Talk:Arab Spring/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Colour scheme

Can the colour scheme be adjusted so it is a bit more intuitive? I don't see why "Sustained civil disorder" should be a closer colour to "revolution" than to "civil war" or to "major protests". I suggest a more logical scheme as follows:

Minor protests: beige Major protests: yellow Major protests and government changes: orange Sustained civil disorder: light red Civil war: maroon Revolution: navy

Revolution is a on a slightly different scale as it means the violence has receded, and is thus blue rather than yellows & reds. Thoughts?213.31.195.90 (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Golan Heights Uprising?

Has it been characterised as an uprising? I thought uprisings were usually within an area, not people coming in. Also, why was the thing about Syrians tyring to distract people taken out when it was in the source? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Against - just like the events in Somalia and Western Sahara, these are unrelated to the so-called 'Arab Spring'. They have been doing this long before the protests in Tunisia took place. --Smart (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Only if it's characterised as such in the RSs.

This line btw "The Syrian Social Nationalist Party called for an international response to the incident, calling it a "massacre"." should be followed by the Israeli reaction which was taken out by User:PeteyParrot as "propaganda" even though it was sourced to an RS. Is the Syrian News Agency an RS btw?

Now, I have run into this editor before at Talk:2011 Libyan Civil War, and on that occasion he accused us of censoring the internet [1] and also made a rather lovely anti-Semetic remark at me [2] after I had referred to Gadaffi as Swinedaffi. The person whom he called me is this chap. Given his recent edits to this article and other edits (such as [3], [4], [5], "Zionist Army" with regard to the Confederates, includes reference to the Holocaust as a fable, this one and the following involves the changing of extermination camps and Holocaust to "Labour camps" and "Labour administration", [6], Edit about the Rothschilds, who are a famous Jewish banking family, [7], Tony Blair and Israeli prostitution, the same for Bill Frist, [8], [9], [10], Frist again, "(Undid revision 416593859 by SMP0328. (talk)everything is sourced--Israel needs to be mentioned just a tad more in this article...sux having the shame, eh...)", [11], [12], Israeli gov blackmailing Obama, cites the Palestine Chronicle, characterisation of anti-Semetism as Anti-Zionism, [13]. -- It's a long day with nothing to do, so I looked at all his contribs, these are the Jew or Israel-related ones. =p ), as well as the PA mentioned before, I'm not sure he should be contributing to Israeli or Jew-related topics. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The Golan Heights massacre is distinctive and should receive a heading. It's 2011, spare the world your 1913 ADL arguments against information.

Petey Parrot (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It has its own heading, the question in the OP was about whether it should be characterised as an uprising. That was settled as was the Israeli reaction being added, last I checked. Petey, if you cannot maintain an NPOV, it's recommended you stop editing this article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 00:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I intend to continue editing any section of this article as necessary to make sure language is WP:NPOV. Lord knows I have plenty of personal feelings and opinions about what's going on in the Middle East, but it is absolutely unacceptable to only present one side of the story or use leading language regarding a controversial subject. This is an encyclopedia, not an op-ed, a propaganda piece, or a personal blog. I think it's great that you want to contribute, and I think it's useful to have as many knowledgeable editors on a page as possible, but you need to edit from a detached perspective and ensure language is neutral as per Wikipedia policy. Thanks. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Not so by itself, I'd say it's a mix between the Syrian, Palestinian, and Arab anti-Israeli protests. It's Syrian because, well, it's in Syria and it takes advantage of the current chaos, as well as shows the change of heart in the beleaguered Syrian regime which has renounced its policy of a quiet Golan. The other two are self-explanatory I guess, since most, if not all, deaths are Palestinians. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

UN Human Rights Commissioner quote

There is only a tiny bit of relevant info taken and it is just the negative info about Israel, but not the concerns expressed over Syria possibly encouraging their citizens to enter mined areas, which may have also caused some of the deaths according to the source.

START QUOTE The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights today condemned the killing this week of civilian protestors in the occupied Golan Heights, and called for Israel and Syria to conduct “independent, impartial, transparent and thorough investigations” of the incidents. Navi Pillay is “deeply troubled by reports of use of live fire by Israeli security forces against civilians protesting along the ceasefire line between the occupied Golan Heights and Syria on 5 June,” the Office of the High Commissioner (OHCHR) said in a press statement.

“Between 30 and 40 protestors have reportedly been killed by Israeli security forces in the past three weeks,” she said. “The Government of Israel has a duty to ensure that its security personnel avoid the use of excessive force.

“However difficult the circumstances, the use of live ammunition against allegedly unarmed protestors, resulting in large numbers of deaths and injuries, inevitably raises the question of unnecessary and excessive use of force.”

According to media reports, the 5 June incident occurred as protestors called for an end to the occupation of the Golan, as they marked the anniversary of the 1967 War during which Israel occupied the area. The media reports suggested that more than 20 civilians were killed and hundreds injured as a result of Israeli gunfire.

Other reports suggest some of the casualties may have been caused by the detonation of landmines buried on the Syrian side of the ceasefire line.

Ms. Pillay also expressed concern over allegations that civilians were encouraged by the Syrian authorities to protest in areas where landmines are located.

“Syrian authorities have an obligation to ensure that civilians are prevented from entering areas where landmines are planted,” she said.

“Especially given conflicting allegations on the use of Molotov cocktails by protesters and on whether or not all necessary precautions were taken before the use of live ammunition by security forces, Ms. Pillay called on both sides to carry out independent, impartial, transparent and thorough investigations into the events of 5 June,” OHCHR said.

Yesterday, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called for maximum restraint by all sides after the incident, and warned that it threatens the long-held ceasefire between Israel and Syria.

“The Secretary-General regrets the loss of life, and extends his condolences to the families of the victims,” his spokesperson said in a statement. “He condemns the use of violence and all actions intended to provoke violence.”
END QUOTE

Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 00:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Added some tags and hopefully some bits can be salvaged from what the UN HC said so as to make the statements their balanced. Please remember, whoever wishes to make edits to that section, to be extra careful about reverting any mistakes lest you accidentally violate the 1RR rule. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 07:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Map is Unclear

The newer map is unclear, and of lower quality than any of the previous ones. I would recommend changing it. Ronk01 talk 04:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• I say we ditch the labels, they look horibble - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This new map is an eyesore. -Kairi Izumi (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually made this version of the map, but the labels were somebody else's idea. I don't really like them either. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The eleven ref links in the lede

Why do we have eleven ref links in a row in the lede? That just looks ridiculous and is a clear example of overciting. If they are for each country they should be put after each, but if not, then it should be cut to three, which is the max number of refs one should have imho. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 07:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorted. There were like three refs for Lebanon, so I picked the best one and kept it, found refs for the others (not hard), and also added a very brief sentence about the violent reaction to many of these protests. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahvaz riots in Iran - part of the Arab Spring?

