Talk:Arab Spring/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Background Extention

I have posted live an extended Background section which explains the lead up to the unprecedented protests. I have improved upon the references, but this was my first time ever adding to a wikipedia article, and my references are not very clean. But I think the content is pretty neutral and to the point. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or improvements. I will do my best to improve, but any help is greatly appreciated since I am still learning how to do all this. Xacobi (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Overall, I think it's a well-written section, but I'm noticing that some of the sources were copy/pasted from other articles, but not from the edit window, so all relevant links are excluded. What article did these references come from? And did you use someone else's wording from another article? If so, credit needs to be given through a wikilink in an edit summary. That should ideally be done with the edit in which it's added, but better late than never. Other than that, why is there only a history given for Tunisia, Western Sahara, Algeria, and Egypt? Lara 13:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Yes I did get some sources from other articles. I went back and copied it from an editing window. I think the only wording that I used from a wikipedia article was the Western Sahara, and algeria information bellow from this article, or the country protests article. I tried to credit it in the edit summary, but you may have to explain that more to me. The history was given for these four countries for the following reasons. In articles that I read, mainly this marxist, not such a good source article, and from what Norm Chompski and others have been saying, that Tunisia, Western Sahara, and Algeria were really the focal points to the lead up of new methods and large scale protests that we are seeing now. I added Egypt because it is also the other country with a huge outcome, and it has great sources explaining the April 6th strike and committee of 2008 that used the Facebook organizing that is foundational to what we are seeing now. I am in no way against adding an additional country or two, but it needs to be a big event, or overall view point that directly relates to the regional situation as we see it now. We certainly can't add them all. I personally have not seen any good sources explaining the regional connection on other countries, but do let me know if you find any, it was hard enough finding these. Xacobi (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Death numbers and statistic policy for Libya

I suggest Libya part should be out of "protest deaths" since protests went to civil war. That war migth get to much increased number of deaths, and would be strange to have "protests" with 10.000 deaths. So i suggest just to include deaths in first days of protests, all those numbers when protesters get machine guns and rockets should be counted as civil war deaths. --94.140.88.117 (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Its Red Revolution similar to the one that happened in Cuba. Meaning the the protesters are armed. Its not a civil war. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
No reliable source has called Libya a civil war yet. DerekMBarnes (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what you would consider a reliable source, then. There's this from CNN, off the top of my head. Macarion (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

CNN, BBC, Reuters,...all stated it already as civil war. Also, it went far beyond protesting, so should be named to Civil war, but i know some medias dont support that because of policy. --94.140.88.117 (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced content

I had to point to this issue. As I see that the date issue is controversial, I would asume good faith as we discuss the issue, but what I cannot understand is the deletion of sourced content, or I can only understand it on terms of violation of Wikipedia policy. Some even had used the argument of consensus, when as long as I know there was never a consensus on erasing relevant sourced content giving information to an article. I even saw in the article false statements (intencionated or not), and they had not been erased as quickly as the sourced academical info I talk about.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a consensus between WP users that the starting point was Tunisia, and you are the only one who is opposing it.
Medias and sources cite Tunisia as the starting point, but your edits are based on a minority opinion among specialists (then sources) that it was Western Sahara.
In other words, you are starting and contributing to an edit warring.
Omar-Toons (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
How many times do we have to keep telling you that your sources aren't reliable and that TUNISIA was the starting point? Not only that, but you were conflicting the page by adding the October Western Sahara protests to the table but didn't change anything about the starting point which said it started in Tunisia on December 18. How many more months do we have to keep doing this? I'm surprised you haven't been blocked yet. TL565 (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I know that you're working to block me, that type of lobby you had. It is curious to see that what it is supposed to be a mediation (an administrator) is asked by one of the parts and made the changes wanted by one of the parts. That's neutrality?. You dont want to discuss, only to impose your view, and what it is worse, to hide other points of view. So now academic and media sources RELATED to the article are not reliable?. Could you give REASONS, please?. This point of view could be minoritary, but if we had to erase minoritary views in Wikipedia, perhaps half of it had to be erased. I was not the one who started edit-warring, as I was not the one who started deleting sourced content.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
You are completely BLIND. Do you know how many discussions we had on this issue. It wasn't just me, at least five other people gave reasons on this. We gave plenty of reasons, you just dont want to hear it. As for your "sourced content", once again a few opinions of two people are not reliable compared to MANY other sources saying it started in Tunisia. Other than you, who else is trying to add what your adding in? Exactly, the consensus is against you. I suggest you stop edit warring, your just embarrassing yourself at this point. TL565 (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
TL, I understand your frustrations at this point, but please don't be rude. HCP, you are changing main portions of the article: the info box, the lead, etc., into making it seem as if the protests began in October in W. Sahara on the basis of a few sources. While those opinions should be duly noted (perhaps in the W. Sahara section), it is simply not ready to be displayed so prominently as fact. --haha169 (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
It began with Tunisia, when this is over - we can add a note that some specialists say it all began with Western Sahara, but as of right now there is a gigantic consensus that Tunisia is the starting point.--Smart30 (talk) 03:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
In TL's defense, HCPUNXKID has been extremely rude, and has a long history of edit warring on wikipedia. He has been given many patient replies with links to wikipedia policies on why people disagree with his frequently non-WP:NPOV contributions, but keeps up this behavior over and over again. Just look at his contribution history, his talk page, and the history of this article and archived talk page.--68.7.78.64 (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, what I am surprised is that some users, as they want to avoid some information at any cost, has erased EVEN THE POV AND UNBALANCED BANNERS, that clearly stated that they should not be removed until the dispute is finished. About the ones who said that they had replied my arguments, that is false, they had not answered to any concrete argument I gave, no one. All I was asking was for an exchange of opinions about the issue, wich was denied by some popular (as I see) editors. I had never pretended that the version about the current events starting in W. Sahara was the unique one, as some others had do. As long as I know, different points of view on articles are welcome in Wikipedia, when they are sourced and verified. "the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased", thats not me, its Wikipedia policy. Confronting sources saying events started in Tunisia with sources saying that started in W. Sahara, and giving the numerical superiority of the firsts to made it an argument supporting the exclusion of the seconds...Im not gonna qualify it, but.... I perhaps had been rude and so vehement, and I regret if that offended someone, but the question is that some users AVOID not the inclusion of sourced relevant information, but even discussing it reasonably. Edit-warring? Some users here had also that reputation, I am not gonna point them.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Map specific discussions

New colour for Algeria and Morocco

There should be a new colour for Algeria and Morocco; "Major reforms or concessions" or something like that in light of king's concessions in morocco and state of emergency revoking in algeria. It's also likely that we will see more of this sort of thing, as rulers try to preempt a revolt by introducing more democracy voluntarily. This is in many senses much more significant that "governmental changes" or such like as have occurred in jordan, oman. Also, west bank should be in blue. Nwe (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

West Bank should be blue. Morocco saw major protests today. Algeria should stay the same so half-assed reforms doesnt pass as governmental changes. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
oppose : A 200 persons' protest isn't a major protest. However, I support the idea of creating a new label for major political concessions --Omar-Toons (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

But don't you think that the concessions are the most significant event at this stage in algeria and morocco? I also think we should do this as a way of anticipating what's likely to come; arab leaders are scared shitless and this may lead to democracy in itself gradually. Remember how democracy came to most countries in europe; most didn't have revolutions, but the fear and possibility of a revolution in itself led to a restructuring of power in those countries. Nwe (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There's been discussion before of eliminating the 'governmental changes' category, since said changes have by and large failed to satisfy protesters in the countries marked as such, and protests within those countries (namely Jordan) are still ongoing. From what I'm reading, so-called 'major reforms' have yet to quell unrest either. DerekMBarnes (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Quelling of unrest isn't the point. The point is that it's a significant development as a result of the protests. Nwe (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - neither Morocco nor Algeria have provided legitimate reforms and government changes. The de-facto definition of government changes is Jordan which is why Oman is also now blue. So until Morocco/Algeria have reforms and changes comparable to Jordan/Oman there shouldn't be any changes to them on the map.--Smart30 (talk) 05:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

