Talk:Arab Spring/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 14

Syria & Yemen = New map status

There is already an open discussion about moving Syria from "Governmental Changes" to "Major Protests". Actually, the status of "Governmental Changes" is meant to be one step higher than "Major Protests", but the problem is that countries such as Syria and Yemen, with big events and hundreds deaths, are now mixed with lower activity level countries such as Jordan, Oman and Kuwait where the death toll is between 0-6 people in total.

I recommend that we create a new status / new color for Syria and Yemen to give them credibility without misguidance. The new status will be a step below "Revolution". In this way, we can clearly see the difference between the countries with status "Governmental Changes" in which hardly anything happens and countries where dozens die every day as Syria and Yemen.

Do you agree or are you against this suggestion? --Tonemgub2010 (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Uploaded by Kudzu1 (talk) 10:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC) - see comment below. Major update Kudzu1 (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC).

Why couldn't we just have Syria and Yemen striped a combination of orange and light blue, to signify both major protests and governmental changes? Jordan would be striped yellow and light blue.Whitesoxman (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree I think that's a good idea, that will also circumvent the question of which category ranks higher. Lampman (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed The stripes sounds good Dynex811 (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree I'm all for it. Map needs some revisions anyway. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree The stripes sounds like a good idea for me as well. Fair enough. --Tonemgub2010 (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's try it and see how it looks. I'm not sure how to do stripes, someone else will have to give it a go. ZeLonewolf (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not know how to do stripes either. Here is an old file that had stripes before, does it help? --Tonemgub2010 (talk contribs) 19:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree The stripes are a fantastic idea; but Syria is approaching uprising so if the consensus becomes that it is an uprising, it would be blue and red striped while Yemen remains orange and blue, I reckon. 18:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.119.235.104 (talk)

Comment Here's a mockup as to what the new map would look like (without inset boxes). It's not perfect because it's a PNG image file, not SVG (I don't have the tools to manipulate SVG format). I guess if this looks good somebody with SVG know-how can go about making an SVG version, plus insets. -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree - Although I think Syria and Yemen need to be upgraded from major protests/governmental changes to a Libya/Pre-revolution colour - Am I right in saying the situation in Syria is characterised as an armed conflict and maybe Yemen too? George5210 (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The protests in Yemen have remained remarkably peaceful throughout, so no on Yemen. As for Syria, the article has been moved to 2011 Syrian uprising with consensus, and there have been some reports of fighting between loyalist troops and defectors, but I don't know that it meets the definition of an armed conflict yet. So far I'd consider it to be a civil uprising but not a bona fide conflict; Yemen might meet that definition as well, but WP:RS aren't as sure. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The fantastic idea of having the stripes did not look as good as it sounded. It is just more confusing now than what it was. I think we should keep the map as it is and we just need to "upgrade" Syria and Yemen to a "Pre-Revolution"-kind-of-status. Any thoughts? Tonemgub2010 (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a "civil uprising" or "government changes but major protests continue" intermediate status perhaps should be tried. Let me give that a whirl. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Disagree On the new map Turkey should be added due to the ongoing uprisings taking place by Kurds in many cities especially Istanbul. Turkey is the new country facing ongoing rebells. Websites such as Tweeter, Youtube and Wikipedia are blocked by Turkish authorities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.183.50 (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a separate discussion entirely. I'm not opposed to adding Turkey if WP:RS finds protests there are linked to this broader wave, and I'm certainly open to that. As to just updating the map and adding an intermediate status for Syria and Yemen, what is your opinion, if any? -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

@87.228.183.50. Do not write false information. Websites such as Twitter and Wikipedia are not blocked. Yes, Youtube is blocked (because of videos insulting Ataturk), but similar websites such as Dailymotion, Google Video, Metacafe etc. are not blocked. Randam (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - for Kudzu1's map, it's perfect. Let's wait(to add Turkey) when Turkey truly develops country-wide protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart30 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Regarding Turkey, I'm tending toward support for including those protests in this article. Protests have been staged in Istanbul and Anatolia, from Kahramanmaraş to Hakkari, and they're growing increasingly contentious. I'm seeing a lot more comparisons to Egypt and Syria than I was just a few days ago. I do think it's about time we add Turkey to this article, as well as an addition to the "background" section mentioning that some of these protests (Turkey, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Armenia, Sudan, etc.) are essentially the reemergence of old grievances given additional impetus because protesting for your rights is kind of the thing to do these days in the Middle East (worked for Tunisia, Egypt, and Cyrenaica, after all). -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree I think it's a good idea to add Turkey. This article gives a broad overview, and should show as much as possible the different, related conflicts. Other articles can deal with the fine points of what is Arab, what constitutes western asia, etc. Beecher70 (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Support Turkey is increasingly becoming the new country facing ongoing protests and as it seems we are expecting a revolution. What I am a lot afraid of is that powerful and very equipped Turkish army will kill civilians and other protesters. Also due to the lack of Internet websites such as youtube, protesters will not be able to broadcast every single protest to give us a clear image of the magnitude of their struggle for their liberation! Please we must all support them and give them a hand of hope through Wikipedia. Solidarity towards the Kurds and other Ethnic groups protesting against Turkish goverment is necessary to establish a succesful and stable democracy in our region! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.183.50 (talk) 09:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Supporting them isn't our job here; in fact it's the exact opposite. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog or advocacy website. However, it is our job to document these events and preserve them in an accessible, verifiable, user-friendly format for education and posterity. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone constantly changes the map of Middle East countries where Turkey is included! Please add the map where Turkey is included as part of major middle East protests! This page was supposed to be protected but many make changes constantly without discussing them first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.183.50 (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

We're of the same opinion here, but a user is holding up consensus on keeping Turkey in the article and I'm not going to put it in unilaterally. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Syria

I believe that Syria deserves to have its own section, above "Other countries affected," since it has escalated to the point that it can be compared to the beginning of Libya's civil war. They did deploy tanks after all. All other countries in that section are still "Protests," but Syria has escalated to "Uprising." If no one objects, I would like to make that change. Unflavoured (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Support, now an event of very great importance.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Support, for the same reasons. --ERAGON (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Syria is showing great signs of revolutionary activity and therefore, as stated above, should have it's own section in "Other countries affected." 60'smusic (talk) 22:44, 27, April 2011 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.101.22 (talk)

Djibouti

What happened in Djibouti to change the color? There is no evidence of major protests listed anywhere in Wikipedia.Ericl (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree On review, the protests seem fairly minor, considering I'd call the 2011 Armenian protests just on the "major" side and tens of thousands of people calling for regime change have been involved. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree - should be minor. --Smart30 (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

yeman

i think u must move yemen from governmental change to civil uprising because the situation in yemen more close to syria then jordan and kuwait and oman. great article Lebanese journalist

I agree and that change is under discussion at Talk:2011 Yemeni protests. Thanks and hope you stick around. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Saleh recently agreed to step down. When he does ( if he does ), then it can be considered a revolution. But until then, I think it should be kept as major protests. Unflavoured (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

As I've posted on Talk:2011 Yemeni protests, a number of WP:RS are referring to the situation there as an uprising, and it does appear to resemble the situation in Syria in some ways. When Saleh steps down, if reliable sources call it a revolution, I would support the name also being changed then. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Note concerning related pages

I'm honored to be part of the editing community on this page. But I've noticed some of the other articles this page links to, including 2011 Yemeni protests, 2011 Syrian uprising, Impact of 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests, 2011 Armenian protests, 2011 Moroccan protests, and 2011 Azerbaijani protests, as well as the arguably related but unlinked 2011 Kurdish protests in Turkey, have been fairly neglected despite covering ongoing events. If you are able, I think the Wikipedia community would definitely benefit from our crop of good editors here keeping an eye out both for news updates (and adding that information, with citation, to the relevant page) and for unconstructive edits to those pages. Cheers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Arab Spring

Reuters: [1]
Fox News: [2]
CBS: [3]
BBC: [4]
Wall Street Journal: [5]
CNN: [6]
New York Times: [7]
Aljazeera: [8]
Huffington Post: [9]
Guardian: [10]
The Nation: [11]
Time: [12]
Christian Science Monitor: [13]
They are all calling it the Arab Spring. In the article, it is made very clear: "several affected countries are not strictly part of the Arab world," so this is not an issue. Try Googling "Arab Spring" and "Middle East and North Africa protests," and exclude Wikipedia. I believe it is time for the article to be called what everyone else is calling it. Unflavoured (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that it's the term they're all using now. And because it's just a term, even though it uses Arab in it, it doesn't necessary exclude any specific countries, just so long as other news sources specifically attribute them to being a part of the Arab Spring. Silverseren^C 02:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. We have the redirect in, and it's clearly mentioned as an alternate title. I'm willing to have a conversation about moving much of the Arab-specific information here to a new article (and perhaps creating an equivalent for Kurdish protests as well) while keeping this as an umbrella page for the revolutionary wave (including non-Arab states like Djibouti, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iran, and Armenia, as well as marginal cases like Western Sahara and Sudan) as a whole, but I think it would be irresponsible to change the name of this page to be Arab-specific while leaving non-Arab countries in, and I think it would be irresponsible to leave non-Arab countries out. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding me. I speak only about the title of the page, not the content. This has nothing to do with "irresponsible," as we are not saying that we should take out any current countries. The name "Arab Spring" is what is being used by everyone now. The sole place that you can find "Middle East and North Africa protests" is in this article. All news outlets are calling it "the Arab Spring." Unflavoured (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And, as I said, Arab Spring as a title doesn't mean that only Arab countries could be included, as many non-Arab countries have been considered a part of the Arab Spring by reliable sources. Silverseren^C 05:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree: We need to change it to a non-geographic name so that it doesn't cause problems and this name seems popular already. Non-Arab countries can still be apart of the protests and the name is fair because it all started with an Arab country anyway. TL565 (talk) 05:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have misgivings about this, but I'm not going to block consensus and it does appear to be WP:COMMON. I do think we need to consider making changes to the map and table, as Iran, Djibouti, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey (not presently included) are Middle East/North African countries that have experienced protests inspired by the Arab Spring and are considered to be part of the same outbreak of popular unrest - but they aren't Arab countries. I think perhaps the best solution would be to change those countries on the map to a different color (perhaps green) and fold them back into the impact article, giving that article much more prominence on the current page (trying to keep it from just being remainders, and I think a reminder on the map would be useful in that regard). I'd consent to that as long as a couple experienced editors are willing to commit to maintaining and improving the impact article. Adding a new template box for Arab Spring rather than just booting the non-Arab countries out of the current MENA protests template box (which could even be retitled as "Tunisia Effect protests" or something and split up by geographic region) would help with that, too. I dunno, just tossing some ideas around. It's a tough situation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove any of the current content that is not being challenged. This is about a name change for the article, not about removing Iran, Djibouti, etc etc. Unflavoured (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Enclave of Oman

There's a small enclave (Musandam) of Oman at the tip of the United Arab Emirates that's not colored blue on the map like the rest of the country. —Salmar ^(talk) 03:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will fix that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Turkey Major Protests!!! Happening at this moment!!!

All Wikipedia users please listen to the demand of Turkish people for demonstrations. Create and expand the section to add the latest anti-goverment demonstrations which have taken place in Turkish biggest cities Istanbul and Ankara. It is amazing of how many people have participated in these demonstrations condemning the current goverment and demanding a change in this dictatorial style goverment! The harsh and barbaric treatment of Turkish police forces with the arrest of Turkish journalists who wrote against the goverment actions has led to a massive chain reaction. Also many political analysts and journalists all over the globle are describing Turkish democracy as fake and only benefiting those close to the military or goverment organisations. Please expand the article on Turkish recent minor demonstrations which are continously becoming more and more serious.

