Jump to content

Talk:Yemeni revolution/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

cats

why were these tremoved? seem appropriate?(Lihaas (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

Categories are supposed to be in the most specific subcategories. i suspect that is why several categories were removed, since they are super-categories.
and Category:21st-century revolutions seems rather WP:CRYSTALballing at the moment, and [[:Category:2010–2011 Arab world protests|Yemen]] should also be a subcategory of Category:21st-century revolutions anyway.
i didn't do the removal, i'm just guessing why. Boud (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC) / Minor corrections. Boud (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
i'm not quite sure of how the subcategorisation works when there are [[Category:something-generic|something-specific]] type categories. Someone who has checked out the proper Venn diagram implementation can comment better here... Boud (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC) (s/Zenn/Venn = minor Sreudian flip correction :P. Boud (talk) 09:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC))

Growing internal opposition to Saleh

In the edit: [1], the US diplomat's report on growing internal dissent against Saleh from his closest advisors was removed with the comment wikileaks cables are opinion of the usa an dnot necessarily fact. AFAIK this is the closest thing we have to a reliable source on this issue. If someone has a better source, then please add it. Yemeni newspapers presumably should have a lot of info. In any case, i've NPOV-ed the diplomat's opinion to be an opinion rather than a fact and re-inserted it.

It seems to me rather obvious that growing internal opposition to Saleh from his closest advisors is rather obviously notable information in the context of this article's topic. Boud (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

it may be the closes to what we seek but its still only an american opinion.
Im moving to a new section, see if its okay. if not well come back and dsicuss.Lihaas (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The fact that it's an opinion is not in itself a problem.
  • Regarding the section, it doesn't make sense as a "reaction". It's a "pre-action" (pre-judgment), more commonly called "Background" in these type of Wikipedia articles. 2009 chronologically precedes 2011. An article in general does not have to be purely chronological, but chronology generally is a natural way of organising material. Saleh's advisors were, according to Angie Bryan, starting to criticise him in the last few months of 2009. That happened before the Tunisian Revolution and the spread of protests in the Arab world of early 2011. Those advisors did not react (at that time) to the Arab world 2011 protests. Boud (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
im not saying its a problem, otherwise it wouldnt even be here.
Hear your point about "reaction," but its also a opinion of one state. to set that as fact would be pov. Perhaps naother section of "exteral views/actions" could be added. "according to Angie Bryan" is the caveat. Others have other opinions naturally. Would Saleh say the same? the opposition? other sattes? like saudi?Lihaas (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The US diplomatic cables often tend to be summaries of things that are "generally known" by locals and by people who study a country carefully enough, so this is unlikely to be the only possible source - it's just (probably) the easiest source to find. There could be disagreement on the claim. i am certainly not against including other POVs on this. Academics in English-speaking countries who study Yemen, and Arabic-language sources from Yemen or Arabic-speaking academics in the Arab world or elsewhere may have online material on this. If Saleh has denied the claim, then let's add that. Boud (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Minor modifs, Boud (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC).
thats not true at all, reading the india ones its complete nonsense and thereir opinion thereof. although trahul gandhi stuff et al. it needs to be verified neutrally if its ot written as a reaction.Lihaas (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

The 'dubious' tag links to Wikipedia:Disputed_statement which in its summary states: The accuracy of a statement may be a cause for concern if:

  • It contains unlikely information, without providing references.
  • It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.
  • It has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.

Which of these is being suggested? Boud (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No concern under any of these three cases has been stated in 19 days. "Driveby" usage of tags is not encouraged. i'm removing the tag. Boud (talk) 08:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Day of Rage: 20,000 protesters

Here's an article on what happened during the protest for the Day of Rage. SilverserenC 09:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Osama bin laden

for all those OBL reverts see bin Laden family + [2](Lihaas (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)).

Sanaa presidential palace

Put more info about the Sanaa presidential palace, also called Sanaa presidential house( دار الرئاسة )= location, building, features... It is in the heart of the protests. More info: in 60 Meters Rd, Saná, Yemen [3]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.28.109.5 (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedians witness

I witness the events at Sana'a University sometimes and when I write some events with no other source here, will they be deleted or is it enough to add the [citation needed] template?--Email4mobile (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

do that for now, it nothing comes then we can remove it. the tag si also a call for other users who may have a source.Lihaas (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Probably the best would be to do original reporting at {{sec link auto}}, and if the report is accepted at wikinews, then i expect it can be used as a source here (so not only as a wikinews templated sidebox). At least in principle, an original report with detailed notes, following the minimum of the recommendations at {{sec link auto}}, should (could?) count as "fact-checked and reliable", though personally i haven't checked any original wikinews reports for several years... Boud (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Timeline condense

Wouldn't the article look better if the timeline is condensed somehow? It now has an entry for every single day, although some entries feature 1 or 2 short sentences. Maybe the section could be condensed into weekly periods (e.g. 19-25 February) - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

For now I just moved it to the end of the article. I wouldn't recommend condensing it now, as the protests are still in progress. Later on it will be clear what were important turning points and so forth. No rush. Flatterworld (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, The Egyptian Liberal didn't like that, so he reverted it "because it didn't look like Egypt's". So we now have a section called 'Analysis' which consists of nothing but a 'discussion' of the use of the color pink, and everything else is scrambled around. Flatterworld (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
We can split it off after the page expands a bit. Similar to the other protests.Lihaas (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it needs to be consolidated. It cant really be that hard to do. They are somewhat arbitrary divisions as is.--Metallurgist (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As soon as Ali leaves, we spilt the timeline to a different page (He will leave very soon, Maybe before the friday). The article right now is mainly about the timeline. No need to rush things up. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Which is exactly my problem with your attitude. You don't care anything about what comes after Saleh leaves, just filling up and focusing the article with day-to-day news coverage which really belongs in Wikinews. Yemen has nothing set up for an interim government - there's obviously going to be a battle for power which you don't think is worth covering. No, you want to "analyze" the color pink instead. Wikipedia has just about nothing about the political parties and coalitions, just about nothing about the various people involved - and you and Lihaas focus on removing 'red links' so no one's encouraged to create any articles, either. All you care about is the timeline, and pretending every single protest movement is completely identical, and after Saleh leaves everything's going to magically be peaches and cream and fluttering butterflies. I don't believe it. Flatterworld (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Refs

