Talk:Arab Spring/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Libyan Government Overthrown Date

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

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

Social networks

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

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

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

Israel?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel is under impact? so is north korea, why don't we just put it in there?Philoleb (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Lebanon Casualities

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

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

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

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

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

"Strategy of tension"

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

I notice that the massively POV-pushing "strategy of tension" stuff has been re-added by User:188.29.93.221, which seems to be a one-off use of the IP just for this purpose, by someone who is already familiar with Wikipedia's editing tools. However, since my previous removal of it was less that 24 hours ago, the 1RR rule applying to this article prevents me from removing it again. -- The Anome (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Taking a look at the history of the "strategy of tension" article, there seems to be one particular editor that likes to edit both (and only) this article and the strategy of tension article, from a variety of IP addresses all in the same range. I haven't yet been able to dig out all the occasions when this phrase has been added to this article, but I'm beginning to suspect this may be one single editor at work. -- The Anome (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

And they're back, this time as user:188.29.143.137. This is clearly a single-issue editor, working from a variety of IPs, pushing a highly offensive POV, completely unsupported by any citation. Since they are editing in a hit-and-run fashion from ever-changing IP addresses, there's no way to discuss this with them, and I suspect that they will keep on re-adding this stuff forever, unless something happens to prevent it. -- The Anome (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are some of the recent appearances of edits from this IP range that have also edited strategy of tension:

• User:188.29.143.137 (15 November) -- also edited the Arab Spring article
• User:188.29.93.221 (14 November) -- also edited the Arab Spring article
• User:188.28.27.6 (10 November)
• User:188.29.13.10 (8 November) -- also edited the Arab Spring article
• User:188.28.190.152 (7 November)
• User:188.28.174.151 (7 November)
• User:188.28.37.134 (7 November)

-- The Anome (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have left a message on the talk page of one of the IPs involved, just on the off-chance that it is a misguided beginner that is behind all this. If the behaviour of edit-warring and complete lack of communication continues, then it is clearly disruptive, and it would be time to take it to WP:AN/I to get some sanctions put in place against this editor. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

They are already back at it again. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I note that they are editing from an IP address range assigned to Hutchison 3G UK Ltd, who run the "3" network in the UK; this means they are likely to be doing this via a 3G mobile internet dongle. -- The Anome (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

They are doing it again. This time from User:188.29.52.67 and User:188.28.250.208. Jeancey (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should keep the Strategy of tension stuff as an opinion, this source clearly mentions it as a technique used in the Arab spring. P.S: I've requested semi-protection for the page. --Tachfin (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. But this particular source mentions it in passing in relation to something else, not weighty enough to include in the lead. With some better sourcing (and of course worded to reflect it is an opinion) it could be included in the main text somewhere. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the main problem is that they keep simply adding it, and they won't ever discuss to come to consensus about it. Jeancey (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, definitely not in the lead. I've done some research and the site mentioned above is pretty much the only one that makes that claim; the odd thing is that "strategy of tension" in this case would've been used by the regimes and not the protesters. Though, on the larger scale, one can theorize that world powers used it to persuade public opinion. But that is only OR or fringe theories, the lack of sources on this is the main issue. Tachfin (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The material clearly does not belong here -- it fails both WP:FRINGE and WP:OR.However, the main issue here is no longer the material, it's the editor's unwillingness to participate in Wikipedia's conflict resolution procedures. If the editor in qusetion continues to refuse to heed requests for discussion on this, I suggest either that this page be semiprotected to prevent further editing from IPs, thus forcing them to register an account. or that a rangeblock be requested for the two /16s they've been editing from, or, if that's too draconian, further editing of this page be blocked from that range of bare IPs using the edit filter. - - The Anome (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The page has been protected now, I believe. Jeancey (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

So it has! -- The Anome (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The Anome, I agree with you regarding this IP-editor. But unfortunately my ANI report on the user was archived with no admin attention whatsoever. I will still patrol this and the other article, but the lack of attention from admins regarding this case is not exactly encouraging. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Syrian situation deteriorating and "civil war" term is used

Editors are welcome to discuss it here.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

News Update

Hey, guys. I just heard something about the Sudanese opposition is trying to form a coalition to topple Omar al-Bashir. On the other hand, protesters just stormed Kuwait parliament. Somebody should keep an eye for these infamous Arab revolt countries. Thank you. 60.49.57.195 (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup blog refs

After a quick glance at the refs I see some blogs used in citations (e.g. Global voices), don't know how much there is of them so I'm gonna be removing those and other self-published material per WP:BLOGS. (P.S: This does not apply to blogs of respectable media e.g. Guardian, Aljazeera etc)--Tachfin (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Libyan flag

Hello, people! Who are the vandal's news that hasn't updated such that the Libyan flag has already been changed? Why is the flag reverted to the old Libyan Arab Jamahiriya flag? Change that flag back now! The UN membership already confirms the Kingdom of Libya flag as the legitimate flag already! Do not use the green flag as the current one. Thank you.

60.48.195.249 (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

•  Done. Yeah it was vandalism... no idea how that got by. good catch! Jeancey (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually I was looking at the Summary of protests by country country section. My thoughts were that if this is all about country, then why is both Golan Heights and the Western Sahara are considered countries? Golan Heights (Israeli border whatever) is actually a territory, not countries. The same as the Western Sahara. 60.48.195.249 (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done That was not vandalism, see lengthy discussion above. The war started and happened in the old libya, not the current one. Putting the new flag for events that happened in February is an anachronism. Tachfin (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. I compare it the same way as World War II belligerent flags as well as the Six-Days War. Thanks for reminding that. 118.100.70.240 (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate Colors for the Arab Spring Map

On the map, I think it's appropriate to have reasons for why a color for a type of situation is chosen. It appears that blue symbolizes freedom. The countries with the darker blue were able to gain to more freedom and change. Red/Orange on the other hand should symbolize blood. The more red a country, the more violence is occurring in that nation.

Using that logic, then Yemen, Syria, and Bahrain should have a reddish color on the map, because those countries are currently having the relatively high rates of sustained violence.--Futuretrillionaire (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Futuretrillionaire

Egypt again a site of major protests and clashes

Any changes needed to the map? The bigger question is is this a summary map (as it is now) or ongoing events map (most countries quiet, with current violence in Syria, Yemen and Egypt and minor protests in Jordan, Kuwait?Greyshark09 (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

33 dead 1750 wounded! anyway, is it correct to qualify egypt as a revolution already, after all Mubarak handed over power to his budy of 20 years... and if the protesters manage to overthrow the miliatry council: is this a revolution^2 ;). should we revert it to uprising... I read a bbc article saying the revolution was not over, im not sure if revolution is when the governement is finally overthrown or the process...Philoleb (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The colors represent the status of the pre-AS governments. Egypt/Libya/Tunisia are all colored in darkest blue because almost everyone agrees that their pre-AS govt's were overthrown; what happens after that has no bearing on the map. 48Lugur (talk) 06:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

We may need to revisit the color scheme if the Egyptian SCAF is forced to leave power, as that will arguably be two separate revolutions. Until then, I don't think any changes are necessary. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I've created this map splitting Egypt between the Mubarak gov't ("Government Overthrown") and the SCAF gov't ("Protests and governmental changes"). What do you guys think? 48Lugur (talk) 07:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't like it, personally. It's too confusing. At first, somebody might think, "Wait, so the government was only overthrown in western Egypt?" We've experimented with stripes in the past, but the consensus back then was that they were just too busy in the visual sense. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I disagree of what you mention about revisit the color scheme. Let me ask you a question, so if the Tunisian Prime Minister Ghannouchi resigns, will you do the same thing? I guess not. The same when Saif al-Islam were captured in Libya. A dictator overthrown is consider a final one. Do not revise it again. The Government Overthrown is the last one. Arab Spring is either all about total change or just demand for governmental changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.100.70.11 (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

PS: Some people have refer to The Economist Arab Spring map, but here in this CNN International, its also a good map showing the coverage in the Arab World:
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2011/arab.unrest/ 118.100.70.11 (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yemeni Uprising or Revolution?

Saleh signed the deal agreeing to transfer of powers today, so does that mean Yemen qualifies for a "revolution"? If so, then the article needs to be renamed and the map given the appropriate colours.--ERAGON (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

"Uprising" still seems to be WP:COMMON. Wouldn't be shocking if that changes after Saleh actually leaves power (assuming he plays by the rules) on 23 December. I say we keep it at "uprising" for now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, stick to uprising for now. --ERAGON (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we change the color of Yemen to dark blue (revolution) on the map ? --Xijky (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have Yemen with dark blue and normal blue stripes, because Saleh has officially signed a third-party agreement to step down, but has not officially announced his resignation. 48Lugur (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I edited the map to mark Yemen as "Government overthrown". Is that OK for now? 48Lugur (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Does it counts as overthrown if Saleh wilfuly departs from power?Philoleb (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

He's complaining about the protests being a "coup", so I don't know if I'd call it willful. But he hasn't left power, so I don't think these changes are appropriate. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Kudzu is right. Why is Yemen already black? Because he signs the power transfer deal does not mean its the end of his 33 year rule. He stills has 30 days left to step down.

OK, I changed the map and table back. I've still got the map with a black Yemen if it needs to be changed. 48Lugur (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

60.49.60.182 (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The map changed back to Uprising, but why the Summary of Protests by Country still black? I saw many of the media sources says that "Saleh agrees to step down", which he actually did not step down at all. Who knows at the last minute Saleh will still back away once again? We need to hear his official annoucement (or at least his Vice-President or other important figures) of his hereby resignation. So please do not place it as "Government Overthrown". 118.100.70.11 (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Bahrain

Bahrain should be "Sustained civil disorder and governmental changes" (like in the summary) or "Protests and governmental changes" (like in the map)? At least, the CNN considers Bahrain a situation similar to Yemen and Syria.--81.84.110.142 (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely Sustained civil disorder and governmental changes. After the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry released it's report yesterday which accused the government of wide spread violence and systematic torture there might be some root changes here in Bahrain. At the same day few hours before the report, a man got killed and clashed occurred in the town where he died (see Aljazeera report). The CNN explanation for the categorization can be seen here. It's clear enough to me that Bahrain fits as "Sustained civil disorder and governmental changes". The map needs to be changed. Bahraini Activist (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

About Yemen

Guys from Wikipedia I have a Question: So Saleh sign the deal which means officially he will transfer all his powers to his Vicepresident so he can work to create a Transitional goverment with the opposition, that will be like in December 23.So when that date comes, we can talk about a Revolution??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.29.154.113 (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The Yemen Post publisher and editor-in-chief Hakim Almasmari once quoted "Tactics are now being gathered by President Saleh to ensure that the power transfer signing only results in more ink on useless paper." To be honest, the GCC deal doesn't really deals anything. Even if Saleh signs it, Saleh still can break his promise by retaining his power. This is not bias but people in the past has usually done that. I'm quite doubful that after these 30 days he will be automatically step down. So even with that, we cannot verify a revolution (or Government Overthrown), unless the Yemeni ruling leaders announce his resignation just like Tunisia's Ben Ali (Prime Minister announces Ben Ali's flees to Saudi Arabia) and Egypt's Mubarak (His vice-president announces Mubarak resignation). Until then, Uprising is still the most common to be used for Yemen. 60.48.196.16 (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Trend worth mentioning

How/where to add it? I've seen several op/eds (e.g. this) about how 1.) the Arab Spring has opened the door for Islamists in formerly secular Arab strongman states and 2.) the West needs to accept this as the will of the people. The latter point is a bit POV, but the former is certainly empirical and should be assessed in this article briefly (per summary style) and in more detail elsewhere. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Old or new flag?

