Talk:Arab Spring/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 5



There were also minor protests in Libya. It should be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


one can add the pan-arab list of self-immolations to this one, then it can also be cut off from the bouazizi article.(Lihaas (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).


[1] "day of ragE" albeit diffeerent reasons but was wondering if it could/should be added herE?(Lihaas (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

I propose the removal of Lebanon from the list. It is misleading to make a connection between the one-day "protests" (which was in response to a perceived attack on the Sunni share of the government) and the uprisings that are happening in other countries, which are the direct result of a domino effect that started from Tunisia. I will be bold and remove it from the list, unless someone will argue otherwise. (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


"On social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter, Syrians call for a "Day of Anger" on February 5th."

Would somebody mind providing a citation for this claim? I've searched for one, but couldn't find anything. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Done; provided link to Twitter trackbacks from Topsy. Cjs2111 (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Timeline: s/date ended/major dates/

IMHO the Timeline table is a nice idea, but it needs some thinking through. i think the "date ended" column is not a good idea in the Timeline section. Even "date started" is risking POV, lack of RS. On the Algerian protests talk page, there's a comment pointing out that the protests have been going on since 2002. So what is really meant by "date started" is something like "date when protests started growing exponentially and/or were perceived by Western mainstream media to become significant". But what can we replace it with?

IMHO replacing "ending date" is easier. How about replacing this by "critical dates" or "important dates"? Maybe we could even replace both starting and ending dates by allowing maybe a max of 3 columns for critical dates? By comparing various RS's, in some cases critical dates will be obvious, and in other cases, at least it should be easier to come to consensus on the talk page regarding "which date(s) was (were) more critical given the sources we have" rather than "on which date did this start/end". As more sources come in and events happen and third party analysts give their opinions on which dates were more important, the quality of the table will improve.

Someone good with tables would have to implement this. Or does someone have a better suggestion? An example could be for the Tunisian case - i'm not sure which "starting" date would count as critical, but clearly the two days when Ben Ali left and Mebazaa became acting president should count as one critical pair-of-days, and maybe the day that the new cabinet was purged of all ex-RCD people except for Ghannouchi himself would count as another critical day, though certainly not an "end date" - parliamentary and presidential elections would likely be interpreted as some sort of an end date of the change of power, but i would expect that historians would consider that fundamental social changes would take place over several years.

Are there any objections to replacing both the starting and ending date columns by a "critical dates" column (or 2-3 columns, or allowing a substructure)? Boud (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's difficult to assess "critical dates" at this point, and the number of columns could begin to expand infinitely. Let's just restrict to "starting dates" for now. Cjs2111 (talk) 07:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


On the map, Eritrea is listed as an arab country, it is not an arab country. It refused to join the Arab league, and does not identify itself at one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


Any thoughts on having an infobox template that goes near the top of the individual country protest pages, not just the sort of box that we have as a bottom banner? i'm thinking of something that could have lots of potential parameters, e.g. a bit like the elements of the timeline table. Just thinking out aloud... Again, i probably won't volunteer to create the template. Boud (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there should be an infobox too for the protests, and at the top of the infobox for the individual countries, it should say, 'Part of the 2010-2011 Arab world protests' so it's easier to link back instead of having to search for a link in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Map - Excellent!

I just wanted to comment that I found the infobox map very informative c.f. the older map that just mentioned which countries spoke Arabic in the majority. Good job on the person bold enough to upload it here.Calaka (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, much praise, but person, whoever you are - I hope you're up for updating this quite a bit in the future, and a lot of debate about what constitutes "minor" vs. "major" protests! Cjs2111 (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
not really mine, but i qurquested at the map workshop. although i have queries about jordan, theres nbeen no regime change.Lihaas (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


Not technically Arab world I guess and perhaps a different situation, but major protests there too now: [2], [3]. Jmj713 (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

These seem to spring from independent sources and are thus entirely unrelated. Cjs2111 (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
there could be an "other" section. even albania had someLihaas (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


Not sure is a Self-Immolation table is needed. For the time being, it would seem proper only to list those who have unfortunately sucumbed to their burns. Chesdovi (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The list is expanding. Why? Do we list all suicides commited in private due to the same reasons? Chesdovi (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a tble with the nomber of self-imolationa by country, but without the names of every individual. Just a simple: „Tunisia - 3 selfimolations - 2 fatal” - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


Could someone synthesize a general "Origins" section that would crystallize this wave of protests into something manageable? Jmj713 (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

to paraphrase here, and then someone can write it on the page, it started in Tunisia in Dec 2010 in Sidi Bouzid when Bouazizi lit himself. then it took root over tunisia before similaar events elsewhere (and pan-arab suppot)Lihaas (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I meant the origin for the protest. That fact is already stated how it started in Tunisia and spread. But what made Bouazizi do what he did. That's what needs to be added, some background information. Jmj713 (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


The current sort-table is unneeded and lacking. A more comprehensive timeline is needed, as shown below. Chesdovi (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

December 17, 2010

December 22, 2010

  •  Tunisia: Lahseen Naji electrocuting himself to protest against "hunger and joblessness"[2] and Ramzi Al-Abboudi also killed himself because of financial difficulties.[3]

December 24, 2010

  •  Tunisia, Bouziane: Mohamed Ammari was fatally shot in the chest by police, who claimed they were acting in self defense. Other protesters are also injured. A curfew was imposed on the town.[4]

December 27, 2010

  •  Tunisia: Protests reach the capital Tunis with about 1,000 citizens expressing solidarity with residents of Sidi Bouzid and calling for jobs.[5][2] Protests also spread to Sousse, Sfax and Meknassy.[6]

December 28, 2010

December 30, 2010

  •  Tunisia: Chawki Belhoussine El Hadri dies from wounds sustained during a protest in Bouziane.[8]

  • January 13, 2011  Libya: minor protests over housing
  • January 14, 2011  Jordan: minor protests
  • January 17, 2011  Mauritania: self-immolation
  • January 18, 2011  Yemen: internal government dissent against president,[9] major street demonstrations[10][11]
  • January 21, 2011  Saudi Arabia: self-immolation[12], street demonstration[13]
  • January 25, 2011  Egypt: major street demonstrations
  • January 26, 2011  Syria: self-immolation
That's good but the initial idea was to give a comprehensive overview of where the protests are occurring. Jmj713 (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
That info is already in the lead and showed on the infobox map. There are numerous problems with that table as it currently stands. There is no reason for a sort-table at all. Chesdovi (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
That's easily fixed. It was there to sort by end-date. Jmj713 (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
No sources for Morocco, Palestine, etc. Very vague table. e.g. since January 14, 2011, have there been protests every day till now in Jordan? What is considered "minor"? Any significant form of public protest in such countries is a "major" protest. What is the outcome of Libya, Mauritania and Oman - "finished" protests? Does Syria merit a mention becasue of one suicide? The table is not conclusive and misleads. Chesdovi (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree but it's a work in progress. There are sources for Morocco and Palestine. Jmj713 (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
my issue is with minor and major definitions too.
though id also say tha t the "Starting" point indicates some sort of protest. in also places you are not going to have daily occurences, mainly because protesters are waiting to see how other outtcomes would happen (righ tnoe egypt), its more a domino thing that would "motivate" as for yemen, we dont have daily protests but we KNOW there is on day after.Lihaas (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

country links to country article, to subsection here, or to protest article?

