Jump to content

Talk:Arab Winter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orphaned references in Arab Winter

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Arab Winter's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "2,000killed":

  • From Arab Spring: Ahmed al-Haj (15 June 2012). "Yemen says more than 2,000 killed in uprising". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2012-06-19.
  • From Timeline of the Yemeni Revolution (January – 2 June 2011): Yemen says more than 2,000 killed in uprising
  • From Yemeni Revolution: Yemen says more than 2,000 killed in uprising. The Washington Post. (19 March 2012).

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea for an article, but there are issues

[edit]

Thank you Greyshark09 for creating this article. It should have been done a long time ago because the Arab Spring ended somehow [1] and we certainly need an umbrella article like this one for the current crisis in the region. However, we should be very careful when editing here in order to avoid original research, because a number of newspapers and blogs I have come across still refer to the current situation in the Arab world as a "spring". Nonetheless, one of these sources among some others (The Neverending Spring: How Syria's Revolution Became A Stalemate) contradicts itself: How did Syria’s share of the Arab Spring, the initial popular revolt against Assad, yield an intractable war with no end in sight? This could suggest that only the Civil uprising phase of the Syrian Civil War was the spring part of Syria's conflict, not the whole thing. Personally, I was thinking about creating an article called Rise of the Islamic State to deal with the current conflict in Iraq and Syria. I was also considering Rise of Islamism in Tunisia (2011–present) because even though Tunisia is now regarded as a "success" of the Arab Spring by some analysts, we still have this, this and this among other issues that prove us otherwise. Egypt's crackdown and Libya's current conflict are definitely not part of this spring (as far as I know there are no sources referring to them as such). But Libya, for example, is certainly linked to other conflicts [2] and there are grave concerns that the turmoil there might spill over to neighboring countries. To conclude, I believe it is very important to discuss first what is part of the supposedly finished Arab Spring, and what is part of the Arab Winter before making any edits, because the table in this article looks very misleading. I don't think Sudan and Somalia belong to this article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I perfectly agree with you that apparently only the Civil uprising phase of the Syrian Civil War was the spring part of Syria's conflict, and similarly only the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 was the spring part of the Egyptian Crisis (2011-present). Regarding ISIL-related conflicts, there is no agreed name for the conflict - some call it "Fertile Crescent conflict", others "Spillovers of the Syrian Civil War" (first time i hear Rise of the Islamic State i admit). In any case, we agree, that there is no spring at present, but actually its aftermath - winter (or maybe autumn?). Regarding Sudan and Somalia - perhaps you are right. Meybe this source may point out the exact conflicts: this article already used the term "Islamist winter" in January 2012, referring to conflicts in Egypt and Syria. More conflicts involving Arab Islamists like Lebanon, Iraq, Libya also most likely belong.GreyShark (dibra) 14:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You two have brought up an interesting point. What constitutes the Arab Winter? I think the current situations in Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Palestine, Sudan, Syria and Yemen are definitely part of the narrative because they represent the failed promises of the Arab Spring. Charles Essie (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have redirected the article, the entire name is linked to just one source with the other sources just describing ongoing events covered in other articles. I just looked at the source the name was connected to and it was a passing mention from 2012. if you are going to make a parent article please make sure it is a commonly used term and is related to current events otherwise it is just WP:OR. I also suggest if you want to make a parent article maybe a list of ongoing conflicts in the arab world? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted, please AFD.GreyShark (dibra) 19:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Greyshark09: I would rather not send this to AfD, a redirect preserves the info so if the name is more commonly used then it can be un-redirected in the future. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, this article is under WP:SCWGS (community sanctions on Syrian Civil War articles) per definition of the sanctions as decided on August 2014. Please do not revert again - i'm issuing a warning.GreyShark (dibra) 20:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then before I send this to AfD are there any more sources to be found linking all the events together under the term "Arab Winter"? Also I saw no tag placed on the talkpage so I did not know this was under the scope. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the sources added, the problem is that most date to 2011 and 2012, where are the sources that link each ongoing conflict to this arab winter? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

too many references in lead

[edit]

Esp. for "Arab Winter". Does not meet wp:MoS. Useful references should be moved into lower areas. ~Technophant (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current title stable?

