Talk:Arab Spring/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 14

Maldives

We need to add Maldives as well... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/thousands-protest-against-maldives-president-2277718.html

The other issue is that revolutions are going on to the countries which are not Middle Eastern... --Rejedef (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that would be best suited for the Impact of 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests page. I've never seen a definition of the Middle East (much less North Africa) that includes Maldives. Good catch though. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It would only work under the title 'Islamic World Protests' or 'North Africa and Asia Protests'. --Smart (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I d agree that the extention of the article's name is very crucial. Is;amic world is, however confusing because Armenia is a Christian country and the same Georgia. In theory, Turkey is secualar. North Africa and ASia would do but Albania is in Europe and the same Turkey. Also Armenia ang Georgia wouldd go to Europe as well... North African, Asian ans South-Eastern Europe protests 2010-2011? It might be agood idea to add it in the impact. We also should of move countries like Turkey, Albania and Armenia there because they are not Arab states. Turkey is Turkic etc. --Rejedef (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Turkey is not secular, nor is it European. 97% of its territory, and its capital are in Asia (the Middle-East), the South Caucasus is geographically also part of Asia. Albania is only partially related to these protests, thus it belongs to the Impact article.--Smart (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If Turkey isn't secular, then neither is the United States. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no comparison between the two countries, Turkey is an Islamic nation, whereas the US is a liberal Western democracy. --Smart (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

And both are secular, despite their populations being very religious. Just because politicians are religious (Erdogan, Bush), does not mean a country cannot be secular. See also Secularism in Turkey & Secular state - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The government of the US is godless, the government of Turkey is Islamic. This does not concern their populations, and the US population is not religious (majority-wise). --Smart (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The following quote is from the Secularism in Turkey article:

The current Constitution of 1982 neither recognizes an official religion nor promotes any. This includes Islam, to which at least nominally more than 99% of its citizens subscribe. Turkey's "laïcité" does not call for a strict separation of religion and the state, but describes the state's stance as one of "active neutrality."

This would seem to say that the government of Turkey is secular, although politicians and the political parties may not be. The secularism in Turkey and the U.S. are certainly different. And there are tensions, many would say increasing tensions, between the religious and secular in Turkey. The same is said about the U.S. But I don't think it is correct to say "the government of Turkey is Islamic". And the Religions by country article lists 78% Christian and 15% non-religious for the U.S., which doesn't support the claim that "the US population is not religious (majority-wise)", although there is evidence that people in the U.S. over state their religious beliefs compared to many other countries. And all of this seems to be somewhat off the topic of what would be a better title for this article. Jeff Ogden (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Arab Spring

• The series of events is increasingly being referred to as the "Arab Spring" by both the media and scholars alike. As such, this article does not seem to reflect that. It should be brought up to speed with common usage, and what that usage encompasses. The Scythian 20:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion about this already ongoing, that you overlooked. Please see here. --Quintucket (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I already took part in several of the discussions, that you overlooked. The Scythian 22:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• Either way, there is serious issue with the naming of this article, as it does not seem to reflect common usage in the media. It is as thought Wikipedia is "inventing" it's own name for a series of regional up-rests and revolutions. The Scythian 00:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Strongly agree... everyone is calling the events as Arab springs, their could be another section for events that have been mused by the Arab spring, aka Iran, Azerbaijan, China, etc..

president obama called it Arab spring, ALL Arab leaders, and channels call it Arab spring, http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/445075 41.235.162.254 (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)--

Please Read!

There are 36 wikipedias with +100.000 articles. 9 of them (Czech, Hungarian, Indonesian, Esperanto, Slovak, Malay, Volapük, Slovenian, and Waray-Waray) don't have an article. Out of the remaining 27, 20 wikipedias use the term '2010-2011 Arab World Protests' or a variation of that.

Here is the list:

01. German 02. French 03. Polish 04. Spanish 05. Japanese 06. Russian 07. Dutch 08. Portugese 09. Swedish 10. Chinese 11. Catalan 12. Norwegian 13. Ukrainian 14. Turkish 15. Danish 16. Arabic 17. Serbian 18. Lithuanian 19. Hebrew 20. Bulgarian

So, the reason why the English wikipedia insists of coming up with a name no one uses is beyond comprehension to me. I personally put a vote a couple of weeks ago to move the article back to the original title, and a clear majority voted for that. However, the discussion and the vote was archived. And honestly, I now smell rotten fish around here. I honestly get it, protests took place in Iran, but they were another episode of the Green Movement and they died a LONG LONG TIME AGO! We do have an 'Impact' page people. I swear we do. 69.31.51.223 (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of Spain protests

The 2011 Spanish protests are clearly related and use the same methods, I know it's not an easy subject as it now happens on Europe, but to ignore the link is not acceptable, update the map and add a section in "Other countries affected". Thanks. Polmas (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That 2010-2011 Protests idea is looking more and more attractive.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

So...The Spaniards are Arabs now, to? The Scythian 23:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No that would be a horrible idea, a title like 2010-2011 Protests is too broad and can include EVERY PROTEST in that year reguardless of the connection. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If you dislike it, then think up a more specific name that is still general enough to cover all the related ones. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I feel that something like Impact of the Arab Spring works just fine, this way not all protests past current and future have to be lumped in together here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's all one event though, or a series of interconnected events, however you want to think of it, there should be some article lumping them together. That way people can see the big picture. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

When you name it 2010-2011 protests though you assume that ALL protests in 2011 and those that happened in 2010 around the world have to do with thsi event which violates WP:CRYSTAL and is also not the case for 2010. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a name someone else came up with and isn't the central point. From what I've read, there are ones outside the Arab World that are part of the same thing basically. I am saying that regardless of name, there should be a bigger article covering the whole. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I am with Knowledgekid87 on this one. EkoGraf (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What people don't seem to realize is that many of these protests were going to happen regardless of what happened in the Middle East. Perhaps there was some (maybe even significant) influence, but had the Middle East not erupted I'm certain people would still be marching on the streets in democracies protesting against their government. --haha169 (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It is absolutely true that not all ongoing protests are a direct result or even in connection with the Arab Spring. However there are some similarities, like their are all targeted against governments, they are all happening right now and others. Last but not least many people, including myself, seem to be interested in a broader article including more than only the Arab Spring and its impacts. The Anti-government protests in the 21st century template might be a start, however I think the title of such an article should be carefully thought through. Maybe something like Civil disobedience in the 21st century would be appropriate.--JohKar (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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 move per request as the common name.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

---

2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests → Arab Spring – This is what the media seems to be calling this event now, I suggest move per WP:COMMONNAME and per above. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Support Per Knowledgekid87. EkoGraf (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Support 69.31.51.209 (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - The current title describes the events perfectly, "Arab Spring" is highly controversial and feeds into Western stereotyping. --Smart (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Outside of this Wikpedia article's discussion page, where is there any controversy to the use of the term "Arab Spring"? Do you have any links to sources that specifically bring this name into question? As for Western stereotyping...I see the current obsession with including "everything" under the notion of an "Arab Spring" as borderline racist, and that is specifically what this current version of the article is doing. The Scythian 23:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose Arabs aren't the only people who live in these countries or have participated in these protests. The Copts in Egypt would be a notable example of non-Arabs participating in the "Arab Spring". Vis-a-visconti (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• The Copts still live in Egypt, and Egypt is a part of the Arab World. Hence, why their participation falls under the definition of the "Arab Spring." They took part, and where a major element in the nation's unrest. Officially, Egypt is known as the Arab Republic of Egypt. See how that works? The Scythian 23:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support See above. C'mon are we still discussing this? It should have been changed a long time ago. TL565 (talk) 01:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support Per the reasons I mentioned in the table above (again, feel free to include other opposing views there). If the article had been created at "Arab Spring" originally, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. That the Arabs aren't the only participants is immaterial. Arab world also includes many non-Arabs, and the protests are taking place in the Arab world. The term that's used almost universally is "Arab Spring," and it is used collectively to refer to a group of Arab countries. The current name is overly precise. There is no other "Arab Spring," and it is not Wikipedia's guide to correct inaccurate labels. (Should we change starfish because it's not a fish?) WP:COMMON should be our guide here.--Quintucket (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Support Per arguments provided by Quintucket in his table. FineHourglass (talk) 09:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support - "Arab Spring" is the generally accepted name for this social movement taking place within the Arab World, and the term most used by the media and scholars. In fact, outside of Wikipedia, nobody is using the terminology "Middle East and North Africa Protests." This change would keep things within Wikipedia policy[1]. The Scythian 23:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support - As per [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13],[14]. Unflavoured (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Support This request has been long over-due. Wikipedia has begun to look left behind and rather stupid with its long title. --haha169 (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Support Moving it will make managing the article easier. --Blackmane (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support - Arab Spring is the generally accepted name, the name Middle East and North Africa Protests, which means nothing to anyone was only created on wikipedia for the purpose of including Iran, which is POV since it pushes political objectives.Kermanshahi (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Vehemently oppose - Highly controverisal name. Not only that, but there are major protests (Iran, really) directly linked to these events... It's sort of stereotyping, too. Not to mention, it's unencyclopedic. I could go on. Still, I will be very upset if this page is moved. CuboneKing (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• The name is controversial only here on this discussion board. The protests in Iran are over, and were never connected to the unrest in the Arab World. Your need to lump in Iran with the Arab World is a clear form of stereotyping. Inventing a new name out of thin air is un-encyclopedic. I could go on, but wither the changing of the name of this article hurts your feelings or not, really isn't relevant. The Scythian 20:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - "2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests" is a good and neutral descriptive title. When speaking of the "Arab Spring" I doubt the speakers realize the scope of the event. Jmj713 (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Strong support Per WP:COMMONNAME. Also, as I said earlier in the discussion about Iran, Iran is being included here on grounds that this article is about MENA protests, but this article keeps the name "2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests" because it includes Iran, so those arguments are invalid because they are based on a circular reasoning. --antiXt (talk) 07:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Support - I have decided to surrender and move back to Dacia, The Scythian wins the war. --Smart (talk) 00:53, 27 May 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.

