Talk:Arab Spring

Libya was a NATO/allied regime change operation

PROOF:

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/libya-oct-26-2011-1117 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/26/qatar-troops-libya-rebels-support

Libya has not been 'liberated'. It is now a puppet state with foreign troops on the ground coordinating political restructuring of the nation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.160.150 (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that Qatar isn't part of nato right? It's part of the Arab League, to which Libya is a member. Jeancey (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Israel Protests

Just a heads up that protestors inspired by Tahrir Square in Egypt are now protesting en masse in Tel Aviv, demanding an end to government corruption and calling for an Isreali revolution. These are Jews not Arabs but this is a major related protest.[1] --Kuzwa (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Not related to this subject case, nothing to do with revolution or such case, its related to housing issue and mid-class protests, a.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

@Kuzwa: Huh? You sure those two are related? I've been to the tent city of TA a few times (very nice, has lots of music and speeches, clever, but oddly, no police (or so few that I can't find see any). O_O) on Rothschild Boulevard. As honor said, it's people, mostly middle class, very pissed off about housing prices (especially in TA) and economic disperity (and various bits of corruption, yes). The makeshift sign "If I were a Rothschild Boulevard" pretty much hammers that point home. There is no talk of revolution, but definitely talk of voting out Likud's coalition.... It was set off by the recent exorbatant dairy prices (You do not screw around with an Israeli's dairy products), not the Arab Spring. Read up on the Cottage Cheese boycott and other stuff, preferably from an Israeli news source (Jerusalem Post, YNet, Ha'aretz, Israel Today), not Al Jazeera.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

There have been articles in reliable sources claiming there are a wide variety of demands including social justice and even talks about forming a new political party to contest elections. I agree that it doesn't belong in the Arab Spring article since Israel is not Arab. But it is as much a "revolution" as any of the other Arab states. In fact I would say more-so. The term "revolution" being applied to countries like Tunisia and Egypt is dubious from my view (and many sources have commented on this as well). Egypt and Tunisia toppled the head of state. The institutions and power structure is still intact. Egypt is still ruled by the Egyptian military and Tunisia by former government official. That is not a revolution. That is just a power transition within a system. Poyani (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes there have been demands for various sorts of social justice (cost of living-wise, etc). Your surprise at talks of forming a new political party is a bit amusing. No offence intended, mate. However, it's not uncommon to make new political parties in Israel. I mean some flashy new ones in the last few years; Ariel Sharon made Kadima from part of Likud and then Ehud Barak made HaAtzmut, and there were talks of Gilad Schalit's family forming a political party, but they said they didn't want to. A revolution is a complete and toal change in the system, and at the end of the day, Israel will still be a multi-party parliamentary democracy. How is Israel's situation a revolution or even a potential one? More importantly, what (preferably Israeli) RSs are casting it as such? The only things I see right now are calls for the addition of social rights to the Basic Laws [2] and the Schalits joining on some of the protests. [3] Though I am still a bit woozy from an eye operation, so I could be missing some things. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There are hundreds of thousands of people protesting in Israel. Many of them are poor and there are many migrant workers joining in the protests. There are Israelis and Palestinians protesting together. (Much of this has not been translated into English.) Whether or not you agree with the agenda of the protesters, it CERTAINLY deserves mention, especially considering Israelis have been inspired by the Egyptian revolution and have been chanting something to the effect of "Mubarak, Assad, Bibi!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.66.78 (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC) im awesome yay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.81.103.62 (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

libya

Can someone fix the map? The civil war is about to end, the country should be in navy blue instead of brown red. 146.247.164.229 (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If anything, should be in black--81.84.51.224 (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The war isn't over. Gaddafi is still at large. Entire sections of the country remain out of the NTC's control. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

However, since most of the country is flying the royal flag, we should put it up in the Libya section and not the Green Gaddafi banner...Ericl (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The civil war started in February 2011. At that time, the green flag was the Libyan flag, indisputably. It should stay for historical purposes; to alter it would be revisionist history. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It would be revisionist history, but the fact that this article isn't even talking about the possible involvement of different european(including u.s.) groups and cia provocation is revisionist recording of history. almost "reinvisioning" what's happening, as its happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapblack (talk • contribs) 23:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a conspiracy website. Take it to a blog, please. General rule is: unless it's verifiable, it doesn't pass muster on Wikipedia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to reiterate the point about the flag, because someone keeps reverting it without discussion. Take a look at the 1990 US Open (tennis) article and note which flag appears next to Pieter Aldrich and Danie Visser's names. It would be revisionist to depict them as playing under the post-apartheid flag of South Africa; at the time they competed, the flag of South Africa was the apartheid-era Prinsevlag. On the World War II article, the flag of Germany is the Reichskriegsflagge, because that was the flag during wartime in Germany - even though it was abolished at the end of the war. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but what happens when the war ends, we will change it to revolution like Egypt and Tunisia, because they were pacific and libya has been an armed conflict and we should reflect that in tha map. --Polmas (talk) 10:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand the revolutionary fervor, but Kudzu is correct. The flags in the list should be those of the pre-revolutionary governments. Otherwise it is implied that groups like the NTC were the victims of the Arab Spring, and not the result of it. Quizmoquanto (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No they shouldn't, as they are meant to show how the revolts turned out. Tunisia and Egypt are shown as black with Revolution on them, which shows their status NOW. The flags haven't changed as they're the ones still flying over there. In Libya, the revolutionaries used the pre-Gaddafi flag, and that is now the flag of the nation. Had some Libyan won a tennis tournament a few years back, using the all-green flag would still be appropriate, but when showing the results, it should what the thing is NOW. Libya should be black and have the 1951 flagEricl (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