[edit]

Closed per request at WP:ANRFC.

The question asked was: Is the current title, "Arab Winter", a violation of Wikipedia:Article titles or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)?

There is no consensus that the current title violates Wikipedia:Article titles or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events).

Editors who believe the title meets the current guidelines and policies said the article's name is used in reliable sources, while opposing editors believe the term is made up and used in very few sources.

Sudopeople provided links to two books, (1) "Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth about the War We're In" by Robert Spencer and (2) "From Arab Spring to Islamic Winter" by Raphael Israeli. Most of the "yes" editors said there were plenty of sources about "Arab Winter" and pointed to the sources currently in the article. Discussion about particular sources' uses of the term "Arab Winter" would have been more helpful in determining whether the current title is the most appropriate. Sudopeople was the only one who mentioned specific sources in this discussion.

There is no prejudice against further discussion about renaming the article, perhaps in a Wikipedia:Requested moves filing, if editors believe there is a better name.

But for now, since the article was created at "Arab Winter" and there is no consensus to change the title, the article should remain at "Arab Winter". Cunard (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Does the current title meet policies and guidelines related to titling, like WP:AT and WP:NCE? If you disagree, care to propose a new name? --George Ho (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every word in every language is "made up" - language is a construct. When enough people agree on a term's meaning, it has value. The term 'Arab Winter' is widely used by the media, and is widely understood by people familiar with Middle Eastern current events. sudopeople 00:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No "Arab Winter" is a less-notable POV fork of "Arab Spring". It pre-supposes that the aftermath of Arab Spring is negative, or only applies to situations which fit that assumption. A Google search for the term shows this article, numerous hits for Robert Spencer's book, and one hit at jpost.com, an Israeli news site. In every case, it's a negative analysis of the outcome of Arab Spring. Assuming (good faith) that the original reason for forking from Arab Spring#Aftermath was that the single section would dominate the article, this article should be renamed to a neutral title such as Aftermath of Arab Spring. Thundermaker (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Article titles#Non-neutral but common names - neutrality can be overridden by the notion that a term has effectively become a proper noun. Just like Arab Spring has become a proper noun, so has Arab Winter. sudopeople 00:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No "Arab Winter" is including things like unrest in Bahrain, Lebanon and other nations that existed *long* before "Arab Spring". I find it interesting that the article uses the correct spelled out name for ISIL, but then uses an abbreviation of ISIS, which is not supported by the words, as it is an acronym. Levant does not begin with S and Syria is *part* of the Levant, not all of it.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the article title's fault. The content should match the title, not the other way around. sudopeople 00:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes while the term may have been disputed to some extent, I would urge others to see the references. I agree that there are multiple meanings of this term, but the largely accepted meaning is concerned with the crises, since 2012. Noteswork (talk) 07:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - The use of the term is already well cited in the article, and anyone can easily add 100 more sources that reference the term with a simple Google search. There are books written on it, with "Arab Winter" in their titles even.[http://www.amazon.com/Arab-Winter-Comes-America-Truth/dp/1621572048][http://www.amazon.com/Arab-Spring-Islamic-Winter/dp/1412852595/] It seems to me, the main objection here is that it's got a negative connotation. According to WP:POVNAMING "If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." sudopeople 00:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Original research

[edit]

I have removed two sections that was mainly WP:OR, not sourced to any RS that described that content as "arab winter". The article needs to be redirected to Arab spring, and develop there a short section if there is enough material for it.- Cwobeel (talk) 01:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the undiscussed redirecting. Perhaps we can propose a re-merger then? --George Ho (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it stands is just pure WP:OR. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See also the discussion above your RFC request. This article should not exists. It is not only an OR violation, but it fails notability as well. If you'd prefer, I will place in AFD. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Arab spring

[edit]