Move Yemen and Bahrain

Yemen and Bahrain should be moved from the Concurrent incidents section to be right beside Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Syria. Because Yemen is, as of today, on the brink of civil war, if already it may well be a civil war, and Bahrain had a military intervention from a foreign country to subdue their own protests which were edging to overthrowing their government before the Saudis stepped in. What does everybody think? EkoGraf (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I think they should stay, or perhaps Yemen being upgraded. --Smart (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I agree with Yemen being upgraded. Unflavoured (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Strong support for Yemen, as it is one of what is called now "The Five Uprisings" in the Arab world, so it most be included. I am not sure about Bahrain because it is weak now, but it does not sounds as a bad idea --aad_Dira (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC).

error in as-of date

The date in the {{as of}} template for the ongoing date needs to be changed to {{as of|year|month|date|lc=yes}} format. It is currently in dmy format which is incorectly rendering as the 5th of July 2011. I can't fix it myself as the secure server just times out (and I'm unable to reliable access the insecure server). Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Kurdish Protests in Turkey

Just noticed this on yahoo news... [15] The wikipedia article for Middle East seems to show Turkey as part of the middle east, so should it not be added here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ERAGON (talk • contribs) 16:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NomilitaryinCyprus (talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - Turkey is not a European country, it is a Middle-Eastern country, especially since its capital is entirely Middle-Eastern.--Smart30 (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - As it shows Turkey will be the next country in the list of countries were revolution is happening. Journalists of BBC and Al jazeera have repeatedly warned for a Kurdish uprising as they are not fairly treated by current goverment and many rebels are imprisoned with no excuse. The majority of Turkish population feels they are repressed by goverment without having a youtube or wikipedia access! Hundreads of websites are being blocked by Turkish authorities in order to protect the status quo of the country where handful of rich are benefited USA is also not in favour of current goverment due to the aggressive attitute towards Israel, Cyprus and other US allies. USA will definetely not interfiere to save the current goverment if current goverment demands any help. (talk)

Oppose - Of course, Ankara is in Asia and Turkey's largest city where protests took place is in Europe, but this is not relevant to the discussion. Can you read the discussions on TRNC which is a similar country to Turkey on archives? Being a Middle East country is not enough for being this page. The sources should classify protests as being part of 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests if we want the protest to be covered in this page. Therefore, TRNC protests were removed. Kavas (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Maps on BBC, Al Jazeera, etc. should show Turkey protests, but they do not show now: [16], [17]. Kavas (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with Kavas for now, because even though Turkey is certainly a Middle Eastern country, we don't have enough sources to make the 2011 Kurdish protests (or other protests in Turkey) a part of "2011 Middle East and North African protests". If we see external sources grouping those as part of 2011 MENA protests - then it should be included here too. If anyone has sources for this, please provide them.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: I agree. We've definitely seen a narrative emerge tying Armenia and Azerbaijan (correctly I think) into the broader wave of protests, but I haven't seen anything of the sort for the protests in Turkey yet. If it starts to take shape more as something influenced by protests in, say, Syria, Iraq, and Iran (which would not surprise me at all), then we should definitely include it, but right now it's being depicted as an isolated outburst of unrest (the likes of which occur periodically in Asian Turkey) in a country that happens to be adjacent to several experiencing protests connected with the broader North African/Middle Eastern/Western Asian scene. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Change to Support I've found a few WP:RS that suggest the 2011 Kurdish protests in Turkey are related to this: The New York Times, EurasiaNet, Hurriyet Daily News. That article is badly in need of some extensive rewriting, though. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Strong support: We should definetely include the case of Turkey as part of 2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa protests! See : 2011 Kurdish protests in Turkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.109.133.131 (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Change to Support - protests in Turkey clearly linked to "Arab Spring", some sources call the Kurdish protests as the "Kurdish Summer".Greyshark09 (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, we've been waiting for Kavas to get back to us since I posted those links, and in the meantime, I've gone ahead and added Turkey to the page as it seems fairly incontrovertible that it needs to be mentioned. I'm still open to negotiation on this, though. It's more of a separatist protest than we've seen in these other countries (with the exception of Iran, Western Sahara, and maybe Sudan), but I do think it bears a lot of resemblance to the protests of minority groups in Syria, Kuwait, Iraq, and Sudan as well. In terms of methods and timing, it certainly wears the influences of Egypt and Syria on its sleeve. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Support Kurds are undoubtedly inspired by Middle East protests. They have also claimed it by their own they their demonstrations are going parrarel to the rest of the demonstrations. We are also seing many similarities with the rest of demonstrations, especially the demonstration in Lybia, where one ethnic group is angry towards the cruel treatment they receive from their goverment. Kurds, like ethnic group in Beggazi have known to be repressed and being restricted many freedoms and rights.

Oppose - Turkey will be removed from the article because of the following reasons:

1. There is no link between the protests in the Middle East and the protest (singular) in Turkey. Kurds have protested many times, even before the protests in Tunisia. They protest every year. 2010 2009 2008 2007 2001 1999 etc. The protests are part of a series that has been going on for years/decades.

2. This is not a Kurdish protest. It has nothing to do with Kurds. This is a pro-BDP protest. The people protesting are BDP supporters. They are protesting that some candidates of BDP (of the nearly one hundred candidates) were not allowed to take part in the upcoming election because they did not gave the proper documents to the election board. A day later the candidates had submitted the proper documents and the problem was solved. The protests were stopped.

3. Turkey is a democratic country. Unlike in the Arab Spring, protests in democratic countries are not sui generis special phenomena. In every democratic country one can see protests from time to time. All citizens of Turkey may hold the highest office in the country and come to power. --Do not put information at Wikipedia about Turkey without consensus. Randam (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but is this WP:POV or WP:OR?Greyshark09 (talk)

This isn't an argument, this is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Number one is correct; it's also true of Algeria, where there were thousands of protests reported last year. This is a series of protests stronger than what is usual, and linked by WP:RS to the ongoing wave of unrest across the Middle East. Number two is flat false, as you would know if you went anywhere near 2011 Kurdish protests in Turkey, which is fully cited and verifiable. Number three is pure propaganda, and we all know it. I hardly see this as an acceptable reason to keep Turkey off the page considering that your entire argument is predicated on falsehoods. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I should note that this same user actually recently made serious changes to that article, including moving it without even requesting input on the Talk page, in an attempt to change its meaning from concerning this year's rash of demonstrations to being events related to the war between Turkey and the PKK, for which there is already an article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Support : The new Kurdish protests are extraordinarily major! 4 kurds were killed , burning of Turkish flags in bigest cities with the excuse of supporting an independance. What is more Turkey as many experts and educated people about modern Turkey know that Turkey is absolutely not a democratic country and only the aristocrats or friends of military always come to power or get the most high ranked places in goverment. So Turkey should be readded to the map! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.183.50 (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Support The protests in Turkey have been directly linked by sources to the Arab Spring and Turkey has always been nominally considered a part of the Middle East, so, with the sources available, it's not really a stretch to include it. We should be going by the sources anyways and not what we decided the title to be. Silverseren^C 22:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - the precise definition of the current article name, although relevant and important, shouldn't be the sole factor in determining content of this article as it concerns both a current and a fast-moving set of events. At all steps it is crucial to follow reliable third-party sources. As I stated below I think it likely that, in time, such sources will give this wave of protests, uprisings and revolutions another name, possibly a non-geographic or even global one. That naming process is likely to happen considerably more slowly than the events can move, and a name may in fact only be settled on once the events have finished. And even then the name could change, the First World War was afterall not given that name until over two decades after it had finished. Turkey is clearly on the geographic fringe of the other protests, and third-party sources have linked the protests there with the wider regional protests. I therefore support the inclusion of Turkey. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment - the protests in Turkey have been going on for many, many years, and that is a fact. RS have mentioned that these protests were renewed this year after being inspired by other protests in the region, and that is also a fact. I think that there are solid arguments both for including Turkey, and for not including Turkey. That being said, perhaps it is wisest to wait a while to see if a RS will mention that these protests are a part of the Arab Spring or not, instead of "being inspired by." After all, it might get its own article: "Kurdish Summer," as opposed to the current "2011 Kurdish protests in Turkey." Unflavoured (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment First of all, the debate is not on Turkey's position on the world, but we should search for sources that classify these protests as part of Arab Awakening(Middle East Protests). The editors make their own judgement, if Turkey is in the Middle East, they insist that we should classify the protests as part of Middle East Protests.

However, the articles which Kudzu1 claim to be supporting that Kurdish Protests are part of Middle East Protests or Arap Spring, indeed show that Kurdish Protests are inspired by the Arab Spring and nothing else.

1. "Against the backdrop of the Arab Spring, Turkey’s ever restive Kurds have begun a fresh push to achieve what they have been fighting for since the founding of the Turkish republic in 1923: true freedom of representation and the right to be educated in their mother tongue." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/world/europe/22kurds.html?_r=1

2. This article is not related to Kurdish protests, but it's about the Arap Spring's effect on Turkey, and how the Arab revolutions will affect Kurdish problem. Did you really read it? http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=the-arab-spring-the-kurdish-summer-2011-04-11

3. "The 'Arab Spring' is becoming a model for Turkey's Kurds." http://www.eurasianet.org/node/63347

An editor said that "Kurds are undoubtedly inspired by Middle East protests", he is right, Kurds are inspired by "Middle East protests", but the name of their protest is not Middle East Protest although Turkey is partially in the Middle East.

OK. But is it a good idea not to call Turkey protests as "Middle East Protests"? I'm sorry, this is not Wikipedians' decision, since sources do not show Turkey protests in Middle East Protests maps. [18], [19], [20] Kavas (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Kavas, those maps are months old, from before the protests in Turkey even started. That's like saying Namibia isn't actually part of Africa because it wasn't on the map in 1850. And those sources do make a clear connection between the Arab Spring and the Kurdish unrest, including quoting people encouraging Kurds to follow the example of the Arabs by rising up - but they don't take the extra step of compromising accuracy by describing Kurds as being part of the "Arab" Spring, so they're not valid? (Do you realize how profoundly offensive it is to the Kurdish population to imply that they are Arabs, or why a news agency would shy away from doing that?) I think it's an unreasonable argument you're making, with unreasonable expectations. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position Making arguments by saying A and B therefore C is not allowed. Given sources do make a clear connection between the Arab Spring and the Kurdish unrest, Kurds are not part of the "Arab" Spring, and Kurdish people is not Arab, you argue that Kurdish protests are therefore part of MENA protests. That's synthesis if it's you that take the extra step of compromising accuracy by describing Kurds as being part of the MENA protests. It's not allowed. If you fail to find a source that does this extra step, I think we wouldn't include Turkey protests here. (TRNC protests should also be included if all protests in the MENA region that are inspired by MENA protests are included.)

Regardless of the title of this page, the article is about the Arab Spring. "Middle East Protests" and "the Arab Spring" are synonymous, the country where protests take place don't have to Arab to be included in "the Arab Spring", but sources should put them in "the Arab Spring". BBC only considers Iran as a non-Arab country as part of MENA protests.

Finally, this is the recent map on BBC [21]. It is last updated at 08:25 GMT, 25 April 2011.

Note: Websites publish articles that give information about the "MENA protests". In these articles, many countries like Libya, Bahrain, Syria, etc. are listed, but Kurdish protests in Turkey is not listed. Kurdish protests are covered on seperate articles. Kavas (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Just so I understand you right, the BBC is the arbiter of what we include in this article? How far does that extend? What if there's a protest in Kufra and five people die but BBC doesn't run a story on it? Can we not include that information? Honestly, just because the BBC has omitted it from their map - considering the number of other sources that have made the explicit link between the protests and the so-called "Arab Spring", including via direct quotes from protest leaders, it seems completely illogical to predicate an argument against inclusion on the fact that one or two news organizations that have been reporting on the Middle East protests haven't really focused on it. I don't mean to be rude, and I understand your misgivings, but I find it to be a weak argument and I really do think you should reconsider it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. This is NY Times who has published an article that draws a parallel between Kurdish protests and Arap Spring. NY Times also omits Kurdish protest from the article on Arab World Protests: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/middleeast/middle-east-hub.html You would argue that as Kurds are not Arabs, they would not list Kurdish protests. I'd repeat that MENA protests and the Arab Spring have the meaning, you still fail to find a source that does the very last step for listing Kurdish protests here. Kavas (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Turkey is a big country, if Kurdish protests were part of MENA protests, BBC would clearly see it. Kavas (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If we're only listing countries included in the "Arab Spring", then by definition, we're only listing Arab countries and Iran (where Arabs have protested). But this article isn't called "Arab Spring", it's called "Middle East and North Africa protests", because it's more accurate, it's more respectful to non-Arabs who have protested, and it's broader precisely because countries like Djibouti, Iran, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and yes, Turkey (and perhaps even Northern Cyprus, though there's a dearth of news on that one and I'm not willing to argue it without doing more research) are included in broad definitions of North Africa and the Middle East, they've experienced protests, and those protests have been linked to protests in Tunisia and Egypt by WP:RS.