How do you figure? The countries are listed with the start dates of the protests right next to them. Libya's flag as of mid-February was indisputably the green flag; that's still the flag with the most international recognition, officially speaking, FWIW. This article is eventually going to be historical, and Quizmoquanto is absolutely right that using the NTC's flag is misleading. The protests were against Gaddafi, and Gaddafi's Libya used/uses the green flag. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Pitching in to add my voice to that of Kudzu and Quizmo. The conflict had two sides: Rebels and Gaddafi's regime. The flag used at the beginning of the conflict may have been Gaddafi's choice, but it was also the official flag. We do not change it just because it is no longer the official flag now. If you want to see a previous implementation of this, please take a look at the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Notice the flag used to represent Iraq is the official flag that was used at the beginning of the conflict, and NOT the current official flag of Iraq. Unflavoured (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No, but the list of revolts or protests are supposed to reflect the "state of play" NOW. Iraq's flag at the end of the invasion was exactly the same as it was at the beginning (it was first changed sometime in 2004). Of all the countries in the 'Arab Spring," the only one which is likely to change it's flag is Libya, which was not a generic symbol for the country, but was regime specific. Syria's flag is NOT Baathist only, but was the flag well before the Assads took power, thus, it's probably going to remain the flag of Syria whether Dr. Bashir falls or not. Libya, as I say yet again, is different, the flag was changed to exclude Gaddafi and his green-ism. Go with the 1951 flag.Ericl (talk)

Using the 1951 flag isn't WP:NPOV. A lot of countries and organizations, including the UN and AU, still recognize the jamahiriya. Besides, Wikipedia isn't news, it's an encyclopedia, and this is eventually going to be a historical event. In February, when the protests started, Libya was under the green flag. If Egypt had changed its flag after the fall of Mubarak, would it be appropriate to change it to the new flag just because protests were still going on, as so to be "current"? -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

momar is now dead the color should change on the map.by alex e — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.81.103.62 (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The End of the Arab Spring

So how is this going to end? For example, the "Nabka Day" protests are OVER and done with, the Post-Mubarak protests are becoming more and more infrequent, and pretty much everything has died down except for Syria and maybe Bahrain (there was a death the other day and this is going to stir up "trouble")(the Libyan war is ending, thus it's dying down). So when it the Arab Spring over? There might be riots and protests elsewhere, but they will be another phenomenon.Ericl (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It's over when reliable sources say it's over. I'm guessing that won't be until the autocratic governments of Libya, Syria, and possibly Yemen collapse. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I dont think there is going to be a day that it ends but rather a fade out, aljazeera has already called the Arab Spring as "Disappearing" [4] Time and reliable sources will tell what happens. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we mark Libya as REVOLUTION now?

The people have taken over, lets mark it as revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.145.238.4 (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I will support such a change when the UN and AU both accredit the NTC as the country's legal government; when Gaddafi is killed, captured, or goes into exile; or when anti-Gaddafi forces provably control the entire country, including Sirte, Sabha, Bani Walid, and Hun. Whichever happens first. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The situation is more like a change of government by force, rather than a revolution, which would include large mass action by the general population. I would therefore caution against renaming the article based on our assumption on how reliable sources may describe the change of government in the future, but to wait until the descriptions in reliable sources (or a majority among them) converge towards "Revolution" or possibly another term.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to Talk:2011 Libyan civil war#Rename to Libyan Revolution for the status of the move change, right now it appears as if there is no clear consensus for it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the OP is talking about the map? I could see changing Libya's color to deep blue, as media sources are referring to Qaddafi being overthrown, but I think Kudzu's criterion sum up why we should wait. I can't see him returning, but even at this state it's not impossible that Qaddafi will rally and prolong the civil war. --Quintucket (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

According to Al Jezeera:"Mahmoud Jabril, effectively the prime minister for the NTC, is now based in Tripoli." The government has been officially replaced by extrajudicial means. It's officially a revolutionEricl (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Won't be too long now. Be patient. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Why the situation in Libya is not considered as a Revolution?...Why the article still mention the situation in Libya as a civil war? Thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.28.65.138 (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we make a separate category for an uprising coopted into a NATO military intervention? What's happened in Libya and might happen in Syria? 208.120.66.78 (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't jump the gun. I really doubt that NATO will intervene in Syria. And we ought to go by reliable sources, which from my observations go by the current status of the revolution.--85.99.254.211 (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I vote we make it like striped between the civil war color and black to represent that it was a civil war that resulted in a revolution. Just a thought... Lilly (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

resources

• Streetbook; How Egyptian and Tunisian youth hacked the Arab Spring September/October 2011 Technology Review by John Pollock (pages 70 -82 in print)
• Beyond Streetbook; On-the-ground reporting of the Arab Spring revolutions will foster a more nuanced discussion of how digital tools matter, and how they don't by Jillian C. York 09/08/2011
• What Actually Happened; Did social media matter in the Arab Spring? We sent a reporter to ask the revolutionaries September/October 2011 by Jason Pontin

64.27.194.74 (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Presumably, this John Pollack. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The Libyan Revolution

Hey, can somebody change the map of the Libya into Black? Why is the Libya situation in the 'Summary of Protests by Country' highlight was black but the map shows the dark red? Thanks 115.132.40.8 (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The status was changed back to red as there is no consensus right now to change the name to revolution see also: Talk:2011 Libyan civil war. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it makes no sense to change the name of the article to "Libyan Revolution," but this isn't the place to discuss it, and that's not what the poster suggested. He suggested changing the map's color. It meets Kudzu1's [[5]] for changing it (recognized by UN and AU, and controls the vast majority of the county, however I would suggest meeting two of K1's criterion, as until Bani Walid and Sirte are captured (or less likely, Qaddafi is before that), the country is still in a civil war.

Nonetheless, we need to change it eventually. The map should show results, not whatever name the media happens to give it, and the fact of the matter is that the government has been overthrown, as in Tunisia and Egypt. Again, I think we should wait until Bani Walid and Sirte are captured, or Qaddafi is, thus effectively bringing the civil war to an end.