Closed per request at WP:ANRFC. As noted by the closer of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arab Winter, there is a clear consensus to oppose a merge from Arab Winter to Arab Spring. Cunard (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Comment - @Cwobeel: You made the claim that the term was only used in a few articles, but there is a laundry list of RS-outside the ones you noted-that use the term. See below:
That being said, it seems the different time periods between Arab Spring and Arab Winter constitute separate articles. Meatsgains (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. It has been used, yes. But always in the context of the Arab spring, and not enough coverage in mainstream sources to warrant an separate article. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you remove all the WP:SYNTH from the article, the unsourced material, and material that does not refer to an "Arab winter" as I have done, you are left with the reality of it. Just a few sources that use the term does not warrant an article in Wikipedia. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, i was thinking about merging the Spillover of the Syrian Civil War into this article. Evidently, everything seems to interconnect, especially with recent developments of Iran supporting the advance of Houthis in Yemen, and Ansar al-Sharia flying ISIS flags in Libya.GreyShark (dibra) 18:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - Arab Winter describes a long series of Civil unrests that are largely occurring after the majority of the Arab Spring's protests ended. They are distinctly different events, though closely related. There may not be a lot of material for Arab Winter at this moment, but the info will come with time. You shouldn't merge 2 articles just because one of them doesn't have a lot of information. Article-planning needs to have a long-term focus, not a short-term immediate scope. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - two separate set of events. The Arab Winter is happening, because the Arab Spring has largely failed. — Lentower (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Support No need for this second article. — Lentower (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As per above. Make sure to include a summary of the Arab Winter events in the Arab Spring page, with Arab Winter staying the main article.Catlemur (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - taking into consideration that it is already 3 weeks, since the merger proposal was issued and there there is a clear consensus against the merger, this thread should be considered as closed. The opinions are as following:
Support merger - Cwobeel, IRISZOOM,
Oppose merger - Greyshark09, Meatsgains, LightandDark2000, Lentower, Catlemur
Other - Fitzcarmalan
Furthermore, i see that the article was put under AfD by the same editor, who had earlier proposed the merger, i therefore remove the merger tag. GreyShark (dibra) 12:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - With a few millions of search results, we can say that Arab Winter is a separate and it has to do less with the Arab Spring. Concept is well around and notable since 2012 and has been discussed by numerous media. Arab Spring is a metaphor for the events that have occurred since 2012, mostly in Syrian Civil War. Noteswork (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger - The lead is well cited and substantiated. The rest of the article may very well be OR, but the subject deserves its own article, and it's an ongoing trend. It will likely grow. sudopeople 16:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Unsourced

[edit]

I have removed passages that were added to the article without the support of reliable sources. Per WP:BURDEN, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

Do not restore the content without providing such sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to good faith? Must we remove content to influence consensus? --George Ho (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you are editing in good faith, but we need to comply with our content policies. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I started the RFC to ask about the title, but this has turned into a revived content dispute. --George Ho (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That RFC is hopeless as it does not address the key question, which is: Is this article needed? Having said that, please respond to the issues I have raised here and in the section below. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article has potential, but it can't stay as "Arab Winter" any longer. Instead, article must be re-expanded and renamed, not merged. --George Ho (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also removed from the lede material that was sourced but that was unrelated to the term "Arab winter", the subject of this article. - Cwobeel (talk)

ISIS and the Levant conflict and North Africa sections

[edit]

These two sections violate our no original research content policy: This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

The material in these two section clearly violates that policy statement, as it furthers the notion that what is presented in these two sections (that these events are related to an "Arab winter") are conclusions made by editors, rather than being reported by reliable sources to be related to a purported "Arab winter". Given this, I have tagged the material accordingly to allow editors to provide citations that assert that the events listed in these sections are related to an "Arab winter". If no sources are provided, that material will be deleted, per policy. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article can remain without redirect

[edit]

... providing that the WP:OR is removed from the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... Although it may be better as a section in the Arab spring article, as this is a more familiar term. Thoughts? - Cwobeel (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is the section "Arenas" original research?