So Turkey isn't (inaccurately) included on a map of the "Arab Spring". Of course it's not. It's not Arab, nor are the Kurds Arab. BBC doesn't have to follow our convention that "Arab Spring" can refer to protests and uprisings in non-Arab countries or among non-Arab populaces; in fact, from a journalistic standpoint, it's quite right not to - the history of Kurdish identity, and Arab identity for that matter (considering 100 years ago, most of the "Arab world" was part of the Turkish-ruled Ottoman Empire) is fraught with pain and hardship, and it's about as offensive to describe Kurds as Arabs as it would be to describe Chinese as Japanese (or vice versa). When you set impossible standards, of course a majority of sources aren't going to meet them.

Critically, in my mind: Demirtaş and other protest leaders have set up the Egypt/Turkey parallel; journalists and analysts have pointed it out on numerous occasions; and Turkey is a Middle Eastern country. If we're waiting for an editor at BBC to risk getting fired by describing Kurdish protests in Turkey as part of the Arab Spring, we're going to be waiting a long, long time - while meanwhile, Turkey is part of what this article covers: the 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests, with the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi (eventually leading to the successful overthrow of President Ben Ali, etc.) as their point of origin. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Egypt/Turkey parallel is right. The protest is inspired by Middle East and North Africa protests that started with the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi. But this is also true for Uganda, Burkina Faso, etc. However, sources do not include Turkey protests in Middle East and North Africa protests, though Turkey is in the Middle East. All of these websites only include Arab countries and Iran. Note that some websites like BBC use the name Middle East Protest, not the Arab Spring.

Indeed, we're only listing countries included in the "Arab Spring", because regardless of the name you chose, the article is on the Arab Spring. If something is correct and you cannot verify it, then you cannot include it in Wikipedia. Therefore, claiming that "MENA Protests" is different than "the Arab Spring" is original research. Kavas (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

We already did this over Armenia and Azerbaijan, and Western Sahara before them. What we found in those cases was that WP:RS - verifiable sources, as with these protests in Turkey - pointed to those events being worthy of inclusion even though the international media has largely neglected their example. And despite Turkey being a large country, as you say, the same is true of Turkey; idiotically, on the same day 20,000 Kurds marched to the Iraqi border to protest the arrest of 35 BDP activists, the top headline on Google News when I entered "kurdish protests turkey" was still something about the protests subsiding, a total assumption that one of the wire services (AFP, UPI, or Reuters, can't remember which) made after the elections board revised its decision on 21 April. Intermediate to those two events, of course, were protests attended by tens of thousands, tumultuous riots in Aksaray and Batman, and police raids on protest camps in a whopping 17 provinces in a single night. And all of this has Selahattin Demirtaş's warning that Kurds will make Tahrir Squares in cities across Turkey hanging over it, and yet at a look at this page, you'd think nothing was going on at all in Turkey that has anything to do with this.

If you want to talk about splitting this page into a section for majority-Arab countries and a section for other countries, we can have that conversation. But in the present incarnation of the page, I see absolutely no legitimate reason not to at least mention that there are protests in Turkey. We can describe them as a particularly vehement, regionally driven flareup of the ongoing serhildan campaign, for the sake of accuracy - but right now it looks as though we're pretending those protests aren't happening. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again. Your second source is completely irrelevant to Kurdish protests. The other sources and all other sources you can find talk about the similarity of Kurdish protests and Tahrir Square protests or Arab Spring or Yemeni protests. Kurdish protests are never covered on any article on MENA Protests/Arap Spring. You argue that this is because Kurds are not Arabs, however the websites which use the term Middle East Protest also omits Kurdish Protest on such articles. The Kurdish protests are covered on seperate articles, and the writer only talks about an inspiration from the Arab Spring. I think Turkey protests can only added to a page on protests in the middle east, if it can be made clear that the Arab Spring/ME Protests includes Arab Countries (Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc) and Iran. The other protests can be called "Other Protests in the Middle East Region Inspired by the Arab Spring". But if this article is only on Arab Spring/Middle East Protests that started after Mohamed Bouazizi's death as it is so now, there is no source for inclusion of Turkey here. Kavas (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well what makes Iran the exception? The New York Times doesn't include it on its list. And what about the Kurdish protests in Iraq and Syria? It seems like you're blocking consensus here because you want to see a drastic overhaul to the page for which there hasn't been consensus to date.

As I said, I'm perfectly happy to write in language describing the Kurdish protests in Turkey as part of the serhildan protests, and language already exists on the page noting the involvement of multiple ethnic groups both within and without Arab-majority countries that we discuss in the article. Considering the present scope of this page, that seems not just apropos but necessary, as does the inclusion of Turkey as a country that is explicitly described as having a preexisting situation (as in Western Sahara) that got a second wind from the "Arab Spring" or "Tunisia Effect", whatever one wants to call it. I'd be happy to work on crafting that language with you, in fact. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, there is no consensus to keep the article with the current name. As the article is named MENA Protests, editors want to add any protests in the region if they show a connection to MENA Protests/Arab Spring. But this article is indeed on the Arab Spring, regardless of the name. The only non-Arab country that sources say the protest have spread to is Iran. BBC and Al Jazeera includes Iran in Arab Spring [22], though NY Times does not include it. If some websites include it, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." condition is satisfied. If editors have agreed that any protest on MENA Region that is inspired by MENA Protests/Arab Spring should be included, the consensus is against "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." condition, but I can do nothing. As far as I know, there is not such a consensus. Kavas (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

In summary, there's no WP:RS that puts Turkey protests in "Middle East Protests", though Turkey is in the MENA region. Turkey, Armenia, TRNC are on the same situation as Ugande and Burkina Faso, source only say the protests on these countries are inspired by MENA protests. They cannot be put into a list that includes Sudan, Oman, Syria, Iran, etc. since there are sources that put Sudan, Oman, Syria, Iran, etc. in "Middle East Protests" and there's no WP:RS that puts Turkey protests in "Middle East Protests". So, the protests should be grouped into two: Sudan, Oman, Syria, Iran, etc into Group 1: Middle East Protests/Arap Spring. Uganda, Burkina Faso, Albania, Turkey, TRNC, Armenia into group 2: Protests Inspired by "Middle East Protests". I'm against putting Turkey into Group 1. Kavas (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a major change that we haven't agreed on, and I think it's unfair of you to hold up consensus for something relevant, notable, and verifiable based on what you wish the article was about. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

To add on to that: the consensus rule applies to changes in the article, not to whether to keep the status quo. The big thread right above this is whether to move this article to something explicitly Arab-related, and there's no consensus to do that. A couple people suggested other moves and there was no consensus for that. We don't have consensus for a name change. Meanwhile, I obtained consensus to add Armenia and Azerbaijan, just as people previously obtained consensus to add Iran, Western Sahara, and Djibouti; a few people, like you, have come by since then and argued they should be removed, but there's no consensus to do that either - which means they stay, unless an administrator arbitrates otherwise (an extreme circumstance).

Your most recent BBC map doesn't include Iraq, while we have Iraq under "major protests" right now because that's the way we see it, because we're not depending on one or two or even three reliable sources for our information. That Al Jazeera map is from February - I mean, seriously, give me a break. That was over a month before protest leaders in Diyarbakir announced the start of a campaign overtly seeking to bring the popular protests of the Arab Spring to Turkey. Meanwhile, The New York Times has focused exclusively on Arab states in its coverage (which is no longer being updated, I might add) and omits Iran, where we also have "major protests" based on our compilation of reliable sources. There is something major wrong with all three of these maps, while meanwhile reliable sources cited by myself and others (including that second link I posted, if you actually read the whole article, so I'm not sure what your quibble is there) are saying the unrest has come to Djibouti, the unrest has come to Armenia, the unrest has come to Azerbaijan, and indeed the unrest has come to the Republic of Turkey. So you're making the criteria for inclusion be the explicit inclusion of the country on 1) a graphic from over two months ago, 2) a graphic that leaves out major protests in Iraq, and 3) a list that is no longer being updated and leaves out major protests in Iran. That makes no sense to me at all, I'll be honest. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Kudzu1. Ben Ali fled on January 14. Hosni Mubarak resigned on February 11. This was the culmination of the Arab Spring. By then, everybody knew about the protests. The political party BDP announced their campaign on March 24. Don't you think that March 24th is too late to be "inspired" by the Arab Spring? The difference between 11 Feb and 24 Mar is more than a month. Why did they not start earlier? Were they afraid of something? No, because they've done it often and people are free to protest in Turkey. This clarifies that the 'Arab Spring' and the Kurdish protests are two different series of protests.

The key question we need to ask ourselves is as followed: Would the protests/campaign in Turkey have continued as the Arab Spring had never occurred? The answer is yes, because the reason of the protest is a consequence of the decision of the Election Board (Note: see the first sentence under this heading). That means that if the elections would have taken place in a different year, then this protest would also take place in a different year.

I think we can reach a consensus with your proposal. We can add Turkey to "other regional incidents", but only on one condition. Turkey should not get into a map, a template or to "Overview". Turkey should remain on the map with a grey color, because the 'Arab Spring' and the Kurdish protests are two different series of protests. If there will be in the future new developments of a different kind, then we can give to Turkey its own section. Maybe user:Kavas will agree with this proposal/consensus. Randam (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The protests actually began on 24 March, as you observe. But the elections board decision was on 19 April, almost a full month later. It was revised on 21 April, but protests continue. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I am talking about the major protest (on 20 April). The regular (minor) protests are common in Turkey and they are the continuance of a long series of protests. There is every month a protest. Just give me a month (of this year or the last year), and I give you examples of protests in that month. Randam (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But the protests that began on 24 March explicitly sought to create "Tahrir Squares" throughout Turkey, and protest camps are still standing or being set up in major Turkish cities as well as throughout the Kurdish region. It's a new twist on an old strategy, same as in Western Sahara and even Algeria and Yemen. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Now you are mixing two different things with each other. The civil disobedience campaign of the political party BDP has no connection with the protests/rock throwers in the months April and May. How can you tell all of these protests are part of the civil disobedience campaign of BDP? Randam (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's start with because Turkish media has continued to report incidences of police raiding the very same "democratic solution" tents (protest camps) called for by the BDP and other Kurdish parties on 24 March, seen in Diyarbakir on 24 March, which are still being set up and occupied throughout Turkey, and announcing the confiscation of Molotov cocktails from those tents. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Support - The article name will likely change in time. What will not change is what this article is about, which is the phenomenon of mass revolts of citizens with the assumption that they are oppressed by their governments, starting in Tunisia in the turn of the year 2010/2011 and spreading in the following months to gradually encompass nearby countries. One could expect that Pakistan and Afghanistan will eventually be included here or that this wildfire will not stop in muslim countries but will spread to European countries as well, with Spain and Greece as the most probable instances. "Arab Spring" is just a catchy term that fits well the journalist/reporter profession. Turkey's Kurdish population's current protests are verifiably linked to this event, so it should be included in this article. Schwarz Ente (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Turkey is and has always been classified as part of the Middle East/Near East. Once you get into Southwest Asia, you're in the Middle East. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - In 12th of May Kurdists demonstrations have taken streets of Ankara! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.183.50 (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - On May 15, Turkish military forces killed twelve PKK rebels who were crossing from northern Iraq (Kurdistan Regional Government) into Turkey, while losing one of their own soldiers to an exploding mine. The next day, thousands of protesters turned out in Diyarbakir, and several hundred staged sit-ins and various other protests in Istanbul. Around 100 people, some allegedly from the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party contesting the upcoming Turkish elections, crossed the border to retrieve two bodies who were left at the site of the ambush. Demonstrations in Diyarbakir turned violent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strovolos01 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support - If you're going to include Iranian protests, you'll have to include Turkey aswell, otherwise this article is just pure political propaganda for the US government's foreign politics agenda.Kermanshahi (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support - Exactly! Turkey should be included on the map of countries which share this "Arab Spring"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strovolos01 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - Having spent the last 3 years living in the Kurdish area of Turkey, and knowing a 'thing or two' about the topic, I thought I would throw my wait into the argument. Protests by Kurds, even violent and large ones, are a regular thing in Eastern Turkey and major Turkish cities, particular around 'key' periods when rallying political support is needed (such as prior to an election). What is happening in Turkey is a normal part of the politics of the Turkish state. Likewise, people who attribute the protests in Albania to the 'Arab spring' are equally ignorant. Lots of protests have occurred since January. Should we put Wisconsin, Spain, England student protests here as well? They are unexceptional events by national standards. On the contrary, the events in Iran, the events in Algeria, and many other countries, while they have all had protests before, the size and scale of the protests, and the government's reaction to them are certainly not a part of the regular flow of politics for these countries. The Iranian protests were a clear attempt to capitalize off of the Arab spring and revitalize the Green Movement. The Algerian protests were perhaps not as exceptional as some of the other ones, but the government's reaction - lifting emergency rule - was. Other countries such as Saudi Arabia and Oman, while they haven't had sustained protests, any protest there is a rarity. If you want to go further into it, the general 'causes' attributed to the Arab spring: high youth unemployment, autocratic regimes, massive corruption, and rising food prices - these are not present in other cases in the same sense. Grant bud (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Page move request to Arab Spring

