This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I have posted live an extended Background section which explains the lead up to the unprecedented protests. I have improved upon the references, but this was my first time ever adding to a wikipedia article, and my references are not very clean. But I think the content is pretty neutral and to the point. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or improvements. I will do my best to improve, but any help is greatly appreciated since I am still learning how to do all this. Xacobi ( talk) 05:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I suggest Libya part should be out of "protest deaths" since protests went to civil war. That war migth get to much increased number of deaths, and would be strange to have "protests" with 10.000 deaths. So i suggest just to include deaths in first days of protests, all those numbers when protesters get machine guns and rockets should be counted as civil war deaths. -- 94.140.88.117 ( talk) 10:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
CNN, BBC, Reuters,...all stated it already as civil war. Also, it went far beyond protesting, so should be named to Civil war, but i know some medias dont support that because of policy. -- 94.140.88.117 ( talk) 19:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I had to point to this issue. As I see that the date issue is controversial, I would asume good faith as we discuss the issue, but what I cannot understand is the deletion of sourced content, or I can only understand it on terms of violation of Wikipedia policy. Some even had used the argument of consensus, when as long as I know there was never a consensus on erasing relevant sourced content giving information to an article. I even saw in the article false statements (intencionated or not), and they had not been erased as quickly as the sourced academical info I talk about.-- HCPUNXKID ( talk) 19:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
There should be a new colour for Algeria and Morocco; "Major reforms or concessions" or something like that in light of king's concessions in morocco and state of emergency revoking in algeria. It's also likely that we will see more of this sort of thing, as rulers try to preempt a revolt by introducing more democracy voluntarily. This is in many senses much more significant that "governmental changes" or such like as have occurred in jordan, oman. Also, west bank should be in blue. Nwe ( talk) 22:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
But don't you think that the concessions are the most significant event at this stage in algeria and morocco? I also think we should do this as a way of anticipating what's likely to come; arab leaders are scared shitless and this may lead to democracy in itself gradually. Remember how democracy came to most countries in europe; most didn't have revolutions, but the fear and possibility of a revolution in itself led to a restructuring of power in those countries. Nwe ( talk) 22:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you agree tho that West Bank should be blue and Morocco "( Moroccan police break up rally, hurt dozens-witness)" should be updated to Major? -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 18:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The Western Sahara entries in the two tables (Summary - currently removed - & Self-Immolation List) would need a flagicon, as all of the other countries have one. I know that this is a disputed territory so there are 4 options in my view:
Any thoughts? - ArnoldPlaton ( talk) 19:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I used the third one on Mohamed Lamine Ould Salek Ould Said Mahmoudi's section of that part of the article, but it was deleted. I used a Morocco flag only. It got deleted. I used a Western Sahara flag only. It got deleted. Mohamed Lamine Ould Salek Ould Said Mahmoudi needs a flagicon next to his name. What can we use?
I, for one, think the case depends on what the person was believed to be protesting. If it's the person is Sahrawi, but protesting Morocco's government only, then a Moroccan flag. If he's a Sahrawi and protesting Western Sahara issues, then a Western Sahara flag only. If she's a Sahrawi, but protesting both Sahrawi and Moroccan governments, then the hybrid, which should be made into a flagicon.
Now, I'm going to keep re-adding the Moroccan flagicon ( ) to Mohamed Lamine Ould Salek Ould Said Mahmoudi, until someone gives me a definitive reason why it should be the Sahrawi flag, the hybrid, or none. Because right now, people are just leaving him without one, and it's getting annoying. MAINEiac4434 ( talk) 19:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
User:HCPUNXKID has made some edits to the article removing the Western Sahara section from the Table and adding two tags (POV and Unbalanced) tho the Summary Table and the Overview, which I see as a bit of an overreaction. As I recall, the discussion regarding Western Sahara has been settled, and I feel this is an attempt to impose a minority POV. Chomsky's POV is stated in the Western Sahara subsection, while the article mantains the overall consensus of that the Wave of Protests were ignited by the self-imolation of Mohamed Bouazizi. Where's the big controversy? - ArnoldPlaton ( talk) 19:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Finally, I beg for some debate, only thing I read is recriminations, threats and avoiding any discussion ON THE FACTS. This is disgusting.-- HCPUNXKID ( talk) 19:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I have filed a report, based on user User:HCPUNXKID continuing to edit war. See here - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:HCPUNXKID. – Muboshgu ( talk) 21:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The information on the Timeline table is simply false, there are dozens of sources about precedent protests in W. Sahara, and even what happened in Dahkla was similar to the events in El Aaiun on late 2010. It also mixes Sahrawi protests on the territory, Moroccan protest on the territory and Sahrawi protest on the refugee camps, in Algeria. It draws a line between the Dakhla protests and the precedents, wich I aint seen anywhere else but here. If avoiding the W. Sahara events is wanted, ok, but dont made supposed divisions that no other source made.-- HCPUNXKID ( talk) 20:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
About flag - Western Sahara is a physical region and not an political entity - so it doesn't have a flag and a Template:Noflag should be used - when you refer to the physical region. If you refer to the Moroccan administration you should use Morocco flag and when you refer to SADR - you should use SADR flag.
