Talk:Arab Spring/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Arab Spring. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

De facto guideline: related protests in Western countries must be excluded

There is what seems to be a de facto guideline for this article that related protests in Western countries must be excluded. I believe that this is enforced in good faith and speculate that it is related to the demographic profile of en.wikipedians and media filters, especially in the USA. I suspect that there is an implicit assumption that Western countries are democratic and are not involved in systematic, massive human rights violations, while the rest of the world is mostly undemocratic and has serious human rights problems, despite the fact that reality is much messier and not so Manichean ("black-and-white").

A few examples regarding democracy:

USA: Duverger's law - US plurality voting systems strongly discourage the development of multiparty democracy in the US, allowing only two marginally different pro-business parties; 2004 United States election voting controversies
European Union: the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was rejected by citizens of two European countries, and the Treaty of Lisbon was also rejected by citizens of a European country permitted to vote but European political elites validated the treaty using the principle of "either you vote 'yes', or you vote 'no' and then you get asked again to vote freely once you're ready to say 'yes'" and by avoiding popular votes.
Tunisia had elections in 2009, 2004, etc.
Egypt had a presidential election in 2005 and confirmation referenda 1999, 1993, etc.

It's easy enough to find wikipedia articles on systematic and massive human rights violations by Western countries, both internally and externally, but going into details risks making this a forum about human rights, which is not the aim here - this should be more of a meta-discussion.

A consequence of this assumption is that it is accepted that talk page debate about protest movements in Iran, sub-Saharan Africa, P.R. China, Albania, Bolivia, etc. being related to the Arab world protests can take place without requiring instant removal of their entries in the article, pending consensus on the talk page, but sections of the article on massive protests in e.g. Italy, USA, Greece archive that (in at least the two latter cases) are inspired by the Arab world protests according to WP:RS must be quickly removed from the article prior to the normal convention of tagging, discussing on the talk page, etc. rather than after achieving consensus.

Because of our demographic profile, i am sceptical about our chance of obtaining consensus to change this guideline, even though there do seem to be a few other editors who disagree with it (i.e. in addition to me), because we are not going to miraculously and rapidly (few days) balance our demographic profile. i don't have any obvious solutions to propose. Edit warring is obviously not a solution. Starting a WP:SPLIT by creating related articles that violate this guideline is unlikely to be a solution, and well-intentioned attempts look like leading to deleted articles. But in the spirit of African/Persian-Arabic culture, a.k.a. mathematics, maybe stating the problem could be the most important step in solving it. So if i have stated the problem clearly enough, maybe that will help find a solution.

Maybe posing the problem as the following question might help:

Should we have a de facto guideline that Any Western country with allegedly related/inspired protests must first be removed from the article and then discussion to reach consensus on the talk page may happen, while any non-Western country with allegedly related/inspired protests should remain in the article and first achieve consensus on the talk page before possibly being removed ?

Boud (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not Italy. Albania maybe, but I also highly doubt the protests in Wisconsin was inspired by this. It was going to happen anyway, maybe not at as large a scale. The protests there are about unions, not about leaders spending lavishly and wastefully and disregarding their citizens. --haha169 (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Certainly Wisconsin should be left out, and I think we need a FAQ like on Talk:Abortion as well. Kansan (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

timeline

Is there a timeline article to replace the section that was on this article? There should be a unified timeline article that highlights the major events in a timeline manner, across all the protests. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 05:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Status of Iran

Should protests in Iran really be labeled as major? There is major media coverage on this protests, but major media coverage does not imply major protests, it only implies that Iran is interesting to the media. Protests in Iran are nothing like protests in Algeria, Libya, Yemen or Bahrain. It should be changed to minor.

See also: Talk:2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests/Archive 4#Major v minor protests - definition --93.139.142.213 (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Concurrent protests

Greece - NO! Protests because of the lack of youth rights in Greece have been going on for years. They are not related.

Italy - Has NOTHING to do with these protests. They were about Berlusconi's sex scandals, NOT regime change.

Ivory Coast - Protests over there have been going on for months now (before Tunisia). They also have nothing to do the these protests.