But in the meantime, it might be better to change dark blue on the map key from "revolution" to "government overthrown," which is what some sources are already doing. --85.99.254.211 (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, its me again from the 115.132.40.8. Yes, what the user 85.99.254.211 says is correct. I didn't say I want to change the title into 2011 Libyan Revolution or Libyan Revolution, no. The title will remain as 2011 Libyan Civil War regardless of situation and it will always be. However, whether a peaceful civil uprising or violent civil war, Arab Spring has a common goal, which is a 'Revolution'. I'm not saying that we should follow the media, but almost everybody says about '...deposed Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi...' or 'ousted' or 'forced out' whatever it is. Even the Al Jazeera has change their title of 'Battle For Libya' into 'The Libyan Revolution' since Gaddafi ousted on August 23. But maybe he's right. Maybe we need to wait until the remaining Libyan places (Maybe at least just the big cities like Sirte and Bani Walid) was captured by the rebels. Only then not only we should change into black (Revolution), but also we should change the flag of Libya into the pre-Gaddafi's one on that Summary of Protests. But then as I said, the article of the civil war must, and will always be remain as 2011 Libyan Civil War. Now I don't really think we should change that into dark blue. This is already a civil war, so just remain it as Ongoing Civil War whether government overthrown or else until the revolution comes. Thanks 115.132.40.8 (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we're in concurrence there, except for the names of the colors. I've been calling "revolution" "dark blue," "sustained civil disorder and governmental change" "blue," and "protests and governmental changes" "light blue." You seem to be calling them "black," "dark blue," and "light blue." Actually, I think of them as "indigo," "azure," and "cyan," but I figured that would be really confusing to non-English speaking contributors, for whom we've had a number. Perhaps we should just call all levels by the names. On a related note, I'm still suggesting that we change dark blue, black, indigo or whatever to "government overthrown." --85.99.254.211 (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yemen

The President has announced he's going to remain in exile, the vice president has been authorized to negotiate a change of regime, and 63 people have been killed in the protests in less than two days....should we change the color to civil war?Ericl (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Not yet. Why not the same as Syria? The rate of death toll in Syria is higher than Yemen per day, but it was never labelled as 'Civil War'. 115.132.40.8 (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur with 115.132.40.8, but for slightly different reasons. It doesn't matter how many people died, it matters what the reliable sources are calling it, and I don't see them calling it a civil war ... yet. --85.99.254.211 (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Iraq

Is Iraq really a 'Major Protests', I mean if you look at it there wasn't that many people protesting, and half the protests were not even about Iraqi politics itself but other Arab nations ... just want to start discussion on that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.143.28 (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

We included Iraq as major at the very beginning when things everywhere looked much more major, and we've never downgraded it. I'm not going to dig through the archives to find the relevant discussions, though you're quite welcome to. The Economist is the only source I know that nicely color-codes their maps, but I can't find the one from late June or July that I seem to recall classified it as minor, along with Algeria (only Syria and Yemen were treated as major in that map). We probably had reliable sources to treat it as such in the first place and we need other such sources--either an alternative map or references to "minor protests in Iraq" or somesuch--before we alter it. --85.99.254.211 (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Return of Ali Abdullah Saleh

Saleh has just returned.

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Yemeni-president-returns-from-Saudi-Arabia-2183137.php

Shouldn't we need to change the Outcome of Yemen when talking about going to Riyadh for medication? I guess we could remove it by now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.132.40.8 (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Classification of Saudi Arabia

Following the recent news that women will now be able to vote and run in future municipal elections in Saudi Arabia [6], I regard this as a major governmental change, raising the possibility of changing the colour on the map to light blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.202.247.242 (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That was my initial thought too, but it appears to have little or nothing to do with any domestic pressure. Do you have sources to link it to the Arab Spring? --Quintucket (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is Iran not on the list?

I can see that Iran is cited as not being majority Arab, but then in the topics first description it says that some members of the list are not Arab despite those nations not being majority Arab. There are even a number of sources/references talking about Iran in the context of other countries listed here. Even on this talk page there are no mentions of Iran's ongoing protests. Can someone inform me? 203.63.130.37 (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

We had this discussion months and months ago. Please refer to the archives. Iran will never be re-added. --Smart (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It was agreed by editors that Iran fell out of the scope of the Arab World, however consensus can change and if you have references feel free to post them in the format shown here: [Copy/paste link here] You never know with these events what the final outcome will be until it has ended and even then it can take some time after that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Dude, get to Impact of the Arab Spring. 175.137.54.233 (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Bahrain

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

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

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

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

References

Abu Casey (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Iraq, Morocco and Jordan - subdued?

Last info on Iraq is from mid-August, on Jordan from July and the largest protest since July in Morocco was by only 3000 people.HeadlessMaster (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's reasonable to consider these protests to have died down somewhat. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur, reasonable enough and closer to reality. Tachfin (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Jordan's protests never were that subdued. There were some big ones in late September and early October, but they had become routine and people had forgotten about them. A former prime minister was leading a number of them, and the moribound parliament came out of hiding and forced the king to fire the PM. It is possible that the King's power has been gutted. This is revolutionEricl (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Spillover

The Syrian army crossed into Lebanon and shot up a whole bunch of people, killing an innocent farmer. Does this go in Syria or Lebanon?Ericl (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Syria. 175.138.59.192 (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The Lebanese General Strike

According to the Arab press, the Lebanese government is frantically trying to stop a general strike, which includes a massive protest march over economic issues, if the government fails should we include it here?Ericl (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Well where is the source? 115.132.137.81 (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You mean every Lebanese news-site? It was there.