I just want to make it clear about this. I'm wrong about changing the flag, especially when it comes to Libya. The Summary of Protests by Country country section depicts about the historic country which starts the uprising, not the current one. The thing about flag displayed on Libya is different from this article bcuz this one belongs to an article which talks about history while that Libya talks about the current one (although separate with its history section). Therefore it's true that the war started with the old Libyan flag, not the new one. So don't change the Libyan flag.

In the future, any country's uprising which results in the new flag, like if Syria revolution will win soon, given that the opposition uses their pre-1963 flag, do not attempt to change it in this article. Leave it be the same. If you do not believe what I said then I guess we should hook up all the war articles, like World War I and World War II. Those articles, how did they end up with those old flags?

60.49.56.180 (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of Arab Spring

Hi, I need help from you to update this template. At this point in time, it isn't added into any articles. One of the concerns is that this timeline might get overloaded with text. If that's the case, key events are sufficient. Thanks in advance! Hytar (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Dohuk Riots

Over the weekend there was an Islamic inspired riots all over northern Iraqi province of Dohuk. There is already a wikipedia page on it, and I'm wondering if it should also be mentioned here as it is a recent islamic inspired movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.63.195 (talk) 07:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

We would need sources associating it with the Arab Spring movement. I haven't looked but if the sources you've seen do that already, please do feel free to add it. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it fits. Maybe sources say otherwise, I haven't checked...but my feeling is that these were riots by Islamists bent on destroying private property, not demonstrations for political reform or civil liberties. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Redirect from Dayof Rage

(noted here since Day of Rage is not monitored.) Any objection to removing the redirect and instead making a reference link to Arab Spring from the Day of Rage page? Rationale: Other movements have sprung from that event that don't have a Middle East focus. --DeknMike (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Change form Israel to occupied palestine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually the arab league is extremely Non NPOV in this case, as they side entirely with the palestinian side of the argument. Using the Arab League declaration wouldn't be neutral in any way. Jeancey (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

But the UN is?? what about the partition plan (resolution 181) that's not very neutral... what about America's enormous influence in the UN and the securtiy concil... its not a very NPOV... why dont we put borders of israel/occupied palestine? Philoleb (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Security council is NOT the entirety of the UN. Honestly I think if it was put to a general assembly vote, Palestine would be recognized. Until that happens, the UN recognizes that area as being part of Israel. The US and the UN have been trying to work out a deal between Israel and Palestine for years, with little success mainly due to Israel. I'm not trying to take sides on this, I'm trying to point out the most neutral wording, which is using the UN recognized state, and the specific part of that state. We aren't going to reach consensus with just the two of us, so I suggest we just hold off and wait for more people to come and comment and add more points of view. Jeancey (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually putting the Israeli flag for stuff that happened in the Golan heights seems POV. I previously thought that Israel's entry was about the protests that occurred in Tel Aviv, but since it's about the Golan heights (which is recognized as an occupied territory by the U.N or if you hate the term "Occupy", is at least disputed) there should be no flag there. Or it should be included in Syria's entry since the protests happened from the Syrian side to which the Israeli army responded with fire. Nothing inside Israel proper happened a part from the Tel Aviv demonstrations last summer, which it seems, are not considered part of the Arab spring. Tachfin (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so let us not put israel, but occupied golan height or delete israel and include that protest in syria section like Tachfin suggested Philoleb (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing the flag seems to be an acceptable compromise. If we remove the flag and leave it as Israeli border clashes. Jeancey (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think saying Golan height border is better, saying israel border, ignores the fact that the protesters came from syria, but saying syria borders ignores the fact that the soldiers came from the occupied territories... Golan Height is the best compromisePhiloleb (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Are the protests in the Israel border regions located ONLY in the Golan Heights region? If this is the case, then Golan Heights clashes might be best. Avoid the word Occupied though. Jeancey (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Essentially, and i think Occupied Golan Height is correct according to the United nation: United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 declared the Golan Heights an Israeli occupied territoryPhiloleb (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

UNSCR242 was in 1967... according to the article on the topic, Israel withdrew from the area in the 1990s even to the point of the Israeli President at the time saying that Golan Heights belonged to Syria. This might not be the current status of the area, but 242 is definitely NOT current enough to base anything off of. Jeancey (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The wikipedia article about israeli occupied territories says the golan is occupied... and the article on the golan height says that the resolution 242 still applies...Philoleb (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that in this case, Golan Height Clashes is the MOST neutral. Adding in Occupied seems to me to be pushing a point of view. There were clashes, and they happened in the Golan Heights. Calling this Occupied implies that israel is in the wrong to even be there, and while it might be the case, it doesn't really effect whether or not there clashes. It is likely that if it was solely controlled by Syria there would STILL be clashes in the area. Jeancey (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure so lets change Border of israel to Golan Height?Philoleb (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Golan Heights Clashes? With no flag whatsoever? Just Golan Heights in the table though. But in the subsection on it, clashes. Jeancey (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

PerfectPhiloleb (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm new to wikipedia, sorry i screwed up the tablePhiloleb (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I fixed it. Jeancey (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Is the Countries collapsible in the Golan Heights row intentional (or necessary)? It overlays part of the cell text on lower resolutions (1024 width and possibly 1280 as well, observed on IE8). Is it relevant to the table or should it be put somewhere else? If the former, can it be fixed in some way to not cause overlaid text? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if that was part of it either, so i left it alone. If it's not, it can probably be removed. Jeancey (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You guys can say in details something like "Golan heights boarders which have been occupied by Israel since.." ignoring the fact that this area have been occupied by Israel might give a wrong idea about why these people were demonstrating there. I believe ignoring this fact is a POV. Bahraini Activist (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I noticed it already says that in details. Bahraini Activist (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, from what I have read, that ISN'T the reason why they are protesting, atleast not directly. They are protesting for the same reason as everyone else, the people in charge aren't doing the will of the people, they are just helping themselves. It's unlikely that any of the people in the area who could be in charge would have the same result. It's not just because it is israel. Jeancey (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed the Golan Height and the Western Sahara from the Summary of Protests by Country section because they were not countries. They are territories. 60.49.56.153 (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I've restored them and note that there is a 1RR restriction in place on this article. Golan Heights and the Israeli border disputes have been listed without a specific country being mentioned because both areas are heavily disputed and the most neutral approach Wikipedia can take is to not get involved in placing POV labels on territorial disputes. The information is nonetheless appropriate for the table despite this minor technicality. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree of what you said. If so, then why wasn't the Palestinian territories are also part of what you said? It's also a dispute territory between Israelis and the Palestinians, although currently controlled by Israel. And wrong, the information is illegitimate to put Western Sahara and Golan Heights (Israeli border area whatever you like to call) as a country since there are disputes between two countries. If there's no fix ownership then I have to remove it. Besides, if you wanna check Israeli border, one can check the Israeli border through this place and also the Western Sahara in this place too Arab_Spring#Others. 60.49.56.180 (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The Palestinian territories aren't listed in the table. You can see the process and discussion that was used to gain consensus on this issue in this very section. I understand that you disagree, but there are more people than you that support these places being listed in this way at the moment and that is what we use for determining whether we do something or not. If you want this changed, you need to change consensus by convincing people that the change is a good one. At the moment that's not the case. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

However, this is not about the Palestinian territories. The Nabkah day suicides took place not only in the Golan Heights, but the Lebanon/Galilee border, which is only considered "Occupied Palestine" if you don't accept the existence of Israel or the Jews at all.Ericl (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Page reform?

Their are various sources including BBC and CNN claiming that Syria maybe inching closer to civil war. Maybe we should change the syrai to red for civil war.

Maybe we should define civil war as any country with a rebel army and government fighting the mainstream army and government.

What about a new map with a more fluid color...

Has anyone thought about posting death rates in the maps.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15769804 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15149133 http://www.newsfeedcentre.co.uk/sky/world-news/un-syria-in-civil-war-as-deaths-exceed-4000/ http://news.yahoo.com/un-syria-state-civil-war-163757327.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/01/us-syria-un-rights-idUSTRE7B01M720111201

Here are some base images that are free to use:

Danalm000 (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with defining Syria as a country in civil war, however there is really no need to list death rates of any sort.

Scruce (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no very good paint skills and have never done formating in my occasional edits or i'd do it myself but i agree syria is in civil war... or is extremely close... in the last 2 weeks there have been multiple attacks on loyalist forces by the FSA, many casualties.96.50.10.234 (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• The term "civil war" is not yet ubiquitous among major media outlets when they are reporting on the situation in Syria. Once it is widely used, then we can update this image. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Homs Syria Protests 2011 - 03.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Homs Syria Protests 2011 - 03.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 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) 08:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Syria - Armed Uprising?

I don't think Syria should be changed to civil war until the FSA holds a large amount of territory, but I think it should be treated like Libya was before it was called a civil war. It was called an "armed uprising", which I think is quite a fair way to describe the situation in Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.62.65 (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Syria should be changed to a civil war. The reason is that ANY armed uprising is a civil warEricl (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Syria certainly should not be changed to 'civil war' until we have multiple reliable sources calling it such. We don't decide on things based on our interpretation of the definition of the term (and 'civil war' hardly has a universal definition in any case). When our sources start calling it a civil war, then we can assess changing it. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Subdued vs. Ended

A lot of the "current state of protests" sections in the table claim that the protests have been subdued. However, this implies that the government arrested/killed or something along those lines and ended the protests, usually by force. Ended would mean the protests simply died down. The page seems to claim that certain protests were subdued when really the protests just ended. This should be fixed. I'm not an expert on which nations actually did have their protests subdued, so someone else should do it. I also fixed Tunisia, which claimed subdued instead of ended, a few weeks ago as an IP. Dayshade (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Updates

There are several things that need to be updated:

1. The sentence regarding about Ali Abdullah Saleh in the third paragraph of Overview needs to be changed.

2. The map color of Bahrain should change to dark blue.

3. The sentence "As of November 2011" In the same Overview section should change to December.

60.49.63.145 (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

So do it yourself. No one's stopping you....Ericl (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't because I'm not an autoconfirm user. So I request somebody with that user to do it. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

mohammed bouazizi

why is mohammed bouazizi not mentioned

75.68.82.58 (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

He's mentioned 4 times in the article. Did you read it? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sudan

Sudan has recently just suffer another small wave of protests because of the dam proposal by the government to build it. Now some are asking for the overthrow of Bashir. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Covered on 2011 Sudanese protests. I'm a bit unsure whether they should be put into a new article or lumped together with the earlier protests. If they continue into the new year, my preference will probably be for splitting them off. I haven't seen them directly linked to the Arab Spring yet. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Sudanese activist arrested days after heckling ruling party official.

http://www.sudantribune.com/Sudanese-activist-arrested-days,41152

60.49.63.145 (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Parties to the civil conflict and Lead figures

Hello. Why is the Parties to the civil conflict and Lead figures are placed in the Arab Spring box? This is not a united Arab conflict, rather this is a separate Arab country conflicts. You can't put something like "Riad al-Asaad are allies of Sadiq al-Ahmar" just because they were both opposition leaders. Where is the evidence that Sadiq or Riad are helping each other sides? Likewise who says the King Hamad is the good friend of Muammar Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad? He blasted both of them and declare as their enemies. Try not to do prejudice where all leaders will unite together and all opposition leaders too. In reality, there are leaders hates another leaders. If you wish to do so then do it at the separate articles but not on this general article. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Bahrain

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

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

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

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

References

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

Map Color Changes For Improved Viewing Quality?