Serbia - Why do we keep adding Serbia? They are almost unnotable and were planned for MONTHS before the Tunisian uprising. I think this section needs to be watched more. Kanzler31 (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Acually I disagree about Greece and Serbia both of those two are youth led revolutions trying to bring down neoliberal governments, that they feel only work in the interest of the elite. Croatia is also the same. Really these protests are no longer about the Middle East and simple democracy they are about bringing down the idea of neolibealism in a world-wide revoluton. People are inspired all around the worl to stand up against corporatist and elitist corruption in their governments which they feel is unfair. --Kuzwa (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Serbia - NO - protests in Serbia are not related with protest in Arab countries which are against authoritarian regimes. Serbia is in the process of joining European Union, latest elections were in 2008, and current protests are part of political situation in Serbia. Leader of protests, Tomislav Nikolic, on his official web site, stated "Believe me, If I knew that there will be mass demonstrations around the world, I would think twice whether to schedule a meeting … My request is that not that current authorities go and never come back, but that we have elections." http://sns.org.rs/%D1%81%D1%80/srpska-napredna-straka-vesti/85-glavne-vesti/3007--srpska-napredna-stranka-februar.html Please remove Serbia from Article Drterzic (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Please add something about the recent anti-government protests in Croatia, or write an article about it. --93.139.181.237 (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Would the recent events in North Korea be relevant to these protests or not? Apparently South Korea's been sending balloons with notes attached about the revolutions over the border. -Kaishou Izumi (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

there was no source on serbia being pl;anned months in advance, there was awording of creating something similar.

n. korea would be with a RS, that is a pov source.Lihaas (talk) 06:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Fresh protests in Oman

Have friends and family contacting me and telling me that Omanis gathered near the Sohar roundabout to protest shouting slogans etc

If any sources are available for that...confirmed sources..please edit article asap

The protests happened today, probably there will be news reports by tommorow morning! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranav21391 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed Oman shuffles cabinet amid protests --Smart30 (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Its got even more serious in Sohar. 2 people died in second day of protests today. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12590588 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.231.52 (talk) 12:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

mauritania

I heard there was a large demo by students. 1500 of them or so and why did we get rid of benin and cameroon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.67.61 (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

add mauritania if youw ant. cameroon is there, benin was unsouced. and india should be there too.Lihaas (talk) 06:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Other Countries on Map

Any way we can link the other countries in N. Africa to their pages? I mean it's probably going to be soon that Eritrea and Ethiopia start protesting. I read a few places that Ethiopia is trying to censor search engines to prevent people from reading about the uprisings (but you know they are)... Gaddafi is using soldiers from Niger and Chad to fight the uprising, which leads me to believe that they may start soon as well. Senegal has had an act of self immolation. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/18/501364/main20033393.shtml The map just seems incomplete. Splent (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

added senegal.Lihaas (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - The addition of links to the following countries would complete the map: Senegal, Mali, Niger, Chad, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Turkey.--Smart30 (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

UK protests

what is the issue here that relevant? nothing is cited of the reasons, it says iranian are protsting which islikely a solidarity protests akin to what you have at International reactions to the 2011 Libyan protests#Solidarity protests that belongs on the Iran protests page not here. we dont list seperate countries for all these solidarity protests.Lihaas (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:Article size

This is 140k+ and getting unreadable with slow load times. time for a split.Lihaas (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a split but a reduction in detail for each country where its own article exists. A brief summary would be enough. That's why there's an article for each major protest. We do not need to reiterate it here too. Jmj713 (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Tunisia - Prime Minister Ghannouchi resigns

The Interim Prime Minister Mohammed Ghannouchi has resigned - both AlJazeera and BBC have reported this live. waiting for article links - could someone edit the article with this update?--Smart30 (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC) Update: Tunisian interim PM Ghannouchi resigns over protests--Smart30 (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Oman gone major??