At the moment, the country links in the timeline table go to article entries. My feeling is that they would better go to subsection links within this article (and/or maybe to the main articles for 2011 protests in that country if the article exists). Otherwise, someone looks at the table and thinks, hey, i want to know more about the protests in country X, s/he clicks and ends up on a general article about the country, without getting more info about the protests. Probably there's no point linking directly to the sub-articles - this is slower for downloading than just an internal subsection link. My feeling here goes for internal subsection links. If the country does not have its own subsection, then it should not be in the table anyway, which should only summarise what is in the content below. Boud (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

support for the min or ones (which is nbo doubt waht you meant)Lihaas (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Tchad in the infobox map

Why is Tchad in the infobox map? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

West Bank

would just liek to point out the government of the West Bank has declared that it will hold elections "as soon as possible." [4] There has been no elections there since 2006. It seems to be their way of trying to keep protests from happening.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Marseille, France self-immolation

don't know if this boy was an Arab immigrant could someone check: -- (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Self immolations ONLY - in the map

Mauritania, Morocco, Syria: they had self-immolations ONLY. It should be reflected on the map-- (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Chesdovi (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Self-immolation Table

I recommend putting the names notable into prose and deleting the rest per WP:notability (people). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

i digress, its a small table that can be hidden and doesnt hinder anything. the context is then also given to the spread of the movement. (immolations being a starting point in most cases)Lihaas (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments/Recommendations/Suggestions: Re: Map, layout, overview table

I just had a few suggestions/comments that I hope people would consider implementing or discussing further:

  • I am no expert on this but would Turkey or Iran not also be under the Arabic countries (and hence should be shaded a darker colour on the map?).
  • In the overview section, I would suggest that there be perhaps one or two sentences before the table comes in. It seems a bit strange (IMHO) for there to be a table in section without any words or contents around it (although I admit the intro does a good job, but I still feel something should be written on top or below the table in its own section).
  • This might be on the verge of WP:CRYSTAL but would it be possible to arrange the text outlining the countries in order of what happened reflected on the map (so Tunisia at the top as government overthrown and possibly Egypt below it as it might be the next country in the region to lead to the leaders/government being ousted). Then the next section would contain countries of major protests, then the section below that of minor protests. Then the countries can be moved up to their respective sections once an outcome is reached or remain where they are if nothing more significant occurs.
  • Any thoughts on having an "other Arab countries" section as well (for example the UAE or Western Sahara) and mentioning background on that country of protests in the past and at the moment nothing is happening or no point?) - Kuwait seems to cover this example well on although there are no protests there, things are happening possibly in relation to this (i.e. food rationing).

All thoughts and comments welcome. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

  • No, Turkey and Iran are definitely NOT Arab countries. See Arab world. Cjs2111 (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh yup, darn just did a bit of research, you are 100% correct. Sorry for the mistake.Calaka (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
support the second and third points baove.Lihaas (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Map problem

Put the old map back:

  1. This is too small
  2. Egypt didn't have just a "government sacked"-- (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Old map back

Someone replaced File:2010-2011 Arab world protests.PNG with File:2010-2011 Arab world protests.svg, while the latter is clearly erroneous because it shows Chad, Eritrea, Djibouti and Somalia as dark grey: "other Arab countries". Clearly, those 4 countries are not Arab countries: their population isn't Arab-majority and neither is Arab their majority language. For reference, see File:Arab world.png and the Wikipedia articles about the respective countries.
I have thus put the old map back in the article in expectation of someone correcting the SVG version. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

First, to address the IP's concern above, this is an SVG, scalable vector graphics, so size is no concern. It is, theoretically, infinitely scalable. As for those other four countries that are shown, they in fact are if you look at Arabic language and that article's associated map. The map is unclear about the status of the green-colored countries, so it seems that we have a conflict within the wiki. --haha169 (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I have done a little research and it seems that the blue map that was put in the Arabic language article is incorrect, so I have fixed this SVG accordingly and re-uploaded. --haha169 (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the new map is much better. At the least, it needs to be improved to include the other African countries to give context. As it is, it's just a bunch of multicolored shapes. Jmj713 (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I too prefer the old map, the new one does not outline the countries well enough and looks poorly done. I do think the new goverment reshuffled color should stay though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I prefer the current map: [5], it shows Arab league countries, where these protests have occurred, thats enough. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I once again reverted the insertion of File:2010-2011 Arab world protests.svg, as it still includes Eritrea, Djibouti, Somalia and Chad as "other Arab countries", which they clearly are not. Please only reinsert the SVG after the colouring has been corrected. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Some additional info, as someone here above asserted that these countries in fact are Arab countries:

  • Eritrea - dominant ethnicity: 80% Tigrinya and Tigre; dominant language: Tigrinya and Tigre.
  • Djibouti - dominant ethnicities: Somali and Afar (Arabs constitute only 5% of the population); dominant languages: Somali and Afar (together 55% of the population)
  • Somalia - dominant ethicity: Somali (85%); dominant language: Somali (78%)
  • Chad: over 200 ethnicities and many languages spoken, certainly not predominantly Arabic.

Clearly, none of the above qualifies as 'Arab country'. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Chad and Eritrea are not in the map, Somalia and Djibouti are a members of the Arab League. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Jordan and Egypt should be labeled red as Jordan just reshuffled and was not overthrown. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The map we have now is no good. There's no context. It needs the outlying countries for the users to be able to tell what they're looking at. Maybe even have labels. Not everyone's geography is great. Jmj713 (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I can fix the country outlines (it was lifted directly off a bad SVG conversion of the PNG map we used to have) and add the outlying countries in one edit, but I would like to reach a consensus on including the bordering countries or not. (I would like to do them both in one edit). I personally feel that only the countries involved need to be on the map, since it is purely a regional issue. (Many European maps do not include the northern tips of Africa and there are many American maps without Canada and Mexico in use here, and a map of Asia without the parts of Europe, Africa, or Australia that clearly could have fit). --haha169 (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the neighboring country's are not needed, only the countries involved. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I disagree, the countries on the current map look like they are joined, and as someone pointed out not everyone's geography is great at least put in the surrounding countries that border the ones shown. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we please revert to this map? It's much clearer to understand. Jmj713 (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

SVG Map With Legend

2010-2011 Arab Protests Map with Legend.svg

I modified the map in the infobox to a SVG one to be easier to modify with a better resolution in addition to the addition of a legend. Add it if there is a consent. Essam Sharaf 12:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Essam Sharaf (talkcontribs)