[4] there is plenty of precedence for this. we have also now seen the same ref replciated multiple times in the same section. oputting it in the lead cuts the amount of refs. (the blog is also constantly changing, btw)Lihaas (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of fixing up incorrect refs. If you don't know how to use the name parameter of a ref, then please leave it to those of us who do. Flatterworld (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, calm down and be WP:Civil, not is shouting.
what name refs are you talking about? Lihaas (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
instead of such edit summaries it would help to discuss (something you still didnt do before fighting back). 1. the red links are sea of people who are not notable to ever have a page. (although i suppose the ministries as red links are valid). 2. we know the rulign party, why eb vague? 3. why was the first one removed?Lihaas (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Flatterworld, Is this the first article for you to work on about the MENA protests? If its, Please have a look the Egyptian one to understand how the outline of the page should look like (We had discussed there before and the majority agreed to it). Another thing, Lihaas is right about the Refs. It ok to have different opinion just try to be claimer when representing your point of view. and to everyone, else keep in mind that some of the family member's of the victims reads these pages, so always be respectful. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
First, I suggest you check my contributions before you read further. Second, this is not the first or only 'discussion' I have had with Lihaas about this. She has refused to do anything but ignore 'edit conflicts' and edit comments and simply replaces whatever's been done with whatever she wants. Wikipedia has used INLINE citations for several years now. We do NOT cite a heading, because people can add whatever names they like below whether it's within that citation or not. Who's going to check it out? Furthermore, we are relying mostly on live blogs at this point (Al Jazeera and the Guardian). Sometimes those are retracted or corrected, which is why we update the citations to more reliable articles (often within the same news source) as they become available. Obviously that means each person must have his/her own citation. Third, I see you've moved the daily minutiae back to the top so the focus is on the oldest stuff as much as possible. That's your 'improvement'? As I noted in my edit comment at the time, the timeline was overwhelming the article - but obviously you think that's immaterial. And all your other 'corrections' on structure have also helped bury the important material just so it 'matches' the mistakes you should have learned from with the Egyptian article. Since that's clearly your only goal here, have at it. If you bothered to show me the slightest bit of respect, or considered the reasons for my changes BEFORE reversing them and then lecturing me, I'd be interested in having an actual discussion with you. Flatterworld (talk)
Good god man/woman, this is not a fight. We having a discussing here only. One, I have nothing but respect to everyone who takes time from their busy life to help improve wikipedia; New or old editors. You two are fighting about a non-issue really. The Refs thing is not a big deal. People have different ways of doing it. It doesnt mean one is right and other is wrong. I happened to do it Lihaas and therefor, I agree with her. That's about it. As for the live blog issue, Also it's not that big of a deal. Info is going to be coming somedays with the speed of light and its hard to find a news article about the topic right away so we use the blogs. After the day is over, I usually read the blogs again to make sure it matches what's written in the article. IF it does not, I ask for more sources. Now, the outline of the article, it goes like this
  • Background
  • Protests (Timeline)
  • Domestic responses
  • International reactions
  • Analysis
people usually come to read the timeline (I do it in in other articles about the protests). It the main meal. the others are side dishes. hence it needs to be at the top, that's why we have done it in every single article about any protests in MENA which by the way I had worked on almost each one of them. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 05:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Change the name to Yemeni Revolt?

With the state of emergency and the split in the armed forces, and a major "escorted" march on the presidential palace on friday, we may have to changed the title to something else if the shooting really starts.Ericl (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Change name to "2011 Yemeni Revolution"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was: Not Moved. Consensus is not to move at this time. If the situation in Yemen develops, a new proposal may be started. Station1 (talk) 07:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Yemeni protests → 2011 Yemeni Revolution — Major developments (including mass defections) in late March suggest that Yemen now has a revolution on their hands. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 20:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: That's not the definition of a revolution. The situation in Yemen exhausts most existing definitions of "revolution". ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 10:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
It's how we've been defining revolution for the area in general. Yemen is not even close to the "Armed conflict" level that Libya is labeled as and that is itself a step below "Revolution". I could support uprising, but not revolution at this time, for the standards that we've set for these articles. SilverserenC 10:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Houthi rebels

The Financial Times reports that the Houthi rebels are in control of the city of Sa'ada: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/05e7f686-5621-11e0-8de9-00144feab49a.html#axzz1HoZpKvxg

And according to the Yemen Post Houthi rebels have declared the independence of Sa'ada province and appointed a governor : http://yemenpost.net/Detail123456789.aspx?ID=3&SubID=3336

I think we should include these events in this article.

Dms77 (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

photos

This article needs non-copyrighted photos! Can someone please check flickr for images we may upload to Commons and use here? Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

None so far, but it doesn't hurt to ask! kencf0618 (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I sent this user a message in flickr - hopefully he will agree to re-license some of his images so that they are usable here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
He agreed, and now we have some nice photos! Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this article should be called 2011 Yemeni rebellion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.241.199 (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Resignations

This was the statement from the Yemen Observer on 26 March:
Meanwhile, Yemen’s ambassadors in the UK, France, Spain, Algeria, China, Saudi Arabia, Oman and the European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva have all denied Al Jazeera news reports that they had resigned and confirmed that they remained loyal to their government.
I will try to track down each one, but imo neither Aljazeera nor the Observer should be believed unconditionally, and it's more sensible to post both versions rather than just one or the other.

