Talk:Sudanese revolution

Request

I want to request changing the name of the page to " December 19 revolution". since the previous government is overthrown.

I want to hyperlink this reference for the update on April 8 by the sudanese professional association that calls for formation....etc here is the source :

https://www.sudaneseprofessionals.org/en/dfc-press-release-april-8-2019/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Saleh (talk • contribs) 23:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I've uploaded some photos for the slogans " fall that is all" and I've added them to this link:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/M.Saleh&ilshowall=1 may you please consider adding them to the body of the article. thanks!

Just a comment to consider the above request to change the name to December 19 revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Saleh (talk • contribs) 16:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that WP:GOOGLEHITS are only a rough indicator and should not override other arguments, I get:

• 624,000 entries for "Sudanese Revolution" 2019
• 337 for "19 December Revolution" 2019
• 244 for "December 19 Revolution" 2019

which gives "Sudanese Revolution" to be about 2000 times as popular as the day-month alternatives. (I included 2019 to reduce wrong matches; if you put 2018 instead, the numbers are even smaller.) So both "19 December" (international style) and "December 19" (US style) names seem to be much rarer than "Sudanese Revolution". If in the future you find stronger evidence for changing the name to either of the day-month or month-day alternatives, then you should open a Requested Move at the bottom of the talk page here and present your arguments and evidence. Boud (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Page name

Should this be moved to Protests in Sudan (2018) for parity with Protests in Sudan (2011-2013)? I don't know what the MOS state of the art in titling is, maybe it's the latter that should be Sudanese protests (2011-2013). I'll try to figure out where to ask. Good to see someone found time to create this page. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I actually think the latter should be renamed 2011–2013 Sudanese protests for consistency with other protest articles. Charles Essie (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Why not called sudanese revolution? المؤرخ الناشر (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Request

For those who have the authority of an editor, please change the name of the article from 2018–2019 Sudanese protests to Sudanese protests (2018–19); because the mentioned date should come after the name. Mr. James Dimsey (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, anybody can move an article. I renamed it that way because that seems to be the trend among a number of pages I saw at ITN. My question would be "Why does it matter if the date is before or after?" SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Removal of content + reference (flag)

In this edit, content sourced to a new magazine was removed. Does anyone have any further information about the use of the older flag? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Removal of circular reference

I'm deleting this just on formal grounds, because en.wp is not a reliable source. Have added both pages to the "see also" section if anyone wants to dig into history.

This slogan is also popular and reflect the Sudanese dream for freedom, peaceful co-existence and to address all the injustices committed through the 30 years by the Muslim brotherhood regime in Sudan.

References

SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Disagreement over lede

The lede (from 29 Jan-7 Mar) was deleted along with the references it contained on 7 March. Could you explain why you view the second lede as preferable, @Mr. James Dimsey:? I prefer the first version, because it summarizes a lot more information, and includes information about the important events on 22 February. It is also a bit more solid grammatically and stylistically (though the second could be rewritten, if there is reason to.) On 19 March, I reverted your changes to the lede for these reasons. Let's see what we can find via consensus. Thanks. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Lede from 29 January - 7 March, updated on 19 March
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sudanese protests (2018–19) began in Sudan on 19 December 2018 when the National Congress Party headquarters in Atbara was burned down. Fuel and bread costs, high inflation, and a shortage of cash in the economy had contributed to public discontent and to calls for President Omar al-Bashir to step down. The protesters were met with tear gas and live ammunition, causing dozens of deaths and injuries and prompting international criticism. "Just fall – that is all" (تسقط – بس) is one of the most famous slogans from the Sudanese protests. On 22 February, al-Bashir declared a state of emergency and dissolved the national and regional governments. References

new proposal
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sudanese protests (2018–19), also known as Sudanese uprising are a series of demonstrations that broke out on 19 December, 2018 in some cities in Sudan, due to high and expensive prices of living and deterioration of economic conditions at all levels, but it turned quickly from demands of urgent economic reforms into a political demand for a change in power. These peaceful gatherings witnessed a violent reaction by the security authorities, due to the condemnation of hard policies of the government. Frequency of protests escalated to a large parts of states against Omar al-Bashir regime, but they were always severely repressed. References