Why are the colors for the Arab countries on the map all so very strange and unorthodox? Shouldn't primary and some secondary colors be used? (e.g. this cartogram- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EU_net_budget_2007-2013_per_capita_cartogram.png) That'd make the map a bit clearer and less eye-weary, as well as conform to normal map standards. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm no cartographer. As a side note- Mauritania is the only Arab country without its own protest page. Should one be made? Or is nothing of relative importance happening there? Thanks— Mike44456 (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any strange and unorthodox colour here, my friend. Its fine for me actually. We start our colour from the bright colour which shows their country has no protests before, then by going darker and darker the country is said to have experience a major protests and then uprising and then regime overthrown. This map and that map you show it all the same MAP (as long as users can identify better). The same thing I checked on the CNN Unrest On The Arab World. They all have the same strange and unorthodox map just like us.

As for the Mauritania its goes the same way as Palestinian Territory too. Both has protests before, but because very little amount (if coveraged by media) of protests happen in those country, so its no point we make such huge article, instead we go by a simple and small text under this section Arab_Spring#Others, which to me this is enough for countries like Mauritania already. If, by hypothetically speaking Mauritania has turned into the Kuwaiti pathway then maybe we would consider making an independent article, but until now no such page is needed. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If Saleh is leaving....

Hello to all Wikipedians and anonymous users. I want to make it clear about the Yemeni upcoming events. There was some preparation of whether Saleh is leaving Yemen so that they will have smooth transition period until the February 2012 presidential elections. In case if anybody thinks about changing it to revolution, I would like to say I reject that. Just because Saleh leaves Yemen it doesn't mean he was overthrown. Like what I have said earlier, somebody from the top ruling officials, be it the Vice-President or Saleh himself, must announce his resignation and it then confirmed by the officials and reliable medias. If that's the case, then we will stick back to square one, where the expecting overthrown date should be 21 February 2012, consider if Saleh plays by the rule stepping down (unless he wants to get out from the deal for the 4th time again). Thank you and have a nice day of editing. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"Unpopular events"

Hi, I reverted the page to the last version by User:60.49.63.145, since I know that your edits almost always prove to be constructive, and it struck me as unfair that neither of the editors who reverted you were willing to discuss the issue. (I'm really not happy about having the 1RR applied to this page, the article was only really about the AI conflict because a certain two users made it so, and they haven't reared their heads in ages.)

However I'm not certain I understand your reasoning.

"Rejected. I delete it because when making summaries about the uprising, you don't need to mention about those unpopular events"

Could you explain further? Thanks, --Quintucket (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually it was my fault for not putting reasons, to be honest. What I meant is that when I try to compare the summaries of that Yemeni uprising with many other websites, I found out that when most of them write in the paragraph form, they just quote it from the January 27 protests (beginning of the protests), and then followed by the Feb 3 "Day of Rage", then followed by the May conflict escalation during the pre-assassination (June 3 attack) time. Since then, not much of special events happen except those daily protests. I mean, necessary to mention all this? Thats why I only remove this sentence:

"In the capital, Sana'a, the crowd marched towards the Presidential Palace, chanting anti-government slogans, despite the attempts of riot police to stop them. Three people were killed in the demonstrations, one of whom was killed by a hand grenade in Taiz. There were also reports of gunfire in Aden during a rally, and as the riots continued overnight protesters set fire to a local government building. Security forces killed one demonstrator, and killed another demonstrator during protests the following day"

Since this is not the Yemeni uprising article itself, but rather a summary, would you really need to mention about a person killed by hand grenade, or gunfire, or protesters set fire to a building? These events aren't so special so its not required to put it. Some of these happens in other Arab countries like Egypt, E.G. protesters set fire on the NDP HQ, but it was not stated here. Regardless, the rest of them are all fine.

But don't worry. If you all disagree of what I said, you are welcome to revert it. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 07:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You definitely have a point. It's not possible to include everything on this page, so something like that belongs more on the Yemeni Uprising page. An abnormally large protest, an assassination attempt or the death/resignation of high profile government officials are the kinds of things that might go on this page as a summary. Jeancey (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

News Update (2)

Seems like many people tend to focus more on popular uprisings and revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria and Bahrain, this is my discovery of those infamous Arab countries which suffer smaller protests. Any edits are welcome, if wish to.

Algeria:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ic2rj6WFjN-Y4BuxjoEoECmPaBRg?docId=CNG.4e49b326c0b56a603281add8e86b2b2d.631
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/12/us-algeria-housing-protests-idUSTRE80B12A20120112

Jordan:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/12/us-algeria-housing-protests-idUSTRE80B12A20120112 60.49.63.145 (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not certain that there's enough to add to the main article yet, given the summaries in this article are short and the articles seem to say "there's still problems here," but we definitely need to keep the main articles updated 2010–2011 Algerian protests and 2011–2012 Jordanian protests. You've also reminded me that we ought to check the status of the Moroccan, Kuwaiti, Sudanese, and Iraqi protests, whose main articles are listed as ongoing, but are still named for last year. Or have you done that already? --Quintucket (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I have updated the main page for Algeria. I may do the same for other countries, unless someone else gets to it first (*hinthint*) --Quintucket (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Damn it! I accidentally paste the wrong link about Jordan. Two self-immolation deaths were reported. http://channel6newsonline.com/2012/01/clashes-erupt-during-pro-reform-protest-in-jordan/

No, I didn't do that. I tend to concentrate more on Yemen and Bahrain. That's why I said everybody are welcome to edit it. But I move that some of the countries like Morocco, Jordan, should not use the word Subdued or Ended since there are still major demonstration going on once a week or months, though not necessary every day. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I have update many parts of the 2011 Yemeni uprising, but still many needs to be changed. I was hoping that some of the users could join me contribute the editing of Yemeni uprising as many of them are still focusing on the 2011 Syrian uprising and the 2011 Bahraini uprising. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

KSA update

i've updated several Saudi Arabian parts of this article. This is more less a summary (lead of 2011–2012 Saudi Arabian protests) of summaries (the leads of the 3 individual timelines). My guess is that editors will be tempted to edit this summary directly rather than first adding content to the timeline or other specific articles - or the overall KSA article, and then looking at the thing as a whole to see if the individual events are important enough to require updates in summaries and summary of summaries. People who keep an eye on this article are welcome to shift the edits (with attribution: you should put "from [[Arab Spring]]" in the edit summary for copyright traceability) to the main body of individual KSA-protest-related articles, so that the leads don't get filled with long details about individual incidents (except for the most notable).

Given that there now seems to be a sustained cycle of protests/police shoot dead protestor/funeral/protests/police shoot dead protestor, i suspect that updates will be required quite often on the more specific articles. I don't see any point updating the Arab Spring article every time, though. Boud (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that's the point User:60.49.63.145 was trying to make in the section below: "Unpopular events". And some of these articles are in sore need of updating. (For example: When I got to the Sudan article, it hadn't been updated in eight months and there's a huge gap that now needs to be filled in.) --Quintucket (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

too many template inclusion problem

In this edit, a template was removed with the edit comment: "Removing template because template size is exceeded". i think this means the problem is having too many templates included in a single article, when all the sub-sub and sub-sub-sub etc. inclusions are carried out. Is this right?

In any case, the "dot" template usage in related-topic templates can be replaced by the listclass=hlist structure. This reduces the number of templates needed by a huge amount, and avoids having to cut/paste or otherwise generate non-ascii characters! i've updated the KSA, Bahrain, and Syria Arab Spring templates this way. The negative side of this change is that the default dots are probably a tiny bit smaller (they were already smaller than the dots in the Egyptian and Libyan templates, i think), but IMHO that's a small price to pay. The dots are really there just for spacing.

My changes probably reduced the number of included templates (dot templates) in Arab Spring by at least 100 (though i haven't counted exactly), without loss of any semantic or syntactic structure, AFAIK. Apologies if something got changed, though i tried to check carefully.

TODO: i'll let someone else do this for the other templates - the rendered change (change visible in a browser window) would be stronger for the Egyptian and Libyan cases, because they have big fat dots (at the moment, anyway).

Boud (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Kuwait's status?

The country has witnessed its largest political protests ever, there's been violence between demonstrators and security forces, and now the government has resigned: [1] I think it's time to give the 2011 Kuwaiti protests their own page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support - clearly notable.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Shouldn't be upgraded? --Smart (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Article probably needs some work, but I'm slammed in RL and I'd appreciate someone else stepping in. Might help to know Arabic. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support — Kuwait is experiencing major protests relating to government corruption. It should absolutely have its own page. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

In the death toll table it is mentioned that the count is nil. But I clearly remember there was couple of death cases in early demonstrations of the 'Bedoun' (which mean 'without' as expression of being stateless). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhd196 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No rererence to the persecution of christians?

This spring is killing hundreds of christians, who became the most persecuted religious group in the world, and the article does not even cite it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.250.57.64 (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please provide citations to reliable sources and we'll take a look. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Forgetting news sources I know to be obviously biased (such as WND and Fox News), it appears that things have been a mixed bag for Christians. In a Google news source, I find this, this, and this, among others.

That said, I think it's really an Egypt specific phenomenon, and the focus should be on the Egyptian Revolution article, which is currently portraying things as unambiguously positive for the Copts. Only a handful of Arab countries even have notable Christian populations, (Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and the West Bank), not counting migrant workers in the fairly stable Gulf States. I suspect we'll see similar events in Syria when Assad is ousted (right now the news mostly expresses fears of the new Syria), but I suspect that like Egypt it will be a mixed bag: more freedom overall, coupled with more opportunities for Muslim fundamentalists to attack minorities. Arab-world Christians definitely aren't the most persecuted religious group in the world. Perhaps you should talk to some Ahmadis in Pakistan or Bahais in Iran. --Quintucket (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The anonymous users has "complaint" about we didn't put up the statement regarding persecution of Christians. But before we doing this so, has anyone wants to put up where a Tunisian Jew are allowed to run in elections and no one cares? 60.49.62.66 (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The difference, I believe, is that Jews are no better or worse off in Tunisia, relative to the rest of the population. (If you can find a source stating otherwise, please show us.) That said, I reiterate that this seems to be an Egypt-specific issue, at least for now, and belongs in the Egypt article. --Quintucket (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The End Date

I just want to discuss about this topic. There are several anonymous users tries to put the end date of the Tunisian Revolution (which later I revert it back to Ongoing). Given that I saw the end date of the Libyan civil war is 23 October 2011, when is the exact end date for the Tunisia and Egypt? How about possible if put 14 January for Tunisia and 11 February for Egypt? 60.49.62.66 (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A quick look at both countriess article tell they both are still on going, currently in a transitional phase. Egypt is better organised, while Tunisia isn't. Civil war might have ended in Libya, but they too are in a transitional phase. Bahraini Activist ^{Talk to me} 05:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

How about saying the day Ben Ali and Mubarak were overthrown are their end date, then making the rest of the incident as post-revolution? I saw one at CNN and the others in The Economist. 60.49.62.66 (talk) 07:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that makes sense, in the same way that we don't (for example) include the turmoil in Romania under Ion Iliescu as part of the Romanian Revolution. --Quintucket (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I completely agree with that. The Aftermath of the 2011 Libyan civil war page is a good model. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Maldives

Little known events taking place in the Maldives. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2012/02/20122765334806442.html are they related to the Arab Spring?--Reader1987 (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that belongs under Impact of the Arab Spring. —Quintucket (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Maldives is not an Arab state despite its majority being Muslim. Its national language is Dhivehi, a language that is influenced by Indian language. 60.49.60.158 (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

World Press Photo

One of the Arab Spring shot just won the World Press Photo award. Should we mention this? 60.49.60.158 (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Arab Awakening?