About inclusion in the article - it depends. If the events there were protests against SADR administration of the Free Zone or against Morocco administration of the western part - then yes. If the events were part of the Sahrawi-independence-struggle-against-Morocco then Western Sahara War or something like this is more appropriate place.
So far, IMHO, the protests have more characteristics of 'people-against-governance-practices' than 'people-against-occupier' - so I think we should include these in the article (of course, if it's the opposite - then it should not be included). But usage of a flag is more complicated - while the protests are against Morocco authorities in the region using Morocco flag would imply that this is Moroccan territory - and this is disputed. Using SADR flag would imply that either this is SADR territory (but this is disputed) or that the protests are against SADR authorities in the Free zone (but I haven't seen any source suggesting such thing). So, I think that a 'noflag' is the best solution in this case. Alinor ( talk) 19:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4042870,00.html
please include it -- 78.2.52.249 ( talk) 18:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
in the last few weeks many of the protests seem to have ended. There doesn't seem to have been much activity in Iran or Algeria, for example, in over a month. I am not at all suggesting that we should be writing off the protests as finished, but I think it might be a good idea to rewrite many of the sections with a sense of finality. It is no longer useful for the Algerian section to end with a statement claiming that the Algerian Authorities might try to quiet their protests with their "oil and gas wealth", since, well, that hasn't happened and the protests there have peeered out. theBOBbobato ( talk) 21:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (I think those are the only two), it would help shed light on how they were able to keep their countries stabilized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.161.231 ( talk) 02:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
What is keeping these countries protest-free?-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 14:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The main reason for an absence of protests in Qatar and UAE is general satisfaction with the present governments. Unlike their neighbors where significant percentages of the populations hate or dislike the regimes, most Emiratis and most Qataris support their regimes. It's only a handful of intellectuals seeking democratic reform through dialogue in the UAE and total silence in Qatar. -- Smart30 ( talk) 00:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
How on earth can Armenia and Azerbaijan be described as non-UN members? I appreciate that this section is intended to broaden the scope of the article to protest regions not represented by by the arbitrary "Middle East and North Africa" article name, however, "non-UN" is simply nonsensical, not least because Armenia and Azerbaijan have been UN members since 1992, and additionally because, despite the summary section's description of "non-UN" as a "region", such an epithet is evidently neither informative nor beneficial.
Laika1097 ( talk) 23:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We need consensus as to whether Syria should be considered major or minor protests. A user unilaterally changed Syria to orange on the map and updated the table (but did not change the lead). We should compare Syria to other yellow and orange countries to determine whether or not orange is an appropriate classification. Let's get consensus on this. ZeLonewolf ( talk) 05:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Consensus - I'd say that's darn near unanimous. I'll update the map, hoping someone else can deal with the lead-in, table, and anything else in the article that needs modification. ZeLonewolf ( talk) 23:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Why was Libya moved down in the overview table to February 15 when the protests there began on January 13? That's the date that always used to be in the table. Jmj713 ( talk) 23:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I think an edit is needed on countries section. Let's rename it to "Summary by Location", move the Palestinian territories and Western Sahara there and get rid of the Somaliland and Northern Cyprus sections as they have nothing to do with this protest wave (they are part of other long-standing disputes). "Non UN Members" doesn't make sense as a section. ZeLonewolf ( talk) 14:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Here we go again... A user unilaterally changed the map to make Yemen blue for "governmental change" from "major protests" (which I have reverted for lack of consensus or sourcing). Is there any consensus for a change away from "major protests"? ZeLonewolf ( talk) 13:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The government was sacked, what argument is there for not changing it to blue? - 188.141.61.64 ( talk) 00:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I will note that a number of government officials in Bahrain as well as a few in Iraq have resigned as a result of unrest in their respective countries. We need to be sure that we are drawing an appropriate line between the two categories and make sure that line is consistent. Is the same government fundamentally still ruling Yemen? Or is it under new management? ZeLonewolf ( talk) 15:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I begin to think that the president of Yemen tried to do like Mubarak did and, like Mubarak, failed. Plus a good part of his military just defected. As such, I, for one, favor Yemen becoming a case of "uprising". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.80.242.93 ( talk) 18:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I am hearing that the entire cabinet was sacked? Can someone source it? I'd say that should qualify as government change. ZeLonewolf ( talk) 02:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Consensus - Sounds like we have it to me. I've made the change, let's make sure the rest of the article properly reflects it. ZeLonewolf ( talk) 13:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
A few hundred people were involved in Qatar's Feb. 28 incident... Ericl ( talk) 20:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Agregated some of the discussions regarding the name of the article - ArnoldPlaton ( talk) 20:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
