Jump to content

Talk:Arab Spring/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Saudi Arabia New Protests

New protests reported in Saudi Arabia including troop deployment. 123. Article needs an update. --Smart30 (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Then update it. - Dalta (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Has someone add this yet? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup of the summary table

I was bold. The summary table was becoming a massive pile of random news reports, the content of which more properly belongs in the summary sections below or in the individual pages for each country's protests. I cleaned up the "outcome" column to more properly reflect the overall outcome, and deleted the minor or OBE bullet items. The same thing needs to be done with the "Type(s) of Protests" column. ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No matter how much I try, I cannot get the table/TOC/map to look good! The white space won't go away no matter what I try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeLonewolf (talk • contribs) 04:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Still, excellent job cutting it down and making it finally readable and manageable. Thanks. I wish it was done sooner! Jmj713 (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Found a decent solution for now, the TOChidden template.ZeLonewolf (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Question: Is there a way to collapse a specific section of the TOC (namely the 'Countries' section) and let the user open it if they want to jump to a specific subsection? I'm guessing no, but felt the question was worth asking. DerekMBarnes (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I personally, disagree with the term clean up to describe what was done to the summary table. I would say it was more of a condensation and deletion. Yes it is shorter and easier to read but the valuable and factual information has been deleted and been opinionated by deciding what the outcomes were. If we all agreed that what was done was not a "clean up" but a deletion of lots of information , factual information, and replaced with an individual opinion about what the outcomes were in that persons point of view, then it just doesn't make sense for the following reason...

If the goal is to shorten the article, then the last part that should be cut is the summary. Cut the rest of the article and keep the informative summary. I used to reference to that table regularly, and now it isn't even factual, it is based on what one person just decided should be the outcomes. It just doesn't make sense that the outcomes of Egypt are the same size as other countries. Please reference all the complaints about the summary table having bad information and that the information should be deleted. I want to see these complaints before I would even consider that that huge deletion be justified.

I want to agree that the table can be condensed using simplified language and shorter sentence structure, but I do not agree that the fundamental factual information be deleted and replaced with a seemingly random selection of outcomes, that don't directly relate to what happened including that much more happened in Egypt than anywhere else. No one, especially me is going to read the entre article to get that straight forward information, but everyone reads the summary table. I read it possibly 60 times during this episode, and I could see it grow and be updated and I could tell that it was a collaborative effort of many people. Now it's not even worth reading, has very little substantive factual information, and is obviously not collaborative and written by one person. I do not agree that the information as it used to be presented before the deletion, is available in that form by reading the rest of the article, and more importantly no one is going to. I still thank you for your work, I am simply disagreeing with the fundamental change of the factual information that used to be available in the summary table which is now gone.

The only other compromise I can think of is o have a separate article with the full table that clearly and fully explains what occurred in each country and compares them together using factual references and list all the major outcomes, not just the outcomes that someone thinks are important, but all the outcomes. But that just seems ridiculous. Why don't we just agree to add back additional outcomes in short language. I think there are probably 7-12 outcomes that should be added back in to various con tries including 2-3 for Egypt. 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xacobi (talk • contribs) 04:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC) xacobi**
I don't think a separate asrticle is needed with the old table, If you think important info is left out, feel free to insert it back. I would just ask you to keep the language simple and brief. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 10:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the table should be a summary, and that's why I condensed it... to summarize the situation in each country, namely, the type of unrest that occurred, and the overall outcome. Anything more in-depth really belongs in the text of the article or in the various articles that apply to each country. I find that listing any more than about 2-3 outcomes for each country tends to make the table unwieldy fast, and is unnecessary for gaining an understanding of overall outcome. ZeLonewolf (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Well that sounds like the crux of the disagreement. Is this a table of Outcomes, or the overall outcome. It makes sense that each country would have one or two overall outcomes, but it doesn't make sense that Bahrain has three outcomes and egypt just two. So what do we want specific factual outcomes for each country, or a generalization of the overall outcome of each country. I would say we should have specific outcomes, and that egypt should have about 5-6 and Bahrain would have 2-3. Again I would agree with you that the table is perfect as is for the overall outcomes, but overall outcomes just don't interest me, and for me aren't very factually based because depending on the point of view, the overall outcome is different. So with that said, if everyone else wants generalized overall outcomes then thats fine, but I vote for simple specific factual outcomes with the date, no more than 4 or five per country, and countries that had more outcomes should simply have more bullet points than countries that have fewer, not all with the same number of bullet points. If we all agree to vote for Generalized overall outcomes, I wil go with the majority, but then we need to change the column heading to say General Overall Outcome, not Outcomes. I've never actually changed an article before, so if we agree on my suggestion, I can try to learn how to change a table, but we will see, I would need a link to the original version of the table, as I don't even know how to be able to access the old version. If you think about it, you could easily condense each country to a single overall outcome, for example instead of two bullet points for egypt, one that states mubark steps down, and one that says the army takes over, you just have one bullet point that says that Mubarak stepped down and the Army took over. Once we are not talking about specific factual events, there is no need to separate them, they are the same general overall outcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xacobi (talk • contribs) 19:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Reviewed the summary table, before and after the trimming. I could find only 3 things that weren't in the new table, yet maybe should have been (Egypt - „Suspention of Constitution and dissolution of Parliament” + „Resignation of PM Shafiq”, Libya - „Formation of National Transitional Council”). These I added to the table. Everything else was outdated info. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, just that little bit I feel has helped a lot. Thanks for doing that, I have no idea how to access the previous table. As long as we keep the summary table, and bullet points are added as needed Im happy. If I was able to do it myself, I personally would have added the month and day like before, I think that added quality, but at least the information is there :) Egypt actually looks like a lot has happend now, which reflects the reality of the situation. Thanks again Xacobi (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a need for a summary table? Isn't that the point of the 'Overview' section at the start and each country's individual section? - Dalta (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, there are no bullet points. It just goes straight into Text. If you think all bullet points should be deleted feel free to suggest it, but I adamantly disagree, the bullet points are my favorite part. I really don't understand your guys rational for this. Why don't we just go all the way and cut the entire article? I mean whats the point to have a summary, why don't we just have each of the individual countries articles and thats it. Who needs a summary article about the relationship and comparison of the different countries involved???

To me, and this is my opinion, It seems like the whole point of this article is the summary! I would argue that we should cut ALL of the separate countries overviews and just have links under "See Also" to the individual country protests. It just doesn't make sense to continually be cutting the summary and pushing people into the individual countries, because that is the Entire point of this article is to look at the connections between the different countries involved, not to sperate out all the different countries. Xacobi (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xacobi (talk • contribs) 19:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason why I don't rely on wikipedia for anything

I have been following this page since the protests erupted in Tunisia, including changes, maps discussions etc... And what I found very interesting was the change of the title from Arab world protests to MENA. protests. MENA is simply the Arab world + Iran and Israel. And while Iran has been super-covered here, editors still refuse to acknowledge the following points:

  • There has been protests in Israel directly related to the protest wave in the region. They were even called 'Day of Rage'. It happened in Haifa, Tel Aviv amongst others.
  • The Editors still deny the mere existence of Gaza strip. And I am not even talking about the minor protests that happened there. Editors decided to just drop that territory from the map as if the 1.5 million people living there were trivial, while insisting on the moronic "sovereignty dispute" that has absolutely nothing to do with the protests.
  • Lebanon is still not coloured although it have seen protests demanding the end of the sectarian system in the country, and which was a direct influence of the Arab world protests.

So I ask you, kind knowledgeable editors of wikipedia, when you changed the title of the page, why didn't you add a disclaimer saying: "We wanted to cover Iran extensively but didn't know how?" 69.31.50.12 (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Simple question, why don't you sign up and do it? you can color Lebanon aswell.
About Israel, I am an Israeli and it simply not related, just bcuz they use the name "Day of rage" it doesn't mean anything, for the last 10 years I see protests in Israel about the goverment about housing, gas, fuel and income, this time its come from the Israeli settlement residents, they were b4 and will do after, unlike the rest of countries, Israeli protests doesn't come for "ending a regim".
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
In regards to:
  • Israel - I will side with HonorTheKing on this one and say the Israeli protests are not related, as the protesters are not calling for immediate regime change.
  • Gaza - As I have stated elsewhere, West Bank and Gaza are both considered Palestinian territories and ought to be titled as such in the map as it is done in the article, especially since Gaza is so small in size.
  • Sovereignty dispute - Although the Sahrawi protests are part of this dispute and can be traced to the events in Tunisia, the dispute itself is not a direct result of the regional protests and existed well beforehand. I think it safe to eliminate the category (which is confusing to the red-green colorblind anyway) and simply classify Western Sahara as "minor."
  • Lebanon - if Lebanon is to be included in the map, there needs to be written information on the events unfolding there. The article has no such information at this time; once it is included, we can justifiably recolor Lebanon.
This is where I stand on these matters. DerekMBarnes (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that Wikipedia can not be relied on to be 100% accurate, especially with a recent and fast-moving subject such as this, but it is certainly able to give a flavour of what is happening, and pointers to further, detailed research should viewers want to dig deeper.
According to the World bank, The MENA Region includes: Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, West Bank and Gaza, & Yemen. If you have verifiable sources for recent protests along the lines of those already mentioned, in any of the countries not yet fully covered by this article, then please feel free to add them. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia = The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Sign up and add whatever you want as long as it's properly referenced. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Against - 1. Israel's "protests" are completely unrelated, so stop trying to link them. 2. Gaza is part of Israel, its "government" [Hamas] is not recognized internationally, and not even by Fitah itself. 3. Lebanon's protests are also unrelated. Why does the whole map need to be colored?--Smart30 (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I dont agree with you here smart. 1) Sahrawi is not recognized internationally but we still have it 2)Lebanon is related. Please read: Lebanese protest against sectarian political system. the second paragraph reads: Emulating protests that have spread across the Arab world in recent weeks. and as far as Israel go, I really dont know enough in make an informed decision. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, the difference here is that the Southern Provinces (Polisario Front calls it 'Western Sahara') saw protests in both the disputed region under the control of the PF/SADR and protests in Moroccan-controlled territory. So it has to be included irrespective of the political status of the region. However - Gaza as a rogue state like Northern Cyprus is not included. If we include Gaza, we must include Northern Cyprus. --Smart30 (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I say we include them. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I say we include them, especially Lebanon. Israel is in the area. BTW, many of the protests were not about regime change at all.Ericl (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A Name