Turkish protests in Turkey is clearly not related to Kurdish Protests in Turkey. Kavas (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's important to bear in mind that there are going to be the usually pre-election rallies and demonstrations, as well as various other protests. None of the demonstrations from Turkey this year aside from the protests by the Kurds have really resembled what we've seen emanating from the shockwave of Sidi Bouzid, and only those Kurdish protests have been compared or related in any serious way by WP:RS to the Tunisia Effect or the so-called "Arab Spring". -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Armenia and Azerbaijan

Since it looks like its not going to be changed to either name, these countries should be removed or put into the Impact of 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests. I have never heard of Armenia and Azerbaijan being in the Middle East. Greater, yes but just Middle East, no. I have tried to propose a minor name change to expand the area and accommodate these countries, but I keep hearing the same excuses that look like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, such as "Its euro-centric", or "Not widely used", instead of real reasons. The more countries we add to the page, the harder it will be to put them under one geographic area, so expand the area or don't add them at all. TL565 (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree, Armenia and Azerbaijan do not belong, they should be in "Impact" article. They are not generally included in the MENA protests by WP:RS, and do not belong to geographic Middle East ("Greater Middle East" is a politic term, still sometimes used in Britain and US, but except confusing some people and media, doesn't do any real purpose for definitions).87.69.107.188 (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose The current argument above is to use the title of what most sources are using. Obviously, any title change would hence be long in coming because any new title in usage, even if every source changed to using it, would still have to out-pace all past usages of other names first. I say that we disregard the title in determining what is included in this article and include the protests that reliable sources say are connected and involved. Silverseren^C 17:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well that's where the Impact of 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests article comes in. Some people are even saying that this is an Arab thing only and that non-Arab countries should not be included as well. TL565 (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with Silver seren, reliable sources need to be followed in terms of both the article title and article content. The protests are spreading and it is quite likely that reliable sources will in time give the protests a different name, perhaps a non-geographic one or even a global one. However that will happen slower than the protests can spread. Armenia and Azerbaijan are geographically close and reliable sources very closely associate the protests there with those in the region generally described as the 'Middle East and North Africa'. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok fine, lets add China or Wisconsin then, geographic area doesn't matter right? Who cares about the name? Lets just put in any protest anywhere in the world in the article because they "seem connected". You people are being less logical the more I talk about this. I give up. TL565 (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Except that the connections between the protests in China and Wisconsin have not been connected in reliable sources. China may have been somewhat, but hasn't really formed enough to be a real protest or part of what is happening here yet and Wisconsin, obviously, has little to nothing to do with this, as it is about an entirely different issue. But reliable sources, since the onset of protests in Armenia and Azerbaijan , have been specifically connected them with the other protests in this article's subject area. That's why they should be included here. Indirect protests are what belong in the Impact article, but the protests in these two countries are being described as directly related. Silverseren^C 21:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Wikipedia itself concedes that the ill-defined region known as the Middle East can include Armenia and Azerbaijan by some definitions. There's a clear factor of geographic proximity here, and from the very start of protests in both countries, the connection to events elsewhere in the Middle East was pointed out. What's more, if we're willing to include Djibouti and Mauritania as part of North Africa, it shows that we're willing to use the most inclusive definition of these terms to suit both WP:COMMON and the reality of the situation (which is that protests as part of the same wave are taking place in countries that might be considered peripheral/marginal/borderline but for the purposes of this article are part of the same geopolitical region). Armenia, Azerbaijan, Djibouti, and Mauritania certainly have far more claim to being Middle-Eastern or North African than the PRC or Wisconsin, and there are far more historical and political commonalities to be seen there. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Armenia is neither geography wise or politically in the Middle East, and thus putting Armenia here is very inappropriate. Armenia is part of the South Caucasus and is politically part of Europe. Georgian, Armenia, and Azerbaijan all fall in the same category. There is a sharp difference between the Caucasus and the Middle East, cultural, political, history, and obviously geography. This is common knowledge that educated people should know. MosMusy (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

However, the protests in Armenia have been very directly linked to the protests here, unlike most other protests in the Impact article. Because of this, it is likely better for us to utilize WP:IAR in order to include Armenia in this article regardless of the title, because it applies to the topic in general. Silverseren^C 22:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

So then why not make a little change in the name to accommodate them? Like the above poster said, they are a part of the Caucasus, not traditional Middle East. Yeah, some people "claim" they could be, but why not avoid the dispute altogether and change the name? I don't think there is an official name for these protests and Armenia and Azerbaijan still don't seem to be in the major focus. To me, it has to be either rename the article or remove these countries, but can't stay the way it is now. TL565 (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It hasn't changed because there's no consensus to change it. I supported the change too. So we're using an expansive definition of Middle East because it's more irresponsible to exclude Armenia and Azerbaijan than it is to use a definition of the Middle East not preferred by the U.S. State Department. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I also supported the change. But we should be following what sources say are connected to this, regardless of what editors decide the title of the article is. We're meant to reflect the references. The reason why it is so difficult to change the name is because sources have yet to express a more expanded title themselves, which is fine, I suppose. But the sources have also directly linked Armenia and Azerbaijan to this, so it is our responsibility to include them. Silverseren^C 23:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree per MosMusy - There are also other protests very directly related that are not included here including China, the fact is that we can not include every country and these two countries are not part of the arab world and where this all started. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree This WP article is on the Middle East Protests(Arab Spring) that started in Tunusia after Bouazizi killed himself. I think we need reliable sources that clearly say Armenia and Azerbaijan protests are part of Middle East Protests. Kavas (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC))

Add Turkey to "other regional incidents"?

As we appear to be at loggerheads as to whether the 2011 Kurdish protests in Turkey are properly part of this wave of demonstrations - with some arguing that they are the continuance of a long series of protests that have recently flared up not because of the "Arab Spring", but because of approaching elections, and others arguing that commentators and organizers of protests have drawn explicit parallels and cited inspiration from the protests elsewhere in the Middle East (and in North Africa) - I think a compromise may be in order. This page makes no mention of these ongoing demonstrations in Turkey at all, which makes no sense, because the impact has clearly been felt there. So, my proposal is to include Turkey in the "other regional incidents" while using language that makes it clear that there are other things going on in Turkey, but the success of the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions and the protests among Kurds in Syria and Iraq have been cited as an influence on the turn protests have taken this year.

That would bring the Turkey protests roughly in line with the protests in Western Sahara, which we do mention on this page while making it explicit that the Sahrawis have caught a wave rather than actually starting fresh protests because unrest is in the neighborhood and the regime is unpopular (which seems to be the situation in all of the other countries currently on the map; a few of these countries were already unstable, but they weren't accustomed to anything like major protests just starting up spontaneously). -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ordering the table by 'result'

I ordered the table by the "result" column, and as I expected, it was ordered by alphabetically by the name of the outcome. It would, I think, be much better if we could get it to sort by the "severity" of the result, eg: Revolution, Armed conflict, Governmental changes, Civil uprising, Major protests, Minor protests. I was considering adding in invisible unicode characters at the start of the names, but I didn't know if there are enough, and it would be easily broken by an unwitting editor. Is there any way we can make this happen? maybe a template of some kind? Quantum Burrito (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we pretty much just copy-and-paste that unicode text anyway. If you know how to do it, I'd say go ahead and add it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Western Sahara flag

Why not have a flag for western sahara when we have one for the palestinian territories? Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 00:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Palestinian flag isn't disputed. The flag of the territorial authority is the same as the flag claimed by the partially recognized country. However, in Western Sahara, the claim of the SADR conflicts with that of Morocco, which holds that Western Sahara exists under the Moroccan flag. In keeping with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, we are therefore not endorsing either view by not using either flag for the territory. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I see, but the fact is that the palestinian authority doesn't control the whole territory and much of the palestinian territories is in fact disputed, controlled and claimed by Israel, so in that regard the situation is the same for the palestinian territories as western sahara. So we should either not use the flag or instead of Palestinian territories write Palestinian authority whos flag isn't disputed.Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 00:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Much of the Palestinian territories is occupied and partially administered by Israel, but the Israeli government does not consider the territories to come under the Israeli flag. It's a subtly different situation. Morocco and the Polisario Front refuse to work with one another, while Israel and the Palestinian National Authority have an agreement whereby the Palestinian territories themselves exist - as established by Israel. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't East Jerusalem ofthen considered part of the palestinian territories? Because I can guarantue you that the Israeli goverment consider it to come under the Israeli Flag. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 00:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the Palestinian territories article itself East Jerusalem is part of the palestinian territories and recognized as such by the UN and the palestinians, but Israel claims this territory and as I said the Israeli goverment definitively consider it to come under Israeli flag. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 00:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

East Jerusalem is claimed by Israel as part of its territory, though it is geopolitically considered part of the West Bank and the Palestinian National Authority believes East Jerusalem should be part of the Palestinian territories. But that's an issue of disputed territory rather than a disputed flag. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it would be best to use both flags for Western Sahara. Also, same should be done for Libya. --93.139.0.116 (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the Libyan flag from the table. It is Wikipedia policy not to use a flag icon where the flag is in dispute, AFAIK. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the Israeli government claims at least parts of the palestinian territores and the very least disputes the claim that all of the palestinian territories are under the palestinian flag: Benjamin Netanyahu talking about the city of Ariel: reiterate and clarify that this bloc is one of the most important. It will forever be part of the State of Israel.

Furthermore East Jerusalem in this case is not only a dispute of territory but a dispute of the actual definition of the palestinian territories. If we go by the palestinian definition then with East Jerusalem Israe claims parts of the palestinian territories as under its flag, with the Israeli definition then still settlements such as Ariel is still claimed. And Israel didn't establish the palestinian territories. It was the PA that was established as a result of negotiataions between PLO and Israel. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 12:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a discussion for another page. For all intents and purposes on this page, the Palestinian flag serves to represent the Palestinian territories, while the flags of Western Sahara and Libya are in sufficient dispute as to not be displayed here as not to confer any sort of official recognition of claims one way or the other. You can start a topic about whether to remove the Palestinian flag, but we've discussed the matter of the Western Sahara/SADR flag here before and the conclusion was that we should not use it. You're welcome to revitalize that debate, though, but I oppose its usage here. And for the record, I do support international recognition of the SADR. -Kudzu1 (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you then find it acceptable if I remove the palestinian flag then? Becuase what I have argued for here is either use the flag for both or for none, so I find unneccesary to start another topic when it's essentially the same topic. Or we can change it to palestinian authority since the territory under their control is not disputed and it is where the protests have taken place and not the parts of the palestinian territories not controlled by them. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 23:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Western Sahara is not internationally recognized as its own entity, while the Palestinian territories are internationally recognized as Palestinian.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Put me down as a weak oppose for that. You'll have to convince me that it's the same situation, because right now, I really don't think it is. Israel doesn't have its own flag for the Palestinian territories and doesn't consider them to be Israeli; the Palestinian Authority is no more a country than the National Transitional Council is a country, it's a government; and Western Sahara is actively contested between Morocco, which believes most of it is part of Morocco and the rest is an unorganized territory under Moroccan administration, and the SADR, which administers that unorganized territory and believes the rest of it is its rightful territory as well. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed before here. Basically - Western Sahara doesn't have a flag. Morocco and SADR have flags, but neither of those seems appropriate to use in this case. Alinor (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Remove Libyan flag/flagicon from table?