Can somebody provide a scholarly citation for calling this "the Arab Awakening"? I have been studying the Middle East for years, and the Arab Spring since its beginning, and I have yet to actually come across somebody seriously coining the events as "Arab Awakening." The Arab Awakening usually refers to this, an Arabist movement that began in the 19th century. I won't remove the label and simply ask for discussion for now, but I will edit the Arab Awakening page from redirect to a disambiguation page. -- Crushti (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Kenneth Pollack has edited a [http://www.amazon.com/Arab-Awakening-Transformation-Brookings-Institution/dp/0815722265/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1329179960&sr=8-1 volume] called The Arab Awakening that analyzes the Arab Spring. I've seen it referred to in a few other places as Arab Awakening (a quick google search will give examples), although the Arab Spring clearly seems to be the preferred term. Abu Casey (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Article for timeline of the Arab Spring?

As of January 2012, the link Timeline of the Arab Spring is a red link, but on the search page for it [2], it can be seen that apparently every involved country has its own article on the subject. I think there is motivation for having an overall timeline, potentially including Template:Arab Spring using EasyTimeline. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a common timeline has to be created, but it should only contain important events while keeping the less important events in the specific articles. P.S. that template definitely needs updating. Bahraini Activist ^{Talk to me} 18:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

News Update as of Feb 19

Sudan:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/17/us-sudan-arrests-idUSTRE81G1JM20120217

Jordan: (LOL! The demands for ouster of the third King-appointed Prime Minister)

http://presstv.com/detail/227280.html

60.49.60.158 (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Good article

This is the best internet article I have seen on the topic. PPdd (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Saleh has stepped down, please update the article

It appears that Saleh is mentioned to still be in power while he had signed the GCC initiative and started the transfer of power. Please update the article. I find that the Yemen section is up-to-date but the Overview is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsaqaf (talk • contribs) 11:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Saleh has not yet stepped down. --Smart (talk) 03:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Please view this before making such hasty and pre-mature statements:

Talk:Arab_Spring#Yemeni Uprising or Revolution?.

Saleh never steps down. What really happens on November 23 is that Saleh just signed the deal, and agrees to step down only, that means he's not really stepping down yet. Besides, if you check most of the reliable sources and news media they will keep mentioning "...outgoing President Ali Abdullah Saleh..." which is another evidence that he hasn't step down yet. About the power transfer thing, you have already mentioned "started the transfer of power", so he may have transferred 10% of his power, but still there are 90% of the cabinet which he keep to himself. How's that suppose to mean he has step down already? What if he started to break his promise again? Please read this: Talk:Arab_Spring#About Yemen

60.49.63.145 (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if Saleh steps down, he appointed Abd al-Rab Mansur al-Hadi as his successor. Al-Hadi was vice president since 1994 (over 17 years), so it's not really a revolution or even overthrowing of the government. Also, unlike interim leaders in Tunisia or Egypt (Mebazaa and Tantawi), al-Hadi will probably stay in power for a full term after next elections. HeadlessMaster (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I move that Yemen be changed to light blue on the map (Governmental changes) since Saleh has officially stepped down and the vice president is now in power. This should not be considered a revolution. User: Heresbubba53190

I absolutely disagree with Heresbubba53190's statement. Ben Ali left his prime minister in charge, Mubarak left the armed forces in charge. We still call those revolutions. The 1905 revolution in Russia left the Tsar still in power and we still call the Hungarian Revolution a revolution. Why then, is Yemen not a revolution? User: Dweedman —Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC).

Agree with User: Dweedman here. If Saleh has stepped down, then it was obviously due to the popular uprising against him, and meets the criteria for a government overthrown designation. And if we're going to call Hungary 1956 a revolution, then Yemen 2011 certainly should qualify.74.131.99.14 (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

For HeadlessMaster, it really doesn't matter if Hadi has ruled Yemen as a VP for 14 to 99 years (just exaggerating saying) but the policy of the Yemeni protesters is to bring down the regime of Ali Abdullah Saleh, which means starting his ouster. If Saleh steps down, then it's consider a government overthrown. Likewise when it comes to Tunisia, when Ben Ali steps down, then although the Prime Minister Ghannouchi who has ruled Tunisia since 1999 has take over, we still call it a Government Overthrown. Saying Hadi takes over Yemen is not consider a Government Overthrown is actually consider a POV (point-of-view). Wikipedia is based on reliable media and sources only.

For Heresbubba53190 and Dweedman, yes the Yemenis are calling it a revolution. They are already asking the overthrow of the regime. Even until now the protesters keep claiming that they want to "continue their revolution", so its irrevelant to call it Governmental Changes. Besides, isn't Yemen has already implementing governmental changes long time ago? That's the reason why we labelled as "Sustained civil disorder and governmental changes".

But nobody has make any official statements such that Saleh has step down, so we cannot call it Government Overthrown for now. We cannot assume that because the GCC deal has expired in December 23 then we can say "Saleh has steps down already". Like I said earlier in this topic. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)#

Saleh is gone, as it says in this article, [3] "Since Saleh handed over the reins to his deputy under the Gulf peace accord, a new government headed by an opposition leader has been formed. A presidential election is scheduled for February." Goltak (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope, dude. Saleh is not gone. According to that source you show it, you forgot the word "outgoing President Ali Abdullah Saleh" which means he is still the "king" (just mockingly saying) of Yemen. Let me ask you a question, do you remember June 3 when Saleh got attacked in his presidential palace? Before he was sent to Saudi Arabia for medical treatment, he transfer most of his power to his buddy VP Hadi, but did he really step down? No, I don't think so. All transferred power were return back when he came back to Yemen at September. So the one thing the people should realize is that: "Transferring power ≠ Stepping down". Because Saleh forms a new government and he may lose his power it does not mean he was overthrown. Also remember in Egypt February 10? Mubarak once also transfer power to his VP Suleiman but he hasn't gone yet and claims wants to held office until the next election, but only later to formally decided to step down at next day. Besides, most mainstream media and reliable sources, when talks about how many were overthrown, until now they keep saying "Tunisia, Egypt, Libya" this 3 countries, but hasn't mention Yemen yet. I think you know why is that already. Saleh needs to formally step down on February, then we can call it Government Overthrown in this article and the Yemeni article as Yemeni Revolution whatever you all want to call it, depending what the reliable sources says if Saleh is really overthrown or not.60.49.63.145 (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Can't wait for Feburary. Goltak (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be cruel with you for a while but we don't CARE if you can't wait at February. Thats your own problem. I hate to say that but most people just always seems to rush, rush, rush like Sonic the Hedgehog and eventually, what happens? Splash all the "paint" through the wall and run like a madman because they say "MOM, DAD, I CAN'T WAIT"? I want to make it clear for you. This article is not a NEWS article, this is a HISTORY article, articles depicts historic events with historic people and places. Also, Wikipedia is always about WP:RS. Repeat, Reliable Sources. You say you can't wait, but the protesters, news and the world can wait, even me and other users can too. Why must the article be changed just because there are some people here cannot wait? Come on, don't you have other important things to do other than just editing Wikipedia all the time? I know there are important things in our lifes that we "can't wait" rather than can't wait for February!

Quite so, as of this date where I'm gonna sign this signature soon, has the article talks about "ousted President A.A. Saleh", or "former President..." or "Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen"? All I see until now is just outgoing President Saleh. Besides, the protesters and the officials, through their point-of-view already starts to worry that Saleh is going to take back the power again!! Here, take a look: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/suspicions-rising-that-yemens-president-seeks-to-scuttle-deal-meant-to-end-his-rule/2012/01/05/gIQAL7cxcP_story.html 60.49.63.145 (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• FACEPALM**FACEPALM*FACEPALM*. No genius, I did not mean I could LITERALLY not wait for Feburary so I'm going to change NOW, NO!!!! I MENT that I'm LOOKING FOWARD to when that muderer steps down.... I'm sorry if this EXPRESSION is not commonly used from your native country... Geesh calm down a little please. Try not to take it so literally, of course I can wait until Feburary to update the article, ALL I was saying was that I was looking foward to it. Although I hope Saleh doesn't try to seize power yet again. I'm sorry if you've never heard this expression before I was just simply innocently making a statement.(talk) 14:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. If you say so. Sorry for that. Well you could at least tell us that you aren't mean literally about "can't wait for February". After all, we don't know if you simply meant it directly or indirectly.

Its true. While you have that feeling, I guess me too. Because through my analysis the international media does not cover the Yemeni uprising more than the Syrian uprising (which I believe there was an alleged political bias among these medias) so I tend to focus more on Yemen. Tho so I don't have much time to really pay attention to Wikipedia as I have other things to do. Like you, I also want the fall of Ali Abdullah Saleh, and knowing by timeline and analyze you can notice Saleh has better tactics and tricks to stay in power than the defiant late Libyan leader Gaddafi. I may cross the line, so again, sorry for that. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No harm done. When can we update the map of political change, I've noticed that it's now outdated, considering Saleh has stepped down and all. Goltak (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Question about that though. Should it really be called "government overthrown"? His vice president took charge after an election, I wouldn't really call that "overthrown". Jeancey (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ben Ali was succeeded by his prime minister (of 12 years) in Tunisia and it is still considered an overthrown government. The goal of the protesters was the resignation of Saleh. They overthrew him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.165.212 (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

No. The election is on Tuesday, and there are at least 60% turnouts. But the election doesn't signal the end of Ali Abdullah Saleh. I have already gave a link about the Yemen post article, stating that the inauguration of Hadi will be held on next Monday. The inauguration of Hadi only signals the end of Ali Abdullah Saleh. So until then, Saleh still remains as the President of Republic of Yemen, and Hadi was the Acting President of Yemen. No government overthrown yet. 60.49.60.158 (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yemen?