[edit]

Is the section Arab Winter#Arenas original research? - Cwobeel (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

My reading is that sections violates our no original research content policy: This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

The material in these two section clearly violates that policy statement, as it furthers the notion that what is presented in that section (that these events are related to an "Arab Winter") are conclusions made by editors, rather than being reported by reliable sources to be related to an "Arab Winter". The material should be be deleted, per policy. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to a random invite to participate, I agree with your conclusion. However, this subject is more complex than I currently have time to invest in it so will likely withdraw from further comment. Activist (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yemen

[edit]

There have been alot of new developments in Yemen lately that I think fit into the post-Arab Spring narrative. This should be featured in the article. Charles Essie (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

[edit]

As there has been no interest from the RFC, I will place this article in AFD. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. Comments are picking up. Build a lot of patience please. --George Ho (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC has had only one comment, so far and going nowhere. Placing this in AfD. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops... I meant, #Merge to Arab spring. Are you sure you are not committing forum shopping? --George Ho (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwobeel: you are engaging in disruptive editing. I remind you this topic is under WP:GS/SCW sanctions.GreyShark (dibra) 12:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion in AFD is nothing but the opposite of disruptive editing. Or are you afraid to attract additional eyeballs and comments from fellow editors? Look at this from a different perspective: If the article is kept, we will likely have additional contributors, and if it is deleted, we can continue developing material at Arab Spring. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly AFD is not disruptive, but trying to blank page without consensus is very much disruptive. Please refrain from such moves in the future. Thanks.GreyShark (dibra) 19:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting is not blanking. The material that was not WP:NOR was merged at Arab Spring. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you do redirecting or blanking with no consensus, and especially during the vote process, this is considered disruptive and may lead to sanctions. Please mind it.GreyShark (dibra) 20:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as keep.[3] Also, I don't think there's a consensus to merge. --George Ho (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also see a consensus to keep, thanks. sudopeople 17:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arenas section

[edit]
See box. Formerip (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: There is no consensus to include the material that was previously present under the heading "Arenas".

No consensus among editors has emerged during this discussion. There appears, however, to be a strong policy-based argument for the exclusion of the material in question. This is because it presents information about what are the "arenas" of the Arab Winter, seemingly without any sourcing that explicitly tells us what the arenas of the Arab Winter are. This makes the whole section WP:OR.

I don't think it matters much whether this is viewed as simply a case of "no consensus" or as "no consensus with an overriding policy consideration", because the effect is pretty much the same either way. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, the material should be excluded from the article and only re-added when there is a talkpage consensus to do so, whether in table or prose form.

For the avoidance of doubt, this material really needs sourcing that tells us in direct terms that place x is or has been an arena for something called the Arab Winter. Sourcing from which this can only be inferred falls short of the standard required to avoid original research.

Removed this section as it contained unsourced material per WP:V (any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material).

In addition the material was a WP:NOR violation (To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented).