As the flag of Libya is presently disputed between two governments that enjoy partial international recognition, I believe it would be best not to endorse either view and to remove the flag next to the link to the 2011 Libyan civil war in our table. Thoughts? -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a mixed flag: [14] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That seems like WP:ORIGINAL to me. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Support - keep it neutral. --Smart (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The uprising is against the "green" flag and that's the flag of Libya at the begin of the events, so it should remain IMHO. Whether another flag will prevail in the long term is irrelevant. Alinor (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Armenia, Azerbaijan, TRNC

If Armenia and Azerbaijan moved here as "middle eastern" (from Impact of 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests), then Northern Cyprus should be included too. Alinor (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Support - I think it should be added to regional incidents on this page, with the caveat that it is also the continuation of a sovereignty dispute on the island. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Change to Oppose - I'd like to see a bit more evidence that the comparisons to Mubarak that were tossed out at the initial rally weren't just one guy running his mouth. I've been able to identify reliable sources that have linked the protests in Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey to the protests elsewhere in the Middle East, but aside from that one guy comparing the Northern Cypriot government to Mubarak, I really haven't found that link for Northern Cyprus. I'm not going to oppose because it's possible you know more about this than me and English-language media has really neglected this story even worse than it has the protests in Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey. But I'd be really cautious of this without seeing a stronger link. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per Alinor's reasoning. Schwarz Ente (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Support Cyprus is a European country but geographically in the Middle-East. --Smart (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Somalia

There are currently a couple of redirects pointing here suggesting there's a section on Somalia (2011 Somali protests and 2011 Somalian protests). Just wondering if the mention of Somalia will be reinstated at some point or whether it's better to delete the redirects. Thanks. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe Somalia was discussed and we concluded there was no verifiable link between protests there and protests in the Middle East and North Africa. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Why?

I just don't understand why someone replaced a perfectly good map with this thing.The choice of colors if terrible.Use warm colors.The current map is an eyesore,seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.47.11.31 (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as the creator of the previous map, it was replaced because there was consensus to change it. This color scheme also brings us more in line with articles for this event in other-language Wikipedias, IIRC. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The color for protests should be dark,this way it looks like spilled milk.Dark Yellow was way better,the rest is good as it is.--31.47.11.31 (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. All the colors in the current map are better than the old one. Mild protests should be a lighter color than strong protests, to combine properly the meaning and the presentation. The previous "dark yellow" didn't really imply anything of mildness, so someone couldn't automatically perceive much in the previous map. Aris Katsaris (talk) 09:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The two individuals beaten to death in Morocco

In the summary of protests by country, for Morocco, it says: Death toll: 7 (including 2 beaten to death). With all respect to those two individuals and their families and relatives, is there any extraordinary circumstance that motivates more attention to those two compared to everyone else that has been beaten to death in, for example, Libya and Egypt? Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There's not. Let's go ahead and remove that. I'm not sure why it was included in the first place. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Clickable map?

What ever happened to the clickable feature of the map? It was much more useful when you could click on an area and it would bring you to the article about that country.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. Unfortunately, coaxing the coding to work is an unimaginable pain in the rear, and the guy who used to maintain the template for it has been AWOL for the past two or three weeks. I'm not really sure how to do it myself (I tried and failed to manipulate it), or I'd try to help out. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Numbered list item

Potential Recategorisation (and new map?)

  Revolution   Ongoing Civil War   Sustained Civil Disorder and Governmental Changes   Protests and Governmental Changes   Major Protests   Protests

As the situation is constantly developing, I think its worth thinking about how we are representing it. I have come up with a draft new map (right) to combat several things that I don't think work with the current one, including:

• Not showing the level of protest where there are government changes. Also having some disparity between whether the level of protest or government changes are shown (eg. Bahrain vs. Yemen)
• That Syria is represented separately. To me, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain all bear similar levels of what I have called 'Sustained Civil Disorder' (with significant numbers of dead within ongoing protests).
• That the colour scheme has been lost, and it is no longer 'graphic' enough to make a visual impact

I think it is worth getting more input on this, even if this isn't this plan isn't used directly on the main page. My main question is - do you think this system of categorisation works better than the existing? Twelvechairs (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support I love this, and I think we should absolutely use this map. I'm not sure I'd classify Bahrain as having "sustained civil disorder" as I think protests that are ongoing are at a fairly subdued level, but that's just a quibble. I definitely agree that Yemen and Syria should have the same status, and I've put in a request to that effect over at 2011 Yemeni protests. Anyway, great job, and the color scheme is fantastic as well. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - I vote in favor of the map, although I too, express concern over Bahrain's status, as it is not in the same situation as Yemen-Syria.--Smart30 (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support This map is far clearer and easily understandable in comparison to the current one. I would suggest perhaps changing 'Sustained Civil Disorder and Governmental Changes' to simply 'Civil Unrest'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.109.145 (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The map is excellent but Turkey should belong to major protests —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.183.50 (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - This map is certainly an improvement, kudos Twelvechairs. 87.228.183.50: Why do you think that Turkey belongs to major protests? Schwarz Ente (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Support as this would be a vast improvement. It still has problems, mind you, like the arbitrary distinction between "protests" and "major protests -- which some time ago I suggested be fixed with the map I made at Template:2010–2011 MENA protests deathtoll outcomes: Namely changing to a quantitative metric about the number of deaths. But your map is still an improvement, and so I support. Your coloring is better than mine, I think, anyway. Aris Katsaris (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I have updated this on the main page (I have a feeling there will be more input now it is visible). I don't want to put down anyones comments (eg. whether 'Sustained Civil Disorder' is the right categorisation name, or right for Bahrain) by not including them yet, just think it might be worth seeing what some more people think. A couple of comments from my side - I think Bahrain does belong in this group because (even though it is now much calmer) there was strong civil unrest there for weeks, also the numbers of dead per head of population is almost double that of any other country except Libya. As for the the distinction of 'minor' and 'major' protests, I think this is a little spurious too (note that I have removed the term 'minor'), but didnt want to be _too_ overwhelmingly different with this map (its nice to have some continuity after all), so haven't done anything with that here. Twelvechairs (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I've put in a move request over at Talk:2011 Bahraini protests and added Turkey to the list of regional incidents per discussion above. Waiting on possibly adding it to the table or reclassifying it as we're having trouble getting consensus there. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Support???OK,I'm not going to comment that,but I will comment the use of colors.Replace the color for protests with something better or something darker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.47.11.31 (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way is separating the protests from the government reaction. Have one colour with several shades for the uprising, and another colour with several shades for the response. For instance, you might have:

• Protest: light red = minor protest, medium red = major protest, dark red = major conflict
• Government: light blue = changes, dark blue = revolution.

For countries where both protests and changes have occurred you'd have stripes. So Egypt and Tunisia would probably be major protests with revolution, Bahrain major protests with government changes, Kuwait minor protests with government changes, Saudi Arabia minor protests only etc. I think getting too tied up about adding new degrees of conflict for border-line countries like Syria, or a civil war category for Libya is over-complicating what is supposed to be a simple visual guide. How much protest has there been and what is the result of that so far? For Libya it would probably be major conflict with government changes - two bodies competing for power. This would show very simply that Libya has had more bloodshed for less result than a country like Egypt. The details are in the article. Inny Binny (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

We tried the stripes and concluded that they didn't look as good as we were hoping they would. I think the current color scheme is fairly straightforward and the table adds those sorts of details that you mention. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

     What about small coloured dots within the countries?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.191.237 (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC) 

Armenia does not belong in this article!

Again, neither Armenia or the other South Caucasian countries don't belong in this article. They are politically not part of Middle East (Council of Europe) and are geographically not considered part of Middle East (some considered part of "Greater Middle East"). That being said, it is grossly inaccurate to put Armenia in this article as part of Middle East. The political climate of Armenia also does not reflected the political climates of other Middle Eastern countries given it's a politically European nation. MosMusy (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Armenia is considered part of the Middle East in a broad definition (I have some serious problems with how much weight Wikipedia assigns the Bushian "Greater Middle East" definition, but that's a discussion for another article), and WP:RS has linked the protests there to the protests elsewhere in the Middle East. Just because they're on the Council of Europe doesn't make them European; geographically, Armenia is not European, and only a small section of Azerbaijan is. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree: There was already a discussion on this, [15] TL565 (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Disagree - Armenians as a people are a part of the fabric of the Middle-East, it is impossible to de-Asianize them. They are a part of Europe, but this is due to strong cultural, religious and linguistic ties, not historical or ethnic ties. Most of Armenia throughout history was located in the Middle-East/Asia Minor. In its reduced form, the CoE has attempted to bring it away from Iranian influence, as has the EU. --Smart (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, there is no way that Armenia is in the Middle East, despite what some people think. TL565 (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion. One of my friends from school was Armenian, and IIRC, he considered himself to be Middle Eastern (and wanted absolutely nothing to do with Russia or the Europeans). Armenian cuisine is quite similar to Persian cuisine as well, which I remember surprised me the first time I had dinner at his house. So, again: competing definitions. And since the protests in Armenia and Azerbaijan really came out of this regional wave of unrest, I'm fine with using the broader definition, just as we use the broad definition of North

Africa in order to count protests in Mauritania and Djibouti (interesting side thought: what do we do if these protests are ongoing when South Sudan formally secedes?). -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait so you are basing your opinion on one Armenian whom you were friends with? Mind you not, there is a large Armenian diaspora, and part of that Armenian diaspora is from Middle Eastern countries so take that into consideration. What we are talking about here is Republic of Armenia - which by political standards is considered part of Europe, that is fact, you cannot dispute that. Geographically, it is part of the South Caucasus which is a separate entity from the Middle East, both culturally, historically, and geographically. However, the biggest authority here is the European Union which considered Armenia part of Europe, and doesn't consider Israel for example as part of Europe. I think it's also necessary to cite some of the quotes Armenian politicians have said about Armenia's relationship with Europe:

http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/others/index_en.htm http://www.armradio.am/news/?part=pol&id=18723 http://www.gov.am/en/news/item/5418/ http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=armenia8217s-european-perpectives-2010-09-23 http://www.yerevanreport.com/5012/armenia-step-up-european-integration/

Here are some selected quotes:

"On May 27, President Serzh Sargsyan met in Brussels with Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council.

The President of Armenia reiterated the readiness of the Armenian authorities to cooperate closely with the European structures and stressed that due to her values and aspirations Armenia is an indivisible part of Europe. "

"Hovhannes Hovhannisyan said there is a quite strong opinion in Armenia that the country’s future lies with Europe. “There is no talk about Asia,” he said, adding that Armenian society considers itself European and celebrates its European origins and values. "

This is from Armenia's Former Foreign Minister

"If it used to be religion that bound Europe together a millennium ago, it certainly isn't any longer. Nor is it the economic advancement that was specific to Europe two centuries ago. It isn't ideology either, which was both adhesive and encumbrance for decades in the last century.

Europe is more than its common history, more than geography, more than a club for members. All those who've said Europe is an idea are right. It is the idea of a Europe that is the common, if unattainable ideal.

Even those living outside this space have imagined and desired a Europe which can be addressed collectively, a partner which can be enlisted conveniently, a Europe to which they yearn to belong.

Armenia is Europe. This is a fact, it's not a response to a question.

The collapse of the USSR brought us to a point of economic and political crisis. I remember our discussions in Armenia, before our entry into the Council of Europe. There were many questions about the choice of path to take.

Dante once said that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality. I'm happy to say I won't be going there because I was among the loudest advocates of the European path.

The choice was clear. Armenians believe in the values of the European enlightenment, of European civilization. The moral, ethical and existential choices that bring individuals and societies to select democracy over other forms of government, rule of law over rule of man, human rights over selective rights ­ those choices have been made.

A people who have lived under subjugation, have seen ethnic cleansing and genocide even before the terms existed, have lived as a minority without rights, now belong to a world where warring neighbors have found that they can accept new borders based on realities on the ground and move on. Europe's nation-states have found that they can transcend borders, without diminishing or ignoring cultural spaces, without expecting historical identities to vanish.

The European Neighborhood Policy brings Armenia back home since Armenia's foreign policy priority is the gradual integration of Armenia into European institutions.

In his presentation, my good friend, Senator Demetro Volcic described in ponderous detail my country's foreign policy priorities. I must admit that he is well aware of them not as a common bystander, but as a caring and thoughtful professional, who has proven to be instrumental in helping to integrate Armenia into the modern European architecture.

The double digit GDP growth, which Armenia achieved each of the last five years, the successful admission into the WTO, the spirit of the free enterprise, the changing political system and society are promising signs that we are on the right track. However, it is too early to say that the European standard is round the corner. It is not as close yet as Europe itself, as Venice, as Verona, as the shared cultural and religious values of the past and present.