The Yemeni Vice President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi recently won an election to replace Ali Abdullah Saleh as President, should we change it to "Revolution"? 48Lugur (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It already won, but there was no inauguration of Hadi as The President of Yemen Republic yet. His inauguration is on the "next week". So Saleh wasn't overthrown yet until Hadi was sweared in.
http://yemenpost.net/Detail123456789.aspx?ID=3&SubID=4778&MainCat=3
60.49.60.158 (talk) 03:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

News Update: Hadi supposedly is to sworn in next monday, but now he was expected to be sworn in to power by today Saturday morning.
http://yemenpost.net/Detail123456789.aspx?ID=3&SubID=4786&MainCat=3
60.49.60.158 (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hadi has finally sweared in as the president of Yemen. This marks the overthrown of Ali Abdullah Saleh already. Anybody can now openly edit his post-revolt in Yemen. 60.49.60.158 (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"Sustained civil disorder" and governmental changes in Syria

artillery attacks on a city is far off of civil disorder. --Reader1987 (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I know when I was following the Yemeni article, there are a lot of shelling between the Hashid tribes and the Republican Guards. Yet, it was still labelled as uprising. So, it maybe a far off of civil disorder in Syria, but it was still called Uprising. 60.49.60.158 (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

i think that it is time to syria's status to a higher status than Sustained civil disorder Alhanuty (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Way too long

The article is way too long — over twice the size of the suggested max. If someone would like to address that (with spin-off articles and sprucing), that would be great. That would make it easier for readers to load and read. The article is already unwieldy and out-of-guidelines large. As an ongoing event, we can anticipate that it will only get longer.

The article is now over 200,000 bytes, making it one of the 300 longest articles at the Project. WP:SIZERULE states: "Some useful rules of thumb ... What to do ... > 100 KB ... Almost certainly should be divided".--Epeefleche (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree. This article is longer than those on the Revolutions of 1848 and the Napoleonic Wars. This is a problem with Wikipedia: current events are weighed too heavily in importance. This article should be 1/10th the size — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.177.224 (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Arab Spring and Pan-Arabism

I have a number of concerns about the use of "Arab Spring". Whilst I don't wish to cause any dissent it does seem that this phrase does resonate with and imply a form of pan-arabism. Pan-Arabism has been criticised as being racist, inciting prejudice against and downplaying the role of non-Arab peoples, such as the Berbers, Turks, Jews, Persians, Maronites and many others.

What is forthcoming from those countries that have changed their regimes (with or without outside intervention) is a "national" agenda rather than any form of regional or pan-arabic aspirations. Add to that the disconnection of "Arab Spring" from the aspirations of Palestinian Arabs and the phrase becomes almost meaningless. Even so, the phrase is being used and is being given meaning.

The phrase is being used by respected organisations, for example, Human Rights Watch's Executive Director, Kenneth Roth states: http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/time-abandon-autocrats-and-embrace-rights"The Arab Spring is a transformative moment, an historic opportunity for a long-suppressed people to seize control of its destiny. Yet the transformation will not be easy. The people of the region, like everywhere else, deserve the world’s support for their rights as they embark on this long-awaited venture. It is time for the Arab exception to end."

The Arab Spring or Arab Uprising may well be part of a much larger social change movement. "According to research by the Chinese Academy of Governance, the number of protests in China doubled between 2006 and 2010, rising to 180,000 reported 'mass incidents.' The uprisings are responses to myriad issues, primarily official corruption, government land grabs, Tibetan autonomy, and environmental problems."

In Dec 2011, Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev called on Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to resign as tens of thousands of demonstrators cheered opposition leaders and jeered the Kremlin in the biggest show of outrage in Putin's 12-year-rule.

Recent events in the Caucasus, including South Ossetia, Dagestan and Georgia may be an extension of the purported "Arab Uprising" but are excluded because of the regionalisation to the Middle East and North Africa as associated with the concept of "Arab". Events in sub-saharan Africa may similarly be excluded.

As a new contributor, I am unsure of how these highly political aspects should be dealt with. Simply ignoring them does give them a political meaning.

Jonlincbrown (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• These issues aren't ignored. The larger ethnic scope is included in the artice (see Arab Spring#Ethnic scope) while the influence of the Arab Spring outside MENA is dealt with breafly within the article as well as having its own separate article (see Arab Spring#Impact of the Arab Spring and Impact of the Arab Spring). Thank you for your interest, and if you feel that the above articles/sections have missed something, please feel free to mention it. ArnoldPlaton (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments.

If you look at the citations for the use of "Arab Spring" the first to use the Title as such is a Jewish Magazine ^ Miller, Aaron. "What Is Israel’s Next Move In The New Middle East?". Moment Magazine. Moment Magazine. http://www.momentmag.com/moment/issues/2011/06/IsraelsNextMove.html. Retrieved 5/6/2011..

Earlier citations use "Arab spring..." and "Arab uprising..." or "Arab awakening...". In English, there is a very important difference.

Look again at the demise of Pan-Arabism and it is given, in part, as the Six Day War in 1967.

Is the promotion of an "Arab Spring" an effort to recreate a new variant of the earlier and flawed Pan-Arabism?

Part of the problem may well be "connectivity" related on my part. Sometimes a page only partially and inconsistently loads, leaving some text missing. That does cause some confusion on my part for which I apologise.

You know, just quoting somebody's opinion from a blogger in AngryArab blogspot, the founder claims that the term Arab Spring is an insult towards those Arabs who had been killed in a bloody clashes with government forces. 60.49.60.158 (talk) 08:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Jon's assertions are flawed. Actually, while there has indeed been a somewhat diverse ethnic scope to these protests (especially the Berbers and the Kurds) I certainly wouldn't dismiss a sense of pan-Arabism. In fact as any observer knows these protest movements have inspired each other at a grassroots level and have even led to surges of grassroots nationalism, particularly regarding the Palestinian cause, solidarity protests for other Arab countries going through uprisings or protest movements and a general desire for increased Arab integration. Analysts have argued that this new pan-Arabism has been "down-up" versus "up-down". Whereas in the past, it was the elites, be they military officers, politicians, Arab notables or tribal elders, who led the pan-Arab movement, this "new Arabism" is led by the general population and grassroots activists. In fact it has been the ruling regimes who constantly suppressed/repressed pan-Arabism in their countries. This is something that should definitely be included in the article. I might press for this later but in any case editors here should take note of the feelings of pan-Arab unity emanating from this liberation/reform movement (liberation from oppressive regimes and foreign influence). See the following articles for more perspective on this matter:

• Gauging Arab public opinion Al Jazeera
• The new “Arabism” from below Ahram Online
• The resurrection of pan-Arabism Al Jazeera
• In post-Mubarak Egypt, the rebirth of the Arab world Washington Post
• How Nasser shaped the Arab Spring Al Jazeera
• The Big Think Behind the Arab Spring Foreign Policy
• The “Arab Spring: ”Rebirth or Final Throes of Pan-Arabism?
• Pan-Arabism and the Arab Spring

--Al Ameer son (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with much that Al Ameer Son says. Journalists are often under pressure to provide short explanations that do not adequately explain social complexities and "Arab Spring" does that though in a very one dimensional way. There is a view from the 'outside looking in' that is different from those opinions held from the 'inside looking out'. Many on the outside looking in do not appreciate or understand how Arab societies used to operate. The population explosion in the Middle East and North Africa has made the less structured but semi-democratic channels of communication much less workable. Hence the grassroot movements that are demanding change and the reqirement for the introduction of more democratic institutions. However, to compare the process with historical events in Europe (see Strafor: "1848: History's Shadow Over the Middle East, By Robert D. Kaplan | March 14, 2012") and to then predict similar outcomes does the situation few favours and provides an ongoing basis for criticism. I still suggest that the pan-Arabism of Nasser (up-down) does the less formal grassroots movement (down-up) a disservice. The grassroots movement will take a long time to achieve many of its objectives but that process is underway and should not be compressed into an encapsulated and stereotyped "moment".

Jonlincbrown (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Saudi Arabian protests spreading - according to ANHRI

The Arab Network for Human Rights Information claims that the Saudi Arabian protests are spreading through universities, with protests in six different towns around Saudi Arabia in the past two weeks. For the moment this info is only in Timeline_of_the_2011–2012_Saudi_Arabian_protests_(from_January_2012)#Mid-March. If or when enough new or significant info accumulates, then it would make sense to update the lead of that timeline page and more or less copy this updated lead to the timeline summary on 2011–2012_Saudi_Arabian_protests. In turn, updating the lead of 2011–2012_Saudi_Arabian_protests and possibly the corresponding summary of Arab Spring#Saudi Arabia would then be reasonable, IMHO.

As people seem to regularly discover on this article, Arab Spring keeps becoming too long. If people follow my suggestions, then the 2011–2012_Saudi_Arabian_protests article may be able to avoid expanding too fast...

Boud (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Bahrain: Neutral linking

Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"! There are other wikis out there – Wikipedia is just one of them.

I've spent a little time looking at various Bahrain entries on Wiki and it seems that this is the page is now to be source of the other Bahrain protest/uprising pages/entries. Makes sense to me.

But I've seen a worrying trend with some of the linking (mainly elsewhere in the other Bahrain articles, but see below). There are often links used that appear to be in there solely to skew the NPOV of the article. Take an innocuous statement like the one in the first paragraph on this page: "To date, . . . civil uprisings have erupted in Bahrain[5]" That's perfectly neutral. Click on the link and it takes you to: "Death turns ‘harmless man’ into Bahrain uprising’s martyr." Now, that's a valid source - AFAIK the Toronto Star is a decent enough paper - but it's unnecessary to bring the emotive aspect into the mix yet (and possibly not necessary later as there's the BICI report to refer to). The actual news item doesn't relate to the big demonstrations nor to (as I'd suggest it should) the initial demonstrations. Reuters is always a pretty good baseline, and this is their article on 14 Feb, "Protester killed in Bahrain 'Day of Rage'" http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/02/14/uk-bahrain-protests-idUKTRE71D1G520110214

Now that's just one link, but I've found many more across the Bahrain articles (along with things like linking to Jew instead of Jewish in the Religion section etc.)

I've also seen a lot of multiple linking. Sometimes it's necessary, but in many cases a single link to the BICI report (with page ref) would give a neutral and more thoroughly researched link than multiple links to various papers/channels. Certainly, where possible, I'd like to avoid linking to BCHR (which I see this article doesn't) as the news source, as they are obviously going to be partial. Just as I'd like to try to avoid linking to government sources (which doesn't appear to be an issue :) ). Bromley86 (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Daw tag added. Boud (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Bahrain: NPOV & brevity

I'm just about to undo Bahraini Activist's [10:17 21 March 2012] edits. Prior to my edits the Bahrain section displayed bias (general tone, no mention of pro-government demo, GCC troops shot protestors, etc.) and was not consistent with other sections in this article (i.e. too much detail, with 18 lines vs. 17 for Syria and 14 for Libya when those two are more important/intense). Now it's even more NPOV, i.e: emphasises size of opposition protests (an minimises pro-government ones), machine guns, Bloody Thursday, violently cleared etc. Again, compare to Syria & Libya. Some of the inclusions are valid from a neutral point of view, but are probably not valid in this article from a brevity point of view. I'm sure that they must already be in the Main Article on the Bahrain protests.

There's overlinking. The BICI report provides an authoritative source. In my version I did sometimes use news sources at the same time as the BICI report, but only to provide NPOV context. Bahraini Activist's linking is clearly an attempt to tell a story off-article which should rather be dealt with in the Main Article.

Given that I was pointed to this article when I started tidying up the Bahrain article, and given my NPOV concerns, I'd ask that we discuss any changes line by line to reach consensus.

Finally a question. Are those page references irritating? If so, I can move them down to the References, but obviously that'll create ~15 entries there rather than the current single one.

I'll start. I assume we're good with the first 2 sentences? The third was mostly unchanged, except for the 3->4 deaths and the hundreds injured.

