Jump to content

Talk:Arab Spring/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 14

Where did Kuwait go!?

Where is the sub section on Kuwait - in other countries impacted I think the protests were somehow impacted by the Jasmine revolution - in the fact that until then stateless people there feared their opressers and din come out to protest. And I guess that section needs to be there. We have every nation except UAE and Qatar (thats justified), so Kuwait has to be there! --Pranav (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Check the history. Probably someone dropped it accidentally while restructuring into "Other countries impacted" vs "Other regional incidents" sections. Boud (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Found it in an old version and pasted it into other regional incidents since that is where it seemed to fit best due to it's light content. May want to double check to make sure it is still up to date. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijan and Armenia

There have been protests in both Azerbaijan (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/11/us-azerbaijan-protest-idUSTRE72A43I20110311) and Armenia (http://www.eurasianet.org/node/62983) where anti-government protesters have explicitly linked their protests to protests going on in other states such as Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, etc. Should some info be included about these protests? Should Azerbaijan and Armenia be added to the map? It is arguable whether these countries are MENA countries or not, so... Vis-a-visconti (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

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

The article could perhaps either be re-named to '2010–2011 Greater Middle East protests' or even to '2010–2011 West Asia and North Africa protests'. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Please see above, if you want to propose a title change start a move request to get consensus, there has already been a war raged on the title lets not have another one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - I second what Smart30 said. These simply aren't MENA issues anymore...they're almost all of Asia, and certainly a vast majority of the Greater Middle East. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support - I would support '2010–2011 Greater Middle East protests' as a new title for the page, although strictly speaking, I don't think a change is absolutely necessary in order to include Armenia and Azerbaijan; Turkey has a significant Armenian minority and it's considered part of the Middle East, and Azerbaijan shares a name with provinces of Iran (which also boasts a sizable Azeri minority). Geopolitically, they're closely linked to the rest of the Middle East, and the only reason they're sometimes left out is because there's a popular insistence on identifying every former Soviet socialist republic as such. -Kudzu1 (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Done with consensus. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
We need a map change to reflect the agreement. Somalia should be re-colored and Armenia put in Orange, Azerbaijan in yellow.--Smart30 (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure...provided we can cite sources that note the unrest in those countries as part of the revolutionary wave starting with Tunisia. For Somalia in particular, I understood them to be long-running unrest, unrelated to THIS wave. ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

already in impact article

Adding Armenia and Azerbaijan to the map for this article seems fine to me.

However, adding prose (text) sections to this MENA article would mean recycling the unending discussion of "which geographically further locations are 'related' to the Tunisia/Egypt revolutions? Where do we put them if the 'relations' are existent but not so strong (well RS'd)?" After much wasted energy in AfD's, we finally converged on the "Impact..." article. My suggestion: first of all, add notable developments to:

At the moment these are placed (arbitrarily) in the Asia section there, please discuss on Talk:Impact_of_2010–2011_Middle_East_and_North_Africa_protests arguments for/against shifting to the Europe section. AFAIK either would be acceptable (based on wikipedia regional templates).

Secondly, if the events in one or either become notable enough, then they can split off "Impact..." into their own articles.

Boud (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

(minor edits changing section to subsection of previous section: Boud (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC), Boud (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

Separate Yemen

Well the Yemen uprising is listed down in the list (of the other nations impacted), but yemen has gone really severe.... The fragile peace that Saleh mantains with the northern geurillas might as well be broken, and the nation could plunge into civil war with who knows factions but thats my speculation Anyways things have gotten out of hand ever since the army started backing the protesters http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article1568024.ece http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/8480/World/Region/Dubai-says-bid-foiled-to-ship-,-guns-to-Yemen.aspx


So its way more severe than the other nations - maybe it should be separated out to the top!

Lets have a vote! --Pranav (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Until Yemen descends into actual civil war or Saleh resigns (making the protests effectively a revolution) I am opposed to any separation. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - first off, WP:NOVOTE. Secondly, the incidents in Yemen have not had the kind of global visibility that events in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya have had. ZeLonewolf (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - not necessary. Al Jazeera (the main provider of News on the ground since Tunisia's revolution) only has one man on the ground in Yemen.--Smart30 (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - That's based on some degree of conjecture. - NickGrayLOL (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Yemen can be split when it is declared split. DerekMBarnes (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk Page cleanup

I think some of the discussions in the Name Specific Discussions section could be closed and archived. I would do it, but I lack the know-how. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Just promote them to top level discussions and the bot will do it automatically.ZeLonewolf (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
How do I do that? (closed 3 discussions regarding the name) - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Use 2 equals signs instead of 3 around the title. 138.162.0.42 (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Morroco major protests

Hundreds of thousands (350K protesters) on March 20, therefore major not minor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Moroccan_protests

There are several sources provided on its wikipedia page for you to see if need

Please change to orange

Zenithfel (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Info Box Mispelling

In the Info box Listing of causes 'Secterianism' should bespelled 'Sectarianism'. This is unless arabs are really big fans of David Secter. 165.112.60.131 (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Move Requested -- to: 2010-2011 Arab world protests

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (Closed after this section was archived, to prevent this request from showing up at WP:RM.) Ucucha 02:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests → 2010-2011 Arab world protests — We already list all other countries in the "Impact" page, and the protests in Iran (main reason for the name change have died). Rename, and move Iran to the Impact.

Narrow? Does including only Iran makes it wider? 173.245.84.243 (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Timeline

The Guardian has a great timeline: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2011/mar/22/middle-east-protest-interactive-timeline Perhaps it would be useful to the article's editors. Jmj713 (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - but the timeline does have few loopholes...it for starters doesn't take into account anything in Oman at all! or in Kuwait!--Pranav (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I am terribly sorry if I am using this improperly, but I by no means know how to use wikipedia for any sort of editing, despite consulting it often. This being said: just a question/suggestion - why has the timeline of protests been interrupted? It stops, I believe, around 20 Feb... In my view it would make sense to keep it updated - maybe it might become indeed very long, but then perhaps a summary type timeline of protests can be kept in this article and a new more extensive article can have a more expanded timeline. Thank you for your time and I apologize for any inconvenience. -hf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.166.63 (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Western Sahara

Sahrawi people protested and rioted in November of 2010, forcing Moroccan forces to quash the possible rebellion. What evidence is there that points to Western Sahara protests inspiring the Tunisian protests? --Zulu, King Of The Dwarf People (talk) 06:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Please search the archives of this talk page. This was extensively discussed.--216.70.233.34 (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Syrian government has resigned

Believe that qualifies Syria to turn blue on the map. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

concur for speedy change, this is clearly a governmental change. ZeLonewolf (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Where is the image at commons? When I click on it here I get to other articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It is here: [1] ZeLonewolf (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. 140.247.12.151 (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Support. The government has resigned, so Syria should be blue for "governmental changes". Vis-a-visconti (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus reached and change made. Changes still need to be made to the table and article. ZeLonewolf (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Changed table - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Color for Palestinian Territories