If this material is to be restored we need (a) Sources to comply with WP:V, and (b) sources need to refer to Arab winter to comply with WP:NOR. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus hasn't agreed yet on removing the content. Still awaiting administrator to determine consensus. --George Ho (talk) 04:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwobeel: you have been pushing a personal opinion and point of view on this article, and worse, behaving in a way that will eventually get your ability to edit here sanctioned. Respecting consensus is important on Wikipedia. Consensus is how policy is interpreted in specific cases. You are not doing this with respect to this article. My advice is you remove this article from your Watchlist, and move on to work on other parts of Wikipedia. — Lentower (talk) 04:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lentower: Your advice is acknowledged but will be ignored, as I have stated my concerns here about the reasons for the deletion of the material. If you have something to contribute to the discussion about this, it will be appreciated. Just note that consensus can't trump our core policies. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwobeel: I suggest you re-read the Five Pillars, specifically the Fifth. With regard to "consensus can't trump our core policies" - you're completely incorrect. Consensus is probably the most important factor to consider. It is a wiki after all. sudopeople 17:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwobeel:: 1) what @Sudopeople: said. 2) the consensus is CLEARLY to replace the table with sourced narrative. 3) if you had put half the keystrokes and effort you have spent on trying to get this material removed, into IMPROVING the article, Wikipedia would be well on the way to a decent article. 4) it is pointless to continue to discuss this with you, as your position has remained unchanged. — Lentower (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho:, please respond to the concerns expressed: Violation of WP:V (no sources), and violation of WP:NOR, sources that directly support the material. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't you source the whole chart yourself? You've done a failed AFD and a soon-to-fail merge proposal. I want to keep this chart because it is the main attraction of the article. --George Ho (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The chart is also a good outline to expand into narrative. — Lentower (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BURDEN, it is the burden of editors wanting to keep the material to find sources. An example of NOR, this text Senior Islamist figures have been arrested and face trial is sourced to this [4]. That is a straight violation of WP:NOR as that source does not discuss the subject of "Arab Winter", neither the other sources used in the "Arenas" section. That is original research. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would ignoring all rules apply? I am tired of back-and-forth arguments already. And you are exhausted as well. Can we just put ourselves a break from this article for our own sakes? Please? --George Ho (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article has massive problems and need to be addressed, and if you don't want to engage and respond, let others do the work. If you are tired, take a wiki break. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And then what? Let you remove the table again? And let someone else engage against you? --George Ho (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho: The table being a main feature of the article is not reason enough to keep it. It reads like a scoreboard in what should be an encyclopedia. The article is not titled "Arenas of the Arab Winter". sudopeople 17:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwobeel: I agree with you that the table needs to go. The most glaring aspect though is the Outcomes column. In my opinion, outcomes in history should be inferred instead of dictated, but on Wikipedia at least, they sure as hell should be sourced. When they're not, there's a ton of potential for there to be Original Research, and I think you've done right to mark the section as potentially OR.
Now, should the article be in the standard encyclopedic format, the "outcomes" (Original Research or not) would be much less glaring, and would form a more approachable basis for improvement.
My suggestion is a WP:Compromise: replace the table with sections for each arena that read like normal paragraphs (possibly as lists first), then bring the text up to Wikipedia's standards from there. sudopeople 17:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I requested closure at WP:ANRFC, but there is a long list of requests right now. This would take weeks to wait for an interested volunteer to close some sections. --George Ho (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho: I'm confused. Which (talk?) sections do you want closed? We're talking about the Arenas section here. I don't think formalities are necessary. I think we can meet consensus pretty easily here. It's clear the article has much merit, and it's clear that it needs improvement. What are your thoughts regarding my proposal? sudopeople 18:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
#Current title stable? and #Merge to Arab spring, of course. --George Ho (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize the title stability was still open. Thanks for pointing it out. I've added my two cents. sudopeople 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sudopeople: Replacing the table with a narrative may work ... if the content is sourced in a manner that relates to "Arab Winter". The problem we have here is that the entire section, table or narrative, is OR, because none of the sources provided are about an "Arab Winter". - Cwobeel (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwobeel: I agree that it may be OR (I think we all do!) I meant to mention that the OR template would remain until it was rectified. My proposal is only step one. I'll also add that just because it's not cited does not automatically mean it's OR. Getting it out of the table makes it easier to improve in my opinion. The table currently connotates that it's locked in place.sudopeople 18:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is considered "original research" because of the article title itself. If consensus agrees that the current title is no longer stable, then we must request a page move with talks. No bold moves yet; WP:CAREFUL guideline should apply. --George Ho (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be shocked if the article name is changed. That's the one aspect that's VERY well cited in the article. ("Arab Winter" is quite similar to the Silent intifada which I've been editing recently. A few there don't like the name but it's all over the media for better or worse.)
The merger is showing a a 7:2 vote count in opposition and I don't see any reason why removing the table format should hinge on the title of the article.
If you'd please, what is your opinion on moving to a standard narrative format? sudopeople 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are two specific points that I want to discuss about the contents of this article in general. In regard to the Arenas section, this segment seems to have a very broad focus, almost to the point that it potentially will become a chronicle of Arab political developments in general rather than a precise delineation of the events of the "Arab Winter." The boxes are interesting and contain notable information, however, many of the listed events lack citations tying them to the "Arab Winter." In some cases, the description of events even appears to contradict the definition of the Winter given in the opening of the article. This is especially true of the Tunisia box. Even many of the cited works appearing earlier in the article would not suffice as a means of associating the Tunisia developments to the "Arab Winter" interpretative framework without qualifying whose perceptions are being discussed. There are also some things that could be trimmed from or clarified about the Egypt and Libya sections. Some things may need to moved to other articles.

It would be far more in keeping with the nature of the article to list the events of the Palestinian territories (especially as it pertains to the Gaza wars and the ongoing unrest in the West Bank) than shat is presently described in Tunisia, for example. Also, escalating repression within the GCC.