Has some overriding common name emerged to describe these events? Something akin to The Fall of Communism or Dropping of an Iron Curtain? 97.85.163.245 (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Closest thing we've got is "Jasmine Revolution," and that only caught on in Yemen. Titles, I've noticed, tend to emerge well after the beginning of the event in question, and we're less than two months into this one (counting only the chain reaction and not the event that started it), with no end currently in sight. The common name will come in time, but for now the current title serves its purpose. DerekMBarnes (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


Arab Spring. Macarion (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I have yet to see or hear that name used anywhere other than Wikipedia. Is there a source for this? DerekMBarnes (talk) 12:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. BBC, The Guardian, The Nation, CNN, Reuters, Big Peace, Forbes, The Economist, Real Clear Politics, New York Post, Global Research, Financial Times, Huffington Post, Yahoo News, Der Spiegel, The Daily Star, Daily Kos, Hindustan Times, European Voice, Council on Foreign Relations, and Institute for War and Peace Reporting. Macarion (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Now in that context, here's why I still take issue with the name:
  • Most of these links are opinion pieces, rather than genuine news articles, that do not quote anyone using the name.
  • The only genuine article to quote someone as calling it an 'Arab Spring' is the Der Spiegel link, quoting ElBaradei in a Feb 6 interview. BBC's op-ed piece uses the term four days prior, and it has apparently not been quoted since.
  • All the links provided are from Western media. I have been watching Middle Eastern news broadcasts every weekday since mid-January to present, and have not heard this expression used once.
These factors combined lead me to believe the term was accidentally coined by Roger Hardy in his BBC piece (note it only shows up in the title, un-capitalized), and upon his publication other Western editorialists read the title and ran with it. This in itself is not grounds for dismissal, but given that it hasn't caught on in the Arab world, I consider it no more appropriate than "Jasmine Revolution." DerekMBarnes (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Somalian protests

Why do we need this article? I am asking for an outside the article scope opinion here, should I place this up for a speedy deletion as the main body of the article just copies what is already on the main page here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That section of this article is likely to be deleted soon, as it's not really part of this movement. 138.162.0.44 (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


Report: Gaddafi agrees to leave power if his safety is guaranteed

Link Macarion (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you started a section for this, unless I'm missing something. The possibility Libya could go blue on the map soon? — Moe ε 22:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Other Map Issues

Making this topic to aggregate the various discussion topics which are exclusively focused on changes to the map. ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Green map coloration

Green color should instead be: "Unaffected" , or take it out all together, also Western sahara is green?? Why? There are protests there, should be marked as minor as it was before!

Let's remove the green coloration. This is an article about protests, not about the MENA region in general. ZeLonewolf (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Against - The main reason for the green color was initially this was just protests in Tunisia-Algeria, and spread to Egypt and Yemen, and now to all MENA countries except Qatar and UAE. It is now needed to distinguish Qatar and UAE from the other countries. --Smart30 (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Against - What? We are covering the MENA protests, and Qatar and the UAE need to be distinguished. 99.37.158.123 (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The current map includes countries such as Somalia, Djibouti, and Mauritania which are neither in the Middle East NOR are they in North Africa. By using the "other MENA" category, it implies that those 3 countries are part of the MENA region and they are not. I realize where they came from, but as it currently stands, the green category on the map doesn't make much sense to me. Middle East includes Turkey and Cyprus, but neither are colored green. If we must designate the region, let's draw a boundary shape in a dashed line around the MENA region. ZeLonewolf (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Support The protests have clearly gone beyond any geographical or cultural area, so should we just have a map of the protest countries themselves instead of trying to fit them into a pre-defined region or entity. - Dalta (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Depends If we change anything we would also need to change the title of the article. What would it be called after this ... World protests? I think its fine right now, but if it changes we would have to change the title as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.215.158.151 (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I was bold

I have taken decisive action to end the constant bickering over the colour Libya is on the map. Along the way, I found that I somehow did not have a Wikimedia account, and so despite being a Wikipedian for a few years, could not upload the new map under the same name! Quantum Burrito (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think black should be for revolution and dark red for uprising.Makes more sense to me and technically all the countries with protest are uprisings.--Gunshot123 (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Gunshot123 (talk)
I have a problem with calling this an uprising(which it is). Looking at the wikipedia defition of uprising it stated it was a synonm of rebellion which is itself a synonm of revolution. Why not call it a revolution and save having to add another colour? --Wilson (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The situation in Libya is too distinct from that in Tunisia and Egypt. Gaddafi is still in power in parts of the country, and there appears to be no countrywide new government, as there is in Tunisia and Egypt. Ucucha 04:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, Uchucha is right. The situation is different entirely.--Smart30 (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Change country's color

If changes arise (i.e. Minor->Major protest, Unrest->Revolution, etc) maybe we should request map changes here:

Example 1: Oman has seen a cabinet reshuffle. Shouldn't it's color be changed to „Governmental changes”'s colour (brown at the moment)? - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

When changes arise, please update the summary. The image will be [eventually] updated to reflect this. gringer (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm having a bit of trouble determining how significant something is for it to be considered governmental changes for the map. It has been established that law changes (e.g. state of emergency) is not sufficient, and some government reshuffles aren't sufficient (because the overall ruler is still in control). Can someone else clarify this? gringer (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The operative threshold seems to be the replacement of the prime minister (hence only Jordan at this point), but nobody's stated this outright. I don't really agree with this standard either; in countries with relatively weak prime ministers, this isn't necessarily a particularly significant or even uncommon concession. Laplacedemon (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Zoom for Bahrain

The Bahrain protests surely count as major. We had a zoom (circle on standard scale + zoom on expanded scale) earlier on. IMHO this remains necessary. Boud (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - we need a zoom, it's not even visible right now.--Smart30 (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree 140.247.244.194 (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Strong Agree it's barely visible! ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree - please add this highlight, and please then extend the link to the extra area, it's almost impossible to click on. AlwaysUnite (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Strongly Agree - It's one of the main countries witnessing protests - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Strongly Agree It needs to be much more visible. Someone who knows what they're doing should just do it already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynex811 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"Governmental changes"

It seems as though the governments of many countries have changed significantly, or at least on the level of Jordan's. I think some countries should be upgraded to the "governmental changes" category, or else this category should be eliminated. Macarion (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I heard on Al Jazeera that several governers of regions in Iraq have stepped down, should that be included as 'government changes'? should it be mentioned on the map? - Dalta (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm beginning to agree with Macarion. Recent news shows that Jordan has not been placated by government changes in the country to date and that protests are still under way. My impression of this category was that protests and violence had more or less ceased (or at the very least were in decline), and the changes in question were the after-effects. This is not the case in Jordan nor in any other country with significant governmental change from these protests. DerekMBarnes (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. I think this category should be eliminated. Maybe a separate map can be created for "degree of government changes." Macarion (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Labels

Why are the countries not labelled? I don't have the names of the countries in that area memorized. I'm sure others do not as well. 75.22.20.1 (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That isn't typically done on Wikipedia. The image of each country links to its own article. And you should know these countries, anyway. Macarion (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
That's like saying 'you should already know about the MENA unrest, so we're not going to have an article on it'. - Dalta (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
No, it isn't. The image of each country on the map links to its own article, so if you don't know which country is which, you can easily figure it out. Macarion (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Libyan Revolution

In the sense that the masses in Libya have paid the greatest price in terms of blood, and the fact that there is virtually no chance of the Qaddafi regime surviving, seems to me Libya ought to be same color as Egypt and Tunisia. Can also understand the logic that only when the existing government capitulates is the uprising at the end of the beginning of a Revolution. Black is a good color choice too for the situation in which the state power is overthrown and a clean slate has been created by mass action. The distinction between an uprising and a revolution seems to be that the uprising might be put down and the existing state power returned to full or at least partial control. In the case of Libya this clearly isn't a possible outcome. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The Libyan government has not been fully deposed, so it doesn't qualify as a revolution for our purposes. Macarion (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The map

Some countries are too small on the map to be seen easily — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Last Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 00:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed- someone should enlarge Bahrein, maybe Palestinian Teritorries as well. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Map with zoom

I created a version of the map that adds a zoom. Not the greatest, but it's the best I could do with my limited graphics editing ability. I added zooms for Israel/Palestine/Lebanon as well as Bahrain/Qatar. Feel free to use/edit etc.

