Talk:Arab Spring

Rename the thing

With the Government of Tunisia having fallen and Egypt's about to (Mubarak publically fired everybody, but that's not going to satisfy anyone), it might be wise to change this to Arab revolutions of 2010-11.Ericl (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that's extremely premature. Jmj713 (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I also think that "revolutions" is premature, but I would suggest "upgrading" the article to "2010-2011 Arab World uprisings", which would certainly fit better as of now than just "protests". --Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

So far all the individual articles carry the "protests" name except Tunisia. I think it's fine as it is. Maybe, however, lowercase "world". Jmj713 (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The article Arab world uses the lowercase world. I think that this article should also lowercase world in its title.--Pengyanan (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

definately premature, even the tunisia article (the precursor) has no consensus on that yet.(Lihaas (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).

What about "The Great Arab Revolt of 2010-2011"? It connects with similar region-changing events back during WWI that broke Ottoman control of the Arab World, so perhaps it would fit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.172.228.44 (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Not unless it gets that name as time moves on. The generic name we have now is fine. Jmj713 (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.currentintelligence.net/gulfstream/2011/1/31/the-great-arab-revolution-and-the-gulf-states.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.172.228.44 (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait 12 months and then let's see. Meanwhile, check out WP:NAME. For the moment we have a descriptive name. Getting a "widely used historian's" name could require waiting 5-10 years, at least. Compare to the 1848 West European and 1989 Central/East European domino-revolution-chains and see what Wikipedia names we have for them. Boud (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

They're the "Revolutions of 1848" and "Revolutions of 1989" respectively (no mention of their geographic location at all...how's that for Eurocentrism!) Nevertheless, the latter were all actually successful at overturning governments / political systems, and the former were initially successful before (mostly) being crushed or coopted, so it's best to wait, for sure. Cjs2111 (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

In light of the major protests in Tehran I would change it to islamic world protests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.149.186 (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The word "protest" more fully includes the political situation and intention of all parties discussed in this article. Using "uprising" suggests a violent intention to overthrow governments, which is highly disconnected from all given situations. The only change necessary is the capitalization of "world" and "protests" for "Arab World Protests" as a title.Zachomis (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the new name of the article, since there are major protest now in Tehran. Since the "Arab world" does not include Iran, the current title is appropriate. 128.227.41.144 (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Iran is not Arab. This title suffices. Although it doesn't roll off the tongue easily 173.33.166.58 (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd also vote for renaming it more inclusively: "2010–2011 Islamic world protests" Frimmin (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Frimmin

Sultan of Oman

There were no outcomes of oman's protests. The sultan didnt plan to go India. The credibility of source is weak, which claims to sultan having wives. I will delete the outcomes. GM25LIVE (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The sultan of oman did plan to head to India in the month of February. Both the newspapers are one of the most well read in India, and above that - the wives thign is obviously wrong - was outrageous for me too - but thats a totally different thing. Jodhpur authorities; ummaid bhavan officials as well Diwan of Royal court employees have confirmed it about the visit! And if you really care about Oman's local media referring about this trip.....did the local media even highlight egyptian protests!?? The Guardian went on to seriously criticise Omani state-controlled media for its neglect of the topic to ward off dissent! SO PLEASE - FORGET ABOUT "LOCAL MEDIA OF OMAN" Pranav21391 —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for responding. I looked in the newspaper's articles and I tried to look for a source for their contribution but I really didn't find where get their information from. Frankly, I don't know or care if the newspapers in India usually publish a false statements or news such as saying that the Sultan of Oman is married to several women and he is a "King". As for Jodhpur authorities, ummaid bhavan officials and Diwan of Royal court employees confirming the visit, I looked and goggled over the internet and I didn't find any confirmation about the visit. In fact, I only found these two of "one of the most well read newspaper in India" saying about the trip and again without giving a reliable source. As for the Omani Local Media, first I don't know why your telling me about the media highlighting Egyptian protests. Its called Oman "Local" Media not World news. The Omani local media always report if the Sultan is planning to have a major trip to another country and clearly the Guardian criticism on Omani state-controlled media have nothing to do with this subject and if there was so, why the Omani authorities want to hide a friendly trip that Sultan having to India?? Simply because there is no such thing.

If you have a reliable source saying that Jodhpur authorities, ummaid bhavan officials and Diwan of Royal court employees confirming the visit. Please share it with us, otherwise just don't. GM25LIVE (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

this link http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Egypt-fallout-Oman-ruler-postpones-India-trip/articleshow/7518853.cms And this guys is perhaps the most read ENGLISH daily in the "WORLD" - it shows the care they have taken to write the article - doing some research and not mentioning the "wives" HAPPY NOW!? I have friends working in the Diwan of royal court....they confirmed this with me when they came to India.... 2nd.... AL Jazeera reported about the attempted coup attempt in muscat in November 2010 by UAE....in the last weeks of January 2011 that also titled as "UAE SPY NETWORK"..-- and anyone in muscat at that time would have seen the heightened security, police cars, and confirmed reports from internal sources - hence the sultan even cancelled off his GCC visit - let me guess u guys dont know about this either i am posting the stuff back! ...u really think omani media and information is that easy to rely on!?? We love the Sultan, but that doesnt mean he stops caring about his neighbors and continues his trip! PranavJ 10:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I agree. The source of Times of India is reliable. It shows right statments and true information. Thats what Wikipedia needs, a reliable source. Thanks GM25LIVE (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Article move discussion: 2010–2011 Arab world protests → 2010–2011 Middle East protests

2010–2011 Arab world protests → 2010–2011 Middle East protests —

• As the article notes, there have been concurrent and similar protest actions in Europe and even South America. Iran may be just about to join in. All have been linked at least to some degree with the protests in Egypt and Tunisia, to a more significant degree than, say, the minor protests in Libya have. Should this article be expanded to something more general than "Arab world" protests, either now or after the scheduled Iranian demonstrations, at the least? Cjs2111 (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
• I concur. Nobody can be sure that this is an Arab phenomenon only. We live in the globalisation age.--78.3.216.50 (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

think we should wait to see if the other protests expand. With Iran we could call it "ME protests" or something, with the others we need to see possible names.Lihaas (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Why was the article re-named? Countries such as Algeria and Tunisia are in the Maghreb and North Africa...but they are not in the Middle East! Vis-a-visconti (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Please note: Some edits occurred just after the move that allowed 2010–2011 Arab world protests and 2010–2011 Middle East protests to exist separately. I have reverted this former back to a redirect to prevent a messy divergence. Please be aware of this in any future moves. --Natural R_X 18:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

agree with Vis-a-visconti the move was wholly unilateral and the mover didnt even discuss it. He has alo purely WP:Crystal Balled. there is no reason for the move. Arab world is the accated normLihaas (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I also strongly oppose this article move, by Vis-a-visconti's arguments. Should there be consensus that Iran should be included, we'd better rename it Muslim world protests which would include both Tunisia and Iran. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You could always just drop the location modifier entirely and just call it 2010-2011 political protests. Ocaasi (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Since when do we move articles, and then have a discussion about moving it. WTF. Jmj713 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Even though I've edited the article some since it was moved (copyediting is all), I also oppose the move until consensus has been reached. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The move makes the article title deceiving. The protests encompass much of the Arab World, which includes the Middle East. It's best to move the article back to the previous title unless they're being split. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose — The protests have thus far been largely isolated to the Arab world, not the Middle East as a whole. Even if they did spread to other countries like Iran, I would recommend covering it on an entirely different article. Master&Expert (Talk) 20:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Reasons:
  1. procedural: a heavily edited page should not be moved without first getting consensus on the talk page unless the move is extremely non-controversial;
  2. content: the first revolution occurred in Tunisia, which is not part of the traditional definition of the Middle East, it's only a part of the Greater Middle East, which also includes Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, etc.
  3. RS: we would need most WP:RS's to claim that the networking/cultural/regional aspect of this is better defined as "Greater Middle East" rather than "Arab world"; AFAIK RS's have generally described this as an "Arab world" phenomenon
  4. length: the page is long enough as it is; if there is justification for a wider geographical region page, e.g. 2010–2011 African-European-Asian protests, then a summary of this page can constitute one section of that new page.
• (As of 21:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC), someone has already reverted back to "Arab world", but i'm commenting anyway.) Boud (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose another more generic article should be built to cover other regions. Expansion to "Middle East" still would not cover the points mentioned in the rationale (ie. Europe is still not part of the Middle East). This article is relatively tight in orientation since all these locations speak Arabic, and can be linked with the Al-Jazeera inspired protests following Tunisia. Those regions outside the coverage area are a secondary expansion (such as Iran, Serbia, etc) should be covered in a more generic article. Say 2011 anti-despotism protests in oppressed regions or whatever. 64.229.101.183 (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment the protests in Europe, S America, Africa etc seem relatively minor at the moment. Most of the issue here focuses on Iran, and whether use of the term Middle East would make sense or make Tunisia, for example, an outlier. Greater Middle East has been suggested as an alternative, but a less cumbersome (and more often used) term that should work is MENA. The new article would be titled something like 2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa protests. It could even be a separate meta article, with Arab world protests existing as an independent entity if people determine there are too many common links between the Arab countries not present in the Iranian protests to not have extensive commentary on them - though I don't really think that's the case. Cjs2111 (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - No need, for now. The Scythian 22:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose As of when has Tunisia, Morocco, Lybia and Algeria been classified as being part of the Middle East? Even the concept of Greater Middle East isn't widely employed, so I fail to see the merit.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Move to Protests of 2010–2011 or something similar. We don't know where this current wave of protests will spread, and if we avoid any geographical identifiers now, we won't have to argue about them in the future if a revolution somehow breaks out in (say) South America. This nomenclature is also consistent with articles like Revolutions of 1989 and Revolutions of 1848 (note that the latter was limited to Europe). Ucucha 04:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Labattblueboy's reasoning. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, the demos primarily Arab demos.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Iran is not part of the Arab world