New colour for West Bank and Morocco

Do you agree tho that West Bank should be blue and Morocco "(Moroccan police break up rally, hurt dozens-witness)" should be updated to Major? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Why should the West Bank be coloured blue? 168.91.255.100 (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
oppose both --Omar-Toons (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
from the article: "On 14 February, the Palestinian Authority's Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and his Cabinet submitted its resignations to President Abbas" hence a light blue for Governmental Changes. It was blue at one point but during the big turmoil on the page and in the map about a month ago it must have been changed accidentally.--Found5dollar (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Western Sahara again

Western Sahara Flagicon

The Western Sahara entries in the two tables (Summary - currently removed - & Self-Immolation List) would need a flagicon, as all of the other countries have one. I know that this is a disputed territory so there are 4 options in my view:

  • 1. Using the Morocco Moroccan Flag/flagicon (I don't think many people would agree on this one)
  • 2. Using the Western Sahara Western Sahara (SADR) Flag (Some people might agree, but it would seem a bit biased towards the pro-independence camp)
  • 3. Using both, something like Morocco/Western Sahara - would seem more ballanced, but would put two falgs instead of one in the table
  • 4. Using a hybrid such as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Morocco_and_Western_Sahara.svg (I personally favour this one, but there is no flagicon version afaik)

Any thoughts? - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

For the last one, you can use the 20px image instead of the flagicon, I think it is the best solution to avoid GF-PoV editing --Omar-Toons (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I used the third one on Mohamed Lamine Ould Salek Ould Said Mahmoudi's section of that part of the article, but it was deleted. I used a Morocco flag only. It got deleted. I used a Western Sahara flag only. It got deleted. Mohamed Lamine Ould Salek Ould Said Mahmoudi needs a flagicon next to his name. What can we use?

I, for one, think the case depends on what the person was believed to be protesting. If it's the person is Sahrawi, but protesting Morocco's government only, then a Moroccan flag. If he's a Sahrawi and protesting Western Sahara issues, then a Western Sahara flag only. If she's a Sahrawi, but protesting both Sahrawi and Moroccan governments, then the hybrid, which should be made into a flagicon.

Now, I'm going to keep re-adding the Moroccan flagicon (Morocco) to Mohamed Lamine Ould Salek Ould Said Mahmoudi, until someone gives me a definitive reason why it should be the Sahrawi flag, the hybrid, or none. Because right now, people are just leaving him without one, and it's getting annoying. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding a Moroccan flag will be reverted as it is considered as PoV since the territory is disputed and that there is no official flag, but two flags belonging to the two claimants.
Omar-Toons (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, the fused flag is original research, and also fails the manual of style for image usage. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Western Sahara edits by HCPUNXKID

User:HCPUNXKID has made some edits to the article removing the Western Sahara section from the Table and adding two tags (POV and Unbalanced) tho the Summary Table and the Overview, which I see as a bit of an overreaction. As I recall, the discussion regarding Western Sahara has been settled, and I feel this is an attempt to impose a minority POV. Chomsky's POV is stated in the Western Sahara subsection, while the article mantains the overall consensus of that the Wave of Protests were ignited by the self-imolation of Mohamed Bouazizi. Where's the big controversy? - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

the guy is for several weeks disrupting this page by adding that Western Sahara stuff. Just see his recent contribs. I ask he be blocked--78.2.52.249 (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
This is starting to be boring, I cant understand that obsession on avoiding different points of view. Had I talk about imposing it as the only POV? NEVER. My edit simply added other POV (minoritary, but not irrelevant) to the main and generally accepted POV. If we only accept one POV on Wikipedia articles, half of it should be erased. I put the tags when I see that it seems to be the only way to made users to really discuss (not denying without reasonable thoughts) the issue. Then, I saw that the same tags that remained months on some articles were deleted inmediatly, without any discussion, although the POV one states literally: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved". No comment on that. About deleting the W. Sahara section on the summary table, its curious that while my edits were deleted speedly, citing as only reason that it was earlier than the Tunisia events, now some try to push a new version on the events, in wich as long as I can see, the W. Sahara protests started in February 2011, without any relation with the protests on precedent weeks, in the same places and by the same people. I had never heard that version on the events except here. No source stated it, or draw that suppossed line between the protests, perhaps because they are an ongoing chain of protests since the Gdeim Izik camp events in October and November 2010. It also contradicts the information on the W. Sahara subsection, but as it was redacted in part by me, it wouldnt be strange to be erased by some users, although it is sourced. How sad so much intolerance.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Copy-paste of a precedent comment of me:
There were many users who "tried", many times, to discuss this issue with HCPUNXKID (here[1], and here [2]), however he chose to continue his editings...
Omar-Toons (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
This is not about intolarance. The Western Sahara subsection AND the Background section both contain your POV, ot at least references to the WS october protests, but adding the 2 tags (POV and Unbalanced), twice, no less, is adding undue weight to the idea that there is a big controversy, which there isn't. This is not about exclusion or censorship, but about undue weight. Just because you can contradict other other Wikipedians ad infinitum does not mean there is a big controversy raging in the world - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
This is a deaf dialogue. You said that "The Western Sahara subsection AND the Background section both contain your POV":
  • Its not my POV, its the POV of Noam Chomsky (well known philosopher) and Bernabé López García (Contemporary Islam university professor), wich I think are reliable sources, and a valuable opinion. I dont think that every edit a user made is its personal POV, excepting someones.
  • Lets be sincere, much people who reach the article will not read it all, but the general overview. If that theory, POV, or how you wanna call it, made a different overview of the general issue, I think that its logic to be mentioned there. Also, including it on the W. Sahara subsection is reiterative, as the main article of the Sahrawi protests mention it.

Finally, I beg for some debate, only thing I read is recriminations, threats and avoiding any discussion ON THE FACTS. This is disgusting.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Enough complaining already. If you want something changed, if you want debate on certain content, I invite you to clearly state "I would like to add the following information to the following section. I think this is supported for the following reasons." As a suggestion on your style, I recommend you refrain from communicating PARTS OF THIS INFORMATION IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS when you want to emphasize your point, because it ends up reading as if you are yelling and being emotional rather than trying to make an intellectual argument. The same goes for bold text. Most of us will understand a clearly worded debate without having special words directly pointed out to us. I also recommend that you leave out your commentary criticizing other editors, whether specifically or generally, and leave out your commentary on how obvious it is that your opinion is the correct one (yes, even if you think other people are doing that to you). Things will sort themselves out through discussion to generate a majority opinion, even if your opinion in the end is not the one that is represented in the wikipedia articles text. In general there is a good bunch of people who have contributed to this article, trying to do the right thing. Like any article, there is also some chaos that gets introduced from time to time that confuses things. This usually gets sorted out over time in a civil way. In the end, whether people agree or disagree with you, please accept the consensus as a part of the wiki editing process, and don't unilaterally try to makes edits that you know are controversial. I know you don't think that's what you are doing, but because of the way you have tried to communicate your points in often inflammatory ways, there are a growing number of editors who are less likely to want to listen to you now - you will have to be a bit patient and gracious to undo that damage at this point. Alternatively, there are a number of free blogging tools where you can write whatever you want without having to compromise with anyone. Switching gears, I will say specifically about your points, as has already been said by others, that the Chomsky quote etc. already exists in the Western Sahara section, and does not need to be in the main content of the article. Every opinion does not need to be represented in the main body, or the article gets difficult to understand. One could argue, just to be silly by example, that the article should also say "Some heads of state, such as Moammar Gaddafi, believe that the uprisings are caused by Al Qaeda operatives giving hallucinogenic pills to teenagers", and I could give a sourced reference to this information. No, I am not equating that statement with what you are arguing, I'm exaggerating to try to make the point that the article is not enhanced or made more balanced by adding every minority opinion. I feel many of us have already given thought to what you are trying to suggest, and respectfully disagree. (This comment should probably go on your talk page instead of here, but I'm not sure how to do that yet, and I have not decided to have my own account yet and therefore have no talk page of my own)--68.7.78.64 (talk) 07:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I agree with some points with you, and I feel better that someone has finally decided to have a exchange of views. I know that my previous attitude was greedy or vehement, but in part fuelled by a few editors attitude. I regret it. I will expose the issue on a post, but I wonder why some edits (both sourced) on the same subsection and matter are treated different than others. Also remember that the only time the issue of the inclusion of the Western Sahara protests in the article was voted 4 users agreed, while 3 disagreed. See [3]. So it aint me against the world. Also I cant understand the removal of the tags, if a there is dispute (and with that correlation of opinions) the tags shouldnt be erased, as one of them states.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have filed a report, based on user User:HCPUNXKID continuing to edit war. See here - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:HCPUNXKID. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Western Sahara timeline