The current map has West Bank & Gaza as blue, which I'm pretty sure is NOT correct. What should it be? I must have colored it inadvertently while making some other change. ZeLonewolf (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

·I think that it is blue due to this

"Palestinian territories In the Palestinian Territories, Haaretz suggested that an announcement by the Palestinian Authority on 1 February to hold municipal elections in July is in reaction to the anti-government protests in Egypt. On 14 February, the Palestinian Authority's Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and his Cabinet submitted its resignations to President Abbas[271] amid pan-Arab calls for reform. Abbas tasked him with forming a new government after consultations with other factions, institutions and civil society groups.[272] The reshuffle was long demanded by Fayyad and some in Abbas's Fatah faction.[273]"

BTW, IMO i think that it could be better yellow or grey. Protests and terrorism attacks are related to politic of Israel, more than supporting changes in the politic of Palestinian Territories —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.216.157.20 (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Blue should be when the entire government resigns except for the top guy. This is what happened in Jordan and Yemen. Nobody quit in the PA.68.174.124.18 (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:2011 Libyan uprising

The related Category:2011 Libyan uprising has been nominated for renaming You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

65.93.12.101 (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Changing the name

I suggest to change the name to "2010–2011 Arab world protests", which will be shorter and have the same meaning. --MR.HJH (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

North Africans are not Arabs.Czolgolz (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Highly debatable as most North Africans are Arabs or arabized Berbers (which are considered Arabs). Anyway not the place to discuss this - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, they are. Macarion (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
More important, Iranians are not arabs--194.65.151.101 (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Color for Kuwait

The entire cabinet resigned, but the PM was given a mandate to form a new one. What color does this make it?68.174.124.218 (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That resignation seems unrelated to the current revolutionary wave. See Al-Jazeera article - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Related in as much as it was connected with discontent over Kuwaits involvement in the GCC action in Bahrain. I say change it to blue. --Dudeman5685 (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you have WP:RS that backs up your claim and links the resignation of the Kuwaiti cabinet with this revolutionary wave? - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Overview Map - Golan Heights

I have noticed that in the overview map the Golan is portrayed as part of the state of Israel. Although in the world map of the "state of Israel" page it is not regarded as part of the state. Is there a concrete Wikipedia policy regarding the border status of the Golan? As you all know, the Golan Heights were "annexed" to Israel in 1982, though it is still considered a part of Syria by the UN security council members.

Jewish West Jerusalem and the Sea of Galilee are considered by part of the UN to not be part of Israel.Ericl (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ivory Coast protests

Unlike Libya's novice revolutionaries, Ivory Coast's New Forces have territory, uniforms, heavy weapons - and a clear leader [2], BBC Radio [3], NY Times[4] Chicago Tribune[5], and [6] USchick (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

A comparison with the Second Ivorian Civil War is irrelevant here - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, didn't know about that article. Should it be referenced here with "Other regional incidents"? USchick (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The situation in the Ivory Coast has in no way been influenced by the MENA protests. The civil war there is not related to the Arab protests, and Ivory Coast is not part of the Middle East and North Africa. No referencing here - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move -- to: Revolutions of 2011

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Consensus that the proposed title is too specific and see andrewa reasoning below. --rgpk (comment) 21:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Agree: per nominator. 69.31.51.141 (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree: this is the most important move. --Smart30 (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: revolutions are too specific; it would include only 2-3 countries and not the whole revolutionary wave. ZeLonewolf (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: actually it describes perfectly the impact of the protests, and it describes the events in 5 countries: Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Libya and now Syria.--Smart30 (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Its certainly an improvement upon the current, highly cumbersome title, but I agree with ZeLonewolf about it being far too specific and excluding nations such as Kuwait, Sudan, SADR, Morocco, Algeria, Mauritania, Djibouti, Jordan, Palestine, Iraq, Iran and others. My main qualm with this titling is the fact that it implies that any revolution that happened in 2011 would come under the scope of this article. What we really need (as I have already suggested but was archived and not closed after four rather than fourteen days of lapse) is a title which defines the scope of this article according to a title which links the protests to their common source. Laika Talk: Laika 06:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Any revolution that has happened in 2011 DOES come under the scope of this article. If that changes, then we can reassess the situation, but for now, that's completely irrelevant. Macarion (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Calling the article "Revolutions of 2011", implies that the article's contents are nothing more than a rag-tag collection of unrelated incidents, simply linked by the fact that they were revolutions in 2011, with no guiding narrative. This article is about a revolutionary wave, as defined by sources and the Wikipedia article, ignited by the Tunisian self-immolation. It does matter whether revolutions 'might happen in other countries', despite the fact that they haven't -the point is that we need to link the protests according to something meaningful, not where they are in the world, which year they took place, what the outcome was, or anything else that doesn't tie them to where it all started. Laika Talk: Laika 15:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Name too general. 2011 is not over and revolutions might happen in other counties, totaly unrelated to this specific revolutionary wave. Also, agreed with Laika and ZeLonewolf - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
It does not matter if revolutions "might happen in other countries." They haven't happened yet. Macarion (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
It does matter, as Revolutions of 2011 is too vague a name, and it can include any revolution that will happen in 2011 (and thus borders on WP:Crystal). Also, it does not accurately reflect the current ituation, as only 2 of the many MENA countries have actually seen a complete revolution. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per Laika1097. This title also would also imply that there were revolutions in all the countries that have had protests, which is not the case. If anything I'd say that "2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa protests and revolutions" would probably be the most accurate title, but I think that is needlessly lengthy. --nn123645 (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
It would imply nothing of the sort. Another article should be created for the other "protests." Macarion (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
No, another article should not be created for the protests as that would split this revolutionary wave into 2 articles - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - The revolutions are the important things here. Another article should be created for the "protests." It's absolutely absurd that we're still calling the subject of this article "protests." Macarion (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
As I have previously iterated, if we were to do this we would be arbitrarily dividing the same movement. That would be absurd. Laika Talk: Laika 15:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What about Qatar?

a few weeks ago, there was a mention that a protest was planned in Qatar that may or may not have happened, but now there is no mention of it. This news is very similar to the UAE, who are mentioned. IMHO, if you mention the UAE, you have to mention Qatar.--184.77.10.72 (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

As it did not materialize, it is not relevant to this article. the UAE is mentioned due to intellectuals calling for reforms. No such calls were heard in Qatar.--Smart30 (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
There was an attempted coup in February, which was partly inspired by the protests. It failed, and was listed here for a while until someone took it down.Ericl (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Source? This is the first I've heard of it. DerekMBarnes (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there was a coup attempt in Qatar which is worth mentioning in the article. sources : http://www.ennaharonline.com/en/international/5904.html , http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/03/03/46914201.html and http://www.mysun.co.uk/go/thread/view/88618/27159985/coup-in-qatar-aborted?pg=1#488195577. GM25LIVE (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
A coup attempt that apparently had nothing to do with popular protests does not belong in an article about the MENA (popular) protests IMO, even if it should be verified.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Minor protest

Jordan, Algeria, Djibouti, Iran, Iraq should all be changed to minor protests. These countries are in no way comparable to Bahrain Pass a Method talk 23:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Everything is comparable to everything else. And all of the contries mentioned by you saw big protests when you take into account numerous factors like the size of the country, the repressiveness of the regime, and so on. But I do agree, the distinction between Minor and Major is a bit POV. Somebody once sugested merging Minor and Major into one single color (Protests) - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Why did the North Cyprus pseudostate protests were removed? As irrelevant

As irrelevant I suppose... Hail, oh Hail turkish intervention. Spartacus Marat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.105.53 (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Changing the map

First of all, sorry about my english. I have thought that it could be interesting changing the color of countries like Yemen, what about changing it, into a "lined" color that combines red (major protests) and blue (governmental changes) and in Jordan and Oman, yellow (minor protests) and blue (governmental changes). It seems that in these countries only are happening governmental changes, but the reality is different.