Whatever your definition of the Arab world is, Iran is not included. Therefore, Iran should be removed from the table. Iran has a Arabic-speaking minority, but so does Israel, yet we do not consider Israel part of the Arab World.99.35.48.66 (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The article specifically has Iran in the section with other countries labeled as "outside the Arab world". These countries are still having protests as a result of the protests inside the Arab world, though it is clearly defined that they are outside of it. I don't see the issue. Silverseren^C 23:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I mean the "Overview" table. Not by "Outside the Arab world". In the table I was specifically taking about, Iran is included, even though that table is for Arab world protests. Therefore I think Iran should be removed. 99.35.48.66 (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not see why there should even be an "Outside the Arab World" element to this article. The Scythian 20:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That's true. First, we need to split off the article into Arab world and non Arab world protests, which we are working on. Silverseren^C 00:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Does it really matter which of these protests are Arab and which are not? Isn't there a more common thread between them than ethnicity, namely political discontent with authoritarian regimes? Why not just use a more inclusive category? Ocaasi (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes it does. What is taking place in Iran was not "inspired" by what took place in Egypt. Very much the opposite, in fact. Both sides of the protests in Iran are claiming to support what happened in Egypt. It is absurd, but that is the only reason Iran should be mentioned. Other than a passing statement in the article, what is taking place in Iran belongs in a separate article, which already exists. The Scythian 20:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Current events is flexible. Just because it is called "Arab world protests" now doesn't mean it can't be expanded (nifty little move page). From what I know, those protesters were inspired by the events in Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, and Yemen. Seems like a pretty clear link to me.

• Perhaps then we should move it to an article called "2011 Middle East Protests." That would make more sense. The Scythian 20:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Refusal to include Iran is akin to, for example, if Wikipedia was around back when Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated and we refused to expand the scope to include its effect on starting WWI. Of course, this is all my own opinion.--haha169 (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I will be honest, I agree, but let's hypothetically pretend that in China, they decide to overthrow Hu Jintao. They will say that they were inspired what happened in Tunisia and Egypt (like in Iran), so does that mean they should be in the article? I say no, since China is NOT in the Arab world. Unless you want to change the article to "2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa protests", I keep my opinion that Iran should be removed from the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.35.48.66 (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, if this happens in China, then the protests will have gone worldwide similarly to how an assassination in Sarajevo turned into a worldwide conflict. --haha169 (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps '2010-2011 Pro-democracy protests' would be a more descriptive name. Flatterworld (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

@Haha - So, by your rationale, the 2009 riots in China should be included in the article with the 2009 protests in Iran? The Scythian 20:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed Iran from the lead. Iran should not be part of this article's lead, this is misleading, and would fuel popular misconception Iran is an Arab country. Kurdo777 (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Just a thought, perhaps thae article should be more mid-east/north african themed rather than arab world. Or possibly Islamic world? It does seem that most of this is occuring in heavily Islamic nations --134.129.144.241 (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Iran added to the map?

I think Iran needs to be included in the map/discussion of the arab world protest--there are clearly some significant protests going on and they are definitely involved in this wave of revolt and revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.43.189.89 (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

..orange--78.2.29.139 (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not Arab. Chesdovi (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If not arab, with Muslim tradition. Iran must be include. This is the country with the biggest demonstrations, protests and resistence to the (political) police. --147.84.132.44 (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Iran should be removed completely from the article, the links, the external links, see also, .... The things happening in Iran are different (started differently, caused differently, aims differently). We should avoid wp:synth. Xashaiar (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Iranian protests have been periodic for at least the last 4 years. Protests in Iran should have it's own separate article. 72.14.228.129 (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• I concur, and since there is consensus, I am going to go ahead and remove the map. This is an article on the "Arab World, and not the Middle East. Someone can re-load the map without Iran, or when the article name replaces "Arab" with "Middle East." The Scythian 21:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have reverted the removal of the map. I assume it wasn't you that did it, since it appears it was another editor, but whatever. If you actually looked, you would see that there are currently discussions going on on this page in order to rename this article to include the countries that are having protests outside the Arab world, such as Iran. In light of this, please don't remove such info from the article, as we are going to end up just changing the name and keeping the content. Silverseren^C 21:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• I did look, and see your talk page. I left you a note. The Scythian 21:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• I read through and have actively taken part in the discussion. A better map exists and is being used, and there is consensus to use it. Now stop re-adding the older map, if you don't mind. The Scythian 21:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Page move

Watching this debate play out every time a template gets added is wasting a ton of time, so I changed the name per the discussion above. It's not perfect, but I think it's an improvement. Iran is not Arab, and the affected region is continually expanding. We may have to eventually just change it to 'global pro-democracy protests' or something like that, but for now I think this will avoid problems. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

a bit quick for the move, the non-Arab protests are still minor at this point (iran's seems to be growing granted but we have to see the scope of that). We also need to chang eother things like the map to reflect the new article and the lead and infobox need to match please.Lihaas (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"Middle East" is euro centric terminology, "2010–2011 North Africa and Western Asia protests" would be better. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous name. I think we should have stuck with "Arab World protests" even if we risked offending Iranians. You can argue Iran is not part of the Arab world but the cause and effect of these protests are still largely contained within the Arab world. If a protest started in Tonga as a result of solidarity with Egypt, we can still include that in the article as part of the section "effects outside of the Middle East" or "effects outside of the Arab World". I.e., the name itself does not have to be strictly inclusive of every single country that has been affected by the protests, if the essence of the protests are still limited within a region (here, the ME, Arab World, or Muslim world, but most certainly NOT "Western Asia and North Africa"). It seems to me the only reason we have compromised on the terribly awkward name is Iran and Iran alone. Also, I disagree that "Middle East" is "eurocentric". It is the term widely used in the English language, even by the Middle Easterners themselves, to describe the region. This is political-correctness and pedantics gone amok. Colipon+(Talk) 20:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You can risk offending no one, and can be technically much more accurate, by simply renaming the article to "2011 Protests & Riots in the Middle East." The Scythian 21:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Current title is fine. Since the current title includes Iran, it should stay as it is. 128.227.41.144 (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The article, as it stands, specifically talks about protests in the Arab World. Iran's protests are linked to in the "concurrent protests outside the Arab World" section. Either the article is renamed back to the original, or Iran is included in the body of the text. I would vote for keeping the article as it is, and renaming it back to Arab World protests, but do not have great objection to the inclusion of Iran. --Fjmustak (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The "concurrent protests outside the Arab World" section also has Albania, Serbia, Bolivia, Bangladesh, so Iran fits there with them, "2010–2011 Arab world protests" is probably the best name. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

there was no consensus for the current incarnation, the Middle East and North Africa had consensus. (and its not my opinion as i was against the gran of consensus) we get consensus TEHN move, not th other way around. please get consenssu first.Lihaas (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see the above discussions before I moved it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

'2010–2011 North Africa and Western Asia protests' would seem a very odd title indeed to most English speakers in North America, South Africa and Australasia as well as Europe, where Middle East is a very well established name. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The current title is accurate, non-biased, and extremely unfamiliar. But it solves the "Arab" problem. Given the growing scope of the protests, it very well might make sense to avoid geographical terms entirely and just go with 2010-2011 global democracy protests; something like that. Ocaasi (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What in the love of crap's name is going on with this article? It not revolutions nor is it "pro-democracy" protests. Bahrain wants reforms, Yemen wants Saleh's ouster. (nothing about a change in governing structure). Other countries mention nothing. This is pov/synthesis. the region based name was best and by consensus.--Lihaas (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest move protection be put in place until a consensus is formed this is crazy. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we please stop the ping-pong moving? Jmj713 (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved Iran

Moved Iran from "Protest outside the region" category to "Countries". The current title would include Iran under the region of the protest, so I believe this move was appropriate. 128.227.41.144 (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup, good move. Ocaasi (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent...The Scythian 22:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Reasons for/against each title

Let's leave this where it is as of my writing this until we all agree on a new home accounting for 100% technical accuracy, yeah! Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

MerrillStubing, you had no right to delete an ongoing vote on the title. Nobody died and made you king. If you don't know how to work with others, you may find yourself banned. Consider this your official First Warning. Some of us are getting sick and tired of trying to work towards a consensus and then finding you're wildly deleting discussions and claiming you're 'being bold'. Go read the Wikipedia guidelines. Flatterworld (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

restoring,..--Lihaas (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but now 'Knowledgekid87' has decided to 'be bold' and archive it, so we can no longer use it as a summary of the discussions going on below. And of course it was first reverted so it's an out-of-date version - how useful, right? So much for Assume Good Faith - the entire discussion today has been nothing but "I know! Let's start ANOTHER section so we can keep everyone confused! Anything to avoid getting to a consensus!" This has not been Wikipedia's finest moment. Flatterworld (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

A summary of what? You and me can both count the amount of For and againt's here and this shouldnt be tallied as a vote but rather a discussion and the strength or weakness of the arguements. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that all you wanted to do (same as everyone else, apparently) was start your own little 'voting section' - which you've now done, and for which you have one (1) supporter. Congratulations. Flatterworld (talk) 16:35, 16 February 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.