The information on the Timeline table is simply false, there are dozens of sources about precedent protests in W. Sahara, and even what happened in Dahkla was similar to the events in El Aaiun on late 2010. It also mixes Sahrawi protests on the territory, Moroccan protest on the territory and Sahrawi protest on the refugee camps, in Algeria. It draws a line between the Dakhla protests and the precedents, wich I aint seen anywhere else but here. If avoiding the W. Sahara events is wanted, ok, but dont made supposed divisions that no other source made.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

In 5 words: You are acting against consensus.
In 4 word: You edits are PoV.
Too many users tried to discuss this issue with you, and you are still editing articles following you own PoV. It is not surprising if too many people undo your edits.
Omar-Toons (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
As usual, you aint refuted any argument, but only impose your POV. You talk about consensus, ok. When had been a consensus about the Sahrawi protests starting in that date? Any source confirming that POV?. Or what you are saying is I dont have the right to edit?. I simply dont know what to think about this.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Restart

About flag - Western Sahara is a physical region and not an political entity - so it doesn't have a flag and a Template:Noflag should be used - when you refer to the physical region. If you refer to the Moroccan administration you should use Morocco flag and when you refer to SADR - you should use SADR flag.

About inclusion in the article - it depends. If the events there were protests against SADR administration of the Free Zone or against Morocco administration of the western part - then yes. If the events were part of the Sahrawi-independence-struggle-against-Morocco then Western Sahara War or something like this is more appropriate place.

So far, IMHO, the protests have more characteristics of 'people-against-governance-practices' than 'people-against-occupier' - so I think we should include these in the article (of course, if it's the opposite - then it should not be included). But usage of a flag is more complicated - while the protests are against Morocco authorities in the region using Morocco flag would imply that this is Moroccan territory - and this is disputed. Using SADR flag would imply that either this is SADR territory (but this is disputed) or that the protests are against SADR authorities in the Free zone (but I haven't seen any source suggesting such thing). So, I think that a 'noflag' is the best solution in this case. Alinor (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree : No flag should be used --Omar-Toons (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree : The territory does not have flag, the parties do --HCPUNXKID (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian

Gaza protests

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4042870,00.html

please include it --78.2.52.249 (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of the protests seem to have ended- rewrite?

in the last few weeks many of the protests seem to have ended. There doesn't seem to have been much activity in Iran or Algeria, for example, in over a month. I am not at all suggesting that we should be writing off the protests as finished, but I think it might be a good idea to rewrite many of the sections with a sense of finality. It is no longer useful for the Algerian section to end with a statement claiming that the Algerian Authorities might try to quiet their protests with their "oil and gas wealth", since, well, that hasn't happened and the protests there have peeered out.theBOBbobato (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't there also be a section highlighting the countries without internal unrest?

Such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (I think those are the only two), it would help shed light on how they were able to keep their countries stabilized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.161.231 (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Only if there are reliable sources that discuss them in this manner. Otherwise, it would likely be considered original research. Muboshgu 02:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • No. Macarion (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Against - no reason. --Smart30 (talk) 08:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with the first responder (no sig). If it's discussed in reliable sources, it's valuable information. When there are just a couple countries among many in unrest, it's a reasonable expectation that readers may be interested in knowing how they avoided the same sort of uprising. Lara 12:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Whoops. That was me. I guess I type three tildes instead of four. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Qatar/UAE

What is keeping these countries protest-free?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The main reason for an absence of protests in Qatar and UAE is general satisfaction with the present governments. Unlike their neighbors where significant percentages of the populations hate or dislike the regimes, most Emiratis and most Qataris support their regimes. It's only a handful of intellectuals seeking democratic reform through dialogue in the UAE and total silence in Qatar. --Smart30 (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-UN Members?!

How on earth can Armenia and Azerbaijan be described as non-UN members? I appreciate that this section is intended to broaden the scope of the article to protest regions not represented by by the arbitrary "Middle East and North Africa" article name, however, "non-UN" is simply nonsensical, not least because Armenia and Azerbaijan have been UN members since 1992, and additionally because, despite the summary section's description of "non-UN" as a "region", such an epithet is evidently neither informative nor beneficial.

Laika1097 (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Syria: Major or Minor protests?

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 this discussion, Result = Map Changed - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We need consensus as to whether Syria should be considered major or minor protests. A user unilaterally changed Syria to orange on the map and updated the table (but did not change the lead). We should compare Syria to other yellow and orange countries to determine whether or not orange is an appropriate classification. Let's get consensus on this. ZeLonewolf (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Minor - at the present time, my verdict is Minor. It is nothing compared to those in Yemen & Bahrain. (also Iraq). However - it's remarkably similar to Morocco's protests (which are currently also minor).--Smart30 (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Major - What is happening in Syria today is major if you look at the country's history. 40 years of one party rule, no demonstrations in Damascus since the 1980s. Ban Ki-moon and Barack Obama have commented on the attacks against civilians. Protests underway in the largest cities in the country. The regime has arrested hundreds of people, hence the well known regime critic profiles. Several dead as well.--Tonemgub2010 (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Please constrain your analysis to comparisons with other orange or yellow countries. ZeLonewolf (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Major -Ten thousand people is MAJOR, especially in Syria.Ericl (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Major: Protests in Syria are definitely larger than those in Iraq, more continuous and widespread throughout the country. Given what happened last Friday so should change the status of Syria to major. We might also need to recheck Iraq's status. itbeganinafrica (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Major: As I type this, tanks are entering the city of Deraa, and fears of another Hama Massacre is in the air. If this is not major protests, I don't know what is. 173.245.84.199 (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Major - well given the recent developments since I left my first response - I've shifted to Major. Especially now that BBC is highlighting these new protests.--Smart30 (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus - I'd say that's darn near unanimous. I'll update the map, hoping someone else can deal with the lead-in, table, and anything else in the article that needs modification. ZeLonewolf (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

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.