No longer is the Middle East and North African world facing simple protests, but now it is facing, and already has faced, revolutions and a civil war which has been seen in Tunisia, Egypt, and most recently, Libya. It would be unfitting to keep referring to the wave of unrest as "protests" while three countries have taken the next step up from protests. Hence, this article's name should change the word "protests" to "unrest" which would accurately refer to protests, revolutions, and civil wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.104.248 ( talk) 16:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Gregorik is POV pushing and edit warring with regards to the article lead. It would be nice if they could instead seek consensus for their edits here. Rangoon11 ( talk) 20:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Palestine should be pale blue as it has had changes in its government due to the protests etc. this article states... "On 14 February, the Palestinian Authority's Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and his Cabinet submitted its resignations to President Abbas amid pan-Arab calls for reform. Abbas tasked him with forming a new government after consultations with other factions, institutions and civil society groups. The reshuffle was long demanded by Fayyad and some in Abbas's Fatah faction."-- Found5dollar ( talk) 00:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should we create a Category:2011 Bahraini protests subcategory? We currently have three articles for it, 2011 Bahraini protests , 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix and Pearl Roundabout... But with the inundation of Bahrain with Saudi police troops, that should change in the future. (such as an article about the Saudi operation in Bahrain) 65.95.13.139 ( talk) 05:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Since we seem to have a rough consensus, can an autoconfirmed user create the category an populate it with the four articles we've discussed here? 184.144.166.85 ( talk) 01:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to propose a better way to organize this article, though it's gonna take some work to do the reformatting and rewording of certain sections. Here is the article organization currently (last few sections ignored):
As it currently stands, this doesn't flow very well, and there's repetitive information in various sections. The countries section in particular is just a giant dumping ground, and it gives equal weight to, for example, Tunisia or Egypt as it does to Kuwait or Mauritania. So here's what I would recommend to fix readability and really make it come together:
I think this will make the article alot more understandable. It also puts the three biggest events (Tunisia/Egypt/Libya) right up front, rather than buried. ZeLonewolf ( talk) 13:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm working on the reorganization now. Please help with the editing. I fear there will be much angst as the article size gets cut down, however, YET AGAIN the article has gotten unwieldy. This article should be a summary and overview of the wave of unrest with specific timeline and detail information left to the individual country pages. ZeLonewolf ( talk) 03:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok...the major structure changes are complete. Some of the cutting was a bit painful, but I think necessary to get this article under control and save it from being a dumping ground for news reports. It still doesn't flow quite yet, in particular, the Tunisian Revolution section I think needs an overhaul. ZeLonewolf ( talk) 04:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Category:2011 Libyan War and subcategory up for discussion, see WP:CFDALL. 65.93.12.101 ( talk) 06:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Somalia is still clickable on the map, but does not leads to a missing section. — Moe ε 17:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
In the map Morocco is still signed as "Minor protests", but the King Mohammed VI announced his decision to undertake a comprehensive constitutional reform aimed at improving democracy and the rule of law, and underlined his "firm commitment to giving a strong impetus to the dynamic and deep reforms... taking place" on 9 March, so we should change the status "Minor protests" in "Governmental changes". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.93.242.137 ( talk) 17:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate that a number of separate name changes are presently being considered, however I believe that this proposal already has some community support and is a genuine way forward for this article. I have previously expressed my case for the name change, but will summarise in this section:
Laika1097 ( talk) 17:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Against - Why lower the status and individuality of these other Revolutions and Protests by implying they ONLY happened because of Tunisia? I vote no, strongly against any "wave" name.-- Smart30 ( talk) 21:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Against - Agree with User:Smart. - ArnoldPlaton ( talk) 16:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Against - For the above stated reasons. Czolgolz ( talk) 17:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - Smart's argument makes no sense to me. A title makes no such implication. This is a revolutionary wave, it was inspired by those in Tunisia, and it is an all-inclusive title, which the others are not. This is the best, most accurate title presented as an option thus far. Lara 17:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Against It may have been inspired by the Tunisian revolution but this is a diffrent battle that is unlike what happened in Tunisia. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Against - A revolutionary wave implies a wave of revolutions. I.e. a revolution in Tunisia caused very many other revolutions with it. As of now, only one country other than Tunisia has reached such a status, Egypt, with Libya still in rebellion. Perhaps something along the lines of "Tunisian Political Cascade" would suffice. -- Dalaru ( talk) 04:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Against - per Knowledgekid87 and others. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 12:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The problem with the current name is that it implies that this article is about ANY protest or unrest that occurs in the entire region, even if it is part of a long-standing dispute. Thus we are caught up debating all sorts of unrest that that is completely unrelated. Frankly, any name which does not somehow tie the article to the Tunisian origin has this problem. I support this name change as it would clarify that this article is about THIS revolutionary wave and not any of the other ordinary unrest happening within the MENA region. ZeLonewolf ( talk) 02:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
After weeks have passed since the name of this article was changed to MENA protests, only the minor protests in Iran was included while all the rest are happening in Arab countries. So, my question is, can anyone tell me why isn't this article called "2011 Arab world protests"? You can always add Iran to the "Impact" page, can't you? 69.31.51.101 ( talk) 02:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Can we please change the title of this article? This has moved far beyond "protests." Macarion ( talk) 13:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - Revolutions of 2011 is the name I suggest. -- Smart30 ( talk) 20:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
why you don't change it to Arab world protests , it's shorter !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.248.98.125 ( talk) 13:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests → 2010-2011 Greater Middle East protests — " Greater Middle East" might better describe these protests than " Middle East and North Africa" at this point, plus it's shorter. – Muboshgu ( talk) 01:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
.