---

Closed discussion per WP:VOTE get a consenses on this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Re-Closed Discussion, I have no problem with the consensus reaching below but there is no reason to keep a vote here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

How about...let's leave it as is until we have a vote. The redirects are getting too much. First, are these the only two options or is there support for any others?

A. 2010-2011 Pro-democracy protests

B. 2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa protests

C. 2010-2011 East Asian and North Africa protests

D. 2010-2011 Populist protests

E. 2010-2011 Arab world protests

F. 2010-2011 Great Middle East protests

• A Flatterworld (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• D for technical Accuracy. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• E Personally, I prefer the original name. Jmj713 (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• B Loro-rojo (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• B This should not be a vote, and more titles can be thought up than just these two. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• E although b is cetainly better than the rest--Lihaas (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• E major events take place in Arab countries, and this is what most reliable sources are using  Cs32en Talk to me  23:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

A. 2010-2011 Pro-democracy protests

For: technically more accurate. Global in nature. Against: 100% of them (but most!) are not pro-democracy. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Against: is pov/syntheis on wikipedia editors. im sure the mubarak fans have their own idea of democracy nmever mind what others think (elections sdid exist). see the al jazeera article on the "elitE" who support mubarak.--Lihaas (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Against: Protests outside of the MENA/MIddle East are NOT AT ALL related to the Middle East/Arab World/MENA protests. (if you must, then create a separate article for other countries) - 206.126.56.131 (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Against The demands are broader than democracy. In particular, people are protesting against corruption, a rise in the prices of food and other basic needs, and against economic injustices. The name "Pro-democracy protest" just highlights the one aspect that appears to be most compatible with how Western government prefer to see the protests. While some media may have chosen to describe the protests as "pro-democracy", most do not use that as a definition. CNN, for example, referred to the protest in Egypt as "Uprising in Egypt", then to "Revolution in Egypt". Arguable, the situation is much more fluid with regard to the varied protest in the different countries of the region, but that, to me, rather suggest to choose a more generic, and indeed less specific, name.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Strong against - same reason as User above. "Democracy protests" reflects a poor understanding of the whole situation and is overtly ideological. I don't believe the earlier protests to be ideology driven and bent on "democracy" per se, even if the character of the protests has evolved to something akin to that. Colipon+(Talk) 23:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Against Not Accurate and too vauge, also per above - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

For: Less subjective, more flexible, more reflective of the reality (as is actually described in the article itself). Rangoon11 (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Against: This is incredibly vague and not descriptive at all toward what we're talking about. They are not all pro-democracy, they are all reformist. Just using the term democracy in reference to this sounds incredibly POV. Silverseren^C 23:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Against — It remains yet to be seen if the protestors are rallying for greater influence over government (although I suspect they are). Regardless, the title of major revolutionary movements should include the year (or years) of occurrence and the country (or countries) in which it has occurred. This particular unrest is best described as "Arab World protests", while Iran is better covered in a separate article altogether. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Against to add to the reasons above, many of these countries already have democratic elements (see Politics of Bahrain for example) but the protests are pressing for reforms. And to echo above sentiment, economic and anti-corruption rationales are a more clearly articulated driver in many of these situations than democracy, specifically. Cjs2111 (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Against after reading the comments above. Obviously the term has been totally (and perhaps purposely) misinterpreted, so there's no point in using it if it's just going to be used as an excuse to get people all ginned up with anger and hate so they can insist 'Westerners' are insulting them. Unbelievable. Flatterworld (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

B. 2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa protests

For: more familiar, what this was originally considered as.

Against: Not even slightly accurate geography any longer. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

For: MENA/Arab WOrld/Middle East are the areas this article should concentrate on due to their related protest reasons, related cultures, influence on each other, geopolitics. Protests outside the Greater Middle East are unrelated to the main series of protests across the Middle East/MENA region. - 206.126.56.131 (talk)

For - This is my 'second best' solution, infinitely better and more accurate than 'Arab protests' but still too narrow for my liking. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

For - widely accepted terminology and accurately reflects geography of the principal interrelated protest actions (i.e. Arab world + Iran) Cjs2111 (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Against as too long to be a 'commonly used name'. I'm surprised you didn't throw Maghreb in there and make it even longer. None of these terms have a single agreed-upon definition, which is why the news media I cited earlier have been using 'Middle East' to refer to the protests as a group, or avoiding any sort of 'grouping'. This demand for perfect accuracy isn't realistic. Flatterworld (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously we can't go for perfect accuracy, but what do you propose instead? "Middle East" is just as fraught, but few definitions of that term would be inclusive enough. MENA is commonly used in many settings; "MENA" itself gets 33m Google hits and MENA with "Middle East" quoted beside it gets 12.6m. You don't need to get any more specific at this point; "Maghreb" overlaps with "North Africa". Cjs2111 (talk) 07:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Against Doesnt the middle east also include Africa as it is? See the map above for my point there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Changed to For This covers the middle east and Africa - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

For This seems to be the best option, as these protests are localized in MENA. However, I'd phrase it 2010-2011 protests in the Middle East and North Africa. A little long, but not necessarily too long. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

For As Muboshgu and others have said, the protests are no longer 'contained' within the Arab world, and thus, the article's title should be changed to reflect that fact. Rickington (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

For. Sounds good to me, includes Iran and leaves open a spread to other parts of Africa (some people are already wondering whether there might be protests after today's election in Uganda). —Nightstallion 08:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

For - This will be best for the time being, if protests spread throughout Africa - it will be easy to change it to "Middle East and Africa" (by protests, I'm referring to Uganda). Also expanding it out to Middle-East will allow any future protests in Turkey to be included. Not only this - this was not strictly an Arab-only set of protests, Berbers, Copts, Kurds, Azeris, Persians and others have particpated in the protests, by only having one ethnic group - Arabs - recognized, it is denying the efforts of non-Arabs in these protests for democracy, secularism, human rights and freedom. --Smart30 (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

For It's absurd to leave out Iran of the current title and main portion of the article. It is a well accepted cultural region in geopolitics and business. This is better than other titles that lumps in other protests not directly related to the MENA ones, and it also helps in that it is NPOV in terms of avoiding describing the motives of the protests up front.213.31.195.90 (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

For This seems like the best title for now. We can always expand it to be even more general or toward a name that has caught on in the media later. For now, this seems like a good compromise. Silverseren^C 20:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

C. 2010-2011 West Asia and North Africa protests

Resolved

and  Not done east asia is abhect.--Lihaas (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Against: not geographically accurate at all. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Against: East Asia (Burma, THai, etc.) not relative to MENA/Middle East - 206.126.56.131 (talk) note: sorry, it was supposed to be west asia Ocaasi (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Against awkward terminology, not as widely in use as MENA. Cjs2111 (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Against The middle east covers western asis as well, plus awkward naming. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

D. 2010-2011 Populist protests

For: Simple, most accurate. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Against: Populist protests in East Asia, Europe, Bolivia, etc. are uncorrelated with the protests in MENA/Middle East - 206.126.56.131 (talk)

E. 2010-2011 Arab world protests

Against: not just Arabs anymore. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

FORstarted with the arabs, mosltly arab. change is just for rian. and the old "similar protestS" adequetaely places it under thsi unbrella page.

EVERYONE in this latest section is gainst the move except for one person who claims "consensus" WP:BRD is beyond the initial bold and AGF edit. You are clearly against the grain of consensys.--Lihaas (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

For This all started in the Arab world and i have seen in the media the protests still being referred to in the arab world. Section and new articles can always be made for other areas of the world. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

For: However, protests in Iran ARE related to the Arab WOrld protests (Iran is not in the Arab WOrld), this should be considered - 206.126.56.131 (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Strongly against - Events in Iran make this title untenable. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

thats the point. the article is NOT aout iran. thats wht everyone is saying.--Lihaas (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Iran has two paragraphs in the article and the events in Iran are clearly just as relevant as events in Yemen or any other country in the area. An Arab Middle East/Non-Arab Middle East article split would be quite absurd. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

your e referring to the new reorg, that is under dispute. the old version was stable and fine.--Lihaas (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

For Most important events clearly take place in Arab countries. Reliable sources use this or very similar wording, even after protests in Iran intensified.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Weak against Iran would seem to make this untenable, but there's still a sense that the protests that are happening in the Arab world are more closely linked (i.e. articles referencing a "new pan-Arabism". It might make sense to construct a meta-article for MENA that could encompass a broader range of protests in Iran, etc. while leaving this article alone. Cjs2111 (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

F. 2010-2011 Government protests

For Probably better than pro/anti democracy. The protestors all want more of a role for the people in their government, which imo is the definition of 'democracy', but 'government' is less likely to imply this is some pro-Western partisan thing. I was thinking ancient Greeks, but from the discussion it here, it's clear not everyone else was - which means that name wasn't clear. Flatterworld (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Against: This title makes no sense. Again, I'd like to express the geopolitics of the situation. - 206.126.56.131 (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Against doesnt account for the anti-government stance--Lihaas (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

For i dont think this has exactly to do with democracy/capitalism like the fall of the communist states in the nineties. i think it's a more broad movement against oppressive government. 76.105.158.121 (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

G. 2010-2011 Middle East protests

Point of order being added as this is what The Guardian, New York Times and Washington Post are using, and they include Iran in this. Flatterworld (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Please show references. Jmj713 (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

lol If you don't know how to find the websites of three of the most major news media in the world, perhaps you shouldn't be working on this Wikipedia article - where are you getting your info? Are you still on AOL? ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should re-read Wikipedia:Etiquette. Jmj713 (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Against: There's no reason Wikipedia can't be more precise than minute-to-minute journalistic liveblogs; in fact, it practically has a duty to be such. This is still better than all the other proposals save for "Middle East and North Africa" though. Cjs2111 (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

H. 2010-2011 Global protests

For: I just thought of this one. Since we're all concerned about the addition of countries that are outside the middle east and northern Africa, we could just make it generalized like this. It makes no assumptions about what the protests are about, since there are varied reasons in different countries, and stays away from any POV terminology.