ZeLonewolf (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

very nice, just need to make it less bigger and to still show Cyprus.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Nice, but you could crop out the lower 1/5 of the image. It includes only african grey states - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The cropping is done via a template... I'm not quite sure how it all works. I'm hoping someone with better skills can take this from here. 96.238.21.51 (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Could you add Malta? although not directly part of the Protests, it is the central location for nearly all people fleeing Libya past and present. It is an integral nation in this Revolutionary Wave. You don't have to put a zoom necessarily - just a circle. As was previously mentioned, the Leb-Israel zoom gets rid of Cyprus.--Smart30 (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Does this map include Gaza? I'm not sure, but I see a speck or something near where the Gaza Strip should be... 65.95.15.144 (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
As the West Bank and Gaza Strip are both considered Palestinian territories, and given the size of Gaza on any map we produce, I think it appropriate to put them together in the map as "Palestinian territories." This is how they are already listed in the article under the section "Preemptive actions." DerekMBarnes (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't mean that Gaza Strip should not be graphically present on the map. Many islands that are part of other countries with larger portions are on the map, so Gaza should be there too. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
It is there, but you can only see the larger lower portion. It may be in order to exaggerate its size in the inset as has been done with Bahrain in the main map. DerekMBarnes (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I took a stab at changing the insets to squares...seems to work alot better. Thoughts? ZeLonewolf (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, looks great. Macarion (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Excelent. Good work! PS. Could we make the expanded areas clickable too? - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how :( ZeLonewolf (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
No worries, they look better unclickable anyways.--Smart30 (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Mauritania and Senegal

Note: Bringing this back from the archives since it had support but no action taken yet. ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Mauritania is on the map but Senegal is not. Both countries[1] [2] have had a single instance of self-immolation (which in my opinion, does not alone rise to the level of even a minor protest). I think we should either have both countries on the map, or neither. Since we are including a few Horn of Africa countries such as Somalia and Djibouti, it's OK to also have some borderline west Africa as well in terms of geography. My vote is to remove Mauritania unless a legitimate protest (at least a few hundred people?) occurs. ZeLonewolf (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

For - I agree it is problematic to include Mauritania as it does not meet our criteria for inclusion. It is not a part of North Africa, and it is not a Middle-eastern country, it's not on MENA. --Smart30 (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Mauritania is probably included because it's an Arab League member, like Djibouti and Somalia but unlike Senegal. Ucucha 14:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Right - but unlike Djibouti, Mauritania is not a part of MENA. Somalia's addition was indeed as a result of being arab-league, however that country is too volatile not to have it on the page.--Smart30 (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

For - Let's set the focus of the article on MENA (as title suggests). There is plenty of room in the "related protests" section. If protests spread the title should change to include all Africa, for instance. --Elllit (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

its arab-speaking hecnce more than notabel. it should be added here for mauriatania. Senegal is better suited to the "related" section(Lihaas (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)).
Again there is no specific countries that are part of MENA, view my comments above. We need a firm guidline as to what can be put in the map and article, and what cannot. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
You are totally right! I withdraw my former vote. --Elllit (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Even with the geography aside, again, a single act of self-immolation doesn't rise to the level of even minor protest. ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I would propose that self-immolations be represented on the map with an icon, perhaps a small flame, to separate them from mass protests. Then we can still note Mauritania's self-immolation but not color it in. ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Gaza Strip

Gaza Strip is absent on the map and should be included - there have been "minor protests" against Mubarak in Egypt and Gaddafi in Libya, so Gaza Strip should be yellow. Can someone please add Gaza Strip to the map?. Thanks. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It's actually there, just really tiny. And it's colored in yellow anyhow. Look closely in the inset. -ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Oman

Should Oman go blue for government change? Apparently the Sultan is shaking things up: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110305/wl_nm/us_oman_ministers Czolgolz (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Support: Qaboos's response certainly stands out in a region in which the go-to response to demonstrations has been banning protests, shooting tear gas at crowds, and insisting protests are instigated by either the US government, the Israeli government, or al Qaeda. I think it merits the change now that several ministers have been sacked and replaced with figures more sympathetic to the opposition. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - I have been opposed to changing countries on the basis of removing a minister or two to "government changes" - but Oman's changes are significant enough to warrant such a move. I strongly support Oman's color changing.--Smart30 (talk) 09:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Support as per above - Dalta (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - a lot of ministers have been fired. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment - why has this not been done? There is ample support for the motion.--Smart30 (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment - I would do it but I don't have the know-how to edit SVG files. Image file for someone who knows how to manipulate SVG. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment - After reading the various articles on Oman, I have to agree that yes, this probably does rise to the level of a government change, due to the large number of ministers being change. And, I do know how to edit the SVG. ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Made the change -ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you--Smart30 (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Turkey

Two different protests in Turkey. Alevis rally for equal rights in Izmir and Journalists' detention sparks twin protests in Turkey

Turkey, should, therefore be added to the map. --Smart30 (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, it should only be included if mainstream sources are reporting the protests as part of this Tunisia/Egypt-inspired wave of unrest. As an example, CNN does not include Turkey in it's "country by country" coverage. The mere fact that there is a protest in this region (which has A LOT of protesting normally) does not in and of itself qualify it as part of this wave of unrest. 138.162.0.44 (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Disagree, Alevi protests started before Tunisian revolt [3] (in October 2010). For alleged Ergenekon "terrorist organization" related journalists case, this is a very usual protest, if something like Republic Protests were taking place, I'd say YES. Lastly, Öcalan called for protests like Egypt for Kurdish rights, if these protests start, then we could say these protests are inspired by Egyptian Revolution. But, there's no protest like these now. Kavas (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


Qatar section

The Qatar section in Preventive Actions should be removed. It doesn't detail any Preventive Actions, just plans for a protest on 16 March. Until protests happen, or the Qatari gov't actually does something preventive, I say we remove it. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Against - It should be mentioned somewhere in the article. And another user 2 days ago suggested it be moved to Preventive Actions, that is why it is there.--Smart30 (talk) 12:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
What should be mentioned? That some Qataris are planning a protest that might not materialise? Please see: WP:CRYSTAL. If the protest happens it will be added, but until then... - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree - Something actually happening and saying it might happen are two different things. At best this has a spot in the Impact of 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests article; if/when the protest actually occurs, we can put it here. DerekMBarnes (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
No need to add it to Impact of 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests. It's not an event, it's a Facebook Page and a planned protest that might or might not happen - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Support remove This is pure WP:CRYSTAL Qater should not be added here unless there is a source saying that the protests are sure to happen. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Intifada

The current situation in the region has been called an Intifada by Fawaz Gerges. [4] Worth a name change to the article? --Sherif9282 (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Against - that word (Intifada) is a highly offensive and controversial term. No reason to add it.--Smart30 (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Smart30, how on earth is it offensive? Intifada means an uprising, which seems to be the case in much of the region. Several events have been called Intifadas, not just the Palestinian ones. --Sherif9282 (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment - it has an obvious tie to the First Intifada and Second Intifada, and that is the reason why it is highly offensive. Besides, we should only use English words (Revolution, Rebellion, etc). --Smart30 (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Against - It'a a somewhat loaded word. I prefer the more neutral revolution or rebelion. (Calling it offensive is a gross exageration though) - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright then, no name change. I've mentioned though an alternative name that has been running through various sources. --Sherif9282 (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Libya needs a new colour and category

"Government change" or "Major protest" no longer cuts it. It's not even an "uprising", but a "civil war". Black would be a good colour. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess ending this difficulty is a minor additional reason why I hope Libya goes burgundy really soon. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
There is no reason it should not be burgundy now. Perhaps change it to burgundy now and if it does become a civil war(which I don't think the government has the strength to do) change it again. I am against it being red though. There have been people defecting but no change to the government. Plus the previous 'governmental change nations' never got this violent. I vote it be changed to burgundy perhaps with a note in the legend that revolutions may be ongoing to distinguish it from Egypt and Tunisia. --Wilson (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree completely with Bobthefish2. Start a new category: Civil War, and colour: Black. --108.66.199.141 (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I think it should stay orange as long as Qaddafi is still in power. ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Against - There was no consensus to rename the article as a civil war so why should we call it one here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Strongly against - You are right to say that "civil war" must have his own color. But what's happening in Libya is an uprising, not a civil war. A civil war is a war between organized groups within the nation. They fight for territories or the state.--Agitateur (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


I would say that it is safe to call the Libyan situation a civil war now... if only technically... The transitional government has declared that it is the only legitimate gov't in the land. This to me means this is now a civil war, however long lasting. 96.50.10.234 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC).

Agreed , it's starting to look like a civil war. We have two governments, each with its own troops, and battles ragging all over the place - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
A Google search does reveal many sources are using "Libyan Civil War". ZeLonewolf (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Southern Sudan

