Talk:Arab Spring/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Fall of Neoliberalism

The Revolutions of 1989 had one common factor, the defeat of authoritatian communist government's which ultimately led the events to be called he Fall of Communism. It seems as if even though the protests originally started due to corruption and lack of commodities in 1989 they ultimately are remembered as being a worldwide rejection of a poltical/economic ideology. Recent articles suggest that the 2011 Revolutions are infact the rejection of another political/economic ideology, neoliberalism. This is at the moment the same economic theory of, you guessed it, the United States. There are now fears of these revolutions completly undermining the United States' global influence and some are believing ending the epoch of the American superpower. I think that these articles should address some of the Neoliberal undertones of these protests. See: [1] for more details. --Kuzwa (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Also see: [2]. This may look like socialist crazy theory. But none the less makes sense. --Kuzwa (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to see how things shake out first. These states were neoliberal to different degrees (Egypt had a huge state sector) and many of the protests had to do with the fact that they were corrupt/kleptocratic more than laissez-faire. You could have probably classified Egypt as an oligarchy more readily than as an ideal neoliberal state. Still, the main reason I would say we should wait to mention anything like this is because we have no idea what kinds of policies successor governments will wind up implementing at this point. Cjs2111 (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Tunisia Effect for deletion

The article Tunisia Effect is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tunisia Effect until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the criterion for a "minor" protest compared to a "major" protest? For example: File:2010-2011_Arab_world_protests.PNG.

What is the criterion for a "minor" protest compared to a "major" protest? For example: [ [ File:2010-2011_Arab_world_protests.PNG ] ]. 99.190.84.7 (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's just something rather subjective. Also, it is really time to add Iran to the map, in my opinion. In addition, can we make Bahrain a circle rather than a dot on the map? It's become awfully significant as of late. Colipon+(Talk) 20:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree with all of Colipon's comments. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to start a big debate again, but we should move the article to "2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa protests" if we are to include Iran, maybe call it "Revolutions of 2010-2011". Kanzler31 (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: We seriously have to clearly define what protests we are covering. Kanzler31 (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a fear I have deep down myself, there are protests that happen in the world over small things and there needs to be a line placed on what connects to what if it even does. I am looking at some of the proposed titles above and am saying how do you know that no other unrelated protests will occur this year? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

INDIA

There hasnt been anything goin on in India....<sadly> neways....the India section makes no actual sense

there were no protests and with current phase of negotiations there wont be

so lest there are protests you cant put india under concurrent protests — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranav21391 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes we can. because there was a call and the similarities was already made by RSLihaas (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This one should be archived, no further discussion needed as no protests took place. --Smart30 (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Serbia and turkish republic of northern cyprus

Why are we putting a section for these protests? According the their outlines, they don't seem related. What's next? Are we going to put a section for protests against Chinese control in Tibet, or SB1070? The protests in Serbia are NOT related and the Serbs do NOT want to overthrow their government, they only want some economic change. And the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus seems unrelated, and are like Serbia. Thank you. Kanzler31 (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I would just remove them then and place in the edit summary why, I have to agree though I dont want to see this get out of hand. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

this one should be archived, as neither section exists here anymore. --Smart30 (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sultan of Oman

There were no outcomes of oman's protests. The sultan didnt plan to go India. The credibility of source is weak, which claims to sultan having wives. I will delete the outcomes. GM25LIVE (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The sultan of oman did plan to head to India in the month of February. Both the newspapers are one of the most well read in India, and above that - the wives thign is obviously wrong - was outrageous for me too - but thats a totally different thing. Jodhpur authorities; ummaid bhavan officials as well Diwan of Royal court employees have confirmed it about the visit! And if you really care about Oman's local media referring about this trip.....did the local media even highlight egyptian protests!?? The Guardian went on to seriously criticise Omani state-controlled media for its neglect of the topic to ward off dissent! SO PLEASE - FORGET ABOUT "LOCAL MEDIA OF OMAN" Pranav21391 —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for responding. I looked in the newspaper's articles and I tried to look for a source for their contribution but I really didn't find where get their information from. Frankly, I don't know or care if the newspapers in India usually publish a false statements or news such as saying that the Sultan of Oman is married to several women and he is a "King". As for Jodhpur authorities, ummaid bhavan officials and Diwan of Royal court employees confirming the visit, I looked and goggled over the internet and I didn't find any confirmation about the visit. In fact, I only found these two of "one of the most well read newspaper in India" saying about the trip and again without giving a reliable source. As for the Omani Local Media, first I don't know why your telling me about the media highlighting Egyptian protests. Its called Oman "Local" Media not World news. The Omani local media always report if the Sultan is planning to have a major trip to another country and clearly the Guardian criticism on Omani state-controlled media have nothing to do with this subject and if there was so, why the Omani authorities want to hide a friendly trip that Sultan having to India?? Simply because there is no such thing.