IMO, I think something to the effect of "2010-2011 Tunisian Revolutionary Wave" would more accurately reflect what's going on here - a movement sparked by the Tunisia self-immolation. After all, the opener actually links to Revolutionary wave. ZeLonewolf ( talk) 02:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Laika1097 ( talk) 15:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests → 2010–2011 Middle East and Maghreb protests
What's the size of it? It absolutely bogs down and crashes my browser (Google Chrome, then I tried it with Firefox), which is a shame since I wanted to see what I could do to possibly help clean it up or fix some grammar/remove outdated info. Does this happen to anyone else? Or just me. Teafico ( talk) 19:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
"The 2010-2011 The Arab Protests are..." Two definite articles? Really? I would fix that but there's a load of scary comments in the article script so I don't want to touch anything in case I go against consensus. 86.6.193.43 ( talk) 12:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Any opinions on whether Saudi Arabia should be in the "impact" section (more important protest) rather than the "incident" section (less important protests)? As the almost unique recent editor of 2011 Saudi Arabian protests (along with, i think, a large number of watchers who revert blanking vandalism within minutes and silently (usually) double-check my edits), i should let others make that decision. The protests have been small - 100s to a few 1000s - and mostly only in Riyadh and in and near Qatif near Bahrain - but the pattern seems to be sustained and linked to the Bahraini protests. So far the authorities are just arresting protestors - about 50% of the 100 participants in a recent Qatif demo were arrested - and arrested a human rights organisation leader this week. The biggest result of the protests so far is probably that the government decided to no longer "delay" the second election in KSA history - a men-only election for half the local councils' members - and to hold it quickly (presumably in order to defuse protest energies into electoral politics). The newspapers' metaphor "simmering" is probably accurate. Boud ( talk) 21:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests → Arab Spring — Simpler
Oppose: it jst becuase something is simple doesnt mean its correct. the name we have is the most accurate and NPOV. -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 22:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, as per the following reasons regarding article title policy:
The name we have is long, but neutral and accurate. DerekMBarnes ( talk) 23:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The current map is confused. It currently tries to use a single method of presentation (color) to represent two different aspects: the level of success in the protests ("revolution" if the leadership falls or "governmental changes" if only partial changes are made) and the level of intensity in the protests ("armed conflict", "major protests", "minor protests" -- which is an arbitrary distinction).
I suggest that a new map be made, which will use color to represent the deathtoll (e.g. black for >1000 deaths, brown for 100-1000 deaths, red for 10-100 deaths, yellow for 1-10 deaths), and will use some symbols to depict the level of change succeeded.
This will avoid both the confusion, and the arbitrariness of dividing between "major" and "minor" protests. Aris Katsaris ( talk) 11:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's the alternate map I suggest we use. I just made it and uploaded it to wikimedia commons :
It tells you at a glance roughly how violent the transition was, what the outcome is, and whether there was a military intervention. Aris Katsaris ( talk)
I should also add up front that the current map color scheme was very carefully debated and is based on a long and excruciating process mostly revolving around color blindness. The color scheme you made will probably cause problems for some form of color blindness. ZeLonewolf ( talk) 02:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I have just created a template and legend that clarifies the colors and symbols of my map. You can see above. Aris Katsaris ( talk) 20:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I like the idea, and I don't find it too confusing. The map carries twice the information, which naturally tends to make maps more confusing. I think, however, that the added information is worth it, especially in light of the major/minor discussion. Moreover, I think the idea to use logos (crosshairs and flags) for topical information, and reserve colors (shades of brown) for quantitative information, is inherently intuitive. The single element I found most confusing was to remember the meaning of the colors of the flags. How about if flags got replaced with symbols that represent the result more intuitively? That would also have the advantage that it would work for color blind people. Just to start some brainstorming, here are some ideas off the top of my head: For "leadership overthrown", a sideways chess king or crown could be used. For "leader promises to not run for another term" a crossed out calendar leaf. "Governmental changes" is pretty vague (and sounds like it includes some of the above); that could remain a flag, or have different symbols for different changes. — Sebastian 04:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I have posted live an extended Background section which explains the lead up to the unprecedented protests. I have improved upon the references, but this was my first time ever adding to a wikipedia article, and my references are not very clean. But I think the content is pretty neutral and to the point. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or improvements. I will do my best to improve, but any help is greatly appreciated since I am still learning how to do all this. Xacobi ( talk) 05:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I suggest Libya part should be out of "protest deaths" since protests went to civil war. That war migth get to much increased number of deaths, and would be strange to have "protests" with 10.000 deaths. So i suggest just to include deaths in first days of protests, all those numbers when protesters get machine guns and rockets should be counted as civil war deaths. -- 94.140.88.117 ( talk) 10:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