Why is Southern Sudan listed as a sovreignity dispute on the image - there is no dispute, it is part of Sudan until July; when it will split - the border drawn isn't even the proper border! 90.212.223.102 (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Southern Sudan should simply be listed in yellow for minor protests, along with the rest of Sudan. There is no sovereignty dispute between the north and south. The issue was settled via referendum and the government in Khartoum has indicated that it respects the results of the referendum. Furthermore, the borders of Southern Sudan should at least be shown on the map correctly! Personally, I think the whole "sovereignty dispute" color category should be removed because it is unnecessary and confusing. The Western Sahara dispute has been going for years and is wholly unrelated to this series of protests. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree - No sovereignty dispute. It's internationally recognized as part of Sudan until July - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree - Definitely, in Southern Sudan there is no real sovereignty dispute. Also agree about Western Sahara. Although the protests in the Western Sahara are very related to the sovereignty dispute between the Polisario and the Moroccan government, adding the green to the map just makes it more confusing. In fact, Noam Chomsky suggests that the protests in WS are what started the current wave of protests [5]. --Fjmustak (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree - And even if there was a dispute, it isn't really relevant to this subject. Macarion (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree - For all reasons stated above. Southern Sudan isn't a country at the moment. We have consensus, this map edit needs to be reverted immediately. ZeLonewolf (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
You're right, it has nothing to do with the subject of this article, so it shouldn't be included on this map. Which means you agree, not oppose. Read the thing you replied to again. Macarion (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone moved the Israel topic from a sub-topic to a main topic, and did not move my response. I opposed the Israel topic, NOT South Sudan.--Smart30 (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The South is not controlled by Karthoum, right now, is it ? When the central government does not control a large area of its territory, the map should reflect it. Rather than adding yet another different color on the map for South Sudan, using the same color as Western Sahara seemed to me appropriate. Disputes are going on : "South Sudan will help the north get relief on around $38 billion in debt, as long as the north "cooperates" on a border dispute and other issues in the countdown to the country's split, a southern official said" : http://af.reuters.com/article/investingNews/idAFJOE72509N20110306 "The surge of violence in Sudan’s disputed area of Abyei has forced thousands to flee, aid groups said, as south Sudan accused an unknown militia of burning a village in the area, and north Sudan-allied Misseriya tribe threatens to enter Abyei “by force” within 10 days" http://www.sudantribune.com/Scores-flee-Abyei-violence-as,38195 . So there is unrest in this part of the country : should not a different color than the "minor protests" color be used ? Does the "minor protest" color reflect accurately enough what is going on in that country ? I have edited the map using the same color as Libya, and writing "Armed rebellion" in the caption for that color. Teofilo talk 17:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree and why is it listed as "armed rebellion" now? There have been very minor clashes (hardly armed rebellion) between groups 'within' Southern Sudan, but nothing to do with anything else in this article. 140.247.146.51 (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment Please read the article concerning South Sudan. Abiey is a minor border region, and there is no general „armed rebellion” in South Sudan. It has an autonomous status until independence is declared in July, but until then, it's part of Greater Sudan, and should not be marked as separate on the map. Also, the Abyei clashes have nothing to do with the clashes. Somalia, albeit in a state of civil war, should not be marked as „armed conflict”, as it's a 2 decade old conflict. it has nothing to do with the MENA Protests. Please revert to previous version - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Hasn't South Sudan been rebelling since 1956 ? The Sudan People's Liberation Army/Movement (SPLA/M) is a predominantly southern Sudanese rebel movement  : Sudan People's Liberation Army/Movement. That this rebellion is very close to have what it wanted (independance) does not change the fact that it is a rebellion, however successful might it be. One should not try to guess if things in one country have to do with things happening in other countries. The map should simply reflect the degree of support each government in the region enjoys from the people in each country. The start of the Tunisian revolution did not magically make the people of South Sudan want to be governed from Karthoum. Nor dit it magically put an end to the civil war in Somalia. Teofilo talk 20:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The map should reflect events related to the MENA protests, not everything happening in those countries (Yemen also has at least one rebelion on its hands - the Houthis). Also, the Second Sudanese Civil War ended with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2005. The people of South Sudan recognize the sovereignty of Karthoum until July, when they declare independence. Just because there are clashes on the border of the two entities (Abyei) does not require the whole of South Sudan to be featured as a rebel area. Also, the Somali Civil War is irelevant in the current context. Should the map feature all the players, Puntland, Somaliland, Al-Shabab, etc just for extra accuracy? Of course not, as that is irrelevant in the context of the MENA protests. Al-Shabab does not represent the protesters as the Government in Benghazi does in the case of Libyans. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Arnold Platon. At most, Abyei should be coloured for 'armed rebellion', not the whole of Southern Sudan. It's also questionable whether it's relevant, in the same way Western Sahara's status was decided irrelevant. Munci (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The whole of South Sudan is controlled by Sudan People's Liberation Army/Movement, not by the North Sudan army and North Sudan governement. The whole South Sudan protested against North Sudan by voting for independence in the January 2011 independence vote. This independence vote is a major anti-North-Sudan protest expressed by a majority of the South Sudan people. The light brown "minor protest" color on the map is wrong for South Sudan. South Sudan is controlled by an internationally recognized rebel group. Like East Libya is controlled by a rebellion as well. Teofilo talk 12:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I support the removal of South Sudan as a 'disputed territory', and do not propose any part of it or its northern neighbour to be earmarked as "armed rebellion" for the above reasons, however, the Southern Sudanese government also claims of Abyei and even South Kurdufan and Blue Nile, all of which can plausibly be considered as 'disputed territories' and so should be included given the effect of north-south tension in the Sudanese protest movement. Laika1097 (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Lebanon

The text covers protests in Lebanon but the map shows no activity in that country. Shouldn't the map be modified? I'm not very good at working with these maps or I'd do it myself. --Khajidha (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Khajidha -it really is time for someone to add Lebanon. The Wikipedia article states "Hundreds of Lebanese rallied in the capital Beirut on 27 February against the country's political system known as Confessionalism in a march called "The Laique pride" calling for reform. A peaceful sit-in in Saida also took place.[160] Further protests took place in March." and even lists Lebanon as among the main country sections. Lebanon was one of the first countries to hold protests -they commenced upon the 12th of January 2011; its government fell due to internal tensions on the same day. the 2011 Lebanese Protests article directly links these protests to the wider MENA protest movement. Besides, it was among the first countries to be included on the initial 2010-2011 Arab World protests.png image. Surely this means it qualifies as at least minor or major protests or perhaps governmental changes? Laika1097 (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The protests are not "the Laique pride", Witch was set for April . the laique pride is a movement by NGOs and activists To call for Secular reform that started Last in 2009 , A rallies took place last year and one now , so it is not related to the protests. The protests of the 27th of February and that of the 6th of march we partly influenced by the Egypt/Tunisia protests. I say partly influenced because other than the slogans they share nothing in common , and the idea was to surf the wave. Now those protest ( witch i have taken part in the second- and in the laique pride last year) are Mainly rallies In favor of more secular reforms in the countries. Hence the Laique pride and the Current protests are related by their goals and share activists and NGOs. Concerning the Political system in lebanon, Lebanon is a Confessionalist Parliamentary Democracy , See wikipedia article about Confessionalism. It is important too note and as a concerned Lebanese , that Due to the complexity of Lebanese politics , Not all protests, Rallies, or minor issue ( as reported in the media ) to be considered for this article. when it Comes to Reporting on lebanon , MOst of the media get it wrong, as all are biased to some degree, especially local media, which is either pro-14th march or pro-8th of march , and both use their outlets for propaganda. jadraad —Preceding undated comment added 05:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC).

If that is the case, the Wikipedia article certainly needs some reform, and perhaps the "Lebanon" section of the 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests article too, however this is not related to the addition of Lebanon to the map, which has now been done. Since I am evidently no expert -nor indeed do I claim to anything about Lebanese politics- perhaps you could yourself make these changes, should you be able to find sufficient Wikipedia:RS'. Laika1097 (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

United Arab Emirates

Although not about protests, this AlJazeera article states that a group of about 160 intellectuals called for a comprehensive reform of the Parliament, including demands for free elections by all citizens in the method of universal suffrage. Should this info be included in the article? Seems somewhat related, given the pro-democratic rights atmosphere these protests have created in the region. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree - this is directly related, should be in the article.--Smart30 (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it belongs in the article, I'm not sure where it should go... and since they aren't protests, we really can't turn the country yellow or add it to the table IMO. ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'll add it to the Country section, but not to the table or the map. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Morroco's Referedum

shouldn't that be somehow displayed on the map? like as a goverment change?--71.236.0.245 (talk) 08:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources, please? -ZeLonewolf (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The Referendum is part of the proposed reform. 1 2 --Smart30 (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Revolutions

Can we stop using phrases like "the developments in Tunisia and Egypt have been called revolutions"? They ARE revolutions. There's no ambiguity in this. Macarion (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's ridiculous. --Sherif9282 (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree 100%--Smart30 (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree. They are the definition of a revolution, it feels like we are taking away from that fact or questioning the validity of the revolts by allowing the usage of such phrases --Kapoon129 (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a WP:WEASEL word to me. Unless there is a notable dispute from a WP:RS saying that they are not revolutions, then we can NPOV say that they are revolutions. We could also presume that editors of those two wikipedia pages have come to consensus that they are revolutions in the wikipedia sense. Otherwise, we should change their names to What has been called the Tunisian Revolution and What has been called the 2011 Egyptian revolution or to other descriptive titles. Boud (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Clarification: i meant that have been called sounds like weasel wording. Boud (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Macarion (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Relevance of wars

I wrote the following in the Western Sahara section above : :Relevant. Disputing the sovereinty of a country by taking arms and waging a war or agreeing to a UN brokered ceasefire while not disarming and not surrenderring the part of territory one controls, is a major form of disapproval of a government. This is similar to what the Libyan rebels are doing (taking arms and not surrenderring the part of territory one controls). This is what a major Western Sahara pro-independence movement, internationally recognized by a number of countries have been doing for years. Informing the map reading readership of the minor protest while not informing them of the other major form of Moroccan government disapproval is not an accurate way of reporting information to the Wikipedia readership. Accurately reporting anti-Moroccan-governement action (together with reporting pro-Moroccan-government action, for WP:NPOV's sake) is relevant. Semantically, the Libyan civil war is not a "protest", it is a "war". If the Libyan civil war is relevant, the Polisario-Morocco war (however frozen by a ceasefire) is relevant.

and I would like the talk page members to tell their mind on the following question :

The title of this article being about protests, is it relevant to talk about wars ? There are a number of wars in the countries shown on the map :

Comment: If I understand correctly, you are asking if the events you just mentioned should be referenced in this article? This is about a specific wave of protests that is currently defined as starting with the reaction to the self-immolation in Tunisia. It is not about any uprisings in this part of the world or about any government protests that are concurrent with these events. The events that this article discusses have roots and causes before the time of the actual events, but that too doesn't mean the current situation of other longstanding disputes in the area are relevent to this article. Although Libya has evolved into something that resembles the events that you mention, that too does not mean those other similar events have relevance here. --216.70.233.34 (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Background Section Extension (I Need Help)

I have written a detailed Background Section for the Article, but I do not know how to edit well, and more importantly I do not have the time to go through all of the references and citations to add that in to the code. I decided it would be better not to paste the written text without the citations. Eventually I will be able to learn how, but for now I am just pasting the entire text (with the citations written in) right here. Hopefully someone can help get it to a suitable form to be put on the live page. The first paragraph, is basically exactly the same as the existing paragraph, except for one word. The last paragraph nicely connects the flow of the article to the next section. Well I pasted this in, and it looks like it kind of automatically created reference marks, but a lot of them a repeated and should be signalized, and some didn't go through the auto reference. I'm sure I'll figure it out eventually. Thanks for your help. Xacobi (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Background