Libya start date

Why was Libya moved down in the overview table to February 15 when the protests there began on January 13? That's the date that always used to be in the table. Jmj713 (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Fix it and source it, then. ZeLonewolf (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The Libyan article mentions that the protests began on Jan. 13. Jmj713 (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Consider this your opportunity to contribute! ZeLonewolf (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Country-by-Country Protests

I think an edit is needed on countries section. Let's rename it to "Summary by Location", move the Palestinian territories and Western Sahara there and get rid of the Somaliland and Northern Cyprus sections as they have nothing to do with this protest wave (they are part of other long-standing disputes). "Non UN Members" doesn't make sense as a section. ZeLonewolf (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

  • ZeLonewolf, I have sources for this and you insist on not seeing that Northern Cyprus Protests is unprecedented. You have your own idea about this and have not read anything but insist that you're right. That's not the way Wikipedia works. Please read that references. Your intention to see TRNC protest as part of other long-standing disputes is totally wrong. I urge to study the references I posted, before editing randomly and against RS. Can you explain what's the motive behind TRNC protest? Sorry? You haven't read it. But you think you know this. Why don't you edit on how earthquake happens if it is easy to edit without reading? Kavas (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
First off, please avoid personal attacks. There are many people in here trying to do their best to edit a very touchy subject while maintaining WP:NPOV. If you have WW:RS of general coverage of the revolutionary wave that includes Northern Cyprus, then post it. All anyone seems to come up with are esoteric references in obscure, local language sources. A neutral survey of mainstream news sources shows that they universally DO NOT include Northern Cyprus as Somalia countries involved in this wave. For example [4] [5] [6] [7] are the top hits on Google for maps of the middle east / north africa protests. None of them include Northern Cyprus. A neutral analysis clearly shows that anything going on in NC is not related to this wave. If you have a reputable, english-language source with general reporting on the wave of protests that includes NC (not an esoteric source with an interview with a protester claiming to be inspired by Tunisia or Egypt), then please share it. ZeLonewolf (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
To give some context here, I'll review how this section got started:
 • Some "countries" had activity but there was discussion that it wasn't clear or wasn't felt to have the same motivations as the rest of the items on this page, such as taking preventative measures without popular protests, having protests that were about similar things but were not directly motivated by Tunisia, or were protests that were not about changing the current government, etc. (To be honest, I can't exactly recall the details of why people felt these places were different, but there was discussion at the time, which can probably be found in the archives). These were places that didn't quite fit in with the main body of the article, but it didn't seem should be left out. The section was originally titled "Other Countries In the Region" or something like that.
 • This section originally contained Norther Cyprus, Palestinian Territories, Western Sahara, and Somalia. I was the one who made a semantic edit that I now regret changing the title from "Other Countries" to "Other Territories", since 3 of the 4 were not recognized countries. This caused the purpose of having these other areas in a separate section to be confused, as people thought they were isolated based on international recognition, rather than a distinction in the events that were happening these areas. Hence the change from "territories" to "non-UN members", which didn't really make sense.
 • If it is still felt that these areas deserve distinction from the main body, then a better title should be chosen for this section. If this distinction is no longer felt necessary, then they should be merged.
--68.7.78.64 (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Palestinian Territories and Western Sahara: IMHO it should be uncontroversial that these are part of MENA. There is controversy about their international recognition. i think there has already been much debate about these two - see the links to the Archives to try and find the previous debate. My guess looking at it now is that the title "non-UN members" is OK, since separating "countries" from "non-UN members" is probably a fairly NPOV way to deal with them. The "countries" section is organised alphabetically, not geographically or thematically. So having another non-geographically, non-thematically separated section seems reasonable to me. However, the introductory paragraph probably needs radical reduction or maybe full removal. Also, maybe "countries" should become "UN member states"?
  • Northern Cyprus - if there is RS'd evidence that protests there are inspired by the MENA protests/revolutions, then it can be shifted to Impact of 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests#Europe. Otherwise, shift any non-redundant info to some Cyprus-recent-history related article.
  • Somaliland - as per Northern Cyprus, but if RS'd evidence for a MENA relation exists, then it would go to Impact of 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests#sub-Saharan_Africa.
Boud (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Northern Cyprus is a Middle East territory, but the protest is not classified as Middle East and North Africa protests in sources. However, "if RS'd evidence for a MENA relation" is already done. See archives. I have the call for gatherings, the organizers say they are inspired by Arap World protests. Kavas (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
IMO, this article is not an umbrella article for all protests which happen to occur geographically in the MENA region during 2010-2011. Rather, it's about the protest wave starting with Tunisia. Further, as wikipedians, we do not get to do analysis (WP:OR) to decide what is and is not a part of this protest wave; we can only repeat what WP:RS reporting says is part of the protest wave. "See archives" isn't good enough, because the archives are huge for this article. Rather, you should post a specific source that shows WP:RS reporting on the protest wave which includes NC if you want to gain consensus. ZeLonewolf (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
You don't read my posts and randomly edit regarding TRNC protests, but when I say this, you're attacking me by claiming that I'm attacking you. As you never read my posts, let me repeat, I never claimed that TRNC protests are part of Arab World protests, but what I say is like Albanian protests, TRNC protests are inspired by the Arab Spring, and at the same time TRNC is a Middle Eastern country (or non-UN member). See the sources I posted in the archive please, I don't have to post them twice if you didn't read when I sent a message directly to you. You're making OR by claiming that TRNC protests are part of the long-standing dispute since RS (in English) show that this protest is related to economy, that's not common in Cyprus dispute. Finally, you mention Turkish sources as esoteric references in obscure but in Wikipedia, if English sources are unavaliable, we can use sources from other languages. Also, I have some reliable English sources (but probably you won't read them). Kavas (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Per your comment I never claimed that TRNC protests are part of Arab World protests I have to say we are in complete agreement, and that is the reason that NC should be excluded from this article. Just because a protest is occurring in the Middle East or North Africa, does not justify its inclusion in this article. This article is about the specific protest wave starting with Tunisia, not a general umbrella for any protest or unrest that occurs in the region. ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Further, as a parallel example, many protesters participating in 2011 Wisconsin protests cited inspiration from the Egyptian revolts...however, coverage of the Wisconsin protests ARE NOT included in this article, because media sources do not include Wisconsin as part of the protest wave...and for that reason, Cyprus, Armenia, etc, protests simply do not belong in this article. ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Kavas (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yemen: Major Protests or Government Change

Here we go again... A user unilaterally changed the map to make Yemen blue for "governmental change" from "major protests" (which I have reverted for lack of consensus or sourcing). Is there any consensus for a change away from "major protests"? ZeLonewolf (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say not yet, but check again in 24 hours Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I was just going to ask about that. Seems the cabinet has been sacked and many important people are defecting: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110321/wl_nm/us_yemen How does this compare to say, Oman? Czolgolz (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I support changing Yemen to blue in line with the resignation of several members of the General People's Congress, Cabinet ministers and senior military figures. Laika1097 (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The government was sacked, what argument is there for not changing it to blue? - 188.141.61.64 (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I will note that a number of government officials in Bahrain as well as a few in Iraq have resigned as a result of unrest in their respective countries. We need to be sure that we are drawing an appropriate line between the two categories and make sure that line is consistent. Is the same government fundamentally still ruling Yemen? Or is it under new management? ZeLonewolf (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I begin to think that the president of Yemen tried to do like Mubarak did and, like Mubarak, failed. Plus a good part of his military just defected. As such, I, for one, favor Yemen becoming a case of "uprising". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.80.242.93 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I am hearing that the entire cabinet was sacked? Can someone source it? I'd say that should qualify as government change. ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Change Color: Government was sacked. No reason not to change to blue. Here's a RS: BBC - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Change color Saleh is still in power (for now), yes, but he sacked essentially all of the upper ranking members of his cabinet. Other than him, it is a new government right now. Seems like a government change to me. SilverserenC 09:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • comment: I've already suggested waiting 24 hours, which is up in about 5 hours, so I won't "vote" again, but if the head of state has sacked his government, and appoints a new one in chosen by him, it will be in the same image, so is there any real change yet? He is still as (un)popular as he was before. Lynbarn (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It still counts as government change for our chart. The other two countries with the same on the map also had the same sort of change happen to them. It means that the leader conceded to the protesters and changed the government. He might not make it any better in changing it, but there was still a reaction from the government. SilverserenC 09:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - If Saleh is still in power but the gov't is sacked and a new one is appointed, it qualifies as a Government Change. If Saleh himself resigns (due to public preasure) it qualifies as a Revolution. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus - Sounds like we have it to me. I've made the change, let's make sure the rest of the article properly reflects it. ZeLonewolf (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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.