On April 15th 2011 and the following days, extensive riots spread across the Iranian province of Khuzestan, initiated by the Arab minority there, in order to mark 6 years since the violent events of "15 April Intifada" or 2005 Ahwazi unrest. The April 15th 2011 events resulted in some 12-15 dead, many injured and hundreds of arrests. The events in Khuzestan had been included in the 2011 Iranian protests, however since the current article has been renamed to "Arab Spring", rather than "2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa protests", Iran has become exluded from the scope of the events. The question is - do we relate to 2011 Arab protests in Iranian city of Ahvaz, as part of the Arab Spring, or is it just influence of the Arab Spring, like the rest of 2011 Iranian protests arena?Greyshark09 (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm leaning toward support for spinning off the Ahvaz protests from the main 2011 Iranian protests article and including them here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Opposed The article should only focus on Arab world, which Iran is not a part of. If we were to include protests based on some dubious rational based on assumed euthenics of those involved, then that would open a Pandora's box with no end, and we would have to include the Palestinian protests at the Israeli border, or protests by Israeli Arabs, and exclude all the protests in Kurdish regions of Syria etc etc. Stick to the standard definition of Arab spring, which is protests in Arab countries. Kurdo777 (talk) 03:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Kurdo, pls notice that the article is named "Arab Spring", yet it doesn't necessarily include the Arab World alone (for example Israeli border protests were included, while Israel is clearly in not an "Arab World" state). Arab Spring implies of events by Arab people as well as across the Arab World, while Iranian Arabs are ethnically and culturally Arab people. Nevertheless, your opinion should of course be counted, as this issue is disputable.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support It should not be necessarily included in this particular article, but it should to be seperated form the article of 2011 Iranian protests. The inclusion of these protests in that article indicates it is a portion of the protests extended from the 2009 Iranian election protests, while it is actually part of annual anti-government protests in the region demands the freedom and independense and totally defferent from the other country protests --aad_Dira (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC).
• Oppose. Those protests are in fact a part of 2011 Iranian protests. I think you are misinterpreting the nature of Green Movement, which includes minorities and such protests against ethnic discrimination is a constituent part of. Also, many protests have already taken placed under it, against the discrimination of minorities. It's leader, Mir Hossein Mousavi also have clearly told many times that the demands of minorities is part of of the green movement's agenda. So having Ahwaz protests as part of the Green movement protests is the obvious choice, as we had many protests by minorities from other ethnic groups which were taking place under the green umbrella. --Wayiran (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  
• Strong Support These protests are actually related to the Arab Spring; Arab activists organizing these things are both Ahwazis and Arabs outside of Iran. I think minorities in Arab countries and Arab minorities in non-Arab countries are both part of an Arab awakening, so they should both be included. However, I think transnational minorities like Kurds should have a special mention in separate articles. I remember February 25 being set as a Friday of Challenge for Iraq as well as for Ahwaz. Just because it's complicated doesn't mean it's incorrect. I think accuracy is more important than simplicity, extravagance in detail not withstanding. There's a Facebook group in Arabic called the February 25 Revolution of Ahwaz that keeps updates on minor everyday incidents between the local Arabs and the security forces. The Arab Spring is about an awakening of Arab populations, and the minorities living among them; keeping the definition based on borders is horribly wrong. All Arabs see each other as one people, and identify with each others' struggles, whether they live in Israel or Iran. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Minor Support: As long as reliable source can be found that mention the connection between these protests and the other regional protests. Unflavoured (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support I only included information about the Ahvaz protests in that article because another editor had laid the basis for it and expanded it. It is only nominally related to the Green Movement and I am planning on splitting off the Ahvaz protests into its own article, with just a link to it from the 2011 Iranian protests page. The reason for the protests in Ahvaz are far more related to the Arab Spring than anything to do with the Green Movement. The only issue is that I have only been able to find 7-8 news articles on the subject. They are fairly extensive articles, especially the Human Rights Watch coverage, but the Iranian government has blockaded the city and completely shut down all coverage in the area, kicking out every last reporter. So, it's all gone dark. We really don't know what has been going on there since the April 15 protests two months ago. A bit worrisome, yes, but we have more than enough sources to break it off into its own article and we can expand it as more info becomes available (hopefully, we get more info). Should I get to work on that? Silverseren^C 05:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing that the Khuzestani protests aren't part of the Green Movement protests, so I think you should go ahead and do that - and we'll figure out if/how we want to bring that in here, how we'd go about representing it on the map and table, etc. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Though there are some people disputing (members of wikiproject Iran), i saw no reliable source (actually no source at all) to link the 2011 Ahvaz Arab protests to the Green Movement or any ethnic group in Iran to participate in Ahvaz protests, except Arab Iranians. Unless some sources to support such claim are brought, i see no reason to keep those protests within the scope of 2011 Iranian protests alone and support a separate article on Ahvaz.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• OPPOSE: Unrest in Iran had begun after 2009 election which is still continuing. Apart that Iran is not part of Arab World, including this section is misinterpreting of Iran's political situation which has root in 2009 election.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• I think you're confused. We're not talking about the Green Movement or the main protests that occurred in Iran. We're talking about new protests involving a new group of people who, as far as was reported, were not involved in the prior protests and these protests are taking part in an entirely different part of the country. We are talking about Iranians of Arab descent. Silverseren^C 20:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose The riots are not just in Ahwaz, but in Khuzestan. The people are not just Arabs. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 15:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Okay? What does that have to do with the fact that the only people protesting are Arabs? Silverseren^C 20:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Who can say that they are only Arabs ?! They are the people of Khuzestan.*** in fact *** ( contact ) 08:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a single source which says any Iranian other than Arab participated in April 15 protests in Ahvaz? (or Arabic-speaking Iranian Sunnis as said in some sources).Greyshark09 (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The Arab Revolutions , by definition , are revolutionary waves of demonstrations that have been taking place in the Arab world since 18 December 2010 .According to that , Iranian demonstrations should be discussed in it's own page (2011 Iranian protests) and should not be enlisted in Arab worlds protests , more than that , if User Greyshark considers the 2005's unrest to be connected to 2011 , then how can he considers it a part of Arab spring (after 18 December 2010 ) ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, none of this is happening in a vacuum. The "background" section of this article does a decent job of covering the pre-Bouazizi lead-up to protests in some of these countries and territories. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Except for al-Arabiya (which is Saudi owned), none of the other source say anything about the composition of the protetors. Also it is not a sustaining event and Khuzestan is a highly diverse population. The city of Ahvaz itself is highly mixed as well. The better article is: (2011 Iranian protests) --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is not al-Arabiya alone, this is other reference from Al-Jazeera - reliable source - [14]. The language is Arabic, but the traslation for the first 2 lines is: "AL have called the Iranian authorities last tuesday to investigate in the clashes between its secturity forces and protesters of the Arabian minority in Ahwaz". you can also try to use Google Translation [15], but it does not translate Arabic well --aad_Dira (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC).

Overall it is impossible to break down the events of a country to ethnic elements as an example , in [[2011 Syrian uprising|Syrian revolution}] that is a part of Arab spring , a large part of demonstrations is done in Kurdish regions of Syria and a major etiology of the whole revolution in Syria is the problems of the Kurds , but it is not possible to disintegrate the whole picture of revolution in Syria to broken pictures of ethnic groups in any country : do we discuss the Syrian demonstrations of Northern Syria in other articles ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I want to express my complete surprise of the claim that other than Arab groups participated in the 2011 Ahvaz protests, i would kindly ask Khodabandeh14 to provide any reliable source linking the Green Movement to April 15 protests in Ahvaz (or any other ethnic group in Iran). I think it is pointless to discuss Khodabandeh14 claim, without any RS (linking to Green Movement might be WP:FRINGE). All sources i saw say very strictly that the protests were stages by "Arab minority" or "Ahwazi Arabs". Here are more of them (in addition to previously discussed): Ya-Libnan [16] "Iran:Several Arabs killed during “day of rage in Ahwaz”"; Guardian [17] "Iranian Sunni protesters killed in clashes with security forces", "Sunni protesters had been killed in Iran's oil-rich province of Khuzestan, home to many Arabic-speaking Sunni Iranians."; Amnesty International [18] "The Iranian authorities must investigate clashes between security forces and protesters from the Ahwazi Arab minority".Greyshark09 (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Although i think it is so clear that it does not have to be discussed, this is a list of differences between the Syrian-Kurdish and Ahwazian cases:

1. Both Kurds and Arabs protesters in Syria have the same claims "Downfall of the rigme". While the Ahwaz protesters are not involved in the Green movement nor what it claims for, but rather they needs their own independense/freedom.
2. Both Kurds and Arabs protesters in Syria are under one title, as they have the same leadership of activites and makes their protests altogether (the name of 20 may friday "Azady" is on of the best indications, Azady is the Kurdish word for "freedom" in English and "Hurreyyah" in Arabic). While in Ahwaz the protesters have their own leadership that is totally seperated from the Green movment, as they was not involved in the movment`s activities until they determined their own "Day of rage", which had no protests in other parts of Iran, and now they are sieged alone after the Green movment stopped its protests in the rest of Iran.
3. Both Kurds and Arabs protesters in Syria have been crackdowned for decades togther, and now they have protested together for the same reasons and in the same time. While the Ahwazian matter is long years old and involves annual anti-government protests, so the ongoing events there have an old riots and causes totally different from the Green movment creation reasons.