Numerous factors have led to the protests, including dictatorship, human rights violations, Wikileaks cables which demonstrated government corruption,[81] economic downfall, unemployment, and extremepoverty, coupled with a large percentage of youth within the population.[82] Increasing food prices and rates of famine globally have also been a major reason, involving threats to food security worldwide and prices approaching levels seen during the 2007–2008 world food price crisis.[83] In recent decades rising living standards and literacy rates and an expansion inhigher education have resulted in an improved human development index in the affected countries. The tension between rising aspirations and a lack of government reform may have been a contributing factor to the protests,[84][85] as well as anti-Zionism.[86]

TThe current wave of protests were not isolated in history and are part of a larger chain of dissident activists and citizens from numerous social and union organizations and individuals that have been active for years in Tunisia, Western Sahara, Algeria, and Egypt, along with other countries.[6]

In Tunisia there was a rise of conflict where the country experienced a series of outbreaks over the past three years. The most notable of which was an uprising in the mining area of Gafsa in 2008. These protests continued for many months through rallies, sit-ins and strikes, during which two were struck dead and an unspecified number were wounded and dozens arrested.[7] [8][1]

In Western Sahara the Gdeim Izik protest camp was erected on 9 October 2010, 12 km south-east of El Aajun, by a group of young Sahrawis with the intention to protest against labor discrimination, lack of jobs, looting of resources and human rights abuses".[224] Its population was estimated between 12,000 and 20,000 inhabitants. On 8 November, 2010 the protest camp was evicted and destroyed by Moroccan security forces, who faced strong opposition from some young Sahrawi civilians. Riots spread to El Aaiun and other towns of the territory, causing an unknown number of deaths and injuries, as well as many material losses.

In Algeria many issues have been building for years. In February 2008, United States Ambassador Robert Ford wrote in a leaked diplomatic cable that Algeria is “unhappy”, with long-standing political alienation and social discontent throughout the country with strikes over food almost weekly, and a demonstration occurring every day somewhere in the country, and calling the Algerian government corrupt and fragile.[2] It has been claimed that during 2010, there were as many as "9,700 riots and unrests" throughout the country. [3] Some protests were about issues such as education and health care, as well as rampant corruption.[6] [4]

In Egypt the labor movement has been strong for years. There have been more than 3,000 labor actions since 2004 in Egypt. [9] The most important of which was an attempted workers strike on April 6, 2008, at the state-run textile factories of al-Mahalla al-Kabra just outside Cairo. The idea spread elsewhere in the country, promoted by computer-literate working class youths and their supporters among middle-class college students.[10] A Facebook page was set up to promote the strike and attracted tens of thousands of followers. The government mobilized to break the strike through infiltrating and riot police. Although the regime had some success in forestalling a successful strike, an "April 6 Committee" of youths and labor activists was formed and were among the major forces calling for the big demonstration on Jan. 25 in Tahrir Square.[11]


The major turning point to cause the current escalation of protests was the self-immunizations of individuals, starting with Mohamad Bouaziz, which catalyzed a pull of attraction for various groups dissatisfied with the existing system: the unemployed, political and human rights activists, labor, trade unionists, students, professors, lawyers and more. [.[[12]]] This and other self-immunizations have caused dispersed groups to unite under a common unprecedented movement that gained enough momentum to create the current scope of events. 


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xacobi (talk • contribs) 19:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your willingness to do this, but I do have some issues with the text. Mainly the fact that most of the sources are marxist.com, which is an ideological site, and most probably fails both WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Giving credit (where credit is due) to unions and labor organisations is important, but these movements were not a „class struggle” (another marxist expression). This is not working class vs capitalists. It's about people vs authoritarian regimes. I suggest finding alternate sources which meet the WP:NPOV and WP:RS guidlines. And PS. It's self-immolation, not self-immunisation :) - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I did have some concerns about the references myself, which is one of the reasons I wanted to hold off posting the text live right away. So this is great feedback. When writing the article I did my best to keep it as neutral as possible, but obviously some expressions sliped through. So it is definitely important to remove those, and additionally I am sure it will be possible to find additional reports and references for some if not all of the facts listed. This will take time though, and I'm not sure exactly when I will be able to get to it, so anyone is welcome to help. Xacobi (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijan problems

10 people were detained for attempting to hold an unauthorised demonstration. Activists, inspired by Arab world protests, vowed to stage more demonstrations as they were being taken away by police outside Baku's Oil Academy.

http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/at-least-15-detained-in-azerbaijan-protest-bid/

--78.2.55.4 (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The number has quadrupled actually. Azerbaijan protest--Smart30 (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we should keep an eye on this to see if it develops any further. If it picks up steam, it could qualify for the main article. DerekMBarnes (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Israel question

There's a possible general strike next week with major marches on Jerusalem. Now it actually takes place, and the Settlers have a threatened "Day of Rage" on the same day (which is probable, but may not materialize) will this count enough to put on this page?Ericl (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If it happens, then it would depend mostly on what they protest against. If it's not a call for government reform, I doubt most editors will think it warrants placement. What is your source for this information? DerekMBarnes (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia March 11th Day of rage

Should Saudi Arabia be upgraded on the map from minor protests to major protests due to the March 11th Day of Rage?--voodoom (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Cited sources indicate the Saudi 'Day of Rage' really wasn't the major event some people might have been hoping for. I don't think it warrants a change. DerekMBarnes (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, unfortunately they were barely even minor protests.--Smart30 (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Middle East and North Africa or North Africa and the Middle East

The title of this article is 2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa protests I have several times had to change references in the article from North Africa and the Middle East back to Middle East and North Africa. If editors feel the need to change the article title to reverse the two descriptors, then there is a process for doing so which we all understand, however, merely changing info box descriptions and the lead paragraph seems to me to be unncessary and disruptive, and indicative of the POV of some editors. I don't believe these changes should be repeated without further discussion. Regards. Lynbarn (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus needed on which borderline countries are included in this article

There has been a lot of discussion about which countries to include in this article over the last few weeks. Many countries are cut and dry, but a number of them have been controversial or borderline. They are: Djibouti, Somalia, Western Sahara, Cyprus, Lebanon, and Mauritania. So, which ones do we include? I think the answer is that we include all countries which a WP:RS has included in coverage of this regional movement. I took a survey of worldwide mainstream media sources which are not only covering these protests, but also feature a country-by-country MAP with their coverage. I was able to find FIVE examples of mainstream media with maps. The sources are: CNN[13], Al Jazeera[14], BBC[15], Washington Post[16], CBC (Canada)[17].

The result was as follows:

 • Djibouti: Included in 1 of 5 maps (only CNN)
 • Somalia: ZERO of the maps included Somalia
 • Western Sahara: ZERO of the maps included Western Sahara, however Washington Post included it as part of Morocco
 • Cyprus: ZERO of the maps included Cyprus
 • Lebanon: Included in 3 of 5 maps (CNN and BBC excluded it)
 • Mauritania: Included in 1 of 5 maps (only CNN)

Therefore, I propose that we align our map, and with it the list of countries covered in this article, with the current global coverage of the protests. That means, Remove Somalia, Add Lebanon, and Continue to exclude Cyprus. If Cyprus and/or Somalia become reported in WP:RS as part of overall MENA protest coverage, then we should cover them too. Until then, we need to be in line with what's being reported.