CNN, BBC, Reuters,...all stated it already as civil war. Also, it went far beyond protesting, so should be named to Civil war, but i know some medias dont support that because of policy. -- 94.140.88.117 ( talk) 19:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I had to point to this issue. As I see that the date issue is controversial, I would asume good faith as we discuss the issue, but what I cannot understand is the deletion of sourced content, or I can only understand it on terms of violation of Wikipedia policy. Some even had used the argument of consensus, when as long as I know there was never a consensus on erasing relevant sourced content giving information to an article. I even saw in the article false statements (intencionated or not), and they had not been erased as quickly as the sourced academical info I talk about.-- HCPUNXKID ( talk) 19:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
There should be a new colour for Algeria and Morocco; "Major reforms or concessions" or something like that in light of king's concessions in morocco and state of emergency revoking in algeria. It's also likely that we will see more of this sort of thing, as rulers try to preempt a revolt by introducing more democracy voluntarily. This is in many senses much more significant that "governmental changes" or such like as have occurred in jordan, oman. Also, west bank should be in blue. Nwe ( talk) 22:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
But don't you think that the concessions are the most significant event at this stage in algeria and morocco? I also think we should do this as a way of anticipating what's likely to come; arab leaders are scared shitless and this may lead to democracy in itself gradually. Remember how democracy came to most countries in europe; most didn't have revolutions, but the fear and possibility of a revolution in itself led to a restructuring of power in those countries. Nwe ( talk) 22:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you agree tho that West Bank should be blue and Morocco "( Moroccan police break up rally, hurt dozens-witness)" should be updated to Major? -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 18:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The Western Sahara entries in the two tables (Summary - currently removed - & Self-Immolation List) would need a flagicon, as all of the other countries have one. I know that this is a disputed territory so there are 4 options in my view:
Any thoughts? - ArnoldPlaton ( talk) 19:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I used the third one on Mohamed Lamine Ould Salek Ould Said Mahmoudi's section of that part of the article, but it was deleted. I used a Morocco flag only. It got deleted. I used a Western Sahara flag only. It got deleted. Mohamed Lamine Ould Salek Ould Said Mahmoudi needs a flagicon next to his name. What can we use?
I, for one, think the case depends on what the person was believed to be protesting. If it's the person is Sahrawi, but protesting Morocco's government only, then a Moroccan flag. If he's a Sahrawi and protesting Western Sahara issues, then a Western Sahara flag only. If she's a Sahrawi, but protesting both Sahrawi and Moroccan governments, then the hybrid, which should be made into a flagicon.
Now, I'm going to keep re-adding the Moroccan flagicon ( ) to Mohamed Lamine Ould Salek Ould Said Mahmoudi, until someone gives me a definitive reason why it should be the Sahrawi flag, the hybrid, or none. Because right now, people are just leaving him without one, and it's getting annoying. MAINEiac4434 ( talk) 19:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
User:HCPUNXKID has made some edits to the article removing the Western Sahara section from the Table and adding two tags (POV and Unbalanced) tho the Summary Table and the Overview, which I see as a bit of an overreaction. As I recall, the discussion regarding Western Sahara has been settled, and I feel this is an attempt to impose a minority POV. Chomsky's POV is stated in the Western Sahara subsection, while the article mantains the overall consensus of that the Wave of Protests were ignited by the self-imolation of Mohamed Bouazizi. Where's the big controversy? - ArnoldPlaton ( talk) 19:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Finally, I beg for some debate, only thing I read is recriminations, threats and avoiding any discussion ON THE FACTS. This is disgusting.-- HCPUNXKID ( talk) 19:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I have filed a report, based on user User:HCPUNXKID continuing to edit war. See here - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:HCPUNXKID. – Muboshgu ( talk) 21:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The information on the Timeline table is simply false, there are dozens of sources about precedent protests in W. Sahara, and even what happened in Dahkla was similar to the events in El Aaiun on late 2010. It also mixes Sahrawi protests on the territory, Moroccan protest on the territory and Sahrawi protest on the refugee camps, in Algeria. It draws a line between the Dakhla protests and the precedents, wich I aint seen anywhere else but here. If avoiding the W. Sahara events is wanted, ok, but dont made supposed divisions that no other source made.-- HCPUNXKID ( talk) 20:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
About flag - Western Sahara is a physical region and not an political entity - so it doesn't have a flag and a Template:Noflag should be used - when you refer to the physical region. If you refer to the Moroccan administration you should use Morocco flag and when you refer to SADR - you should use SADR flag.