Regarding the deaths. BICI mentions three (Mr Mahmood Maki Ahmed Abutaki; Mr Ali Mansoor Ahmed Ahmed Khudair; and Mr Ali Ahmed Abdulla Ahmed), but perhaps someone died of wounds later? Who was it?

Regarding the injuries. I didn't include (a) for brevity and (b) because there were injuries on both sides (although I'd expect the severity to be asymmetric). I'd suggest it's best handled in the Main Article, where we can go into detail on birdshot etc. The number injured has been reported by Al Jaz (who overestimated the deaths, so perhaps not the best source, but it's what I can remember off the top of my head) as "dozens" rather than "hundreds", which concurs with the figure in the BICI (over 50). Even if corrected though, I'd still suggest not including the injuries as it's then necessary to mention injuries to the other side and, although serious, would likely not have been as much of a driver for future protest as the deaths. Summary article etc, and we're already up at the upper limit, so every word counts. Bromley86 (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

First, we have to establish that BICI is a government commission (i.e. it was established by the King and fully financed from the government - pages 1 and 9). So the government is bound by it's findings which it accepted, but those findings were criticized by parts of the opposition and others [4], [5]. Second, since you initiated this discussion, we'll start from sentence 1. Comments should be added below every sentence, if you agree skip it or say so. I will only do the first now, but you and others can move on. Keep report page numbers. Please note that English is not my first language, and thus grammatical mistakes can be fixed without changing the meaning of content. Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 16:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, in terms of neutrality regarding factual statements, the BICI report appears to be fairly good. Certainly when I scanned that Bahrain Watch link that you supplied, the accusations seemed to be about omissions in terms of recommendations rather than incorrect facts. That link also nicely makes my point about the (entirely understandable) lack of neutrality and objectivity that will always be the case with activist sites. In the section on "Baltageyya" (vigilantes) it says, "In Bahrain, the Baltageyya were police by day and thugs by night, or were newly recruited loyalists trained to attack protestors and instigate clashes. Few were of Bahraini origin; most were newly naturalized foreigners or just paid migrant expat workers." However, the link provided to support that statement is to an article that talks about some Bangladeshis allegedly being forced to attend a pro-opposition rally, not being armed and forced to attack people. Big difference. Bromley86 (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Please use This version when quoting sentences, since this is the one that was reverted. Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 21:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy to do so. I have a question though; is that a standard WP policy, because in this particular case it might have been easier to take the one reverted to (rather than from) as the majority of edits are additions to it? Bromley86 (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is. I've searched in policies about talk pages and dispute resolution, but they don't mention it.

Anyway, since you bring the brevity point a lot (sometimes over single words or two words), I've decided to show you how the section would look after the edits I suggested took place (same length as Syria and Yemen sections): (If you have comments, still add them in the line by line discussion)

Main article: 2011–2012 Bahraini uprising

More than 17% of national population taking part in a pro-democracy march on 22 February, 2011.

The protests in Bahrain started on 14 February, and were initially aimed at achieving greater political freedom and respect for human rights; they were not intended to directly threaten the monarchy. Lingering frustration among the Shiite majority with being ruled by the Sunni government was a major root cause, but the protests in Tunisia and Egypt are cited as the inspiration for the demonstrations. The protests were largely peaceful until a pre-dawn raid by police on 17 February to clear protestors from Pearl Roundabout in Manama, in which police killed four protesters. Following the raid, some protesters began to expand their aims to a call for the end of the monarchy. On 18 February army forces opened fire on protesters when they tried to reenter the roundabout, fatally wounding one. The following day protesters reoccupied Pearl Roundabout after the government ordered troops and police to withdraw. Subsequent days saw large demonstrations; on 21 February a pro-government Gathering of National Unity drew tens of thousands, whilst on 22 February the number of protestors at the Pearl Roundabout peeked at over 150,000 after more than 100,000 protesters marched there. On 14 March, Saudi-led GCC forces were requested by the government and entered the country, which the opposition called an "occupation".

King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa declared a three-month state of emergency on 15 March and asked the military to reassert its control as clashes spread across the country. On 16 March, armed soldiers and riot police cleared the protesters' camp in the Pearl Roundabout, in which 3 policemen and 3 protesters were reportedly killed. Later, on 18 March, the government tore down Pearl Roundabout monument. After the lifting of emergency law on 1 June, several large rallies were staged by the opposition parties. Smaller-scale protests and clashes outside of the capital have continued to occur almost daily. On 9 March 2012 over 100,000 protested in what the opposition called "the biggest march in our history".

The police response has been described as a "brutal" crackdown on peaceful and unarmed protestors, including doctors and bloggers. The police carried out midnight house raids in Shia neighbourhoods, beatings at checkpoints, and denial of medical care in a "campaign of intimidation". More than 2,929 people have been arrested, and at least five people died due to torture while in police custody. On 23 November 2011 the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry released its report on its investigation of the events, finding that the government had systematically tortured prisoners and committed other human rights violations. It also rejected the government's claims that the protests were instigated by Iran. Although the report found that systematic torture had stopped, the Bahraini government has refused entry to several international human rights groups and news organizations, and delayed a visit by a UN inspector. Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 09:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I've been so long; been busy and my connection is playing up. The main problem I have is that I spent a good while editing that first draft (the one I reverted to) as a neutral summary article. The article there before I played with it was clearly not neutral and, I'd suggest, the edits you originally made to mine were likewise not neutral. With respect, even the above version looks like it's been prepared by someone on the side of the protesters, which of course is the case. This is not to say that your position is wrong, just that it is not neutral. Detail needs to be included on the detail page, where it's possible to address both the government's actions (beatings etc.) and the protesters' actions (molotovs etc.). It (and not here) is also the right place to included opposition estimates of protesters, as that's where you can go into detail about the reliability of opposition (and government) figures.

I'll try to devote some more time to the line-by-line below, but you have to bear in mind that I'm not immersed in the situation. So when you question the integrity of the BICI report and cite news articles, I have to evaluate them and search for articles from solid news sources (i.e. Reuters etc. not Fox etc.) to make a determination of what's likely to be right.

I agree that your version above addresses the brevity concerns I had, although I think there's still a tendency to overlink. I'll put a copy of what I see as a neutral version below, in case you want to pull a 3rd party in to get a quicker resolution. No problem if you do. Bromley86 (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Main article: 2011–2012 Bahraini uprising

More than 100,000 taking part in a pro-democracy march on 22 February, 2011.

The protests in Bahrain started on 14 February, and were initially aimed at achieving greater political freedom and respect for human rights; they were not intended to directly threaten the monarchy. Lingering frustration among the Shiite majority with being ruled by the Sunni government was a major root cause, but the protests in Tunisia and Egypt are cited as the inspiration for the demonstrations. The protests were largely peaceful until a pre-dawn raid by police on 17 February to clear protestors from Pearl Roundabout in Manama, in which police killed four protesters. Following the raid, some protesters began to expand their aims to a call for the end of the monarchy. On 18 February the army opened fire on protesters when they tried to reenter the roundabout, fatally wounding one. The following day protesters reoccupied Pearl Roundabout after the government ordered troops and police to withdraw. Subsequent days saw large demonstrations; on 21 February a pro-government Gathering of National Unity drew tens of thousands, whilst on 22 February the number of protestors at the Pearl Roundabout peeked at over 150,000 after more than 100,000 protesters marched there. On 14 March, in response to the general breakdown in security and law and order, GCC forces were requested by the government and entered the country. The opposition called this an "occupation".

King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa declared a three-month state of emergency on 15 March and asked the military to reassert its control as clashes spread across the country. On 16 March, the protesters' camp in the Pearl Roundabout was again cleared and later, on 18 March, the Pearl Roundabout monument was torn down. After the lifting of emergency law on 1 June, several large rallies were staged by the opposition parties. Smaller-scale protests and clashes outside of the capital have continued to occur almost daily. On 9 March 2012 around 100,000 protested in what the opposition called "the biggest march in our history".

On 23 November 2011 the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry released its report on its investigation of the events of February and March 2011, finding that the government had systematically tortured prisoners and committed other human rights violations. Although the report found that systematic torture had stopped, the Bahraini government has refused entry to several international human rights groups and delayed a visit by a UN inspector. Bromley86 (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, let's get a third opinion. P.S. I've made a small change in the paragraph. Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 10:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Really sorry that I've dropped off the radar. ISP problems meant I had really bad upload speeds, which strangely seemed to make even opening WP pages a nightmare (let alone editing, which as often as not timed out). Seems to be sorted now, so I'll try to find some time.Bromley86 (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back. It would be good if you comment on the points below as soon as you can. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Line by line discussion

First paragraph

• Sentence 1: "The 2011 protests in Bahrain were initially aimed at achieving greater political freedom and respect for human rights; they were not intended to directly threaten the monarchy, nor were they as large as those in other countries.[5][218](pp162-3)"

– Proposed changes by Bahraini Activist:

1. 2011 protests > protests: remove year, because it might indicate protests have subdued.
2. Move start date to here. "The protests in Bahrain started on 14 February, and were initially.."
3. Remove "nor were they as large as those in other countries". I didn't find this in both sources, Reuters and BICI pages 162-3. Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 16:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

– Comments by Bromley86:

1. Agree. Sorry, should have spotted that!
2. Agree. Fits better with the other articles and will allow the 3rd sentence to flow more directly to the prime date (17th).
3. Agree. I deliberately left that in because it showed the ramping up of tension, but it's better out for brevity. Especially as this is an ongoing issue, so the more we can cut now, the less the section will need rewriting as events unfold. You're right about the cites - I chose to read 645. The size and breadth of these initial demonstrations was relatively limited.(BICI) as supporting this, but it doesn't.
4. "Monarchy" needs to be wikilinked to King of Bahrain (and the "monarchy" in sentence 4 unlinked, if it's still there). Bromley86 (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

- Third opinion:

4) Bromley86's Wikilink suggestion looks good to me, and I can't find a more appropriate article to link to. FormerIP (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Already agreed on. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence 2: "Lingering frustration among the Shiite majority with being ruled by the Sunni government was a major root cause, but the protests in Tunisia and Egypt are cited as the inspiration for the demonstrations.[5][218](p65)"

– Proposed changes by Bahraini Activist:

1. Add "decades". "Decades long lingering frustration among.." or other grammatically correct form. Cited in BICI page 162 "The roots of what started on 14 February go back to the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s."

- Comments by Bromley86

1. Uncertain. Minor preference for retaining simple "Lingering", as it nicely conveys that this issue has existed for many years; sometimes at the forefront of political life, sometimes not. "Decades long lingering" isn't incorrect though, it's just the brevity thing. For example, we have to ignore all the events between 22/02 and 14/03 just because there's no room to do them justice here. Bromley86 (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

-Third opinion.