I have thought in something like this

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_140/1176872571HvtO7w.jpg

Thanks and congratulations for this article!

Support - I think it's a good idea. The current scheme unfortunately suggests that government changes are the end of protests, which isn't what we've seen in Yemen or Syria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - too complicated. Blue perfectly describes the situation: unrest has resulted in government change. If continued unrest leads to a revolution, then we can make it dark blue. ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - It's a good idea, but maps like that are usually too complicated to figure out. Please keep contributing though. Czolgolz (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - This will not be too complicated at all. And the blue color does not "perfectly describe the situation." Macarion (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Come up with an alternate map (as has been done previously), and we can consider it. Otherwise, voting is a waste of time. ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Support if someone bothers to make it Ansh666 (talk) 07:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Support - Support for the same reasons stated above. --Smart30 (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - too complicated. It isn't necessary to say that this country has had minor protests, major protest, a government change and a revolution while this other country progressed directly from minor protests to revolution. The important fact is that a revolution occured in both. Only the most severe level of unrest present in each country need be shown. --Khajidha (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Western Sahara flag

Why has it a flag again? Has this consensus on use fo 'noflag' template changed and when/where? Alinor (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed (again). Thanks. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Djibouti: minor or major?

In the summary table, the djiboutian protests are listed as minor, yet in the map it's featured as a major protest. So, which one is the correct one? - 79.113.91.8 (talk) 09:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

What are the criteria for determining if it is a major or minor protest?

Because as of now, it seems rather, well, subjective. Perhaps we should say if protests draw X number of people for X number of days within X amount of time, they are considered major protests. It's just that there seems to be no clarification of what is considered major or minor. And what is major or minor depends on the editor. Editor A may think that protests in a certain country are just minor spats, whereas Editor B may see them as demonstrations of historic proportions. So are there some guidelines on what makes a protest major or minor? Lilly (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no criteria, it's propaganda rhethoric actually, I mean the Iranian protests which were only 2 days, in which hardly a thousand students turned up (just look at the "timeline" on the article itself, the last 2 weeks, they update every day, but there hasn't been a single protest, only quoting of some officials have been saying) and in which only 3 people were killed is labelled as "major" next to the protests in Yemen, Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, in which hundreds of people have been killed, is just ridiculous and clearly politically motivated. Also I take a major issue with the name of this article, this is the Arab World protetest, the Arab Spring, this is how it's called in all media, but WP found the need to somehow re-name it "Middle East and North Africa protests," merely so that they can include the completely irrelevant student protest which took place in Iran, months ago. But I'm afraid we'll have to wait months before any objective editing can be done here.Kermanshahi (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox photo

A collage of photos from several countries would be good, not just Cairo.--93.137.14.197 (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Pictures from multiple countries would be good, not just Egypt, but not really a collage … Elium2 (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Iv'e done so with the pictures from articles, quality pictures are needed for a better collage.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Which pictures? We need some form of a description (top left: Protesters in Tahrir Square. top right: …) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elium2 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


Okay, I can't find the right two pictures anywhere … Maybe a collage of the protests from Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Syria? Elium2 (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Updates needed

Here are some sources:

Hope it helps -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I included info from the Reuters article in the Other regional incident (UAE) section. The other article, concerning Saudi Arabia, might be of use in the 2011 Saudi Arabian protests article. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Cool. Maybe someone can use the article about Saudi to update the page about the protests. I have added it to the talk page there. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This map

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2%80%932011_Middle_East_and_North_Africa_protests#Overview

I think it would be better to split the "Government Change" colour into two different colours. My reason for this is because Jordan and Oman didn't experience much unrest and violence before they changed the government. Syria and Yemen have experienced very violent unrest. 99.231.200.55 (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is my proposal for the colours:

1) War

2) Violent major rallies

3) Peaceful major rallies

4) Minor rallies

5) Minor occurrences and failed attempts to instigate (noticeable) unrest (bloggers, immolators)

I think government changes, sackings, resignations and overthrows should be pointed out separately through a marker of sorts. I think it notable to differentiate between deadly clashes in Bahrain, Syria and Egypt, where some protesters are armed, and deaths in protests like Saudi Arabia, Oman, Algeria, Iran and Iraq where the main cause was disproportionate security force. There are also the clashes between pro's and anti's in Jordan, while in Yemen the clashes have been between defecting soldiers and republican guards. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Iran status

The table says minor protests, but the map says major. The discrepancy needs to be resolved one way or the other. ZeLonewolf (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Djibouti has a similar discrepancy of presentation. --Khajidha (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

self-immolations section disappeared

where has the section gone. As a reader I want to see it again.--78.3.221.157 (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Burkina Faso uprising

News reports tend to be very unclear but there is some sore sort of protests/uprising/revolt/revolution going on in Burkina Faso right now, including a curfew on Ouagadougou and some reports that Blaise Compaore has fled. Is this part of the wave of protests that we've seen here or is it seperate? How about an article, 2011 Burkina Faso uprising, based on the French version or its translation here Metaknowledge (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's inspired by the MENA protests, it should be included here: Impact of 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests#Burkina Faso -ArnoldPlaton (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Is article netural?