Does an attempted Coup count as a minor protest?

A few hundred people were involved in Qatar's Feb. 28 incident...Ericl (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I personally think it is more akin to the UAE intelectual's petition, in the sense that it's not a popular move, and hence it does not qualify as a Minor Protest. But it is worth mentioning - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Name Specific Discussions

Arbitrary break 0

Agregated some of the discussions regarding the name of the article - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we close some of them? Some of them are definitely resolved or stale. 184.144.166.85 (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The name should be changed to "2010-2011 Middle East and North African unrest"

No longer is the Middle East and North African world facing simple protests, but now it is facing, and already has faced, revolutions and a civil war which has been seen in Tunisia, Egypt, and most recently, Libya. It would be unfitting to keep referring to the wave of unrest as "protests" while three countries have taken the next step up from protests. Hence, this article's name should change the word "protests" to "unrest" which would accurately refer to protests, revolutions, and civil wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.104.248 (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support: The current title does not fully encapsulate the events the article is describing. NickGrayLOL (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


Edit warring by Gregorik

Gregorik is POV pushing and edit warring with regards to the article lead. It would be nice if they could instead seek consensus for their edits here.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

First, my edits are far from "edit warring". Second, your rewording is not helpful. My input is almost always based on existing consensus. Stop trying to own the lead. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 10:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Correction, against consensus you changed the description for Libya to 'civil war' and that for Yemen to 'revolution'. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Map: Palestinian Authority

Palestine should be pale blue as it has had changes in its government due to the protests etc. this article states... "On 14 February, the Palestinian Authority's Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and his Cabinet submitted its resignations to President Abbas amid pan-Arab calls for reform. Abbas tasked him with forming a new government after consultations with other factions, institutions and civil society groups. The reshuffle was long demanded by Fayyad and some in Abbas's Fatah faction."--Found5dollar (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Noted and marked with a blue flag in my alternate map. Aris Katsaris (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Bahrain

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

Should we create a Category:2011 Bahraini protests subcategory? We currently have three articles for it, 2011 Bahraini protests , 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix and Pearl Roundabout... But with the inundation of Bahrain with Saudi police troops, that should change in the future. (such as an article about the Saudi operation in Bahrain) 65.95.13.139 (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Support - This is a good idea as well as the article about the Saudi invasion of Bahrain.--Smart30 (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The "Saudi invasion" of Bahrain seems to be the use of the Peninsula Shield Force in Bahrain. The 2011 Saudi Arabian protests have developed into dual-aim protests: freeing prisoners-held-without-trial and opposing the entry of the Peninsula Shield Force into Bahrain. So anyone interested in adding more info about the "Saudi invasion of Bahrain" probably should consider working on the Peninsula Shield Force article. Boud (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Support: Good idea, I agree. This should have been created already. itbeganinafrica (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Since we seem to have a rough consensus, can an autoconfirmed user create the category an populate it with the four articles we've discussed here? 184.144.166.85 (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

  •  DoneDone (should be checked, as it's the first time I do this) - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Checked, looks good, did some sorting. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 13:40, 24 March 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.

Better article organization

I would like to propose a better way to organize this article, though it's gonna take some work to do the reformatting and rewording of certain sections. Here is the article organization currently (last few sections ignored):

  1. Overview
    1. Summary of protests by country
  2. Background
    1. Motivations
    2. Recent history
  3. Self-immolation
  4. Countries
    1. Algeria
    2. Bahrain
    3. Djibouti
    4. Egypt
    5. Iran
    6. Iraq
    7. Jordan
    8. Kuwait
    9. Libya
    10. Lebanon
    11. Mauritania
    12. Morocco
    13. Oman
    14. Saudi Arabia
    15. Sudan
    16. Syria
    17. Tunisia
    18. United Arab Emirates
    19. Yemen
  5. Non-UN members
    1. Palestinian territories
    2. Western Sahara

As it currently stands, this doesn't flow very well, and there's repetitive information in various sections. The countries section in particular is just a giant dumping ground, and it gives equal weight to, for example, Tunisia or Egypt as it does to Kuwait or Mauritania. So here's what I would recommend to fix readability and really make it come together:

  1. Overview (includes summary of protests by country)
  2. Background (includes paragraph on self-immolation, but table moves to impact)
    1. Motivations
    2. Recent history
  3. Tunisian Revolution (Overview/background may need to be trimmed to make these 3 sections flow)
  4. Egyptian Revolution
  5. Libyan Uprising
  6. Wave of Unrest (Includes all countries that are orange or blue on the map)
    1. Algeria
    2. Bahrain
    3. Djibouti
    4. Iran
    5. Iraq
    6. Jordan
    7. Morocco
    8. Oman
    9. Syria
    10. Yemen
  7. Related Protests (includes just a bulleted list of all other countries in the wave with a 1-2 sentence summary of the happenings there.)

I think this will make the article alot more understandable. It also puts the three biggest events (Tunisia/Egypt/Libya) right up front, rather than buried. ZeLonewolf (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. Maybe the Self-immolation section can be merged into the Mohamed Bouazizi article's Copycat incidents section, while retaining the first sentence (Since Mohamed Bouazizi's self-immolation in Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia, sparked an uprising that led to the ousting of Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, a number of self-immolation protests have taken place in other Arab countries.) in the (new) Tunisia section of this article. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on the reorganization now. Please help with the editing. I fear there will be much angst as the article size gets cut down, however, YET AGAIN the article has gotten unwieldy. This article should be a summary and overview of the wave of unrest with specific timeline and detail information left to the individual country pages. ZeLonewolf (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok...the major structure changes are complete. Some of the cutting was a bit painful, but I think necessary to get this article under control and save it from being a dumping ground for news reports. It still doesn't flow quite yet, in particular, the Tunisian Revolution section I think needs an overhaul. ZeLonewolf (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Rewrote most of the Tunisia section, using info from the Tunisia article. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Good work -- I updated the flow of that section and I think it works quite nicely. ZeLonewolf (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:2011 Libyan War and subcategory up for discussion

Category:2011 Libyan War and subcategory up for discussion, see WP:CFDALL. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 06:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Somalia

Somalia is still clickable on the map, but does not leads to a missing section. — Moe ε 17:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Morocco

In the map Morocco is still signed as "Minor protests", but the King Mohammed VI announced his decision to undertake a comprehensive constitutional reform aimed at improving democracy and the rule of law, and underlined his "firm commitment to giving a strong impetus to the dynamic and deep reforms... taking place" on 9 March, so we should change the status "Minor protests" in "Governmental changes". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.93.242.137 (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Concessions by the king (or president in other cases) do not qualify as Government Changes. Only when the government is sacked, or substantially changed does it qualify as such - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - please check the archives, this was already voted on.--Smart30 (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible name change to "2010-2011 Tunisian Revolutionary Wave"

I appreciate that a number of separate name changes are presently being considered, however I believe that this proposal already has some community support and is a genuine way forward for this article. I have previously expressed my case for the name change, but will summarise in this section:

  • "2010-2011 Tunisian Revolutionary Wave" is a far more elegant and simple article name than the present one.
  • The proposed name actually links all the current protest movements to their initial source -namely, the Tunisian revolution, rather than simply arbitrarily linking them on the basis of geographical location.
  • This name change would be final -if, for example, large scale protests sprung up in China, say, and these could be reliably described as having been inspired by the Tunisian revolution or later occurrences, a further name change would not be mandated.
  • As per ZeLonewolf's 22/03/11 explanation -this title draws a clear line between the current protest wave and other background unrest or protest movements such as the Somali Civil War, Southern Sudanese guerillas, the Palestinian conflict and others. (Laika Talk: Laika 20:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC))