To highlight and share those values, we will be launching a two-month long Days of Italy in Armenia, beginning in early October. This project has received the blessing and patronage of President Ciampi, President Kocharian and Governor Galan. The centerpiece of these important events will be an exhibition of the riches from the Isla Armena.

In light of all this, then, the Fondazione Masi has, in bestowing upon me this award, put a great stamp of approval on Armenia, its foreign policy directions, its European orientation, its future.

I thank you

"

This is also essential, from Official Governmental Standpoint on Foreign Policy:

"In the framework of European integration Armenia continues to consistently implement reforms aimed at building democratic institutions and civil society in line with European standards and principles.

Armenia’s inclusion in European Neighbourhood Policy, signing and the beginning of the implementation of the Action Plan in 2006 was a significant progress on the path of European integration. These processes will make it possible for Armenia in the nearest future to move in some areas from the cooperation stage to integration stage with the EU.

European integration for Armenia is not an aim in itself. It will positively influence the social fabric, will help to strengthen democracy, civil society and rule of law. Eventually it will ascertain in Armenian and European perceptions that Armenia is an inalienable part of Europe.

EU has initiated a number of important regional programs (TRACECA, TACIS, INOGATE, Regional Environmental Centre) and their successful implementation will not only serve as a serious impetus for economic development, but will contribute to the atmosphere of mutual trust, stability and cooperation.

European integration includes also a security component and is viewed by Armenia in the context of Euro-Atlantic partnership."

There are many more quotes and backings of this, but I think you get the point. Armenia has also had significant historical contact with Europe during its times of independence (which wasn't many unfortunately) for example the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia.

In order to not include Armenia as a part of Europe you are refuting clear Armenian governmental and EU governmental policy.

And one more thing, why isn't Georgia included? Are they part of Europe but Armenia part of Middle East? It's a really laughable notion and people here should really be consistent and stop contorting facts and history. MosMusy (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The Australian government argues that the Southern Ocean begins off the coast of Adelaide, too. That doesn't make it geographically so. Yes, the current government of Armenia is very pro-EU and Western-oriented, and the EU wants to expand territorially - quite possibly in an effort to encircle and isolate Russia from its traditional CIS and Warsaw Pact allies, but that's a discussion for another page. That does not change the fact that Armenia is considered to be part of the Middle East by some definitions. Armenia is also a member of the Asian Development Bank; it doesn't take a cartographer to understand that the Caucasus is a crossroads between Europe, Central Asia (via the Caspian Sea), and the Middle East. It is neither indisputably European nor indisputably Middle Eastern - but because the Armenian and Azerbaijani protests are relevant to this article due to their relation to the rest of the protests covered here, we're considering them to be Middle Eastern for the purposes of this article. We're working with that definition. We haven't discussed including Georgia because AFAIK, there are no protests going on in Georgia associated with this regional wave (Georgia, if you're curious, is mostly included in Europe as per the standard geographic definition).

Look, you can say what you want about "people here", but we're all editors of this page, and you can't get rid of part of the article unilaterally. I know you think we're all nuts, but we've been down this road. When I proposed adding these two countries last month, nobody objected, and I added them; since then, a few people like you have joined our editing community on this page and asked why they're included, and the answer is that they're related, they're as Middle Eastern as Mauritania and Djibouti are North African (which is to say not indisputably so but under some definitions), and they belong here way more than they belong anywhere else. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Not only Armenian government, but the European Union considered Armenia to be part of Europe. EU doesn't go around saying Israel is part of Europe or Morocco, it's rather clear on its definition - and its definition most clearly includes all countries in the South Caucasus. Are you going to go against the ruling and decisions of the EU? Are you going to call the EU liars in calling Armenia European? You sure you know more than them when it comes to this issue? You must understand the seriousness of that. This is not some random person saying it - European Union has more legitimacy to say which country is part of Europe and which isn't more than anybody here. You want to oppose the ruling of European Union fine - but don't portray it like I'm some random person trying to push an agenda. My agenda here is the truth, and I have laid down for your clear testaments to the truth. Armenia is sometimes considered geographically part of the "Greater Middle East". However, again I will say, ask any expert, the South Caucasus has been throughout history a separate entity from the Middle East, geographically at the crossroads of Europe and Asia. All countries of the South Caucasus deserve the same treatment, and if not, then it is evident there is some pushing some sort of an agenda. Saying the Armenian protests is part of the Middle Eastern protests is misleading to the unsuspecting reader and clearly inaccurate, and goes against the fact that I have laid out. So tell me, if there were protests in Georgia would they be included in this article? This deep flaw in the article must be fixed.MosMusy (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The EU and Israeli government have actually flirted with possible Israeli accession to the EU in recent years, actually: [16] Funny you bring that up. I actually would say your complaint over the geographic boundary between Europe and Asia should be taken to the Europe and Asia pages. But I really don't see the controversy because we're not deciding whether to include these South Caucasian states, which are part of Asia as per the UN definition, in an article on Middle East protests versus an article on European protests. The protests are happening in the Middle East - including in Armenia and Azerbaijan, where governments, organizers, and journalists have overtly linked the unrest to what is occurring elsewhere in the geographic neighborhood. That's enough for our purposes here. We understand it's disputed; nonetheless, it was decided to use the broad definition of Middle East for the purposes of this article because Armenia and Azerbaijan merit inclusion and discussion. The editors made the same decision when debating whether to consider Mauritania and Djibouti North African for the purposes of this article. I'm sorry you feel there's a serious problem here, and I'm sorry you're unsatisfied, but I don't think this is the correct forum for you to challenge a transcontinental boundary. That is not our chief concern on this page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

EU and Israel may have close ties but Israel has never been considered part of Europe like Armenia has. This article implies that Armenia is part of Middle East and that is taking a very skewed and biased position which is inaccurate. Why is there no mention that Armenia is considered part of Europe in this article? You call it a controversy yet hypocritically mention it to be only part of Middle East. I am sure there is official Wikipedia policy that explicitly states it is prohibited for an article to do this, yet the editors continue to violate the rules. The referencing of the Arab protests has also been done in places like China and even the US. Why not include them also? Again, it is not disputed where Armenia is. The EU and Armenian government are very explicit on which region Armenia is associated with - it really doesn't matter if some confused Armenians you know think Republic of Armenia is elsewhere. Does that mean nothing? I will appeal to higher power here because I can clearly see there is an alterior agenda to paint Armenia in a false light and this article continues to hold fatal errors. MosMusy (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, there's no conspiracy here. Assume good faith please, and without trying to come off as condescending...please calm down. I have no vendetta against Armenia or "ulterior motives" - why would I? If the EU and Armenia want to discuss expanding the EU to include Armenia, that's fine, good for them, but Armenia is considered by the UN to be part of Western Asia, other WP:RS have included the South Caucasus region in the Middle East (including most dictionaries and the Associated Press), etc. There are competing schools of thought here. As for why the EU position on Armenia isn't mentioned in the article, well, I don't think it's really relevant, frankly. I think you're using this article to wage a proxy war on redefining the transcontinental boundary, which is covered in other articles on Wikipedia. Please take it up with the editors of those pages. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

They are not discussing for Europe to include Armenia - EU has explicitly stated since the independence of Armenia, that Armenia was part of the European family and part of Europe. What is so difficult to understand here? Geographically, South Caucasus is a crossroad between Europe and Asia, and any geographer will tell you that as fact. South Caucasus and Middle East are different entities (and any expert will attest to this) - they don't mix. At times, S. Caucasus is included in the "Greater Middle East" but that often times has little significance. My biggest problem here is that Armenia is mentioned liked it is just a regular part of the Middle East just like Lebanon or Saudi Arabia are. As I said, that is heavily misleading because such a connotation is just blatantly false. I am not redefining transcontinental boundaries I am stating here all facts regarding the status of Armenia and with what region Armenia is associated with; and that region is not the Middle East. This problem needs to be fixed or else this article continues to be a dishonour to Wikipedia and what it stands for. MosMusy (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me try to explain my perspective on this, and the rationale others besides myself have used to support the Armenian and Azerbaijani protests' inclusion here. As long as some credible definitions of the Middle East include Armenia and Azerbaijan, and there are protests happening in those countries that draw explicit influence from and share many common goals with the protests elsewhere in the region, we would be remiss not to include them. I'm not arguing to keep Armenia and Azerbaijan here because I don't think they should ever be considered for EU accession, or because I have anything against them - I'm arguing to keep them here because this page gets a decent amount of traffic and attention, and those events haven't gotten the attention they deserve compared to the Arab world protests...and it makes no sense to relegate them to the less-trafficked "Impact" page for similar protests outside the region when some definitions of the Middle East, as noted on the corresponding Wikipedia article for Middle East, do include these two countries. As long as they can be considered Middle Eastern according to WP:RS, even if there's no consensus among reliable sources, and there are related events happening there, we're obligated to include them in an article about Middle Eastern protests.

I should note this may be a moot debate anyway, as there's a lot of popular support for moving this article to "Arab Spring", and I strongly believe a page with that title should not include protests in non-Arab states as being part of the events. In that case, the two South Caucasus countries will likely move to "Impact" along with Iran, Turkey, and Djibouti. -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

note - Armenia is a part of Europe culturally. Armenia is located in Asia geographically. Armenia should be included in this article. I don't believe there is any contradiction between those statements. The protests/rebellions/revolutions initially started in a Arab and Muslim country, but spread subsequently to countries with more diverse demographics, the best example being Iran, a Muslim but not Arab country. It is my understanding that the protests/rebellions/revolutions in all adjacent countries are interconnected by many concurrent factors, quote "economic decline, unemployment, extreme poverty, and a number of demographic structural factors, such as a large percentage of educated but dissatisfied youth within the population", and also by the boldness one acquires on observing oppressed citizens of another country rise to challenge their government/dictatorship. These events also started in a country located in Africa, but they have spread outside of it, in the region where Africa, Asia, and Europe meet. This article is about all these protests/rebellions/revolutions, and although I feel it could be possibly splitted to the initial events that have a conclusion (Tunisia, Egypt) and the ongoing events, I don't think that it would be wise to do so in an a priori way. Schwarz Ente (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

CommentRather than fight over a nation's geopolitical association, how about a compromise? Focus the article on events directly attributed to the Tunisian revolution and anything else to a concurrent incidents section. This will make it easier to split later on. --Blackmane (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is a sound way to continue editing this evolving article. Schwarz Ente (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The protests also spread to China, Croatia, and even US why not include them? They were also citing the Arab protests as inspiration for theirs. Look the main problem here is portraying Armenia has a "Middle Eastern" country as the title of the article is clearly "Middle Eastern and North African protests". What this article does thus is put Armenia only under a "Middle Eastern" light and ignore all the other facts regarding Armenia's legitimate association with Europe. It portrays Armenia as being part of the region in all aspects that include countries such as Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, or Syria. This is again, blatantly false and is the wrong connotation for Armenia. Why is Armenia being portrayed in such a biased light? Why is there no mention of Armenia's real association? Let me remind you that many of the protests in Armenia are inspired by EU democracy as EU democratic ideals are often mentioned by the protesters. Heck, they even blast the EU national anthem during each of the protests. So don't tell me they only take their inspiration from the Arab protests. They have cited the Arab protests to advance their cause, but in the end their real inspiration is from Europe as it has always been, which of course is expected. I will ask once again, stop portraying Armenia in this biased light of being only a Middle Eastern country and make some changes, as it is skewing the factual integrity of these events, and skewing the factual evidence of the events in Armenia. And finally, Geography wise Armenia is part of South Caucasus not Middle East. I have said this many, many time but Middle East and South Caucasus are two different entities!! Some times S. Caucasus may be included in "greater Middle East" however the legitimacy of that term is very dubious. I hope people here can see the dishonour this article is doing to the truth. MosMusy (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we must add clarifications about Armenia, and I too feel that the term "greater Middle East" is not clearly defined or, for that matter, generally accepted and useful. In my opinion Armenia shouldn't be considered a Middle Eastern country at all. You could very well add these facts about Armenia, namely the political association with the EU and the plan of European integration and also the inspiration for the protests from European democracy and ideals. I'll reiterate my understanding that the current title of the article should not be considered final but instead, a working alias until these events can be seen in perceptive. It is preferable to have Armenia's current protests documented in a central and accessible article, albeit under a not very precise title, than being sidelined and possibly omitted. This article could be split in the future reflecting the current events in a completely consistent manner, under their proper names. Schwarz Ente (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