The good thing about this option is that we can still totally have subarticles for specific regions. So we would be able to have a Middle East protests article, a Northern Africa protests article, and wherever else we need, with this being the single overarching article that connects them all. Silverseren^C 23:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Against People can protest about all sorts of things, including animal rights, racism, gay rights - but that's not what these protests have in common. Flatterworld (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Against Too unspecific, not nearly "global" yet. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Against Broad much? This is not a global event as of yet as was pointed out. Also the fact that unrelated protests happen around the globe alot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Against wayyyy overused term. 76.105.158.121 (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I. 2010-2011 [Muslim/Islamic] World protests

For The protesters aren't all Muslim, yes, but then again, neither are they all 'Arabs', even in the "Arab world". 'Muslim/Islamic world Protests' is much appropriate than 'Arab world Protests', because religious language and concerns about Islamist takeovers are much more prominent than language or concerns about 'Arabs'. The protests aren't expressly about religion, but that isn't so important since a title about protests in the 'Muslim world' is drawing attention to the fact that these countries share a common majority religion and somewhat similar religious culture, rather than any religious motivation.theBOBbobato (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Against The involvement of Egyptian Christians was widely reported, and this overgeneralizes. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Against - This discriminates against all Christians, Atheists and Secularists who have participated in the Protests. This is not merely an Arab, or an Islamic thing. --Smart30 (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the nuance - the title isn't suggesting religious motivations to the protests, its suggesting that they're occuring in countries which share a common majority religion.

In suggesting for article titles, what we need to do is look for the one common thing keeping them together. Since the protests are so complex that 'common thing' can't be the motivators. The 'common thing' must either be related to some shared culture which has contained and shaped the protests without neccessarily dictating them. The fact that the protests are all occuring in countries which are primarily muslim to me seems the most useful thing to notice, since 'arab' and middle-east are too exclusive, though it certainly mustn't be argued that the protests are in any way only related to Islam. It's either this, or we name it after Bouazzi, who's self-immolation seems to have ultimately sparked the protest.theBOBbobato (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Against
  • Identifying the protests by religion is contrary to most of the WP:RS, which present the protests as mostly secular and Islam as not at all being seen as a significant identifier of the protests. This is a comment more or less the same as above. Even if "Islamic world" or "Muslim world" might be intended in a geographical sense, it would be easy to be misinterpreted as meaning that religion is a major aspect of the protests.
  • The Arab world has a population of only 360M, add 73M for Iran makes only 433M. But the whole Muslim population is about 1570M, i.e. the Arab world + Iran, including their non-Muslim populations as "Muslim" to simplify the calculation, is a bit less than 30% of the Muslim population of the world, i.e. a small minority. There have long been demos in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Indonesia - where about half of all Muslims live. A people's revolution occurred quite recently in Pakistan. The 1998 Indonesian revolution overthrew a brutal dictator - Suharto - once Clinton decided it was getting too risky to keep supporting Suharto. Kashmir protests have been intense mass street protests - ignored by the mainstream Western media - in the presence of 500,000(?) or so Indian soldiers for at least six months or so(?), i.e. long before the Tunisia protests blew up.
  • Boud (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC) (shifted from below Boud (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC))

• Against - It really is not being referred to ask unrest in the Islamic World in the media, and as of now, it has more to do with the Middle East than anything else. There is currently not a religious overtone to what is taking place in the Arab World protests, for example, and nothing is going on in the largest of Muslim countries, Indonesia. Outside of North Africa and Southwest Asia, the "Muslim World" is rather quite. The Scythian 21:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

J. 2010 - 2011 Protests

I saw this idea in the discussion and placed it here for debate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Continue discussion

I suggest we continue name change discussions above, regardless, because there does seem to be the feeling that either this title is inappropriate as it is or the extraneous content that it has in it is inappropriate for the topic. We could solve this either by a name change or by the creation of other, related articles. Silverseren^C 00:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm of the view that we should let the dust settle on this one first. Unless in the current realm these protests engulfs and begins to threaten the governments outside of the Greater Middle East (including N. Africa, Iran etc.) there is no reason to move this anywhere else until it has been branded as something else by major authoritative media and academic sources. Note that the Iraq War used to be known as the "Second Gulf War" but this use petered out as media and academia eventually converged onto the Iraq War. What is happening seems to be of a grand scale and an overarching name for the event will come by in due time. The current job of Wikipedia is to use the most general name possible the describes the nature of the events until this "overarching name" can be found. Fifty years from now it might be known as "The Arab Revolutions" or the "Regime Domino" or the "Fall of Egypt" or something of that sort, then we can make a collective decision to move it to that name. Colipon+(Talk) 02:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, but since so many here are so ooh! ooh! excited about any chance to start yet another discussion section, we'll probably soon be buried again by the people who have 'very strong feelings' about whether or not Persians should mix with Arabs. Reminds me of Jim Crow. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

We had to deal with something similar at 2011 Tucson shooting with some wanting to call it a massacre, others an assassination attempt, terrorist incident, others getting hung up on the fact that it took place in Casas Adobes and not within Tucson itself. Things settled down and the page remains where it is. For lack of a better solution, we should probably stick with the name as is for now, keep Iran in the template and the template on the Iran page, and see if a name emerges in discussion and the media. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Article Picture

Surely the main picture should be more of a collage of some of the most prominent pictures from each of the major demonstrations in the affected countries? Rather than just showing Egypt's March of the Millions. Just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.21.19 (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Collages usually do occur after the event has settled for a while and iconic pictures have been widely accepted. --haha169 (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Haku, let's wait til the events are over. Besides, the "March of the Millions" will likely be our best picture. --Smart30 (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Expansion to cover the Greater Middle East

I am suggesting that the map and the article be expanded to cover similar protests across the Greater Middle East, because there are similar protests in Iran inspired by the Tunisian and the Egyptian revolutions. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see the giant discussion above. Cjs2111 (talk) 05:33, 16 February 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.

---

The result was Proposal withdrawen there is clearly no consensus to split right now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Split proposal

I am proposing that the non arab countries be split into their own article to be called: 2010-2011 Concurrent protests outside the Arab world (Unless someone can think of a better name). Who is for and againt this split, nevermind the name for now as that can always be tweaked as this goes along, I am just looking for Support or Against opinions here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• (Please place your opinions here, feel free to remove this message with your own if you reply)

• Support Wael.Mogherbi (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Against - I think some of these protests are more clearly related to the Arab world protests than others. I would support creating a meta-page that included both Iran and the Arab world protests, and also splitting off other concurrent protests, but I think it's a mistake to lump Iran with, say, Serbia, Bolivia, etc. in this case. Cjs2111 (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

oppose doesnt warrant another article, not yet anywaysl. the samlkl parts is constitutes is p-lenty good here.Lihaas (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• This subject certainly has its foundation with the Arab world. A new page about the effect in other countries should be called Repercussions of the Arab protests or something. Chesdovi (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Against- This article's title should be changed to include Iran and other regional protest. Loro-rojo (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Against - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support split, not title. "Concurrent" doesn't belong in a title, as it ought to be referring back to something, and there's nothing in context for it to refer back to. I like the "reprecussions" idea, but am open to others as well. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Against - The problem is the article name, which has still not been properly resolved. I am really puzzled as to why 'Middle East' is not now in the name, the media have clearly moved on [1] and this article should too. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Against - none of the news media is doing that, so why should we? BBC News gets it, yet we have some people here insisting it's 'their' protest, and no one else can be part of it. That isn't how the world works. Flatterworld (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I see the arguement of this article's title here, there is a huge discussion going on above for that with no clear consensus on what to do, If the name Arab or middle east is used in the title then I do not see why other countries need to be listed here as well as some are considered not a part of either but yet have huge protests going on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Against I have a better name, maybe nobody will like it, but here I go. If there is to be a separate article, it should be "Revolutions of 2010-2011". Sure, it doesn't sound good, but it's better. Not to mention we have "Revolutions of 1989". Kanzler31 (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Against The movement is simply growing beyond the Arab states, but it is recognized as part of the same phenomenon. Change the title, but don't split the article. Frimmin (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment How about simply 2010-2011 anti-government protests? {Heroeswithmetaphors talk} 15:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Heroeswithmetaphors. This is becoming a global phenomenon and there's no reason why the current article should continue to refer to the Arab World. I would support either a renaming of this article to reflect the term 'Middle East', and then move other countries to another article, or to rename the entire thing 2010-2011 Anti-government protests and leave it as it is.Haku8645 (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Against I don't think much to be done yet. As Frimmin said, the other protests are very much coming of successful campaigns in Tunisia and Egypt. They themselves, however, aren't quite large enough to warrant and another overview article yet. I don't think it's necessary to rename the article yet either since the events still are largely surround the political problems that many arab countries share TMV943 (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Against This article should be renamed 2010-11 Middle Eastern protests as the Iranian protests are clearly directly related to goings-on in Egypt. The population of Iran is concentrated on the Southern and Western edges connected with the Arab world, and the formal application for protests in Iran directly stated it was in sympathy with the Egyptian demonstrators. The remaining non-Middle Eastern protests are not connected enough to justify a single article. 213.31.195.90 (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Against — Aside from Iran and possibly Albania, the protests outside of the Arab World are not significant enough to merit a separate article listing them. It is much more accessible for readers to have any relevant information well-organized on a central page. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