Laika1097 (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Disagree: It is quite difficult to put the line on what has been affected by Tunisia and what does not. Let us say that the change is made, how long will it last? Demonstrations after one year in Argentina, they are also influenced by Tunisia? Egypt had at least as much to add to the Libyans, and the Libyan for the Bahraini and Yemeni. Bahraini and Yemini for Syrian and vice versa. itbeganinafrica (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Whilst individual protest movements may have been inspired by protests other than Tunisia, the protest movement as a whole traces its origins to the initial Tunisian Revolution, from which all protests ultimately derive. As for your hypothetical Argentine protests, if Wikipedia:RS's consistently defined the actions of the Argentine protesters as being inspired by Egypt, Tunisia or Libya, then yes, of course they would come under the scope of this article, if not, then no. Note that the name "2010-2011 Tunisian Revolutionary Wave" does not impose any geographical constraints upon the article scope, it merely stipulates that the criteria for inclusion is defined by a credible link to the Tunisian Revolution.Laika1097 (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree completely with Laika. Demonstrations a year from now are either related or they aren't, regardless of location. The title of the article doesn't determine inclusion of such demonstrations. Reliable sources determine what's related and what isn't. It's a wave, not a starburst. Inspiration spread and carried, it hasn't all spawned from a single point. Tunisia hasn't been the sole inspiration for all the protests. Some were inspired by Tunisia and Egypt, for example. The point is that this wave started with Tunisia, and that's what this article is about. That said, to answer your initial question of how long it will last; I would say that depends on when things calm down and the wave is considered to have ended. Sources will determine that. Any new protests or demonstrations after that which site Tunisia or others from this particular wave would likely be considered inspired by the wave as opposed to being a new part of it. Lara 17:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Alright, then how about 2010-2011 Revolutionary Wave? Macarion (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • If it has a greater community consensus than "2010-2011 Tunisian Revolutionary Wave", then why not? The only problem is that it disestablishes the direct connection with the Tunisian source of this protest movement. Laika1097 (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Against - Why lower the status and individuality of these other Revolutions and Protests by implying they ONLY happened because of Tunisia? I vote no, strongly against any "wave" name.--Smart30 (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

  • This proposal does not attempt to 'lower the status and individuality of these other Revolutions and Protests', merely it links them to their initial beginnings -of course the other protest movements are not solely because of Tunisia, the Tunisian Revolution served only as an inspiration to subsequent protesters, a tangible demonstration of what the majority of protesters had believed impossible. If the other protest movements had not been motivated by the dire internal situation in their own nations, they would not have gained traction and the present situation would not have materialised. Laika1097 (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Against - Agree with User:Smart. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Against - For the above stated reasons. Czolgolz (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Support - Smart's argument makes no sense to me. A title makes no such implication. This is a revolutionary wave, it was inspired by those in Tunisia, and it is an all-inclusive title, which the others are not. This is the best, most accurate title presented as an option thus far. Lara 17:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Against It may have been inspired by the Tunisian revolution but this is a diffrent battle that is unlike what happened in Tunisia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Against - A revolutionary wave implies a wave of revolutions. I.e. a revolution in Tunisia caused very many other revolutions with it. As of now, only one country other than Tunisia has reached such a status, Egypt, with Libya still in rebellion. Perhaps something along the lines of "Tunisian Political Cascade" would suffice. --Dalaru (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment - the lead indicates that this is a revolutionary wave! Specifically "an unprecedented revolutionary wave of demonstrations and protests". ZeLonewolf (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree strongly with ZeLonewolf; 'Revolutionary wave' is a clearly defined term, and the fact that the current Tunisian wave has resulted in the successful removal of Mubarak and Ben Ali, and shows little sign of losing momentum, is enough to warrant such a description -for example, the Atlantic Revolutions of the late 1700's included only three notable incidents, namely the American, Haitian and French revolutions. Evidently these were on an entirely different scale and level of resonance, however the point remains that the number of fallen governments does not define whether this is a revolutionary wave or not. Additionally a "Political Cascade" is not a clearly defined term and naming the article in such a fashion would probably count as Wikipedia:NoOR since no reliable sources have described it as such. Laika1097 (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Against - per Knowledgekid87 and others. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 12:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the current name is that it implies that this article is about ANY protest or unrest that occurs in the entire region, even if it is part of a long-standing dispute. Thus we are caught up debating all sorts of unrest that that is completely unrelated. Frankly, any name which does not somehow tie the article to the Tunisian origin has this problem. I support this name change as it would clarify that this article is about THIS revolutionary wave and not any of the other ordinary unrest happening within the MENA region. ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Name change, still don't get it

After weeks have passed since the name of this article was changed to MENA protests, only the minor protests in Iran was included while all the rest are happening in Arab countries. So, my question is, can anyone tell me why isn't this article called "2011 Arab world protests"? You can always add Iran to the "Impact" page, can't you? 69.31.51.101 (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. Personally, I think after this is over, there will be an article created for "2010-2011 North African revolutions," and then the rest will be put in an "impact"-type article. But yes, right now the focus of the article should certainly be the Arab World, and the title should reflect this. Macarion (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Given the events as they are described in 2011 Iranian protests, I'm inclined to agree. It's a blurry line between 'related' and 'inspired,' and Iran seems to be in the gray area in between. DerekMBarnes (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The Iranian protests were not minor; they encompassed tens of thousands at one day of action. Iran is very much a part of this development, it is much more culturally connected to the other protests and is regarded as part of the same region. It would not make sense to include iran instead under the same category as, say, china and not to include it with the rest of the middle east simply because of certain, much less significant ethnic differences with the rest of the middle. None at all. The middle east and arab world are largely interchangeable, but not entirely, and middle east and north africa is much much more exact and accurate.
Re "North African Revolutions", the uprisings in Bahrain and Yemen are extremely significant and clearly connected to and part of the same event as egypt and tunisia. Jordan events are also very signifanct. Many are now predicting that saleh will eventually have to go in yemen. And just because a regime isn't brought down doesn't mean the event isn't just as historically significant.Nwe (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2011 Arab world protests is the way to go. MENA is business speak.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 07:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Requesting title change

Can we please change the title of this article? This has moved far beyond "protests." Macarion (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Support - Revolutions of 2011 is the name I suggest. --Smart30 (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment This is not the way to get things done here, if you want to propose a topic do it by requesting a move be made and consensus can gather from there, otherwise you will have tons of people suggesting topics that were already suggested and consensus was against them. My advice would to be to look through the archives to past discussions on why certin titles were not kept. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment - i concur this is not the proper way to propose a title switch.--Smart30 (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Why you put this title ?

why you don't change it to Arab world protests , it's shorter !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.248.98.125 (talk) 13:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh I couldn't help but laugh when I read this comment and thought back to all the acrimony that title created. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you should read the discussion above. Loro-rojo (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move -- to: "2010-2011 Greater Middle East protests"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests → 2010-2011 Greater Middle East protests — "Greater Middle East" might better describe these protests than "Middle East and North Africa" at this point, plus it's shorter. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose When I asked this before an editor came up with saying that the middle east is the middle east, it is a broad word and applies to the middle east, the greater middle east, and areas sometimes associated with the Middle East so in a way it is a bigger area of scope. Another reason to oppose is that the Greater middle east is a G8 definition and thus not a worldwide view, Egypt in that context is also not part of the Greater Middle East. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

.