Possible new map in case of a move. -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  Revolution   Civil war   Sustained civil disorder and governmental changes   Protests and governmental changes   Major protests   Minor protests   Related protests outside the Arab world

This [23] edit mentions all the RS that refer to these protests/revolts/uprisings as "Arab Spring," and no one objected. Is it not time to rename the article to "Arab Spring" or "2010-2011 Arab Spring" ?! Unflavoured (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Why was this archived so soon? I don't believe that enough people saw it, either way should be given more time to gauge the consensus. Schwarz Ente (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I will re-list them for those who are interested, then:

Reuters: [24]

Fox News: [25]

CBS: [26]

BBC: [27]

Wall Street Journal: [28]

CNN: [29]

New York Times: [30]

Aljazeera: [31]

Huffington Post: [32]

Guardian: [33]

The Nation: [34]

Time: [35]

Christian Science Monitor: [36]

Unflavoured (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Weak oppose - I agree it's the common name, but WP:COMMON isn't our only guidepost here. We also need to consider WP:PRECISE and WP:NPOV, and right now, we include protests by Kurds, Copts, and Berbers, as well as protests in several non-Arab states, as part of this wave of protests. The media, propelled by Arab channels like Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, and NileSat, has unsurprisingly focused on the Arab nature of this wave - and yes, it's true that it's been majority Arab, the strongest protests have been Arab, and the biggest changes have come in Arab states, but it's also true that Kurds, Copts, and Berbers have an unpleasant history of marginalization and in some cases forced "Arabization" that mean that a full name change to "Arab Spring" is going to endorse the slap in the face the media has dealt them by rallying behind this moniker. Media are factions, too, in addition to being sources. For that reason, I have some misgivings. Retitling this article as "Arab Spring" is imprecise and marginalizes the protests of minority groups in majority-Arab states as well as the related protests in countries that border the "Arab world" and are not majority-Arab but have been affected by this regional unrest. That's an issue we'd have to address very carefully in order for me to support this move. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this website really exemplifies why I'm uncomfortable even with calling the protests in Arab-majority countries part of the "Arab Spring": [37] -Kudzu1 (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Before I start: Please forgive me if I come off as offensive. I wish to insult no one, I just want to respond to your statements above. That being said: Kudzu, you are bringing up completely unrelated points. You started with "Arab channels like Al Jazeera," even though Al Jazeera has an English channel. Reuters, Fox News, CBS, BBC, Wall Street Journal, CNN, New York Times, Huffington Post, Guardian, The Nation, Time and the Christian Science Monitor are not Arab channels. You bring up: "an unpleasant history of marginalization," even though that is not the issue. No one has stated that any content is to be removed if the article is renamed. The emotional: "endorse the slap in the face" has no basis. Yes, I understand it is a figure of speech, but who is endorsing a "slap in the face" of non-Arabs ?! "Retitling this article as "Arab Spring" is imprecise and marginalizes the protests of minority groups in majority-Arab states" is false. The article is called: French Resistance, because that is what people call it. It is not a "slap in the face" of any one. It does not marginalize the contributions of the non-French people: [38]. RS call it the "French Resistance", and that is why the article is titled "French Resistance." RS call the current phenomenon the "Arab Spring." No one has suggested that the non-Arab countries be edited out, or the contributions of non-Arabs be trivialized or marginalized.

Once more, please accept my apologies if I come off as rude: I just feel that my points are being completely ignored. I am arguing for changing the title of the article, not the content. The title. NOT the content. Unflavoured (talk) 11:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I know Al Jazeera has an English division; it's my browser's home page. But I didn't say Arabic, I said Arab. Al Jazeera (both Arabic and English) is based in Qatar, funded by Arabs, and predominantly Arab-led. That isn't a hit on the network at all - it's simply an observation that the network has certain interests that control it and certain interests to which it caters. And I think in this case, Western media has largely followed its lead (which is a media revolution in and of itself, but that's a topic for another time) and focused on Arabs as well, sometimes to the detriment of protesters of other ethnic groups and especially protesters in related countries that aren't part of the "Arab world". (Interestingly enough, Al Jazeera has lately become the first and hereto only network to successfully dispatch a reporter to the Berber towns of the Nafusa Mountains and Tunisia.) I concede perhaps "slap in the face" is an overly strong term, but I do believe that describing these revolutions and protests as innately "Arab" somewhat marginalizes non-Arab populations that have been involved with this. As for the comparison to the French Resistance, "French" is a nationality as well as an ethnic group; "Arab" is only the latter. There is no country for which it is accurate to describe all the nationals thereof as "Arab". Au contraire with France. I understand you're only arguing for a title change, not a content change, but I feel that the title of an article should accurately reflect its content, and I find that it is more inclusive and accurate to stick with the present title or something similar rather than append an ethnographic signifier to it or use an ethnically charged term. -Kudzu1 (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: At the moment, all the significant events are happening in the Arab world. All of the countries that have gone beyond "major protests" on our scale are Arab countries. It absolutely makes sense for the media to refer to it as "Arab Spring" under these circumstances, and for the most part, news articles focus on one article at a time, and the term is used in reference to Arab countries. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe "Arab Spring" is used in relation to Iran, even though it's recognized as being part of the same phenomenon.

The fact that these countries aren't entirely Arab is immaterial. Would it be inaccurate to refer to Kazakhstan as a "Turkic country," on account of the large Russian population? These countries are united by their Arabness, and the majority of the population in the the Arab world identifies as Arab. WIkipedia gives articles titles by their common English names unless there's reason to do otherwise, therefore South Korea and Soviet Union versus Republic of China and Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, when there are other uses of Taiwan and Tiananmen Square. If there is no other "Arab Spring," keeping the title as it is might violate WP:PRECISE, precisely by being too accurate.

At the moment, I feel like there's a good argument for changing the article's title to "Arab Spring" eventually, but also that there's no rush. There aren't any serious problems with leaving the title as it is, and the situation is still changing. Once things seem clear--the media starts to use the past tense, and books are written--then we can discuss proper nomenclature. --Quintucket (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You make a good point. Very well. Maybe once ( as you say ) books are written and they use "Arab Spring," we can change the title. Unflavoured (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Support As per WP:COMMON and also stated as earlier [39] TL565 (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Support "Arab Spring" has certainly caught on as the media name, and many of the non-Arab protests now seem tangential. In terms of whether it is NPOV or not, we already have an article for the "Prague Spring", so I think it's fine.188.220.240.150 (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment I don't want to hold up consensus if everyone else wants to change the name. But I do think that if we rename this page, we have to move the protests for non-Arab countries to another page (probably "Impact"). The map will probably need to be overhauled as well for more focus on the "Arab world". As I've said, I have misgivings about that, and I'm worried about the Iranian, Armenian, and Azerbaijani protests falling into the twilight zone, but if we can work out a way to make the "Impact" page more prominent (perhaps adding a muted color - dark grey, even - to the map for "Impact" countries that aren't part of the Arab world, such as Croatia, Albania, Northern Cyprus, and Turkey, as well as for Iran, Djibouti, Azerbaijan, and Armenia, as a starter) while making sure that we focus on the Arab country protests, I can accept that and I'll help out with it. I'm satisfied that the "ethnic scope" section addresses my concerns over lumping the Kurds, Tamazight/Berbers, and Copts in with Arabs, and there's no question "Arab Spring" is WP:COMMON. However, I won't support moving this page to "Arab Spring" while it still covers protests in African-, Persian-, Armenian-, Azeri-, and Turkish-majority countries. If we're deciding on a focus for this article - which isn't a bad idea - we need to focus it, and changing the name to "Arab Spring" implies a focus on Arab-majority countries and revolutions. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I see the term Arab Spring as being WP:POV as the protests have spread and not just confined the Arab world. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Changed to Support I am hearing this term being used more and more in the media. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Support. I'm going to come out and fully support the change. Attempting to define the boundaries by geography is clearly problematic. There's an argument below about Armenia, and I believe I recall previous debates about the appropriacy of including Turkey, Djibouti, and Somalia in whole or part based on geographical arguments, but also including other factors. I'd say there's a pretty good argument for excluding both Turkey and Armenia on cultural and historical grounds. The same goes for Iran, which is the only theocracy and Shiite country, and the only non-Arab country if we exclude established democracies from our list.

The effects of the Tunisian protests have spread throughout the world, which means that it's a bit absurd to attempt to define them by geography alone. Given their common culture, history, and goals, limiting the article to Arab-majority countries seems to be the simplest way to avoid POV, since there's quite a clear definition of the Arab world, and we needn't worry about cultural factors. "Arab Spring" seems to be the term of choice now, and as I noted previously, everything above "Major Protest" on our scale has taken place in the Arab world, which sets the Arab protests apart from the rest. --Quintucket (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Support I'd have to support a rename and strip down of the article to only have the Arab nations that have been affected. Similarly though I would also suggest that the other regions of the world that are similarly seeing protests of this sort be also split off. So perhaps an Africa, South Caucasus, etc etc article that summarises the unrest in the respective areas. This has 2 benefits. This keeps the articles to manageable lengths and also gets around the dispute of where one nation belongs geographically. I say this in relation to the very long discussion below wrt to Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey. --Blackmane (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Support. See similar articles with the same name: Prague Spring, Beijing Spring, Croatian Spring and Seoul spring. -Randam (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: This discussion is still ongoing. See the accidentally created new topic below. The consensus seems to be moving in favor of support, but we need more time to discuss it, and there's no rush. It becomes a problem if it keeps getting archived because of the slow pace of the discussion, as already happened once. I tried to prevent bot archiving, and as the bot archived regardless, I've restored this section. If it looks like this will be a problem again (sporadic discussion continuing but risk of archiving), I will have a discussion with the bot's owner. --Quintucket (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - It's not an Arab matter, it's a Middle-Eastern & North African one. The sole reason the super-ethnicity Arab is being used is because most of the early news came from Arab sources. There's no reason to name an article after the language commonly spoken in the region.--Smart (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Support - The term "Arab Spring" is now a common monicker in the media, to describe the various uprisings within the Arab World. The Scythian 00:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - For the reasons stated: It's not just the Arab world and its a 'hip' media term, but encyclopedic. Czolgolz (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay. So, link to an actual encyclopedia that uses the current name. Otherwise, it appears to be rather a stretch by Wikipedia editors to link a very diverse and unconnected series of social movements. The Scythian 00:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - It is not just Arab as has been said. We still need a page to cover this event as a whole, not just the Arab Spring in the Arab World. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it not just Arab in nature? I mean, what outside of the Arab world has been connected to these uprisings? By your logic, Afghanistan's recent "protests" would be included as well. The Scythian 01:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Are you familiar with the term "putting words in my mouth," sir? I niether said or implied such things. Btw, did you mean "is it not" or "it is not"? Either implies something completely different, but I'm not sure which you were getting at, sorry. =( One example is the Kurdish ones. It's a much larger thing than just the ones in the Arab world, I think this page should be expanded to include those and the larger event as a whole and then maybe have a more specific one for the "Arab Spring". Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