I see that through the first and second edits there are some important points and fundamental differences in the content of the paragraphs regarding the shortage of topics in a good way, such as burning the headquarters of the ruling National Congress Party and demanding Omar al-Bashir to leave these can be considered as a political demands. The high prices of fuel and bread and high rates of inflation. In the other paragraph regarding the slogan of Tasgut bas , has a full section of the article was devoted to the aspects of this topic in detail. The agreement on one edit highlights the importance of the information in a meaningful sense benefiting the reader and the article, but the accumulation of information in various terms. The previous edit does not help at all and thank you for opening this debate on this issue and I hope everyone will participate in a constructive dialogue. Mr. James Dimsey (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. How about a new question... Do you think the 8 March 2019 announcement of the release of all the women held in prison for protesting against the government is lede-worthy? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Authoritarian vs Totalitarian

I see that authoritarianism as one of the causes of the protests in the infobox was replaced with totalitarianism, citing an opinion article. I was wondering if the opinion article was sufficient enough to make that change. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 01:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I reverted this change asking for a source. A source was provided. I figured consensus would develop one way or another later. I think a better source is needed but chose not to revert. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Alaa Salah by Lana H. Haroun.jpg

File:Alaa Salah by Lana H. Haroun.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sandstein:: this is your screenshot. Do you have thoughts on this? Have you tried contacting the original author? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: I used a FU rationale only for the article Alaa Salah because it has a clear fair use possibility there. I have no opinion as to its possible use elsewhere. I have not contacted the author. Sandstein 07:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

30 June 2019

Twitter feeds indicate a lot of RSF violence against protestors, but almost nothing seems to have got to mainstream online newspapers. Boud (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Sudanese protestors greeting sudanese army (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Resistance Committees

I've been hearing a lot about "Resistance Committees" in Sudan's revolution. I think they should be discussed here or perhaps given their own article. Charles Essie (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Excellent point - the sources agree. Boud (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 22 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Sudanese Revolution per concensus below. (closed by non-admin page mover) PC78 (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

---

2018–19 Sudanese protests → Sudanese revolution – The protests starting in December 2018 and the unfinished political transition associated with them are widely referred to, now even by the new Prime Minister of Sudan, as "the revolution" or outside of Sudan as "the Sudanese revolution". Disagreement exists as to whether the Sovereignty Council and associated institutions are part of the revolution (the SRF says no) or part of it (Hamdok and Achcar say yes). So it's unclear to me whether a separate overview article should be created as Sudanese revolution, or whether this article - 2018–19 Sudanese protests - should be retitled as Sudanese revolution. The problem with creating an overview article is that a long-term point of view won't be available until, maybe 2023 or so. Under WP:COMMONNAME, I think that "the protests" would widely be accepted as a euphemism for the Sudanese revolution, since a lot more has happened (organising, coordination among coalitions of alliances of groups and networks in Sudan, a military coup, a major massacre, a major political transition of power) than just protests. So I'm proposing that 2018–19 Sudanese protests be retitled as Sudanese revolution. Boud (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Support Sudanese Revolution. As the nominator, my arguments are above. Maybe the reason there's no debate here is WP:SNOW - nobody sees any point commenting because the move is overwhelmingly supported by the sources and uncontroversial? In any case, it's not for me to close the debate... Boud (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC) (updated: see next point, by Charles Essie) Boud (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Although I would prefer Sudanese Revolution. Charles Essie (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • You're clearly right in terms of Wikipedia style. This issue may be too specific to be on an MOS page, but List of revolutions and rebellions has almost all with capitalised "Revolution", with a few exceptions in the text of that page (because the context refers to "a revolution" rather than "The Revolution") which point to articles which have Revolution capitalised. I edited my support comment to clarify that I agree with you. Sudanese revolution should of course be an uncontroversial redirect. Boud (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support: I agree with Boud's points; as result of the impact of the protests, and the use of "revolution" in reliable sources while referring to the events in Sudan, "Sudanese Revolution" is more fitting. Applodion (talk) 09:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 5 April 2020

