-immolation deaths were reported. http://channel6newsonline.com/2012/01/clashes-erupt-during-pro-reform-protest-in-jordan/

No, I didn't do that. I tend to concentrate more on Yemen and Bahrain. That's why I said everybody are welcome to edit it. But I move that some of the countries like Morocco, Jordan, should not use the word Subdued or Ended since there are still major demonstration going on once a week or months, though not necessary every day. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I have update many parts of the 2011 Yemeni uprising, but still many needs to be changed. I was hoping that some of the users could join me contribute the editing of Yemeni uprising as many of them are still focusing on the 2011 Syrian uprising and the 2011 Bahraini uprising. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

KSA update

i've updated several Saudi Arabian parts of this article. This is more less a summary (lead of 2011–2012 Saudi Arabian protests) of summaries (the leads of the 3 individual timelines). My guess is that editors will be tempted to edit this summary directly rather than first adding content to the timeline or other specific articles - or the overall KSA article, and then looking at the thing as a whole to see if the individual events are important enough to require updates in summaries and summary of summaries. People who keep an eye on this article are welcome to shift the edits (with attribution: you should put "from [[Arab Spring]]" in the edit summary for copyright traceability) to the main body of individual KSA-protest-related articles, so that the leads don't get filled with long details about individual incidents (except for the most notable).

Given that there now seems to be a sustained cycle of protests/police shoot dead protestor/funeral/protests/police shoot dead protestor, i suspect that updates will be required quite often on the more specific articles. I don't see any point updating the Arab Spring article every time, though. Boud (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that's the point User:60.49.63.145 was trying to make in the section below: "Unpopular events". And some of these articles are in sore need of updating. (For example: When I got to the Sudan article, it hadn't been updated in eight months and there's a huge gap that now needs to be filled in.) --Quintucket (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If Saleh is leaving....

Hello to all Wikipedians and anonymous users. I want to make it clear about the Yemeni upcoming events. There was some preparation of whether Saleh is leaving Yemen so that they will have smooth transition period until the February 2012 presidential elections. In case if anybody thinks about changing it to revolution, I would like to say I reject that. Just because Saleh leaves Yemen it doesn't mean he was overthrown. Like what I have said earlier, somebody from the top ruling officials, be it the Vice-President or Saleh himself, must announce his resignation and it then confirmed by the officials and reliable medias. If that's the case, then we will stick back to square one, where the expecting overthrown date should be 21 February 2012, consider if Saleh plays by the rule stepping down (unless he wants to get out from the deal for the 4th time again). Thank you and have a nice day of editing. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"Unpopular events"

Hi, I reverted the page to the last version by User:60.49.63.145, since I know that your edits almost always prove to be constructive, and it struck me as unfair that neither of the editors who reverted you were willing to discuss the issue. (I'm really not happy about having the 1RR applied to this page, the article was only really about the AI conflict because a certain two users made it so, and they haven't reared their heads in ages.)

However I'm not certain I understand your reasoning.

"Rejected. I delete it because when making summaries about the uprising, you don't need to mention about those unpopular events"

Could you explain further? Thanks, --Quintucket (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually it was my fault for not putting reasons, to be honest. What I meant is that when I try to compare the summaries of that Yemeni uprising with many other websites, I found out that when most of them write in the paragraph form, they just quote it from the January 27 protests (beginning of the protests), and then followed by the Feb 3 "Day of Rage", then followed by the May conflict escalation during the pre-assassination (June 3 attack) time. Since then, not much of special events happen except those daily protests. I mean, necessary to mention all this? Thats why I only remove this sentence:

"In the capital, Sana'a, the crowd marched towards the Presidential Palace, chanting anti-government slogans, despite the attempts of riot police to stop them. Three people were killed in the demonstrations, one of whom was killed by a hand grenade in Taiz. There were also reports of gunfire in Aden during a rally, and as the riots continued overnight protesters set fire to a local government building. Security forces killed one demonstrator, and killed another demonstrator during protests the following day"

Since this is not the Yemeni uprising article itself, but rather a summary, would you really need to mention about a person killed by hand grenade, or gunfire, or protesters set fire to a building? These events aren't so special so its not required to put it. Some of these happens in other Arab countries like Egypt, E.G. protesters set fire on the NDP HQ, but it was not stated here. Regardless, the rest of them are all fine.