A good job, but I just tried it in the infobox and it doesn't scale well, unfortunately. Jmj713 (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

The last paragraph reads: "The protests against numerous Arab leaders have drawn large attention and concern from across the world, because of an alliance which exists between them and the West, to which they have been important allies in the War on Terror." I believe this either needs to be removed or rewritten with more detail, because that's certainly not the only or even the biggest reason these protests are drawing attention of the entire world, not just the West. Jmj713 (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

For now I'll change the text to "in part because of an alliance". That doesn't address the other reasons, but it does address the concern that this seems like the sole reason the West is interested. Cjs2111 (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"Second Arab Revolt"

Perhaps an origins section, like I described above, could be written incorporating information regarding the first Arab revolt in the 1910s. Info. Jmj713 (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

How are they connected? Cjs2111 (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Not really. Historic precedent? Jmj713 (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
It's a different kind of thing though. The Arab Revolt was essentially a guerilla war conducted to claim independence. These are protests designed to spur government reform and potentially representative democracy. I think the European Revolutions of 1848 and 1989 are closer precedents. Cjs2111 (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
wave of Protests of 1968, too. -- (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


Can we get IP edit protection for this article? One IP is vandalizing pertinent cited information. Jmj713 (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe first try at least one warning: Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Remember that we do have a problem in new users being easily discouraged.
i'll cite from Help:Dealing_with_coordinated_vandalism (even though there's no suggestion here that the vandalism is coordinated): "Do not bite the new users! Many new users of Wikipedia start out by vandalizing a page to make sure they can really edit it; once they discover they can, they sometimes become productive users. For this reason, in almost all cases vandals are to be warned before they are blocked. (See Wikipedia:Blocking policy.)"
Boud (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


Regarding this edit, why isn't that a reliable source? This is the second time information about Morocco was removed. I feel it's better to talk about outstanding issues, rather than remove things outright. Jmj713 (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Put the map back, please

I understand there are various problems / debates over the map, but can we please leave at least one version of it up until these are resolved? Cjs2111 (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Note the current map available doesn't seem to define the country borders too well (perhaps it is my screen image/resolution) but for example, Sudan and Libya look like 1 country to me. If you can make the borders/lines a bit thicker it would be appreciated.Calaka (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Djibouti and Turkey

There have been minor protests in Djibouti as well. Perhaps some info could be added about that, and Djibouti could be added to the map. Thanks. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If Djibouti is part of the "Arab World" Turkey, which actually borders Syria and Iraq, most certainly is. There have been escalating protests, which have been violently put down, and nobody seems to be noticing.Ericl (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The Arabic-speaking world
Now, what language do they speak in Turkey? As our article says, "the Arab world refers to Arabic-speaking countries." I don't see Turkey on the map, and, as with Iran, another country which "borders the Arab world" but in which Arabic is not the official language, it is never referred to as an Arab country. You might as well call Spain part of the French world because it borders France. Your comment "Actually, it IS. It borders Syria, Iraq and Iran, and is governed by an Islamist Government, albeit a moderate one" is absurd, because 1. Iran is not an Arab country, and 2. Islam/Islamism is not confined to Arab countries, eg Indonesia. Or is that an Arab country too? Would the BBC write an article entitled "Turkey's growing ties with Arab world" if Turkey were part of the Arab world? Please give me a reference from a WP:RS that says Turkey is an Arab country. Ericoides (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Why not create an article about the Turkish revolts rather than wasting people's time here, eh? Ericoides (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
According to the article on Turkey, a little less than half a million people in Turkey are native Arabic speakers. A century ago, the entire ME east of Egypt was part of Turkey. Turkey has close relations with most of the Arab world, and aside from the language thing is an intergral PART of it.Ericl (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
You say "They don't speak Arabic in Djubuti either". Look at our page on the country and you'll see that Arabic one of the two official languages of the country. The official language of Turkey is Turkish. As I said, show me an RS for Turkey as an Arab country. Ericoides (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
90% of of the population is sunni Muslim. There are Turks living as substantial minorities in most of West Asia. Also, Turkey has requested membership in the Arab league (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)--Ericl
I can request to be a duck-billed platypus, but that doesn't mean I am one. I suggest you read the Arab world page closely; to be an Arab country, a sufficient condition - at the moment - is that Arabic is the official language. Why not try adding Turkey to the Arab world page and see what the response is? Moreover, you'd better find a better link than the one you posted (; it makes exactly the opposite point to the one you intended. I'll quote from it: "The United Arab Emirates and the Sudan dictatorship told the Arab League on Monday that they object to non-Arab countries [eg Turkey] being granted observer status in the body." Ericoides (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a Turkish revolt. YET. There isn't one in Djibuti, Jordan or Libya either. The ripple effect of Tunisia's revolution is echoing throughout the MUSLIM world not the Arab World. I know that they're the same thing, pretty much, which is why I think Turkey belongs. The issues in Turkey are different from the issues in Egypt which are different from the issues in Lebanon etc. There's an election in June, massive demonstrations in Occupied Cyprus, arguments over mass graves and who's responsible, and all sorts of other stuff. Language isn't the only criterion here.Ericl (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Djibouti is a member of the Arab League, Turkey is not. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

"The Arab Revolution"

These sources refer to it as "The Arab Revolution" [6] [7][8] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:2010–2011 Arab world protests

According to Supreme Deliciousness, the articles International reactions to the 2011 Egyptian protests and Domestic responses to the 2011 Egyptian protests should not be on the template, as there are in this version. I disagree, as those pages are directly related to the protests in Egypt, considering they were split from the main article, and should be on the template about the Arab world protests. SilverserenC 22:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

agree. nonsense-- (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 Syrian protests Merge

So far no "Day of rage" has taken place in Syria, It looks like an editor jumped the gun here and I recommend the content be moved back into this article until something noteworthy or notable enough for a stand alone article occurs. As I satated in the edit summary the only thinhg keeping this article semi-alive is an event that is supposed to happen which isnt a good reason to have it kept. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I support redirecting this article to the Syrian section of the main article. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

date ended

what is this sourced on? right now it seems purely OR as for all ases (libya excepteD) there is no conclusion even given. also one can say tunisia has ended at the moment anyways.Lihaas (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Just added the Tunisian end date from the article on the Tunisian uprising. The others I believe that ended on the same date as they began were just minor single-day protests. Please feel free to research further. Jmj713 (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Tunisia is clearly not over as protests are ongoing today. Check BBC... --Kuzwa (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


The Tunisian Revolution article has noted that it may have been a contributing factor in Albania's protests earlier this year. Now protests have erupted in Belgrade, Serbia beyond the Arab World. Is it possible that the Balkans could also face political upheaval as these unprecedented protests continue to grow? My questions are. Is the name of this article still appropriate considering that the revolutionary shock wave from Tunisia and Egypt is now spreading into Europe? --Kuzwa (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Well if anything major develops an article 2011 Balkans protests might be warrented, I would not try and combine the two right now even though they are related as currently the majority of protests are in the arab world. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Without incidents?!