  • UK Ambassador: subsequently active in international meetings representing Yemen government for coffee exports. Aljazeera has NOT retracted their report that he resigned, which infuriates me as it means I can't believe anything they print. I don't know of any other serious news source which refuses to print corrections. I've used them often in citations, but imo they need to be corroborated as much as any government-connected source. If they're going to print rumors in a live blog, I can understand errors. I CANNOT understand why they refuse to correct those errors later. Flatterworld (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

President for 32 years?

Wasn't Yemen 2 countries up until the early 1990's? If so shouldn't we specify that?--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

He was the prisident of Yemen Arab Republic from 1978 to 1990, and continued as the prisident of Yemen after unification till now.--Email4mobile (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes, need to clarify thatLihaas (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Exactly!  :-)Wipsenade (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

On changing the name

The news is that Saleh has agreed to go within the month if he and his family get immunity. The GCC has approved this, but the opposition has not. Assuming he goes, we should change the name as soon as he gets his butt on the plane.Ericl (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

i haven't been following the Yemen situation much, but if Vice-President Abd al-Rab Mansur al-Hadi becomes the new president under the GCC proposal, would his becoming president within the context of non-stop protest + the GCC mediation be enough for the word "Revolution"? The only thing that Wikipedia knows about him (so far) is three sentences referenced from... the CIA. Part of the name debate will depend on what the mainstream media say, and whether or not "Revolution" can count as a descriptive term. With a small "r" it can be a descriptive term under WP:NAME, while with a big "R" it would have to be a widely used term.
In any case, anyone looking for work to do :P might want to consider working on Abd al-Rab Mansur al-Hadi: it would be rather embarrassing for Wikipedia if the quality of the article doesn't improve (half the article (= a 1 sentence paragraph) presently consists of alternative name transliterations!) by the time he becomes (interim) President... (Meanwhile, frequent "rare" protests north of the border certainly don't (yet) qualify as a revolution, even though at least one pundit has used that word.) Boud (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
AJE: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/04/20114231818133946.html It sounds like the plan would be for presidential elections within 2 months of Saleh resigning, and Abd al-Rab Mansur al-Hadi as interim president would presumably be in too weak a political position to override that. My guess is that "r"evolution as a descriptive term would be justified. That would avoid any urgent pressure for debate on whether or not it's the "most widely used" term, so it's my suggestion. A decision on "upgrading" from "revolution" to "Revolution" could wait for a longer time frame (e.g. a few months to a year or more) to get a long term perspective. Boud (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC) (minor clarification Boud (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC))

The Muslim Brotherhood

President Ali Abdullah Saleh has just told the BBC that he bleaves that both Nasserites, Socialists, the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda 'are behind' the protests![[5]] Wipsenade (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The Muslim Brotherhood are planning to create an Islamic state[[6]][[7]][[8]][[9]][[10]][[11]]. Wipsenade (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Who?82.11.86.202 (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I said Nasserites, Socialists, the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda, User:82.11.86.202.Wipsenade (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
For the first post, let's be careful how we phrase that. That source does not state that those entities are behind the protest, but that Saleh claims they are. We can report what someone claims as their claim, but not as the truth. As for the second post, I think you need to track down some more RS. At least some of the sources listed do not fall into that category.204.65.34.242 (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I re-phrase it "he bleaves that".Wipsenade (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
What dictators say they believe and what they actually believe are two separate things. We can report on Saleh's accusations, but we can't pull thoughts out of his brain. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Point taken.Wipsenade (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Uprising?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus in favor of moving page to 2011 Yemeni uprising. Kudzu1 (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 Yemeni protests → 2011 Yemeni uprising – The move to 2011 Syrian uprising over at the event page for Syria seems to have set a precedent that there doesn't necessarily need to be widespread armed conflict for an uprising, i.e. the people have risen up to not simply protest but prevent and deny the authority of the government, to be occurring. I believe that the mass refusal of soldiers, officers, and tribal militias to take orders from President Saleh, the mass revolt of civil servants forcing the Yemeni bureaucracy to a halt, and the mass opposition of the public to Saleh's continued rule, as well as the recent political machinations that are due to give opposition leaders a seat at the table in a unity government, mean that these have gone past protests - probably went past protests some time ago - and the situation has become an uprising. Al Jazeera English, The Toronto Star, TIME, Press TV, United Press International, and The Nation, among other major sources, agree with me. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Support I agree that it has moved beyond merely major protest/governmental changes and should be placed with Syria as a civil uprising. The announcement of Saleh's 'resignation' or transition or whatever it is being called would suggest this uprising is taking on the characteristics of a Egyptian/Tunisian Revolution. So YES Uprising for now but it is becoming more revolutionary. George5210 (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Support This is certainly an uprising, and hopefully, in the future, a Revolution. --Smart30 (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Support The situation seems to have gotten to the point that it is appropriate to term it an uprising. SilverserenC 05:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Support Its not a protest movement anymore; its an uprising -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Support I agree, should be an uprising. --ERAGON (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Support Flatterworld (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Support I agree it is so widespread that it is appropriate to term it an uprising.Wipsenade (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Support I agree also; "civil uprising" is the best term to describe the ongoing situation in Yemen at this point and many sources have described it as such. DonT15 (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Support It's not just a protest, now is an uprising.213.81.122.241 (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Support This is close enough to at least "revolution" or possibly even "Revolution" that "uprising" is clearly supported at the moment, by the sources, as a descriptive name under WP:NAME. It's not clear to me that the Syrian protests have been as much an uprising as the Bahraini protests. The Bahraini protests dominated the capital Manama, but the Syrian ones have not had a multi-week occupation of a central Damascus location. In any case, changing the Bahraini protests page to uprising should be discussed over there. Boud (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Splitting the Timeline

I think we need to split the "Timeline" section into a new page while keeping summary here. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree - Make it so. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree Timeline of the 2011 Yemeni uprising --Smart (talk) 04:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
All done. Thanks Smart. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Update

Just in, people. Here... Thank you... Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Attempted coup?