But don't worry. If you all disagree of what I said, you are welcome to revert it. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 07:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You definitely have a point. It's not possible to include everything on this page, so something like that belongs more on the Yemeni Uprising page. An abnormally large protest, an assassination attempt or the death/resignation of high profile government officials are the kinds of things that might go on this page as a summary. Jeancey (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

too many template inclusion problem

In this edit, a template was removed with the edit comment: "Removing template because template size is exceeded". i think this means the problem is having too many templates included in a single article, when all the sub-sub and sub-sub-sub etc. inclusions are carried out. Is this right?

In any case, the "dot" template usage in related-topic templates can be replaced by the listclass=hlist structure. This reduces the number of templates needed by a huge amount, and avoids having to cut/paste or otherwise generate non-ascii characters! i've updated the KSA, Bahrain, and Syria Arab Spring templates this way. The negative side of this change is that the default dots are probably a tiny bit smaller (they were already smaller than the dots in the Egyptian and Libyan templates, i think), but IMHO that's a small price to pay. The dots are really there just for spacing.

My changes probably reduced the number of included templates (dot templates) in Arab Spring by at least 100 (though i haven't counted exactly), without loss of any semantic or syntactic structure, AFAIK. Apologies if something got changed, though i tried to check carefully.

TODO: i'll let someone else do this for the other templates - the rendered change (change visible in a browser window) would be stronger for the Egyptian and Libyan cases, because they have big fat dots (at the moment, anyway).

Boud (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Article for timeline of the Arab Spring?

As of January 2012, the link Timeline of the Arab Spring is a red link, but on the search page for it [3], it can be seen that apparently every involved country has its own article on the subject. I think there is motivation for having an overall timeline, potentially including Template:Arab Spring using EasyTimeline. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a common timeline has to be created, but it should only contain important events while keeping the less important events in the specific articles. P.S. that template definitely needs updating. Bahraini Activist ^{Talk to me} 18:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No rererence to the persecution of christians?

This spring is killing hundreds of christians, who became the most persecuted religious group in the world, and the article does not even cite it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.250.57.64 (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please provide citations to reliable sources and we'll take a look. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Forgetting news sources I know to be obviously biased (such as WND and Fox News), it appears that things have been a mixed bag for Christians. In a Google news source, I find this, this, and this, among others.

That said, I think it's really an Egypt specific phenomenon, and the focus should be on the Egyptian Revolution article, which is currently portraying things as unambiguously positive for the Copts. Only a handful of Arab countries even have notable Christian populations, (Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and the West Bank), not counting migrant workers in the fairly stable Gulf States. I suspect we'll see similar events in Syria when Assad is ousted (right now the news mostly expresses fears of the new Syria), but I suspect that like Egypt it will be a mixed bag: more freedom overall, coupled with more opportunities for Muslim fundamentalists to attack minorities. Arab-world Christians definitely aren't the most persecuted religious group in the world. Perhaps you should talk to some Ahmadis in Pakistan or Bahais in Iran. --Quintucket (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The anonymous users has "complaint" about we didn't put up the statement regarding persecution of Christians. But before we doing this so, has anyone wants to put up where a Tunisian Jew are allowed to run in elections and no one cares? 60.49.62.66 (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The End Date

I just want to discuss about this topic. There are several anonymous users tries to put the end date of the Tunisian Revolution (which later I revert it back to Ongoing). Given that I saw the end date of the Libyan civil war is 23 October 2011, when is the exact end date for the Tunisia and Egypt? How about possible if put 14 January for Tunisia and 11 February for Egypt? 60.49.62.66 (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A quick look at both countriess article tell they both are still on going, currently in a transitional phase. Egypt is better organised, while Tunisia isn't. Civil war might have ended in Libya, but they too are in a transitional phase. Bahraini Activist ^{Talk to me} 05:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

How about saying the day Ben Ali and Mubarak were overthrown are their end date, then making the rest of the incident as post-revolution? I saw one at CNN and the others in The Economist. 60.49.62.66 (talk) 07:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)