And I don't see any changes happening. Are we going to make any change, or has all this talk been for nothing? The points here are very clear and the editors should heed them and make the appropriate changes. MosMusy (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Be bold! You probably know about the culture and the politics of Armenia better than the rest of us here. I think you should add those facts about Armenia, i.e. how it differentiates from the Arab/Middle Eastern countries, I could do some research for this, but you'll probably make a better job than I would. Schwarz Ente (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

If you don't see changes, go do something about it. I'm going to start the rearrangement. --Blackmane (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I ardently oppose changing this page to remove Armenia or Azerbaijan while it purports to cover all protests in the Middle East - and I know there are other editors who do as well. The article Middle East gives Armenia and Azerbaijan as countries that are sometimes considered Middle Eastern. If you have a problem with that, take it up over there. This is not the place for you to air your grievances about geography. That is not the focus of this page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll amend that to add that if you can present WP:RS to back up your claims that protesters have played the European anthem and chanted pro-EU and pro-Western slogans at rallies, I will be more than happy to add those to the article. I'm searching Google and I can't find anything to that effect in English-language media, unfortunately. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The thing is when I did make changes to this page it was reverted by Kuzu1 on the claim that no consensus had been reached. I will begin to apply the changes again. MosMusy (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No. You do not have consensus to remove those countries from this page. You do have consensus to add to the article in an appropriate location explaining that Armenia is sometimes politically considered part of Europe although it is geographically in Asia, and if you have WP:RS to support your claims that the protesters are pro-EU, please add that information with references. You don't have consensus to remove them outright, and that's not what Blackmane and Schwarz are encouraging you to do. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph to the "Recent history" section that clearly addresses the question of Armenia's political identity. It is factually supported and I drew on the references you provided, and it clearly states that Armenia has sought to politically and culturally orient itself toward Europe under the Sargsyan administration with the support and interest of Brussels despite the fact that it is geographically Asian and part of the Greater Middle East. I believe those are indisputable facts and that should make Armenia's status quite clear. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Armenia is not a Middle Eastern country and whoever considers it is wrong. Are you just going to sustain clear falsity throughout Wikipedia? Neither Geographically, culturally, or politically. Stop repeating an inaccuracy that many people that don't know about the region hold. And Let me Guess while Armenia belong with the Arab countries, Georgia belongs with Europe? That a whole load of garbage right there - and is evident of a clear anti-Armenian agenda here.

First off here is another article regarding Armenia's president's views on Armenia and Europe when meeting with top European politicians:

President Serzh Sarkisian asserted Armenia’s European vocation on Wednesday at a meeting with the visiting head of an alliance of Europe’s leading conservative parties. Sarkisian and Wilfried Martens, a former Belgian prime minister leading the European People’s Party (EPP), met in Yerevan to discuss the country’s growing links with the European Union. “We consider ourselves to be Europeans,” Sarkisian was quoted by his press office as telling Martens. “We are seeking to live by the rules of that [European] family, the value system espoused by it, and in this regard, our orientation is very obvious.” According to a statement by the presidential office, Martens agreed that Armenia is “a European country,” pointing to its membership in the Council of Europe and inclusion in the EU’s Eastern Partnership program. Sarkisian assured him that his administration regards the scheme as a “window of opportunity” to bring Armenia closer to Europe and implement “large-scale reforms in various areas” in the process. The Armenian leader’s stated commitment to “European values” is bound to be challenged by his domestic political opponents. They have long accused him of rigging elections and illegally enriching himself. ”

The opposition (ANC) naturally looks to the European structures.

Here's a testimony to the ode to joy, I've seen it on video also.

"Without a doubt Levon is one of the most charismatic, eloquent Armenian speakers I have heard, and in that sense I can see how he can still be able to muster a following. But what ensued after the chorus from Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy”--the last movement of his ninth symphony and apparently Levon’s theme song--died down was nothing I was expecting to hear."MosMusy (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I propose that a separate article be made for countries that have had protests but are not in the region. Maybe something like "Protests elsewhere during the Arab Spring" where countries like Armenia, Croatia, China, US, etc would be included. Again putting in this article wrongly ties Armenia to the Middle East, especially politically, which is blatantly false. MosMusy (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Armenia should be transferred to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_2010%E2%80%932011_Middle_East_and_North_Africa_protests. I can begin the process if the editors here don't do it. MosMusy (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

What I don't understand is that you aggressively want Armenia taken out, but don't say anything about Azerbaijan. They are right next to each other. TL565 (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I am part of Wikiproject Armenia, by priority is armenia. I honestly am not well informed to comment regarding Azerbaijan's political, cultural ties to Europe. When I talk about the Geography I say 'South Caucasus' which includes Azerbaijan. MosMusy (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that both should be taken out per the past discussion - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Armenia and Azerbaijan were moved from that page originally in keeping with MOS:CONSISTENCY, as they are described as being considered part of the Middle East under some definitions in the article Middle East, which is supported by WP:RS. We concluded it was inappropriate to lump them in with non-ME protests as such. It is a violation of WP:MOSCLEAR to overturn that decision without obtaining consensus, and I am not the only editor who has argued against kicking Armenia and Azerbaijan back to that article as "not sufficiently Middle Eastern" despite the clear and present geographic, causal, and temporal relationship that exists here. As per consensus, I have added text that clearly describes the debate over Armenia's status, as well as its political and cultural orientation, and you are welcome to add to that or edit that as you please, or propose any additional changes. I'm sorry if that isn't sufficient for you, but this isn't a democracy and one person alone doesn't get to decide what continent Armenia is on. Especially not when the United Nations disagrees with you. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

And I do NOT appreciate you simply removing my comment from the Talk page. That is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy and community standards. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If I removed your comment somehow, it was by accident. Have you not been listening? Armenia is part of South Caucasus geography wise which is a separate entity from Middle East. That being said, the fact that Armenia is politically part of Europe and thus its political climate is connected with Europe is reason enough not to place Armenia here. It needs to be placed in the 'impact' page. Armenian Government views Middle East separately, and it plays its policies based on this fact. Putting Armenia in this article is misleading as it makes one think that Armenia is politically part of this Arab region. MosMusy (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You never removed a comment, check the history. TL565 (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure somebody did it accidentally. Everybody please be careful about it in future, though. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I added clarification to that point under "Recent history" and I'm happy to discuss ways of making that more prominent if you feel it is underplayed. Israel, Iran, and the Kurdish people would be very surprised to hear that the Middle East is an "Arab region". However, if this article is ultimately renamed to Arab Spring, I will unequivocally support removing Armenia along with Iran, Azerbaijan, and Djibouti, but Middle East can be constituted to include Armenia and Azerbaijan, as noted, and I think it's confusing to readers and irresponsible to our goal of being a comprehensive and internally consistent encyclopedia to say on one page that they're sometimes considered part of the Middle East and to say on another page that they're "outside" of the Middle East. Once again, this is not a geography article, and we have quite enough WP:RS to conclude that the Armenian and Azerbaijani protests are connected, both politically and regionally, with the protests in the "Arab world" and Iran. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Something I wrote to Kudzu earlier that should be stressed here: So you are ready to establish the term 'Greater Middle East' which was coined by the Bush Administration has a official Geographical term now? That term has many flaws and the authorities on this subject have never coined that as an official term. So, really it is inappropriate in all cases. The thing is, that the South Caucasus is a unique part of Southwest Asia/Eastern Europe. That is why Armenia is often considered to be part of just the Caucasus as the Caucasus merits its separate Geographical term. There's even a clear geographical divide between the South Caucasus and the Middle East, if you look at the elevations and mountain ranges. So putting Armenia in this article that is clearly titled "Middle East protests" is highly insensitive and is inaccurate. If the title was more broader, not limiting to Middle East, I would not have problem, but since it limits, I have problem, thus I believe Armenia should be placed in the "Impact page" which is a rather developed article. MosMusy (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

And you can see User talk:MosMusy for my response, with ref. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Just so you guys know, another comment was removed. Check the history. TL565 (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Eastern Europe The United Nations has Armenia in the Eastern Europe, Northern and Central Asia Division, in other words it is part of both areas. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This section is becoming long and sloppy. People are making mistakes and removing comments by accident. Should we continue this in a new section? TL565 (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

And as I told MosMusy, I would strongly consider supporting Armenia for inclusion if there was an outbreak of related Eastern European protests (I don't think a few demonstrations in Albania and Croatia warrant a separate "2011 Eastern European protests" article, certainly, and WP:RS doesn't support the hypothesis that Armenian and Azerbaijani protesters may have drawn inspiration from those countries instead of from Tunisia and Egypt) and Armenia was affected. Ditto Central Asian protests, even. It's a border country, and there are competing definitions. I think as long as we make it very clear in this article that Armenia is politically and culturally linked to Europe (like Turkey) despite the geography, we're doing no disservice.

As for the comment deletion, I think one or two users are overwriting the previous version of the page when they encounter an edit conflict rather than copy-and-pasting their comments into the current version. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we move Armenia to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_2010%E2%80%932011_Middle_East_and_North_Africa_protests) already? I have proved here beyond a doubt to what region Armenia is connected to. Given these are political protests, it's even more important to heed the fact that Armenia is 100% politically part of Europe. As I have repeated over and over, the South Caucasus merit their own entity, that is why Armenia is often depicted as a country in the Caucasus. And even geography wise there is a clear difference between S. Caucasus and Middle East. So the connections to Middle East are only present in the fact that Armenia is located in a border region between Western Asia and Eastern Europe (aka Transcaucasus!!) MosMusy (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree only if Azerbaijan is moved as well, otherwise it would be ridiculous. TL565 (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure that's fine. MosMusy (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No, you haven't proven anything "beyond a doubt". Armenia and Azerbaijan are sometimes considered part of the Middle East, as per the page Middle East and WP:RS supporting it; therefore it makes no sense to move them to an article that is explicitly for protests occurring in countries that are definitely not part of the Middle East. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I will only support such a move if this article is changed to explicitly "Arab world" protests. While the vague descriptor "Middle East" is in use I will maintain my stance that it is inconsistent and irresponsible to put Middle Eastern countries into an article for countries outside the Middle East. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have proven beyond a doubt that Armenia is politically part of Europe. Geography wise it's not part of Middle East, but part of more specifically South Caucasus region which is border area of West Asia and Eastern Europe and is connected to Europe not Middle East. 2 separate entities! MosMusy (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

French Guiana is also "politically part of Europe", as is New Caledonia. In fact, they're literally politically part of Europe. If there were protests there, would you consider those protests to be European? Also, stop propagating this falsehood that the South Caucasus is anything but Western Asia. That isn't supported by fact at all. It's a transcontinental region, but the entirety of Armenia and virtually all of Azerbaijan and Georgia lie within Asia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