Could the recent attack on the presidential headquarters be considered an attempted Coup d'état? ~AH1 (discuss!) 23:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Saleh will not return to Yemen

[12] Once more news comes out this would be a good addition for the article.Calaka (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The page is loading fine for me. Anyone else having problems with it? -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Should we mention this?

Reuters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.225.109 (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yemeni Revolution

Since president Saleh resigned as president of Yemen shouldn't this be considered a revolution — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernardini11 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No, revolution means " a fundamental change in power". Since new leader was vice-president since 1994, and also a former military officer, who said he will run in next elections, I wouldn't label this as a revolution. HeadlessMaster (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No, Headless. Its a massive POV you are making. When Ben Ali flees to Saudi Arabia his buddy Ghannouchi takes over it, we call it government overthrown. When Mubarak steps down and his junta ally SCAF takes over it, we still call it government overthrown, although the protesters claims their protest is not over and 'Mubarak elements are still there in Egypt' or 'Tantawi acts like Mubarak' sentiments. In Libya, when Gaddafi was forced out from Tripoli at the late August, although he has not dead yet, his family is still around and Gaddafi loyalist still holds Bani Walid, Sabha and Sirte, still the majority of the sources called it government overthrown. So likewise if Saleh resigns, then its still consider overthrown although there will be a unity government because the opposition are expected to gain power too. Most importantly if the head or leader are being overthrown then we say its the government is being overthrown. Nonetheless we still follow the majority of the reliable sources anyway.

But I said Yemen is still NOT a revolution but with a different reason: There was no such official statement that Saleh has resigned as president. We cannot assume that because the GCC deal has expired in December 23 then we can say "Saleh has steps down already". We need to hear any of the Yemeni ruling leaders helps announce it. Until then, Uprising is still common to be used. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Look, I can be accused of many things, but not of pro-Saleh PoV. Some of my friends are active in Arab Spring (on the revolutionary side), so I, naturally, support them. The difference between Yemen and Tunisia or Egypt is that in Yemen, the high ranked members of the former regime are still wanting to stay in power, while in both Tunisia and Egypt, all high ranked military officers, political officials, etc. stated they won't run in the next elections. I would leave Libya aside (because it was not a revolution, but a foreign intervention, which eventually resulted in overthrowing of the government). HeadlessMaster (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Running in the elections doesnt mean that government wasnt overthrown. For example after 1989 revolutions in Central and Eastern Europe everywhere Communist Parties run in upcoming elections despite not changing their member structure. In Czechoslovakia government of national unity - opposition and Communist Party oversaw transition period till first elections similiary to Yemeni government of national unity. However my point is - government was formed by both opposition and coalition members, thus we have significant change in government. And since, despite initial informations, Saleh remained president, although only pro-forma with power handed to vice-president, officialy he is still president of country and thus we shouldn´t call it revolution yet. Changing Arab Spring article Yemeni section to government overthrown as in case of Tunisia, Egypt or Libya is ok but renaming the article from Uprising to Revolution should be postponed until officialy Saleh is out of power, in other words in February when presidential elections will take the place (and if they won´t be rigged Saleh has about 0 chance of winning it). EllsworthSK (talk) 02:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Then I think we should remain that situation in Yemen as "Sustained civil disorder...." in that Arab Spring article, for now. In my POV, I feel a bit weird to change into Government Overthrown but this article is still remain as Uprising, if given that the situation is as explosive like Tunisia and Egypt but not Libya. Besides, most reliable sources are still calling Ali Abdullah Saleh outgoing or agrees to step down but rarely used the word "ousted President Ali Abdullah Saleh" or "former President A.A. Saleh". Nonetheless let's wait until the February 21 elections then we might consider it again.

Remember one thing: "Transferring power ≠ Stepping down". Saleh had once transfer power to his VP Hadi at June 4 presidential palace attacks but he has never step down yet. Who knows before 2-21 Saleh will still grab back all his VP power and remain dictatorship again? In your opinion you all have already seen this kinda person.

PS: And Headless, just for your record, please don't simply calling me (or even think about it) accusing you without understand what I'm trying to tell you. Many people has once make mistakes, like for example attempt inserting non-NPOV statement into the Wiki articles, even I had done that many times too. I'm just trying to remind you something, as many people also remind me too not to use non-NPOV statements, and that I can't really call them accusing me, even if I WANT to. Dictator elements were still around even if the head of state steps down, but in the end we still call it Government Overthrown anyways. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Conflict escalates to 2011-2012 yemeni revolution: because this is a real revoltion in yemen an all the world call it revolution — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.5.45 (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yemeni Revolution

Since president Saleh resigned as president of Yemen shouldn't this be considered a revolution — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernardini11 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No, revolution means " a fundamental change in power". Since new leader was vice-president since 1994, and also a former military officer, who said he will run in next elections, I wouldn't label this as a revolution. HeadlessMaster (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No, Headless. Its a massive POV you are making. When Ben Ali flees to Saudi Arabia his buddy Ghannouchi takes over it, we call it government overthrown. When Mubarak steps down and his junta ally SCAF takes over it, we still call it government overthrown, although the protesters claims their protest is not over and 'Mubarak elements are still there in Egypt' or 'Tantawi acts like Mubarak' sentiments. In Libya, when Gaddafi was forced out from Tripoli at the late August, although he has not dead yet, his family is still around and Gaddafi loyalist still holds Bani Walid, Sabha and Sirte, still the majority of the sources called it government overthrown. So likewise if Saleh resigns, then its still consider overthrown although there will be a unity government because the opposition are expected to gain power too. Most importantly if the head or leader are being overthrown then we say its the government is being overthrown. Nonetheless we still follow the majority of the reliable sources anyway.