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

INDIA

There hasnt been anything goin on in India....<sadly> neways....the India section makes no actual sense

there were no protests and with current phase of negotiations there wont be

so lest there are protests you cant put india under concurrent protests — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranav21391 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes we can. because there was a call and the similarities was already made by RSLihaas (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This one should be archived, no further discussion needed as no protests took place. --Smart30 (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Serbia and turkish republic of northern cyprus

Why are we putting a section for these protests? According the their outlines, they don't seem related. What's next? Are we going to put a section for protests against Chinese control in Tibet, or SB1070? The protests in Serbia are NOT related and the Serbs do NOT want to overthrow their government, they only want some economic change. And the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus seems unrelated, and are like Serbia. Thank you. Kanzler31 (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I would just remove them then and place in the edit summary why, I have to agree though I dont want to see this get out of hand. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

this one should be archived, as neither section exists here anymore. --Smart30 (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sudan on the map

Seriously, Bahrein needs a circle big as this one--78.3.208.182 (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

At least some sort of division must be made to point out that South Sudan isn't yellow--78.3.208.182 (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Southern Sudan is not yet an independent nation - it will achieve independence on 9 July 2011. Until that time, Sudan is still represented on all maps as a united entity. Haku8645 (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Haku - while South Sudan is a country, it's still linked with Sudan until July 9th, so it should remain one country on our maps. --Smart30 (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The Economist map

I saw a great map from The Economist ([2])that I would think would be very useful as a reference on the map we have (as an interesting thing, I see that they have added Comros to it which I was not aware of before).Calaka (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Should be called "Muslim world protests"

Not all these protests are in the Arab world; the Iranian protests are not. This should be moved to "2010-2011 Muslim world protests". Springlyn (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There were so many talks on the subject, I my self think that MENA (Middle East and North Africa) should be used. Here is a map aswell, it includes all those major countries, exept of Somalia.

Maybe onces its all "over" than we will do 1 final talk on the subject.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This is already being discusseed above (This is really getting out of hand with all the title proposals in my opinion) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I was just watching CNN tonight. They were discussing this topic and referred to it as unrest in Arab world. Jmj713 (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

On the front of the CNN web site the protests are very clearly labelled 'Mideast and N. Africa unrest': [3], and have been for a couple of days now. The BBC are taking a similar approach: [4] Rangoon11 (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Pearl Square

The naming of the Pearl Square article is under discussion, see Talk:Pearl Monument.

64.229.100.61 (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Protests over section

Who exactly announces when protests are over in a country? There are reliable sources yes and the governemnets can and do announce the end to protests but are they really over? What bothers me here is that you have country sections that havent had new protest info in as long as 2 weeks and the overview table on top seaying that they are "Ongoing" okay ongoing by who? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

i made a comment above, when the table was very new, expressing concern over the "date ended" column. Either a prominent day when protests really seemed to take off and start growing uncontrollably in size, or a date when protests started at a small scale prior to a day when they accelerated, seem to me credible to support based on WP:RS. (But the name "start date" is still too strong IMHO. Something like "acceleration date" would be more accurate, but news media would use a more informal term like "takeoff date", so that might be better, even though less accurate.) On the other hand, it seems unlikely to me to get RS that can justify either an "end date" or that protests are "ongoing". The asymmetry here is because we document encyclopedic knowledge about the past and a protest movement which grows in the long term (several weeks to a few months) can easily go through ups and downs. Reports on the absence of prior protests can, in principle, be found. Reports on the absence or presence of future protests would be WP:CRYSTAL, even if they are common sense. The situation is asymmetrical. Boud (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Uganda

Uganda should be added to the Concurrent protests outside the Arab world list.

Uganda

Opposition members in Uganda are threatening Egypt-style protests if next Friday's presidential election is rigged so that Yoweri Museveni can extend his 25-year grip on power.[5]

The threat of protests =/= protests. — Muboshgu (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That's true, I see India (Kashmir) was removed. So adding Uganda would go against the current page. --Smart30 (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Mediakampf

Given that this is very much an omnibus article, there should be a section on the effects of both social media such as Twitter and Facebook, and Internet censorship circumvention tools such as Tor. We live in an ultra-bandwidth world; the citations shall come. kencf0618 (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I am editing boldly, and calling the Internet censorship of the assorted Islamo-fascist regimes and the resultant circumvention "mediajihad," given that jihad denotes struggle (whatever its connotations). These dictators and autocrats under pressure have been very consistent in cutting off or severely limiting Facebook, etc., a geopolitical phenomenon of Internet censorship which is arguably prominent enough to deserve its own term. kencf0618 (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Which map should we use?

This is not happening as often as it once was but every now and then I see the the other version of the map pop up which raises the question here what map do people prefer?

Map 1: (Other version)

Map 2: (Current version)

In both maps the colors are the same for the descript. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The map should include Iran. — Muboshgu (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Map 2 should be used, with three edits: include Comoros (like Sudan, it is predominately Afro-Arab)and is part of the Arab League (should be Green). Add a circle around Bahrain, otherwise it's hard to see. And like stated 20 other times, Iran should be included in the main protest page.--Smart30 (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I subscribe, add bigger circles for Bahrain and Comoros in the Map 2 --78.2.60.171 (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Plus, the first map is pro-Morocco in the Western Sahara dispute. —Nightstallion 08:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The question should not be "which map should be used?", it should be "what needs to be added to the SVG map in order to make it acceptable?". The SVG map is much easier to work with in terms of editing and changing colours. I will have a go at taking these suggestions into account. gringer (talk) 10:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, done. (1) border colours changed to white, because that's what the PNG used (it's a 1-line change, so easy to change to some other colour. (2) It already had Comoros. (3) Added circle around Bahrain. (4) Included Iran, and other similar related countries from article as different colour (dark blue). (5) A first go at the Western Sahara dispute. I can't see Sahara in Member_states_of_the_Arab_League, so haven't coloured that. gringer (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

A zoom + circle for Bahrain (at least) is certainly needed. The protestors' demands escalated from constitutional monarchy to no-monarchy because of anger following the 17 Feb raid at Pearl Roundabout. Boud (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree on your map gringer, as there has yet been any discussion on the merits of considering Iraq - major protests. Also, there have not been major changes in Yemen, so it should be orange still, in my opinion. Your map puts the West Bank as Green - it should be red(regime change). You should also return "Revolution" instead of "Government overthrown" Could you somehow add orange into the blue Iran? stripes or something? It's major protests, and it may be misleading to people if they see Gabon & Albania, which were only minor protests, in the same color as Iran. Last but not least - please return Somalia's borders, if we do not include the disputed Western Sahara, why would we include Somaliland which has absolutely 0 countries recognizing its existence? I'm Pro-Somaliland, but this is not proper for our map. Thanks --Smart30 (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Smart30. I set Yemen to 'major' because that was mentioned in the summary table ("major street demonstrations"), but I've put it back now and implemented all your suggestions excepting Iran (which will take a bit more tweaking because I'll need a pattern fill). gringer (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The Earth is indeed round, but it is not needed to be pointed out here--78.2.60.171 (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I prefer map 2 just because it is easier to read - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You mentioned "easier to read" in your last edit, could you please explain that further? Both maps have the same legend and colours, and there is no text in any map (unless you are counting the SVG source). I also increased the nominal size of the SVG map to be similar to the PNG map, even though that makes no difference for most presentation purposes in wikimedia. What more is needed to make the SVG version "easier to read"? gringer (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the first map, as it includes the Comoros, Iran, Gabon and Albania. i think Iran should be represented in the map as it is part of the Greater Middle East and linked with the arab protests. The First map includes more information and I see that as a good thing. My only problem is that it includes the boundary between North Sudan and South Sudan, which is a mistake given that South Sudan shas not officialy split yet from Karhthoum. Itțs still part of Sudan, and should be represented as such. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

In my view the map MUST include Iran, I therefore favour Map 1. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Why "must" your view include Iran, when the current article only concentrates on the Arab world? Should we include Wisconsin to? They've had some protests there over the last few days. The Scythian 23:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I've now combined North and South Sudan in the SVG map. gringer (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the Map2[6], which does not include Iran or any non-Arab nation, but rather only the members of the Arab World. The Scythian 23:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That was originally the case for the SVG map, but I included the other countries after observing more support for including them than for excluding them. Excluding is an easy change to make (commenting out the colour line for the non-arab countries). I'll do that (if someone else doesn't do it first) if I get enough support to exclude the non-Arab League countries. At the moment, they are distinguished by a different colour, so it's quite difficult for someone looking at the map to consider these other countries to be in the same League (pun intended).

However, that is not a reason to prefer the PNG version over the SVG version — as mentioned and demonstrated already, maps can be altered to fit the desires of the community. For rapidly changing events, SVG files are especially useful because style sheets (if used) substantially reduce the effort required to change maps. gringer (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Add two Iraq things

On February 17, two people were killed as protesters attacked government offices in Sulaimaniya, Iraqi Kurdistan.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12493712

On February 18, around a thousand demonstrators blockaded a bridge in Basra, demanding the resignation of the provincial governor.http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4030474,00.html

--78.2.60.171 (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

not needed now--78.2.60.171 (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia 11 March day of rage

It sounds like protest plans are building up for 11 March in Saudi Arabia, but until this info been approved by the English-language mainstream media, it is unlikely to count as WP-reliable and could count as WP:CRYSTAL:

• http://saudiwoman.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/the-arab-revolution-saudi-update/ archiveurl.