--aad_Dira (talk) 09:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC).

In breaking the analogy between Iranian Arabs and Kurds in Syria, you are using many claims that I'm not sure all of them are provable.Are Arab citizens of Syria and Kurds (without citizenship) in Syria have similar political goals ? same leadership ? one title ? and in Iran who says the Green movement have no connection with local protesters ? More than that , by above comment you are saying the elements that connects revolutions is not geography but is some kind of empathy in non-Arab and Arab protesters case and ethno-language in Arab cases. Definition can be used here and as mentioned in text it is clearly geographic--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The question is: who sayed it is a georaphic definition? If it was really geographic, Somalia and Djibouti was supposed to stay as they are known to be part of the Arab world, the ethnic scope paragraph in the article clarify how it is ethnically named. For sources, those are 2 refrences [19] [20] says clearly that the protests in the region are inspired by the Arab spring (2nd ref) and from the riots of 2005 unrests (both refs), before even the Mrs. Green movement was created (btw, both sources does not mentions anything about a role for the movement in the protests). About Syria, the unity of Arab and Kurd protesters are so clear and so many reliable sources confirms it, i do not need to waste time in gathering them, but this is an example for that: "Thousands of Syrian Kurds demonstrated in the east of the country Friday to demand an end to military actions that have killed hundreds of protesters" [21], note that almost none of protesters have been killed in the Kurdish territories of Syria, and most of them was in Daraa and Homs (if you need sources again, Al-Jazeera have a full list of protests kills and their cities). Anyway, you are a bit confused guys, because we started with protesters` ethnic composition, then the comprasion with Syria, as well as the Green movement, and now the Georaphic definition. I just wonder what is the next episode is going to be --aad_Dira (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC).

I wasn't involved in the decision to remove Somalia, but IIRC, editors concluded that those protests were lacking in notability and there wasn't really an Arab Spring connection. Again, I don't really know the details, but it's probably in the archives somewhere. As for Djibouti, that was a move I proposed after noticing that Arabs are actually a fairly small minority in the country (and unlike in many of the Maghreb states, where the population is mostly Arabized Berbers, I didn't see evidence that Djiboutians are Arabized - hence the distinction between black and Arab Djiboutians in the demographics) and the suggestion received consensus backing. If I saw a few WP:RS supporting the notion that Djibouti self-identifies as an Arab country beyond belonging to the Arab League for apparently linguistic reasons (I believe Chad and Israel are the only Arabic-speaking countries that are not members, both of them for political reasons), I would definitely support reversing that move. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Break. It seems there is no consensus to include the 2011 Ahvaz protests within the scope of the "Arab Spring", and more importantly - we have no sufficient sources to make that link. Hence, unless some good sources for this are found, we don't include Ahvaz protests in the Arab Spring article, but possibly in the "Impact of the Arab Spring" article. Nevertheless, there seems to be a solid claim to separate the 2011 Ahvaz protests from the 2011 Iranian protests article, as virtually no sources at all link the Ahvaz protests to the Green Movement - making Ahvaz a completely separate case. The Ahvaz protests are extensively described by WP:RS and might be even more notable than the Iranian Green Movement protests of 2011. According to the Amnesty report there are continuing consequences of this event in arrests, executions and sanctions upon Ahvaz population, further emphasizing the notability of this event, see here [22]. Thanks everybody for sharing your ideas.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Concur - We can revisit potential inclusion later, but right now, this appears to be the situation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"Date ended" in the table

I think that the table should include "Date ended" for the protest, as at least the protests in Oman are over, and in some other countries are likely to be over, but that is not yet mentioned on their Wiki pages. HeadlessMaster (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Support - Seems like a practical thing to do. Those dates can always be amended if protests flare up again, too. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I would support it if the starting dates are true, wich is not at least in one case.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The table used to have such a column and it was decided to remove it. Jmj713 (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Representing 2011 Israeli border demonstrations on the map

It strikes me that there are a few problems here: 1) there's no precedent existing on the map for just coloring one region of a country; 2) technically these protests and deaths have actually taken place outside of Israeli territory, with the Golan Heights deaths in particular taking place in territory internationally recognized as Syrian; and 3) those darn labels get in the way a tad. So, thoughts on how to depict this event on the map? -Kudzu1 (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope on 1, you could say Kosovo is a colouring situation (though Serbia ain't never getting them back, ha). Thing about the Golan is that even Israel doesn't actually consider it formally annexed, only under Israeli Law. The problem is though that though they then technically recognise it as still being Syrian, it is still under Israeli governance, which is kind of what counts here. The border incidents are indeed in areas outside Israeli territory, and so I'm not sure what to do on that mark. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 04:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The only logical solution seems to be to treat the rule as flexible and just go ahead and color Israel orange on the map. The rest of the article makes the distinction, the specific protest article makes the distinction, etc. I don't see another solution that isn't going to be hideous. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a weak claim. The fact is technically nothing happened within the borders of Israel, maybe just minor rock throwing by the Druze of Majdal Shams (which again is also a disputed location to include within Israeli territory). The Palestinian demonstrations on the border of Syria and Lebanon are connected by sources to the Syrian uprising and the Arab Spring in general, but the events on other borders of Israel were minor to none. There might be a WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE regarding inclusion of some of those borders, especially Egypt-Gaza border - how can it be included in "Israeli borders"? The demonstration was about 4-5km from Israeli territory.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Does seem a bit odd to colour it that way. I'm here in Tel Aviv (just got in today) and haven't seen anything out of the ordinary... well... there was that kharedi on the bike that had a massive yellow flag attached to it saying messiah in Hebrew with a blue crown, but not much they do surprises me anymore. Definitely no protests though. Colouring it fully makes it seem like there are nationwide protests, and I'll be able to confirm on Saturday that there are not any of those when I head up north. =p What about colouring the Golan for minor with diagonal stripes? Alternating grey and the minor colour. It depends on whether the RSs characterised it as being within Israel's borders. Most people don't even know the actual size of the West Bank (my parents were shocked when they saw a map), so it's doubtful they know one part of the Heights from another. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Larger Map

I noticed that the latest version fo the map includes protests outside the arab world. Might it not be an idea to have a world map to show those properly? Places like China were directly influenced, and a second map would help clarify that. --ERAGON (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

China is bit too far but perhaps this map could spread more to the north, to cover other countries with related protests, such as Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Croatia. --93.139.134.57 (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that graphic would be better suited for Impact of the Arab Spring. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that. --ERAGON (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Summary of protests tags

Hi, I had added the POV & Unbalanced tags to the section because the non-sense of the W. Sahara part:

• 1st, it has a false date of starting, as no media sources, experts, etc.. gave that date as the starting of a protest different from the ongoing Sahrawi protest that started in Gdeim Izik camp.
• 2nd, the sources are a non-sense mixture, with only one of the three directly related to the issue, as the other 2 sources are a reference to Moroccan (not Sahrawi) February 20 movement protests and the other about Arab Spring influenced Sahrawi protests at the refugee camps, who are hundreds of kms. from W. Sahara.
• 3rd, the double standarts on qualifying the protests depending on the country, as its not reasonable to call minor protests that ones who costed more than a dozen of lives on a place, but calling major protests others with 1, 2 or no deaths (This happened with W. Sahara protests compared with others like Morocco or Algeria, until some users decide to split the W. Sahara article in 2 without sources or consensus).
• 4th, please lets get clear if the 2010-2011 Sahrawi protests are part of the Arab Spring or not. What it is not reasonable is to add it to the summary of protests while it is excluded from the "Anti-government protests in the 21st century - Arab Spring".