To say that Iraq or Somalia were without incident is theoretically correct, but is just...silly and misleading-- (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes the countries have their own problems but the incidents referred to here have to do with protests. This brings up a good point though, protests occur in countries over other things as well, and I agree that this can be seen as a bit misleading. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I would say to either make it clear that the incidents refer to the protests covered in this article's scope or to keep them gray as part of the Arab League. --haha169 (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


Any information as to what occured in Somalia? I think that any shaded countries on the map should require a description as to what occured, if not then i suggest it should be deleted from the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericandude (talkcontribs) 02:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"The government was reshuffled"

The statement "The government was reshuffled" in the infobox referring to the map reads very awkwardly. Shouldn't it be more something like "Change of government" or "New government installed"?--Found5dollar (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Overview table

Can we please do something about the balooning overview table? It's supposed to be an overview, not an all-encompassing table. Does the Outcome column really need so much detail? Jmj713 (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

The article should mention the 2009, 2010, and 2011 Jeddah floods -- (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There should be a general section for any precursors to this overall movement.Jmj713 (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The overview section shows 4 deaths for Saudi Arabia, although the actual Saudi Arabia section claims 12 deaths. Which is up-to-date? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


I'm placing this section here to deal with all matters regarding neutral-point-of-view and use of language in the article, hopefully keeping it all in one location. I'd like to start off with this bit: "The 2010–2011 Arab world protests[1] are an unprecedented[2] series of major uprisings...etc." While these events have been a surprise to many, the word 'unprecented' in an encyclopedic setting seems inappropriate and possibly biased. I would propose removing the word and move the reference into the titular phrase like so: "The 2010–2011 Arab world protests[1][2] are a series of major uprisings...etc." DerekMBarnes (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

yeah, i supposed that needs to be soiurces specificallyLihaas (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
"Unprecedented" is cited. Jmj713 (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I read the cited article; it only uses the word 'unprecented' when quoting the interviewee. It is emotional language, not encyclopedic. DerekMBarnes (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


There have been protests in Bahrain, yet Bahrain in not on the map. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The country is at crisis, the biggest protests attracting thousands at the village of Malkiya. These are the biggest protests since the 1990s uprising, I think that its time to change it to Major Protests, btw 14 were injured. Calicoosat (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree bahrain is now under major protest:

Important Historical View

Hello. I am an outsider and will not edit this article. I think that the information from this article I just read will be very useful about the historical context. Revolution: Is 1848 Repeating Itself in the Arab World? -- 09:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Unsuccessful/repressed movements, and Iran

Hello, I think emphasis should be put on the fact that most countries are not active because opposition are effectively repressed or control by governments. 2. Iran may maybe be add to the list, since the opposition try to set up manifestations agains dictatorship, but is de facto forbidden to do so, the government allowing only one manifestation of support, the Iranian government backed and pro-government one. See : Thomas Erdbrink (2011/02/11), Iranian opposition leader Mehdi Karroubi placed under house arrest,  Check date values in: |date= (help) Yug (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

My two cents, not mixing the Arab World with the Arab League

There is no doubt that Comoros, Somalia and Djibouti are members of the Arab League, and Eritrea is an observer but that mere fact does not make those countries part of the Arab World. Those countries have Arabs, but only as minorities, same thing with Chad and Israel to that matter, yet they are not on the map. In a historical and most importantly cultural aspect, the Arab World stops with Sudan and the horn of Africa is not included. Just take a look at a reality TV show where people call to cast their votes, and you'll notice that not one time those countries are included, and that is due to the cultural and linguistic differences. So, as an Arab, I doubt very much that these countries would be in any wave the might sweep the Arab World, and I see no point to including them in the map just because they are members or observers in the Arab League. (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That sounds plausible, but maybe it should be discussed on the Arab World talk page. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of whether Somalia or Djibouti ought to be included (which I would, reflecting on their membership in the Arab League), Comoros certainly should be. In addition to Arab League membership, Arabic has its status as the Comorian lingua franca. Eritrea does not consider itself an Arab nation, but has observer status out of concern for developments within Arab countries — many of which are adjacent to Eritrea and have a significant impact on the country's foreign affairs. Really, the "Arab World" doesn't necessarily have a specified political definition; one could even say it encompasses the entirety of North Africa (largely excluding Niger and Mali) and Western Asia (excluding Turkey, but including Israel for its significant Arab minority, and also Iran's western states). To put this in perspective, look at Chad. It is not a member state of the Arab League, but many people throughout the country (especially in the north) speak Arabic informally. Chad is arguably an Arab country on a cultural basis.
To sum it up, we should ensure that the countries identified in the political map are specified as member states of the Arab League. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
So, following that logic, shouldn't the article be renamed into 2010-2011 Arab League protest? (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... you do have a point there. I never thought of it that way before. In semi-contradiction of what I said above, the Arab League is almost synonymous with the Arab World. So no, I would not support renaming this article. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

table of contents and subsubsections (====)

In the edit en:2010–2011_Arab_world_protests?diff=413202072&oldid=413198567 someone replaced subsubsections in the Libya section by bold. The reader sees no difference except in the table of contents (TOC). i agree that it's reasonable not to have this detailed substructure in the long enough as it is table of contents, so i've added {{TOC limit|limit=3}} at the top of the article. i've reverted the bold to subsubsections, because these makes sense structurally - e.g. for any sort of automatic analysis, edit buttons - and in case the events in those countries turn out to be notable enough (or long enough) to require WP:SPLITting. See Wikipedia:Table_of_contents#Limiting_the_depth_of_the_TOC for more info about TOC depth. Boud (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Lihaas: probably you did the edit en:2010–2011_Arab_world_protests?diff=413346380&oldid=413346252 to try to rapidly correct my error with a missing = symbol, so i reverted your edit and added the equals. i wasn't sure what an "eklad" is, so i assumed that correcting the = sign was what you meant to do. If you disagree with the TOC depth limit, then please discuss it here. At least one person doesn't want the table of contents to have too much structure. i can see arguments both for and against the depth limit. An argument against a TOC depth limit is that having no limit can help decide if/when a subsection needs to be split, since it's easier to see which subsections seem to have more depth. An argument in favour of the depth limit is that it avoids giving possibly arbitrary overemphasis to some countries, especially since countries with already split main articles do not have substructure in this article nor in the TOC. So i tend to agree with the depth limit. Boud (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Filled in missing URL and corrected slightly confusing wording. Boud (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Article does not need subsections for the countries