Kuwait

No one seems to have noticed that the situation in Kuwait has deteriorated since the large demonstrations last September....in fact no one here seems to have noticed the large demos in September eitherEricl (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Well, provide some links (RS), and we'll notice - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect title being used for Libya

Over at 2011 Libyan civil war the page was changed multiple times without consensus that resulted in a move protection being put in place. Looking at this page I can see here it was also changed here to the status of "Revolution", can this be placed back to "Civil war" until a consensus can be reached someplace? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

More of a current discussion can be found here: Talk:2011 Libyan civil war#Rename article to :

Arab Awakening

I'm hearing that Arabs are starting to call the Arab Spring the "Arab Awakening". Should we add this, in a bold name somewhere in the beginning of the article? 68.39.210.172 (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Libyan Revolution

Please Wikipedia guys¡¡¡¡...change this article...from Civil War in Libya to Libyan Revolution...Also make that changes in the colors of the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.30.105.62 (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see: Talk:2011 Libyan civil war#Rename article to : most reliable sources are calling this a civil war there is an ongoing discussion about this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Dude, how many times do we have to go over this? We are NOT talking about the 2011 Libyan civil war article's name; that is a whole different matter. We are simply discussing about changing Libya's color in the table, in order to have it be defined it as a 'Revolution'. And after all the developments we've seen today regarding Libya, I just simply don't see what's the hold up here. 24.107.235.192 (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

How does it make sense to call the thing a Revolution here when the article's title for it is Civil war? The two pages are connected, if you click on Libya's country that is now incorrectly marked revolution you will get to the article "Libyan civil war". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither it makes sense if you still label that as "Civil War". Oh and if that so then I guess somebody needs to remove the end date of that war, as in you still claims the majority of the source to be "Civil War". Until you remove that date, if you really wish, I still will change back to "Revolution" no matter how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.62.246 (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

So you are upset about the October 20th date? I am not the editor who originally added it and another discussion is going on here Talk:2011 Libyan civil war#War over? about the end of the war. I will remove the date until a source comes forward. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't show that article to me.

"So you are upset about the October 20th date?"

Somebody put the end date of the civil war. So if you say that, it means its a Revolution. And it looks like you are trying to match the word of the following article title to the Situation following what you trying to discuss with. The viewers wants to know the situation in Libya, so as I said already, I mean I talk to Kudzu that the title of the article shall remained as Civil War, despite the war is over. But the situation will be labelled as "Revolution" because it doesn't make sense you label "Civil War" IF the war is really over.

By the way, you wrongly put the link of the "Civil War" into "Libya" link. 60.49.62.246 (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a whole discussion about your issues in the links I put here, I suggest you read them over as other editors other than me have stated their opinions, your opinion is welcomed there too. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You are not listening to what I said. That link you gave me is for the article 2011 Libyan Civil War, but right here I'm talking about the Arab Spring article under the Libyan section. But fair enough, the war is still not over yet because the NTC hasn't declare victory of Libya.

But "hear" me what I just said earlier. I disagree of what you post that discussion and I can conclude that you don't seem to really understand what this article is all about:

"if you click on Libya's country that is now incorrectly marked revolution you will get to the article "Libyan civil war""

The article title indicates what is the whole thing about the civil war in Libya. Yes, I agree the media and sources says about the title "Civil War". Now, if you look at what you are editing in the "Summary of protests by country" section, the colours that you are editing belongs to the Situation. So if your situation is everything based on the article title, would that be ridiculous as well too? And I don't see anything is incorrect, you don't rely the situation labelling on the title's name. But haven't you read the earlier discussion where it says about it's ridiculous to change the article into 2011 Libyan Revolution since it's already a civil war, hence it shall remain as 2011 Libyan Civil War? What my point is that when an article title was called a "Civil War", it does not mean the current situation is a civil war. Some can be past as well. Don't believe? Here, take a look:

Ivory Coast whereby Gbagbo is overthrown It's a revolution, but yet the article is still called a 'Civil War'.
War in England whereby Charles I is overthrown It's also a revolution, but still the article is called 'Civil War'.

If you think changing the labelling to revolution will simply confuse the viewers, think it again. What your opinion gave actually does MORE confusion to the viewers because the civil war is over, yet you still want to label it 'Civil War'. So how its make sense for the viewers to read saying there was a civil war if the war is already over?

EDIT: And you seem very ignorant to me, why is the "Civil War" link in the Libyan section of "Summary of protests by country" will lead me to the article about the country of Libya? Isn't that link should link me to 2011 Libyan Civil War? Lol... what kind of editor is this? 60.49.62.246 (talk) 07:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

History has shown that not all civil wars end in revolution as much as you would like them to be, there are things that define the two terms. In the case for Libya Gaddafi Loyalists against NTC rebels not just the military, there were also pro Gaddafi tribes against anti Gaddafi tribes for example not to mention all the Reliable sources calling the event a civil war. I would wait and see what happens, the dust isn't settled yet, if more sourcers go about calling the end a revolution then having things changed back to blue is fine. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

History has shown that if the rebels win the civil war and the government is overthrown, then it is a revolution. The dust is indeed settled. At least as far as regime change goes. The Gadaffi regime is extinct, no one is going around waving the Green Book and saying "I'm the new Colonel, follow me." The entire government has been replaced. When Mubarak resigned it was counted as a revolution even though only two government figures were gone. This is more extensive. Why not this?Ericl (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Like i said before in this section, consensus is against a name change to revolution, changing the name on this article will feel good to some but will do no good as the link will still lead to 2011 Libyan civil war and not 2011 Libyan Revolution. I just find it silly that discussions need to be on this page about it, what it comes down to is a name change, if the 2011 Libyan civil war article does get changed to 2011 Libyan Revolution okay then this will too. To see the newest discussion on the name change Click here and join in if you want, right now I see editors against the name revolution but consensus can change. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If the Libyan interim govt declares victory would you change that situation into Revolution? Please don't assume about the article title. The situation with the colours and those article titles are whole different matter. 60.49.62.246 (talk) 13:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion centers on what is considered a revolution. The point isn't that there wasn't a revolution, its that a civil war better describes the conflict. Please, see the discussion at Talk:2011 Libyan civil war for the exact reasons. Jeancey (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no thanks, kid as we are still discussing about the Arab Spring not 2011 Libyan Civil War article. WHY are you all people still referring the labelling of situation to the article title's name on and on and on again? Seriously, you guys were keep talking about the title which actually has to remain as 2011 Libyan Civil War not 2011 Libyan Revolution. This has been discuss long ago that the article title cannot be changed! But this does not mean DIRECTLY reflects to this article regarding changing to black (Revolution) when it comes to this Arab Spring summary of protests by country situation section! Besides, the following 2011 Libyan Civil War article under the 1st paragraph already says something like:

"The 2011 Libyan civil war (also referred to as the Libyan revolution) was an armed conflict in the North African state of Libya, fought between forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's regime and those seeking to depose him"

And you say something like:

"Changing the name on this article will feel good to some but will do no good as the link will still lead to 2011 Libyan civil war and not 2011 Libyan Revolution."

Like I said before, the article title's name and the labelling of situation is a whole different matter. The reason why it has to remain the article 2011 Libyan Civil War is because there was an evidence of war happens before in Libya. But in the meantime when it comes to the Libyan situation, how is it makes sense to label that as dark red(Civil War) despite if the war is really over? (Sometimes there will be insurgency but that does not reflects the whole war)

So now back to what I've just ask earlier. If the Libyan interim govt declares victory would you change that situation into black colour (Revolution)? 60.49.62.246 (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

However I think there should be some kind of color indicating that the Civil war has ended.--Trickymaster (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Israel?

The Arab Spring (Arabic: الربيع العربي‎; also known as the Arabic Rebellions or the Arab Revolutions) ... major protests in Israel, Algeria, Iraq, ...

I knew it! Sooner or later, the Arabs say: Welcome Israel!

But .... Israel is an Arab country? Ayeff (talk) 11:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Why does Israel mentioned in here? It's not an arab state and the conflict or the mentioned 2-day event held on may in the syrian border is not related to the Arad Spring what so ever. You can't really put in the same page what's going on Egypt, Syria or Libya and the conflict in Israel (which is not related to the arab spring). This is Huge Bias to put it here. 217.132.187.49 (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC).

I don't know about bias, but there's nothing really Arab Spring-related going on in Israel, even if it had some of its Arab citizens protesting about the Gilad Shalit deal in some way. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Tishrei 5772 21:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha! If I'm a very bias towards the Jews I believe they say Israel is their homeland for Jews. This is a very general fact that Israel is NOT AN Arab country. It was majority Jewish. This goes same thing to Iran and Afghanistan whereby because they are Muslims or placed under Middle East, it does not mean is an Arab country. 60.49.62.246 (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Israel is under Impact of the Arab Spring 60.49.62.246 (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not Israel that's included, it's its border. The Palestinian protests for independence. EkoGraf (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yemeni Death

The 2011 Yemeni uprising shows about the number of casualties: 1,580-1,782. Somebody should update the Yemeni death in this articles. 60.49.62.246 (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Needed Changes

1) Libya needs to be colored as black since their Civil War is over.

Here's a compromise color it black and still call it a civil war!Ericl (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

There has been ongoing talks about this not every civil war ends in a revolution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This one did. There is no evidence of Gadaffi supporters with any army anywhere. Gadaffi was a one-man band. His sons had no credability, and the NTC is in full control of the country. The regime has changed. Period.Ericl (talk)

So you claim the majority of the sources still talks about civil war? Insurgency after Gaddafi still consider a civil war, is that what your reliable sources you are obtaining says that? What reliable sources are you looking at? You never ever give me a link before. And those sources you are seeking, are they 'reliable'? 60.49.62.246 (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The conflict began as a popular uprising against Gaddafi; it ended with the rebels/NTC emerging victorious. The Gaddafi regime has been completely dismantled. Gaddafi himself has been killed, along with many of his top aides. A new regime has established control of the entire country. Yes, this was a civil war, a civil war that ended in a regime change. Thus, the civil has ended in a revolution. 24.107.235.192 (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

2) Egypt needs to be colored in a new color, this means there needs to be a change in the color scheme. This is because protests are still going on even after the ousting of their dictator, because they now have a new dictatorship under the military regime. Which means there might end up being another revolution/civil war about to occur in Egypt.

No, the protests are going to go on for years from time to timeEricl (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

3) Syria and Yemen needs to be colored Red, since insurgency in Syria has taken characteristics of Libya's Civil War with numerous soldiers defecting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.76.52 (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree.

Wrong. I disagree of what you proposed about Syria and Yemen. Just because there are heavy clashes or fightings in both countries does not mean a civil war. It can only be labelled 'Civil War' if these countries admitted they are under war. And as for Egypt, the labelling 'revolution' is enough already. We don't need another level of the situation. 60.49.62.246 (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Unless we have WP:RS saying it's civil war...I mean, Wikipedia doesn't get to decide what constitutes a war. I see an unfortunate trend lately of editors trying to presume they can use Wikipedia to push a certain narrative, and it's just not the website's function. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Definition of Civil War

To quote the wiki article: "James Fearon, a scholar of civil wars at Stanford University, defines a civil war as "a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies". Ann Hironaka further specifies that one side of a civil war is the state. The intensity at which a civil disturbance becomes a civil war is contested by academics. Some political scientists define a civil war as having more than 1000 casualties, while others further specify that at least 100 must come from each side." Therefore, the conflicts in both Syria and Yemen are civil wars.Ericl (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Okay why not you take the Hama massacre which has 40,000 killed as Civil War? Just because there are tens of thousands of casualties it does not make it civil war. 60.49.62.246 (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Two things. One, I believe the number of people dying is in addition to other requirements, not the sole requirement. And two, did 40,000 people die on one side? cause that doesn't even fit that definition. Neither does Yemen I think, because I don't know how many government forces have died. Jeancey (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to Hama massacre 60.49.62.246 (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• No opinion on this one, but will give you the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary's definition of a civil war.