About inclusion in the article - it depends. If the events there were protests against SADR administration of the Free Zone or against Morocco administration of the western part - then yes. If the events were part of the Sahrawi-independence-struggle-against-Morocco then Western Sahara War or something like this is more appropriate place.
So far, IMHO, the protests have more characteristics of 'people-against-governance-practices' than 'people-against-occupier' - so I think we should include these in the article (of course, if it's the opposite - then it should not be included). But usage of a flag is more complicated - while the protests are against Morocco authorities in the region using Morocco flag would imply that this is Moroccan territory - and this is disputed. Using SADR flag would imply that either this is SADR territory (but this is disputed) or that the protests are against SADR authorities in the Free zone (but I haven't seen any source suggesting such thing). So, I think that a 'noflag' is the best solution in this case. Alinor ( talk) 19:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4042870,00.html
please include it -- 78.2.52.249 ( talk) 18:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
in the last few weeks many of the protests seem to have ended. There doesn't seem to have been much activity in Iran or Algeria, for example, in over a month. I am not at all suggesting that we should be writing off the protests as finished, but I think it might be a good idea to rewrite many of the sections with a sense of finality. It is no longer useful for the Algerian section to end with a statement claiming that the Algerian Authorities might try to quiet their protests with their "oil and gas wealth", since, well, that hasn't happened and the protests there have peeered out. theBOBbobato ( talk) 21:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (I think those are the only two), it would help shed light on how they were able to keep their countries stabilized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.161.231 ( talk) 02:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
What is keeping these countries protest-free?-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 14:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The main reason for an absence of protests in Qatar and UAE is general satisfaction with the present governments. Unlike their neighbors where significant percentages of the populations hate or dislike the regimes, most Emiratis and most Qataris support their regimes. It's only a handful of intellectuals seeking democratic reform through dialogue in the UAE and total silence in Qatar. -- Smart30 ( talk) 00:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
How on earth can Armenia and Azerbaijan be described as non-UN members? I appreciate that this section is intended to broaden the scope of the article to protest regions not represented by by the arbitrary "Middle East and North Africa" article name, however, "non-UN" is simply nonsensical, not least because Armenia and Azerbaijan have been UN members since 1992, and additionally because, despite the summary section's description of "non-UN" as a "region", such an epithet is evidently neither informative nor beneficial.
Laika1097 ( talk) 23:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We need consensus as to whether Syria should be considered major or minor protests. A user unilaterally changed Syria to orange on the map and updated the table (but did not change the lead). We should compare Syria to other yellow and orange countries to determine whether or not orange is an appropriate classification. Let's get consensus on this. ZeLonewolf ( talk) 05:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Consensus - I'd say that's darn near unanimous. I'll update the map, hoping someone else can deal with the lead-in, table, and anything else in the article that needs modification. ZeLonewolf ( talk) 23:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Why was Libya moved down in the overview table to February 15 when the protests there began on January 13? That's the date that always used to be in the table. Jmj713 ( talk) 23:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I think an edit is needed on countries section. Let's rename it to "Summary by Location", move the Palestinian territories and Western Sahara there and get rid of the Somaliland and Northern Cyprus sections as they have nothing to do with this protest wave (they are part of other long-standing disputes). "Non UN Members" doesn't make sense as a section. ZeLonewolf ( talk) 14:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Here we go again... A user unilaterally changed the map to make Yemen blue for "governmental change" from "major protests" (which I have reverted for lack of consensus or sourcing). Is there any consensus for a change away from "major protests"? ZeLonewolf ( talk) 13:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The government was sacked, what argument is there for not changing it to blue? - 188.141.61.64 ( talk) 00:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I will note that a number of government officials in Bahrain as well as a few in Iraq have resigned as a result of unrest in their respective countries. We need to be sure that we are drawing an appropriate line between the two categories and make sure that line is consistent. Is the same government fundamentally still ruling Yemen? Or is it under new management? ZeLonewolf ( talk) 15:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I begin to think that the president of Yemen tried to do like Mubarak did and, like Mubarak, failed. Plus a good part of his military just defected. As such, I, for one, favor Yemen becoming a case of "uprising". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.80.242.93 ( talk) 18:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I am hearing that the entire cabinet was sacked? Can someone source it? I'd say that should qualify as government change. ZeLonewolf ( talk) 02:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Consensus - Sounds like we have it to me. I've made the change, let's make sure the rest of the article properly reflects it. ZeLonewolf ( talk) 13:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
A few hundred people were involved in Qatar's Feb. 28 incident... Ericl ( talk) 20:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Agregated some of the discussions regarding the name of the article - ArnoldPlaton ( talk) 20:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