The reason I bolded all of the subsections for the countries in this article is because some of them are doubled as you can see there are two protests sections one for their country the edit summary does not show this so it adds to confusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I think what you are trying to say is that your argument against subsections of countries is that the edit summaries become ambiguous. For example, it becomes unclear in the edit summary if someone is editing e.g. Bahrain or Sudan. Checking this requires comparing the different revisions.
i understand the argument. i'm not totally convinced that it justifies not using properly coded headings. Also, RS info we have on protests in the different countries do not structure in quite the same way in each case, so the ambiguity will not happen in every case. However, at least we understand your reasoning, and people who feel strongly enough either way can discuss further here. Maybe someone knows a general guideline on the issue.
i substructured (not bolded :) your == heading here on the talk page since it is a sub-topic of the previous point.
Boud (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


A political map gauging the protests in Arab League countries.
  Government overthrown
  Governmental changes
  Major protests
  Minor protests
  Without incidents

Do you suppose the current protests in Iraq are becoming significant enough to be identified as "major" in this image? Hundreds (if not thousands) of people took to the streets in several Iraqi cities, and it resulted in the government subsidizing electricity costs. [9] Master&Expert (Talk) 03:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

done see anything on the page taht suggests big protests. all it says is a couple on 1 day, and the rest is preventaive measures. if so it first needs those cites/updates.Lihaas (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe a country should only be listed as "Major" once a separate Wikipedia article exists for the protests in the country? Just a suggestion. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I wouldnt have a problem with this, i suspect some people may see it as a pov. but go aehad and be WP:BOLD.Lihaas (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

the News paper haaretz says some one died of self-immolation in Mosul, also a planed "Revolution of Iraqi Rage" on the February 25 near the Green Zone. should this be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAXWELL217 (talkcontribs) 19:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm now in agreement with Vis-a-visconti, in that we should wait until the protests in Iraq are covered in a separate article. But it may not be too long until it has to be created. Master&Expert (Talk) 20:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Governmental Changes in the West Bank

The cabinet was just dissolved.[10]

Map should be amended.

--Found5dollar (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


300k or more on the streets of Tehran. It looks like there might be a siege like Terir Square. Ericl (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

350,000 from the reports i've seen. Not to mention the protests in all the other cities. SilverserenC 21:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


I think the recent Lebanese protests need to be included somewhere on this page, if only as context to explain perceptions of wider regional instability, say on the part of Israel, for example. The historical record would be lacking without it. Cjs2111 (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

i digtress, instability there is about domestic politics alone and not of the same grievances. although id support a "see also" to Lebanese government of November 2009 that is duly updated (buy me in fact)Lihaas (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
That's what I mean. There just needs to be some reference to what's happening in Lebanon, even if it's not connected. Cjs2111 (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Main page

Our article made it to the Main page of Wikipedia. Good work! Jmj713 (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to burst your bubble, but it really isn't that hard if your article is based on the biggest world event going on right now :P --haha169 (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Of course, but if it was poorly done, it wouldn't have been linked to from ITN. Jmj713 (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Bahrain and the West Bank

I think it's time to recognize Bahrain's protests as significant enough for a separate article, and to be codified orange on the political map (representing major protests). I also think the West Bank should be codified red because the government is being reshuffled. I would do it myself, but I'm not sure what program is used to edit the image. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I just created a page for Bahrain. It's a stub at the moment, but I could use some help in expanding it. Does anyone have any fair-use images to use in the infobox? Master&Expert (Talk) 01:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe Bahrain should be pointed out by a bigger orange dot, as are tiny countries in Europe.-- (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
You can't even see Gaza on the new map. I have no idea why the old map was taken down - it was better than this one. There have been protests in Gaza...and yet Gaza isn't even shown on the map. Gaza should be added and shown in yellow.

Vis-a-visconti (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I also think it would be nice to see Bahrain somehow magnified on the map. Right now, it's practically invisible. Cjs2111 (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Renaming of article proposal

These protests started in Iran. Iran, as many have pointed out, is not even Arab. So we need a new title for the page. I've suggested:

  • 2010-2011 worldwide political protests
  • 2010-2011 populist uprisings
  • 2010-2011 pro-democracy protests

... or any combination therein--basically anything which can open this up to Iran but also potentially Cuba or who knows, maybe Zimbabwe will get in on it. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest Greater Middle East Populist Uprisings. You can argue that Iran is not part of the ME, or that Algeria is not part of the ME, but it's hard to argue that they are not part of the "Greater Middle East". They are not quite at the level which deserves "worldwide" status. I may vote for that if it spreads to El Salvador or Burundi. But for now, these movements are clearly constrained to the Muslim countries in and near the Middle East. Colipon+(Talk) 04:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I like it. Although sources on "populist uprisings"? --haha169 (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, the article needs to be renamed to "Middle East and North Africa protests" or something similar, since there's clearly a link from Tunisa to Egypt to Iran.Froo (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, see my comment in the renaming proposal above suggesting MENA as the best choice as a commonly accepted for a catch-all region including both the entire Arab world and Iran. Cjs2111 (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Middle East and North Africa protests seems an accurate article name. Midlakewinter (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
If you want to rename, I'd prefer "North African and Middle East protests" (to show the chronological order of the protests), or just "Muslim world protests". --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Clarity: I renamed this section so more people will find it. (I just suggested '2010-2011 Pro-democracy protests' in an earlier section on this page, before finding this.)Flatterworld (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I would support either "North African and Middle East protests" (or vice-versa) or "MENA protests". SilverserenC 17:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I would support "2010-2011 protests in North Africa and the Middle East" as a big improvement on the current title, but I do wonder whether we should not just drop the geographical reference entirely? Why not simply "2010-2011 pro-democracy protests"? This article already has a number of countries listed which are not Arab and not in the Middle East or north Africa.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I also agree with "2010-2011 pro-democracy protests". Xashaiar (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see this discussion until after I moved the article, anyway "Western Asia" is better then "Middle East" as "Middle East" is euro centric. Fell free to move it back if you disagree. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia, and in English, including in North American, South African and Australian useage, Middle East is an extremely well-established geographical description. 'Western Asia' is almost never used. However I do think that we should circumvent all of these geographical issues by using a title such as '2010-2011 pro-democracy protests'. Numerous countries outside of North Africa and the Middle East have already been impacted, as is clear from the contents of this article. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera

The problema is that Al Jazeera broadcast from Qatar, a non free country. It (or a similar channel) would broadcast from Tunisia or Egypt. -- (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Constitutional model

Which is the constitutional model ?. Mali is a democratic country, speak French (i.e. as Tunisia) and it is in the north part of Africa. -- (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Arab Leage Countries

"The 2010–2011 Arab world protests[1] are an unprecedented[2] series of major uprisings, demonstrations and protests in the Arab countries ", I would change to "The 2010–2011 Arab world protests[1] are an unprecedented[2] series of major uprisings, demonstrations and protests in the Arab League countries" or "countries that belong to the Arab League" . -- (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Why? It's not exactly accurate. There are several Arab League countries that have not seen protests, the Arab League has not been involved in any significant way, etc. Also, we're legitimately debating moving the article to a title that encompasses a wider region than even the Arab world. Cjs2111 (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