IMO, I think something to the effect of "2010-2011 Tunisian Revolutionary Wave" would more accurately reflect what's going on here - a movement sparked by the Tunisia self-immolation. After all, the opener actually links to Revolutionary wave. ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Support - this is a must. It is larger than just MENA.--Smart30 (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - Greater Middle East does sound more elegant than Middle East and North Africa, and it has spread to fringe countries - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Greater Middle East" is a controversial term coined by the Bush administration, and its use would be innapropriate here. Countries such as Morocco (which, it should be remembered, is to the west of France) and Libya (much closer to Italy than Iran) and other states of the Maghreb region are historically, culturally, politically, historically and geographically considered North African, not Middle Eastern in any extension of the term. The Celestial City (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I certainly agree that a change of name is an absolute requirement since restricting the scope of an article to arbitrary, geographical constructions is most unhelpful -If we were to change the name to "2010-2011 Greater Middle East Protests" or similar, would we then change the article name to "2010-2011 Southern European, Central Asian, North African and Middle Eastern protests" if Greek and Kazakh protesters suddenly joined the fray, claiming to be inspired by Egypt and Tunisia? We've already had one name change, and that did not help us in the least. Until a definite name is agreed upon by historians, the media and analysts, all Wikipedians can do is to record events as they happen and not define them according to their own agendas. Hence why I support ZeLonewolf's proposal of "2010-2011 Tunisian Revolutionary Wave" or similar. This will allow coverage of all protest movements defined by WP:RS's as connected to the Jasmine Revolution and not impose artificial limitations. After all, this is the most descriptive title we have; "2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa protests" does not imply any common source or link barring geography. This would be a final solution to all this name wrangling, hence why I will submit a final name change request to that effect. I look forward to hearing the community consensus.

Laika1097 (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Current name is far more widely used in third party sources, in fact I don't believe that I have ever seen the label 'Greater Middle East protests' used.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, "Middle East" is Euro centric and to go even further and apply it for North Africa as well is not appropriate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Euro-centric and Bush-centric. 173.245.84.199 (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Arguments already stated: Greater Middle East is a Bush Jr term according to the wikipedia article, and the term would increase the euro-centrism. Also, the article Impact of 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests evolved as what seems to be a consensus title for "beyond MENA" Tunisia-Egypt revolution related protests, after much chaos including multiple article creation, AfD's, etc. If at some time in the future it becomes RS-ly obvious that the beyond-MENA protests are just as revolutionary as the MENA ones, then "strengthening" the name of that article, or splitting into revolutionary vs impact-only parts, will make sense. Until then, we can avoid WP:CRYSTAL by just putting beyond-MENA Tunisia-Egypt-inspired protests into the Impact article. Boud (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Closed discussion. Almost unanimous opposition - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 11:33, 26 March 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.

Requested move - 2010–2011 Middle East and Maghreb protests

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests → 2010–2011 Middle East and Maghreb protests

  • Oppose - Maghreb is not a well-known term, and in any case, the media is not using it to describe the protests. ZeLonewolf (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not a well-known or widely used term. Czolgolz (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Maghreb excludes Egypt and Sudan - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Egypt is part of the middle eastPassaMethod talk 10:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not used in third-party sources.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - while Maghreb is a commonly used term in many places, it excludes Egypt, Sudan and Eritrea. --Smart30 (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The word "Maghreb" is not being used to describe the protests as per above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Closed discussion. Almost unanimous opposition - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 11:30, 26 March 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.

Main article too bulky, can no longer access it?

What's the size of it? It absolutely bogs down and crashes my browser (Google Chrome, then I tried it with Firefox), which is a shame since I wanted to see what I could do to possibly help clean it up or fix some grammar/remove outdated info. Does this happen to anyone else? Or just me. Teafico (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It may be your ISP. The metrics for this summary article are as follows as of today:
  • File size: 539 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 69 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 16 kB
  • Wiki text: 131 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 38 kB (6217 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 1194 B
Readable Prose Size is the main metric and is well within the parameters of WP:Length. Veriss (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. I'll chalk it up to my second-rate ISP then! Teafico (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

First few words

"The 2010-2011 The Arab Protests are..." Two definite articles? Really? I would fix that but there's a load of scary comments in the article script so I don't want to touch anything in case I go against consensus. 86.6.193.43 (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears to have already been fixed by another editor. Veriss (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

KSA: impact or incident?

Any opinions on whether Saudi Arabia should be in the "impact" section (more important protest) rather than the "incident" section (less important protests)? As the almost unique recent editor of 2011 Saudi Arabian protests (along with, i think, a large number of watchers who revert blanking vandalism within minutes and silently (usually) double-check my edits), i should let others make that decision. The protests have been small - 100s to a few 1000s - and mostly only in Riyadh and in and near Qatif near Bahrain - but the pattern seems to be sustained and linked to the Bahraini protests. So far the authorities are just arresting protestors - about 50% of the 100 participants in a recent Qatif demo were arrested - and arrested a human rights organisation leader this week. The biggest result of the protests so far is probably that the government decided to no longer "delay" the second election in KSA history - a men-only election for half the local councils' members - and to hold it quickly (presumably in order to defuse protest energies into electoral politics). The newspapers' metaphor "simmering" is probably accurate. Boud (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move -- to "Arab Spring"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests → Arab Spring — Simpler

Oppose

Oppose: it jst becuase something is simple doesnt mean its correct. the name we have is the most accurate and NPOV. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, as per the following reasons regarding article title policy:

  • Recognizability - not recognizable by most as the term has rarely been used in global media.
  • Precision - ambiguous, does not properly identify topic.
  • Common names: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." This is not the case for "Arab Spring."
  • NPOV: Non-neutral ('Spring' carries a culturally positive connotation), not common enough to override.

The name we have is long, but neutral and accurate. DerekMBarnes (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose per DerekkMBarnes, renaming it to this title would be a NPOV issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it is not exclusively Arab and thus Arab Spring is not an accurate nickname let alone title. --Smart30 (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Query: What is the convention as far as how the media refers to the events?—Biosketch (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - haven't even heard of the term before now... --haha169 (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - what does that even mean? Is that a seasonal reference? Lara 12:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
And it began in the winter anyway, not spring. Jmj713 (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It's in literally the first sentence of the body of the article, people. In bolded text. With sources cited. Macarion (talk) 09:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
    Ah, so it is. Though it shouldn't be. Lara 14:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
    Why shouldn't it be? It's well sourced. Macarion (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
    It violates MOS:BOLD. Lara 12:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
    It doesn't, but if it did, you initially implied it shouldn't be there at all. Why not? Macarion (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
    Actually, it does violate the MOS. We don't bold in the body for emphasis. And my comment was regarding the "in bolded text", specifically. I can see that it is sourced to reliable sources, so it's perfectly legit for inclusion in the article. It's not explained in any of them, though. And it's not immediately clear to all readers what it even means. So should that be the title of the article? I don't think so. Lara 19:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
    There are loads of articles with titles that aren't "immediately clear." Macarion (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
    Perhaps. But I'm sure they're eventually explained. This one isn't. And, as per the above and below discussion, it doesn't make sense to many readers. Even now having a better idea of what it means, it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense; nor do I think it's inclusive enough to be an accurate title, as these protests haven't been limited to Arab nations. Lara 03:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - The Arab portion of the wave will go down in history as The Arab Spring whether you WP folks like it or not. It will be renamed eventually, same as in textbooks. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 13:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think anyone voting against moving the article cares what it goes down in history as. The point in question is whether that name is used enough now to justify renaming the article. If that term does become widespread, I will happily change my vote. --Khajidha (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This term is not in widespread enough use to justify having it as the page title. --Khajidha (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose How many people use that term? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. We presently have 6 references in the article that use the name "Arab Spring". Is it widely enough used? Google on "arab+spring" 2011 gives "About 435,000 results" but "middle+east+protests" 2011 gives "About 2,870,000 results" on the first page and e.g. "Page 16 of about 6,650,000 results" on later pages. So "Arab Spring" is widely used, but it seems to be about an order of magnitude less common than one of the more descriptive names, at least for the moment. One WP:NAME criterion that would favour "Arab Spring" is the conciseness criterion. Prediction: i suspect that conciseness could be a factor in the future evolution of the names for this topic. How many people say United Mexican States when talking about a certain country in North America? Maybe try for this name again in 6 months' time? Boud (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Closed discussion. Almost unanimous opposition - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 14:40, 27 March 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.