They are not considered politically part of Europe by EU, but Armenia and rest of South Caucasus is. As I have said EU is ultimate authority on which countries are part of Europe and which ones aren't. Yes it is a transcontinental region, but it's a entity separate from Middle East. I am not saying this area is anything but Western Asia, I am saying this area is a border area between Eastern Europe and Western Asia - and that Armenia is considered Geography wise firmly part of the Transcaucasus which is not part of the Middle East. Plus, given these are political protests - one must emphasise the political connections in these countries. MosMusy (talk) 04:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I have presented WP:RS that links protests in Armenia and Azerbaijan to the events in Egypt and Tunisia. If you can find me sources where Armenian and Azerbaijani protesters and opposition leaders compare their situation to the protests in Croatia or Albania, please do. And if you can provide WP:RS that says the South Caucasus is never considered Middle Eastern, please do that. I have given you academic articles and dictionary definitions that support my position. As far as I can tell, your response has been "that's preposterous!" I haven't seen any evidence from you that makes me want to take a step beyond explicitly noting the position of the EU and the pro-Europe stance of the current Armenian government in this article, because beyond providing evidence that Armenia is oriented toward Europe, you haven't provided any evidence to contravene the reliable sources that say Armenia and Azerbaijan (and Georgia) can be considered Middle Eastern. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Why would Armenian protesters compare themselves to Croatia? They don't compare themselves to any country and they pressure the European political structures to put pressure on the current government for more reforms. The quotes that I have shown show clearly with what region Armenian state is connected to and what direction we are moving towards. I have shown you the proof of EU stating that Armenia is a European country by their standards, and honestly that's all we need really. That EU decision is a critical factor here and you cannot deny that. China can become "pro-EU" and do all this and that - but EU will never consider them a part of Europe and nor will their state make the statements regarding historic and cultural connections to Europe, which Armenia has. Do I really need to put evidence that Armenia is firmly part of the Caucasus? The notion that the Caucasus is separate from the Middle East is established fact - you should know that. Read this article about Caucasus if you want to be more clear on it : http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/100270/Caucasus MosMusy (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I asked for WP:RS concerning the protests. It's also false to say that they don't compare themselves to any country; have you ever listened to or read a transcript of one of Ter-Petrossian's speeches, or Zurabian's press conferences? Absolutely laden with references and comparisons to Egypt and Tunisia. The EU is not the alpha-omega of sources here - it is a faction whose positions are worth noting - and what's more, Turkey is the perfect example of how a country can be simultaneously European and Middle Eastern; one does not necessarily exclude the other. I see a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and not a lot of sources that categorically prove the sources I have continually provided to be "wrong". -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Obviously to advance their cause they will refer to the events going on in the Arab countries, in any other country where such a protest is occuring such references will be made, for example in Croatia, but I don't see you putting Croatia in this article, even in United States, Wisconsin, people were citing the Arab spring has inspiration. The opposition however has always cited EU structures to put pressure on the Current government just coming to show the political connections of Armenia. The EU is has the ultimate right in de-terming which country is part of Europe - they know the criteria they have their definitions. Their opinion is really what matters - and they have firmly confirmed Armenia being European country. Doesn't matter how much you whine about it - fact remains fact. Let's not compare Armenia and Turkey here - Turkey does not fall into the South Caucasus and the differences are to much to make a comparison.

I have proven to you several things here:

1. Armenia is politically part of Europe
2. Armenia is culturally part of Europe
3. Armenia is geographically located in the South Caucasus
4. South Caucasus is a border area between W. Asia and E. Europe
5. South Caucasus is a separate entity from Middle East, historically, politically, and geographically. It is a transcontinental area and a rather unique one.

MosMusy (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"The EU is has the ultimate right in de-terming which country is part of Europe - they know the criteria they have their definitions." Says who? Wikipedia isn't a governmental organ. That's a deeply problematic approach to editing, in my opinion, putting the stance of a single organization above all other sources - including the UN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously comparing EU with Wikipedia? EU is the most informed organisation regarding European affairs, boundaries, and history. It is funny you are trying to downplay the factual seriousness of EU placing Armenia in Europe. Post that UN source by the way. MosMusy (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I already did, on the main page. You deleted it. Twice. And no, I'm not comparing the EU to Wikipedia, I'm saying Wikipedia isn't a mouthpiece for the EU's views and opinions. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, first off, your UN source is "Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings", basically their way of dividing the world for statistical purposes. The Caucasus region as I have said is a border area between SW Asia and E. Europe - thus it can go both ways geographically (though when possible it isn't). Since this is done for statistical purposes you can't have it in 2 places. That being said, it doesn't in no way take away from the fact that Armenia is politically and culturally part of Europe and geographically part of South Caucasus. Your source does not refute my points in any way. EU states Armenia has a European country, it's not an opinion of a European policy maker, it is an establish international fact. Are you prepared to say Armenia is politically middle eastern? Then, please show me some sources for this. If not stop refuting facts here and trying to make up falsifications regarding Armenia. MosMusy (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I've given you sources. I've linked to other articles on and off Wikipedia. All of that is either in this article, on this Talk page, or on your User Talk page. So let's focus on the points I believe are not in dispute here:

# The EU considers Armenia to be part of Europe.

# The standard geographic boundary between Asia and Europe places Armenia in Asia.

# Some sources say Armenia can be considered part of the Middle East, while others do not define the Middle East as including Armenia.

# The Armenian protests are happening concurrently with protests in countries like Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, and Libya.

# Armenian government officials and opposition figures, as well as both Armenian and international media, have linked protests to a paradigm comparing the governments of Armenia and Egypt.

# The "Impact" article is for countries that are not considered Middle Eastern by any reliable source.

# Text noting the European orientation of Armenia and the position of the EU and tailored to the liking of the objecting party (MosMusy) has been added to this article with consensus.

# Everyone here wants to improve Wikipedia.

Before we continue, are any of these things not undisputed? -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I responded to your source already, and said it doesn't refute the points I've made, and noted to you the nature of that source.

1. The EU considers Armenia to be part of Europe. True.
2. The standard geographic boundary between Asia and Europe places Armenia in Asia. More accurately places Armenia in the Transcaucasus region of SW Asia which is an area encompassing the border region between Europe and Asia. This area is separate from Middle East.
3. Some sources say Armenia can be considered part of the Middle East, while others do not define the Middle East as including Armenia. State the sources that say that, because that designation is inaccurate. Armenia's connection to Asia stems from it being part of the Transcaucasus region which lies also in SW. Asia. Again, the Caucasus =/= Middle East - and people who don't know much about the region make that amateur mistake.
4. The Armenian protests are happening concurrently with protests in countries like Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, and Libya. Well, the opposition is taking advantage but so is opposition in countries such as China, Croatia, and United States.
5. The "Impact" article is for countries that are not considered Middle Eastern by any reliable source. It is for countries like Armenia that are not connected to the Middle East, especially politically.
6. Text noting the European orientation of Armenia and the position of the EU and tailored to the liking of the objecting party (MosMusy) has been added to this article with consensus. And also showing that EU is actively integrating Armenia into its sphere, in all aspects of society.
7. Everyone here wants to improve Wikipedia. I hope so.

You have to be careful on your distinctions between ME and Caucasus. You seem not to get the sensitive difference between the two. Maybe because you are not from the region. I don't know. But it is crucial for you the understand this difference before talking about where Armenia belongs. (We could have a section in the Impact article regarding the Caucasus countries) MosMusy (talk) 06:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I posted an academic source on your Talk page that you continue to ignore. I'll repost it here: [17] Also, can you outright deny that the geographic boundary between Asia and Europe places Armenia in Asia? According to that boundary, which continent is Armenia on? (I can't believe we're having this banal discussion on a non-geography page.) And how can you say Armenia isn't connected to the Middle East when it is embroiled in longstanding disputes with Turkey and Azerbaijan and one of its largest backers on the international stage is the neighboring country of Iran? That just clearly isn't the case. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

What about it? First off it's just an article, second, her excessive attention to the "Greater Middle East" is inaccurate, third, she is focusing on the Russian influence in the area. What is your point with it? You have continuously ignored speeches made by Armenian President and top ranking Armenian officials regarding Armenia's position historically, culturally, and politically with Europe. The answer to your next question, I already answered that one, : "More accurately places Armenia in the Transcaucasus region of SW Asia which is an area encompassing the border region between Europe and Asia.". I will repeat for the millionth time that you cannot just put everything in the Middle East. There are specific historic, cultural, and obvious geographic reasons why Caucasus is separate from Middle East. You need to understand that - apparently you think everything is just part of this "Greater Middle East" - which again is a laughable term and no wonder, given it was coined by Bush Administration.

Wow, just wow. Iran is Armenia's largest backer on international stage? Look, we have good relations with Iran, especially economical. So given Europe gets gas and other economic goods from Asia, and is connected to it economically, makes it Asian? That argument is rather weak. Again, you cannot refute the fact that Armenia is politically part of Europe. We do have contacts with rest of the world including middle east, and our strategic partner is Russia, but again having contacts does not equal being politically part of. MosMusy (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Pop quiz:

1. When did George W. Bush become president?
2. When was that article written?

Look, I'm seeing a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and not a lot of WP:RS from your side. Turkey is also sometimes (but not always) considered part of the Middle East, and it's actually a candidate for EU accession, unlike Armenia. Armenia is actually in Asia and it's actually considered part of the Middle East by some reliable sources. As for citing your government's position, well, that isn't the only source. In fact, there are a lot of people in your country who are very unhappy with your government and don't seem to think it is sincere in its overtures to the European Union, as per some of the articles that you yourself linked to earlier.

I also continue to be concerned and confused by your inability to answer: is Armenia in Asia, yes or no? -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, everyone, calm down! Schwarz Ente (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read Talk:2010–2011_Middle_East_and_North_Africa_protests#On_the_article's_name,_the_universe,_and_everything Schwarz Ente (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

How many time do I have to repeat this?? Geographically, Armenia is part of the Transcaucasus region of SW Asia. This region is different from the Middle East! Tell me a reliable source that says Armenia is part of the Middle East and no part of the Caucasus region, becuase it can't be both because Caucasus region and Middle East are not the same. My government's position shows the relationship the nation has towards Europe, but most importantly the views EU has towards Armenia is one of acceptance. The opposition is not anti-EU, they are more pro EU than government, they just believe EU should be harsher with the government when it comes to democracy - it's a political tool. I will repeat at nausea, since this is a political article regarding political process - it should be emphasised that Armenia is political not in the same sphere as those Arab countries and thus it is highly inappropriate for Armenia to be in the article. Armenia is part of a separate Geographic entity which I have proven and is politically connected to Europe. You still want to refute facts - go ahead - but this article needs to be changed to reflect the truth. MosMusy (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It is also worth to mention that Cyprus is not mentioned in this Article and is rather mentioned in the 'impact' article (Northern Cyprus). Why should Armenia be any different? Especially given it is politically part of Europe and geography wise part of the Caucasus not Middle East.MosMusy (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm putting in a request for mediation. You just don't do this. We have something called etiquette here, but I guess you don't care about that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