"Is it" was the intended effect. Also, you misspelled "neither." As for the article, I am not so sure the content should be expanded, as what then would connect such a diverse set of uprisings all together? Within the "Arab World," there currently is a social phenomenon that is recognized as the "Arab Spring." By that scope, it is questionable to include anything beyond it for relevance. After all, there has to be parameters. The Scythian 05:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah ok, with the is it, I now get what you were saying, and no it's not just Arab in nature. My spelling of neither is irrelevant as it doesn't affect what I was saying, tyvm. =p Well, we should have a wider discussion about what to include then. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Support by the reasons listed by Quintucket below. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Support - Once again! SUPPORT. 69.31.51.223 (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Support - Simply, because so far, its pretty much Wikipedia is the only user of the MENA 2010-2011 protests term... everywhere i look, all Major Media mediums are using either the Term of "Arab Spring" or "Arab awakening", almost none are using the Middle East an North African topic...

• BBC [40] [41] [42]
• abc network [43]
• Times Newspaper [44]
• the guardian [45]
• The Daily Beast [46]
• The Nation [47]

yet the refusal from Wikipedia community in NOT using the term arab, is not suprising, as their is HUGE discrimination against anything that is reffered to as Arab, such as the Arab Empire, Arab Scholars, and even Arabic Calligraphy, Ahwaz, and the list goes, on, Arabs are DEFINATLY discriminated from the English community here... and its not even hidden... so i wouldnt be suprised if the entire world called it Arab spring, and wikipedia remains using the Middle East North African terminology...

and YES their should be a division.. Arab Spring.... and another article for the protests that occured due to the Arab spring... since it was only Major Protests, that stretched for WEeks in the Arab world, and no where outside it...

user:Arab Hafez — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.219.203.110 (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

COMMENT - I have made an official move request down below, please comment there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Table of Reasons to Support or Oppose

Comment: So I'm going to make a list of the main arguments for and against, since we're seeing a lot of rehashing and circular arguments. Obviously I see the opposing articles as weaker the more I see of them (I feel like a lot of them come down to I don't like it), so I'm damning with faint praise here. I'm going to avoid putting in points against unless I think I can avoid constructing a strawman. So please do modify or add points to the table after my signature, especially in the oppose column. --Quintucket (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Header text	Support	Oppose
WP:COMMON	Media usage is almost universally "Arab Spring." Title changes should reflect verifiable usage, not accuracy.	--
Scope	The only major changes are happening in Arab countries. A stripdown avoids cultural and geographic arguments about which countries should be included.	--
WP:PRECISE	This is confusing accuracy with precision. This policy only applies when there might be ambiguity about what the topic refers to.	This may violate WP:PRECISE.
Original research	"2010-2011 MENA Protests" is a term only used by Wikipedia.	--
WP:NPOV	Deciding what countries should be included outside the Arab world might be POV.	Because most of the events are happening in Arab countries here is serious systematic bias towards use of "Arab Spring."

This is nothing put your point of view though so how can this table be labeled as valid here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, it is. Like I said, please add any other reasons to oppose you can think of. --Quintucket (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggested resolution: split the page

Considering we now have protests inspired by these in Spain too, I think we should have two articles: "Arab Spring" and "2010-2011 protests". The "Arab Spring" is now a widely accepted term for the movement in Arab countries. What has happened in Iran, Turkey, SSA and Spain are all related, but are different in their aims, strength and outcomes.188.220.240.150 (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Would the Arab Spring be a summary section in the protests article as well then? Since 2010-2011 protests would cover everything going on and then the Arab Spring is a smaller part of that. Silverseren^C 13:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It should be, if that umbrella article is created. I've been wanting one of those for a while if there is an Arab Spring article created. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

@188...etc, I agree with this idea, though as for naming, I agree with KnowlegeKid's suggestion in the Spain protests be named "Impact of the Arab Spring" and only include non-Arab protests linked to the Jasmine Revolution by several reliable sources. --Quintucket (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Why have we limited this to the Arab world? The protests across north africa and the muslim world are all connected with a strong core, there is no reason to exclude the rest because they aren't Arab countries. Each are one piece to a very large puzzle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikadell (talk • contribs) 05:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Iran

• Since this article covers a series of social movements and unrest in the Arab World, and is now widely known as the "Arab Spring," this article needs to be both renamed, and Iran should removed as a major subject matter within it. The Scythian 01:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Support - As such, I support the removal of Iran from this article. The Scythian 19:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree on the matter of renaming and removing Iran. Also, Yemen and Bahrain are major events and should be moved from the concurrent incidents section and have their own sections like Syria, Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. EkoGraf (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The Scythian 02:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose We've already been over this time and again. Just because it is called the Arab Spring, of which a name change has not occurred, doesn't mean that it doesn't include other countries. That is just a name given to it that includes areas outside of the Arab world. Furthermore, this article is covering countries under the MENA acronym, which includes Iran and other countries in the area. Silverseren^C 02:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and that was several months ago, before the term "Arab Spring" was being regularly used. Care to explain why now Iran should be included? Where are the uprisings? Where are the protests? How is any social movement taking place in Iran connected in any way to what is taking place in the Arab World? Simple answer. There isn't. I would assume you of course would be willing to include recent violent protests in Afghanistan against NATO/U.S occupation into this article as well, right? After all, they all must be connected. They all look kinda the same, right? The Scythian 02:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources are the ones connecting them. You don't seem to get that the nickname Arab Spring does not in and of itself only mean Arab countries. It's a nickname that has been chosen because a majority of the countries in the area are Arab, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't apply to other countries in the area that aren't predominantly Arab. Silverseren^C 02:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Then lets see some sources then. Otherwise, this is something you have chosen, and it shows a very clear lack of understanding of the topic at hand. It is also original research on your part. The Scythian 19:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The Prague Spring was more than just Prague. That Arab Spring is more than just Arabs. Iran should stay. Unflavoured (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Why? What is going on in Iran right now that relates to the "Arab Spring"? That is akin to saying that there is unrest in Western China, therefore we must include student protests in South Korea. 'Cause, you know, there all the same, right? The Scythian 19:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Because the protests in Iran were re-invigorated after the protests in Arab countries. Many sources mention the Iran protests in context of the Arab Spring. Unflavoured (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Many of the protests in Iran, including the largest, were openly staged by the Iranian government in favor of the uprising in Egypt. None of it lasted very long, and none(including opposition) were calling for the removal of the current Iranian leadership(unfortunately). As for your "many sources," lets see them. Lets see you list some references. Otherwise, all of this is really beginning to smack of obscene ignorance, and even borderline racism. The Scythian 05:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

None of the protests in Iran were against Iran's current government ?! Hahahaha !! And you are calling us ignorant... Anyway, as for the sources you requested: [48] Unflavoured (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Go read what I actually wrote. I said the Iranian government staged as many "protests" in supposed "Islamic support" of what took place in Egypt, as actual Green party protestors managed to assemble. The Green movement itself is not even an attempt at overthrowing the current regime. Just one faction facing off against another against anther. I am curios...Do you even know anything about Iran? Or even the Middle East? It would appear that you are a complete novice on this topic. Oh, and your source is four months outdated, and actually reiterates what I already stated. The trouble in Iran stems from the elections of 2009, and what is now known as the "Arab Spring." The Scythian 23:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

And a couple more: [49], [50]. But you can just check the Iran protest page for sources, or do a Google search. It is not that hard. Unflavoured (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read the sources you posted? The Yahoo article, actually AFP, states that Iran would resist "Arab Spring-like forces" from taking place in Iran. It doesn't help that the article is pretty poorly written as well. As for your second link(really third), it states the Iran is aiding Syria in squashing Syria's problems with the "Arab Spring." That is akin to stating the the recent U.S protests in Wisconsin are a part of the Arab Spring, becuase of U.S involvement in Iraq, and support for the UAE. It is all pretty simple to understand. The Scythian 23:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a proverb: Cannot see the forest for the trees. The above articles, and many many more, make it very clear that plenty of people see the protests in Iran as part of the Arab Spring. And not just normal people: Journalists, etc. You can choose not to get it, if you like. Unflavoured (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I seem to remember another proverb: About an idiot opening their mouth.- A handful of Wiki editors, who are either agenda driven or just plain ignorant, such as yourself, hardly constitutes "plenty people." Far more seem to hold my point of view. Just read on down. So far, you have picked and chosen, and well as falsely tried to pass-off a few sources. Sad, really. I consider the input of people who have studied the region to be important. You clearly have not. The Scythian 03:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You said: "Far more seem to hold my point of view. Just read on down." Now I took the liberty of counting how many people voted in bold for and against your proposal on removing Iran in this section. It seems that, besides yourself, two people supported you, and two people opposed you. Now correct me if I am wrong, but elementary mathematics seems to suggest that the statement: "Far more seem to hold my point of view" is more likely than not to be false. Would you like to take this opportunity to clarify ?! Unflavoured (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Support the removal of Iran. Conditions are different in Iran than in the Arab world. It's not connected to the Arab world in the same way that the Arab states are connected to each other, and is only included by dint of being a Middle Eastern autocracy. But I believe that WP:COMMON should be our guide, and in this regard, media seems to be contrasting Iran with the Arab countries, rather than including them.

I ran a Google News search for "Iran Arab Spring" and will list a run-down of the treatment by sources on the first page:

• The Christian Science Monitor refers to "protests sweeping the Arab World".
• The Huffington Post refers to "another spring on the Iranian scene.".
• The next two articles, and two later down talk about the threat posed by Iran to the Arab Spring,[51] [52] or Arab World [53]
• The next article talks about Blackwater for some reason. [54]
• Jerusalem Post calls its article "Arab spring, Persian winter." 'Nuff said.
• The BBC includes Iran with China and Azerbaijan as related protests. [55]
• The AFP (Whatever that is) says that Iran is different from the Arab countries, but also uses Arab spring to refer to the protesters there. At four days old, it's the second oldest source on the front page. [56]
• The oldest article, coming from The Telegraph, doesn't provide any indications either way. [57]

In short, all these articles either exclude Iran entirely from the Arab Spring, recognize it as distinct from the Arab countries, or remain silent on the issue. --Quintucket (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of those aren't even talking about the Arab Spring in relation to Iran, so they are of no consequence. Because the protests in Iran have pretty much quieted down again (not counting the Kurdish protests that are being completely hushed up), you're going to need to look at older sources for such a connection.