Let's try to get consensus on which countries to include, as it's the purpose of this article ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment - The problem with Somalia is that the Transitional Federal Government only controls parts parts of Mogadishu, so nobody cares about a protest there, when the country as a whole is in Civil War. But it is part of the Arab World, and it was a protest inspired by Tunisia and Egypt, albeit minor, and quite insignificant when taken in context. Agree with adding Lebanon, but Somewhat Disagree with excluding Northern Cyprus (see here) - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment - the conflicts in Western Sahara, Somalia, and Northern Cyprus all predate the MENA protests by decades. Sources indicate recent protests in these locations are inspired by Tunisia, but the disputes behind said protests have a known separate cause. I think a line needs to be drawn between "inspired" and "related." On that note, I move to Relocate all three of the aforementioned countries to: Impact of 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests. Agree with adding Lebanon here, now that the article contains information pertaining to it. DerekMBarnes (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree - Derek's opinion is mine as well. We need to highlight that these protests were completely new to the region, yet anyone who knows the region knows of the conflict in the Southern Provinces, Somaliland-Puntland-Mogadishu[Somalia] and the Cyprus question.--Smart30 (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree -The Western Sahara, Somalia, and Northern Cyprus conflicts can't be linked to the protests in MENA, and they were not influential/instigational, there is no significant evidence for us to think otherwise--Kapoon129 (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have updated the map with +Lebanon, -Western Sahara and -Somalia. Still need to update the article to reflect the map. ZeLonewolf (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Moved Somalia+Western Sahara to updated section below Main Countries section. They need an edit, shortening them.--Smart30 (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I have searched again. A RS Hurriyet Daily News, drew parellels between North Cyprus protests (at Inonu Square) and protests at Tahrir Square and say NC protests are caused by the domino effect of Arab World protests. [18] and [19] "This is the first protest held in Cyprus since 1974 that gathered so many people under such a banner." But, there is no source which mentions NC protests as part of MENA protests. But, the organizers say they are inspired by what's going on the Arab World. Maybe, NC protests are like Albanian protests, they're inspired by Arab World protests, but we cannot put NC protest in Impact of 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests, since Cyprus is luckily in the Middle East. This dilemma is caused by this article's name. As a solution, I think "Other Countries in the Region" section is suitable for these protests, I agree with the editor who has put NC protests there. Some more references: [20], [21], [22], [23], JPost [24], CNBC [25], [26], [27], [28]. Lastly, note that these protests are completely new to the Cyprus question, we have never seen such anti-TRNC government protests. Kavas (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Strong disagree with excluding Western Sahara - Academics like Noam Chomsky (The current wave of protests actually began last November in Western Sahara [29]) or Bernabé López García (Agdaym Izik, the Sahrawi dignity camp, was the first outbreak of this wave of protests that cant stand no more hipocrisy [30]), international jurist as Eduardo Soto-Trillo (What happened in El Aaiun in November, in the camp, that popular uprising is in the origin of all[31]), politicians, activists, etc... had pointed to the Gdeim Izik protest camp and the posterior events In El Aaiun as the first step of the current events. I know that the sovereignity issue made many people to untie the Sahrawi protests from the general protests, but that's ridiculous, because if we do that, same thing should be applied to any territory with previous issues, as for example, Palestine or Iran.
There are several examples of similarities and coincidences between the Sahrawi events and the posterior ones, to mention only a few.
  • Same type of protest: Between October and November 2010, a protest camp in the outskirts of El Aaiun was erected, housing between 12,000 and 25,000 people. The camp was structured in committees (Dialogue com., Health com., Trash recollection com., etc...)[32] who administered the camp, as it happened later with the Tahrir square camp or in the Pearl roundabout in Manama. Demonstrations, sit-ins, and riots had also happened.
  • Use of technologies: The protesters film and upload to the net several videos of the protest camp, trying to made visible their protest. Here there are some videos of the camp:[33].
  • Same type of evolution in the aims: While at first the aims of the Sahrawi protesters are socio-economic (lack of jobs, discrimination, looting of natural resources...) repression made the protesters for higher aims, as the right of self-determination of the Sahrawi people.
  • Same geographical, social and cultural enviroment: Some seem to forget that the Sahrawis are a Muslim, Arabic, Bereber and African people.
Well, I can point more equivalences, but I dont want to be exhaustive. For many experts, there is clear the relation between the events. I only hope that if people disagree can give arguments intead of deleting sourced content. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Look... you have been making this argument for days now that events were inspired by protests in Western Sahara, and the consensus among other editors and the media is against your opinion. You have found three references (only one in English) to academics saying Western Sahara was in some way a start of these events. Here are just a few from other sources saying that the events were inspired by Tunisia, during the first month that these events were unfolding. There are dozens more:
 • Al Jazeera: "Activists throughout the Arab world say they have been inspired by the example of Tunisia, the first country in generations where an Arab leader was toppled by public protests." 17 Jan 2011 [34]
 • NY Times: "Tunisia Unrest Stirs Passions Across North African Region" 17 Jan 2011 [35]
 • CNN: "inspired by the ouster of Tunisian President" 19 Jan 2011 [36]
 • CNN: "Jordan protesters inspired by Tunisian ripple" 19 Jan 2011 [37]
 • Al Jazeera: "The Tunisian uprising has inspired dissent across the Arab world" 21 Jan 2011 [38]
 • NY Times: "...inspired by the revolt in Tunisia..." 24 Jan 2011 [39]
 • Reuters: "The Tunisian uprising has inspired Arabs across the Middle East..." 27 Jan 2011 [40]
 • NY Times: "In Tunisia, where an uprising helped set in motion this month’s tumultuous events..." 28 Jan 2011 [41]
 • BBC: "It was inspired by the protests in Tunisia in the same month." 11 Feb 2011 [42]
Please go to Google or Google News and try "Tunisia inspired protests" and "Western Sahara inspired protests" or "Saharawi inspired protests" (without the quotes) and review the results that you get. The weight of support among reputable news sources is against your position. The comments you are trying to add belong as commentary in the Western Sahara section, if at all, not in the main article. Please review WP:NPOV before you consider resubmitting these changes. --216.70.233.34 (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment: a news article drawing a comparison to the Tunisia-inspired protests is not sufficient for inclusing. Merely having unrest while being in the MENA region is not sufficient. Even an interview with a protester stating that they are inspired by Egypt or Tunisia is not sufficient. Sufficient in my book means that WP:RS are citing the country as one of those participating in the wave of unrest. ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment - At most Western Sahara is a prologue to the MENA Protests, a sign of things to come. Problem is that WS is bound up with the sovereignty dispute, and it didn't amount to anything, it was just protests. The overwhelming consensus is that Tunisia is Chapter 1. Remember, it's the first domino to actually fall. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Strong disagree with excluding Western Sahara - I too have herd from many independent media organizations including Democracy Now that although Western Sahara Protests are not Directly Linked to the Tunisia Uprising, they are Indirectly linked. So the correct answer is both. The MENA Protests started on December 18th, 2010, in their current form, but what happened is Western Sahara is still an intergal part of the story and is UNPRECEDENTED in that region as well. And although it might not seem like it affected the Tunisia protests from a western english point of view, it was huge unprecedented indy news in the Arabic world. This is my understand from what I have herd. So simply stated again, Western Sahara must be included, but it gets an asterix and doesn't really matter weather you put minor or major protests. But at LEAST minor protests! I think it is great that you want to list what is covered in corprate mainstream media, but Wikipedia is not Corporate Main Stream media, it is grassroots, so lets include what the academics and the independent media sources are saying. Please. Xacobi (talk) 08:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I understand your point, but can you provide any source material from that time period to support your comments above ("it was huge unprecedented indy news in the Arabic world") and below ("you better believe that Tunisians saw the news and learned from what was going on there")? You admit that it was not directly linked to the Tunisia Uprising, which is the starting point of events discussed in this article, yet you also say that Tunisian's were inspired by those protests. This seems inconsistant, and does not seem to be supported in any reputable sources, which is "required" for inclusion in Wikipedia. I have not seen any references in English except for the Noam Chomsky interview on 17 Feb 2011, three months after the November incidents he refers to and a month after Ben Ali was ousted, hardly contemporary to influencing the events. Nothing seems to have been picked up in the English press about this. Are there articles you are aware of in the reputable local Arabic press from that time period which support your interpretation? It is hard for others to understand your argument that this was unprecedented and inspiring to Tunisians yet there is no record or discussion of that. If not, then your comments appear as WP:OR which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I don't think people are disputing that there have been protests in Western Sahara. The question is how they relate to this specific wave of uprisings that were inspired by successfully overthrowing Ben Ali. --68.7.83.37 (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I have to agree with what you are saying. I will do some research and see if I can find additonal sources besides norm chompsky and garcia, and report back. Xacobi (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok I did some research, and I could do a lot more of course, we'll see, but after 10 minutes of searching I found this: http://www.marxist.com/tunisia-protests-continue.htm It is an article written January 11th, 2011 three days before Tunisia's president fled by Marxy.com, the Arab website of the IMT, and gives a full account of the development of the Tunisian uprising, specifically its roots. Obviously the article starts by saying that the Tunisia protests as were seen at that moment started with the December 17th burning, but that is because the date that Tunisia started, does not necessarily indicate the date that the regional level protests started. The article talks about the months of protests that occurred in Tunisia before the current wave and clearly explains how what happened in Tunisia didn't just come out of nothing on December 18th, 2010. Mid way through the article (search western sahara) talks about the regional implications and clearly states "At the regional level, specifically in the Maghreb region, these movements follow the overwhelming mass struggle of the working class and toiling masses in Morocco and Western Sahara and Algeria." Which simply translated means, Tunisia followed in the footsteps of not only what was happening in Western Sahara but also Morocco and Algeria! So as far as the credibility of this article, I haven't read the whole thing, but from what I read it is EXTREMELY Detailed and is obviously in the point of view of arabs and has been translated directly from the "arab website of the IMT" What the IMT is, I don't know, but I could figure it out. Obviously the original article in Arabic would be more clear, but I have no idea how read it or where that would be. So there's 15 minutes, and if you feel this has no credibility and you need more, then maybe I'll be willing to do more research, but you better at least give some ground as it is obvious in my opinion that the direction that this is going is towards the starting date truly being Fall 2010 instead of a specific single date, that is if you want to go with a factual representation of what actually is happening. If you want to go with the pretty, shinny, cut up, pre-prepared, sound bite, sell, corporate media version, then of course everyone loves the big focal point of someone setting themselves on fire in a blaze of glory, that makes a GREAT story, but factually and in regards to reality, it is just one cog in the belt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xacobi (talk • contribs) 00:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus

I'd like to request the map be updated to add Northern Cyprus, which is typically considered part of the Middle East and has experienced both protests and a historical sovereignty dispute (like Western Sahara). -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Maybe the Zoom in box containing Israel and the Palestinian Teritories could be expanded a little to include Cyprus as well - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree. I have not yet seen a WP:RS report that mentions Cyprus in the context of MENA protests. Plus, the existence of Northern Cyprus is recognized only by Turkey. Also, we need to be careful to not include historical disputes as opposed to protests which are related to the Tunisia/Egypt uprisings. If you can find a RS, cite it here, and then we can discuss what to add to the article. ZeLonewolf (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed I have a primary source in which organizers of the protests mention TRNC protesrs in the context of MENA protests (They say "today what's happening in Cyprus is a reflection of ongoing uprising in African and Arab nations.") and secondary sources in the article that show the protest is called Yasmin Revolution. Fro example, this reference shows that the protesters argue that TRNC would be a second Egypt. (http://www.elmahaber.com/kktc-ikinci-misir-olur-38934h.html) But these are all in Turkish, and not translated to English in media. The existence of NC is recognized "de facto" by EU, since EU is a peace negotiator between North and South. But, TRNC's indepedence is not recognized. The motive behind Cyprus is similar to Tunisia/Egypt uprisings, Turkish Cypriots are unhappy, the economy is bad, people cannot find work, they want the TRNC government to change ([43]). Some other English sources: [44], [45] (from HDN), [46] (from NBC). IKavas (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree, per the previous references. Also, just because Northern Cyprus isn't widely recognized by governments beyond Turkey's doesn't mean we can't show it on the map. (Western Sahara, Southern Sudan, West Bank, and Gaza not fully recognized either and they're on the map). 140.247.146.51 (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Meh Alikash (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Western Sahara

Aggregating Western Sahara-specific discussion -ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Western Sahara

There have been protests in Western Sahara - http://www.afrol.com/articles/37450. Not sure if Western Sahara should be colored yellow or not.