Thanks for your attention, hope we can discuss the issue seriously. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The Gdeim Izik protest camp was dismantled by Moroccan troops in early November 2010. As far as I can tell from WP:RS, that was the end of major Sahrawi demonstrations until nearly four months later. I'm not sure in what universe that constitutes "ongoing", and you seem to be the only person here who still thinks that's in dispute. None of the sources reporting on the Dakhla violence (on 25 February) and subsequent protest (on 26 February) that began the 2011 protests in Western Sahara, several weeks after media in Sahrawi camps reported that Sahrawi activists were making plans to bring the revolutionary spirit of Tahrir to Western Sahara, made reference to an "ongoing" protest in a camp that hasn't existed since November. As for the tags, if there are extraneous sources that don't make reference to Western Sahara, then move them to the Morocco section. Please don't tag the entire section as "POV" because there's an extra ref or two that you don't think supports the content. As for the differences between minor and major protests, I completely agree that's something we should define more concretely, but that's an entirely separate discussion from your qualms with the Sahrawi protests. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, lets get it clear, if a gap of months without protests or with few of them is a reason to split protests, same thing should be made with protests in Yemen, Morocco, Jordan, etc..., but curiously is only made in W. Sahara. Between the Gdeim Izik events and the Dahkla events there were other protests ans clashes, student clashes in Smara, the killing of Said Dambar, demostrations in El Aaiun, inmigration of Sahrawi refugees to the Canary islands, etc... If we are going to label any protest separate by some weeks as a separate event, this would be ridiculous. If you think that the Dakhla events were a separate and different event than the supposedly different ones, please give reliable sources stating that, otherwise you are only giving your personal opinion, so please dont use that rethoric of "the only person here that still thinks". Another thing, when you stated "several weeks after media in Sahrawi camps reported that Sahrawi activists were making plans to bring the revolutionary spirit of Tahrir to Western Sahara", could you give several reliable sources to that claim?. Oh, yes, a single and unique article that suggest that. Like the single and unique article from the Dakhla music festival, wich is clearly not a reliable source. That's called a minoritary view, as I learned when I try to add the vision of Chomsky and several other individuals and collectives of Gdeim Izik as the start of the Arab Spring. So If that time that was added to the article as a minoritary opinion, same thing should be done with your statements, dont you think so?. Also, the Dakhla events were started according to all sources, by Moroccan youths, and only then followed by the Sahrawi response. That's not my opinion, but what the sources stated. The same Sahrawis talk about the Gdeim Izik protests, not about the Dakhla 2011 protests. I would also add, where are the consequences of the 2011 Sahrawi protests? Because the 2010 Sahrawi protests had several consequences in time (deaths, injured, jailed, destitution of governor, posterior demonstrations & sit-ins in solidarity with the political prisoners, etc...). I repeat again, unless you gave reliable sources that confirm the issue, stating that there were supposed 2011 Sahrawi protests different (yep, where's the difference between the supposedly separated 2010 & 2011 protests? Apart from the supposed "influence" from the Arab Spring) from the 2010 Sahrawi protests is simply false, as no serious source assures that separation. I can put here several links of Sahrawi activist talking about "the current events after Gdeim Izik dismantlement", not after Dakhla events, while there's not a single source that stated that there are a 2011 Sahrawi protests separated and totally different from the 2010 ones. That are the facts. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I would advise you educate yourself about the facts in Yemen, Morocco, etc., because as I have said before, there has never been a four-month gap between protests in those countries since these events started. And I'm sorry, but that article wasn't the only one that mentioned the Arab Spring as an influence on the 2011 Sahrawi protests. There was also an article quoting the president of SADR himself where he said the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia provided an example of what Sahrawis were aspiring to. And as for these Sahrawi activists, nothing happens in a vacuum. The ongoing U.S. presence in Iraq has been cited as a reason for protests by some factions there; that doesn't mean the 2011 protests aren't a separate chain of events worthy of their own article. A disputed election in Iran two years ago has been cited as a reason for unrest in that country. Relations with Israel have been cited as a reason for protests in Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan. (And in fact, I think Western Sahara is long overdue for an article similar to Serhildan for the Kurds in Turkey to function as an umbrella for anti-government actions since the ceasefire.) I'd be happy to work with you to hash out a paragraph or two noting that although the 2010 protests fizzled out after Gdeim Izik was dismantled, protesters were inspired by that example when they took to the streets in Dakhla and later held sit-ins and other demonstrations elsewhere in Western Sahara this year. There's a similar paragraph to that in the "recent history" section of this page, I believe. But I think it's misleading to claim that protests in Western Sahara have truly been ongoing since early October when there was basically a four-month gap between demonstrations until February and such a sea change in regional politics between November and February. And I think it's not going to work to claim that the Arab Spring began in October in a little-noticed Sahrawi protest camp when the majority of sources agree it was triggered in Tunisia. Cheers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

"There are also no reports of unrest in the major Sahrawi town of Bojador and S'mara, further indicating that the Dakhla unrest is not part of any planned Sahrawi protest movement." I had quoted this to demostrate that what you stated about Sahrawi activists planning to "copy" Arab Spring is, at much, a personal opinion, if not simply false, and denied by this reliable source (http://www.afrol.com/articles/37450).--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