I read the article and believe it violates WP:NPOV as it seems to portray the subject in a positive light. Will someone else check this out?KeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a fair question, but for the most part the article seems factual to me. Even though one senses that the author(s) are favourable toward the opposition, they don't express an ideology for either side; and for the most part they seem to have written the article as an historical chronology. If you have some feeling that the facts are incorrect, please give specifics, but otherwise my feeling is that the article is balanced. Beecher70 (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

self-immolations section disappeared

where has the section gone. As a reader I want to see it again.--78.3.219.109 (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

All past revisions can be going to the article, and then clicking the "View History" tab. -download ׀ talk 15:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

West Bank and Gaza protests not in the table

Gaza had its March 15 protests against Hamas and the West Bank had protests in various cities against the occupation. 131.111.185.1 (talk) 08:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Great map

I was wondering where I could find a simple map to help wrap my head around the movements developing in the Arab world, and I knew I could count on Wikipedia's contributors to present this information in an informative, comprehensive way. The map and table featured in this article are great. Thank you! 99.35.43.157 (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yemen

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13178887

Just if you didn't know~, 68.58.76.65 (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Saleh says he's going to leave within 30 days, should we change the color of Yemen on the map?--Dudeman5685 (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I say not until he actually does. This part of the world has had a history of empty promises. For all we know, it's bluster. Until the government change happens I think we need to leave it as is. ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Good point. There have been reports that he's "about to step down" for weeks. --Dudeman5685 (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering this myself. I'm not sure that the "scale" used on this map is as good as it could be. I mean, what precisely defines the line between "revolution" and "governmental changes" anyway? Technically, Mubarak did resign after all, yet Egypt is classified a "revolution". And if both "governmental changes" and "major protests" have happened, which takes precedence? In Jordan, the governmental changes came first, then there was a lull in activity (which has picked up again). What if the "governmental changes" are relatively minor? And what exactly is the difference between a "major" and a "minor" protest? Having a map to visualize this data is a great idea, I just don't think this one (or the chart) are as good as they could be. Cheers. Brianski (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC) (minor edits Brianski (talk) 07:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC))

Syria -> Major Protests

Syria has got to be considered "Major Protests" instead of "Government Changes" --> they've just killed enormous numbers of people in Homs and the whole anti al-Assad segment of the country is mobilizing. 130.64.139.141 (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Governmental changes are a step higher than major protests, so you're actually downgrading the status. Besides, the map is colored blue. TL565 (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
There probably should be something distinguishing Jordan, where protests were minor, from Syria, where there were major protests. Whitesoxman (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
It's practically on the verge of armed rebellion. Government changes was intended to be the more severe status. ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I also find the blue color a bit misleading. That Jordan – where government changes were made early on, and things have calmed down almost completely – and Syria – where minor concessions were made, but the government is now killing their own people – should have the same color seems absolutely perverse. The severity of the protests should overrule whatever symbolic concessions the regimes choose to make. Keep in mind: in most of these states, the cabinet tends to be a powerless entity controlled by the despot. So a change in government is really not that big of a deal. Lampman (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree, I have thought about this long time. Syria and Yemen should be categorized in something similar to Pre-revolution. I am not good at names but both "Government Changes" AND "Major Protests" are not correct for both countries. "Government Changes" is according to the map a step higher than "Major Protests" but in this case you have countries like Jordan, Kuwait and Oman where nothing big happened. Tonemgub2010 (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Based on my last comment I have now opened a new section recommending opening a new status for Syria and Yemen: Syria & Yemen = New map status --Tonemgub2010 (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Question about 2011 Iranian protests

I'm the main editor for the 2011 Iranian protests article and I just wanted to get some other opinions on whether information on the Iranian attack on Camp Ashraf, which killed more than 25 people, should be included. The people in the camp are considered to be the real opposition to Iran, being a part of the People's Mujahedin of Iran. I think this attack and information about it in the news should be included in the article, because it does have a direct relation to it, since the Mujahedin started up their attempts to no longer be considered a terrorist organization by the EU (which was granted) after the protests began in Iran. They are known to be firm backers of the protests and are likely to have an active involvement in it. However, if included, should the deaths from this attack also be included in the calculations in the lede box and in the deaths section? SilverserenC 17:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Another issue i'm thinking of - whether the Arab protests in Iranian province of Khuzestan to be included in 2011 Iranian protests (i added the relevant info on 15-18 April protests in Khuzestan in the "2011 Iranian protests" page for now), or to be split into a separate article named "2011 Arab protests in Iran" (or something like that), since the background is very different for 2011 Iranian internal protests and 2011 Arab nationalistic protests in Khuzestan. What is you opinion?Greyshark09 (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely, those deaths should be included, I think. As for separating out the different protests in Iran, I don't have enough information to comment, but that sounds like it may be reasonable. I would urge caution, though, as Coptic protests in Egypt and Kurdish protests in Syria were pretty swiftly integrated into the nationwide protests. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I think our best bet is to include all information about protests in Iran in that article for now and then, if the amount of information about the Kurds or other issues get to be too long, then we can split it off then. But, for now, these other protests and attacks are not detailed enough in the news to have much of a length issue. SilverserenC 00:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree, that's an optimal solution. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

Hate to sound like a broken record here, but there's WP:RS backing me up this time: Azerbaijan should be included in this article. Over 400 people have been arrested, and the protests are gathering some strength. What's more, prosecutor-general made a reference to the revolutionary wave in vowing a crackdown, and news media has directly related the events to the MENA protests. International Business Times and Kester Kenn Klomegah] for your consideration. I know the classification of Azerbaijan geographically is somewhat disputed, but it's worth noting that the Greater Middle East article includes it, and that Mauritania, Djibouti, and Somalia are not uniformly considered to be in North Africa, yet this article (and map) refers to them. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the map was based on the Arab League map (notice Iran isn't 100% included on the map either). There were also some protests in the muslim parts of West Africa relatively early on - Benin and Senegal at least. I'd say the map should be expanded to clearly include the protests in both regions (West Africa and Azerbaijan - perhaps the Kurdish protests in Turkey too, and of course anywhere else that I've missed). Brianski (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I think adding in more of Africa opens up a whole new can of worms - whether the revolutionary wave is a phenomenon of the Muslim world (particularly of Arabs, although I think Kurds, Persians, Berbers, Tuareg, Copts, Chaldeans, Azeris, and other minority groups indigenous to affected countries would dispute that on a factual basis), a view often taken by the international media, or a phenomenon of Africa, as many African journalists have suggested (Al Jazeera briefly touched on this). A slight upward expansion to include the protests in Azerbaijan, probably the protests in Turkey, and possibly protests in Armenia and/or Northern Cyprus as well, seems like it would be relatively noncontroversial, as those places are geopolitically affiliated to a greater extent with the Middle East (and indeed often considered to be part of the Middle East proper, at least by an expansive definition). But I suspect we'll need to get a greater sense of the nature of protests and uprisings in sub-Saharan Africa (both the motivation and whether their scope makes them truly historic, especially considering the volatile history of many of those countries) before we're able to really make a decision as to how closely related/worthy of mention the rest of Africa is in this article proper. If that makes any sense. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree, and think these areas should be included.--ERAGON (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I have created pages for the 2011 Armenian protests and the 2011 Azerbaijani protests. There are pretty overt comparisons of those demonstrations to events elsewhere in the Middle East by organizers, government officials, and media; I'm finding the Turkey ties are more tenuous. Hopefully I'll get around to creating a page for the Northern Cyprus protests, which do sound related to this revolutionary wave. Can someone with some knowledge of SVG redo the map? -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. That Al Jazeera link includes a lot of countries which are clearly not related in my mind, but Benin and Senegal clearly are (temporally certainly - in Senegal protest even started with a self immolation). It is certainly true that none of these protests have happened in a vacuum. All have influenced one another with the rapid spread of information in the modern age. Djibouti is probably related enough to warrant mention as well, but I see Cote d'Ivoire is a separate issue. Wish I had more time to explain the reasons behind my feelings, but failing that are there others who feel the same? Brianski (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I certainly agree, and of course we already do discuss Djibouti here. Senegal at the least seems quite related, and there's a good case to be made for Benin as well. But those countries are rarely if ever considered part of North Africa, while Turkey, Cyprus, and the Caucasus are often included in the Middle East. We do have the Impact of 2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa protests to cover the rest of the world, although it's not necessarily the most artful solution. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Not that it's a direct comparison by any means, but similar events were happening prior to and during World War II, which later were all tied together (such as the civil war in Spain and the war between China and Japan). I think in time historians may well link these events happening now to a single event. Jmj713 (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Morocco

It seems the protests in Morocco are heating up... We might want to consider updating the grade of protests in there if this goes on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.104.45.52 (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I surely agree! Protests in Morocco are approaching. Search the article of protests in Marocco in The Independent newspaper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.183.50 (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The Iran Coverup!!!!!