No longer is the Middle East and North African world facing simple protests, but now it is facing, and already has faced, revolutions and a civil war which has been seen in Tunisia, Egypt, and most recently, Libya. It would be unfitting to keep referring to the wave of unrest as "protests" while three countries have taken the next step up from protests. Hence, this article's name should change the word "protests" to "unrest" which would accurately refer to protests, revolutions, and civil wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.104.248 ( talk) 16:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Gregorik is POV pushing and edit warring with regards to the article lead. It would be nice if they could instead seek consensus for their edits here. Rangoon11 ( talk) 20:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Palestine should be pale blue as it has had changes in its government due to the protests etc. this article states... "On 14 February, the Palestinian Authority's Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and his Cabinet submitted its resignations to President Abbas amid pan-Arab calls for reform. Abbas tasked him with forming a new government after consultations with other factions, institutions and civil society groups. The reshuffle was long demanded by Fayyad and some in Abbas's Fatah faction."-- Found5dollar ( talk) 00:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should we create a Category:2011 Bahraini protests subcategory? We currently have three articles for it, 2011 Bahraini protests , 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix and Pearl Roundabout... But with the inundation of Bahrain with Saudi police troops, that should change in the future. (such as an article about the Saudi operation in Bahrain) 65.95.13.139 ( talk) 05:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Since we seem to have a rough consensus, can an autoconfirmed user create the category an populate it with the four articles we've discussed here? 184.144.166.85 ( talk) 01:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to propose a better way to organize this article, though it's gonna take some work to do the reformatting and rewording of certain sections. Here is the article organization currently (last few sections ignored):
As it currently stands, this doesn't flow very well, and there's repetitive information in various sections. The countries section in particular is just a giant dumping ground, and it gives equal weight to, for example, Tunisia or Egypt as it does to Kuwait or Mauritania. So here's what I would recommend to fix readability and really make it come together:
I think this will make the article alot more understandable. It also puts the three biggest events (Tunisia/Egypt/Libya) right up front, rather than buried. ZeLonewolf ( talk) 13:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm working on the reorganization now. Please help with the editing. I fear there will be much angst as the article size gets cut down, however, YET AGAIN the article has gotten unwieldy. This article should be a summary and overview of the wave of unrest with specific timeline and detail information left to the individual country pages. ZeLonewolf ( talk) 03:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok...the major structure changes are complete. Some of the cutting was a bit painful, but I think necessary to get this article under control and save it from being a dumping ground for news reports. It still doesn't flow quite yet, in particular, the Tunisian Revolution section I think needs an overhaul. ZeLonewolf ( talk) 04:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Category:2011 Libyan War and subcategory up for discussion, see WP:CFDALL. 65.93.12.101 ( talk) 06:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Somalia is still clickable on the map, but does not leads to a missing section. — Moe ε 17:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
In the map Morocco is still signed as "Minor protests", but the King Mohammed VI announced his decision to undertake a comprehensive constitutional reform aimed at improving democracy and the rule of law, and underlined his "firm commitment to giving a strong impetus to the dynamic and deep reforms... taking place" on 9 March, so we should change the status "Minor protests" in "Governmental changes". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.93.242.137 ( talk) 17:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate that a number of separate name changes are presently being considered, however I believe that this proposal already has some community support and is a genuine way forward for this article. I have previously expressed my case for the name change, but will summarise in this section:
Laika1097 ( talk) 17:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Against - Why lower the status and individuality of these other Revolutions and Protests by implying they ONLY happened because of Tunisia? I vote no, strongly against any "wave" name.-- Smart30 ( talk) 21:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Against - Agree with User:Smart. - ArnoldPlaton ( talk) 16:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Against - For the above stated reasons. Czolgolz ( talk) 17:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - Smart's argument makes no sense to me. A title makes no such implication. This is a revolutionary wave, it was inspired by those in Tunisia, and it is an all-inclusive title, which the others are not. This is the best, most accurate title presented as an option thus far. Lara 17:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Against It may have been inspired by the Tunisian revolution but this is a diffrent battle that is unlike what happened in Tunisia. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Against - A revolutionary wave implies a wave of revolutions. I.e. a revolution in Tunisia caused very many other revolutions with it. As of now, only one country other than Tunisia has reached such a status, Egypt, with Libya still in rebellion. Perhaps something along the lines of "Tunisian Political Cascade" would suffice. -- Dalaru ( talk) 04:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Against - per Knowledgekid87 and others. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 12:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The problem with the current name is that it implies that this article is about ANY protest or unrest that occurs in the entire region, even if it is part of a long-standing dispute. Thus we are caught up debating all sorts of unrest that that is completely unrelated. Frankly, any name which does not somehow tie the article to the Tunisian origin has this problem. I support this name change as it would clarify that this article is about THIS revolutionary wave and not any of the other ordinary unrest happening within the MENA region. ZeLonewolf ( talk) 02:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
After weeks have passed since the name of this article was changed to MENA protests, only the minor protests in Iran was included while all the rest are happening in Arab countries. So, my question is, can anyone tell me why isn't this article called "2011 Arab world protests"? You can always add Iran to the "Impact" page, can't you? 69.31.51.101 ( talk) 02:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Can we please change the title of this article? This has moved far beyond "protests." Macarion ( talk) 13:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - Revolutions of 2011 is the name I suggest. -- Smart30 ( talk) 20:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
why you don't change it to Arab world protests , it's shorter !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.248.98.125 ( talk) 13:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests → 2010-2011 Greater Middle East protests — " Greater Middle East" might better describe these protests than " Middle East and North Africa" at this point, plus it's shorter. – Muboshgu ( talk) 01:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
.