"there has never been a four-month gap between protests in those countries". Neither in W. Sahara. I agree that the peaks of violence were Gdeim Izik dismantlement (November 2010) and the Dakhla events (February 2011), but there had been several protests (as I cited up) between that dates, so please do not ignore them. If we are going to take the peaks of violence as starting date of differenced protests, in several countries (not curiously only and exclusively in W. Sahara) the splitting should be done. Influence of Arab Spring in W. Sahara protests? It could be, as in every Arab world country. But I could give you also several links of personalities stating that the Gdeim Izik protest influenced the Arab Spring. I would be glad to collaborate in every article, but not starting with false premises. As I said before, I aint seen a single reliable source talking about somewhat "2011 Sahrawi protests" differenced from the 2010 protests. Seriously, no one who had followed the issue would state that, no offense. I dont mind to made a distinction between the different events and to add as much info as possible, but in a unified 2010-2011 Sahrawi protests, as it is logic and fair. "And I think it's not going to work to claim that the Arab Spring began in October in a little-noticed Sahrawi protest camp when the majority of sources agree it was triggered in Tunisia". That was discussed months ago, and althought is was not considered the starting point in the article, it was included in the precedents (the closer one) of the Arab Spring. That should be for something, dont you think? (and I dont think it was for my insistence).--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No, you didn't cite "several protests" between those dates. You cited a brawl between high school students, a murder, and emigration trends. As for those "other demonstrations in El Aauin", I've seen that claimed precisely one place, and that is a section on the 2010 Sahrawi protests page that you wrote with no citations, credible or otherwise, or dates provided. I know there's not much media reporting on Western Sahara, but if you can't cite any sources for your information, don't add that information to Wikipedia. And as for the protests being part of the same series, the burden of proof is actually on you to find a source that says they are part of the same campaign...for the simple reason that the Gdeim Izik camp went down on 8 November and Sahrawis began protesting in 2011 in Dakhla on 26 February, and in El Aauin on 2 March. You can't just assume that protests were ongoing between 8 November and 26 February with no WP:RS backing that up. The logical thing to do is to see the Gdeim Izik camp as a protest that took place in October and early November 2010, and to see the protests beginning in February 2011 after the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia (cited by the president of SADR as an example of how the interests of Sahrawis aligned with the interests of democrats elsewhere in North Africa, no less) as a separate campaign. Nothing happens in a vacuum and I'm sure Gdeim Izik remains fresh in the memories of demonstrators in El Aauin, but there's no sources saying protests have been "ongoing" since October as you claim. There's just none. All of my points here are supported by sources cited in either the 2010 Sahrawi protests page or the 2011 Sahrawi protests page, but you're just asking me to take your word for it, and that's not the way Wikipedia works. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This is going worst. Now you permit yourself to judge that the facts cited are not related with the 2010-2011 Sahrawi protests. I suppose, for example, that when you talk about "emigration trends", you would judge equally in the cases of Lybia, Tunisia or Syria, as it would be logic. And discrediting the events on Smara as a simply "high school brawl" is at least suspicious if you know the events. Doing the same, I could discredit the Dakhla events as a "music festival drunk fight", and I wouldnt be lying (at least in part, as the events started like that according to some sources). Please, assume good faith. But I would take that apart, and as you asked for a timeline of events, and you have recognized the difficulty of having sources in the case of W. Sahara, I would use You Tube videos to show the continuity of Sahrawi protests during late 2010 and early 2011, as you have asked for:

• [Gdeim Izik, W. Sahara, October 15, 2010]
• [Gdeim Izik, W. Sahara, October 22, 2010]
• [Gleimin, south Morocco (relevant Sahrawi population), October 26, 2010]
• [El Aaiun, W. Sahara, November 7, 2010]
• [Gdeim Izik, W. Sahara, November 8, 2010]
• [El Aaiun, W. Sahara, November 8, 2010]
• [El Aaiun, W. Sahara, November 9, 2010]
• [Smara, W. Sahara, November 29, 2010]
• [Smara, W. Sahara, November 29, 2010]
• [Gleimin, south Morocco, December 17, 2010]
• [World Youth Festival, Pretoria (South Africa), December 19, 2010]
• [El Aaiun, W. Sahara, December 24, 2010]
• [Fuerteventura (Spain), January 5, 2011]
• [Dakar (Senegal), February 7, 2011]
• [El Aaiun, W. Sahara, February 24, 2011]
• [Dakhla, W. Sahara, February 26, 2011]
• [El Aaiun, W. Sahara, February 28, 2011]
• [El Aaiun, W. Sahara, March 2, 2011]
• [Lanzarote (Spain) March 23, 2011]

... I could continue, but I think its a representative selection of the events that happened through that late 2010-early 2011 period. This also contradicts your claim of protests in El Aaiun on March 2, 2011 as a continuation of the Dakhla events, as there had been demostrations in El Aaiun earlier than the Dakhla riots. So, it's shown that talking about a vacuum or a "four months gap" between Gdeim Izik and Dakhla is totally wrong or directly false, unless you ignore or try to discredit this several examples of protests and events. I hope that now that the evidences are clear, we can remade the article adjusting to reality. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't recognize unverified YouTube videos as WP:RS. We've been having this discussion on Talk:2011 Syrian uprising and everyone agrees with that. There's just no way of verifying the dates on those videos are accurate. Furthermore, your video of El Aaiun allegedly from 24 December isn't a protest, it's a family at a hospital; your videos of Smara allegedly from 29 November are, as we discussed, of some high schoolers hurt after reportedly getting into a fight; your videos allegedly from Pretoria, Fuerteventura, and Dakar aren't from Morocco or Western Sahara and thus are worth mentioning, if verified, as part of the international reaction but not as part of the protest campaign. The only videos here that really fit are the Gleimin video allegedly from 17 December (which seems to be a fairly quiet gathering of maybe 20 people?) and the El Aaiun video allegedly from 24 February (which shows a much larger gathering), but again, both of those are unverified, I don't think 20 people standing in an alley holding a banner over a month after the Gdeim Izik camp was dismantled and over two months before the Dakhla clashes is notable enough (even if verified, which it isn't) to constitute a bridge, and even if the supposed 24 February protest is verified (which it isn't), that really doesn't help your argument since it was just the day before the Dakhla clashes (two days before the Dakhla protests). I appreciate you providing the videos but they're just not recognized as WP:RS and even if they were, they don't support your argument tremendously well. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I expected that attitude. You first throw the stone and then hide the hand. You first ask for evidences for the continuity of protests, and when the evidences are shown, you either discredit them or simply said that WP doesnt allow them (wich I know, but there are evidences, altought they cannot be used). The final question, I repeat it again, is that you splitted the 2010-2011 Sahrawi protest basing on your personal opinions, as there is not a single source stating that the protests in 2011 are differenced from the protests weeks or months ago.. And, please, dont try to reverse the question saying things like "there's not a source stating that the protests are continuation of the 2010 protests". What logic and good faith dictates is that if you made a great change on an article (like splittin' it) you had to argue and had reasons and sources to made that change. You aint had sources stating what you assert and you aint seek consensus, as you had made the changes without any discussion. If anyone edits in WP based on personal POV's, Wikipedia would be a chaos and less accurate than it is now.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"I don't like it" isn't an adequate reason to oppose. By your own admission, you have no verifiable sources to support your claim. There are no sources connecting a protest in early November to a protest in late February, and if you want to claim protests have been "ongoing" - because that's the claim, if you say protests had a start date of 8 October 2010 and are continuing through the present day - then you need to bring up WP:RS to prove it. Don't try to push the burden of proof off onto me. I have no "personal POV's" - I mean, what sort of agenda could I possibly be pushing by separating out pages for events that occurred at completely different times and have no overt continuity between them? - and I think it's bizarre (and entirely inappropriate) that you continue to assume bad faith and accuse editors like TL565 and me of that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Your double standarts are incredible. Dont put words in my mouth that I dont use. The problem aint that I like or dislike the article, the problem is the use of POV's intead of sources to made whole articles. By your own words, you had recognized the difficulty of having sources on W. Sahara, but you dont have problems to use your personal POV to interpretate the events, although you dont have any source to base in. Its funny to see that instead of search for a source that confirms your personal POV, in wich the suppossed "2011 Sahrawi protests" is based on, you affirm that its me who had to bring a source stating that the 2010 and 2011 Sahrawi protests are part of the same timeline!! It's the world upside down!! I think every reasonable and logical person would think that if a user made such an important edit as splitting an existing article in two parts, that person had to bring reliable sources to back its claims, wich you aint done. About lobbyist like TL565, nothing to say, the 2010-2011 Sahrawi protests is a good example of the double standarts he used. Curiously, I think it was that user who, months ago, denied the then starting 2010 Sahrawi protests, saying that they're only the continuation of... the 2005 Sahrawi protest!!!! (And you talk about four months gap as a long time, wich is also false, as there wasnt a 4 months gap in the protests) It seems that anything goes to some in the aim of discredit, hide or distort the 2010-2011 Sahrawi protests, and their clear links with the Arab Spring. There are no sources talking about a 2011 Sahrawi protests wave, as a differenced wave from the 2010 ones, and that's logic, as, for example, demostrators in 2011 protests claim for the liberation of Gdeim Izik protesters. The aim of the protests in 2011 is the same as in 2010, as the slogans and even the demostrators. How can you explain including one protest for the killing of Said Dambar and not include the facts? Because they happened in late 2010, and they can link the protests that you separated?. So, still waiting for sources for that personal POV article. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 10:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see your back causing trouble. Get lost please, before you get blocked again. TL565 (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Except that all the "reasonable and logical" editors who have been involved with this agreed with the edit I made except for you. I made the edit because of a lack of WP:RS saying the Dakhla protests and subsequent events, which were located after the section "Aftermath" in the article - a pretty good indication that quite some time has passed from the main event, I must say - were part of the Gdeim Izik series of events. And I see you continue to make WP:ORIGINAL claims without presenting verifiable and credible sources. I don't think it's worth my time to continue having this pointless argument with you, and I'll say I've had it up to here with your disingenuous accusations of "personal POV" and "lobbyist", but feel free to yell at the moon. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Israeli border demonstrations/clashes and the Arab Spring?

