Talk:Arab street

Clumsy phrase

I hate this neologism. As metaphorical toponymy (notwithstanding the real-life thoroughfare in Singapore, of course), it suffers from too many levels of abstraction to be catchy or clever.

Neither vivid nor incisive, the Arab Street somehow maintains the ring of ad hoc rubbish despite its overuse. Moreover, do we need another way to paint an entire ethnicity with the same brush?

Patronanejo (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I have begun a needed update to the article which will get into a lot of that critique. Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this page a spoof?

I have never ever heard of the the term "Arab Street". Is it an Americanism? Where is the presumption that other English speaking nations might not be blessed with such neologisms and haven't got a clue.

While researching the article I was indeed curious about this, but found nothing about whether its English-language use is limited to the American media or not (obviously, it would seem we now have at least an informal answer to that question). Without one of our reliable sources saying something about this I really do not feel comfortable just putting my own observation on that into the article. Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, here's The Guardian using it in a hed. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

But it would seem the editors of this page haven't got a plan either because its content makes absolutely no logical sense. Is it about the phrase, usage or the wider defining meanings of the term?

I would say all three, or at least two until you explain what differentiates "wider defining meanings of the term" from "usage". To put it in my own terms I would say it's about the term, its etymology, and what many commentators believe to be its negative connotations and their impact on relations between (at least) the U.S. and Arab states. Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

This article ranks as one of the worst I have ever seen on the main page.

You never saw Flag of Armenia or Spyware while they were that day's featured article, obviously.

Well, normally I've had the chance to completely finish polishing and rewriting an article before it runs in DYK (Honestly, I'm glad someone read it that way ... too often no one clicks on non-sensational DYK hooks without a picture). Given that I'm busy with some other things at the moment, and the preference for nominating things to DYK within five days of beginning to create or expand it, I just got finished with what would arguably be called the first full draft late last night North American Eastern time, about 12–13 hours ago. For one thing, I haven't had the chance yet to rewrite the intro in a way that reflects the article as it has actually turned out. Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

And to compound its failure to explain the subject in layman's terms, the writers have fallen on the old trick of sesquipedalianism ie to stick loads of high-brow words into the text in the hope most readers won't read through the bullshit.

See above. And it would be helpful (if, of course, you posted this comment out of some genuine intent to be helpful, and aren't just pissed off because your life partner just left you, the pubkeeper won't extend your tab for yet another month until you pay up and your favorite club lost badly last weekend) if you would provide some examples. The quoted matter, I can't do anything about, but one can always improve one's own prose. Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

If Arab Street is a phrase it should be in the wiktionary if it means something more, then please can someone rewrite this article so it can at least make sense. 86.160.104.118 (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It has been my intent to write a wiktionary entry as well when I got/get done with all this*. However, since there are more than a few academic papers and/or book chapters which discuss this in a non-trivial fashion, we can and should have an encyclopedia article on it as well. As for further writing or rewriting, well, your help would always be appreciated. Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oops, it seems that there has been one for quite some time now. But I did redefine it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Arab street/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 17:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll give this a go...

Lead

• Given the size of the article, I think the lead can be shrunk down to about two paragraphs, maybe three. Say what the term is, where it's used, what its history is and any major controversies arising from it. That should do.

I often find myself writing four-graf intros (but no longer), when the subject is complex enough. I want the reader to be able to have a good idea what they're going to be reading below, and not have any surprises, per WP:LEAD (which establishes the four-graf limit). But I'm open, and I'll see what I can do. Daniel Case (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done OK, trimmed a little fat there. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think the first problem is getting a good definition of this. I'm British and I've never heard the term; a point which has been discussed on talk page. Is this a US based colloquialism? From reading the NY Times source, I get the impression that "Arab street" reflects the silent majority of Arab mainstream opinion away from governments and extremists. Is that right?

Yes, the question is whether the speaker means it's more or less extreme than the government. Daniel Case (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• The picture should explain a bit more relevance to the subject. Just been an Arab street doesn't really give a good explanation to the reader as to what the term means and what its encyclopedic relevance is.

I would have liked a more crowded street scene, which would have better suggested the idea of a public among which opinion was forming. We'll see if one's available (From the beginning I had this article in mind when I took the picture. It was between the church where the Madaba Map is and where we had lunch that day. I wanted a picture of a non-touristy street that was clearly Arab. I took two even though they weren't ideal, but they were at least undeniably Arab. Afterwards, I asked our guide if we had just visited the Arab street. He laughed; he knew what I meant). Daniel Case (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I decided to go further and expand the cutline so that it better connected the image and the article. Daniel Case (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• The second citation in the lead is a dead link

 Done Found the new link. Daniel Case (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Damoclean sword" is a metaphor, maybe "tightly controllable" would be preferable here
• "Some have even doubted its existence" - who have?

 Done I added "observers". Daniel Case (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• "and have even led to calls for its discontinuation" - I'm not sure the source given here fits this claim, it seems to reinvent the term, but doesn't dismiss it outright.

 Done I moved the first use of the two cites, formerly near the end of the article, which support this claim to the intro. Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments on the body to follow. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Just a quick note, sorry for the delay, I suddenly had two of my own GA nominations come up for review at the same time, and I'm just clearing those down first before carrying on with this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, let's get this moving again....