Notice that the hundred thousand strong Feb 14th marches in February are now considered "minor" and the dozens of people killed (Fifteen just last week), has been whittled down to three!!!!! Just three. Since I don't want to get into trouble over an edit war to repair this outrage, I'll just mention it here. Clearly, the person claims that the hundreds of thousands of marchers, and most of the sources are either lying or merely "overstated." The Arab protests in the southwest of the country and the Kurdish protests, in which dozens if not hundreds have been killed or injured clearly don't count.Ericl (talk)

I've seen sources for significant protests in Ahwaz, by the Arabs (15 dead). Other protests seem to have quietly dissipated since February.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Main editor for the Iran protests article here. I've been really busy because of finals that are coming up in a week and a half that I haven't been able to spend much time on updating the article lately. Once finals are over, I should be able to go through the new available sources and add them to the protest article. Then, the new info can be summarized on here. Please just be patient, our articles are a work in progress and don't need to be completed immediately after something occurs. SilverserenC 16:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed rename - 2010–2011 Greater Middle East protests

Now that Armenia and Azerbaijan are included, the named should be changed because those countries are not considered Middle East but are in the Greater Middle East. It also makes the name easier because North Africa is also considered to be Greater Middle East. If it doesn't get renamed, then I don't why Armenia and Azerbaijan were added in the first place. TL565 (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Presented for the sake of reference [7] – Muboshgu (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Well it cant hurt to propose it a second time, and I don't know whats so controversial about it, as it makes the name simpler. Again, if it not going to be renamed, why add Armenia and Azerbaijan? TL565 (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support either I think at this point, with the continual necessary expansion of the scope of this article, we should have a more expanded title to include the new protest areas that have now cropped up. Just as we expanded the scope to the current title before, it now seems necessary to expand it again to include Armenia and Azerbaijan (and other areas that have the possibility of cropping up). SilverserenC 21:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose the term "Greater Middle East", is Bushs term. Its not a normal name for the area. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
"2010–2011 North Africa and Western Asia protests", would not be euro-centric.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
That was actually going my alternative until I found out that it doesn't include Iran which is South Asia. TL565 (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
"Most people would agree that 'Western Asia' includes such areas as Iran", Commercial networks in modern Asia, Shinʼya Sugiyama, Linda Grove. Routledge. ISBN:9780700714193. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, complications, complications. SilverserenC 22:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
It is already proven here that Iran is regarded as in Western Asia:[8] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
That still does not prove it 100%. Why does the UN definition place it in South Asia? TL565 (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Those maps make it clear that for Wikipedia's purposes, Iran is considered both Western Asian and South Asian. Only one of those classifications is, at present, relevant to this topic. Always good to be thorough but if we already call Iran part of Western Asia, I don't see the popular objection. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Support for either, though I would prefer "2010–2011 North Africa and Western Asia protests". I don't think it's strictly necessary but it can't hurt. As to Iran, I think it can be considered either Western Asian or South Asian, similar to how Mauritania can be considered North African or West African, or how Croatia can be considered Southern European or Eastern European. It's on the geographic and geopolitical borderline and has commonalities with both regions. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose The Greater Middle east is not part of the Traditional definition of the Middle East, by calling it Greater middle east you exclude Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, lebanon, Oman, Gaza Strip, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen all countries that are a part of this. Also I agree with Supreme Deliciousness on it's usage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I think "Greater Middle East" includes the standard definition of the Middle East as well as those countries on the periphery. Would you support "2010–2011 North Africa and Western Asia protests" though? -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Do you have sources that call the protests as "Greater Middle East protests"? Kavas (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Support for either, though I would prefer "2010–2011 North Africa and Western Asia protests". --- Kudzu1 has expressed my view.--Smart30 (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Official move request to 2010–2011 North Africa and Western Asia protests