This has been talked about in various parts previously, but no solid discussion on how the "Israeli border demonstrations" should be treated in this article. Clearly, that has been some influence of the Arab Spring, but questionable if it is part of it, as it shares almost none of the same characteristics of the demonstrations/uprisings in Arab countries.

I do wish to add that there is no formal definition of the Arab Spring in this article, and this somewhat complicates the problem. However, it lists the following as the causes: Demographic structural factors, Dictatorship, Extreme poverty, Government corruption, Human rights violations, Inflation, Kleptocracy, Sectarianism, Unemployment. Is there any evidence to suggest that any of the above were relevant causes, apart from Human rights violations? The cause was part of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which may have been inspired by the Arab Spring, but does not share its characteristics of an Arab nation rising up against their domestic rulers.

I am not proposing removing it form this article, rather it being reworded and setting it in its context. Any suggestions, proposals, ideas? --Halma10 (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Errr... that wording here "The cause was part of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which may have been inspired by the Arab Spring," is a bit odd. You mean that the recent stuff, right? I think in the case of some of the Druze in the Golan it is irredentism really. The border clashes I don't really know. I do know that the Syrians let their Palestinians into the mined areas to attack the border fence. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 11:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Sir William, I meant to say that the clashes on the border was part of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but those particular events may have taken some inspiration from the Arab Spring. This is very different to claiming that it is part of the Arab Spring. Some have commented that the Syrians allowed the protesters to advance to the border in order to deflect from their domestic protests.--Halma10 (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

In the case of Lebanon, the only protests that come along with Arab spring is the anti-sectarian protests that are protets against the sectarian regime and the result is NOTHNIG. the other protests are not related to these waves of arabs' protests and are related to Hariri assassination in 2005 and the two blocks that were formed at that time, and this is led to new government (2011).

So it is necessary to clarify this in order to have a good topic 06:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjaat (talk • contribs)

Arguably the expectation in a lot of these protests, especially after the People's Republic of China in 1989 and Uzbekistan in 2005 set the bar for governmental responses to dissent in authoritarian states, is that the result will be "nothing". It's remarkable that this much change has been effected in this part of the world by demonstrators and activists. I disagree that the Lebanese protests cannot be considered a part of the Arab Spring simply because they have not led to radical change. Protesters have cited inspiration from Tunisia and Egypt, as per WP:RS, and I don't know of a standing criterion that only protests that "succeed" in some capacity are considered part of this regional event. I think that would be inappropriate and highly subjective.

Certainly, though, I would be open to discussing the inclusion of events in Lebanon predating Bouazizi in the "recent history" section if reliable sources indicate that they are relevant. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Eritrea

I notice that there is an article titled "The Arab Spring Inspires The Eritrean Spring" here in the ethiopian journal. I'm aware there are tensions between the ethiopia and eritrea so I don't know if it counts as a reliable source? Is there an eritrean spring? EdwardLane (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any sources reporting on protests within Eritrea, linked to the Arab Spring or otherwise. If this develops, it's probably better suited for Impact of the Arab Spring, as Eritrea is not part of the Arab world. -Kudzu1 (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Morocco in the map

shouldn't morocco be changed to a medium blue for "Sustained civil disorder and governmental changes" as a new Constitution was just voted for? maybe a new category for "new constitution" or "major governmental reforms" is called for.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, Morroco's color on the map should be changed to the medium blue of "Sustained civil disorder and governmental changes" or the light blue for "Protests and govermental changes". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.202.180 (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking "protests and governmental changes". There are protests in Morocco, but nothing I'd describe as "sustained civil disorder" on the level of Yemen, Syria, or even Bahrain. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Vote - protests and government changes. --Smart (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. I've also got a version done that splits off South Sudan that I will upload on 9 July. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice work - certainly South Sudan will require to break it off, as it is not part of the Arab World.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The graphic and wikicode should be ready to go and I'll upload it hopefully at midnight on 9 July (UTC+3, or Juba local time). -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - protests and government changes. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Qatar

Qatar is unmarked on the map and not mentioned much the article. Has nothing of note happened there? 82.40.4.248 (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

sorry didn't mean to post twice 82.40.4.248 (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Not much has happened in Qatar to date. If something happens there related to the Arab Spring, I am sure it will be mentioned in the article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in Qatar so far. Generally, the last three "surviving" Arab countries from these protests are Qatar, UAE and Comoros --aad_Dira (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC).

Summary of protests by country section?

Hi, I was looking at the section entitled "Summary of protests by country" with the table and noted the protest dates start chronologically, then later, they seem to have no order.. Am I missing a correlation? If not, I was going to attempt to fix it chronologically a second time (the first edit I previewed messed up the table format).. kiranerys(u,c) 22:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

They should be chronological. Are they not anymore? -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, as of earlier, the dates are fine through like mid February, then they jump to March, then back to January, February, and May. My table code is not very good, as in my preview edit, I messed up the whole thing, so I apologise for mooching off of people to do it, I just lack the expertise kiranerys(u,c) 00:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for implementing, Kuduz1! :-) kiranerys(u,c) 05:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Summary of protests by country section

Please note the table is meant to be ordered chronologically from the date protests began - not the date of the first "Day of Rage", or the date protests escalated to an "uprising", or the date the media started calling it a "civil war", but the date generally acknowledged as the start of the unrest. Cheers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Kingsauod123 is continuing to revert the start date of the Syria events to 15 March 2011. I have asked him to participate on this Talk page to explain this edit. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This user is also contributing at Arabic Wikipedia, and, like here, he does not discuss anything he is doing, and clearly missing the knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. However, for this particular edit, i am wondering why it is tagged as 26 Jan. The first protests in Syria have taken place in 17 Feb, then in 12 Mar, and finally the real uprising have started at 15 Mar. There was as well two small demonstrations for the other countries, the first for Egypt at 3 Feb, and the second for Lybia at 22-23 Feb. Is there other-earlier protests from reliable sources? --aad_Dira (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC).

If you navigate to Timeline of the 2011 Syrian uprising, you'll see that the 26 January event was a self-immolation. That being said, 17 February seems to be when the protests really started to become a regular event. 15 March, however, is an unacceptably late date; protests began weeks before the time media started referring to the event as an "uprising". -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really. It is common to call it sometimes as the "15th of March Uprising", because that was the start of the regular protests. 26 Jan event had no further "effects" (i do not know what is the suitable word!), and the source of 28 Jan protest is an empty page, the first date for the start of a real uprising was detemined as 5 Feb, but nothing happend at that day, excepting a claimed protest in Al-Hasakah from a one unreliable source. The first confirmed demonstration was in 17 Feb, and was not pre-organized, as it have inspired by police men beating a citizen inside a popular Souk. Then in 12 Mar another deomnstration have occured in Al-Qamaishli in the annual day of 2004 event. At last, in March a date have been determined again for an uprising, and that was 15 March, only about 30 protesters have responded in the city of Damascus, and they were all arrested. Another 100 people have protested again in 16 March claiming the realsing of the past day protesters, and nothing happend in 17 March, but finally the protests have started as a daily event from the Friday of 18 March, when the protests have took place in Damascus, Homs, Baniyas, Deir ez-Zor and Daraa. For that reason, the real date of the uprising is 15 March, and 17 February could be used as well, but 26 January event can not be related to any of the later protests --aad_Dira (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC).