If you have a reliable source saying that Jodhpur authorities, ummaid bhavan officials and Diwan of Royal court employees confirming the visit. Please share it with us, otherwise just don't. GM25LIVE (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

this link http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Egypt-fallout-Oman-ruler-postpones-India-trip/articleshow/7518853.cms And this guys is perhaps the most read ENGLISH daily in the "WORLD" - it shows the care they have taken to write the article - doing some research and not mentioning the "wives" HAPPY NOW!? I have friends working in the Diwan of royal court....they confirmed this with me when they came to India.... 2nd.... AL Jazeera reported about the attempted coup attempt in muscat in November 2010 by UAE....in the last weeks of January 2011 that also titled as "UAE SPY NETWORK"..-- and anyone in muscat at that time would have seen the heightened security, police cars, and confirmed reports from internal sources - hence the sultan even cancelled off his GCC visit - let me guess u guys dont know about this either i am posting the stuff back! ...u really think omani media and information is that easy to rely on!?? We love the Sultan, but that doesnt mean he stops caring about his neighbors and continues his trip! PranavJ 10:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I agree. The source of Times of India is reliable. It shows right statments and true information. Thats what Wikipedia needs, a reliable source. Thanks GM25LIVE (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Iran added to the map?

I think Iran needs to be included in the map/discussion of the arab world protest--there are clearly some significant protests going on and they are definitely involved in this wave of revolt and revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.43.189.89 (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

..orange--78.2.29.139 (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not Arab. Chesdovi (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If not arab, with Muslim tradition. Iran must be include. This is the country with the biggest demonstrations, protests and resistence to the (political) police. --147.84.132.44 (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Iran should be removed completely from the article, the links, the external links, see also, .... The things happening in Iran are different (started differently, caused differently, aims differently). We should avoid wp:synth. Xashaiar (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Iranian protests have been periodic for at least the last 4 years. Protests in Iran should have it's own separate article. 72.14.228.129 (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• I concur, and since there is consensus, I am going to go ahead and remove the map. This is an article on the "Arab World, and not the Middle East. Someone can re-load the map without Iran, or when the article name replaces "Arab" with "Middle East." The Scythian 21:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have reverted the removal of the map. I assume it wasn't you that did it, since it appears it was another editor, but whatever. If you actually looked, you would see that there are currently discussions going on on this page in order to rename this article to include the countries that are having protests outside the Arab world, such as Iran. In light of this, please don't remove such info from the article, as we are going to end up just changing the name and keeping the content. Silverseren^C 21:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• I did look, and see your talk page. I left you a note. The Scythian 21:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• I read through and have actively taken part in the discussion. A better map exists and is being used, and there is consensus to use it. Now stop re-adding the older map, if you don't mind. The Scythian 21:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Page move

Watching this debate play out every time a template gets added is wasting a ton of time, so I changed the name per the discussion above. It's not perfect, but I think it's an improvement. Iran is not Arab, and the affected region is continually expanding. We may have to eventually just change it to 'global pro-democracy protests' or something like that, but for now I think this will avoid problems. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

a bit quick for the move, the non-Arab protests are still minor at this point (iran's seems to be growing granted but we have to see the scope of that). We also need to chang eother things like the map to reflect the new article and the lead and infobox need to match please.Lihaas (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"Middle East" is euro centric terminology, "2010–2011 North Africa and Western Asia protests" would be better. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous name. I think we should have stuck with "Arab World protests" even if we risked offending Iranians. You can argue Iran is not part of the Arab world but the cause and effect of these protests are still largely contained within the Arab world. If a protest started in Tonga as a result of solidarity with Egypt, we can still include that in the article as part of the section "effects outside of the Middle East" or "effects outside of the Arab World". I.e., the name itself does not have to be strictly inclusive of every single country that has been affected by the protests, if the essence of the protests are still limited within a region (here, the ME, Arab World, or Muslim world, but most certainly NOT "Western Asia and North Africa"). It seems to me the only reason we have compromised on the terribly awkward name is Iran and Iran alone. Also, I disagree that "Middle East" is "eurocentric". It is the term widely used in the English language, even by the Middle Easterners themselves, to describe the region. This is political-correctness and pedantics gone amok. Colipon+(Talk) 20:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You can risk offending no one, and can be technically much more accurate, by simply renaming the article to "2011 Protests & Riots in the Middle East." The Scythian 21:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Current title is fine. Since the current title includes Iran, it should stay as it is. 128.227.41.144 (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The article, as it stands, specifically talks about protests in the Arab World. Iran's protests are linked to in the "concurrent protests outside the Arab World" section. Either the article is renamed back to the original, or Iran is included in the body of the text. I would vote for keeping the article as it is, and renaming it back to Arab World protests, but do not have great objection to the inclusion of Iran. --Fjmustak (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The "concurrent protests outside the Arab World" section also has Albania, Serbia, Bolivia, Bangladesh, so Iran fits there with them, "2010–2011 Arab world protests" is probably the best name. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

there was no consensus for the current incarnation, the Middle East and North Africa had consensus. (and its not my opinion as i was against the gran of consensus) we get consensus TEHN move, not th other way around. please get consenssu first.Lihaas (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see the above discussions before I moved it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