The page must be changed to its old name 2018–19 Sudanese protests because it is not logical to judge it as a "revolution" but rather as protests, which is not in the form of the French Revolution which it has evolved from demands and reforms to armed conflict. Even if it is characterized by a military nature after that in the face of peaceful protesters; despite all this the situation did not explode to the extent of reaching a deadly or violent conflict leading to chaos and complete absence of the state and security. This clarifies the indication that the meaning is in the term of the word and what is intended of it, not in its form without realizing its meaning and general purpose. So I hope discussing this thing once again; so that everyone can make a decisive decision regarding the issue of naming the page in a deep and extensively way, deciding on this problem and finding the most appropriate way to solve it and Thank you. Mr. James Dimsey (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

–It is clear that there is a deliberate disregard for my request to change the name of the article as I explained the reasons for this in advance. I repeat it and repeat it again, that this issue should be discussed as soon as possible. Mr. James Dimsey (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Mr. James Dimsey: - James - you wrote: "It is clear that there is a deliberate disregard for my request" - please read WP:AGF. Most Wikipedians are used to making comments that are left without responses. We are all busy - and volunteers here. You could go to the Wikipedia:Teahouse or use {{re}} if you want help in learning about Wikipedia communication methods.

As for your rename proposal: I think that @Charles Essie, Applodion, and Number 57: would probably have some thoughts on this, but my feeling is that the overwhelming majority of sources call this the Sudanese Revolution. You seem to argue that "revolution" has the connotation of an armed uprising, and the events that happened were very much a civil disobedience uprising, so "revolution" is factually wrong. But the word revolution is used more widely than for the restricted meaning of successful armed uprisings; it typically also means major sociopolitical change. More importantly for Wikipedia, what counts for an article title are what terms sources typically use to describe the topic of the article. If most sources say "X" but Wikipedians think that "X" misleading, sometimes we have to accept to give the title "X" because it's so widely used - even though many or most participants in the discussion would prefer not to. See WP:TITLE to understand why we sometimes make decisions that we don't like. You could make a formal move request if you wished to, but my guess is that there would be little support for your reasons. (By the way, congratulations on your initiative in creating the article on 30 Dec 2018!) Boud (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Strongly oppose per Boud. Charles Essie (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Boud: Thank you for responding to my request and answering it regarding the first point, leaving me in response to the approved ignorance of my request. I did not mean to show my anger and indignation because I know that many users are busy and involved in editing; and do not have enough time to respond to my request. I intend to put my response with the request because it is necessary to discuss this issue despite its discussion previously, but now the reconsidering of naming the page is supported by logical reasons and justifications refering to the main topic of discussion regarding the page. The meaning of the word "revolution" should not be used on peaceful gatherings and protests, unless the path of peaceful expression deviates into strikes and armed confrontation as in Syria.

Or if the institutions of state collapse and the situation slips into an aggravating crisis and there is no smooth transfer of power, taking into account the non-existence of the state in an ongoing conflict as in Libya. These things are different as for Sudan although they started as an uprising and then to massive demonstrations that ended with the overthrow of Al-Bashir, until the methods of harassment and intimidation with weapons repression and subsequent arrest was used by the army; but the demonstrators did not respond to the armed confrontation and kept their peaceful nature as you said by civil disobedience and strike.

Until the power sharing agreement was reached between the army and civilians, through difficult and complex stages yet it did not turn into a crisis as I showed that. The form and nature of things should not be judged from a narrow and limited perspective, such as Iraq although it suffers from violence and fighting but the demonstrations in it; especially the demonstrators were peaceful despite being confronted by the security forces and militias with excessive violence. The peace remained the most important objectives of the demonstrations as well as with Algeria, but here the concept of violence and armed confrontation is completely different.