Civil war, noun. A war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country.

Merriam Webster.com

DCItalk 21:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Just my opinion but there were tribes against tribes and loyalists against rebels. This sounds like a civil war to me, and wasent simply a war against the government and military here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Civil War Ends In Revolution

There has been much discussion over whether Libya should be colored black or red. It is evident now that the Gaddafi regime has been overthrown and that the civil war ended in a revolution. Here is a source stating that the NTC has declared the war over: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/10/201110235316778897.html

The new government has stated that the war against the old regime is over because it has been fully defeated. Thus, the civil war has ended in revolution and the color should be changed as such. This is still a separate issue from the title of the 2011 Libyan Civil War page because the conflict was in fact a civil war, so the article should discuss the civil war. But it has now ended in a revolution, therefore the color on the map should be black to denote that the government was overthrown. Here are more sources calling the situation a revolution after the death of Gaddafi:  • http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/world/africa/revolution-won-top-libyan-official-vows-a-new-and-more-pious-state.html  • http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/23/post-gaddafi-libya-local  • http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-libyans-you-have-won-your-revolution/2011/10/20/gIQAyp6O1L_video.html  • http://tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=7126 David copperson (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

How about Libya be shaded with the colors for both civil war and revolution, i.e. red and navy blue stripes? After all, that conflict was both a civil war (large-scale armed conflict within a country) and a revolution (government overthrown). - Bootstoots (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The civil war is over there. Seeing any red there would lead a casual reader to think that the war was still going on. Because it ended in a revolution, it should be colored in the color for revolution. Splent (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course im trying to tell them the difference between the labelling of the situation and the article title, but they just won't listen to what I said. He wants to remain the Libyan situation as dark red (Civil War) bcuz the article title in the next link says about 2011 Libyan Civil War. He believes the reader will get confused if here is labelled as black (Revolution), yet the link it directs will go to that 2011 Libyan Civil War word. But my point is that, so what? Thats exactly we need to do because is already over, so it has to label that as Revolution, but not when it comes to the 2011 Libyan Civil War article.

EDIT: People must stop the nonsense about connecting DIRECLY to the Libyan Civil War article as if like 'the blood and the lymph are the same because they are both fluids' generalization. I find it very funny because up there on the first paragraph, it keep saying about:

Revolutions occurred in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya; civil uprisings in Bahrain, Syria, and Yemen...

So if this paragraph says revolution occur in Libya, why must you remain the labelling as Civil War? (Im not talking about 2011 Libyan Civil War, simply just referring to Arab Spring#Summary of protests by country article) And guess what? People should being more mature and logistic about saying that most media talks about civil war, that is for the 2011 Libyan Civil War article, but I'm talking about Arab Spring article. The situation is based on the current situation, not some past situation. Thought the Civil War will still remain civil war, however one of the side which is the unofficial interim government has overthrown Gaddafi govt. If you everything based on the next link's article, why is there classified as "Major Protests" or "Minor Protests" when most Arab country articles only says about one word which is "Protests"? And how about Governmental changes? If you based on these stupid logic about 'making the label MUST BE same as the article title, why not change something like 2011 Omani Governmental Changes or 2011 Jordanian Governmental Changes? Sounds stupid and silly right?

Its already announced that their country is liberated, so can we PLEASE go to black (Revolution)? The war is over. It makes no sense to label civil war as in the sources which trying to say this is now a past time already. Its time for revolution, it has a regime change. At least if you do that, the Status of Protests says "Civil war ended with Libya's Liberation on 23 October 2011" but with rebels achieve it, because this is part of the Arab Spring. But if you still label that as Civil War (Again Im not talking about 2011 Libyan Civil War, simply just referring to Arab Spring#Summary of protests by country article) then Im going to laugh that this Wikipedia is a bad, low and sh** quality that I have ever seen.

And whoever user tell me to discuss at the libyan civil war talk page, please stop doing that. Its gettin' tired and again, that article is simply indirectly refers to the Arab Spring article and its a different matter. The only thing the link directs to the Libyan Civil War article is to see what is really all about. 60.49.62.246 (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian source is a blog and isn't suitable for inclusion. The Washington Post article is quoting Obama's comment rather than making an assertion itself. The other two sources look okay, but are still overwhelmed by sources referring to the event as a civil war. You (and others) say the article needs to be changed because 'the civil war is over, now it's a revolution' but the NYTimes source even quotes the NTC as saying 'the revolution is over'. This creates a hole in the logic you're applying - if we're changing the status because 'the civil war is over', then we shouldn't be changing it to revolution either since that's over too. The logic being employed is that we call it what the majority of good quality sources call it, and the majority of good quality sources call it a civil war. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong! I never ever once ask you to change into 2011 Libyan Revolution. I simply ask you to change this one by changing the colour of the Libyan situation into black colour (Revolution), but that doesn't mean about changing the whole article. Don't you get it? We all already know its a civil war. But the thing is, what happens after the civil war? Is Libya currently still undergo civil war? 60.49.62.246 (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm? I didn't mention 2011 Libyan Revolution anywhere in my reply. What I said was that we defer to what is most commonly described by good quality reliable sources. We can't look up the definition of 'revolution', compare with news reports about the details of what happened in Libya and then say it was the 'Libyan revolution', that constitutes synthesis which isn't allowed. Wikipedia's job is simply to reflect what the sources say, even if we think they're wrong. At the moment, there aren't enough sources describing the event as a revolution to really call it that. But not to worry, there's no rush to have super-up-to-date information - we're an encyclopedia, not a news service. We have the luxury of being able to wait a month or two, see what the world is calling the event, and then make a decision on how we reflect that information in our article. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Then you shouldn't wait for one or two months, you should wait for years to change? So that's what you meant? Or maybe we should wait for one or two decades to change, not months! And you are still talking about 2011 Libyan Revolution, but mine's Arab Spring article. Alright, so be it. Libya will be undergo a 'virtual reality' civil war situation starting from 23 October 2011. Lololol! So then remove the Governmental Changes, cuz the sources never says about "Governmental changes", except talking about political concessions and protests around in Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman... And for the second thought, if you really think changing the colour to black (Revolution) goes against the consensus then my I ask you nicely that you should change the sentence in this 1st paragraph of the Arab Spring article from:

"To date revolutions have occurred in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, civil uprisings in Bahrain, Syria, and Yemen..."

into:

"To date revolutions have occurred in Tunisia, and Egypt, civil war in Libya (Or something like civil war in Libya resulted the fall of its regime), civil uprisings in Bahrain, Syria, and Yemen..."

So the word revolution don't exist in the Libyan world, so you need to change that sentence. I mean, this is very hypocritical while to you it is not a revolution because most sources say its a civil war, yet that sentence above says it otherwise. 60.49.62.246 (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

He quite obviously didn't write that sentence. In fact, if I were in his position I WOULDN'T change it, until the discussion was over. On wikipedia you don't change things like that in the middle of the discussion. Most of the reverts from Revolution back to Civil War are happening because the discussion is still on going, and therefore it shouldn't be changed yet. Jeancey (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

No, the scenario goes by a hypocritical article shows a sentence talking about Libya is part of the three nation revolutions, yet people like you still thinks changing to the word "revolution" in the chart summary is against consensus. This article is definitely out already. It makes sense to put as 2011 Libyan Civil War but it makes no logic sense for labelling 'Civil War' under this summary chart. Period 60.49.62.246 (talk) 04:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how I can make myself any clearer, 60.* - I have not mentioned '2011 Libyan Revolution' anywhere. I'm not talking about '2011 Libyan Revolution', nor am I talking about '2011 Libyan civil war'. I'm talking about needing a trend of good quality reliable sources that say the event was a revolution before we say it's a revolution. At the moment, most sources still refer to the event as a civil war. When most sources start referring to it as a revolution, then we can change it to revolution. If most sources never start referring to it as a revolution, then odds are we will also never change it to revolution. We don't create, we reflect. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course most refer to it as a civil war, but the war ended two days ago. It's not a question of whether there was a revolution or not, there was a revolution. The previous leader was ousted, rebel forces control the country, there is a transitional council in there to handle the power switching over and how they are going to proceed. That is the very definition of a revolution. Obviously you can't keep it at civil war, the war is over. When that source said the revolution was over, that was a clear misnomer and you know it. Is the Tunisian or Egyptian revolution "over"? No, because a revolution is the result of the government changing, leaders changing and a different government being established, which is exactly what is going on in Libya. 67.142.161.30 (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you even KNOW how things work on wikipedia? If you don't have WP:RS calling it a revolution INSTEAD of a civil war, you CAN'T put it in the article. I have capitalized words that you should pay attention to. If you don't have those WP:RS then it is considered WP:OR and has NO place on wikipedia. I can't make myself any clearer than that. Please read both WP:RS and WP:OR before responding. Oh and probably should check out WP:SNYTH as well. Jeancey (talk) 06:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for patronizing me, because I've actually been with this project since 2004, which looking through your contributions, looks to be about six more years than you. Now, as for your reliable source and original research, I would like to challenge you to find where this is currently a civil war, which is what this article is claiming it is. I'm going to give you a spoiler alert, as of a couple days ago, you aren't going to find a new reliable reference which refers to this as a current civil war. You may certainly not get the specific word "revolution", but your claim that it is a civil war as of right now, is asinine. 67.142.161.30 (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wait... so the anonymous IP has been on here longer? Or maybe I have been on just as long and I just finally made an account not too long ago. If sources are now saying revolution, or some form of the word, then by all means change it and add those sources. That's how wikipedia works. Just don't change it without providing a source for that change, that's all I was saying. Jeancey (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the case is for the longevity of our accounts, as you can see, I no longer operate an account and this article is semi-protected. As you can see, the opening paragraph cites that this has been a revolution since prior to the civil war, however this still remains inaccurate and inconsistent with the image and list of countries listing this as a civil war. You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's either a revolution or not, and it most certainly is. I'll concede that while the war was ongoing, it being a revolution in the table and image wasn't needed, as a different outcome could surely have happened and power from pro-Gaddafi forces could have rose again and he could have taken control. However since the war is actually over, Gaddafi is dead, there is Council of rebels running the country and quote "Libya was liberated", it is simply a revolution now. 67.142.161.20 (talk) 06:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Jeancey, Knowledgekid87 whoever you are, when those sources are calling them "civil war", do you know what are they trying to describe? Is the "civil war" a present thing, or are they past? The thing about you keep telling me that sources are calling them 'civil war' actually indicates that you don't know English, sorry if I had to say that.

TechnoSymbiosis, that's the problem like you people. You believe you are not saying about 2011 Libyan Civil War but indirectly you are. Your arguement doesn't make sense at all. But to give you a face, here's what I need to make it clear on this statement you wrote:

"I'm talking about needing a trend of good quality reliable sources that say the event was a revolution before we say it's a revolution. At the moment, most sources still refer to the event as a civil war."