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus reached. Article will remain at present title. Kudzu1 (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests → 2010–2011 North Africa and Western Asia protests – In accordance with what appears to be a preferable alternative to the above proposed 2010–2011 Greater Middle East protests, I am submitting this official move request. Protests have clearly spread to Armenia and Azerbaijan as part of this overall wave, with multiple sources cited on this page and on 2011 Armenian protests and 2011 Azerbaijani protests supporting the fact, and although some consider those countries to be Middle Eastern, I find that overall the controversy as to their classification means that it would be more accurate to slightly redefine the scope of the protests to concern the geographic regions of North Africa and Western Asia. This move would also mark a shift away from the Eurocentrism of the usage of "Middle East", helping to orient these protests in noncontroversial geographic regions. In sum, the new title is more inclusive and thus better reflects the reality of the current situation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. While "a shift away from the Eurocentrism" is a good thing (see WP:BIAS for substantive suggestions) and I suppose being "inclusive" is too (though I'm not quite sure what it means in this context), common, English usage (per WP:UCN and WP:UE) should prevail. North Africa and Western Asia protests" sounds like a phrase cooked up in the Foreign Office. —  AjaxSmack  02:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no difference between Middle East and Western Asia, except Western Asia is slightly bigger in area definition so that it includes Armenia and Azerbaijan. TL565 (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that this page is already part of the Western Asia WikiProject. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Article titles should reflect common English usage, not Wikipedia editor usage. —  AjaxSmack  05:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
For those worried about geographical purity, the article Impact of 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests exists to cover protests outside of the geographic scope of this article. If Armenia and Azerbaijan are not sufficiently Middle Eastern, they can be moved there. —  AjaxSmack  05:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see that as a viable solution. Armenia and Azerbaijan are literally right next to other countries considered to be experiencing the same wave of upheaval. There are major protests going on in Armenia and a serious campaign of repression materializing in Azerbaijan, and people on all sides as well as observers have pointed out the obvious links to the protests taking place in the same geographic neighborhood. It makes no sense to kick those protests back to an "overflow" page because we're squeamish about using actual geographic classifications instead of a slightly narrower (and disputed) Eurocentric term. These protests are clearly part of the same wave, and they belong in this article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Well a lot of countries are right next to a lot of other countries. Ethiopia is next to Sudan, Turkmenistan is next to Iran but neither are included here. On the other hand, Djibouti is not adjacent to any of the countries here and it is included. The specific countries included should mandate the title. Instead, rely on common usage. —  AjaxSmack  11:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
There aren't serious related protests going on in Ethiopia or Turkmenistan; if there were, we would have to consider expanding the scope of the article for those, as I think that indicates geographic creep of the popular protest phenomenon. I do see your point regarding WP:COMMON and I'm fine with keeping the current name as long as we're willing to consider the South Caucasus as part of the Middle East for the purposes of this article (which I feel isn't too much of a stretch, as the Middle East article explicitly mentions that those countries are sometimes included in definitions of the Middle East, and most dictionaries concur). However, I don't think it's reasonable to take a strict definition and then boot Armenia and Azerbaijan just because we're not willing to use the more inclusive term. I will certainly oppose such a move. The proposed name change is an attempt to avert that sort of debate over peripheral/borderline countries, though we do appear to be extending our generosity to cover Djibouti and Mauritania (not always considered to be North African) because they're obviously quite related as well. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support We need to make sure that the article title reflects the information that is presented in it. By adding in these two new protests, we need to expand the title to include these areas. Otherwise, we're going to fall back into the messy set-up of adding a "Related protests outside" section, which I think would be detrimental to the article. SilverserenC 02:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support As per above, We need to expand it so it can cover Armenia and Azerbaijan. Saying those countries are in the Middle East is stretching it. TL565 (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Regardless of the name of the article, the map has got to be changed to put Armenia, Azerbaijan, and that northeastern corner of Iran fully in the frame. I don't have any software that can manipulate SVG, or I'd do it myself. If somebody could help out with this, that would be very much appreciated. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I think the criteria for the name should be verifiability. Take a look at what most media outlets are calling this phenomenon, or use a Google search if you like. Unflavoured (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Unflavoured, 0 result in Google if Wikipedia is excluded from the search. Kavas (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The name is perfectly fine. We are talking about a particular group of people...an entire race - The Arabs. For ages their governments have ruled with an iron fist. Like dominos, one by one they have learnt lessons from each other and have suppressed their fear to move ahead and tear down their suppressive and brutal regimes. Whats going on is in one perspective - an ARAB THING!....and its a golablised world, its bound to have its ripple effect. We cannot go and in the future call it 2011 World protests - you see China had a few protests, India has had anti-corruption protests unlike any it has seen before (completely apolitical and widely supported by the people-and the leaders and organisers have stated - "take lessons from Egypt and Tunisia" - almost all of their campaign videos had that in them). So lets just keep this article this way. Put all these protests under IMPACT..and keep it that way...thats all i am suggesting! --Pranav (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The Berbers fighting and dying for a united Libya in the Nafusa Mountains would disagree that this is entirely an Arab phenomenon. As would the Copts who marched alongside Arabs to protest President Mubarak's regime. As would the dark-skinned Africans who joined in protests against the Sudanese government. As would the Kurds whom the governments of Syria and Iran have tried to marginalize and repress. As would the Persians and Azeris demonstrating for democracy in Iran, a predominantly non-Arab state. That's before we even get into Armenia and Azerbaijan. Yes, what's going on in the PRC and India is a case of protests being influenced and shaped by the tone set in our globalized world, with Tunisia and Egypt looming large in the imagination; the same is probably true of the public worker protests in the United States. Those do belong in the impact section. But in the case of Armenia and Azerbaijan, where people saw the public in very nearby countries, some of them countries with longstanding historic geopolitical ties to their own, rising up and changing the government - it's hard to justify leaving them out of the main article. And because the definition of the Middle East is so muddled, I thought it might be a good idea to try to clarify the geographic area we're dealing with. If we can all agree to consider the Middle East to include Armenia and Azerbaijan for the purposes of this article, I have no problem with the current name. But I would caution you against inadvertently marginalizing the equally meaningful plights and struggles of non-Arabs in the region by focusing on it solely as an Arab phenomenon. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
If it were an "Arab" thing, why was the article changed from Arab World protests so fast when we heard about Iran? Western Asia is as about the same term as North Africa, and were using that. C'mon people, why does this have to be so complicated? I don't see whats wrong with Greater Middle East protests either. Either rename this article or remove Armenia and Azerbaijan because there's no way those countries are considered "Middle East". TL565 (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
There's enough uncertainty over the definition of Middle East - for example, the U.S. State Department agrees with you, but Merriam-Webster and the Associated Press do not - that I don't think it's inaccurate to include Armenia and Azerbaijan, but this is exactly the kind of dispute I thought it would be best to avoid. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose: Firstly - and most importantly - the proposed name is scarcely used at all by third-party sources, unlike the existing name which is exceptionally widely used. If the proposed name gains traction in third-party sources as a result of geographical expansion of the protests then I will be very happy to alter my view. Secondly, the current name is Eurocentric only in so far as English is a European language (the wording is used by English-speakers world-wide e.g. in North America and Australasia). This is the English language Wikipedia and nomenclature in other languages is therefore irrelevant. I should also add that this change has been proposed on a number of occasions and each time it has been rejected. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
If that's the case, do you support the proposal above this one? TL565 (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
No, for the same reason.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose we should go by WP:COMMONNAME here, the term western Asia does not seem to have widespread usage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's true that the protests are spreading over the bounding regions of the core, but the core is still the Arab world. And I wonder why we don't include the protests in some Sub-Saharan countries rather than mentioning Armenia and Azerbaijan as something more related. If the only explanation is that the surroundings are as such to receive most influence of the ongoing protests, then of course that influence could be seen everywhere. Finally we cannot rename and rename it to something which includes only tiny sparks and thereby extending the importance over regions that can easily split the readers' attention.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Tunisian Jews, Iranian, Turkish, Iraqi and Syrian Kurds, Moroccan/Algerian/Libyan Berbers, Copts in Egypt, Arabs in Iran, Azeris and Armenians in their countries are all reasons to change the name to North Africa & Western Asia protests. Why? because at the moment, North Africa is the focal point, not the Middle-East. Western Asia is the "politically correct" term for the region, including the Middle-Eastern country of Turkey, and European countries of Armenia & Azerbaijan. --Smart30 (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Break

It seems there is no consensus, please someone close the move request.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kurds protests in Turkey empowered and strengthen by rest of oppressed ethnic groups

In the protests we have seen new ethnic groups who were extremely discriminated by the current Turkish goverment participating in the demonstrations! Jews, Armenians, Bosniaks and Laz populations are now being part of demonstrations in Turkey! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.183.50 (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Source please? Preferably not just Firat or another pro-BDP outlet? -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Map issues

The map has needed an update for a while, but its editor(s) appear to have gone on holiday or something. Anyway, we actually need a slightly bigger map so that parts of Iran, Armenia, and Azerbaijan aren't cut off; Morocco needs to be dark orange; Kuwait needs to be blue; and we seem to have consensus on adding an intermediate status between government changes/major protests and revolution for Syria and Yemen, reflecting that while protesters have not adopted civil warfare tactics, they have taken control of parts of the country and are denying the regime's right to rule. I posted a PNG "mock-up" further up in the page. How can we go about either using that as a stopgap map or making an SVG version of the same? -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