1. Also uncertain. Better syntax might be "Decades of lingering..." and, while we're at it: "...at being ruled". "Decades of lingering..." may be a fair description (I have no idea), but it seems stronger than what BICI appears to say - it says "roots". "Decades of..." gives the impression that everyone was frustrated throughout that time, but "roots" could mean that, at first, only some were frustrated and then it grew over time. Maybe that's hair splitting, I don't know. I'd probably lean towards not saying "decades", but not at all strongly. FormerIP (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have strong opinion about this and didn't include it in the paragraph at top. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence 3: "The protests began in Bahrain on 14 February[218](p68) and were largely peaceful until a pre-dawn raid by police early on the morning of 17 February to clear protestors from Pearl Roundabout in Manama, in which police killed four protesters and injured hundreds.[218](pp73-4)"

– Proposed changes by Bahraini Activist:

1. Remove "The protests began in Bahrain on 14 February[218](p68)", was proposed to be moved to first sentence.
2. Four protesters and not three. All four of them were listed by: Human Right Watch, BICI (pages 230-2, 74). On of them died hours later (9:30 pm), named "Ali Ahmed Abdulla Ahmed" HWR report: Targets of Retribution (page 19). Full details about their death can be found here.
3. Injuries were in hundreds. "more than 300" BBC, "more than 600" New York Times. Even Ministry of interior said protesters injuries were 50 and police 47 (BICI page 74). Other sources didn't give specific numbers saying "dozens", "several" or "scores". Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 17:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

- Comments by Bromley86

1. Agree. "The protests were largely peaceful . . ."
2. Agree. Four it is. I was being too literal.Disagree. (Note: the above sentence says 4 but should say 3). Took a while to work it out, but Isa Abd al-Hussein Abu-Nidal (HRW link) is the same as Isa Abdulhasan Ali Hussain/Husain (BICI, p.231). Isa was shot at ~07:30, whereas the clearance finished before 04:00. So not during the clearance, but in the subsequent clashes. There are a lot of deaths not mentioned in this section.
3. Disagree. A number of reasons for disagreeing. First, as above, there are loads of deaths/injuries not mentioned here. Second, it's hard to pin down the number (perhaps the "dozens" refer to serious wounds and the "hundreds" to every injury, including sprains etc?), which is perhaps better done in one of the detailed section. Third, there's the brevity thing again - even if we ignore the injuries to the police. Finally, I'd suggest that the 3 deaths (and the subsequent death later on 17th) were bigger drivers of later developments than the injuries (might be wrong on that though).
4. Regarding "pre-dawn raid", suggest we remove "early on the morning". At this level it's unnecessary to expand on pre-dawn. Bromley86 (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

- Comments by Bahraini Activist:

Up to here everything is fine (I'll skip anything I agree with), except for protesters number which is four. Yes Isa might had been shot between 4:20 (BICI 74) and 7:30 (BICI 231), but he actually died 12 hours before Ali Ahmed Abdulla Ahmed, was shot by the same police force that evacuated the area and was in the area (returning to it). You might have choose to separate the deaths, but The Guardian, Al Jazeera, ABC News and Ap counted the deaths from the pre-dawn raid as four. For the other point, health minister said 225 were injured (CNN), but it's alright not to include it.

-Third opinion

It looks like everything is already agreed here. FormerIP (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence 4: "Following the "brutal" raid, protesters dubbed the day "Bloody Thursday" and some of them began to expand their aims to a call for the end of the monarchy, which has ruled Bahrain since the late 18th century.[219]"

- Proposed change by Bromley86:

1. Remove wikilink on "monarchy" (as will be in sentence 1).
2. Remove ", which has ruled Bahrain since the late 18th century". Brevity again. Bromley86 (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

- Comments by Bahraini Activist:

1. I changed the sentence to show that of the reverted edit, since it's the disputed one and is longer (done the same in the following sentences).
2. Keep the line, it gives important background information that shouldn't be removed.
3. I find it fine to remove "dubbed the day "Bloody Thursday" and some of them", but wikilink the previous 17 February to Bloody Thursday article.
4. The word "brutal" needs to be moved to the earlier sentence, supported by The Guardian and New York Times.

-Comments by Bromley86

2. Still think it should go. This is a summary article, which is why none of the other sections include that level of background information.

3. Agree. Wikilink 17th Feb.

4. Disagree. I'm not saying that it hasn't been called brutal (or even that it wasn't brutal), just that doing so in a summary article is unnecessary. Especially with that wikilink to the Bloody Thursday article. Bromley86 (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

- Third opinion

2 Think this should go. The wikilink is above if readers want background.

4 I don't know what is meant exactly by moving "brutal" to the previous sentence. However, having read the previous sentence, I don't see why the word is needed at all. The reader probably gets that it was brutal. FormerIP (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Already agreed on as I've explained above to skip anything I agree with. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence 5: "On 18 February army forces opened fire from their rifles and machine guns on protesters when they tried to reenter the roundabout, fatally wounding one and severely injuring others.[218](pp77-8)"

- Proposed change by Bromley86:

1. Remove ", fatally wounding one". Brevity. I'd suggest that the important point was the opening fire. However, despite suggesting its removal, the "fatally wounding one" does communicate some context for a few words, so I can see an argument for keeping it.Bromley86 (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

- Comments by Bahraini Activist:

1. Keep "fatally wounding one", he died after all and should be kept, but I guess injures removed - eventually I'll probably create an article about him and wikilink it since his death was notable if not the most notable.
2. Keeping either rifles or machine guns is important here, to show that it wasn't tear gas, stun grenade or rubber bullets, but actually live ammunition. It should say "army forces opened fire from their rifles", "army forces opened fire from their machine guns" or "army forces fired live ammunition on protesters..". The latter is shorter and does the job.

- Comments by Bromley86

1. Okay, agree with you. Keep the "fatally wounding one".
2. Disagree. Brevity again. Per the BICI report (p.78), the army fired warning shots. Clearly they hit at least one other person, but equally clearly, if they'd really been aiming directly at a crowd with a Browning 50 cal, assault rifles and rifles, there would have been more than one death and a number of injuries from bullets (rather than buckshot). "According to medical reports, at least one person sustained gunshot wounds to his chest, while others were injured by shotgun pellets in various parts of their bodies. Some individuals also reported being injured by tear gas canisters." (p.78) All that complexity is avoided by "security forces opened fire", as it was both police and army involved. The "fatally wounding one" adds context, as would a wikilinking it to the casualties page. Bromley86 (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

- Comments by Bromley86

2. Okay, I can see why you want army there. Suggest "the army" instead of "army forces" (just a phrasing thing), but I'm happy with either. Bromley86 (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

-Third opinion

OK, so everything looks agreed here. FormerIP (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence 6: "The following day protesters occupied Pearl Roundabout after the government ordered troops and police to withdraw.[220][218](p81)"

- Proposed change by Bromley86:

1. Change "occupied" to "reoccupied". Bromley86 (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence 7: "Subsequent days saw large demonstrations; on 21 February a pro-government Gathering of National Unity drew less than 120,000, including some Asian expatriates.[218](p86)[221]"

- Proposed changes by Bahraini Activist:

Change "less than 120,000" to "tens of thousands". BICI said "The number of people was reported to have exceeded 100,000 by 19:30. According to MoI and some media, by 20:30 the number of people participating in this demonstration increased to 400,000, although many other estimates place the number at below 120,000, some of whom were non-residents of Bahrain." I find the report inaccurate here. First the government claimed the number was 300k, not 400k [6]. Second I didn't find any non pro-government reliable sources to back any number nearby 100k. The sources which I found are:

1. Tens of Thousands: John Moore / Getty Images, Washington post and McClatchy Newspapers.
2. Thousands: Reuters, BBC, and Open Democracy.

So I think "tens of thousands" is suitable here, if not generous. Also the part about expatriates is well sourced. Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 21:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

- Comments by Bromley86

1. Partial agree. I too couldn't find a source for ~100k. I'd use the NYT article as support for that figure, as it actually sounds like the reporter was there (it also helps us here in Talk with the Asian expats aspect). The BBC article linked is from much later and is not at all specific ("Some Bangladeshi expatriates"). That NYT one does talk about the affluence of those attending the 21 Feb Al Fateh rally, which from the little I know of Bahrain from editing the Demographics page would indicate that they were not a significant number of Bangladeshi expats at that particular rally. That's the argument on fact, but my other one is the usual brevity one. So I'd suggest that the first part of the sentence reads, "Subsequent days saw large demonstrations; on 21 February a pro-government Gathering of National Unity drew tens of thousands, . . ." I'd also like to note here that there's absolutely no mention of this counter-demonstration on the Main Page (where brevity is not an issue), which is not good. Bromley86 (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

BICI talked about expats "some of whom were non-residents of Bahrain.", the BBC link was to add the word "Asian". Anyway I think it's better like this: "Subsequent days saw large demonstrations; on 21 February a pro-government Gathering of National Unity tens of thousands, some expatriates,". - that's just 2 words added and I'll discuss the brevity thing above. We can move on to fix the main article after this (I know it's a mess; it was pulled from INT section recently). Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 09:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

That they did, but they also talked about 120k. 120k is "10s of thousands", but the inclusion of the expat aspect is a reducer. That's fine if you're starting high or if the expat aspect (at this particular gathering) was significant, but we've already moved back from the BICI 120k and we have an NYT article where the reporter talks about "affluence" but doesn't mention expats (who, I assume, are poorer on average than Bahraini citizens?). The general flow of 10s thousands Unity, 100k march, 150k roundabout provides a decent summary.

The BICI report spoke about 100k+ at a certain time, less than 120k at another and wrongly reported the government estimation at 400k instead of 300k. This is why I'm disputing the reliability of the report in this particular part, specially since reliable sources spoke of thousands or tens of thousands, which gives an idea about the numbers. And let's not forget that the same NYT article which estimated protesters march to be 100k+, said about the pro-government "tens of thousands", which indicates they were less than 100k.

The expats part is supported by a BBC article which was written on 17 March when there were no pro-government rallies. It was general about Asians being forced to take part in pro-government rallies (note that it's plural, not singular) and it's consequences without giving details. However, there were only 2 big rallies for the pro-government (back then), 21 Feb and 2 March (which the gov estimated it to be 450k). BICI (p 103) again said "some of whom were non-residents of Bahrain", which connects with BBC report about expats taking part in rallies, rather just one rally. Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 09:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

-Third opinion.

Suggest being clearer by attributing a number. Perhaps: "100,000, according to the commission set up by the King following the unrest. As an unprompted comment, I am not too sure about the reference to expats. The way it is phrased gives the suggestion that Wikipedia thinks they are less important - like the demonstration is somehow disappointing if too many Bangladeshis turn up. Maybe some media would think this, but I don't think we should follow that lead. FormerIP (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree to use 100,000. After all we both agreed they're tens of thousands and looking at sources above such as Reuters and BBC say thousands (not even tens of..). The BICI report shouldn't be taken as gospel, especially in this part where no other reports mentioned 100,000 and the report made a clear mistake by wrongly reporting the government estimation at 400k instead of 300k. I don't have strong opinion about the expats part. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence 8: "Whilst on 22 February the number of protestors at the Pearl Roundabout peeked at over 150,000, more than 25% of national population[222] after more than 100,000 protesters marched there.[218](p88)"

- Proposed changes by Bahraini Activist:

Keep it as it is. The numbers are taken from BICI and are supported by a big number of reliable sources. Some sources even went up to 200k. The percentage can be removed from here, but it should be kept in the image if this one is removed 150/568 = 26.4%.