New map

Since the protest have now moved to Iran, and the article is now renamed "2010-2011 North Africa and Western Asia Protest", a new map should be made which shows Iran. (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you make one of these pretty maps that change with time so that we could see the development of events acording to time? It would be cool if we could see a map in which we would see tunisia with minor protests then the goverment change and all the other protests. Thanks Federico C


The self-immolations table is well-done and important. I'm not sure it belongs in its current place in the article. Also, should we have a deaths/injuries/arrests table as well? Ocaasi (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I thinkwe should keept it. Wouldnt mind deaths/injuries/arrests on a transcluded page like on the egypt article.Lihaas (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Current consensus compromise: 2010-2011 Pro-democracy protests, new title and a way forward

Per talk I renamed it. Advise that if another government falls a separate split be made called 2010-2011 Pro-democracy revolutions. Each time a nation "graduates" from protest to overthrowing the government, slide it over and leave lighter info on the parent. CHEERS. Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What talk? I saw maybe two editors that agreed here. I oppose this title as it is too vauge okay where are these pro democracy protests taking place? Are they taking place on the moon? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
They take place on Earth, silly. They are now on at least, what, 3 continents? As of this week, THIS title at 2010-2011 Pro-democracy protests is accurate. Africa, Europe, Asia affected. Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
These current changes and the name of the article change are ridiculous. (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Why is a linguistically accurate title ridiculous? Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a good compromise until there is a generally accepted name for these protests. I think I changed all the various pages to redirect to this one, so the main page link works again. Chris Quackenbush (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
no, there is no consensus for this whatsoever the discussion above supported north africa and the middle east, only two person suggested something of this sort. Please partake in discussion BEFORE not afte a move.Lihaas (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like concensus just formed. Consensus isn't uniform acceptance. Some people lose, regretfully. Just ask Mubarek. Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
And being serious, we can't call it the "Arab" or "Middle East" or "Africa" protest. It's gone to Asia and Europe now. Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you really say 100% certin that ALL THE PROTESTS IN EACH COUNTRY were Pro-democratic? In some countries protests were for diffrent things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The overwhelming majority were/are democratic reform. Feel free to remove the handful that aren't. Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87 - please name which countries you feel a desire for greater democracy was/is not the main motive for protests so that others can better understand where you are coming from.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I think 'populist protests' is more accurate than 'pro-democratic'. 2010-2011 Global populist protests. That's about as accurate as I can get it. But it sounds like poo. Ocaasi (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Some countries like Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, and Saudi Arabia have economic issues to blame for protests. Rising food prices I also have been seeing alot here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It can be fine tuned but it's flat dumb to call it out by Arab, African, Asian, Middle East, or anything specific. Hell, we got Bolivia now. In a week or two we may be calling it 2010-2011 Global democracy protests ! Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Pro-Democracy protests can refer to any number of protests around the world, including in Burma/Myanmar, SE Asia (PAD/yellowshirt protesters), etc. This article should stick to related protests in the MENA/Greater Middle East region. I prefer the old title that specifies this rather than the new title '2010-2011 Pro-Democracy Protests'. #JustMyOpinion - Kylelovesyou (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This refers to more than just teh Arab WOrld though, as now IRan is involved. - Kylelovesyou (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This title is pov and "Merrill Stubing" has shown his pov and diktats as an exuse for consensyus seeing the baove. consensus is not formed by you and this makes it ahrd to AGF. either you get consensus FIRST or the title stays. wikipedia consenss doesnt develop AFTER the move. Lihaas (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:BOLD. It's not a democracy, unlike these protests and all. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Clarity. imo 'pro-democracy' is appropriate because all these protests seem to be about people wanting more of a role in their governments. That's what 'democracy' means. If any of thee protests are about people wanting no change in their government at all, just protesting against the price of food or something, take them out. 'Protesting for change' is not necessarily pushing for an 'overthrow' or 'revolution'. That's why Pro-democracy protests is, imo, the most accurate. Flatterworld (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I asked for immediate 911 on protection Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There is NO CONSENSUS at least 3 editors oppose the title you are the one who changed the title to this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Uh, you're mistaken. I got a lot of agreement here and another on my talk. Beyond which, your title is inaccurate. How does "Africa and Middle East" account for South America, Europe, and Asia? Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Not all world protests are somehow interconnected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
You made these changes, without any consensus!!!!! (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:BOLD. Then people agreed. That's how it rolls. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Some may have agreed, but judging from the talk page a lot of people also disagreed, and nowhere have I been able to find anything resembling consensus. In the "bold, revert, discuss"-cycle the fact that there are people disagreeing and that your bold move has been reverted by interested parties means that consensus has not yet been achieved, and then you need to discuss your move on the talk page, not engage in a move war. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it should stick to Arab World/MIddle East/MENA 2010-2011 protests (NOT general 2010-2011 pro-democracy protests) - Kylelovesyou (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I dont like the new title either. - (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I would agree to any title but this as it is not accurate and too vauge. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe there could be a 2010-2011 pro-democracy protests article AND a separate section for just MENA/MIddle East - (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • note - not certain why but Merrill Stubing has reported this issue to the Administrators noticeboard, here. Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My view: four continents

If we call it North African/Middle East we may as well call it Australian/New Zealand for accuracy. It's spreading all over--the title HAS to reflect that. That's my sole and only bone to pick. Nothing more. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

NO!!!!! The dynamic and circumstances of the protest in the Middle East and North Africa are not the same of the protest in other parts of the world. Why can't you understand that?! Loro-rojo (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the above post - (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Article reorganization

Because of the dynamism of the current situation in the Middle East and given the fact that there is 90% probabilities it will escalate I propose for the article 2010-2011 Pro-democracy protests to be reorganized in the following way:
--Name of country--

Hatnote to main article
Small introductory paragraph
Link to timeline of the protests inside that country as a stand alone article.

I also think there should be a major timeline of the most important protests in this main article. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

that would be WP:Crystall ball to preclude it as such. right now its arab and some in iran (althouh ica n bet you bottom dollar nothing will come off it.)--Lihaas (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Restoring previous title, pending the discussion on the move request(s)

Resolved: Per consensus, the page was moved to the previous title. As this discussion was on the procedural question on what the appropriate course of action would be with regard to the request for page protection, any move request should be made in a new section, using the template {{Requested move}}.