I like what this source does, as it says the Arab Spring, but also calls it the Islamic Spring, as that would be more explanatory for the region. Silverseren^C 05:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Dammit, this a conspiracy against the Druze! Jk, but I like the broad nature of that name, it covers all the involved peoples and doesnt make it so we'd need another article for the whole worldwide event. Of course, the Druze are out then (they may be Arab, but they ain't Muslim). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh. I've had Druze tell me are both Arab and non-Arab, and some people still see them as just another Shia offshoot. The Scythian 19:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Islamic Spring? Are you kidding me? One of the proponents of that terminology is none other than the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. So yes, I guess that term is used by certain questionable individuals. The problem is, the uprisings taking place in the Arab World have shown ZERO influence from the "Islamist" element. Muslim and Christian alike went into the streets against Mubarak in Egypt. It is not an "Islamic Uprising" at all, and you would be hard pressed to find any non-biased and non-extremist sources that are claiming it is. It appears to me that you seem to have a clear agenda in your interest in this topic. The Scythian 19:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You think there's really no middling sources calling it an uprising? How about Radio Canada? How about TIME? Silverseren^C 06:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Your link doesn't use the term "Islamic Spring." The Scythian 01:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support - Everything about this article hints towards political motivations, the fact that what is commonly referred to as the Arab Spring has been re-named Middle East and North Africa protests, just to include Iran, the immediet classification of Iranian protests as "major" although 3000 people showed up at it's main day and it's been heavily drawfed by protests in every other regional country, the POV articles on the Iranian protests, this shouldn't be allowed here, the article should be re-named as soon as possible and Iran moved from the Arab section as it is not an Arab country.Kermanshahi (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Kermanshahi, 100%. The Scythian 01:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you want to agree with someone who is using incorrect facts. Silverseren^C 01:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hahahahah!!!! As opposed to your "oh so clear" knowledge of the subject? The Scythian 03:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean my well-researched knowledge of the subject? Trying to use the argument of 3,000 people is close to exactly quoting the stance taken by the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, which is obviously biased. Silverseren^C 03:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• While i'm not going to get into the fact that, considering your userpage, you likely have a strong POV on the subject, I must inform you that your facts about the protests are extremely wrong. The number of people protesting in Iran was far, far higher than 3,000, it was more like 300,000 (though exact estimates are hard to get), which dwarfs any other protest in the area, though is about the same proportion wise to other protests labeled Major. Silverseren^C 01:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

While 3,000 "Green" protestors would be low, the number 300,000 would stem from the 2009 protests, which the 2011 protests were a much smaller continuation of, unrelated to the "Arab Spring." It was the Iranian government that organized the "anti-Mubarak" protests, and cracked-down on the "Green protestors" who were attempting to rally in support of the protests in Egypt and Tunisia, ahead of the Iranian government. As far as "dwarfing" other protests in the area...Exactly what protests were going on in the area that were smaller? What exactly are you talking about? If Egypt in in the same "area," it's unrest was far, far larger. Are you taking about the recent riots in Afghanistan? Or does a nation that actually borders Iran and speaks the same language, not count as the same "area" to you? The Scythian 03:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about the other protests in the area that are labeled Major. Egypt is in a totally different class, as it dwarfs everything. But as for Iran, there is this source, which states, "The gathering in Tehran appeared to be the most significant antigovernment protest here since security forces cracked down on a series of massive dem onstrations in 2009. The Associated Press said tens of thousands of people demonstrated. Some witnesses said they believed the crowd exceeded 200,000." Silverseren^C 03:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hah! Oh, man! This is funny watching you try and make heads or tails of all this! Yes, please. Continue to "school me" in what is taking place in Iran. I am having a great laugh! The Scythian 03:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw the pictures taken from above, they had hardly a few hundred students in Tehran's main road and they claimed it was 300,000. Honestly, outside of Tehran no-one has even noticed these protests are ongoing. Even Western media have given up on pushing the idea of these "major protests" in Iran, that's why they've all gone to covering Libya and Syria instead.Kermanshahi (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

While they have gone to covering other places, the main reason is two-fold. One is that Iran has kicked out most of the journalists at this point and has cracked down even harder on any information about what's going on leaving the country. And, secondly, the opposition protests have currently quieted down a bit, being overtaken by the Kurdish protests in the north. And multiple news reporters from varying networks reported the number of protesters. It's impossible to nail down exactly how many of them there were, but there were thousands upon thousands of them. If you actually read some of the reports referenced in the article by reporters in the thick of it, you'll see that there was a great number of people, almost equivalent to the election protests. Silverseren^C 21:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support This protests in Iran are only the continuation of the 2009–2010 Iranian election protests and as such are related to protests in Arab world like the protests in Turkey, Albania, Croatia, Spain, etc. are related. Iran is being included here on grounds that this article is about MENA protests, but this article keeps the name "2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests" because it includes Iran, so those arguments are invalid because they are based on a circular reasoning. --antiXt (talk) 07:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I have changed my view. Iran should be removed. --Smart (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support I wonder why Iran was considered in the first place as part of the main protests, rather than just another impacted country like Spain and China for example. From the beginning, Iran appears as an alien in the wave of protests, standing alone between almost entirely Arab countries (no offense). So, i see that it should be moved to the other article, while this one just includes the Arab-majority countries --aad_Dira (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC).

• However Syria is an Arab country so outside forces sent to engage the Syrian people should be included. Hcobb (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Outside forces in Syria beyond Iranian advisers is largely hearsay. Besides, by that rationale, we would have to include the U.S, several European nations, NATO, perhaps even the African Union, etc. The Scythian 00:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Then delete the mention of Saudi forces that have been sent to Bahrain. Hcobb (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Why? Saudi Arabia is apart of the "Arab Spring," as well as apart of the Arab World. Both Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are apart of the GCC, and both are Arabic speaking nations. Not to mention the fact that Saudi Arabia itself has unrest "issues" it is suppressing. The Scythian 03:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

United Arab Emirates

Why doesn't the map or page say anything about the events in the UAE?See this for example. Granted, there have only been petitions, arrest and dissolution of civil society groups so far, but sure this is related to the larger "Arab Spring", is it not? They are even hiring Blackwater mercenaries. Perhaps this might be included in the map as "minor protests" or "minor disturbances" etc?--Dudeman5685 (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

IMO it's only a matter of time before we see street protests. At that point, they'll probably be added to the map. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

We need to create a new article about the non-arab but related protests

I know it is more or less covered in Impact of the Arab Spring but an article about the youth mobilisations that are happening around the globe is worth it. I propose keep this article focusing on the arab world while the other focusing on the situation of the youth and the reasons that had made them begin action, specially in the countries that already have a democracy, like Spain and Greece. --Polmas (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What's the source that ties this all together? Hcobb (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Why, it is the "magic dust," of course... The Scythian 00:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Just so long as he doesn't Synth it out to include things like the Irish Spring. Hcobb (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Djibouti?

Djibouti is not a majority-Arab country, but Arabic is one of its official languages and it is a member of the Arab League. Should protests there be considered part of the Arab Spring in spite of ethnicity, or should it be moved to Impact of the Arab Spring? -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Impact - the population does not identify as Arab, as in Sudan. --Smart (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's borderline Arab. Extremely weak support for moving it to Impact of the Arab Spring. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Impact - According to this source: [58] Arabic makes up just 5% of the population, the majority (60%) are Somali. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It's been moved. Seeing as that the protests have ended and were never particularly massive, they don't seem to fit in here anyway. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

History prior to 2010 omitted

The origin of the term is from before this phase of the "Arab spring." In March 2005, commentators were talking of an Arab spring about to come, and some later claimed that it had come -- sort of. The page does not adequately reflect this history -- of predictions and perhaps a Little Spring, coinciding with Iraqi elections, and so on. The earliest mention I can find is by Saad Eddin Ibrahim in the Wall Street Journal on Mar 2, 2005:

We assume that President Mubarak is more serious. As a measure of sincerity, he needs to order the immediate release of the ailing opposition leader Ayman Nour, and take steps to terminate the 24-year-long state of emergency, which effectively prevents political campaigning to take place. We call on him to endorse term limits of no more than two successive five-year terms. Equally needed are confidence-building measures in a free political process that include open and equal access to the media, currently state-controlled. I announced that I would contest this upcoming presidential election as a way of opening debate on these needed reforms, but I would gladly go back to my role as a private citizen once guaranteed a free and open election this fall.

If seriously implemented, these steps will transform Mr. Mubarak's lasting legacy to his people. Along with events in Lebanon, Iraq, and Palestine, it may well usher in an Arab spring of freedom, so very long overdue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joechuck (talk • contribs) 05:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are there two version of this page?

When I type in "Arab Spring" into the search bar the article starts: "The Arab Spring is a revolutionary wave of demonstrations and protests that has been taking place in the Arab world since 18 December 2010."

When I type in "arab spring", it redirects me to the same "Arab Spring" page, but it now starts "The 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests, commonly referred to as the Arab Spring, references a revolutionary wave of demonstrations and protests that has been taking place in the Middle East and North Africa since 18 December 2010."

Can anyone help me understand why this is happening? 188.220.240.150 (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Doesn't happen for me. Quark1005 (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Elevate Yemen to Civil War

From news outlets and video reports it looks like the situation in Yemen has now evolved into civil war. Does anyone concur? Gorba (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There are at least two identifiable combatants, the loyalist to Ali Abdullah Saleh and the Hashed tribe led by Sadiq al-Ahmar. Fighting has started in the capital. Some enterprising individuals have already named the related article(s) "2011 Yemen Uprising". It's time to change the color to black. Paladin Hammer (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. is telling its people to leave Yemen, and warning Americans to stay away from Yemen. Gorba (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Support - It IS a civil war. Reuters --Smart (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Support - Clearly became a civil war even though some governements are not ready to say so 93.22.223.193 (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Support - Yeah, Yemen somewhat is on the point where Libya was when it was about to be moved to "2011 Libyan civil war". CuboneKing (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Leaning toward Support - I think we all know where this is heading, but it's not quite there yet as the sources are saying civil war likely and looming, etc. However, even though it's a bit speculative, I'm willing to guess the sources will be saying it is a civil war within the next few days before this closes. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 23:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Not yet. A majority of WP:RS, as far as I can tell, are still calling it an uprising, or "unrest", etc. Right now there's a ceasefire on between armed anti-government tribes and government forces. I think we should wait and see. We didn't change 2011 Libyan uprising to 2011 Libyan civil war until about three weeks after the First Battle of Benghazi, if I'm not mistaken. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral Per sources such as this, Yemen is on the brink of becoming a civil war, but the current mediation may make that not happen. I think we should wait a few days. If the hostilities start up again, then it will be officially a civil war. Silverseren^C 00:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Is this canvassing? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• No, it was only a few people, the messages were given neutrally, and all of the people are ones that have commented fairly regularly on this talk page. Silverseren^C 19:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Cool. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Some news : It seems that the siege of Saleh's Party was took by the Hashed tribe this morning, as Sadiq al-Ahmar's home is still attacked by governmental forces. If it's not officially yet a civil war, it's certainly on its way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.99.84.242 (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Truce fails as fierce fighting grips capital: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0fm3UUMvpc Gorba (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, this is not like Libya yet, and they actually agreed to a ceasefire. -- 92.4.118.215 (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - There is growing risk of civil war, but it has not turned to a civil war yet. Kavas (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, sources already use Civil War term, and the situation is getting out of hand into what can clearly be described as civil war. However a little too early, as truce attemps are still made.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Kavas. Also, while the incidents (in San'a, Ta'iz, and Zinjibar) are related, they seem separate and uncoordinated with the protesters stating their opposition to the tribal-government clashes and the Islamist takeover of Zinjibar. I think "unrest" might be a better description. Furthermore, the major news sources (BBC, Al-Jazeera) have only been saying the conflict "threatens to bring Yemen to a civil war." --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support A Somalia or Bosnia-like situation where we have different factions fighting amongst themselves. Protesters, Opposition tribesmen, Houthi rebels, Al-Qaeda extremists, Islamist militants, Defected military, Loyalist military. The protesters, opposition tribesmen and defected military are definetly against the loyalists and the militant extremists. Also, loyalists and extremists fighting. Plus there was a report from yesterday that the opposition tribesmen clashed with the Houthi rebels in the north leaving five dead. And Houthis fighting loyalists. Need I go on? It's a civil war, no doubt about that. EkoGraf (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support President and Prime Minister were injured in attacks on the presidential palace. 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) 15:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support - Possibly going for Revolution Just wanna say that I woke up this morning to hear that protesters are attacking capital buildings and demanding that Ali Abdullah steps down. The president was also assaulted [59]Kaigenji (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Support In light of recent events such as the attack on the president and strong and sustained fighting in the capital and other towns, this should be changed to civil war. Bobbyb373 (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment - News articles are continuing to call this a "revolt" or an "uprising" that is "verging on civil war" or "getting closer to civil war", etc. As I said above, I don't think we should jump the gun here while the majority opinion of informed persons on the ground seems to be that this isn't a civil war yet. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Actualy, the people on the ground are already calling it a civil war. It's the foreign politicians and news reporters who are avoiding using the term just like it took them a month and a half to admit Libya was in a civil war. EkoGraf (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Who are the reliable sources calling it a civil war on the ground? It's still not being called civil war by the major sources, as far as I could see. It's definitely a conflict with a number of sides and keep in mind the majority of the protesters who are the backbone and more of the uprising are rejecting both al-Ahmar and Saleh and have not taken up arms. It certainly looks like civil war is getting closer by the day, but like Kudzu said, I wouldn't jump the gun. Remember this is Wikipedia and we don't call things the way we see it, but the way most reliable sources do. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment - the President just fled to Saudi Arabia for treatment of his injuries. How is this not a Civil War?--Smart (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose Several reasons for this. Firstly its yet to reach the 1000 battle death mark often used for referring to something as a war. But that is hardly the main one. The main reason is that the violence is located specifically in the capital and most importantly, we don't see clear division of the country into particular power spheres. There are not 'front lines' for example, or 'rebel territory.' As such, its hardly a civil war, and much more of an uprising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant bud (talk • contribs) 06:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Reliable sources are in most cases still using the the term "civil war" only in the context of "on the verge of". Lampman (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Change Yemen to Revolution