The broader and more tenuously cited some of these things, the more that there is an OR problem. The quality of the citations also matter as well for this section.

The other issue is the absence of information pertaining to Iraqi events prior to 2011. There is heavy emphasis on sectarian conflict and the actions of IS, yet there is little mention of the impact of foreign intervention, the precursors to IS, and earlier civil strife. In fact, it would be accurate, according to the contents of this article, to consider the Winter, at least in Iraq, to have begun well before 2010. The primary driving forces of what the article considers to be the Arab Winter in Iraq have less to do with the Arab Spring than with completely different sets of events and issues. It is impossible to have a clear, undistorted picture of the recorded developments in Iraq, and even to some degree Lebanon and Syria, without mentioning these factors. It is not adequate in the initial sentences to only refer to the aftermath of the Arab Spring protests.

I suggest adding more information about the impact of (pre- and post-Arab Spring protests) inter-state wars, proxy wars, and foreign intervention, as well as limiting the nature of the Arenas section to events that can be more clearly connected to the "Winter." This would exclude items that, though interesting, would be better suited to other pages. If no one objects/no one addresses those issues, I might do so once I have the time. Lacertilia the Magnificent (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest adding more information about the impact of (pre- and post-Arab Spring protests) . That would be very useful at Arab Spring. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we all stop talking with Cwobeel (talk · contribs). His position has remained unchanged. Our time as editors is best spent on other tasks. If he deletes the content again, just revert per talk page consensus. If that gets burdensome, start Cwobeel up the sanction ladder. — Lentower (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can suggest all you want, but I am not going anywhere. The discussion will continue, hopefully with other editors more willing to apply our content policies, and engage in discussions as needed. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lentower: @Cwobeel: isn't going to delete anything. [edit: I stand corrected.] We've cleared up consensus and are starting to make a little progress. I think dropping the table is a decent way to start so we can all get back to the usual way we're used to editing articles. I'd really like @George Ho:'s opinion on the idea though, since he's the only editor here that's specifically expressed his preference for it. sudopeople 07:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I'm in college, and Wikipedia has taken away my time from college studies. Hmm... we can easily convert a table to a prose. Arab Spring has a table whose format is similar to this article's. However, Arab Spring went first. Rather than convert to prose, how about adding prose instead? Add details that relate to either aftermath of Arab Spring and/or Arab Winter. --George Ho (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not the format, but the content. The entire section is based on original research by editors, as the material on the table does not refer to the subject of this article. What editors have done here is to take any and all events following what was called the "Arab spring" and add it here as if these were described by reliable sources as belonging to an "Arab Winter". So, the issue here is one of violation of content policies and not of formatting. Having said that, if there is material attributable to reliable sources that describes an event as being part of an "Arab Winter", I'd agree that it would be best presented in narrative format rather than in a table. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwobeel: The consensus has consistently disagreed with your position to destroy this article. You've made 4 massive deletions thus far that constitute WP:Disruptive editing, the latest of which includes an outright lie:
  • 17:50, 19 November 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-12,392)‎ . . Arab Winter ‎ (→‎Arenas: No attempts to resolve this in talk. Removing per WP:NOR and WP:BURDEN)
  • 21:34, 12 November 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-11,962)‎ . . Arab Winter ‎ (→‎Arenas: removed unsourced material, which was also OR violation. If this material is to be restored we need (a) Sources, and (b) sources need to refer to Arab winter)
  • 21:29, 1 November 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-5,980)‎ . . Arab Winter ‎ (redirect)
  • 21:26, 1 November 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-11,940)‎ . . Arab Winter ‎ (→‎Arenas: rm OR)
It would take me an hour to count how many attempts to resolve your problem have occurred on this talk page. In my opinion, this article would be best served if you'd WP:DISENGAGE for while. sudopeople 18:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, I have no intention to disengage. I have made clear my position regarding the policy violations in the article. None of these issues have been addressed, and these issues are not my problem, but our problems. Now, if you can directly address the concerns expressed, instead of pass judgement, that would be welcome. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem that I'm referring to as "yours" is the stance that this entire article should be deleted. sudopeople 20:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the issues again on the "Arenas" section:

  1. It contains unsourced material per WP:V (any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material).
  2. WP:NOR violation (To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented).
  3. WP:BURDEN - The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material

Look forward to comments by editors addressing these three concerns. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've been working to address your concerns, and the overall quality of the article, but you're still WP:NOTGETTINGIT. You've now made it perfectly clear you're not going to adhere to the consensus here. Your actions are clear cut examples of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, specifically 4 and 5.
Your concerns specifically, are addressed in multitude on this page. Please don't blame me for having a hard time pointing them out; this talk page has become an enormous wall of text.
I'd also like to note the decreased community involvement since you've begun your campaign. While I don't believe you've done so intentionally, you've in effect driven away productive contributors. sudopeople 20:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than lecture me, take some time and address my concerns. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remind you that I came here after you requested third party opinions. I agree with your 2 points, which we've tried to address above. I'd address them again but they'd get lost in the wall of text you're building. You're still WP:NOTGETTINGIT, hence the RFM. Thanks for agreeing to it! sudopeople 23:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Again, the issue is not of formatting, so hope you can address the NOR and SYNTH issues I have elaborated on. 23:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I won't be addressing your elaborations. I simply don't have the time to be tied up in a one sided battle. I'll wait for moderation to commence.
If your intention is to WP:DEPE, you're doing a particularly good job today. I hope you don't have the same effect at Silent Intifada. sudopeople 23:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could claim that your intention is to shut me up. But ain't gonna work. If you don't want to address my concerns, then so be it. - Cwobeel (talk)

Sources has been added. I removed the "refimprove" tag as resolved, but there may be still other issues raised. --George Ho (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requested move

[edit]
You are right. Move discussions that begin soon after previous ones are often disruptive, and I forgot about the other one. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arab Winter → Aftermath of the Arab Spring – The reason behind all this mess is obviously the title. I believe this one will solve the issues for now until more sources use "Arab Winter". Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Change article title?

[edit]
There does not appear to be any consensus for changing the title. Number 57 16:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Now that the table is removed, is there a point on keeping the article as "Arab Winter" anymore? There is no consensus to merge, but the article still has potential. --George Ho (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article's name reflects what it is covered in it. What title are you proposing? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking Aftermath of Arab Spring again. --George Ho (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or Timeline after Arab Spring or Post-Arab Spring incidents. --George Ho (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Arab Spring#Aftermath. So are you suggesting merging this article there? - Cwobeel (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. Let's deal with the title first, okay? --George Ho (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources use the term 'Arab Winter', hence the name. I would oppose renaming it. However, I think it would make sense to merge this content back into Arab Spring#Aftermath. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Arab WInter" (the SYNTH article) was possibly the most glorious SYNTH I've ever seen on Wikipedia, so I support keeping the name simply for the brilliance of its editorial statement. Shii (tock) 22:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But we have not yet decided on an alternative title. --George Ho (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Template:Rm for how to open a requested move discussion when you aren't proposing a specific title. Given the above discussions, I would just leave this alone, for quite some time. It's clear that there is no actual consensus on the question, and not likely to be one this soon. There may not even really be a consensus that this should be an article, because the entire concept seem to reek of WP:OR.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge proposal (again)

[edit]

@George Ho: I noticed that you recently added the {{merge to}} tag to this article, proposing a merger of this article with the Arab Spring article. An identical merge proposal was made several months ago, so we should refer to this discussion. Jarble (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an ongoing discussion, Jarble: Talk:Arab Spring#Proposed merge with Arab Winter. --George Ho (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Arab Winter

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Arab Winter's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "npr.org":

Reference named "ISIL gains supporters":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Civil wars

[edit]

How are these related to "Arab Winter"? Only material directly related by means of sources describing these civil wars as part of an Arab Winter may be included. Otherwise it fails WP:SYNTH. Removed. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also RFC above #Arenas section. It applies to this material as well, for same reasons. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DylanLacey:. See RFC above. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original research, yet again

[edit]