Note: The previous title was 2010–2011 Arab world protests Cs32en Talk to me  00:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on the determination of the previous title, resulting in 2010–2011 Arab world protests

Previous title was "2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa Arab world protests". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The original title, however, was 2010–2011 Arab world protests, and reliable sources, as I illustrated above with Google News, support that. Jmj713 (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
This page move, from "2010–2011 Arab world protests" to some other title, was the first move of the sequence of several moves that did not have consensus.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Can all editors supporting a page move specify the desired target? (2010–2011 Arab world protests or 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests) Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Please do not specify a desired target. This is not a move discussion. It's a discussion about restoring the last stable title of the page, pending further discussion.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
There needs to be a firm definition of what the "previous title" was. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
As there was a title, i.e. 2010–2011 Arab world protests, that was stable for several days, if not weeks, and all other alternatives were stable for a few hours, or even minutes, the status quo ante is, as far as I can see, the title that was stable for most of the time. I thought that this was obvious, and can be determined from the move log of the page, and I did not insert the title here, because I thought it would be best to decide on the principle of reverting to the last stable title of the page, in this case.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I have corrected my original comment. Sorry for the confusion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


  • Support No consensus for the unilateral move, therefore status quo ante should be restored.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Wael.Mogherbi (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • STRONG support PERA ARAB WORLD thoguh ME an NA is nt bad. its stable, its consensus, its not unilateral mad-hatters (not really WONDER alnd it st?--Lihaas (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support 2010–2011 Arab world protests This is amazingly ridiculous. I propose restoring the original title and restoring the original structure of the article. This is worse than vandalism. Jmj713 (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    • structure restored.--Lihaas (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Agree with all the above. Middle East and North Africa seems somewhat better than Arab world, but go with what the sources call it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support:Either name as pro-democracy is POV and narrows the article to a very specific characteristic of the upsrising. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. The Arab world protests are connected to each other (rooted in Tunisia). The protests in Iran have been going on since disputed elections. While, pro-democracy, they have little to do with the protests in the Arab world. Besides, most sources I've read call "protests in the Arab world"/"Arab protests". Bless sins (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


Other suggestions

  • Suggest creating a page about worldwide protests, and having a separate page for the protests that occured in Arab ountries. Chesdovi (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Note that should be "Arab World", not "Arab world". Ucucha 00:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
      • No, the article we have is Arab world. Jmj713 (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I just noticed; sorry for that. Ucucha 00:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually, I had been thinking about that. There could be a List of global protests 2010–2011, or something like that, with links to articles on the individual regions or nations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
      • That sounds very reasonable to me. Jmj713 (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
        • wed need expansive non-arab protests for that. right now even iran is mellow.--Lihaas (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I actually proposed that above in the proposed titles section, under H. SilverserenC 00:40, 16 February 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.

Change dead to 600+

I think that 607 is to precise. How did it count? And how accurate is it? It can be that people that are arrested are killed. 16:16, 12 February 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Agreed. I've gone ahead and changed it. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

600+ definitely beats 607, but how did we get any of those numbers if the (probably inaccurate) Arab World overview table says the total is 535? We need a unified death count. (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC) On Wikipedias page on Bahrains deaths, there are 3, and here there are 2. Needs to be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

italy protests

italy has veen reverted pending discussion. the revolt over there doesnt seem the least bit related (or have any parallels veen made). we cant add ALL protests that happen concurrently.Lihaas (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Berlusconi seemed quite desperate to defend Ben Ali AFAIR, and the peoples on the north and south sides of the Mediterranean have had strong social/cultural/political interactions/relations for thousands of years. i think the hypothesis that Italians were re-motivated to protest by the south-of-the-sea revolutions is reasonably credible. Berlusconi holds a near monopoly on private and state television (AFAIR), so that's not so far from being a dictator. On the other hand, my arguments in the previous talk section still apply. Encyclopedic knowledge about a network - human society - has to be divided up in some ways in order to fit conveniently in encyclopedia pages, even if they're electronic. The best efforts at being NPOV + RS about this are what we need. If someone finds enough RS who claim that there's a pattern in the 2010–2011 African-European-Asian protests, then maybe try starting that page. Don't expect it to be easy - it might even get a speedy delete. Wait 12-24 months and if Africa-Europe-Asia has undergone a widespread revolutionary fervour (maybe North America too?), then new pages would be justified. Boud (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
i just looked at the "concurrent protests" section. Italy is not the only country with no RS claim to being inspired by the Tunisia/Egypt revolutions in the present version en:2010%E2%80%932011_Arab_world_protests?oldid=413763654:
  • Albania - literally, the 150 injured protestors (= "the latter") stated that they were trying to carry out Tunisia-style unrest; guessing what is really meant, this was only the prime minister trying to use Tunisia as a criticism
  • Bolivia - source 174 only says "Popular pro-democracy protests in Tunisia, Egypt and other parts of the Middle East have put Latin American rulers on guard and Morales ... " - this is a vague association - protests overthrowing rulers in Latin America, mostly with electoral followups, have been happening for about two decades there.
  • Ethiopia - i didn't check the source, but i don't see any Tunisia-Egypt link in the wikipedia text at all
  • Former Soviet Union - sourced crystalballing seems a bit weak for an entry here
  • Serbia - no link with Tunisia/Egypt at all in the text
Almost all of this should go to some other page like List of anti-national-government protests in 2011. Excluding Italy in the context of the Albania/Bolivia/Ethiopia/Former Soviet Union/Serbia entries makes it sound like the subsection title should be Similar concurrent protests in non-Western countries outside the Arab world. Either Italy should be reverted or all these non-RS'd or vague links should be removed. Boud (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed IF that was the case. Italy clearly has links there (paid libya $50b (so theyre clearly making more)), BUT the reasons cited here suggest its just a protest of some women complaining about him (how does that have to do with poverty reasons cited for most protests.?)
albania was added by me to the tunisia page and moved here by someone else.
bolivia suggests links already as does ethiopia and the former soviet union. serbia doesnt mention links but the reasons are the same ie= change in govt. italy doesnt event have that. the non-western part sounds plausible though.Lihaas (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I oppose adding Italy here, since I don't see anything their protests have in common with those in the Arab world, apart from being, well, protests. Berlusconi is not a dictator either, although he sometimes acts as if he were one. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Usage of "Middle east" in title

  Traditional definition of the Middle East
  Central Asia (sometimes associated with the Greater Middle East)

How is it defined in the article? There is more than one view on where the middle east lies. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In this instance, it doesn't matter. The focus is on the Arab World, which spans Western Asia (the traditional political definition of the Middle East) and Northern Africa (oftentimes included in the Greater Middle East). Master&Expert (Talk) 02:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Article name