IMO, I think something to the effect of "2010-2011 Tunisian Revolutionary Wave" would more accurately reflect what's going on here - a movement sparked by the Tunisia self-immolation. After all, the opener actually links to Revolutionary wave. ZeLonewolf ( talk) 02:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Laika1097 ( talk) 15:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests → 2010–2011 Middle East and Maghreb protests
What's the size of it? It absolutely bogs down and crashes my browser (Google Chrome, then I tried it with Firefox), which is a shame since I wanted to see what I could do to possibly help clean it up or fix some grammar/remove outdated info. Does this happen to anyone else? Or just me. Teafico ( talk) 19:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
"The 2010-2011 The Arab Protests are..." Two definite articles? Really? I would fix that but there's a load of scary comments in the article script so I don't want to touch anything in case I go against consensus. 86.6.193.43 ( talk) 12:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Any opinions on whether Saudi Arabia should be in the "impact" section (more important protest) rather than the "incident" section (less important protests)? As the almost unique recent editor of 2011 Saudi Arabian protests (along with, i think, a large number of watchers who revert blanking vandalism within minutes and silently (usually) double-check my edits), i should let others make that decision. The protests have been small - 100s to a few 1000s - and mostly only in Riyadh and in and near Qatif near Bahrain - but the pattern seems to be sustained and linked to the Bahraini protests. So far the authorities are just arresting protestors - about 50% of the 100 participants in a recent Qatif demo were arrested - and arrested a human rights organisation leader this week. The biggest result of the protests so far is probably that the government decided to no longer "delay" the second election in KSA history - a men-only election for half the local councils' members - and to hold it quickly (presumably in order to defuse protest energies into electoral politics). The newspapers' metaphor "simmering" is probably accurate. Boud ( talk) 21:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests → Arab Spring — Simpler
Oppose: it jst becuase something is simple doesnt mean its correct. the name we have is the most accurate and NPOV. -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 22:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, as per the following reasons regarding article title policy:
The name we have is long, but neutral and accurate. DerekMBarnes ( talk) 23:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The current map is confused. It currently tries to use a single method of presentation (color) to represent two different aspects: the level of success in the protests ("revolution" if the leadership falls or "governmental changes" if only partial changes are made) and the level of intensity in the protests ("armed conflict", "major protests", "minor protests" -- which is an arbitrary distinction).
I suggest that a new map be made, which will use color to represent the deathtoll (e.g. black for >1000 deaths, brown for 100-1000 deaths, red for 10-100 deaths, yellow for 1-10 deaths), and will use some symbols to depict the level of change succeeded.
This will avoid both the confusion, and the arbitrariness of dividing between "major" and "minor" protests. Aris Katsaris ( talk) 11:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's the alternate map I suggest we use. I just made it and uploaded it to wikimedia commons :
It tells you at a glance roughly how violent the transition was, what the outcome is, and whether there was a military intervention. Aris Katsaris ( talk)
I should also add up front that the current map color scheme was very carefully debated and is based on a long and excruciating process mostly revolving around color blindness. The color scheme you made will probably cause problems for some form of color blindness. ZeLonewolf ( talk) 02:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I have just created a template and legend that clarifies the colors and symbols of my map. You can see above. Aris Katsaris ( talk) 20:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I like the idea, and I don't find it too confusing. The map carries twice the information, which naturally tends to make maps more confusing. I think, however, that the added information is worth it, especially in light of the major/minor discussion. Moreover, I think the idea to use logos (crosshairs and flags) for topical information, and reserve colors (shades of brown) for quantitative information, is inherently intuitive. The single element I found most confusing was to remember the meaning of the colors of the flags. How about if flags got replaced with symbols that represent the result more intuitively? That would also have the advantage that it would work for color blind people. Just to start some brainstorming, here are some ideas off the top of my head: For "leadership overthrown", a sideways chess king or crown could be used. For "leader promises to not run for another term" a crossed out calendar leaf. "Governmental changes" is pretty vague (and sounds like it includes some of the above); that could remain a flag, or have different symbols for different changes. — Sebastian 04:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)