We can't add material to this article, unless directly related to the concept of an "Arab winter" as described by the sources. If sources do not mention "Arab winter", adding such material is a violation pf WP:OR. This has been discussed previously, including via RFC. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are well sourced - i specifically brought sources talking of Arab Winter, but apparently you haven't even reviewed them. Besides, implicating a bad faith, your removal of material is beginning to look like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is disruptive, especially considering the fact that this article is under Gs/talk notice|scwisil.GreyShark (dibra) 16:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwobeel: - you violated 1RR, please self-revert or you shall be reported.GreyShark (dibra) 16:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You violated it as well, so please self-revert as well. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For example:

The Syrian conflict began with protests against president Bashar al-Assad. After armed conflict broke out, support for Islamist groups such as the al-Nusra Front grew as other groups like the Free Syrian Army were accused of corruption and criminality.[1][2] This war has also created spillovers in Lebanon[3] and Iraq.[4]

References

  1. ^ "Jabhat Al Nusra", The Economis, Dec 2012.
  2. ^ Syrian opposition groups compete for influence, Stratfor.
  3. ^ "Lebanon under fire", The Daily Star, LB
  4. ^ "Iraq, Syria civil war challenges both us & Iran", The Nation.

No mention of "Arab winter" in these sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not the sources i added today. Don't fool the system.GreyShark (dibra) 16:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But that is material that violates NOR and that was added by you. Is that not the case? - Cwobeel (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something is wrong with your analysis of editing history - this section was added by user:Tosiaki! on 22 January 2015.GreyShark (dibra) 21:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, then. My bad. I will remove the OR then, and leave the rest. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You also removed some sources, specifically referring to Arab Winter.GreyShark (dibra) 16:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you did decide to self-revert, i consider it a good faith and offer to work on the sources which you consider improper. Let's try to cooperate.GreyShark (dibra) 17:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article Expansion

[edit]

For me the article seems way too short as it covers a topic that is very complex and too long that is enough to fit on a brief page.There are loads of things that could be added to this article like the civil wars in Libya,Yemen and Syria and the rise of ISIS/DAESH/ISIL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.106.142.1 (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First used by the Washington Post?

[edit]

The article says that the term was first used by the Washington Post in December 2011. Ostensibly it's sourced, but of course it only sources the usage, not the supposed fact that it was first used there. This is demonstrably false, as it was used by Moshe Arens in Haaretz in November: [5] [6] (the second is the same article in Hebrew, but uses Arab Winter in the title). However, I believe that this is also unlikely to be the first use of the term, and I distinctly remember it being used in Israel when the Arab Spring just started. Suggestion: we should write that the term was coined following the Arab Spring and leave it at that. —Ynhockey (Talk) 08:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can just delete "first" and keep the fact that the concept was used by Washington Post as early as December 2011.GreyShark (dibra) 21:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would indeed correct the factual error, but then why is this specific usage important? Why not other uses by other media outlets, or uses by pundits or dignitaries which were made even earlier? —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question is not when "Arab Winter" was described by sources and analysts as a hypothetic event (maybe even in April 2011), but when the sources began to use "Arab Winter" to refer to actual events. The wording should thus be something like: "The Arab Winter unfolded according to <some sources> in late 2011, while <other sources> describe the discourse of the Arab Spring into Arab Winter developing by mid-2012".GreyShark (dibra) 17:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Expand

[edit]

The article as it currently exists is basically a glorified stub. I propose that it either be greatly expanded upon or it gets merged as a subsection of the Arab Spring page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:DCEB:D421:B3EA:8BF8:5B09 (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

There is a discussion taking place here that might effect this page. Charles Essie (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution?

[edit]

This article and it's parent category are categorized as protests, revolutions and revolutionary waves which I'm not sure is accurate. There have been protests but there not the centerpiece of the Arab Winter. The Arab Winter has mostly been categorized as exactly what the open sentence says.

The Arab Winter is a term for the resurgence of authoritarianism, dictatorships, and Islamic extremism evolving in the aftermath of the Arab Spring protests in Arab countries.

That does not sound like a revolutionary wave to me. Charles Essie (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Charles. Not a "revolutionary" wave, but rather a set of multi-party wars and conflicts.GreyShark (dibra) 11:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arab_Winter&oldid=1243071769"