Hi ,please stop moving the article name its a bit disruptive. Find a name that there is consensus for here and then more it - please return to discussion and leave the page wherever it is. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This name "pro democracy protest" is wrong. I believe the protests are taking place in some places for specific reasons. Revert to Arab world protests as a more general and appropriate one --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What, if anything, is the predominant name used by the sources to describe this series of events? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
most sources mentions the arab spread (although not exactly to the name here)--Lihaas (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Clarity As of today, the various news media are changing their names. Their earlier consensus has fallen apart, same as here. And apparently for the same reasons. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Aljazeera: nothing
BBC: nothing
Guardian: Protests in the Middle East
NYT: Latest Updates on Middle East Protests
Washington Post: Unrest in the Middle East
Note: those using 'Middle East' are including Iran, Bahrain, Yemen. Perhaps 2010-2011 Government protests would work? Don't they all have 'government' in common? (I really don't like '2010-2011 Protests'.) Flatterworld (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Which governments are protesting right now? ;-)  Cs32en Talk to me  22:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Probably all of them. Mubarak, for example, protested for 2 or 3 weeks, before finally giving in and deciding to retire at the age of 82. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok guys, i think this article should have a general name such as 2010 - 2011 Protests such as Revolutions of 1989 is a general term for a bunch of events that took place all over Europe. I disagree with the Pro-democracy title as the concept is too narrow for the different kind of protests that are taking place. (Are they all for democracy? what if one of those protests is in favor of the head of state?). 2010 - 2011 Protests are significant and important enough that by definition get to be served as the article request and if the user is not actually looking for this protests then a disambiguation page will do the job for him/her. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Then add that option as 'G.' and include your reasons. Flatterworld (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Also the last consensus was on ME and NA not the current incarnation. WP:Consensus can cahnge, but until then we have to go b y consensyus not the lone woplf.--Lihaas (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
That would be reasonable, since it seems to be the focal area of these protests even if some of them are elsewhere. You could also call it simply "2010-2011 Protests" for now, and watch the evolution of the coverage. "Pro-Democracy" carries a built-in assumption that may not be correct. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
protests are too vague, the old incarnation some 12 hour ago worked damnw ell. iran is the only menae and its not even big enough to cover yet. 2 days. big whoop!
but the consensus for the ME NA article is for the THIRD time gathering consensus above, it seem s not arab world is the strongest--Lihaas (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Council on Foreign Relations, an authoritative organization, calls this phenomenon Arab World Protests. Jmj713 (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was true a couple of days ago - my point was that everyone's changing now. Flatterworld (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Although Iran would bristle at being called "Arab", the focus of it all still seems to be primarily the "Arab world". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I will maintain that the protests this article talks about is still Arab world. Those in Iran are a continuation of the earlier protests there and there is a separate article for that. By the logic being used here by some, I'm surprised Italy hasn't yet been added to the list of countries. Jmj713 (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
theres a discussion above about tialy wholly idfferent reasons. its split 1-1 right now..--Lihaas (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
With this megillah it's a little hard to tell what's what. Maybe a list of the most popular titles could be presented, with a comment for each by interested parties, 25 words or less. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Scroll up. Flatterworld (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
People have come up with a dozen or so names, it seems like, but no one has backed those names with any kinda of references and citations. I just cited the name "Arab world protests". I haven't seen any others in media, unless I'm not looking in the right places. Certainly I haven't seen this wave of protests being referred to as "Pro-democracy protests" by any reputable source. Jmj713 (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I listed what the news media is now using - scroll up. Flatterworld (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Middle East protests works best as title. Protests in Europe, Latin America, East Asia, Central Asia are UNRELATED to the protests in the MIddle East. - (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I tried moving the article but it didn't let me --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
"Middle East" seems to have the greatest currency at the moment, as noted by Flatterworld. There should be some kind of consensus here, though, before attempting any moves. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah well, let's do this now, because I really can't focus on an article when it doesn't have the right name --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Then make a redirect for it, if there isn't one already. :) Content is more important than titles. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, and I'm not sure if this has any bearing, as far as I can understand them, the non-English language versions of this article all seem to use the Arab world name. Jmj713 (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

wikipidea consistency should count for something--Lihaas (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Move the article back to its former name, "2010–2011 Arab world protests". Since the move, this article has become an incoherent mess. We should just focus on the Arab World, where the protests are clearly linked to each other because the countries in the region share many of the same problems. These regional protests have not been proven to be the beginning of a Trotskyist-like worldwide revolution, so we should not jump to that conclusion in the title. It is really far-fetched to link the likes of Serbia and Albania to these protests. --Tocino 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

strongest damn possible support also the mumbo-jumbo list of states screws with the org we had before. and the self--immolations!--Lihaas (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with User Tocino. Unless this movement spins totally out of control and starts toppling governments in Sub-Saharan Africa or Latin America, I would say it is good to have this remain at the original name - "Arab World Protests". The only other alternatives that deals with the subject accurately is probably "Muslim World" or "Greater Middle East", but those names don't seen to be gaining a lot of traction due to some (what I believe to be unsubstantiated) accusations of "Eurocentrism". I still hold that Iran alone does not suddenly change the nature of the protests to something global. Colipon+(Talk) 22:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done you are welcome --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone will stop reverting my edits..people want to leave it as 2010 2011 Arab world protests! --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok guys this is impossible, they are disregarding the move. I am trying to put it back to 2010 2011 Arab world protests, but a user keeps reverting my edits --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Consensus isn't there yet. There's no big rush. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
WHAT? consensus was there before the move to what is currently is. if anything consensus is NOT at its current state. again and again the regular editors of this page are in full agreement that the current versin is WRONG.--Lihaas (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is really non-controversial. Go to Google News, and search for:

  • arab world protests
  • pro-democracy protests

Restricted to "Past month", the first search yields 22,600 results, while the second only 12,400. So I'd say the consensus in the worldwide English-language media (ie, Reliable Sources) is for the article title we had at the beginning. Jmj713 (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah well, I tried but leave it to this User to lock the article and prevent the move, he says he is "reading around" to "see" if there is consensus. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I am well aware that I protected the "wrong" title. However, no consensus will ever be reached if users continue to move the article to their preferred name and refuse to discuss. Let's all calm down and reach a consensus at one location. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
You were right to protect it, as the well-meaning but overzealous user Camilo fomented another edit war. That had to stop.
Users here, please, just do this: Make a list of the most popular titles, and ask everyone here to comment on them. Then we can get consensus and get the "right" title in place quickly. And if someone messes with it after that, unilaterally, ask that they be blocked for disruption. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This situation is absurd. The unilateral action by one editor appears to be rewarded, based on the logic that there would be no consensus for moving the article to some other place.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

to give credit EVERYWHERE its due. the lock was appreciated big time. but camillo's move was NOT unilateral it was based on consensus of participatory editors. the ?right" title is ALWAYS what consensus is agreed, and i was not part of the consensus that ageed to the move yt i support consensus. cs32eb was on the all we cant reward one nutcase taht everyone disagrees with is and is , quite franyl, a this point NOT AGF.--Lihaas (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't disagree with Camilo's sentiment in the matter, but he should not have fomented another edit war. I think this matter will be cleared up soon and then all will be swell. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I screwed up the move with a copy and paste. It was a desperation move (a la KOF). But the only one to blame here is whoever made the move to "pro democracy" in the first place. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
agreed 110 gazillion$% ;)--Lihaas (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)