Vis-a-visconti (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

At least should be labeled as minor protests, have a section included in the article and colored appropriately in the map. 140.247.244.194 (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree: They are at least minor protests -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Weak support, but the sovereignty dispute is not related to the protests. I think the green stripes on the map need to go. DerekMBarnes (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Withdrawn, as per discussion here: [47]. DerekMBarnes (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree: They are at least minor protests -- Western Sahara should be at least Minor Protests, (at the time I'm writing this, it is gray)Xacobi (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Starting point

Once again the Western Sahara is getting added to the overview. At this point I don't care if gets included, but just don't add it in without changing the starting point. Did the protests start on October 9 in Western Sahara or did it start on December 18 in Tunisia? Choose one or the other, but don't contradict the article! TL565 (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it the Sahrawi dispute predates to well before October 9 and is not related to these events. And I have yet to hear any information saying Tunisians were inspired by Western Sahara. I say include the current cycle of Sahrawi protests as they relate to Tunisia, but lose the 'sovereignty dispute' category and save it for the devoted article. DerekMBarnes (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
If you look in the archives, there was a lot of discussion about this. I have been saying what you just pointed above, but it keeps getting added because that protest was "similar" or "it was in the same region". There is also this article, but I've still yet to see how its connected to the current protests or even how the October protests were a continuation to the February ones and not seperate. TL565 (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The Sovereignty dispute had no significant influence on the Tunisian uprising, the Tunisian revolt however DID have an impact on the whole MENA, the Western Sahara protests should not be referred to as the starting point it's ridiculous.Kapoon129 (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Western Sahara isn't the starting point for the current trend, but it is a very important asterix. What happened in November in Western Sahara was Unprecedented and although it was connected to previous long term issues, (all the protests from every country is connected to previous issues too), that doesn't change the fact that it was unprecedented and that something changed. Although this didn't directly cause the Tunisia protests, you better believe that Tunisians saw the news and learned from what was going on there. (see my comment from above)Xacobi (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Your claim seems inconsistent as you agree that it was not the starting point, but you then you say they inspired Tunisia. There are no sources that say that there was any inspiration by the WS. If it really was big news in the region, I'm sure it would be picked up by the western media. There are still not enough reliable sources that say the WS protest inspired anyone for that matter. So far, I have only heard that its Tunisia doing the inspiring such as the "Tunisia effect" and not the "Western Sahara effect". Also if you say WS should be mentioned as an asterix, it is already mentioned in the article under "Other territories in the region". Other than that, there shouldn't be any more mention as you agreed that it started in Tunisia. TL565 (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I understand your point TL565, and certainly cant disagree, and I will do some research and see if I can find additional english resources in addition to the Noam Chomsky, Bernabe Lopez garcia... citations. And report back. Xacobi (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I disagree - Talking about "inspiration" is dubious, now every country having protests claim they're influenced by Tunisia, some had in fact invented the ridiculous term "Tunisia effect", wich seems to be one of that labels that anglosaxon journalist love so much (I havent heard that term in any non-anglophone media). As Xacobi had pointed many if not all of the protests had previous antecedents (for example, Iran had been included easily, when the protests were clearly a repetition of the 2009 protests), so many of them should be deleted if we aply that measure. Now it seems that everybody look to the Tunisia events as a mirror, not only in the Arab world, but also worldwide, wich is simply non-credible. Then, there's the problem of the date, it's curious that many people defend as its sacred the date of Mohamed Bouazizi's immolation as the starting date of all the events, when there had been protests in Tunisia two weeks earlier. So, why they want to maintain that date at any cost? I dont know, perhaps because of the symbolic aspect. I personally think that it should be better to put a date not as concrete as that, something like for example: Winter 2010. On the Western Sahara issue, I repeat it the times that are necessary, I've put several sources from reputed experts (Noam Chomsky, Bernabé López García, etc...) stating that the Western Sahara events were the starting point of the current events. Are they wrong?. I've also expressed several clear paralellisms between the Sahrawi protests and the posterior ones. There are several protest included in the article that are highly dubious to be included, as for example, the cases of Palestine, Iran, Libya, etc... In the other hand, people who disagree aint giving sources or arguments, except from "I've not see it on the media", when not using the sovereignity dispute to discredit its inclusion (if thats true, same thing should be applied to Palestine or Somalia). At first, they ask for references about the W.S. protests as relationated with the others. Now that I added some ones, now they want me to get opinions of Tunisians stating that W.S. protest had inspired them?!?. Seriously??. Also, I remember that the inclusion of W.S. protest was voted. It seems that some would try to repeat discussions as many times as posible until they get their aims done. If that's the case, I would take note to act equal in every case.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:OR WP:Vote WP:RS and WP:NPOV. As has been oft-repeated, Western Sahara has not been reported as part of this wave of protests, save for obscure and esoteric references. ZeLonewolf (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment: People who disagree can't give sourced arguments, because there aren't any discussing Western Sahara except the few you have exhaustively repeated over and over. That is the point. You chose not to reply to the comment above that lists numerous sourced articles indicating the Tunisia inspiration (see: Consensus needed on which borderline countries are included in this article). This is very well sourced. Also, this is a current event. It is always up for re-discussion and revision despite previous discussions, when there is new information that effects the content. --68.7.78.64 (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment: The difference is that I did not try in any moment to delete any sourced content, as you and other users had. As long as I know, erasing sourced content is no other thing but vandalism. That is the thing. As for the comment above, I do not have time or Internet to be here everyday. It is crystal-clear that some peoples aim is to avoid any relation between the Sahrawi protest and the rest of the Arab world, even when that relation is sourced, that is it, confirmed.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Linked: These protests weren't linked by any way to what marked the start of these protests: Bouazizi's act.
When protests started in Tunisia, it was following Bouazizi's act, not Sahraouis protests.
When protests spread to other Arab countries, it was following Tunisian protests, not Saharawi ones.
Omar-Toons (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I vote for "FALL 2010" as the Starting Date I did some research, and I am convinced that factually and realistically to put the entire MENA regional protests tagged to a single date is just incorrect no matter what date you choose. It makes a great sound bite story to have it be a single date and a blaze of glory, but I think in reality the situation is much more complex. I'm just going to re-paste what I wrote above in regards to weather western sahara should be included:

"Ok I did some research, and I could do a lot more of course, we'll see, but after 10 minutes of searching I found this: http://www.marxist.com/tunisia-protests-continue.htm It is an article written January 11th, 2011 three days before Tunisia's president fled by Marxy.com, the Arab website of the IMT, and gives a full account of the development of the Tunisian uprising, specifically its roots. Obviously the article starts by saying that the Tunisia protests as were seen at that moment started with the December 17th burning, but that is because the date that Tunisia started, does not necessarily indicate the date that the regional level protests started. The article talks about the months of protests that occurred in Tunisia before the current wave and clearly explains how what happened in Tunisia didn't just come out of nothing on December 18th, 2010. Mid way through the article (search western sahara) talks about the regional implications and clearly states "At the regional level, specifically in the Maghreb region, these movements follow the overwhelming mass struggle of the working class and toiling masses in Morocco and Western Sahara and Algeria." Which simply translated means, Tunisia followed in the footsteps of not only what was happening in Western Sahara but also Morocco and Algeria! So as far as the credibility of this article, I haven't read the whole thing, but from what I read it is EXTREMELY Detailed and is obviously in the point of view of arabs and has been translated directly from the "arab website of the IMT" What the IMT is, I don't know, but I could figure it out. Obviously the original article in Arabic would be more clear, but I have no idea how to read it or where that would be. So there's 15 minutes, and if you feel this has no credibility and you need more, then maybe I'll be willing to do more research, but you better at least give some ground as it is obvious in my opinion that the direction that this is going is towards the starting date truly being Fall 2010 instead of a specific single date, that is if you want to go with a factual representation of what actually is happening. If you want to go with the pretty, shinny, cut up, pre-prepared, sound bite, sell, corporate media version, then of course everyone loves the big focal point of someone setting themselves on fire in a blaze of glory, that makes a GREAT story, but factually and in regards to reality, it is just one cog in the belt."