But I said Yemen is still NOT a revolution but with a different reason: There was no such official statement that Saleh has resigned as president. We cannot assume that because the GCC deal has expired in December 23 then we can say "Saleh has steps down already". We need to hear any of the Yemeni ruling leaders helps announce it. Until then, Uprising is still common to be used. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Look, I can be accused of many things, but not of pro-Saleh PoV. Some of my friends are active in Arab Spring (on the revolutionary side), so I, naturally, support them. The difference between Yemen and Tunisia or Egypt is that in Yemen, the high ranked members of the former regime are still wanting to stay in power, while in both Tunisia and Egypt, all high ranked military officers, political officials, etc. stated they won't run in the next elections. I would leave Libya aside (because it was not a revolution, but a foreign intervention, which eventually resulted in overthrowing of the government). HeadlessMaster (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Running in the elections doesnt mean that government wasnt overthrown. For example after 1989 revolutions in Central and Eastern Europe everywhere Communist Parties run in upcoming elections despite not changing their member structure. In Czechoslovakia government of national unity - opposition and Communist Party oversaw transition period till first elections similiary to Yemeni government of national unity. However my point is - government was formed by both opposition and coalition members, thus we have significant change in government. And since, despite initial informations, Saleh remained president, although only pro-forma with power handed to vice-president, officialy he is still president of country and thus we shouldn´t call it revolution yet. Changing Arab Spring article Yemeni section to government overthrown as in case of Tunisia, Egypt or Libya is ok but renaming the article from Uprising to Revolution should be postponed until officialy Saleh is out of power, in other words in February when presidential elections will take the place (and if they won´t be rigged Saleh has about 0 chance of winning it). EllsworthSK (talk) 02:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Then I think we should remain that situation in Yemen as "Sustained civil disorder...." in that Arab Spring article, for now. In my POV, I feel a bit weird to change into Government Overthrown but this article is still remain as Uprising, if given that the situation is as explosive like Tunisia and Egypt but not Libya. Besides, most reliable sources are still calling Ali Abdullah Saleh outgoing or agrees to step down but rarely used the word "ousted President Ali Abdullah Saleh" or "former President A.A. Saleh". Nonetheless let's wait until the February 21 elections then we might consider it again.

Remember one thing: "Transferring power ≠ Stepping down". Saleh had once transfer power to his VP Hadi at June 4 presidential palace attacks but he has never step down yet. Who knows before 2-21 Saleh will still grab back all his VP power and remain dictatorship again? In your opinion you all have already seen this kinda person.

PS: And Headless, just for your record, please don't simply calling me (or even think about it) accusing you without understand what I'm trying to tell you. Many people has once make mistakes, like for example attempt inserting non-NPOV statement into the Wiki articles, even I had done that many times too. I'm just trying to remind you something, as many people also remind me too not to use non-NPOV statements, and that I can't really call them accusing me, even if I WANT to. Dictator elements were still around even if the head of state steps down, but in the end we still call it Government Overthrown anyways. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Conflict escalates to 2011-2012 yemeni revolution: because this is a real revoltion in yemen an all the world call it revolution — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.5.45 (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

First let me say that I'm happy that you're willing to discuss this on the talk page. You may well be right. However to add information to Wikipedia, we need it to be supported by a reasonable fraction of reliable sources. As things currently, the majority of sources are still reporting that he has left for the United States for medical treatment. While some sources are indeed speculating that your interpretation is correct, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and when in doubt, it is better to wait until developments become clear. There are rumors that Saleh has found asylum in the United States, and rumors that he's sought refuge in Oman, and rumors that the army has attempted a coup, and will attempt one again. For now, the majority of sources indicate that he remains in power through families and cronies. There's no rush, things will become clear enough, and it's obvious that one way or another Saleh will be forced from power. There's no need to jump the gun.
By the way, I want you to know that I appreciate your efforts to improve Wikipedia, and I hope that you will decide to stay, and perhaps create an account.
Regards, Quintucket (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

User 89.139.5.45, please don't be hasty. I know its true that everybody is calling it revolution, but as long as their peaceful protests doesn't lead to the ouster of Saleh, Wikipedia cannot call it Revolution. It won't be apprioprate to call it revolution because the leader was not ousted, although the Yemenis claims that so. Its based on what is the final result, and as of this date where I'm gonna sign it soon, he was not overthrown yet.

But let say if the Yemeni Revolution wins, I was wondering if we could take out the 2011-2012 and instead named it as Yemeni Revolution? 60.49.63.145 (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

2012 Timeline

It seems that there has been little if any effort to update the timeline past December of last year. That will be probalamatic as it will take quite a bit of effort to find and type all that information and get references for the period of 1 January to todays date.Kspence92t (talk) 23:55, 1 february 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.38.161 (talk)

Then help us contribute this Yemeni uprising article. 60.49.62.66 (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

2011-2012 yemeni revouton what happenid now in yemen is a revolution and not a protest or uprising — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabri30 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Saleh is still officialy president of Yemen. As long as he remains on this post we cannot consider this to be a revolution. Hold on a few days, in two weeks there will be elections with Hadi as sole candidate and than we can consider it to be a revolution. After all government was overthrown and replaced by government of national unity and president was overthrown as well. EllsworthSK (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest to renamme he article to 2011-2012 yemeni revoluion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabri30 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

2011-2012 yemeni revolution

i suggest o rename the aricle 2011-2012 yemeni revolution because what hppiend in yemen is aral revolution like tunsian revoluion and egyprian revoluion and lebyan revolution . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabri30 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

We've discussed this before, and we really need a reasonable majority of reliable sources outside Wikipedia calling this a revolution. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Then lets make note that it could be called the yemeni Revolution. Ex "The 2011-2012 Yemeni uprising (also called the Yemeni Revolution) followed the initial stages of" Ect...