Saleh's vice president has taken power [60] and events are likely to evolve. 93.33.3.221 (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Until it does evolve, it's not a Revolution. Saleh hasn't lost power. --Smart (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Likely is speculation. We also don't call it a revolution until it is the common name. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view concerning international reactions

It seems to me that the section about international reactions does not meet Wikipedias standards of neutrality. International reactions were sometimes considered inconsistent or even hypocritical:

• Patrick Cockburn, The Indipendent: "There is something deeply hypocritical about the concern shown by Nato and the Arab monarchies of the Gulf over the fate of Libyan rebels, when they ignore or promote savage repression in Bahrain."

• Slavoj Zizek, The Guardian: "The western liberal reaction to the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia frequently shows hypocrisy and cynicism."

• Robert Fisk, The Independent: "If this was happening in Damascus, Homs or Hama or Aleppo, the voices of CamerClegg, and Obama and La Clinton would be ringing in our ears. But no. Silence."

• Jeremy Scahill, The Nation: "The day before US missiles began raining down on Muammar el-Qaddafi’s Libya, hundreds of miles away—across the Red Sea—security forces under the control of Yemen’s US-backed president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, massacred more than fifty people who were participating in an overwhelmingly peaceful protest in the capital, Sana."

• Johann Harri, The Independent: "If you are interested in human rights only when it tells you a comforting story about your nation's power, then you are not really interested in human rights at all."

• Noam Chomsky, Democrocy Now!: "The U.S. and its allies will do anything to prevent democracy in the Arab World."

I think such considerations should at least be mentioned somewhere in the article. However, I do understand that the subject of this article is controversial and would like to discuss this issue first.--JohKar (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I think those perspectives are worth mentioning. Just because Zizek, Fisk, and Chomsky are frequently critical of Western governments doesn't mean their opinions aren't valid. They're smart people pointing out inconsistencies they perceive, and that should be included. That whole section needs beefing up, actually... -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph. Any criticism is welcome!--JohKar (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I presume this means I can remove the orange tag? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yemen revolution

The Saudi's are making it known that Saleh is not coming back. The map should be updated to reflect the successful revolution of Yemen! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AK2 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Not without WP:RS calling it a revolution and making it clear that Saleh and those who seek a continuation of his policies are no longer in charge. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Against - nothing has been accomplished. --Smart (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 Palestinian protests?

Many Palestinian protests have been characterized as part of the Arab Spring. We should have something for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheatsing (talk • contribs) 14:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the Palestinian protests of last month and from yesterday need to be added. EkoGraf (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If that is how they are being characterised by the RSs then they should be. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Against - just like the events in Somalia and Western Sahara, these are unrelated to the so-called 'Arab Spring'. They have been doing this long before the protests in Tunisia took place. --Smart (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Support Palestine is defferent from that cases, yes this is not its first protests, but should the protests be the first in the country history to be part of the Arab spring? Palestinian protesters have shown a clear influence by the other Arab revolutins, the timing and pharses used in the deomnstrations (The people demand the downfall of the occupation/division, in indication to Israel and Palestian government division) is one of the best indications on that --aad_Dira (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC).

There are sources that characterize these border protests/Nakba protests as part of the Arab Spring: http://www.thejc.com/news/israel-news/49198/israel-fears-september-arab-spring-rattles-idf, http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/idf-chief-troops-will-be-stationed-at-forward-positions-on-naksa-day-1.365599, http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/147687/20110518/the-arab-spring-palestine-israel-and-jerusalem-as-symbol-of-divisions.htm.Wheatsing (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support All Arab protests and uprisings have happened before and failed. Literally. Just because Palestinians, Somalis and Sahrawis do it more than others doesn't mean they get a disqualification. The point of the spring is the rekindled hope among the destitute and repressed Arab masses. Tunisia just taught them that change is possible. Unrest is not new in the region. This is just the first time such movements have inspired each other. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Libyan civil war

Is it possible to place two flags of Libya side by side in the template? Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Arab Spring

I have a few points I'd like to address about this article:

1. Djibouti and Somalia are Arab countries. Their unrest should be counted as part of the Arab Spring.

2. Somalia has had minor protests that resulted in shootings; it was judged as not part of the spring and removed months ago, but I still don't understand why considering all protests after Tunisia are listed as part of the wave.

3. Protests in the Ahwaz region of Iran should be part of the Arab Spring since it's a bunch of Arabs demanding their rights from the Iranian government. These protests are different from the ones in mainland Iran.

4. The protests in the Palestinian territories, as well as the attempts by Palestinians, Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese to civilly invade Israel's border, as well as the declarations of a "Third Intifada" are part of the Arab Spring as well. They never would've happened without the revolutionary fervor gripping the Arab world, emboldening them to trying these methods after witnessing their effectiveness. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• 1. No they are not. They are African countries with a sizable Arabic-speaking population.
• 2. Unrelated
• 3. Also unrelated, Iran is not an Arab country.
• 4. No they are not, they are separate from these protests.

--Smart (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

smart you're thoughts are not dogma. Point 3 is quite relevant--93.137.97.77 (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

If you go by the tongue or ethnic definition, then you have to include the Ahwaz protests, for they too are Arabs inspired by the spring just as the Palestinians. They have been on par with the Iraqi protests - I remember Arab activists setting March 25, the Friday of Challenge in Iraq, for the Ahwaz region of Iran as well. Djibouti and Somalia are members of the Arab League, and since Arabhood nowadays is a cultural rather than ethnic concept, I think that should be enough to count them in. You can't choose what to separate from these; I'm an Arab and I would know. I've been keeping track of online activists and their calls for demonstrations. People have tried to link this to Palestine since the days of the Egyptian revolution. No one would've thought about protesting in this manner on Israel's borders, or in Ahwaz against Iran were it not for the Arab Spring. Palestinians and Ahwazis self-identify as Arabs, and they consider their struggle as part of the global Arab struggle, as do other Arabs recognize them as such. In other words, it's part of the revolutionary fervor sweeping the Arab world, that defines the Arab Spring. Now as for Djibouti and Somalia, I have no idea how many of them self-identify as Arabs, but I'm willing to guess they do at least culturally identify with the Arab world. Us Algerians have our own tongues after all which are mixed with Tamazight and French, but we all speak Arabic formally and fluently due to school and the media. I would guess the conservative culture in Somalia and Djibouti would be quite the same, similar to Libya and Morocco, who's conservatives self-identify as Arabs a lot despite Moroccans having a different dialect. Even in Algeria and Tunisia the conservative minority is more inclined to label itself as Arabic. Not to mention, Mauritania and the Western Sahara speak Hassaniya Arabic, which is not understood by other Arabs at all. They way I see it, if you're willing to include all these diverse Africans (Maghrebis, Hassiniyan Sahrawis, Sudanese) as Arabs, then it would make sense to push it further into including the last two members of the Arab League as well. Edit: I've just checked and it seems Somalis love linking themselves with Arabs. I don't know how true is this, but it appears that they do. And since Djibouti is basically Somali in culture, I guess there you have it. Arabic is a culture over there, despite not being a majority tongue language, but it's a country with proximity to Yemen after all, and Yemen is the home of all Arabic culture. Somalis seem to link some of their loan words with ancient Arabic. Either way, Somalis identify with Arabs, and Arabs accept them as among their own. So I'm afraid Wikipedia can't do anything to oppose this. Ethnicity doesn't matter when it comes to culture and self-identification. Anyways, on to the last point: you claim that they are unrelated in Somalia. So how do you explain their protesting against both factions, and citing Tunisia and Egypt as examples? http://allafrica.com/stories/201102150258.html I'm not gonna go find you some sources; it's happened, and Somalis and Djiboutians have both been moved by the Arab Spring. Even in Somaliland there have been protests. Just because the Israel-Palestinian conflict, Iranian protests and the Somali civil war have been going on for decades doesn't mean the effects of the Arab Spring on the self-identifying Arabs in those areas should be left out of the article. The point of the whole spring is that the Arab masses are sick of their respective status quo, no matter what that status quo is. It's about the masses taking their future into their own hands. Hamas and Fatah wouldn't have united without the Arab Spring sweeping the Palestinians, and the civil war in Somalia can be seen in similar context about a people who pay the price for warring parties. In Iran the protests against the government are different from the Arab protests, which are to end discrimination and in radical cases, are separatist in nature. All of these movements are inherently Arabic. And one last thing: if your worry is that Somalia and Djibouti aren't Arabic countries, then why are Kurdish protesters in Syria and Iraq included? Is it about the official language, in which case Israel, Eritrea and Chad would be included as well, or about Arab League membership, which definitely includes Somalia and Djibouti? Or maybe it's about the majority, in which you'd be talking about the people. In that case, do include the self-identifying Arabs in Somalia and Djibouti too as Arab elements in non-Arabic countries, such as the Israeli (or Palestinian territories) and Iranian protests. They probably form a majority of Somalis anyways. Now why don't you end your bias and stop dictating the Arab Spring as you want it to be? UltimateDarkloid (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your perspective, but I don't think I'm alone in saying that I'd like to see WP:RS that Djiboutians consider themselves to be ethnically and culturally Arab; that there have been significant protests in Somalia and/or Somaliland worthy of inclusion; and that the coalition government of the PNA owes directly to the Arab Spring in a manner worthy of more inclusion than the mention it receives in this article. I'm also disappointed that you do not assume WP:GOODFAITH; Smart and I have had our disagreements but I've found him to be a respectful and non-ideological editor in general, and I don't think he's trying to "dictate" anything out of "bias". Verifiability is the ticket here, not assumptions about what it means to be Arab in East Africa today. For the record, I agree that the Kurdish protests in Iraq should be separated, as they have been demonstrations against the autonomous Kurdistan Regional Authority, but the Kurdish protests in Syria are clearly covered under the clause in the "Ethnic scope" section; the protests are against an Arab government by a non-separatist group in sympathy with Arab protesters, as with Jews in Tunisia, Imazighen in Libya, Copts in Egypt, and black Africans in all of those countries as well as Sudan. -Kudzu1 (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Just because someone has a good faith doesn't mean their perception isn't biased, Kudzu. I think he's biased because of the systematic rejection of all my points without the least consideration or source. That's not to say his intentions are malicious per say. As for reliable sources, I tend to find my discussions criticizing Somalis for wanting to be Arabs so much, and find many Somalis backing this relation. Of course online discussions are not reliable sources, but you get an idea. Why would Chad and Eritrea list Arabic as an official language? It shows that Arabic culture does run in sub-Saharan Africa as well. We all grow up in the Arab world learning that Somalia and Djibouti are one of our own, and I'd never look at them as anything but Arabic, if they do have their own aboriginal origins, like every corner of the Arab world does. The former Wikipedia articles and versions do list sources for minor incidents in Somalia and Somaliland which are obviously inspired by the spring, but why did the editors judge it as "irrelevant" is beyond me. The spring is about everyday Arabs making use of the revolutionary fervor to have one more go at getting their goals accomplished once and for all; that there was ongoing unrest in Somalia doesn't mean that the concurrent one isn't part of the spring. Every Arab country has had unrest in the past, and the spring has seen all these unrests coming back stronger than ever at the same time. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/world/africa/16briefs-Somalia.html?_r=2 This refers to the same protest as mentioned in the link above, but with even less detail - no mention of Tunisia or Egypt. As for the Kurds of Iraq, they are a part of the Iraqi nation, and though it's a protest by Kurds against Kurds, I think it is at least part of the Arab Spring somehow. The Kurds there can be compared to minorities everywhere in the Arab world. And let's not forget that de jure, the autonomous Kurdish region should answer to the Iraqi central government, though how much of this is applied de facto I don't know. What I think is that Kurdish protests region wide should be described with more detail in a single article, detailing their contribution to their respective Arab Spring, Iranian protests, or Turkish protests. But those in Syria and Iraq should definitely be mentioned in the spring. As for the PA, online activism has been hyping reconciliation and intifada, and the media has as well. There were large protests worthy of mention in the territories, and I heard at least one person was killed by Hamas in a crackdown. All indicators seem to point that, faced with stalled peace talks, an overthrown ally in Egypt and an impatient population with revolutionary fever sweeping it, Fatah has no choice but to accept the reconciliation. I'm no sure what counts as a reliable source for Wikipedia, but I know that from our perspective, everything going on in the region is all part of the same phenomenon - Arabs rising up against whatever inhibits their lives, with the participation of our non-Arab neighbours, of course. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