Let me ask you one question. Do you understand English? Give me a source saying the event is a civil war. I wanna see it how you understand the language. I wanna know if there's such sentence says "Fighting still rage in Libya blah blah blah..." something like that. Challenge with me. If I say my friend is pulling my leg, do you really think he's really pulling my leg? Just asking 60.49.62.246 (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the civil tone. WP:NPA is a wonderful article. Anyway, to the point. What you don't seem to get is this. We are describing a PAST CONFLICT. Past. It was a civil war. It isn't anything anymore. I believe I used this analogy with someone before. It's just like rectangles and squares. A civil war IS a revolution, but not every revolution is a civil war. Civil War is a more specific and accurate description of this now finished conflict. And, I might add, a term that is used extensively by the media. In short, we aren't describing a current situation at all, but something that is over. And that something was a civil war. So there is no need to find something describing the conflict now, because there is no conflict. Hopefully I have made my point clear.

Civil war is not neccessarily a revolution, neither is revolution not neccessarily came by civil war. Civil war can be in many aims, besides about total changing of the government. Some is because there are two parties trying to provoke each other for different ideological reasons. On the other hand, a revolution can come in many ways: In a non-violent revolution like Egypt and Tunisia, while civil war revolution like Libya.

Okay, then I ask you another question. What is this "Situation" in the Summary of protests by country section? Is this referring to the current situation or a past one?

I added dates in to avoid confusion, this might be like Russian Civil War and Russian Revolution here, as an editor pointed out they were related conflicts but doesnt mean they are one in the same. if there are WP:RS's calling the current thing a Revolution then maybe a new article should be made to reflect this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The same dates should be added to the picture where Libya is colored red. A casual reader would look at that and assume there is a civil war ongoing. 67.142.161.20 (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm going to repeat my suggestion from earlier: Libya should be colored with black and red stripes because it experienced both a civil war and a revolution. I don't think that coloring it red implies that the civil war is ongoing, simply that one occurred. - Bootstoots (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• • If someone can find some sources stating that this had been a civil war but ended in a revolution then this sounds like the best idea here. The sources that I have seen brought forward call the whole event a revolution while the majority of sources call it a civil war as a whole. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

The problem here, which I brought up earlier, is one of semantics. You're arguing over whether it should be called a civil war or a revolution, and thus what the color is. But that's not what matters. There's two ways we can look at this: what's the furthest the protests have gotten, and what the current situation is. Either way, the current situation is that the government was overthrown, and that's about as far as we can go. Thus, I will propose again that we do like The Economist did, and label the final step as "government overthrown". Then it doesn't matter what the media calls it, since the media pretty much unanimously agrees that the previous government of Libya is gone. --Quintucket (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I would support this, sounds like a pretty neutral way of putting it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good compromise solution. Change black to mean "government overthrown", change Libya to black, and keep the 2011 Libyan civil war article under its present name. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this solution - that's probably better than coloring it red and black. - Bootstoots (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment Just a comment here but the color for Revolution looks like a dark blue to me and not a shade of black. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment Thank you, people. We have a consensus here. I think its very satisfactory for me. 60.49.62.246 (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've partially implemented this change, however the map image itself still needs to be updated. I don't have tools available to do so myself at the moment. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 25 October 2011

On Libyan chart summary please update that the war, ended Gaddafi was found and killed. They also announced liberation as well as elections.

96.237.119.211 (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Not how this template is meant to be used. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Map colors

Bahrain should be dark blue to match the summary chart. It's currently light blue. Czolgolz (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed per nom. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is Bahrain labeled as a protest not Uprising?

Given the coverage of events, the number of deaths and the fact that they resorted to asking Saudi Arabia for help as the government was on the verge of collapse, it's more of a civil uprising rather than a few protests. It should have its own section as an uprising rather than be put under the "Other Protests" section. Just because the uprising was put down, does not mean it should be excluded. If Syria should be labeled as an uprising, then so should Bahrain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabolisk (talk • contribs) 10:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't really been following the Bahrain situation much. Have there been media sources calling it an uprising? Or are they still calling it protests? Jeancey (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick Google news search on "bahrain uprising" says yes. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Libyan Government Overthrown Date

Actually, the correct date for Gaddafi being overthrown is 23 August 2011. Most media sources says about former Libyan leader killed on 20 October 2011, meaning Gaddafi was already overthrown when the rebels took over the Tripoli compound before he was killed in Sirte. AFP, AP and Reuters many more confirm this.

On an unrelated discussion, it is necessary to say "Replacement of the green Libyan flag with the pre-Gaddafi tricolour." this statement? Because I find it that Libya identity has changed more than just changing the flag. Her national anthem, coat of arms, government and other old Libyan identity as well too changed. 60.49.61.211 (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Social networks

The role played by the social networks has been exagerated, especially in Tunisia. (cf. Jean-Pierre Filiu) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.151.180.227 (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

How so? Jeancey (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

In his book The Arab Revolution: Ten Lessons from the Democratic Uprising, Jean-Pierre Filiu says that the revolution in Tunisia started in a countryside area and that the social networks only played a role at the very end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.151.180.227 (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Lebanon Casualities

I think we should point out the fact the lebanese casualities came from clashes between various segment of the population and were not governement relatedPhiloleb (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No need to post this three times. Do you have a specific article or quote to support that? Jeancey (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well the articles that are cited #63 and 64 claim that the casualities come from sunni alaouite clashes, thatarest warrants have bee issued, and that the lebanese army was sent to restore order... Philoleb (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

and where was this posted three times?? Philoleb (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the other two of them. Jeancey (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"Strategy of tension"

After initially trying to copyedit it into grammatical English, I've now completely removed a sentence referring to the Arab Spring as a form of the strategy of tension. This is massively POV, with the suggestion that it is some kind of Western plot, and completely unsupported by the cite given after the sentence below. If people are going to add stuff like this, it needs be cited as an opinion, fully attributed to who is saying it, and to come with cite to reliable sources that confirm this. -- The Anome (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Change form Israel to occupied palestine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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