It is worth mentioning that the 2007 Burmese Protests are referred to as the Safron Revolution, even though they did not topple the government. Zenithfel (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Changing the title

Soon Hadi will be inaugurated this Saturday morning. When he was inaugurated, that will mark the end of the rule of Ali Abdullah Saleh's 33-year rule. Its expected that we will change this to 2011-2012 Yemeni Revolution. But instead of changing the title, is it okay if we change it to Yemeni revolution only without using the 2011-2012? 60.49.60.158 (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

We can't do either without reliable sources calling it a revolution. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Its already. Hadi was sweared in as the new president of Yemen today and besides, the revolution was all the time since 27 January 2011. So I repeat my question again, is it okay if we change it to Yemeni revolution only without using the 2011-2012? Our 2011-2012 is just the Wikipedian usage because we believe it revolt started on 2011 then resume in 2012, but most of the media just called it Yemeni Revolution or they just say "Yemeni revolution since January 2011" in a sentence. 60.49.60.158 (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Then lets make note that it could be called the yemeni Revolution. Ex "The 2011-2012 Yemeni uprising (also called the Yemeni Revolution) followed the initial stages of" Ect...

It is worth mentioning that the 2007 Burmese Protests are referred to as the Safron Revolution, even though they did not topple the government. Zenithfel (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Time to move the page

Its time to move the page to the Yemeni Revolution. The consensus of the Arab Spring page counts the this event as government overthrown.

Also here is the dictionary's definition of Revolution:

fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed

activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation

a fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something : a change of paradigm <the Copernican revolution>

Zenithfel (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


Except that the governement has not been overthrown. This is not a revolution and the situation is roughly the same with a new face, the former vice president, elected with 99% of votes (more than Assad) as he was the only candidate. --FavorLaw (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Overthrown in this case does not have to mean forceful removal. Zenithfel (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

We have already discuss it before about how a government was overthrown. Try to compare it with Tunisian revolution. Why do we call it revolution when on 14 January 2011, when Ben Ali was ousted, but the RCD government was still there? The successor Mohammad Ghannouchi and Fouad Mebazaa was affliated with the RCD, even though he pursue an Independent party. And also, he did form a national unity between his government and the opposition too, that doesn't make it revolution? 60.49.60.158 (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Whether or not we personally feel Yemen has undergone an "uprising" or a "revolution", we should look at what our outside sources tell us. Judging by the comments below, "revolution" is the more commonly used term in respected English sources. Aervanath (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


2011–2012 Yemeni uprising → NewName – relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. Sabri30 (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

2011–2012 Yemeni uprising → 2011–2012 Yemeni revolution - I don't get why people still has to believe that what happen in Yemen is not revolution, but an uprising. Al Jazeera, BBC, Reuters and Yemen Post all call it revolution. Besides, Saleh is already ousted so its already a revolution.

Some of you people claims that because Hadi was part of the General People Congress party and because of that, the GCC government wasn't overthrown. But my question is why don't you check out the earlier discussion about the consensus of moving the Egypt article to 2011 Egyptian Revolution?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2011_Egyptian_revolution/Archive_6#Rename_proposals

During that time there were people argue that when the SCAF has took over, it wasn't counted as government overthrown because SCAF were closed associate of Mubarak. Eventually when they have a consensus, they still rename the article as Revolution. So its the same here, the reason why people asking the overthrow of Saleh is because he himself IS the government. Counting still as an uprising is still a POV to me, because 31 million result shows about 2011 yemeni revolution but 6 million shows it 2011 yemeni uprising. 60.49.60.158 (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Weak support - Reliable sources seem to be divided on this. Since there has been a legal transfer of power, a new president is in place, a national unity government is installed, and the leadership is at least saying they will now move toward plural democracy under the GCC initiative, I do think the article should probably be moved for consistency with the 2011 Egyptian revolution article, which was moved after President Mubarak resigned even though many regime officials remained in place. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