From that we can call the article as protests and add them side by side in the name of the revolution, but in the paragraphs, but not as the main name of the page. (and thank you for congratulating me for creating the article, it is good that it came late better than not to come joking with you only. I am grateful for your answer to my proposal; I hope you are fine and okay I wish you to have a happy and good time in Wikipedia, bye) Mr. James Dimsey (talk) 11:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: The sources call it a revolution, and we have to follow their lead. I also do not really understand your point: revolutions in which the opposition does (mostly) refrain from using violent means are 100% possible, see for example the Velvet Revolution. In addition, I think that it has to be taken into account that Bashir's government was destabilized since a long time by the dozens of violent rebellions in Sudan; true, the protestors were not affiliated with the rebels, and some insurgents have openly opposed the new government (as expected; many rebel groups are not democratic). However, the background of this process of change was inherently violent, despite the protestors' admirably commitment to peace. Applodion (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Support: Not all sources mention the term "revolution", but they say the protests are as they were in their initial beginning and I have an average solution to this problem is to mention the two names in the paragraph and that the main name of the page is "protest" as the 2019–20 Iraqi protests article but the term "revolution" is in the paragraph. Mr. James Dimsey (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: This is just to clarify that the arguments of standard Wikipedia policy are overwhelmingly against the proposal to change the title of this article: this event is most widely referred to as the Sudanese Revolution. Regarding the question of the role of violent struggle versus civil disobedience techniques, as Applodion says, and as we have attributed to external sources in the second paragraph of the Terminology section, an alliance of armed rebel groups argues that their armed rebellion since 2003 is the "start" of this sociological event, so the factor of violence is claimed to be relevant by one major group of groups according to a reliable source. But that's independent of the wide agreement on calling this a revolution - by rebels, by non-violent civil-disobedience groups, by the civilian components of the Sovereignty Council and the government (PM + ministers), and by the military components of the Sovereignty Council, and by the media. Boud (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

This case seems to be difficult and can't be resolved, but in order this issue to be more compatible than to be arguable and more congestion. I propose a solution based on keeping the page name as it is although I opposed and rejected this principle, but after the justifiations and clarifications that I had found I've seen logic not to change name and find an alternative way on a solution accepted by all; that takes into account a suitable criterion for the title which is to be in the name of the 2018–19 Sudanese revolution. Because in the future I will create a separate article for the revolutions of 1964 and 1985, with the same name but with the addition of the year so that it is easy to distinguish between them; and not to mix between each other in my opinion this is the best possible solution. Mr. James Dimsey (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Earlier (1964, 1985) Sudanese revolutions

@Mr. James Dimsey:: Right now there is

• Sudanese Revolution (disambiguation), which points to this article, and to
  • October 1964 Revolution
  • 1985 Sudanese Revolution

which are both redirects to sections of existing pages (these were the most relevant pages/sections I could find). If you put enough material in for a reasonable basis for new articles, then you are welcome to start off full articles, reusing the existing material under CC-BY-SA if some of it makes sense to use directly (you should use the {{copied}} template on the talk page if you create one or both of these re-using existing material). I don't have any strong opinion on what the names of the articles should be (if different from the present redirect names). You and @Charles Essie and Applodion: might wish to make proposals, and chances are there will be consensus even before you start work on the pages. The most important thing will be to find some good sources as a guide both for the content and for what the common names are. I think that only after one or both of these early pages look like they are viable (so far nobody has been willing to put in the effort to work on them), with plenty of sources to show what the common names are, it would make sense to see if others feel that 2018–20 or 2018–19 should be added to the name of this article. Boud (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Article issue

After reading the article of Late-2019 Sudanese protests, I found that there are commonalities between it and the article of the Sudanese Revolution, and it does not differ from it in anything, but it talks about subsequent events after the revolution, so it is preferable to merge it in the article of the Sudanese Revolution and to have a space for it there. Mr. James Dimsey (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 3 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Sudanese Revolution → Sudanese revolution – Per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, we should not capitalize “revolution” if it’s not a proper name, like the American Revolution. This Google ngram shows that “Revolution” may have higher results than “revolution”, but according to MOS:CAPS: only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. So, the title should be changed. 188.25.122.194 (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC) 188.25.122.194 (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom Parham wiki (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

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

I just want to note for the record that the reasoning here is clearly incorrect: the Ngram data is predominantly showing books published between 1950 and 2000, which means they aren't referring to this 2018–2019 event at all. That said, a quick Google News search suggests that the capitalization is indeed inconsistent, so we do seem to have reached the right outcome here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)