The current map is confused

The current map is confused. It currently tries to use a single method of presentation (color) to represent two different aspects: the level of success in the protests ("revolution" if the leadership falls or "governmental changes" if only partial changes are made) and the level of intensity in the protests ("armed conflict", "major protests", "minor protests" -- which is an arbitrary distinction).

I suggest that a new map be made, which will use color to represent the deathtoll (e.g. black for >1000 deaths, brown for 100-1000 deaths, red for 10-100 deaths, yellow for 1-10 deaths), and will use some symbols to depict the level of change succeeded.

This will avoid both the confusion, and the arbitrariness of dividing between "major" and "minor" protests. Aris Katsaris (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to create and propose an alternate map. I do agree that the current map could probably be improved, though it's been a long and painful slog to get it to where it is now :) That said, I don't think that death toll is the best way to provide a geographical overview. ZeLonewolf (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Alternate map has been created, and I think it's a good one.Aris Katsaris (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree, death toll doesn't neccessarily reflect what's happening in a countryCzolgolz (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree - Death toll says nothing, when you compare Egypt (Revolution, population = 80 milion), Lybia (Civil War, population 6 milion), Bahrain (repressed revolts, pop = 1.2 million). 1000 deaths in Egypt are not the same as 1000 deaths in Bahrain - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Says nothing? It says how many people died, which is pretty darn significant. Do you really get *more* information from the current map which doesn't distinguish between the situation in Yemen (bloodbath) and the situation in Jordan (a peaceful dismissal of cabinet with no dead protesters at all), because they're both "governmental changes"? Aris Katsaris (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree Death toll is important information, but it isn't an accurate measure of protests and certainly doesn't give you an accurate idea of the changes occurring. Dynex811 (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's the alternate map I suggest we use. I just made it and uploaded it to wikimedia commons :

Gaza StripAlgeriaLibyaTunisiaEgyptEgyptWestern SaharaMoroccoIraqKuwaitBahrainBahrainDjiboutiYemenYemenSyriaSyriaSomaliaSudanSaudi ArabiaSaudi ArabiaSaudi ArabiaSaudi ArabiaOmanJordanJordanMauritaniaWest BankWest BankLebanonLebanonIran
Gaza StripAlgeriaLibyaTunisiaEgyptEgyptWestern SaharaMoroccoIraqKuwaitBahrainBahrainDjiboutiYemenYemenSyriaSyriaSomaliaSudanSaudi ArabiaSaudi ArabiaSaudi ArabiaSaudi ArabiaOmanJordanJordanMauritaniaWest BankWest BankLebanonLebanonIran

  1000+ deaths   100–1000 deaths   10–99 deaths   1–9 deaths   No protest-related deaths

Country's leadership overthrown. Governmental changes. Leader promises to not run for another term.

Foreign military intervention.

It tells you at a glance roughly how violent the transition was, what the outcome is, and whether there was a military intervention. Aris Katsaris (talk)

What do the various colors / symbols mean? ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Clicking the image takes you to its description page which will explain the colors to you. It's getting too late over here for me to make the full template now, but in short the darker color, the more deaths -- and a white flag means overthrown leader, a blue flag means cabinet dismissal, an orange flag means a promise by the leader to seek no further terms, and the crosshairs means external military intervention. Aris Katsaris (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I should also add up front that the current map color scheme was very carefully debated and is based on a long and excruciating process mostly revolving around color blindness. The color scheme you made will probably cause problems for some form of color blindness. ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's useful to keep in mind. Of course I'm not attached to the particular set of colors I used, and it could certainly use some improvement -- I just think we need stop the arbitrary distinction between "major protests" and "minor protests", and also need to stop trying to use the same element (color) to indicate two different things (intensity of protests and outcome of protests). The coloring details are easily fixed once that's determined. Aris Katsaris (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Current map is fine. Dynex811 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose The map proposed is even more confusing than the current map (If the current map is even) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
You don't see anything confusing about constant debates about whether a protest qualifies as "major" or "minor", instead of trying to put actual data in the map? Or about having Yemen depicted the same way as Jordan (blue), when they're polar opposites in what happened? Aris Katsaris (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Nope, not even in the slightest. The map represents the changes that have occurred, if you want to know details you should read the article. This is an encyclopedia after all. Dynex811 (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
If the current map is supposed to represent the changes that have occurred then the colors for "major" and "minor" protests don't have a place there, since those aren't "changes", they're about the intensity of the protests -- an arbitrary, subjective, unclearly specified judgment about the intensity of the protests. Aris Katsaris (talk)
No they aren't changes to the leadership of the country but they give a snapshot of what happened. Deaths are just as arbitrary of a way of measuring the scale of a protest. Like someone else stated, 1000 deaths in Egypt does not equal 1000 deaths in Bahrain. There is already a chart with all this info below the map (including deaths and what the leaders have done), why do we need to change the map as well? Besides, visually the new map is much more cluttered, and as someone else said the current map took quite a long time to reach this stage. I think it is sufficient Dynex811 (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Can someone PLEASE tell me what the PRECISE criteria for dividing a conflict into major/minor is? Right now "major/minor" isn't giving me any data at all -- only that some editor decided to label it such. If you arguing that the map should base its colors in some *other* criterion (e.g. deaths/total population) then that's one thing, and we could argue if some other criterion is more appropriate -- but right the current map doesn't use any specific criterion at ALL. You people just all take a vote and decide which protests qualify as "major" and which as "minor". Don't you see *that* as POV? That the current map took quite a long time to reach this stage, may have been exactly because nobody was thinking clearly about what should be depicted and what shouldn't. Aris Katsaris (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I also agree that the current major/minor distinction borders on POV and WP:OR as it is not based on source reporting. Frankly, I would rather get rid of the orange color and have one common category that represents protests, which would end the major vs. minor debate. ZeLonewolf (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I have just created a template and legend that clarifies the colors and symbols of my map. You can see above. Aris Katsaris (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well it is a little bit easier to read with the legend in but I saw the legend already and it still did not make much sense. Issues to me are why we need to track the number of deaths per country, confusion of the map, and a possible POV involving the crosshairs symbol being used here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I've heard nobody suggest a different way of measuring intensity of conflict (though deathtoll/total population may have its merits). Taking separate votes on how each country's conflict should be categorized isn't actually a solution. Maps should depict actual data, not a judgment of consensus. Aris Katsaris (talk)

I like the idea, and I don't find it too confusing. The map carries twice the information, which naturally tends to make maps more confusing. I think, however, that the added information is worth it, especially in light of the major/minor discussion. Moreover, I think the idea to use logos (crosshairs and flags) for topical information, and reserve colors (shades of brown) for quantitative information, is inherently intuitive. The single element I found most confusing was to remember the meaning of the colors of the flags. How about if flags got replaced with symbols that represent the result more intuitively? That would also have the advantage that it would work for color blind people. Just to start some brainstorming, here are some ideas off the top of my head: For "leadership overthrown", a sideways chess king or crown could be used. For "leader promises to not run for another term" a crossed out calendar leaf. "Governmental changes" is pretty vague (and sounds like it includes some of the above); that could remain a flag, or have different symbols for different changes. — Sebastian 04:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I also like the alternative map but then I like detail. My concern is that that much more information will make it more complicated to keep it updated with a 24hr news cycle. Perhaps it would be better to implement it when things slow down a bit. Veriss (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arab_Spring/Archive_7&oldid=1142752734"