: Oppose. It was not a revolution, it was political agreement. Very very few sources call it a revolution. The vice president is now the president and has been elected in a way that make jealous most dictators of the world. --FavorLaw (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Note - The above editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet of the disruptive POV editor User:ChronicalUsual. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - rediculous proposal, i will just pass any remark on those single candidate "elections".Greyshark09 (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment A political agreement doesn't mean its not a revolution. A revolution can go in many ways, civil war, uprising, demonstration, negotiations and many more. Yemen wasn't the only country that a new leader who replaces the old leader still renders his/her old regime background, yet we still call it revolution. 60.49.60.158 (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Support I think we can call it a revolution with the ouster of Saleh and the promises that the new government will attempt to move towards democracy. 48Lugur (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Surely western democracy does not have a monopoly on revolutions (see Cuban Revolution or October Revolution for two very well-known examples of revolutions that did not result in a democratic outcome). I would say that any popular uprising that resulted in the successful overthrow of the existing government can safely be called a revolution. The real question in terms of article naming, however, is how reliable sources refer to the event. If the common name among reliable sources is "Yemeni revolution", then I would tend to support the proposed move, but if reliable sources tend to refer to it as "Yemeni uprising" then I would tend to oppose the move. It may be a bit early to tell in this case, but what are reliable sources calling it? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 13:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose That is all and good in your personal opinion but where are your sources? I have seen more sources calling it uprising than revolution, and Wikipedias policy is to call it by the common name that its known internationaly, and at the moment it is more known as an uprising. EkoGraf (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Just from quick search [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] EllsworthSK (talk) 11:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Looking at bbc.co.uk and cnn.com, it looks to me like "Yemeni uprising" is rarely used and "Yemen revolution" has recently gained some currency, but "Yemen unrest" seems to be the prevailing term. I'm judging that by the number of articles turned up in on-site searches. In this case, it may be useful to give weight to what sources outside Yemen are calling it, since sources inside Yemen may be biased by current politics there. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 12:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, but as you say there are sources which call or just recently started calling it revolution because despite the process of elections it fits into definition of revolution (whole government was overthrown, new president was installed, government of national unity was created) and not wether conditions laied by protesters were met (like prosecution of Saleh instead of giving him immunity). Some sources are calling it also Unfinished revolution and in that case Im not sure wether they support "revolution" argument or not. Some opinions on that matter would certainly be usufull. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
User:EllsworthSK, what's the point arguing with them? If the GPC government has removed, and most of the media sources call it Yemeni Revolt, they will still insists the majority thinks its uprising. If what they say is true then Egypt and Tunisia cannot be called Revolution, because I saw most reliable sources called it "unrest", "uprising" or "protests", rather than those who made "revolution". Doesn't make sense rite?60.49.60.158 (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Well in the Google search result, if you type in 2011 Yemeni uprising you will get at least 3.2 million results. If you type in 2011 Yemeni Revolution you will get 37,400,000 results. I'm not making this up, go and check yourself. 60.49.60.158 (talk) 02:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Google results are not an evidence for anything, because we count only reliable sources not some blogs which write "revolution" 1,000,000 times.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Yup. EkoGraf (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Nope. I've seen people change the title because of Google results. I just look at how their title has changed in the previous article. But I suppose even if the new president dissolves the GPC, we still won't call it revolution for some reason. 60.49.60.158 (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support — I was just about to make this proposal myself. I support renaming it to Yemeni Revolution, as it is the only civil uprising of its kind in the history of the country. Master&Expert (Talk) 18:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

U.S. covert actions and South African weapons

The New York Times reported on June 9, 2011 that the Obama administration had stepped up covert military actions in the country in defense of the U.S.-allied government "clinging" to power.[1] Meanwhile, in South Africa, parliamentary questions arose over South African-produced armoured vehicles in the possession of Yemeni rebels who defected from the military.[2]

References

  1. ^ "What we're watching", Jay Kernis. CNN. June 9, 2011. Accessed June 9, 2011
  2. ^ "Radebe 'didn't know' about Ratels ", News 24. June 9, 2011. Accessed June 9, 2011

This may require a seperate discussion on how reliable/opinionated the NYT is. And don't get me started on the CNN! Maybe yo can start ignoring the mass media (especially American mass media) and start looking at academic sources instead? Perhaps all this debate can wait untill the conflict has ended and has had sufficient time for it to be studied in detail by academics and researchers?? Sonarclawz (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing?

It seems the situation in Yemen has really quieted down. I propose making 27 February 2012, the date of President Hadi's inauguration, the end date for this event. If necessary, a subpage can be spun off for the political transition in Yemen after the revolution. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

  • While I agree the revolution is ongoing given the instability of the government's control over a good portion of the country, can we update the timeline. I find it hard to qualify this conflict as ongoing if the article cannot site a single development in the last two months. Are protests still happening, are defections still occuring? I feel that the clashes with militants should go under the insurgency or Al-Qaeda page rather than the revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.21.211 (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Conflict escalates to civil war

If street battles continue some days more, the article should be renamed to "2011 Yemeni Civil War". Zarateman (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Provided WP:RS begin calling it a civil war, I agree. Right now they're saying it's "moving toward" civil war and not calling it a civil war as such. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree if this continues a couple of more days it should be called a civil war. People today stated for a new york times reporter that it already is a civil war. EkoGraf (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Strong Support President and Prime Minister were injured in attacks on the presidential palace on Friday. Both government and opposition are now actively engaged in direct attacks on leaders of respective factions. Open attacks on command and control structure are characteristics of direct military conflict, not uprisings. Had attacks occurred between 2 sovereign countries, would amount to declaration of war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.180.64 (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Support I support changing the name of the article to "Civil War" if the conflict continues in the next couple of days. Loro-rojo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC).
I don't agree. I live in Yemen, Sana'a in particular and very near from the last clashes with Al-ahmar house. I can assure there is no civil war at all but in the end, you should take the optimum title according to the most reliable media. For example many of the Arabic media are calling that, "Yemeni youth revolution" and that was why we eventually took this title in Arabic Wikipedia.Almuhammedi (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment: What about "Yemeni Revolution"? He's just left for Saudi Arabia, and this is more like the Tunisian Revolution and Syrian Uprising meet Libya's Civil War. -- 92.4.54.144 (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not a revolution unless the government leaves power. Saleh has designed his vice president, who is not an ally of the protest movement, as acting president. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Weak Oppose (for now). Why go with American reporters? We need at least a thousand deaths to get this upgraded to an armed conflict. -- 92.4.104.137 (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Mild Support A civil war is when two major factions within a country are fighting each other over control of the country, like the current situation in Libya. An uprising is when a group of protestors and/or dissenters openly clash with the state police/military, but fail to overthrow the ruling government. —Terrence and Phillip 07:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Extremely Strong Oppose: Wikipedia is not the place to glorify little protest rallies into civil wars. Any attempt to the effect will be strongly dealt with. As it is, the legal government in Yemen has enough on its hands to deal with such disruptive protests, there is not reason to spread the disruption to places like Wikipedia. Sonarclawz (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion closed - not relevant any more.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