In light of new protests developments in Oman can we say that Omani protests gone from minor to major? ShenmueIII (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I just want to point out that there were 2,000 protesters. The population of Oman are around 2,000,000. The percentage of the protesters compare to the rest of the population are around 0.1% -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed: . Rangoon11 (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - Considering what has now happened in Oman was all that was needed for Yemen to be put as major protests, it would seem highly contradictory not to make Oman major.--Smart30 (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

support there are 4 agreements here, get consensus to make your changes you are clearly against the grain of consensusLihaas (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

support Reverting FROM MY PREVIOUS STANCE! - MAKE MAJOR CHANGES NOW!!!!! http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/27/oman-fires-idUSLDE71Q09S20110227

THIS IS MAJOR :| --PranavJ 14:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC) PranavJ(talk)

Agreed and Support. Even BBC is saying that it is major in Oman and that it is escalating rapidly.--Gunshot123 (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Gubshot123(talk)

Agreed GM25LIVE (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - Let's change it now, there's more than enough support. -Kaishou Izumi (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

oman

How is it that morocco's protest's which saw something like 32,000 plus people out on the streets versus oman which saw 2000 people in a small city versus all the major cities in the country. So tell me how is Oman qualify as a major protest I mean I could continue but misinformation should not be on here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.67.61 (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well you see Oman is a smaller pop country.and actualy the fact is that though I understand Oman protests 'should' not go out of hand as people love the king......they burnt a police station, burnt cars, tried to set a mall on fire, 2 people died, army deployed, police clashes, burnt walis house and are camping in at the walis house in salalah - this all counts as major when compared to other countries that went major.....i v heard rumors from sources in Oman that ousted ministers incited the voilence :(.......long live the sultan! --PranavJ 02:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC) PranavJ (talk)

Yes indeed, Oman's protests are major, as they are ongoing and have had massive results (burning buildings, army deployment, etc). As for PranavJ - I am a devout Republican, and even I like Sultan Qaboos. --Smart30 (talk) 05:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Algeria

As far as the overview map goes, wouldn't the government's lifting of the state of emergency count as 'government changes'? TMV943 (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No it does not. the reason why Jordan has the status 'government changes' was because its entire government was sacked and replaced. Algeria lifting the state of emergency is a minor change in policy - but not in government.--Smart30 (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

kuwait

the description of kuwait could use some clarification and deweaseling. i'm not sure if it's biased or not, but certain readings of it certainly could be. - 71.75.35.33 (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

One of these sections is not like the others

The Syria section, specifically, is longer than the Egypt and Tunisia sections combined. Can someone help me pare it down to the main essentials? Greater detail should be at the Syria page. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The Afd was closed as "no consensus", so information can be moved there now. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

other countries

the part about india (brought up before without agreement on removal) has been WP:Censorship and vandalised. an RS source (ie- NOT editor opinion) has signaled its relevance and wikipedia works on sources not the whims of a WP:COI who dont want to see their country lsited. In the same reason listed as the reason Iraq was readded back even though another editor [rightly] pointed out that while it may be a democracy that doesnt preclude any sentiment.Lihaas (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Western Sahara (Revisited)

November 2010 events in Western Sahara

The following content has been at the center of a dispute:

Protest camp; major street demonstrations; attacks to government offices

Negociations between Morocco Interior Ministry and the protest camp commission (Nov. 4-5), Intervention of Moroccan forces to dismantle the camp (Nov. 8),^[1] Riots in El Aaiun and other towns, clashes between Sahrawi protesters and Moroccan police and civilians (Nov. 8-9),^[2] Removal of El Aaiun governor (Nov. 26)^[3]^[4]

14 (Morocco official)^[5]^[6]
20 (Polisario Front)^[7]^[8]

Though at this moment I can't form a well founded opinion on this matter, I would like to point to the wiki policies on top of this page, please stay polite. Also to take the tone of this conversation down a bit we could just post 'oppose' or 'support' instead of 'strong ...', couldn't we? Maybe it would be a good compromise to add these protests just as 'semi-related' or 'other' on the map and in the text?AlwaysUnite (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