Does Saudiwoman (Eman Fahad Al Nafjan) count as notable enough for her blog to be cited under the exceptions in the blog guideline? My guess is not for the moment, at least. Boud (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

SENEGAL: Man sets himself on fire

News by the paper Corriere della Sera: http://www.corriere.it/notizie-ultima-ora/Esteri/militare-fuoco-Senegal/18-02-2011/1-A_000178198.shtml

--78.2.60.171 (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Name: 2010–2011 Muslim world protests

this discussion is closed. please see the main naming thread above. Ocaasi (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Yes, I'm back with one more. 2010-2011 Muslim world protests instead of Arab, because:

By our own account it's moved past classic Arab nations. THIS name idea will also scale indefinitely. Merrill Stubing (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

For

1. Merrill Stubing (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
2. Tom Haws (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Against

this thread (and the "for" thread) should be in the appropriate section above: Talk:2010–2011_Arab_world_protests#I._2010-2011_.5BMuslim.2FIslamic.5D_World_protests Boud (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

AGAINST - Please see the discussion above! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Against, for the time being. It's true that the countries encountering protests are largely Islamic, but I think that such a title would be far too generalized to be adequate (atleast for the time being). The term "Muslim World" includes several unaffected countries — such as Indonesia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, etc. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Why is this here? We already have this discussion being done in the proper section above here. We don't need to repeat this in a separate section and is a bit forum-shoppy, by trying to get greater exposure for this wording. Move your supports to the right section I linked to and close this one, please. Silverseren^C 20:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Djibouti goes orange

Please add this piece: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12510799 --78.2.60.171 (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually that's far smaller than the protests in Iraq, and yet Iraq is still minor. Perhaps within the next week Djibouti will "graduate" to Orange. Djibouti - Aljazeera --Smart30 (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes... but considering Djibouti's population is not even a million, several thousand protesters is quite a lot. 140.180.13.29 (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

So do we have some set a) number or b) percentage of a country's population after which they're considered major, or do we just wait for the media to get around to calling them 'major' by whatever arbitrary measures they use? 140.247.145.217 (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It may have just gone Orange - Orange?--Smart30 (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Should Iran be on the map?

I know we've had this discussion a few times over the past few days, but we've kept flip-flopping back and forth on it. I think we need to decisively make a decision on this. The current map being used in the article is this one, which is already incorrect because we decided in a prior discussion that we want to be using the SVG image and not the PNG one, since the SVG is easier to edit.

The image that was in there at one point in time about an hour ago was this one. I feel that we should switch back to this one and I also feel that Iran should be on the map. It is labeled in blue and, as our legend clearly stated at that point in time, blue is for "non-Arab League nations". I think that is clearly explanatory for showing they are not a part of the Arab world, as the article text goes on to explain.

Furthermore, since we are likely going to change the title of the article within a day or two to something that includes countries beyond the Arab world, we should be using the correct map in the article. Silverseren^C 22:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with you! Iran (and Gabon) have to been on the map. There are significant changes going on in these countries, why should we ignore them? Gromobir (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There are significant changes going on in Iran? Care to list them? The Scythian 18:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

We have already been through this for days. The articles name is going to be changed to from "Arab" to "Middle East." Once that is the case, the Iran map gets used. Until then, this article is about the Arab world, and Iran is not apart of it. Therefore, Iran is not included for now. Doing so, is in fact a pejorative act. The Scythian 18:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

2010–2011 anti-government protests article made

Just a heads up on this one despite a strong consensus against it the article has been made. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I may AfD it. It seems indiscriminate. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I would support an AfD here, it is indiscriminate info plus POV in some aspects and the fact that none of the protests are really connected. Also four editors on the article's talk page (myself included) feel the article is not needed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Related vs. unrelated protests outside the Arab world

I'm having a hard time telling the difference between these two sections. For example, the Albania protests, which are cited as being directly inspired by the Arab world protests, are considered to be "unrelated", yet the protests over teacher union bargaining rights in Wisconsin are "related"? What gives? Kansan (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the United States should be in the unrelated section, not the related section. The Iranian and Senegal protests are a direct result of what is happening in the Arab world, the US protests are not. It should be moved. Silverseren^C 22:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the move. I also question why we even need a section on protests that are unrelated. The Wisconsin situation has nothing to do with what's going on in the Middle East. Kansan (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Protests here in the USA are called "Discussions" between Democrat and Republican supporters =p. I agree though the Wisconsin thing has nothing to do with Egypt nor is it connected or big, the whole thin ggoes against WP:POV and WP:Notability - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The claims that the Wisconsin-Ohio protests are unrelated to the Egyptian protests constitute WP:OR that is in contradiction to the POV's of notable people that are WP:RS'd. As long as we have Bolivia, Albania, Bangladesh, Bolivia and Gabon protests here, why exclude the United States? en.wikipedia is not the USA.wikipedia.org, it's an encyclopedia about world knowledge that happens to be written in English. Boud (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

To clarify this for people who didn't read the section carefully: the chairman of the United States House Committee on the Budget, Paul Ryan, claimed that the Wisconsin-Ohio protests are similar to the Egyptian revolution, and wikipedia-notable political analyst, Mike Lux, said that the protests constituted "a mass movement spreading like wildfire" similar to the Egyptian protests. (refs in article). Whether those two prominent people are right or wrong is not for wikipedians to decide. Please see WP:NPOV. For the moment i've only reverted to the "unrelated-to-Arab-world" section, because apparently someone did that before deleting totally. However, please let's have a discussion based on WP:NPOV, not on original research. Boud (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have responded to this in the section below titled "Unrelated protests should be removed", and to try to keep all of this in one section, I'll just point anybody interested down there. Kansan (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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: Page moved per almost unanimous consensus. We usually keep move requests open longer, but as support is so strong and it is important that we get an article right that is so prominent at this moment, it makes sense to make the change a little faster. Ucucha 19:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

---

2010–2011 Arab world protests → 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests — Per consensus in the discussion above with 11 people for the move I see a consensus here. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think we all agree about the change in geographic description, but what about "uprisings" rather than "protests"? "Protests" seems a bit limp to describe the magnitude of them, and "uprisings" captures the disobedience aspect of it.188.220.240.150 (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If the page is moved and you still feel this way, make a section on the talk pge and this can be the next discussion. It is not good to try and lump two big discussions into one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Wait...so we have to have another discussion to approve the previous discussion? But, all of the people who voted for something else are going to vote oppose here. Silverseren^C 22:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the page is move protested yes there needs to be another discussion here (Not a choice I wanted to take) anyways it cant hurt. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well...alright. Support then. Silverseren^C 22:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• As I said above, I support this. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support I orginally opposed this but thinking it over renaming this Middle East and North Africa covers all the definitions of the middle east plus North Africa, that is a wide area that the protests seem to be the strongest in 1. and 2. where it all started. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Hazlzz (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support from what can gather the protests have now moved as far east as Iran. I would call it The 2010–2011 Muslim world protests but the other idea is ok for now I guess.
• Possible Support - Though, I wonder if an article that focuses unto itself just on the Arab aspect of the current turmoil is also not a possibility? The Scythian 23:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support But the ambiguity of the term "Middle East" might become problematic if and when protests occur in, say Pakistan.
• Comment What about something like Revolutions of 2011, as in Revolutions of 1848, Revolutions of 1917–23 and Revolutions of 1989? What is occurring worldwide seems to be clearly a revolutionary wave. That not all these protests have been succeeded in deposing the current regimes would not seem important (the Revolutions of 1848 were largely unsuccessful), and the title would have the benefit of not specifying a geographical location. I think the current proposed title is a bit cumbersome. The Celestial City (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• I like that. That makes good sense. The Scythian 00:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Article titles were already submitted in the long list of possible titles in discussions above. This move discussion right here is really just procedural, as this is the title that received the most support from the discussions above. But, don't worry, we might end up changing the title again at some point in the future. So far there have only been two revolutions, Tunisia and Egypt. If more occur, then feel free to re-propose this type of name change. Silverseren^C 00:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• I think Revolution of 2011 might make sense down the road, but not unless that term becomes widely used in the future. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with the others here; it might actually make strong sense to use that title later, especially to avoid Western bias (why do European revolutions not get regionalized titles, but Middle Eastern ones do?) but for now we should wait to see both where this is going and what comes into generally accepted use. The "Revolutions of 1989" weren't commonly called that for some time after the events ("Fall of Communism" was more common and still might actually be a better descriptor for that). Cjs2111 (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Also agree. What about the term "uprisings" rather than "revolutions"?The Enlightened (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support - This move is now essential to reflect events over the past week and reflect change terminology being used by major media outlets, journalists etc.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Very strong support - Big support. It's true that Iranian protesters were inspired by what happened in Tunisia and Egypt. Since Iran is extremely close to the Arab world, I say that it should be moved 76.254.39.45 (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC).
• Support so Iran can be included. Kansan (talk) 06:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support this, i don't think its fair anymore to call it "Arab World", its more 'racial' rather than regional. I strongly support and title must be changed immediately.