All fair points. We do discuss the unity government in the Palestinian territories in this article, and I think it's appropriate to do so. I agree that a 2011 Kurdish protests article should be considered for expansion from being just this disambig (which I believe I set up a couple months ago). I'd still have to see more WP:RS before saying Djibouti should be included, as it is not ethnically Arab and has more of an East African identity than a North African or Middle Eastern identity, as far as I can tell. I believe I was the one who added protests in Somaliland, and upon review, the editors and I concluded that it was far more related to the ongoing conflict between the Somalilanders and Puntlanders than to the Arab Spring; the protests in Somalia have been ongoing with no noticeable uptick, as far as I can tell, for years. As for the Khuzestan protests in Iran, I'm leaning toward agreeing that a separate page should be created for those protests (if they're major enough to warrant more than a mention in the "other countries and territories affected" section and they should be included here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ethnically wise, the Maghreb is not Arabic, but Tamazight. As an Algerian, I have Arabian roots in my family tree, but I cannot consider myself to be 100% Arab by ethnicity, far from it. I'm more of an Arab by culture than by ethnicity as I see it. Egyptians have been around for far longer than Arabs too, but today they're considered the cultural hub and heart of the Arab world. So it's more about culture than ethnicity. I think all countries with Arabic speaking communities that tried to ride on the current wave of protests, whether they succeeded or not, deserve at least a brief mention in the article. It wouldn't hurt to mention that on-going protests have tried or succeeded in getting even a slight boost by the spring. I think the Khuzestan protests should be kept under the scope of the Iranian one for now, but should at least be mentioned here, with their section in the Iranian protest page linked to instead of a separate article. There's been a brutal crackdown, civil disorder and an emergency law in the region so far, so it may be more of an uprising but it seems to be more precautionary in measure than that the unrest is that large yet. I still can't find a RS regarding the language percentage of Somalia and Djibouti, but I still think the Arabic culture there is strong enough for them to be part of the Arab Spring; they're so close to Yemen, the origin of Arabic after all. I don't think it would hurt to give them a mention in this article. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Western Sahara 18 February 2011??? any source???

No source in the world give 18 February as the starting of protests in Western Sahara. It is pure political interest to put that date that no one gives. It also contradicts other Wikipedia articles. If some users want to put away the Sahrawi events from the "Arab Spring" its their issue, but please do not invent history. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

More non-sense on the Western Sahara presence at the Summary of protests: the victim cited on the W.S. death toll had been killed in OCTOBER 26 2010!!! So, how could put be the date of starting of the protests February 18 2011???? Only if some want to re-write history. If W.S. protests are included, please put a REAL starting date, and if not, do not included manipulated information. Even the situation category is ridiculous, as more than a dozen of victims in Western Sahara are "Minor protests", but less victims in Oman, Algeria or Morocco are "Major protests". Can anyone explain than double measure, please?. Regards. --HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Western Sahara incidents have been split into 2010 Sahrawi protests, which predated the Arab Spring, and 2011 Sahrawi protests, which erupted months later after the Egyptian revolution. The latter protests actually began on 26 February 2011, the day after Moroccan settlers allegedly attacked Sahrawi homes in Dakhla. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there any good reason for doing that split? Because I had not seen a single media, expert, etc... that made that division. Even several personalities like Noam Chomsky, Franco Bastagli, Azmi Bishara, Bernabe Lopez, etc... had marked the Sahrawi protest (Gdeim Izik and what continued latter) as the starting point of the Arab spring. There had been continued incidents between late 2010 and early 2011, so there is not a division between the protests, unless some users decide on their own to create it. If we do that, same thing should be done with other countries, in order to avoid creating double-standarts. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a current event, and is covered in the article differently as it unfolds over time. The comments you refer to were made months ago in the early days of these regional events. The understanding of the situation as reported in the media seems to have changed since then, as observed by the inclusion and later exclusion of Iran from the article, among others for example. You are may be correct that there are some inconsistencies in the timeline, but repeating the same statements that you made months ago before you were banned from wikipedia regarding Western Sahara being the genesis of the Arab Spring, as was mentioned earlier, currently belongs as a comment on the Western Sahara articles/sections (and it is already there), as it doesn't fit the narrative that sources are using to describe the events that this article tries to cover, at least at the current time. If you disagree, it would be helpful if you had some new information from other sources, or more current comments from the same sources, that continue to claim a connection. Current events are tricky, because they are constantly being redefined as the events unfold. I also suggest that if you have a problem with the content or splitting of the Western Sahara article, that it should be discussed on that article talk page (I think the split is an improvement, but I have not been following those events closely). Regarding the timelines for Western Sahara on this page, what do you suggest that would be both factually accurate and in line with the current understanding of these events as covered by the article? That would be more useful than just saying you think the current info is wrong, although if you are suggesting a date prior to Tunisia, then you will probably need different arguments than you used in the past to sway opinion. (I'm not trying to start an argument here, just looking for constructive input that is not rehashing the same prior disagreements).216.70.233.34 (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a great reason for doing that split. The 2010 protests ended in early November. The 2011 protests started in late February, weeks after media noted that Sahrawis were paying very close attention to and finding inspiration in the fall of Presidents Ben Ali and Mubarak. The political conditions in the region changed. The gap between major incidents was nearly four months. The SADR president has referred to recent activism in Western Sahara as an aspiration toward Tunisia, Egypt, and South Sudan, events that took place in early 2011 after the 2010 protests ended. Quite frankly, the only source I've seen claiming that the October-November 2010 protests and the February-present 2011 protests are the same campaign was Wikipedia. Obviously protests and clashes are far from unheard-of in Western Sahara, but it was tremendously confusing and misleading to pack disparate events spread across such a long period with such a large gap in between major happenings into a single article and then have the disagreements across various pages as to whether "it" predated, triggered, or was part of the Arab Spring. "It" isn't a singular wave of protests in the territory. Last year's protests predated (and some argue triggered) the Arab Spring; this year's protests, coming months and two nearby revolutions later, are part of the Arab Spring. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"The 2010 protests ended in early November." Personal opinion. Please give references supporting that, because I aint seen a single one. "The 2011 protests started in late February, weeks after media noted that Sahrawis were paying very close attention to and finding inspiration in the fall of Presidents Ben Ali and Mubarak.". Same thing. Citation needed for that assert. Im starting to think that the word of some users weights more than other, wether they had sources or not. I thought Wikipedia was about including sources, not giving personal views or theories. I repeat, if we split the Western Sahara article, why not splitting the Yemen article? Since January there had been lot of changes on the situation there, and the protests were very low on some months (from January to June ther had been 6 months, and some of them protests were few). Sincerely, I can only seen this as a politic of double-standarts, or an attempt to rewrite history, based on personal opinions instead on sources. I would try to discuss the issue, but two cant discuss if one do not want to, or include non-sense contradictions (ex. putting 18 february 2011 as starting date and include in the death toll a killing from october 26 2010.fact).

PD. About the W. Sahara protest and the Arab Spring, Im glad that apart from some users that try to impose their POV at any cost and hide info, there are some others that try to reach consensus. That's why the Gdeim Izik camp is included in the precedents of the Arab Spring, despite the politically driven intention of some lobby-type users (Sorry if I rude, but I see this as very, very, unfair). Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually one of the editors of Timeline of the 2011 Yemeni uprising and with all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. There has never been anywhere close to a four-month interval between major protests since unrest in January began. And yes, there are separate articles for separate instances of unrest in Yemen. As for the 2011 protests starting after media reported on Sahrawis cheering the fall of Ben Ali and Mubarak, the 2011 Sahrawi protests page is fully referenced and I'd advise you read it. As for the Gdeim Izik camp, we've noted Chomsky's opinion, and I don't think there's consensus that it is an Arab Spring event as it preceded Bouazizi's self-immolation, which multiple WP:RS call the genesis of the Arab Spring. It's all about verifiability. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't see Tunisians as getting inspired by Sahrawis in their protests; then again, I have no idea what do they feel towards the Sahrawis since they're both part of the Maghreb region. I think a mention of Chomsky's opinion is enough for now. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:1RR now in place for this article

Please everyone note that this article is now subject to an active arbitration [[remedy and editors are restricted to one revert per 24 hour period, and that this is the only warning - read the notice at the top carefully, note that "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.". Dougweller (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Just another reason to want the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be resolved already... -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify. That is for the entire article, not just if someone makes an edit that includes even a small change in a section directly related to Israel? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say for anything related in any way to Israel, but I'm not pre-empting what some other Administrator may think. If in doubt, don't. Dougweller (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)