So change the map ZeLonewolf (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I would, but I don't have the ability to edit SVG or vector-map. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The clickable map from before was an excellent addition to the page. You should make your new version of the map clickable as well. Marshie71 (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to, but I'm not really sure how to go about doing that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed rename - 2010–2011 Arab World protests

This was the initial title of the article prior to the outbreak of protests in Iran, after which it was broadly agreed that this article's title should no longer be limited to the Arab uprisings. However, the situation in Iran appears to have largely subsided, making its incidence merely part of a global repercussion that has influenced demonstrations in a broad range of countries including China, the United States, and several others. Thus far, the only protests that have resulted in historic consequences are those that have taken place in Arab countries. I feel that generalizing the situation to the entirety of the MENA region gives this article too broad of a scope. Thoughts? Master&Expert (Talk) 03:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This has been proposed before, but the most recent discussion only had four participants, with two in favour of renaming and the other two opposed. This is not a consensus. I'm reposting the proposal for a broader audience. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - bigoted and feeds the stereotype that Arabs are the majority people in the Middle-East and North Africa. They are NOT. The Copts in Egypt, and the Jews in Tunisia were vital to the Revolutions there. This has nothing to do with the supra-identity 'Arab'.--Smart30 (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually Arab ARE the overwhelming majority in the Middle East and North Africa. The Copts and Tunisian Jews ARE Arabs, being an Arab is a national identity not an ethnicity.

From the article Arab world: 'The Arab League, a regional organization of countries intended to encompass the Arab world, defines an Arab as: "An Arab is a person whose language is Arabic, who lives in an Arabic-speaking country, and who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic-speaking peoples."'. Furthermore, the article defines the Arab world as a region of Arabic-speaking countries. The Arab 'supra-identity,' as you call it, is based on common language, not ethnicity or religion. DerekMBarnes (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Copts are a religion, not an ethnicity. They are Egyption citizens, of Arabic ethnicity and Coptic faith. But this discussion is not about majorities. It's about whether Iran counts as part of the revolutionary wave, or as an outside impact. If it's an outside impact, then the rest of the countries are all part of the Arab world, and the title should reflect that fact. If Iran is part of the revolutionary wave, than it's about Arab World + Iran, which we, and others, call "Middle East North Africa" - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Copts are the descendants of the Ancient Egyptians and some Greeks. They have nothing to do with their Arab neighbors. I assume it was merely an honest mistake on your behalf. --Smart30 (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
They have a lot to do with their Arab neighbours. Copts also speak Arabic, and some of their „arab neighbours” are also descendants of Ancient Egyptians, later Coptic Christians, but of ones who converted to Islam (Islamization of Egypt). I'll asume your mistakes are equally as honest - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I made no mistake sir, the sole reason Copts adopted the Arabic tongue is due to the fact their tongues were cut out if they spoke Coptic. The conversion of a handful of Copts to Islam was entirely marginal, 99% of Egyptian Arabs show no genetic markers suggesting Ancient Egyptian descent. However these markers are unmistakable in the Coptic(native Egyptian) population.--Smart30 (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Completely unfounded claim and off the point. Copts' native language is Arabic, whether they were "forced" to speak it or not 1500 years ago is completely irrelevant.

Besides your word, what evidence do you have of your outlandish assertions? The exact genetic study would be nice. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Interesting... genetic markers or not, this is how both the copts and the Egyptian arabs see the situation. One of my coptic friends describes himself as "Egyptian of the Pharoahs", and despite at one stage holding a key security-related government post, he was never granted a security clearance, purely because of his ethnicity. When performing his duties, he was always accompanied by an arab minder "to make sure I do the right thing". None of these minders had any expertise in the area, so how they were deciding what the "right thing" might be is an interesting conjecture. And the similarity between coptic and Greek facial features, and the contrast of both to arab ones, is striking. Andrewa (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose-the current name is fine as it is, and imho, Qatar, Ertinea and Somalia (the latter is not Arabic) should be added--71.236.0.245 (talk) 04:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Qatar has only seen a failed coup, but I have not seen any source claiming link to the MENA protests, Somalia was discussed, and removed (see archives) and I don't know what Eritrea has to do with all of this. Please share some (WP:RS) links regarding these issues. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Support - As stated in the last discussion, the unrest in Iran was in connection with prior political events within the country, and was too brief to be considered part of the ongoing movement. I acknowledge Iranian protesters were inspired by Tunisia, but I no longer believe Iran is directly related to these events, and it can be moved to the "Impact" article, voiding the reasons MENA is currently in use. DerekMBarnes (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: How many times are people going to argue about the same god damn point? We cant take out Iran or Western Sahara for example and seeing that none of them are arab states the rename cant be done. -- The Eguyptian Liberal (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
As far as I know, Western Sahara is an „arab state” in the sense that its inhabitants are mostly arabs, but on the other hand it is not part of the Arab League - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Support renaming, by DerekMBarnes's arguments. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Weak Support. Iran fizzled away pretty quick, and the internal factors (last year's post-election protests) seem to (slightly) outweigh the external ones (the „Tunisia effect”). The protests in the Arab countries seem to have emboldened them to come out again, but it was basically Green Revolution, part 2.
Also, Ive done a Google news count: Arab spring - ~2,120 results, Middle East North Africa protests - ~5,810 results, North Africa protests - ~6,890 results, Arab World protests - ~9,300 results, Middle east protests - ~16,400 results, Arab protests - ~14,600 results - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
You need to do that count with quotation marks around the words in the search box so they look for the terms specifically. Otherwise, you're going to get results that may not be accurate to what you're searching for. For example, Middle East protests may be just coming up with a bunch of articles that use the terms Middle East and protests in the same articles, but not in conjunction as a single term. SilverserenC 15:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Slightly off-topic, can be moved to alternate section but relevant to the article name dispute, here is the revised Google News count according to Silver seren's suggestions: 1,210 results for "arab spring" [9]; 1 result for "middle east north africa protests" [10]; 2 results for "north africa protests" [11]; 17 results for "arab world protests" [12]; 105 results for "middle east protests" [13]; 43 results for "arab protests" [14]; 0 results for "greater middle east protests" [15]; 0 results for "tunisian revolutionary wave" [16]. Insofar as WP:COMMONNAME is concerned, this appears to be a strong argument against the current title, with Arab Spring coming out on top by over 1,000 results. This may not be a particularly refined method of analysis, however I believe it warrants a resurrection of the previous "Arab Spring" discussion, or at least an open discussion of all possible name changes based on popular usage or other elements of Wikipedia policy. I Oppose this name change on both the above grounds and the previous arguments concerning exclusion of non-Arab nations. Laika Talk: Laika 16:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The protests in Iran were and are significant and have been stated explicitly by the opposition leaders there to be in response to Tunisia and Egypt. It was because of the MENA protests that they decided to start protesting again themselves, as expressed by their leaders specifically. Because of this, we have to include Iran in the list and this, thus, makes the name Arab world inappropriate for the article. SilverserenC 15:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Support The protests started in Tunisia, an Arab country, and has caused sweeping changes in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Syria, all Arab countries. The protests in the Arab World were very much influenced by the protests in Tunisia as Arab people in other Arab countries related themselves to Tunisians and watching the protests on Arab-speaking media helped ignite that feeling. That sort of connection was missing in the protests in Iran as Iran did have similar kinds of protests in the past before the Arab protests started and the recent Iranian protests were not as influenced by the Tunisian revolution as the rest of the Arab world protests. I propose separating this article into two: Arab world protests and Iranian protests.
  • Strong Support these protests are refered to, everywhere as the Arab world protests or the ARab spring, that's just what this is, yet for some reason, the whole article has to be re-named to include 1 totally irrelevant student protest in Tehran, which happened a month ago and for which practically no-one showed up. It is ridiculous how that has played such a big role in this article, yet protests in other North-African countries like Uganda and Ivory Coast and Senegal and even Somalia (which is part of the Arab League) have been filtered out, the protests in Turkey being totally ignored, but this Iranian thing has to be given major attention. This motivated by political bias and does not fit in the neutrality policies of Wikipedia.Kermanshahi (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I...suppose it would be inappropriate of me to mention anything about your *cough* obvious userpage. But, being the main contributor to the 2011 Iranian protests article, I can tell you that you are dead wrong about what occurred during the protests. First off, there were more than five major protests over the past month, with most having more than 100,000 people attending. The protests have been just as large, if not larger, than the election protests that occurred in 2009. SilverserenC 21:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. The protests are in general, Arab protests (no need to go into definitions of Arab). Hence the terms Arab Spring and Arab Revolutions (the Arabic page was recently renamed to this). I am for 2010–2011 Arab World protests or even Arab Revolutions (increasingly being used in the media).--Aa2-2004 (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support As an Arab, it saddens me to see Iran lumped with us just because they are the only non-Arab country in the MENA region. There's something about these protests that is inherently Arab, and as mentioned above, they did spread to countries beyond Iran. I go on Facebook groups about these revolutions, and there you meet a mix of Arabs from all backgrounds whether it's about Tunisia or Egypt or Libya or Yemen or Syria or Bahrain or Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, Iranian protests date back to 2009 and have just been given new inspiration by their neighbours' revolts. It also appears that Iranian Arabs are also trying to take advantage of this wave and jump on the bandwagon, with as little success as Shiites in Saudi Arabia, if not less. At any rate, I may be being a little too nationalist here, but even the media is referring to this as an Arab phenomenon. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Support We can seperate Arab World Protests and Iranian Protests if this move is accepted. Kavas (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose My concern is practical. Casual researchers who are interested in better understanding the conflicts and their relationships with each other, and who are not familiar with the nuances of Arab vs non-Arab, etc., need to have the broadest sense of the activities in the middle east. Iranian protests are significant, they are related to the other protests the region, and therefore we do a disservice by not including them. The page is intended to educate, and the context is the education about specific events, not about the distinctions between various ethnic groups. Beecher70 (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)(talk) 11:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC).