Definition

• Not sure if it's important but the Collins Dictionary source lists this as the Arab street
• Worth mentioning the contrast Thomas Friedman makes between the "Arab street" and the "Arab basement"
• "uncertainty about its exact meaning persisted" - perhaps "there was disagreement about its exact meaning"
• "This uncertainty has sometimes been connected to doubts about the very existence" - I'm not sure this is really correct, probably better to say something like "This uncertainty has led to confusion over what the term represents"
• "Some of that uncertainty, wrote professors Terry Regier and Muhammad Ali Khalidi in a 2009 paper " - this sentence is a bit back to front. It might be easier to say "According to professors .... " and go from there
• "Instead of encompassing Arab public opinion in the entire" - perhaps "encompassing the majority of Arab public opinion"
• ".....one that is viewed primarily as a source of political trouble." - the quotation here could do with a source immediately following it
• "much as it is used in the West,when" - missing space after the comma
• "....running very high in the American street [after the September 11 attacks]" - again, when using precise quotations, its useful to have a cite after or nearby

All  Done Daniel Case (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

More later, sorry about the glacial pace of this Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I've been busy too ... I will be attending to these soon. Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, on with the show...

History

• is "came into its modern sense" an appropriate phrase here? Maybe "became widely recognised"?

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

English

• "that he later repudiated" - not sure if "repudiated" is the best word to use here

 Done replaced with "disowned".

• The citation "Wehr, 163" needs more information

Since it's not the first citation of the work in question (see current fn 15), the author's name and the page number are usually all that's required. I can see your point, that it might be puzzling to a reader online mousing over it, but consider that a) I think people who check out our footnotes, especially via rollover, are probably a bit smarter and a bit more used to parsing footnotes than people who don't, and b) the inline text explicitly refers to, and links to, the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic that Wehr compiled. It might not be so opaque in context. Daniel Case (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Gamāhīr, frequently rendered in English" - is "frequently" necessary?

 Done I should say I took care of this, too. Daniel Case (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• ""Street" was first modified by "Arab"" - might be worth qualifying this as "gramatically modified"

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

More later.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, enough procrastinating on this, I am finishing the review now!

Criticism

• I'm just wondering if a little too much attention is being paid on the Regier and Khalid source?

It was really the one which delved into the questions the article needed to offer answers to: where did this term come from? How is it used? How does its use differ in the American and Arab media? Other people seem to cite it quite a bit for the same reason. Daniel Case (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• "always poised to rise violently does Western publics a disservice" - I wonder if this sentence could be split in two for readability

I added a comma. Daniel Case (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• "an experience informed by contemporary events in Eastern Europe" - while I can appreciate that press censorship would be broadly similar, can you confirm that the source given directly ties Eastern European and Arab media censorship together?

Yes. At the top of page 5 (perhaps I should change the footnote), Pollock says:"To begin with, even in those Arab countries where the local media are indeed totally subservient to the state, the public may have its own sources of information on which to base its own opinions. Recent experience in what was then the Soviet bloc has suggested that this might be so, but one need not look so far afield to search for analogies. Three Arab examples serve to make the point ..." Daniel Case (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• "the "debatable" exception of the 1958 Lebanon crisis," - is there a reason for quotes around "debatable"

Pollock uses them, middle of his page 10. I will make that clearer. Daniel Case (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Daniel Case (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• "the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks again made it likely that the U.S. would find itself fighting another war against a Muslim country, and again fears rose in the American media about the damage an angered Arab street could inflict on American interests in the region when actual combat began" - the problem I have with this claim is it's rather vague. Does the source state specifically that the US media were worried about the affect of the Arab street, and how it could damage international relations?

 DoneI found the source I had intended to use before I added the quote afterwards (the John Kifner article in the NY Times) and added it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• "It did not emerge into Arabic political discussion alongside the idea of universal suffrage when that became a goal of Arab activists in the early 20th century, and polling organizations did not consequently form as they did in the West. Thus the notion of the Arab street filled the void." - this sounds like Larbi Sadaiki's opinion, rather than fact

 Done Made clear this is a paraphrase of Sadiki. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Arab Spring

• The caption of the picture could do with expanding, and explaining its specific relevance to "Arab street" as a concept

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• "and touched off the Syrian Civil War" - "touched off"? I'm not sure the sources, while stating obvious facts, actually mention the term "Arab Spring" - this one referring to Gaddafi doesn't appear to.

I took them from the Arab Spring article; I'll see if I can find some better ones now that we have four years of context. Daniel Case (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Found a CBC story that does just this. Daniel Case (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• The final quotation is a bit long and would possibly be better paraphrased.

 Done I just used less of it and took it out of the blockquote. I would prefer to use actual bits of the quote, since with a subject like this that draws on a non-Western culture it is best for a reader to read voices emanating from that culture rather than a Westerner's long paraphrase. Daniel Case (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary

• Once again, I'm sorry for the delay for this, I'm normally on top of GA reviews, but for this one I wanted to try and read around the subject, and there's an awful lot to digest. However, I have pretty much figured there would not be too much work on the GA review, as it has already had eyes on it at DYK - so with that in mind I'm putting it on hold now, pending resolution of the above issues. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, after a far too long a wait, I think all the issues are resolved and I can now pass this! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)