• Support I was one of the original backers (if not the first) of using MENA in the title, so naturally I'm for this. It makes the most sense at the moment. Cjs2111 (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support for all the reasons mentioned abouve.The Enlightened (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed title doesn't include Albania, where anti-government protests take place. Kavas (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, but with "–" instead of "-" (I corrected it above). —Nightstallion 16:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Overdue. Much more inclusive. Much less contentious. More easily expanded. Ocaasi (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Have we not discussed this many many times already? --haha169 (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Wait...Didn't I already support this? The Scythian 20:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - This will be best for the time being, if protests spread throughout Africa - it will be easy to change it to "Middle East and Africa" (by protests, I'm referring to Uganda). Also expanding it out to Middle-East will allow any future protests in Turkey to be included. Not only this - this was not strictly an Arab-only set of protests, Berbers, Copts, Kurds, Azeris, Persians and others have participated in the protests, by only having one ethnic group - Arabs - recognized, it is denying the efforts of non-Arabs in these protests for democracy, secularism, human rights and freedom. --Smart30 (talk) 04:34, 20 February 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.

Unrelated protests section should be removed

Albania - Maybe we should move them to the related protests, since they (sort of) were inspired.

Bangladesh - Almost unnotable

Bolivia - Minor protests, unnotable

Gabon - Maybe to be moved to the related section.

USA - Definitely not. There have been protests throughout the United States throughout this year over various reasons. Should we say they all took inspiration from Tunisia? It's just plain dumb. Kanzler31 (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The protests in Wisconsin especially have nothing to do with what's going on in MENA. It's about union busting. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree too, whomever included that was definitely trolling. Totally unrelated to the ongoing issue. I added a template. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Demonstrations and protest marches are an old tradition in the USA. Current protests have no connection to the demonstrations in Egpyt or anywhere else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed the US section earlier and Boud undid it, saying that my claim that the Wisconsin protests were unrelated was original research. His argument was that because it was "reliably sourced" to one politician and one political commentator drawing a parallel. I frankly don't see how my edit involved original research at all, especially because it still hasn't been proven that the Egyptian protests directly caused this. Protests such as that, as Baseball Bugs said, are nothing new in American politics. This would be like me including a reference to a current event in World War II just because somebody draws a parallel to it.

The text removed said "Paul Ryan, claimed that the Wisconsin-Ohio protests are similar to the Egyptian revolution, and wikipedia-notable political analyst, Mike Lux, said that the protests constituted "a mass movement spreading like wildfire" similar to the Egyptian protests." Nowhere did it say that the Wisconsin protests were directly or even indirectly caused by what's going on in the Middle East. Kansan (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the "Tea Party" stuff from the last year or two is more like the Egyptian story, and yet the only government overthrow being advocated was via the elective process. Obviously, the news-hounds like to talk about these kinds of events. But the only similarity with Wisconsin and Egpyt is that they both happened in February. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As some of these were explicitly inspired by the Arab world events, they should stay in somehow, even as just a list pointing to $other articles or sources. I agree the US comparison was weak, but there were strong indications of ties to the Albanian protests, for one. And why does Senegal get to stay in? Cjs2111 (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Turkey and anti-government protests in Turkish side of Cyprus is related to anti-Mubarek protests. http://www.airporthaber.com/erdogan-protesto-edildi-30455h.html clearly shows this. Turkish people in Cyprus give this message to Erdoğan: "Siz, Ortadoğu’da ABD’nin çıkarlarına göre açıklama yaparken, Mısır Devlet Başkanı’na mitingleri kastederek, ‘sokağın sesini dinle, halka saygı duy’ çağrısı yaptınız. Ancak, sıra size geldiğinde onbinlerce kişinin katıldığı mitinge ve sokağa yansıyan iradeye hiç saygı göstermeyerek UTANMAZLIK olarak lanse ettiniz". "You have respected the protests against Egyptian president, but not you have not respected the gathering here." Greek Politis newspaper has called Erdoğan as new Mubarak. TDP has claimed that the government in TRNC is similar to Mubarak's government, and the protest in Cyprus is as large as the protest in Egypt. (http://www.samanyoluhaber.com/h_508993_kktcdeki-siyasi-partiler,-gosterilere-turkiyeden-daha-ozenli-bir-yaklasim-istedi.html) The protest has been called Yasemin Devrimi (yasmin revolution): (http://www.elmahaber.com/kktc-ikinci-misir-olur-38934h.html Furthermore, Cyprus is northern neighbor of Egypt. Camilo Sanchez, how can you claim that the protests in TRNC is unrelated to the protests in Egypt? Kavas (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

the first 4 and india didnt have consensus for removal. per Cjs2111 they should be somewhere.Lihaas (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Killing of people

They are killing the people in those countries. I certainly hope this is widely covered in Wikipedia and new articles are created regarding such murders. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe all of these articles have sourced death counts. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ben Ali

Deposed Tunisian President Ben Ali has been reported dead, according to this source. [7]

It has not yet been officially confirmed by any other third party source (to the best of my knowledge). Nonetheless, I advise fellow editors to monitor developments. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

His death is still unconfirmed, but his coma for the past two days seems to be fairly well confirmed. See here. Silverseren^C 05:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

And apparently Mubarak is also in a coma? ._. This is...quite strange. Silverseren^C 06:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Made a note on Ben Ali's wiki Talk:Zine_El_Abidine_Ben_Ali#Death--Smart30 (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

A note

I'm crystalballing but I propose color black for countries that put down protests in bloodbath. Which my happen in Libya like in Uzbekistan in 2005 --78.2.46.222 (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this could be phrased "Uprising quelled" or something along those lines? 140.247.145.217 (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This could be getting into somewhat subjective territory. What constitutes "bloodbath"? Kansan (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

1989 Tiananmen Square massacre? Perhaps we should wait off until it does happen. --haha169 (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

yeah that was something I thought and I was thinking that Libya might be heading that way. we'll see while hoping not--78.2.46.222 (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

3 dead Kurdistan Region

3 Kurdisch people has been shot to dead by the police when they Kurdish protestors tried to storm the mainbuilding of the Kurdistan Democratic Party. Should they be added to Iraq, somewhere else or not at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shizly (talk • contribs) 14:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Kuwait shouldn't be green

Either take Kuwait out of the protests and overveiw section or change its color on the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.225.132 (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE71I0GT20110219

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/18/kuwait-protest-idUSLDE71H1ZW20110218

http://www.arabtimesonline.com/NewsDetails/tabid/96/smid/414/ArticleID/165754/t/Twenty-hurt-in-Kuwait-protest/Default.aspx

Here are some links about the Kuwait protests. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Kuwait is described as having experienced major protests in the table (the word "major" is orange), but on the map it's still colored yellow. One or the other needs to change (i'd say probably the map). Same thing goes for Djibouti. Cypher foo (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Cypher - already done. --Smart30 (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Western Sahara and Countries Mapping

2 issues.

1. The Western Sahara, I always see it removed and than reverted back, than the diff map used, PNG and SVG which keep changing, we need to talk about it for the last time!, it can't keep continue.

2. What about using a mapping method same as the U.S. states, not everyone know which country is shown on the map, and also it have better look. (you can hover your mouse over the area and see the linking).
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Western Sahara classified as an independent country or as part of Morocco, for example in UN? Kavas (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Western Sahara is in the list of non-self-governing territories of the UN. Morocco claims it and occupies the western parts but there also are movements for independency. As for the UN: there is a referendum of self-determination which hasn't been hold yet. Thus, Spain would be the actual supervisor of the territory but has given up governing. So, tough choice. --Elllit (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Just found: Legal_status_of_Western_Sahara --Elllit (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You cannot revert new information because old information is wrong. Keep it new for now so we don't seem misleading. Its worse to underscore the protests themselves than to show western sahara as a separate region. Zenithfel (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I am going to add a mapping templete later on, with the one we currently use.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

My 2 cents: first of all, i have no idea why Western Sahara is colored orange right now - i can find no info anywhere about major protests (or any kind of protests whatsoever) taking place there. Second of all, at this moment, Western Sahara is recognized by most countries as a part of Morocco, with 58 states (mostly African) recognizing it as sovereign under the SADR. So there are two choices - either you keep it separate and green (since there is no info about any protests there anywhere), or you keep it as a part of Morocco and implicitly yellow along with the rest of the country. I'd recommend the second one, since most of the territory is under de facto moroccan control, except for a sliver of land to the east, called the Free Zone. If large scale protest break out in that specific region and they are clearly distinguishable from other protests in the wider Morocco, THEN mark it separately. Cypher foo (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, only a part of Western Sahara is considered part of Morocco, not all of it. That's why there are the two boundaries in the SVG file, but I'm really not sure what I should be doing about all these border disputes (Western Sahara, Sudan, Somalia, Gaza Strip -- to name the ones I am aware of) gringer (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Just make Western Sahara gray. You're not going to appease either side of the debate. And there have been no relevant protests in the region so it can not be yellow or orange. If W. Sahara is made grey (without the divided borders) then neither side (the pro-Morocco side and the pro-SADC) will be upset. It should NOT be Green, it is NOT a member of the Arab League as the Arab League recognizes that region as part of Morocco (as does the US)--Smart30 (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's make it clear. Western Sahara is coloured in orange because ONLY A MONTH BEFORE the Tunisian events was the scenery of large scale protests and riots between Sahrawi protesters and Morocco forces and civilians. For example, see Deadly clashes as Morocco breaks up Western Sahara camp. Obviously, that should be added to this page, as its part of it (I dont mind if its put on the rest of the countries list or as a precedent), as it was a socio-economic protest that due to the events turned to a political one, as it was a major protests, as official buildings were attacked, as protesters ask for better living conditions, work, etc... all that are characteristics of the general arab world protest.