'2010–2011 North Africa and Western Asia protests' would seem a very odd title indeed to most English speakers in North America, South Africa and Australasia as well as Europe, where Middle East is a very well established name. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The current title is accurate, non-biased, and extremely unfamiliar. But it solves the "Arab" problem. Given the growing scope of the protests, it very well might make sense to avoid geographical terms entirely and just go with 2010-2011 global democracy protests; something like that. Ocaasi (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What in the love of crap's name is going on with this article? It not revolutions nor is it "pro-democracy" protests. Bahrain wants reforms, Yemen wants Saleh's ouster. (nothing about a change in governing structure). Other countries mention nothing. This is pov/synthesis. the region based name was best and by consensus.--Lihaas (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest move protection be put in place until a consensus is formed this is crazy. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we please stop the ping-pong moving? Jmj713 (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved Iran

Moved Iran from "Protest outside the region" category to "Countries". The current title would include Iran under the region of the protest, so I believe this move was appropriate. 128.227.41.144 (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup, good move. Ocaasi (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent...The Scythian 22:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Continue discussion

I suggest we continue name change discussions above, regardless, because there does seem to be the feeling that either this title is inappropriate as it is or the extraneous content that it has in it is inappropriate for the topic. We could solve this either by a name change or by the creation of other, related articles. Silverseren^C 00:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm of the view that we should let the dust settle on this one first. Unless in the current realm these protests engulfs and begins to threaten the governments outside of the Greater Middle East (including N. Africa, Iran etc.) there is no reason to move this anywhere else until it has been branded as something else by major authoritative media and academic sources. Note that the Iraq War used to be known as the "Second Gulf War" but this use petered out as media and academia eventually converged onto the Iraq War. What is happening seems to be of a grand scale and an overarching name for the event will come by in due time. The current job of Wikipedia is to use the most general name possible the describes the nature of the events until this "overarching name" can be found. Fifty years from now it might be known as "The Arab Revolutions" or the "Regime Domino" or the "Fall of Egypt" or something of that sort, then we can make a collective decision to move it to that name. Colipon+(Talk) 02:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, but since so many here are so ooh! ooh! excited about any chance to start yet another discussion section, we'll probably soon be buried again by the people who have 'very strong feelings' about whether or not Persians should mix with Arabs. Reminds me of Jim Crow. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

We had to deal with something similar at 2011 Tucson shooting with some wanting to call it a massacre, others an assassination attempt, terrorist incident, others getting hung up on the fact that it took place in Casas Adobes and not within Tucson itself. Things settled down and the page remains where it is. For lack of a better solution, we should probably stick with the name as is for now, keep Iran in the template and the template on the Iran page, and see if a name emerges in discussion and the media. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The Economist map

I saw a great map from The Economist ([3])that I would think would be very useful as a reference on the map we have (as an interesting thing, I see that they have added Comros to it which I was not aware of before).Calaka (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Pearl Square

The naming of the Pearl Square article is under discussion, see Talk:Pearl Monument.

64.229.100.61 (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Protests over section

Who exactly announces when protests are over in a country? There are reliable sources yes and the governemnets can and do announce the end to protests but are they really over? What bothers me here is that you have country sections that havent had new protest info in as long as 2 weeks and the overview table on top seaying that they are "Ongoing" okay ongoing by who? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

i made a comment above, when the table was very new, expressing concern over the "date ended" column. Either a prominent day when protests really seemed to take off and start growing uncontrollably in size, or a date when protests started at a small scale prior to a day when they accelerated, seem to me credible to support based on WP:RS. (But the name "start date" is still too strong IMHO. Something like "acceleration date" would be more accurate, but news media would use a more informal term like "takeoff date", so that might be better, even though less accurate.) On the other hand, it seems unlikely to me to get RS that can justify either an "end date" or that protests are "ongoing". The asymmetry here is because we document encyclopedic knowledge about the past and a protest movement which grows in the long term (several weeks to a few months) can easily go through ups and downs. Reports on the absence of prior protests can, in principle, be found. Reports on the absence or presence of future protests would be WP:CRYSTAL, even if they are common sense. The situation is asymmetrical. Boud (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Add two Iraq things

On February 17, two people were killed as protesters attacked government offices in Sulaimaniya, Iraqi Kurdistan.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12493712

On February 18, around a thousand demonstrators blockaded a bridge in Basra, demanding the resignation of the provincial governor.http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4030474,00.html

--78.2.60.171 (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

not needed now--78.2.60.171 (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)