1. 1. There is a source using this percentage The National Post
   2. 20% (fifth) for the protest: Euro student think tank and it was brought up by the interviewer in one of AJE live steams as evidence of protesters majority (will find it if it's seen as edge line). Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 21:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

- Comments by Bromley86

Disagree. Suggest it is reverted back into Sentence 7 and that the percentage is removed (including from the picture). Summary article, brevity, etc. Likewise the picture caption. It certainly should be in the Main Page (and it is). (In case you think I go on about brevity, in the expanded version we're discussing the Bahrain section has 21 lines to Syria's 14!). Suggested full sentence 7:

Subsequent days saw large demonstrations; on 21 February a pro-government Gathering of National Unity drew tens of thousands,[7][8] whilst on 22 February the number of protestors at the roundabout peeked at over 150,000 after more than 100,000 protestors marched there.[9] Funnily enough, all the references I found for this were to "tens of thousands" ReutersAl JazBBC, but to my mind we stick to the BICI figures. Bromley86 (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I though you have read this NYT article already when making comments for sentence 7 (If you've searched for "Bahrain protest 22 February 100,000", you'd have got better results). Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 09:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, you got me, I forgot about that one. All-but-one then (I re-searched for this sentence; I didn't prejudge the search to get "better" results). My point was that clearly reporters get estimations badly wrong, because as the Martyr's March was ~100k and it'd therefore be technically accurate to describe it as "tens of thousands", it'd be more accurate to describe it as "less than", "around" or "more than" 100k. Bromley86 (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

-Third opinion

AFACIT, 25% or 20% of the population is mathematically wrong either way. 1.23 million is the population according to...well, whatever Wikipedia has used as a source for that. 25% of that is 307k, more than twice the maximum cited number on the march. Possibly we are talking about the population over a certain age or the non-expat population or something else. But, I would say, if in doubt leave it out.

It is correct when you clearly state that it's 25% of national population or of citizens. According to 2010 consus [10] Bahrainis population is 568,399, while expats 666,172. 150,000+/568,388 = 26.3%. As I have said before, there are websites who have used this percentage. For example the percentage 25% was mentioned by this article by National Post and this episode of AJE Stream (stream to 19 mins 30 secs), the NYT mentions they're 100,000 out of 500,000, another article for NYT describes a march on 25 February to "appeared to be twice as large as one on Tuesday that drew about 100,000 people". (Also, The Huffington Post mentions that more than 100,000 took part. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I've also found that in Al Jazeera English documentary Bahrain: Shouting in the Dark (19:20) they say "Bahrain held its largest march in history; the world media recorded nearly a quarter of all citizens in the streets". Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence 9: "On 14 March, in response to protesters' escalation, failure of talks between the government and opposition parties, and the general breakdown in security and law and order,[218](pp164-5) Saudi-led GCC forces were requested by the government and entered the country.[218](p132) The opposition reacted strongly, calling it an "occupation".[223]"

- Proposed changes by Bahraini Activist:

The sentence used to list only one reason, when BICI listed the 3 above. I would remove all three reasons. Keep Saudi since they sent the biggest numbers and offered the biggest help for government. Remove "reacted strongly". "On 14 March, Saudi-led GCC forces were requested by the government and entered the country,[218](p132) which the opposition called an "occupation".[223]". Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 21:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

- Comments by Bromley86

1. The one reason listed was the one given in the BICI (p.132) (inter alia, meaning "amoung other things", in this case used to highlight what they believed was the most important). There were other things mentioned there, but they could all be encompassed by the "general breakdown in security and law and order". Disagree with the Saudi aspect (not in fact, but in terms of content in this summary); wikilinking to the GCC Peninsula Shield page covers that (i.e. as with the deaths earlier in this paragraph). Unsurprisingly, I'm for cutting the whole "occupation" sentence (brevity). However, I do like your rewrite of it, so that works for me if you still want it in. On that note, I'm for bed! Bromley86 (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The Saudi aspect is unnecessary as this is a summary - after all, what is the key component of the GCC? The prime reason for the request for the forces is important, despite my frequent requests for brevity. I still don't like the "opposition occupation" thing at this level, but it is probably representative of what the average protester though So: "On 14 March, in response to the general breakdown in security and law and order,[218](pp164–5) GCC forces were requested by the government and entered the country.[218](p132) The opposition called this an "occupation".[223]" Bromley86 (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I though it works for you? I find giving just this reason to be inaccurate, either give them all or none. Besides, reliable sources give different reasons: "BBC - to help deal with the unrest", AJE - to help protect government facilities after weeks of unrest, Reuters "to help calm weeks of protests", "to protect government facilities, a Saudi official source said" and "to put down unrest". Also almost all of them speak specifically of Saudi soldiers, which explains why it should stay. If you read the summary for this Reuters report, you'll see all important things within it, fits good with WP:DUE policy. Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 10:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

-Third opinion.

Saudi should stay because so many sources say Saudi, but so should GCC, because it is also technically accurate and informative for the reader. I don't think the BICI version of the reasons for the request should be taken as gospel, as it is one set of reasons pulled together for a specific purpose. I'm not sure it is necessary to specify any reasons, because the reader will be able to work out what they might be quite easily. Agree with removing "reacted strongly". Calling it an "occupation" is obviously strong. FormerIP (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Totally Agree: The protests in Iran should also be mentioned in this article. Sonarclawz (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Second paragraph

• Sentence 1: "King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa declared a three-month state of emergency on 15 March and asked the military to reassert its control as clashes spread across the country.[224][218](p139)"

- Proposed changes by Bahraini Activist: None.

• Sentence 2: "On 16 March, Bahrain Defense Force and riot police "violently" cleared the protesters' camp in the Pearl Roundabout, in which 3 policemen and 3 protesters were reportedly killed and hundreds injured.[218](pp133-4)[225]"

- Proposed changes by Bahraini Activist:

1. The sentence was very short before giving no details, despite more troops taking part than the other clearance, deaths in protesters and for the first time deaths in policemen. The deaths should definitely stay and injuries removed.
2. BDF and riot police can be changed to "Soldiers and riot police" as in Ap, "Security forces with tanks" as in BBC or "security forces use tanks and helicopters" as in Al Jazeera. This is further supported by the fact that forces from National Guard and BDF were pictured there, one of them pointing a gun to a reporter New York Times. BICI says some protesters died due to gunshot nearby Pearl Roundabout (pages 146 and 235). To avoid saying they were killed by BDF or NG, BICI said in page 224 that "the Commission is unable to attribute it to a specific government agency". However, later the report says BDF were involved in the death of 4 protesters, but at roadblocks (page 263).
3. Al Jazeera called the attack "deadly", but I see it not necessarily, since we also are mentioning that 6 were killed, so remove "violently". It should be: "On 16 March, armed soldiers and riot police cleared the protesters' camp in the Pearl Roundabout, in which 3 policemen and 3 protesters were reportedly killed.[218](pp133-4)[225]"

• Sentence 3: "Later, on 18 March, the government tore down Pearl Roundabout monument.[226][218](pp150)"

- Proposed changes by Bahraini Activist: None

• Sentence 4: "After the lifting of emergency law on 1 June,[227] several large rallies were staged by the Shiite community demanding the release of detained protesters, greater political representation, and an end to sectarian discrimination.[228]"

- Proposed changes by Bahraini Activist:

1. "Shiite community" > "opposition parties". They also include secular parties.
2. Remove the demands.

• Sentence 5: "Smaller-scale protests and clashed have continued to occur almost daily, but mostly in areas outside the Manama's business districts with some rare marches in the center of the capital city.[229][230]"

- Proposed changes by Bahraini Activist:

1. Change to: "Smaller-scale protests and clashed outside of the capital have continued to occur almost daily"

Third paragraph

• Sentence 1: "The police response has been described as a "brutal" crackdown on peaceful and unarmed protestors, including doctors and bloggers.[231][232][233]"

- Proposed changes by Bahraini Activist: None (except for fixing references)

• Sentence 2: "The police carried out midnight house raids in Shia neighbourhoods, beatings at checkpoints, and denial of medical care in a "campaign of intimidation".[234][235][236][237]"

- Proposed changes by Bahraini Activist: None (except for fixing references)

• Sentence 3: "More than 2,929 people have been arrested,[141][238] and at least five people died due to torture while in police custody.[218](p287,288)"

- Proposed changes by Bahraini Activist: None (except for fixing references)

• Sentence 4: "More than 100 people were reportedly convicted by special military court,[239] including 20 medical personnel tried for incitement to overthrow the regime and were sentenced to lengthy prison sentences.[240]"

- Proposed changes by Bahraini Activist: Remove completely.

• Sentence 5: "Human Rights Watch have alleged that this was part of a "campaign of intimidation against the medicalcommunity."[241]"

- Proposed changes by Bahraini Activist: Remove completely.

Forth paragraph

Merge it with third, since both of them are about human rights violations.

• Sentence 1: "On 23 November 2011 the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry released its report on its investigation of the events of February and March 2011, finding that the government had systematically tortured prisoners and committed other human rights violations, such as summarily firing public sector employees and suspending university students,[218](pp415-422)"

- Proposed changes by Bahraini Activist: Remove "of February and March 2011" and ", such as summarily firing public sector employees and suspending university students,"

• Sentence 2: "but didn't disclose the names of individual perpetrators of abuses or extend accountability further that those who actively carried out human rights violations.[242]"

- Proposed changes by Bahraini Activist: Remove completely.

• Sentence 3: "It also rejected the government's claims that the protests were instigated by Iran.[243]"

- Proposed changes by Bahraini Activist: None.

• Sentence 4: "Although the report found that systematic torture had stopped at one prison,[218](pp296–7) the Bahraini government has targeted and refused entry to several international human rights groups and news organizations, and delayed a visit by a UN inspector.[244][245]"

- Proposed changes by Bahraini Activist:

1. Remove "at one prison" and change pages to 417. (I was confused at this one, because in pages 296-7 it reports that torture only stopped at one prison,)
2. Addition of "news organizations" is important as many of them weren't allowed in Al Jazeera. "Targeted" is more suitable for the period in March-June (emergency) and can be removed from here.

Fifth paragraph

• Sentence 1: "On 9 March 2012, opposition staged what they called "the biggest march in our history", denouncing the government, calling for downfall of King and the release of imprisoned political leaders.[246][247][248]"

- Proposed changes by Bahraini Activist: Remove demands.

• Sentence 2: "Reuters photographer estimated the number to be over 100,000,[249] while opposition activist estimated the number to be between 100,000[243] and 250,000, about 44% of national population.[250]"

- Proposed changes by Bahraini Activist: Remove the lower estimate by opposition. This is further backed by government estimating the number to be 100,000 Financial Times. It should be: "Reuters photographer estimated the number to be over 100,000,[249] while opposition activist said up to 250,000, about 44% of national population participated.[250]."

• Sentence 3: "The protest ended peacefully, however hundreds of youths tried to march back to the site of the now demolished symbolic Pearl Roundabout and were dispersed by security forces with tear gas.[247]"

- Proposed changes by Bahraini Activist: Remove completely.

By this I've provided my full detailed review on the section, waiting for yours (hopefully you agree with most, since it was well sourced). You can see that many sentences were removed, which will make this shorter. Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 23:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to say that I'll be adding changes agreed on. Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 23:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi. I'm volunteering for this. Hope you'll have me. What I will do is go through each of the sections above and add my opinion after yours. I might not do that in one go (quite a lot to chew on, you guys) and I won't comment anywhere that you both haven't. Cheers. FormerIP (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for volunteering. As I've suggested to you in your page's talk, I think it would be better if you take a look at the two paragraphs at top, since they show both of our's opinions. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)