One Issue I would like share you friends,that we also claim that many Iranian people are of Arab origin. In fact one key revolution in Iran is that of AHWAZ or AHVAZ (Arabic term: احواز). Even though many of them are Shiia not Sunni, they are looking to separate back from Iran. --196.1.70.203 (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)(Abu Ahmad).--Nizarsh (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.1.70.203 (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That is an important point. Most protests in Iran have been in the Ahwaz region, which is mostly Arab. Another reason to rename to 2010–2011 Arab World protests or even Arab Revolutions.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The protests and revolutions are occurring in a region that is overwhelming composed of Arabs, with the only exception Iran. Even the media is usually referring this event as the Arab protests. I also support splitting this article into two: one for the Arab protests and revolutions, and the other for the Iranian protests. —Terrence and Phillip 23:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Support Googling "Arab Spring" gets you ~17 million results, and "2011 Arab protests" bring ~15 million results. Googling "2011 Middle East and North Africa protests" gets only 100k results. The most severe protests so far have been in Arab countries, and this is what it is being called in many places. Unflavoured (talk) 07:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Strong Support I agree with the supportive comments above. It should be renamed "2010–2011 Arab protests", "2010–2011 Arab revolutions", or "2010–2011 Arab Spring" --Tonemgub2010 (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Strong Oppose The focus might be on 'arab' people, but you can't just ignore the huge protests and killings in non-arab countries or by people in majority arab countries who don't consider themselves 'arab'. It might be a simpler title, but definately not a more accurate one. 87.194.68.101 (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this: "more accurate one" is not the Wikipedia policy. You are correct, since there are some non-Arab countries whose protests are within the scope of this article. However, "Arab Spring" or "Arab Protests" is what it is being called by most sources. On Wikipedia, "verifiability" trumps "correctness." You can find plenty of verifiable, reliable sources calling this "Arab Spring" or "Arab Protests," but not "North Africa and Middle East Protests," even though the latter is actually more accurate. Unflavoured (talk) 03:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I can see where you are coming from, but i disagree. Verifiability goes along with NPOV. Newspapers and TV might prefer 'arab spring' because it is a simpler phrase, but newspapers and TV aren't bound to NPOV. Any proper academic writing (ie. more reliable sources if we are talking 'verifiability') will acknowledge the wider-than-arab nature of these events. Also, you missed my point about protesting people in 'arab states' that might not call themselves arab (eg. Copts.). 87.194.68.101 (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Strong Oppose: These protests have affected countries that are either minority or majority Persian, Berber, Copt, Chaldean, Kurdish, Armenian, Azeri, Ethiopian, Somali, Turkmen, and Tuareg, among other non-Arab groups. We already note within the article the emphasis placed by media on the "Arab Spring". There's no need for us to endorse that rather narrow view by giving a giant middle finger to non-Arab groups involved in this revolutionary wave, nor for us to constrict its definition by assuming this is an Arab phenomenon in spite of overwhelming evidence that it is not. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: There is double standard that it was changed immediately for Iran, but not for Armenia and Azerbaijan. Everyone seems to think this is an Arab only thing anyway, so change the name back and put the remaining non-Arab countries in the Impact of 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests article. TL565 (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • VERY VERY STRONG SUPPORT: For the love of God, change it already. All major wikipedias are calling it "2010-2011 Arab World protests">

173.245.84.140 (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not the Great Arab Revolt or Second Arab Revolt to connect it with similar protests during the days of the Ottoman Empire. That too signaled a paradigm shift.

Revolutionary-STRONG Support! Oh, C'mon! Check all the 22 countries that encompass the "Arab World", arabs consist mostly >95% of the population. I believe it's the right thing to name. BESIDES, it's shorter and more convenient to refer to. Think of the bandwidth usage you'd spare! XD

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arab_Spring/Archive_8&oldid=1140571701"