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

The result of the move request was: Moved to 2011 Yemeni revolution, reasonable disambiguation that allows for other similar titles without ambiguity Mike Cline (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


2011–2012 Yemeni revolution → Yemeni revolution – Since I couldn't find any other older revolt Wiki articles regarding Yemen other than this one itself, why not just change it into Yemeni revolution instead? Myronbeg (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Support per nom -- despite having spent way, way too much time moving this article and associated pages when 1 January rolled around. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Support. No other Yemeni revolution articles so lose the unecessary disambiguating 2011-2012. Zarcadia (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. I did notice that there was a "revolution" in 1962 where it topples the monarchy. However what I'm saying here is that since no such article was created about that former revolt, therefore this article does not need to put that 2011-2012 disambugation consider this is the first such Wiki Yemeni revolt article, unless of course somebody wants to create that 1962 ones. After all, if there's any mention about the 1962 revolt, just place the number 1962 then it will be fine. 115.134.116.182 (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: I would suggest editors involved here review WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as these guidelines may be useful in guiding the rationale to move/not move. While the absence of a WP article on the 1962 revolution could arguably render disambiguation unnecessary, the same argument could be used to say "Albert" is an unnecessary disambiguation in Albert Einstein (since Einstein simply redirects to it). Rather than necessarily dropping the disambiguation, another approach (if it can be proved that the primary topic of "Yemeni revolution" among reliable sources is the 1962 revolution) would be to redirect Yemeni revolution to this article (where it stands now) until an article on the 1962 revolution can be written and installed at Yemeni revolution with a hatnote for disambiguation. This is neither a vote for nor against the current proposed move, but some food for thought, as I honestly do not know enough about the history of Yemen to comment with any authority on the matter. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 05:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Another thought that occurs to me is that we probably could drop -2012 and disambiguate as 2011 Yemeni revolution or Yemeni revolution (2011), in the same way that the October Revolution led to five years of civil war in Russia but is still called the October Revolution, and the War of 1812 lasted until 1815 (but is still called the War of 1812). History tends to remember these things for when they started, rather than how long they ran. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 06:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I search for the another name of that event in 1962, apparently one of them name it as "1962 Coup d'etat in Yemen". Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_conflicts_in_the_Middle_East

So I think what we can do is that we try to refer that 1962 event as "1962 Yemeni coup d'etat" while for this article, we making it as the only Yemeni Revolution, if that's okay. Of course for this we will need a hatnote page since there are two "revolts", and the former one doesn't have its own article except this subarticle from the North Yemen Civil War article. How about that? 115.132.41.110 (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: I notice there was a Yemeni revolution page which was redirect to here. Can somebody help to delete it so that it can path way for us to change the article name? 115.132.41.110 (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but isn't that coup is a fail coup? And besides, we are not talking about that, the problem here is that there weren't any other Yemeni revolution articles other than this 2011 itself. 115.132.41.110 (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 3

This is getting ridiculous, this page really should have been moved to Yemeni Revolution a long time ago. Charles Essie (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Update

[18][19](Lihaas (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)).

Capitalization

I think a capital R is more appropriate, considering most Revolution articles in Wikipedia use it anyway (American Revolution, Argentine Revolution, Belgian Revolution, Cuban Revolution, French Revolution, Haitian Revolution, Iranian Revolution, Mexican Revolution, Monegasque Revolution, Philippine Revolution, Russian Revolution, Serbian Revolution, Spanish Revolution, ect.). Charles Essie (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 4

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

The result of the move request was: Page moved. No oppose votes (after one was withdrawn) and several supports, with valid reasons, after full listing period. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yemeni revolution → Yemeni Revolution – Almost all "Revolution" articles feature a capital "R" (American Revolution, Argentine Revolution, Belgian Revolution, Cuban Revolution, French Revolution, Haitian Revolution, Iranian Revolution, Mexican Revolution, Monegasque Revolution, Philippine Revolution, Romanian Revolution, Russian Revolution, Serbian Revolution, Spanish Revolution, ect. Charles Essie (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Yeah, maybe my oppose is being a little point here. Changed to a comment rather than an oppose. I'd still suggest we have a wider discussion on the issue somewhere to develop just a clear standard for these (it seems to me that 99% of Revolutions or Civil Wars should be capitalized, but protests or uprising should be case by case basis). But, no reason to hold back a reasonable move request just because I'd like it to be decided elsewhere. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Links/update

>> Yemen on lockdown as protests continue(Lihaas (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)).

>> Yemen to become six-region federation >> Yemen in transition - and in turmoil (Lihaas (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)).

6

6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.200.160.42 (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

yemeni revolution

I suggest to move hat page to Yemeni revolution without 2011-2012 because that is areal revoluion and not upirising or civil war and the goverment of ali abdulah saleh overthrown now and he revolutin is avery sucsesfull revolution.Unsigned post by Sabri30 (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2012‎

@Sabri30, did you just nominate the same article for another move before your previous move nomination was even closed? You really should withdraw the first nomination before making a new one. It wouldn't hurt to give some time for discussion to occur either, by the way. I see your account has only been active for about a month and I can appreciate that moving a page can be a confusing process. Please refer to WP:MOVE for guidance. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 07:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree. EkoGraf (talk) 20:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The second disrupting rn/mv proposal is postponed until the first is closed per WP:MOVE.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


First time user* but 2014 is over now, does any one know what happened to the new constitution/president this year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.21.209 (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yemeni_revolution/Archive_1&oldid=1219498043"