For the user who talked about WS recognized as part of Morocco, NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD RECOGNIZES WESTERN SAHARA AS MOROCCO. Review it. --HCPUNXKID (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That was not the impression I got from reading the summaries elsewhere on Wikipedia. I invite you to edit Western Sahara and Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic#International_recognition_and_membership to correct the text that resulted in me making those mistakes (e.g. "Since a United Nations-sponsored ceasefire agreement in 1991, most of the territory (including the entire Atlantic coast line) has been controlled by Morocco, strongly backed by France" and "On the other hand, Moroccan territorial integrity, apparently meaning including Western Sahara, is explicitly recognized by the Arab League"). I now understand that a distinction is being made between "part of Morocco" and "controlled by Morocco". As suggested by User:Smart30, I changed Western Sahara in the SVG map to grey, noting that it's not part of the Arab_League, despite its frequent appearance in updates to the summary table. gringer (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said, no country in the world recognizes Moroccan sovereignity over Western Sahara (not even France or other Morocco's allies), perhaps it could be considered that Arab League recognize it (not explicitly), wich is an international organization. I repeat, there were serious protests and riots in W.S. only a few weeks before the Tunisian revolution. You can see references on BBC, CNN, Guardian or Spanish & French media. Due to that events, W.S. should be in orange. --HCPUNXKID (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, i got my information from the article on SADR, which seems to somewhat contradict the information in the Western Sahara article. It would probably be about time that a map be added to both the article on SADR and the one on West Sahara with the states which recognize the sovereignty of either party or remain ambiguous/unpronounced. As for the protests there, from what i've read, not only did they take place before the generally recognized start of the protests (Mohamed Bouazizi's self-immolation) but they're only the latest in a long series of clashes and protests. There's nothing to indicate that they were related in any way to the wave of unrest that started in Tunisia, even if the root causes are similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypher foo (talk • contribs) 23:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Clickable map

Iv'e done a clickable map and added it, still finishing all map, please do not remove it, but you can help me finishing it all up, thanks.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Your map doesn't have Iran or a number of other countries discussed in the article displayed on it. Silverseren^C 01:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There was no "final" answer about Iran or related, just a bounch of random editing by people, right now it follow the title and the subject, once everyone agree with adding non-Arab countries, than its easily changable.

The Requested move from above about renaming it is still open and until it move the map is suitable.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, just make sure you have the replacement map ready, since it's doubtful the Requested move won't go through. Silverseren^C 02:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Time to add a "causes of unrest" section?

So far, in the article there's plenty of info regarding the way the protests have taken place as well as about the outcomes/results, but only a paragraph at the beginning about the possible causes. Considering that many of the root causes of the protests are the same across multiple countries (lack of jobs, poverty, social inequality, high price of food, lack of basic freedoms, a large proportion of young people) and that there are plenty of articles in the media (esp. Al Jazeera) about the causes, isn't there time that we add a separate "causes of unrest" section? I don't have time to look for links right now, but i've seen several in passing inside the article itself, not to mention reading several articles in the media during the last 3 weeks or so (esp. Al Jazeera, but also BBC, Time, CNN). The section should only contain the causes that we can all agree to be representative of all countries; for example the lack of jobs (high unemployment) seems to appear in almost every media article about the protests. Cypher foo (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

For - this is a good idea. we need a section covering the causes of these vitally important protests--Smart30 (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

A look at the Background section of Egyptian Revolution of 2011 might be a good model. Obviously the causes would be more general and not every one would apply to each country, but a summary seems like it would fit. Ocaasi (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

support a good idea, the leads of ll the other pages should have this info.Lihaas (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Other countries' reactions

Does it seem a good idea to others to at some point include a section on the official stances/reactions/comments of countries throughout the world on the various protests. I've seen similar things in many documentations of current events, and feel this could give a good global feel to the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.104.146 (talk) 08:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Libya

It seems that Libya has now taken the record for most violent protest. We currently have the article saying that details are hard to verify in terms of the attacks on protesters with snipers, helicopter-gunships, and tanks. But this article seems to have quite a few details. And it also has a death total, which is 140 for just this one attack. Silverseren^C 09:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request maghreb

The current lede of the article says;

"that began in the predominantly Arab countries of the Middle East and North Africa."

Could someone please change it to;

"that began in the predominantly Arab countries of the Middle East and Maghreb."

Per WP:W2W the current north africa definition is incorrect as it includes way more countries. Thanks 84.13.28.51 (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Self-immolation section

The section titled Self-immolation has been tagged as a list that may be better presented as prose. Personally, I think the list works better and would prefer it to stay like that. If events warrant it, it could even be split into a standalone list in the future, which would also help with the length of this article. Also, the list appears sortable, but the sorting doesn't seem to be working correctly. I will try to fix. Matt Deres (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the sorting issue (the colspan note at the bottom was interfering). Matt Deres (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

While some of the people on the list may be notable how about all the unknowns? Do we really need like 6 or 7 unknowns on the table? Some of the people on the list also fail WP:Notability (People) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

INJURY COUNT

I certainly dont think the number of injured should be under stated as over 500. lets do the maths....that was probbly the number of injured in just Egypt during the revolution. Make it above 5000 - i think that will be definitely right. It will take in all the injured, ((and who continue to get injured)) in:

• Libya
• Yemen
• Bahrain

Apart from this I belive, all Egypt and Bahrain injured --> must be accounting for thousands already! Obviously we cant correctly put a death toll - there are unconfirmed sources to half the protests example Libya, whilst the others wil take time to compile! But we can estimate the injured tolls! Jasmine revolution tolls if made to include the Iranians will also have hundreds added as injured! Wherever there were massive crackdowns I think addition os 100's of injured should be made. As it is Its an estimate, so we dont have to source it completely! Discuss and change accordingly! PranavJ 17:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranav21391 (talk • contribs)

I think you misunderstand the nature of estimates on Wikipedia. We can report other news agencies' or human rights org.s' estimates; we cannot make our own. Our WP:RS and WP:NOR policies cover this, if you'd like to take a look. The best thing would be to find a good source, like a major newspaper or NGO that has done a body/injury count, and then we can report on that. Ocaasi (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

infobox image

The flag map image is not about the protests, it's just flags, simply decorative with no relevance to the article. The image should either be the present photo or the previous map.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

morocco is major?

As seen in today's NYTimes:

"Demonstrations began on Sunday in Morocco, where at least 10,000 people turned out in cities across the country to call for a change of government and for limitations on the power of the king, Mohammed VI. In the capital, Rabat, and in the largest city, Casablanca, there were between 3,000 and 4,000 protesters, as well as smaller demonstrations in other cities, like Marrakech and Tangier."

Is this major? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchreader (talk • contribs) 17:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

From today, February 20, its obviously major. The coloured map should reflect this change.--Zarateman (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Done --haha169 (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

China "protests"

According to the Financial Times, the “Jasmine Revolution” in China attracted more police and (western)journalists than would-be protesters on Sunday.[8]. Vital456 (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Updated SVG image to reflect changed title

Hi, there are now two SVG images available, one with non-Arab countries coloured in blue (for an Arab League based image) and one with all MENA countries coloured the same.

• 
  Blue non-Arab countries
• 
  Graded colour for non-Arab countries

There has been a bit of to-and-fro in terms of colouring these, so it may take an hour or so before the image stabilises. gringer (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I like the image to the left...however I don't understand why Somalia is divided in 2. 68.101.69.12 (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Somaliland is shown separately. The left image makes it look like Bahrain is in Iran, at least at a low resolution. Ucucha 21:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, the rigt one shows Senegal as having major protests, but this article says all that happened there was one self-immolation. Ucucha 21:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. I am still confused about the green thing off of Madagascar. What is it? --haha169 (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The Comoros, an Arab League member where nothing (as far as I know) has happened. Ucucha 22:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The image on the left is having update issues because it has changed so much in the past hour or so. The one seen is not the most recent revision. --haha169 (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it is showing the most recent revision at the moment; it's no longer showing Bahrain as an Iranian enclave. Ucucha 22:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If Senegal is Yellow then maybe Gabon should be too - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

the current overview map is wrong. Senegal and Albania are NOT parts of the MENALihaas (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. gringer (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Gaddaffi Flees Libya?

Rumor has it amongst the crowds in Libya that Gaddaffi (however you spell it) as fled to Venezuela. Can anyone confirm or reject this development? I'm looking for a source right now. --Kuzwa (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If its not a top search result on google news (which its not), you're probably not going to find a reliable source. --haha169 (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I doubly doubt the army strongman will flee this quick.Lihaas (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This is false, as is now clear. Saif el-Islam Gaddafi just spoke on Libyan state TV, and made clear that his family is still in control of (part of) the country. Ucucha 23:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

overview map

[9] was not removed because of the map, we dont template maps and all links are already cited MORE than once on the page, this would be overlink. We have a template (used for its appopriate purpose)_ AND links on each section already.Lihaas (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

We actually do template/map links on map images. United States of America is a prominent example. Besides, lots of people here don't know which country is which and have been complaining. We offer information, and we don't withhold it because it seems too colorful.--haha169 (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above me, the clickable was created for the purpose of knowing which country is which and that you can press on it and get you to the right section. same as U.S. States and the issue there was same as here and it was resolved.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the labels. Most people are geographical idiots--no offense (myself included)--and having the labels in proximity on the map is a huge usability boost. Ocaasi (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Page moved again??

Who is performing these moves without prior discussion?? Colipon+(Talk) 23:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No one. I did move it, at the result of a well-supported requested move. Ucucha 23:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is here, and consensus was to move to the current title. Ocaasi (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Changing the name is really a bad Idea !

The whole thing was sparked by Arab people, it's ridicules naming it something else! besides Middle East and North Africa is mostly Arabs ! why would you change it to a name that doesn't denote MORE geographical area ? I think someone wants to obliterate the ARAB WORD.

• • No pun intended