Well there you go, I hope you all can re-consider your conventional idea of having a specific date, and instead consider going with a time period. Oh and if you think that there is going to be a specific ending date to the entire regional MENA protests then your crazy. It makes sense that each individual country may have a specific starting and ending date, but the regional MENA protests are just too complicated and there is no specific treaty or action that can take place that could possibly represent the entire region simultaneously to end or begin this historical period. Xacobi (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This is good stuff, and I think you should compose it into prose and include it in the article in a section that describes the leadup to the events, WS included, and I agree that it is relevant. The leadup to the protest wave is certainly cogent and interesting, and we don't really have much about it in the article. However, source reporting about the protest wave consistently cites the Tunisia self-immolation as the starting point. And, a line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere...it makes sense to draw that line at the same point virtually all reporting draws the line. -ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
There is an old saying "If everyone jumps off a bridge would you too?" Show me where in the wikipedia guidelines it states that we have to go with "source reporting" consistency to make our decisions about a regional starting date. Are the media sources voting, or do we get to vote? Obviously not all media sources, yes maybe the big corporate ones, but not all sources state December 18th (or dec 17th) as the start of the regional protests. They are indeed the start of the Tunisia protests I would agree to that, but the region is more complicated. Obviously if I get voted down, it really isn't that big a deal, as long as it is included, as you say, in a new "lead-up to the events/protests" section.Xacobi (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
From WP:IRS: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (The New York Times, Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.
So yes, I do think we need to go with source reporting in terms of defining a start. I encourage you to consider this very excellent example from World War I:
The assassination on 28 June 1914 of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, was the proximate trigger of the war. Long-term causes, such as imperialistic foreign policies of the great powers of Europe, such as the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, the British Empire, France, and Italy, played a major role. Ferdinand's assassination by a Yugoslav nationalist resulted in a Habsburg ultimatum against the Kingdom of Serbia.[9][10] Several alliances formed over the past decades were invoked, so within weeks the major powers were at war; via their colonies, the conflict soon spread around the world.
Nobody is saying that this protest wave started out of nowhere! So, in that same sort of way, I strongly encourage you to incorporate the information you've dug up into the article to provide the deeper background of where this all came from and to emphasize the greater economic and political aspects behind the protest wave. BUT, I don't think you can open with "A wave of protests starting in Western Sahara in October" because that's not what's universally acknowledged as the start of the wave. -ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I have added a background section by partitioning off some of the other content. I hope that you will expand it. -ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Lots of good points. I certainly can't disagree with anything you've said. Thanks so much for your contributions ZeLonewolf. I myself have never actually edited a Wikipedia article, I have just made comments like this, and I am busy tonight. But maybe I'll get to it tomorrow and learn how to do it. Thanks again. Xacobi (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I wrote a detailed background section!! Yay ---but I have no idea whatsoever how to edit it correctly, or the time. I would just add it in with no references, but that seems silly, so I am making a new Discussion Section titled Background Section, where I will post the entire text, and ask for help. So if someone could help me with the references that would be GREAT!!! I have read some information about how to create references, and eventually I may get to it, for now I just don't have time to do any more, so I'm going to stop with what I have written as a great start. Xacobi (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Western Sahara "sovereignty dispute"

I don't think that's relevant to this article. The sovereignty of the Palestinian territories is also in dispute, and that isn't marked. The map is meant to show where protests/revolutions have occurred. If they're occurred in Western Sahara (which they have), then we should show that, but their sovereignty is irrelevant to the subject of this article. Macarion (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Support, for reasons I have stated too many times to reiterate here. Macarion sums it up quite nicely. DerekMBarnes (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Support The whole October thing is unconnected here - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - throwing my wrench into this toolbox.--Smart30 (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - Completely Agree with Macarion and the previous users, it is/was in no way instigational or influential to the protests in Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt etc and therefore not relevant whatsoever - Kapoon129 (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - I agree, sovereignity issues are irrelevant on this issue, as in the Palestine case. As Macarion had stated, there had been protests in Western Sahara, wich had been very similar to the posterior events in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrein, etc... The only question is if they should be labelled as major or minor protests.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Updated the map. It's gone now. ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
STOP Problem! - Mis-Communication - - From my understanding of Macarion who started this "sovereignty dispute" chain, the question was wether or not the green sovernty despute lines should be removed, but there is no mention in this proposal that states that minor protests should be removed as well. So obviously there was miss communication in that the minor protests should be re-added back in. Everyone agrees that the sovereignty issue is old and has nothing to do with this, but that doesn't change the understanding of many that the current wave of protests in Western Sahara from November 2010 on have been unprecedented and are tied in with the larger MENA protests. (please see above) and Please ZeLoneWolf return minor protests to Western Sahara. Thanks.Xacobi (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The removal of Western Sahara is not related to this discussion; see [48]. Find a reliable source quoting Tunisian people saying their revolt was inspired by events in Western Sahara, and we'll consider putting it back in. DerekMBarnes (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I suppose that you take the same measure to other territories, I mean, you have sources quoting Iranian people inspired by Tunisian events, the same with Palestine, etc...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Virtually all reporting includes Iran as part of the protest wave. Not sure about Palestine. If you have a case to remove something from the list, state your argument, and gain consensus. -ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Relevant. Disputing the sovereinty of a country by taking arms and waging a war or agreeing to a UN brokered ceasefire while not disarming and not surrenderring the part of territory one controls, is a major form of disapproval of a government. This is similar to what the Libyan rebels are doing (taking arms and not surrenderring the part of territory one controls). This is what a major Western Sahara pro-independence movement, internationally recognized by a number of countries have been doing for years. Informing the map reading readership of the minor protest while not informing them of the other major form of Moroccan government disapproval is not an accurate way of reporting information to the Wikipedia readership. Accurately reporting anti-Moroccan-governement action (together with reporting pro-Moroccan-government action, for WP:NPOV's sake) is relevant. Semantically, the Libyan civil war is not a "protest", it is a "war". If the Libyan civil war is relevant, the Polisario-Morocco war (however frozen by a ceasefire) is relevant. Teofilo talk 11:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The sovereignty dispute is a long-standing issue that vastly predates this current wave of unrest. If you have sources that discuss what specific activities in Western Sahara were sparked by this wave of unrest, then it's appropriate to add it. Currently, only one article (the one sourced) reference the wave of unrest affecting WS. -ZeLonewolf (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Unemployment in Tunisia is a long standing issue which predates the current wave of protests. Is speaking about unemployment in Tunisia irrelevant ? No, of course not. Unemployement in Tunisia is a relevant issue for this article. The whole line of thought "something predates therefore it is irrelevant" is a logically mistaken line of thought. This article is about everything which is happening now, whether it is new or the continuation of something old. Cherrypicking what to include or not is not a good service rendered to the readership. If you write an article on car accidents today, you are supposed to talk aslo about those old motorways where car accidents have taken place for years, and are still occuring today, not cherrypicking the new motorways opened during the last months where the first car accident has occured. Teofilo talk 12:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

2010-2011 Sahrawi protests: Major or minor?

As the protests in Western Sahara are not labelled yet, they should be. In what category do you think they fall, minor or major protests?.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed yesterday in the section above "Consensus needed on which borderline countries are included in this article"--68.7.83.37 (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

March 5 protests

SilverSeren pointed out [49] a report of a (albeit very tiny) Tunisian-inspired protest that occurred in Western Sahara on March 5. For that reason, I think it does make sense to turn Western Sahara yellow, and add it to the table with a start date of March 5. ZeLonewolf (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

And, of course, being the one that found the source, I agree as well. SilverserenC 23:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree - Definitely should be included and glad there is now a concrete reason to add the Southern Provinces also called the Western Sahara to the map.--Smart30 (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Disagree - The protest were on the Sahrawi refugee camps, that are on Algerian soil, not on the Western Sahara, although administered by the SADR. Its curious how some manipulate info to made it agree with their personal point of view--80.58.205.104 (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there a source that states these protests occurred in Algeria? I'm not familiar with the issues at hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.42 (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
80.58.205.104 - you keep insisting people are reverting your edits due to some political bent, however your edits consistantly break NPOV. Please provide a citation for your edits and they can be left alone. I am not the only person to catch this, along with ClueBot and a few other editors. Golgofrinchian ≤TALK≥ 21:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Please dont manipulate the truth. If you have hidden aims, its your issue. You are the one breaking NPOV and doing VANDALISM, as stating the Sahrawi refugee camps on ALGERIAN SOIL as the Western Sahara. As I said, if you use source, be loyal to it, not inventing things that are not on the source.--80.58.205.104 (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't care a scrap about truth. All that matters here is verifiability. Include reliable sources with your edits or every one of them will be reverted and you'll likely be blocked from editing eventually. Lara 12:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Explain it. There should be some explanation of how protesting began pre-Tunisia, but this latest-wave is inspired by those events [source]. Lara 12:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a country

Western Sahara is not a country, so why is it on the table which lists countries? The Palestinian territories were removed, so why must Western Sahara stay? TL565 (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the Palestinian territories should be in the table also, because they're colored in on the map. -ZeLonewolf (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
From Wikipedia article Country (text boldfaced for emphasis):

"A country is a geographical region considered to be the physical territory of a sovereign state, or of a smaller, or former, political division within a geographical region. Usually, but not always, a country coincides with a sovereign territory and is associated with a state, nation or government."

By this definition, all the states and territories in this article are countries, regardless of sovereignty or recognition. DerekMBarnes (talk) 05:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Somalia status

Why is Somalia listed as a "territory"? I know the internationally recognized government controlling part of Mogadishu doesn't have full control over the country - nor does that of Libya, I might add - but that doesn't mean it's not sovereign. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I moved it down there for the moment. I haven't done the research, but I suspect it should probably be removed from the article entirely as unrelated to this current wave of Ali/Mubarak-inspired protests. -ZeLonewolf (talk) 12:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Reportedly one of the demonstrators, told the media that they started the protests and they will continue until they succeed as the Egyptians and Tunisians overcame their leaders[50]. So are you insisting that it is unrelated ? In my view, discriminating between related and unrelated amounts to Cherry picking (fallacy) anyway. Teofilo talk 12:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Djibouti

  1. ^ http://www.rttnews.com/Content/GeneralNews.aspx?Node=B1&Id=625292, One Person Killed, Several Injured In Tunisia Clashes, RTT News
  2. ^ ^ Ford, Robert (2007-12-19). An ailing and fragile Algerian regime drifts into 2008. WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks cable:07ALGIERS1806. Archived from the original on 2011-01-05. Retrieved 2011-01-04.
  3. ^ ^ a b c d Chikhi, Lamine (2011-01-21). "Algeria army should quit politics: opposition". Thomson Reuters. Archived from the original on 2011-01-21. Retrieved 2011-01-22.
  4. ^ ^ Belhimer, Mahmoud (2010-03-17). "Political Crises but Few Alternatives in Algeria". Arab Reform Bulletin(Carnegie Endowment for International Peace). Retrieved 2011-02-13.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arab_Spring/Archive_6&oldid=1092046685"