And yet you have failed to prove that the Caucasus is part of Middle East (apart from a non-academic term used by Bush administration), you have failed to prove that Armenia is politically part of Middle East and connected to these Arab countries in political context, you have failed hence to prove Armenia is Middle Eastern country, which isn't surprising because it isn't and doesn't belong in an article which is titled "Middle East protests". Same reason Cyprus is not included in this article, Armenia will not be. MosMusy (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus wasn't included in this article because WP:RS didn't establish a solid causal link to Tunisia and Egypt. We debated that separately. You had an opportunity to weigh in on that discussion, and you chose not to. I supported including it until it became clear there was not enough evidence to support it. As for the Middle East definition, that's a gross distortion and I think you know it. I can present every single source in the world and your only response is that you don't like it. I've filed for mediation and I'd like to get this settled once and for all, but I have to say I find your conduct and refusal at every turn to assume good faith to be appalling. Edit warring is not the way to get your point across. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a gross distortion. Caucasus is traditionally never included in the Middle East region - it's only included when the laughable "Greater Middle East" term is used - which in itself is a distortion and you have been championing in this article. It's not an academic term accepted by cartographers thus it is not valid to be applied here. What I find appalling is you not taking heed of this simple, geographical fact and instead pursuing another agenda here. MosMusy (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, you asked for sources, and I gave them. Your counter-argument was "but they're wrong!" or "I don't like them!" It doesn't matter if the term "Greater Middle East" - which is an arbitrary appellation attached to an expansive view of the Middle Eastern region, a definition which we had previously decided to use after considering other options - is used by academic sources you don't like or think are wrong. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a rationale for deleting WP:RS. Thinking you're "right" isn't an excuse for edit warring, nor is it an excuse for refusing to assume good faith despite admonishment even from editors who have taken your side of this debate to do so. You've conducted yourself very poorly and it really hasn't left a good taste in my mouth at all. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

please show me that "Greater Middle East" is a term used by cartographers and accepted in the Geographic discipline, not a random political article. That term is highly inaccurate, it even incorporates central asia, and it is not a widely accepted academic term! Thus it cannot be applied to reasoning in Wikipedia. My reasoning for why Armenia should not be included is quite clear as it stems from a variety of factors which I have laid out and you continue to ignore and instead put false names to my arguments. It is quite appalling that you are keeping a whole article hostage based on an inaccurate, non-academic term, officially coined by the Bush Administration. MosMusy (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one edit-warring, and if you still are arguing that the term is "non-academic" and "officially coined by the Bush administration" after I repeatedly referred you to an academic article that predates the Bush administration and uses the term while mentioning it is already coming into more common usage circa the year 2000...look, I really don't even know what to say to you at this point. You are single-minded and you have no respect for WP:ETIQUETTE, WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDITWAR, or WP:GOODFAITH. I understand you really, really think you are right and any source that disagrees with you is "stupid" or "laughable" or "wrong", but that is not an excuse to make major changes deliberately without consensus, edit-war repeatedly, and accuse me of having a "dark agenda". But you don't care. Message received. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I will ask you again. Show me an article that states that this term is being officially used among professional Geographers. One political article referring to Greater Middle East in Geopolitical terms doesn't prove anything. Even the Wikipedia article states that the term is controversial and there is criticism regarding it. It's obviously not a academically accepted term, and its usage by some writers regarding geopolitics doesn't prove anything. What would prove is if Geographers accepted it as a strict geographic term. This hasn't been done, and stop trying to fabricate and exaggerate this term based off of that article. MosMusy (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Turkey is also debatably a Middle Eastern country. It's an EU candidate, long-time member of NATO, well-established secular democracy (unlike Iran or any Arab country), and its most important city is in Europe. It is also not always considered a Middle Eastern country--see the article on MENA. --Quintucket (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this movement to impact as the Middle East article and RSs appear to say Armenia counts as Middle East. I will respond to individual stuff later. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No wikipedia article on Middle East does not include the Caucasian countries. They are only included in the "Greater Middle East" which is controversial term and is not accepted as a geographic term in academia. The Caucasus region is geography wise is seperate from the Middle East, not to mention the cultural, political, and historical differences. MosMusy (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. You've nailed it. This article is not about the "Middle East," which is a strictly geographical category. It's about "Middle East and North Africa," which is a partially cultural grouping, and not synonymous with "Middle East" + "North Africa." MENA, as the article on the subject notes, is similar to the "Greater Middle East." My point, which I wasn't making very well because I was tired, is that to avoid POV we should take either a maximalist or a minimalist position on what constitutes MENA. --Quintucket (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, go with what the RSs say for these specific events. If Mos has an issue with the classification on Wikipedia though, he should probably start a discussion in Talk:Middle East about it. I might be someone rooted in academia, but I do acknowledge that policy overrules what I have heard in cases like this. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

President Ahmadinejad reportedly to resign

As per [18]. It seems he's being forced out by an internal feud with Ayatollah Khamenei rather than bowing to pressure from the streets, so I think it would be improper to attribute this to the protests directly, if at all. How should we handle this, assuming it actually happens (we should be ready)? Suggestions? -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ask those Djinn that his chief of staff has been arrested for misusing.67.247.1.157 (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

What does the Islamic notion of Jinn have to do with this article?--Smart (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I myself try sometimes to foresee how the future might unfold, but this shouldn't be our guide for editing Wikipedia. I believe, in other words, that we must wait and see. Regards, and take care. Schwarz Ente (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Map Error

The map includes the Greek island of Rhodes under Turkey's color, implying it is under their sovereignty, it is not. --Smart (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If you have image editing software, you should be bold and fix it. Definitely needs correcting - good catch. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)\

I have no editing software, I am not the map maker, it is the sole responsibility of the person who made the mistake, to fix it. --Smart (talk) 03:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Turkey is colored in the first place. The article does not list Turkey in the table. Is it in or out? TL565 (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion in the table is currently vetoed by Kavas and Randam as per the thread near the top of the page. Turkey can be found in the "Other regional incidents" section. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Iv'e fixed some of the Islands that were mistakenly colored there.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Lampedusa

I'm finding it quite concerning from a content perspective that this article fails to really mention anything of the immigration crisis on the Italian island of Lampedusa. Frankly, this has become a huge humanitarian issue in which hundreds have died, and governments in North Africa and Europe have been scrambling to deal with. Does anyone think we should start an article like 2011 Lampedusa crisis, Lampedusa in the Arab Spring or something to that effect? --Kuzwa (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Support - definitely this needs to be made. Preferably 2011 Lampedusa Crisis. --Smart (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There's an Impacts article which this should go into rather than here. I don't think there's enough material to warrant a full blown article of its own yet, particularly as the issue is still under discussion between the French and Italian governments (and probably with the European Parliament). I suggest you add it to the Impacts article and if that section grows enough, run up a separate article on it. --Blackmane (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

On the article's name, the universe, and everything

History is happening.

The problem, as I see it, is that this article does not include in a comprehensive, precise way revolutions that are happening outside the Arab countries and revolutions that are happening outside the Middle East. On the other hand, the article Impact_of_2010–2011_Middle_East_and_North_Africa_protests is talking about a lot of things, but certainly doesn't have the scope of an article about those revolutions, as it includes minor protests and marches in relatively stable countries, censorship in countries that there aren't even minor protests and even resignations of a politician and a businessman/academic. Those are certainly the "impact" of the initial events of the 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests, but the ongoing revolutions are not the impact of the "2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests", they are these "protests". What I feel is causing the problem is that an article like 2011 Global Revolutionary Wave, or 2011 Revolutions, or Second Renaissance, or 2011 The Oppressed Strike Back! is missing. Well, the events started in a few Arab countries and christened "Arab Spring", which I believe should have it's own article, although what exactly will be included is unclear to me. This mass uprising is presently happening in a lot of countries, several of which are not Arab and I see them as part of the same, organic, phenomenon that is spreading. Certainly, all of them should thank the Arab people for the balls they had to say "enough is enough" to their dictators, initiating the whole thing, but it's not as if a hyppothetical US revolution happening as a consequence of this could be called part of the Arab Spring! On the other hand, clamping everything up in a generic "Impact" article makes it seem that, while the Arabs are revolting, in the other countries there are just a couple of guys throwing tomatoes to a policeman, which is certainly not the case right now.

I would like input on this from everyone! Schwarz Ente (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree, and I'm leaning toward supporting changing this article to either "Arab Spring", using the common name, or back to the old "2010–2011 Arab world protests", which may be considered better for WP:NPOV; and splitting the "Impact" article into minor effects like those you mentioned and a restoration of the "Tunisia Effect outside the Arab world" article to include protests in Turkey, Iran, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and other countries - probably only those that have directly drawn inspiration from Egypt and/or Tunisia rather than being concurrent (the protests in Wisconsin were hardly spontaneous). That would solve this dispute over whether the South Caucasus should be considered Middle Eastern (because it's definitely not Arab), it would mitigate a potential headache when South Sudan secedes (also definitely not part of the Arab world), and it would lay information out in a more relevant, meaningful way. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I also agree here. The article was accurately named when the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions erupted but as more and more nations experience the same level of unrest it's moved beyond the scope of just North Africa and the Middle East. As more protests occur others will want to add it to this article even if the country affected wasn't influenced by the original Tunisian and Egyptian revolts. This has had the problem of changing the scope of the article which ultimately led to the huge disagreement further above about geopolitical affiliations of Armenia. The only consensus reached was that there was a lack of consensus. I'd like to propose a rename of the article to [2010-[2011 Global Pro-Democratic Reform Protests]] or perhaps [2010-[2011 Global Pro-reform protests]] or something similar, then create a redirect from this article. We can then sub divide the various protests by geographical region rather than along political, or presumed political, lines. --¬¬¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackmane (talk • contribs) 10:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

My only concern there is that it runs the risk of getting too long, and the link in a lot of cases back to Tunisia and Egypt is tenuous for some of these. -Kudzu1 (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

We can discuss that further. Some of the protests are certainly bigger than others, so what might end up happening is that we'll need to pare down the material for those t hat have their own article so that it doesn't get oversized. It might be worth considering reducing the material on the larger sections anyway since they have their own articles. --Blackmane (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I would support that, absolutely. Removes redundancy and cleans up the article. Editing is a pain when it takes so long for the page to load and edits to save...especially since I'm working with limited bandwidth >.< -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look at chopping the word count. I'm doing a GOCE request at the moment for another article. Once I finish there I'll havea good long look at the text here. It's very clunky as people keep adding stuff which is great but the text flow is pretty bad in some places. --Blackmane (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

While we're on that, could someone look at archiving some of the threads here? This page is getting pretty big and loading times are beginning to lengthen. --Blackmane (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Kudzu1 and Blackmane for your thoughts. Comments and ideas from more editors would be really helpful. I think three articles would, right now, capture the events consistently and precisely. The first would be about the initial events, especially the Tunisian revolution and the 2011 Egyptian revolution, which would probably have the name Arab Spring. This would include the political fallout in Europe and elsewhere. The second would be about the 2011 global pro-democratic uprising, where all revolting countries will be included, with a summary of the events in each country and a link to the respective main article. The last would be about the 2011 global pro-democratic reform protests, where the events in countries that aren't undergoing major clashes between the population and the rulers will be placed. Thus, we have three lean and clean articles, and we group the events by relevancy rather than geographic divisions, which become problematic along their boundaries. Schwarz Ente (talk) 06:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems to get back to the original original research problem. The "border" of the MENA region is, of course, to some degree arbitrary. But rough geographical boundaries that roughly correspond to certain perceived (by academics, media, politicians, other notable people) social/cultural/linguistic regions are less arbitrary than trying to define the goal of the protests/uprisings/revolutions. Are they mainly aimed at formal democracy, or rather for human rights? The two things go well together, but they are complementary and not identical. If the main aim is "pro-democratic", then it would be difficult to include Algeria and Morocco protests, since they have regularly elected parliaments and a diversity of parliamentary political parties (you could say they are "multipartisan" instead of "bipartisan"). If it's about "more democratic" vs "less democratic", or mainly about human rights, then almost every country in the world could be included, since people are constantly organising (street protests and other political methods) to defend their human rights almost everywhere. Some sources would claim that the Moroccan, Algerian and Iranian electoral/governmental systems have in-built systematic blocks preventing "deep" political changes that voters would prefer, but some sources also say that about the USA (with a one-party, two-faction federal political system) and the EU (with a several-hundred page de facto constitution/treaty that more-or-less hardwires much of the political/economical structure and not subjected to popular ratification).

Another way to put it: dividing up this material does not have any "lean and clean" division without either doing original research or ignoring sources.

BTW, for people who were not aware about some of the earlier debates on this topic, the archives of this talk page should show that there were a whole bunch of articles created in an attempt to create a "worlwide/jasmine revolution" type article. Most were deleted, and eventually the Impact article took that role. So really the proposal seems to be whether or not to shift from two "main" articles of major-protests vs somewhat-related-protests to three "main" articles, going from the most intense protests (Tunisia, Egypt, Libya), to the "regional and well-RS'd-related protests", to the "somewhat-related-and-inspired protests". IMHO the geographical criterion would still play a major role in deciding which country gets a summary in which article. Boud (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijan and Armenia should be removed from the map now

Per the outcome of the discussion above there is no sense in adding to confusion by keeping these two countries on a map in an article that does not talk about them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've redid the clickable map and the colors, also removed stuff per talk and fixed some issues.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Err, what was the outcome of the consensus? It's hard to tell. Also, was my opinion counted as being against removing? =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Article sections do not read like an encyclopaedia

Take a look at the current sections in the article. Most of them read like so:

On [date x1], [event y1] happened.