I would prefer 17 February as the listed start date, because that's when protests appear to have become common even if not everyday. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Death toll

Death toll should be updated, e.g. 2011 Yemeni uprising article says that there are 1,016-1,203 deaths in Yemen, while the table in this article says that there are 967-1,203 deaths. Those inconsistencies should be fixed. --93.139.148.143 (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sudan

Can someone seperate Sudan and South Sudan since it is now a sovereign stat. I have no idea hoe to do this, but neverthless think it should be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.1.64 (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

On the map? It was done at about 00:01 EAT on 9 July 2011. South Sudan proper is not an Arab country and hasn't experienced protests related to the Arab Spring. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I understand that, I just meant it's not separated on the map on this page close the top where it says that the whole of Sudan is experiencing minor protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.1.64 (talk) 05:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is separated. Compare to a map of unified Sudan; the map clearly shades only North Sudan, and in fact South Sudan is partially cut off. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Splitting the article

The article size is massive, and both editing and browsing are very unwieldy.

I suggest that some of the longer sections for individual events be condensed to one or two paragraphs, like the "Tunisian revolution" section is already; and that a dedicated "International reactions" page be spun off and that section condensed to a

Main article: International reactions to the Arab Spring

Would anyone be opposed to doing this? I'm just tired of waiting five minutes for the servers to process a minor edit to the page (and at least half that time to load it). -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I see you went ahead and did this, cutting the readable prose size from 58 kB/9290 words to 42 kB/6769 words. Excellent job. Swarm ^X 19:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Others section arrangement and updates

I think Saudi Arabia part should be in the "Concurrent incidents" by itself. Also the "Palestinian Territories" and The "UAE" need updating. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Saudi Arabia should definitely be split off. Not sure it qualifies for "major protests" yet, though. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree Saudi arabia is not major but the part is too long to part of the "Concurrent incidents" so it needs to spilt. so what do you have in mind? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think let's just split it off anyway. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's summer.

Are we to include every event in the Middle East post-spring as a result of it? I fear future conflicts or events will be regulated to "Arab Spring" status even if they are totally unrelated and in another season. It gives the impression that this "Spring" is somehow a trigger for international conflicts. I assume only events mentioned in reliable sources that are explicitly described as part of the "Arab Spring" will be included right? Wikifan^{Be nice} 07:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Just yesterday, the foreign minister of New Zealand gave a speech on what he repeatedly referred to as the "Arab Spring". The speech was entitled "The Arab Spring". Spring in New Zealand doesn't even start for another month and a half; in fact, as you note, nowhere in the world is it spring right now, yet "Arab Spring" continues to be the common name and there is no consensus among reliable sources that it is over (or that it was ever seasonally dependent; consider, if you will, that the Arab Spring began in mid-December, when it was technically still autumn in the Northern Hemisphere). So, looks like we're stuck with this moniker, even though it's not really accurate and it never really was. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't question a speech made by a foreign minister but it seems Wikipedia as a community has somehow chosen to set Arab Spring to be another general "part of" system. For example, the uprising in Libya was said to be a reaction to the uprisings in Egypt, but the NATO intervention was not inspired by the spring but supposedly concerns for the lives of Libyan civilians, etc. And yet the Libyan Civil War is now part of the Arab Spring in the wikipedia article. Protests and demonstrations are one thing but full-scale wars deserve their own category. Wikifan^{Be nice} 08:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Secondary sources tend to support its grouping with the other protests, even though obviously the situation has escalated into something different than what other countries have experienced. I think that's a level of differentiation best left to the page for the Libyan conflict, though. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think they meant "spring" as in terms of a loosening of autocracy (it's been used before in reference to Yugoslavia for example, there was a brief so-called "Croatian Spring" before Tito clamped down again on the Croat liberals). --Yalens (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, "spring" in this context doesn't mean the season, it's used in the sense of the Spring of Nations, Croatian Spring, Prague Spring, etc. It refers to periods of liberalization, people rising up to overcome oppression, etc. Swarm ^{u | t} 00:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The title was in jest. But I'm saying I hope everything post-spring in the ME won't be lumped into this "Arab Spring" category. Wikifan^{Be nice} 05:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Only if the media says so. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 12:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Article Layout

Does anyone else think the first section, Overview, is a wee bit picture and table overloaded? I suggest removing the table, which doesn't tell us anything the map, timeline or summaries at the bottom doesn't. Any better suggestions? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 12:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It does give us casualty counts, and it's in an easy-to-browse format. That being said, it takes up a lot of space, does contain a lot of redundant information, and its removal would reduce the size of the article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Remove Timeline Picture - keep the Map & Casualty count. --Smart (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I can agree to removing the timeline. Maybe we could reduce the table size, some of the fields like outcome and situation are imprecise and redundant. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 18:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It also may be time to consider adding a column for whether (and when) protests have ended. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Worldwide

I feel that the Arab Spring should be Worldwide Spring due to the fact that now Spain is being protested for the same reasons as Egypt, Libya, etc (Corruption, economy, and want real democracy etc) Also they both use social networks to help promote the protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.155.15 (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Spain is neither a dictatorship nor an absolutist monarchy, like the arab countries are. You might want to check out the Impact of the Arab Spring article. - 79.113.70.241 (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Protests happen every year in democracies. Now that there is a big wave of protests in more oppressed states, why are the protests in democracies suddenly so interesting? Wisconsin, Spain, Italy, and Greece were going to happen despite the Arab Spring, and so would have Vancouver. --75.17.116.211 (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• Completely disagree. The difference in scale between Spain/Greece/Wisconsin and Tunisia/Libya/etc. is quite staggering - and social networks have been used in protests for years already. 88.89.108.212 (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with 88.89.108.212 and 79.113.70.241 entirely. These protests are already covered under Impact of the Arab Spring to some degree, and besides, "Worldwide Spring" is, I presume, a term that has existed for all of ten days and is known to ~4 people. Original research par excellence. Laika Talk: Laika 17:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• I think it is better to keep the scope of this article within the Arab world. The significance of these events is their unprecedented effect on the entire middle east and northern Africa. If the article were to include Spain, Greece, etc. then it loses its focus, and as stated earlier, the proper place to discuss the relationships (or lack thereof) between these protests and the rest of the world is in the Impact of the Arab Spring page.Beecher70 (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider that Western Sahara, Morocco, Mauritania part of the Arab world. It should be considered Worldwide and not just the Arab world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.2.132 (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Morocco is 90% muslim and they speak Arabic.Ericl (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Propaganda

I came to this article for infos, but this is just propaganda. This can be seen on TV. The regime was wrong, the people were poor, come on, you should deal with each country using the truth. The author put what he or she heard from TV. Damn, Wikipedia quality is going down. Shame, shame, shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.196.76.242 (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

caption to the pictures

The caption purports to be of a protest in Hama, but the picture has been clearly identified as a protest in Douma. Could somebody please fix this?74.131.99.14 (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Al Thoura.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Al Thoura.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Name: Arab Spring???

Wikipedia does NOT create history. Wikipedia is NOT a primary history source. Wikipedia CANNOT give name to an historic event. Therefore, this event CANNOT be named 'Arab Spring' just because Wikipedia has given it that name. I propose it to be changed. 81.32.8.229 (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia didn't make this name up. Please check the logs and archives before making this kind of accusation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I hate to use Google Hits to make a point, but "about 33,100 results" demonstrate that we didn't coin the name. Check the archives of the talk page for the thousands of threads concerning the page title. It's been resolved. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe make an account before commenting on a Wiki page. --Smart (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't bite the IPs. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 23:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah IPs dont taste good anyways >.<. IP: 81.32.8.229, the ones who give names to historic events are notable sources and people, wikipedia just takes that and puts it into a sentence with a reference to those reliable sources and people. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It's widely referred to as the Arab Spring in English language media. It may be called something else in Arabic language media, and if so the article should make notice of it, but "Arab Spring" is currently the most appropriate title. 98.218.229.58 (talk) 03:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not very important now because the debate have stopped several days ago, but for who asking about the Arabic media, the most common name is "The Arab revolutions" or "The Arab revolutions spring" --aad_Dira (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC).

Arab spring isn't even accurate, it's nearly autumn now and the events are still underway. Besides the name conjures up a romantic ideal of a democratic future for the middle east when it's nowhere clear that will be the end result. Arab uprisings is a more correct naming. S_peakF_ree ^(talk) 21:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Tell the reliable sources that. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That most of the media label X as Y shouldn't matter, what matters is that the naming is correct and neutral, even if only a minority of the media use that name. The best selling papers are from the so-called "gutter press", we don't name London rioters "rioting scum" because many British tabloids use that phrase. S_peakF_ree ^(talk) 22:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The BBC [23], the Guardian [24] and the New York Times [25] use the phrase Arab uprisings. As well as other reliable sources. S_peakF_ree ^(talk) 22:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

As Kudzu said, "verifiable" and "accurate" are two different animals. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The BBC, the Guardian and the New York Times are generally seen as reliable sources. So there's no reason not to choose an accurate name used by the more trustworthy reliable sources. It's not a popularity contest, Wikipedia is not a democracy. 195.241.156.43 (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with "SpeakFree", For example Tunisian revolution is not named "The Jasmin revolution" even if this romantic term has been coined in many rs. Plus, I'm not sure that what is happening in Libya or what happened in Bahrain can be described with such an optimistic term. --Tachfin (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Google search results: "arab uprisings" returns 1.13 million results; "arab spring" returns 7.96 million results. And FYI, "london rioters" returns 4.11 results; "rioting scum" returns 43,400 results. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Should Google be the arbiter of what we should use as a name? S_peakF_ree ^(talk) 17:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

To clarify my question: many if not most links on Google are from what we would call unreliable sources. Also Wikipedia has a huge influence on the internet being a top 10 site, if we'd change the name within 6 months the new name will probably be leading the search results. Google doesn't discern about what's reliable or not (it's not in the algorithm), the site with the most hits and links goes to the top. We should use a name which covers the subject, not expresses expectations for the future. The article Prague Spring being called so is fine as we know the end result (even though the Prague spring was initially crushed we know Chzechoslovakia eventually became a democracy after the Velvet Revolution). With the so-called Arab Spring we don't known how things are going to turn out yet. S_peakF_ree ^(talk) 17:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Arab Spring is clearly the common name. It was the common name before this page was moved from "2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa protests" to the current title. It is the name used by many reliable sources, including a number of government officials. I see no reason to change it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Dubious additions

Should we maybe make a separate section for these items Spain Israel tent riots Israeli Borders Britain day of rage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8digits (talk • contribs) 01:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Impact of the Arab Spring. And enough reliable sources have described the Israeli border protests as part of the Arab Spring that I think they merit inclusion. Please stop edit warring, even if you think you are right, and let's discuss this before deciding to remove anything. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not present these reputable sources

8digits (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC).

The page is already fully referenced. You can read the citations themselves. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I really do not think it deserves to be on this page, it is so dubious whether it even should be there. There is some extra stuff that we should add such as the $1000 bounty given by the Syrians to anyone that went to this border protest. I will get on to it when I have some time. 8digits (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The protests weren't just on Israel's border with Syria, though...and you really don't have consensus to remove the events no matter how you feel. Please stop deleting and start discussing. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Algeria

Is it accurate to say that there are ongoing protests in Algeria(Infobox)? Situation is pretty calm since January. --Tachfin (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources say protests there have been ongoing for months. Not sure what the current level of activity is, though; international media has been focused elsewhere. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes there have been protests there at the same time as Tunisia, but it died out after some reforms. There haven't been any protests in the recent months--Tachfin (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source or two to that effect, I'll take it. It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that everything here has to be verifiable, of course. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well it will certainly be hard to find sources for the lack of something. News generally don't report on the absence of protests. --Tachfin (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Leave it, as the protests may pick up again shortly. --Smart (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have a question. Algeria lifted their 19-year state of emergency. Is that not considered a governmental change? If it is, there should be a change to Algeria's color. If not, hey, I'm just wondering.--24.15.248.79 (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Good question. There was a bombing that killed some people the other day, but I don't know if it has any relation with the Arab Spring, at least I don't think so.Ericl (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's just "lifting the state of emergency" this was not accompanied by a governmental or constitutional change. The protests actually died out after the government intervened to lower the prices of certain basic commodities and these were the main demands of the initial demonstrators. Lifting the emergency can be viewed as only a precautionary measure to avoid possible escalation (like in Tunisia) Tachfin (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Morocco

I did some corrections:

1. Protests started on February 20th and absolutely not before, hence the pro-Protest movement calls itself "February 20^th movement"
2. Number of victims: Several un-reliable or self-published sources are used to support the claim of 7:

• eagainst: mentions the death of 5, which it wrongly labels as "pro-democracy demonstrators", these were actually looters that died accidentally while inside a bank in the fire that they themselves started. They took advantage of the ensuing chaos after the protest and tried to rob the bank; similar looting scenes occurred in Tangier and Marrakesh. I don't think that can be labeled as "pro-democracy demonstrators" or even "demonstrators period".
• Hespress: A mighty un-reliable source (self-published by a small group of ordinary people who are not even journalists), but seems more reasonable in this article, does not mention any death-toll; it only describes the looting and vandalism scenes that ensued after the protests and the resulting arrests.
• [26] this also is only a blog; it comments on video that shows a beaten protestor (A teacher) saying that someone said "they killed him" as the man was laying down bleeding. Actually he did not die he was only injured.
• [27]: Jpost is traditionaly considered rs but they just happen to be wrong on this: The man they speak about (Kamal Amari) died indeed but not as result of police brutality; He went to a hospital, several days after the protests, complaining from a head-ache his state eventually deteriorated and he died. [28][29] Don't think that this qualifies as a death resulting from police brutality during a demonstration, such a claim is only made by the February 20th movement itself and interestingly labels him as the first "martyr" of the demonstrations (i.e first one to die, and this was in June)

So the 5 dead on 20/02/2011 weren't really demonstrators and weren't killed by the police anyway. This is admitted by the protesting movement itself which wants to distance itself from the looters.

I'm leaving the death-toll at 1, even though I explained the guy died in obscure circumstances. I'd have to search for more sources to clarify the fact that his death wasn't the result of police brutality.

I removed the aforementioned un-reliable sources, left only Jpost. --Tachfin (talk) 16:49, 1 September 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.[30] --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 [31] and the Schalits joining on some of the protests. [32] 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)

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" [33] Time and reliable sources will tell what happens. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:26, 12 September 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 [[34]] 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)

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)

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)

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 [35], 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)

References

Abu Casey (talk) 00:01, 30 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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)