On [date x2], [event y2] happened.

On [date x3], [event y3] happened.

This is not what an encyclopaedic article should read like. These are just bullet points. I propose we start re-writing the articles sections, but add guidelines so that it does not become too long ( and it HAS become too long ) or too bullet-pointy.

This is my proposal:

1- A single short ( 2-4 sentences ) paragraph introducing the background/motives: "The protests in [country Z] started in [date x1], fuelled by many years of government corruption and [other reasons]. Protesters demanded [demands 1, 2 and 3]." The reason is that many section dive directly in the events without giving a suitable introductory paragraph.

2- One or two paragraphs detailing the MAIN EVENTS of the protests. The dates of MAJOR protests and their locations, perhaps, or when significant events occurred. All other minor details should left out, since interested readers can simply click on the full articles for that. The reason for this becomes readily apparent when you compare the current section for Egypt with that of Syria.

3- A short final paragraph detailing the outcome/current status of the protests for that region.

If we follow the above, and avoid bullet-points from becoming 75% of the content, then we can have a much more presentable article, shorter in length and more informative than what it is now.

If no one objects, perhaps we can tackle this one section at a time ?! Unflavoured (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I am guessing current editors would have no issues if the country sections are re-written to be more "paragraph"-y, more concise, and less "bullet point"-y. I will try my hand at re-writing Tunis, as it is the shortest of the main entries. Unflavoured (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Non neutral map

The map in the overview section shows a part internationally recognized as part of Syria (Golan) as if it was part of Israel. If this non neutral pov is not corrected, Im going to remove the map. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I assume WP:GOODFAITH, but keep your Politics to yourself. The neutrality of the map has not yet been disputed. --Smart (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Its not about politics, its about neutrality, and I'm disputing its neutrality now. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Supreme Deliciousness that the map should be corrected with respect to Golan - it should be either added to Syria or demarked as a separate territory, since it has a similar "disputed/occupied" status as Gaza, West Bank and the West Sahara, all of which are denoted separately from Israel resp. Morocco. But I wouldn't remove the map completely for this rather minor inaccuracy. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely not removing the map over. This issue is about protests in the Arab states and Iran, not the Arab-Israeli conflict. That said, Western Sahara, another disputed area administered as an integral part of the occupying country is displayed separately. I would say that if you can find examples of protests in the Golan Heights, go ahead and change the map to reflect that. But certainly don't include them as part of Syria, which is also POV. If there are no protests, they should remain gray. If there are minor protests, they should be yellow. --Quintucket (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly the issue is about protests in Arab states, and the map shows part of an Arab state=Syria as if it was part of another country, thus an inaccurate map and violating npov. Your example of Western Sahara has no relation to this, WS is not part of Morocco, Golan is internationally recognized as part of Syria and it is shown as part of Israel, furthermore, although this doesn't matter, protests has occurred in Golan:[19][20]. And why wouldn't the map show Golan as part of Syria? and how exactly is that "pov" besides a neutral pov? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The "Arab States" and Iran? I don't think so. The Scythian 01:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I hate to say it, but yes, for the purposes of balance, the Golan should be treated as disputed or possibly as part of Syria (I am not sure if other countries recognise it as part of Israel). Still though, it seems a tad extreme to say you'll remove it over a small inaccuracy when it's otherwise a perfectly good map. Just ask for it to be edited, it's not harming anyone by being there while there is a call to change it, as anyone who knows about the Golan already has an opinion on who it belongs to and anyone who doesn't... well it's too tiny to notice! Still yes, it should be changed. The nice thing about the Golan is that if there are protests and this is changed to Arab Spring or w/e, you can still count the Druze who are ethnically Arab anyway, regardless of who they belong to. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) Edit: Well, it looks like some Druze are indeed protesting then, so someone please colour the Heights for minor protests I guess.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Per that Golan is internationally recognized as part of Syria, the area can not have another color then the rest of Syria.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

@Supreme: I'm not sure if solidarity protests in favor of the Syrian government are in the same category as protests attempting a change in government, but it looks like your real issue is with the status of the Golan Heights. The fact of the matter is that the Golan Heights are administered by Israel and claimed as an integral part of its territory. They are therefore not Syrian territory, but rather disputed territory, and the Israeli claim is explicitly recognized by at least one UN Member (Israel).

If it were in fact NPOV to say that the Golan Heights are incontestably an integral part of Syria, "Golan Heights" would say that, and all of our maps would show them as such. It looks like you're trying to create a new consensus about the status of the Golan Heights, and the place to do that is not here, but on the "Golan Heights" article. --Quintucket (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

@Quintucket: It seems even Israel does not officially consider Golan an integral part of its territory (as evidenced by the wording of the Golan Heights Law and discussed in that article), so there apparently IS an international consensus for it being part of Syria de jure. Of course, it's de facto controlled and governed by Israel.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Re:Roe - Hmmm, you know, I never actually read up on that law, I always assumed that Israel had officially annexed the area based on all the screaming over it. As you said though, the area is governed by Israel, not Syria, and the government of the Golan Heights has not committed violence against protestors. Though there was some border violence when some Syrians broke through a border fence into the Golan, but that is not relevant to the protests in the Golan. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 01:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I linked to both pro and anti Assad protests above, both are part of it. According to Israel its part of Israel, according to the international community its part of Syria. Per npov we follow the vast majority view. Thats why we don't say that Haifa is located in "Israel or Palestine" in that article, despite that the area is disputed. Not really since there are many non neutral pov pushers and five million socks who edit war and violate npov in Arab-Israeli conflict articles so what other articles says doesn't matter, but it does say its internationally recognized as Syrian territory and here are sources: [21][22]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the first time I read this bit closely by chance I think (was something added?). You cannot compare Haifa with the Golan. The vast majority of UN-Members recognise Haifa as part of the State of Israel and it is governed by the State of Israel. (I know that having gotten lost their twice, always impossible to find the bus station.) The Golan is recognised as part of Syria, not officially annexed by Israel, but is governed by Israel. That is the central point, it doesn't matter if it is recgonised as land of Uzbekistan by the international community, it is a matter of who owns that plateau or w/e it is. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This is directed at Supreme, yes? (please put an @Supreme or something) I think that the Golan should be coloured yellow or w/e the colour is for minor protests, but yeah, those are some of the Druze who actually want to rejoin with Syria (it's a strange strange thing, but that's not relevant here), and so they sorta want a governmental change if you look at it that way. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Protests in Syria are more then minor so the area cant be yellow. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I think generally the rule we've been using is serious violence by government or protesters = major protests. --Quintucket (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There has been serious violence, about 850 killed, so dark blue is what the area should have as the rest of the country has that color.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

850? Can you give me some sources for that number? Based on sources I found, there were eight people killed, so it seems like major protests is appropriate. Any rate it's definitely not sustained civil disorder yet. I did a version of the map in yellow and can easily change it to orange, but I won't upload either until we can come to an agreement. We've only got three people contributing right now, which doesn't really make for a consensus. Plus the events seem to be happening right now, and we should see how things go. --Quintucket (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

A couple days ago it was "up to 850 killed" [23]. Consensus is also not based on how many people support something. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

@Sir Flinders: Yes it was. There was an edit conflict, but I wrote mine more-or-less concurrently, figured it was clear by context but maybe not. And yes, that's a good point. Definitely color it yellow then. --Quintucket (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It was, but wanted it to be 100%. As we should be treating the Golan as a disputed area, it should be yellow as there has been no violence committed by the government in the area controlled by Israel. Regardless of who claims it, they do in fact govern that portion of the Golan Heights. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Israeli border protests for independence of Palestine

First of I would like everyone to read this article here [24]. And than consider the possible need to include todays' protests by the Palestinians as part of the Arab spring. What does everyone think? EkoGraf (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess it all comes down to what all the mainstream sources are saying. In my own personal opinion, it is a very different phenomenon, since the "Arab Spring" is about Arabs rising up against there own oppressive governments. But...If you've plenty of articles and what not. The Scythian 02:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well afaik, the Palestinians do consider it to be part of the whole thing, though their Nakba Day thing is an annual... err... what do you call that sort of thing? Day of mourning I guess. Anyway, it's part of it I guess and should be included. Though the border thing is basically Syrian Palestinians busting through a border fence into the Golan (which is mostly inhabited by the Druze), so it's a bit different. Best to check Ha'aretz, YNet and JPost for the best coverage of it and see how they characterise it. If anyone is concerned about bias (remembering that all three news sources are quite independent), just look for articles written by Israeli Arabs. Do not look at Arutz Sheva, for obvious reasons. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

@EkoGraf On a similar note:should or shouldn't the Golan Heights protests be considered part of the protests? I added them in light of information given to me by Supreme Deliciousness, indicating that 1. The Druze inhabitants had protested for and against Bashar al-Assad and 2. There was a good deal of violence on Nakba Day. It's an interesting question, my gut instinct says that they should be included, for reasons mentioned by Sir Flinders elsewhere--in protesting against Israel, they're protesting in favor of being reunited with Syria.--Quintucket (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

There were several protests in the GH, the Syrians there protesting for and against Assad in April is part of the Syrian protests, the Palestinians who yesterday crossed the ceasefire line has nothing to do with this but Nakba day.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I remember this gist of this quote by one Golan Druze very well because it struck me. Something like We'd rather live in a dictatorship as part of Syria than in a democracy as part of Israel or something like that, which made me laugh quite a bit at its short-sightedness (the reason I remember it). They're basically irredentists, but they are also Arabs protesting in the Arab world. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Golan Heights

Supreme Deliciousness, with whom we had a fruitless discussion about the status of the Golan Heights moved information about that protest to Syria. Which very definitely violates WP:NPOV, but it it's really not worth my time to get embroiled in an argument with someone with such a strong opinion on the Arab-Israeli conflict. But I thought I should put that out there. Let others deal with the issue if they have the energy or the time. --Quintucket (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

How does it violate npov? The protests were for and against the Syrian president, and the protests happened on land internationally recognized as part of Syria. I removed the Nakba day stuff because its unrelated. The section is supposed to be a summary of the larger article, its now one single sentence related to the GH.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I've explained this before on your complaint about the map. Sir Flinders explained it there and again below. I will try to make it very clear:

1. Israel and Syria are both UN members.

2. The Golan Heights is a de facto part of Israel. It is occupied by Israel, governed as part of Israel proper, and the majority of its inhabitants are Israeli citizens.

3. Nearly all UN members, except possibly Israel itself hold the Golan Heights to be Syrian territory de jure.

∴ Therefore, it is treated by neutral sources as a disputed territory. See "status" on the Golan Heights infobox.

I'm trying to assume good faith on your part, but your edit history indicates that you've come here solely to correct real or perceived pro-Israeli bias. While I agree with many of your edits, the same principles of WP:NPOV which requires us to treat Bethlehem as part of the geographical entity the West Bank and not the political entity of Judea and Samaria or the State of Palestine, also requires us to treat the disputed Golan Heights as disputed. --Quintucket (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

As Roe brought up (and I didn't know before), Israel did not officially annex that portion of the Golan with the Golan Heights Law. However, we must also remember that no matter what someone's POV on the issue, it cannot be denied that the area is currently under the governance of the State of Israel. So, it should be given a separate colour as if it were a fully disputed territory (though having two different de jure and de facto statuses kind of make it that anyway).

If I haven't made it clear before btw, I have a strong pro-Israel personal bias as well as strong Zionist leanings (as stated on my userpage), but with no ill-feelings towards the Palestinians or any other group in the region. Though I am able to put aside my biases as best as possible for the good of the article as I have done elsewhere so long as there is proper sourcing and weight given. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Just put it in gray if it is honestly that controversial that the Golan is an eternal part of Israel. --Smart (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)