So I ask other editors should Western Sahara be included or not? Support and Oppose would be nice with a summary of why you feel the way you do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Strong Oppose. There shouldn't be an argument really. HCPUNXKID who is the only one trying to add this in. He is trying to say that a protest that started in October in the WS, is what started the Arab world protests. The article clearly states that the Tunisia protest that started in Dec. 18, is what sparked the current protests, so any protests before Tunisia should not be included. In that case we should just add all the protests that happened decades before because they were similar. However if there are any protests in the Western Sahara that happened AFTER Tunisia, then it could be included.TL565 (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Also note that he only included it in the overview but not anywhere else including the start date in the info box and therefore contradicting the article that states it started on Dec. in Tunisia.TL565 (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose As per TL565. It's current presence is in fact quite misleading, I didn't pay too much attention to the dates and assumed they came after the Egypt protests, but I just missed it on Al Jazeera. The user should be warned /banned if they continue to add this content if we decide not to keep it. - Dalta (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose per TL565, + the user who included WS is well known for his POV pushing. The protests in WS weren't linked by any way to the current protests, even the articles on en.WP and other WP's never mentioned WS protests as linked to the current before HCPUNKXKID added this information. Sources (at least, the neutral ones) don't link these two protest movements. --Omar-Toons (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Support

Strong Support Leaving apart personal attacks like the ones from TL565 and Omar-Toons (well-known pro-Moroccan POV), I had only heard one reason against including them, and that's the date, wich is even dubious, avoiding it because it happened only one month before the Tunisia events. The other 5 weight reasons I gave (I can give more) seems to be insignificant to some here.

They just dont give a f*ck that the type of protest were the same (protest camp like posterior ones in Tahrir square or Bahrein), the slogans were similar (democracy, stop discrimination on jobs), the organization of the youth in the protests was the same (dialogue committee, cleaning committee, security committee), there were similar riots, attacks to government offices, etc...what evidences more you want?. And what is completely ridiculous is that the same people that want to avoid at any cost mentioning the 2010 Sahrawi protests, mention the actual minor protest in Western Sahara, wich are simply a continuation of the 2010 ones (participants on that movilizations show photos of Sahrawis detained on the 2010 protests)!!! How can we understand that?. It's totally illogic. Sincerely, I hope that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort enciclopedia, not a group of people trying to impose their vision and making lobbies.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any countries were inspired or even heard of this isolated protest in October. Everyone including all media sources list Tunisia as the starting place, period. Now if you want to list the WS minor(yellow) protests starting on February 2 in the overview, you can. Not to mention when you were editing it in, you never touched the intro section and therefore contradicted the starting date that was still at December 18. I don't usually argue this much, but I know when something is out of place.TL565 (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I repeat, mentioning a 2011 CONTINUATION of the 2010 Sahrawi protests while avoiding even mentioning the 2010 Sahrawi protest is ridiculous. It's like for example, if you only mention the post-ouster of Ben Ali protests on Tunisia, while avoiding mention the whole majority of the protest after the fall of Ben Ali. Clearly, it has no sense. I agree that the majority of the media didnt mention W.S., but let's be honest, do they mention W.S. anyday? Even in October 8-9 2010 the information in english about the protests was few, due to the media blockage and the lack of interest. But that doesnt mean that was sacred, or even true. I thought that no one had defended this position, but I recently see an interview in Al-Jazeera in wich Noam Chomsky defend the same arguments as me (http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/empire/2011/02/20112211027266463.html). Perhaps I'm not as alone as I thought.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

An article was recently written about these protests here, but there still no indication that they were related to the current protests other than it was pre-Tunisia.TL565 (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support highly pertinent arab/mena reactions, although sarhwai protests could be merged in(Lihaas (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)).
Strong Support The article covers protest in the middle east wether it happened before Tunisia or after as long as it happened during 2010-2011. Wether the protests stoped or where small. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Strong Support While the protests in the Western Sahara began before that of Tunisia, they are ongoing. I think we are not isolated from other Arab protests, so I believe should be included here. MauriManya (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011 events in Western Sahara

The following contents have been disputed yesterday . They were deleted at 18:21 (diff) with the following comment : Deleted until the Western Sahara case is resolved, including it on Morocco is clearly POV, and undeleted by me at 00:48 (diff), excluding that section from a subsection under Morocco, and recreating it as a section located at the location of letter "W" (for Western Sahara) in the alphabetical order, that is, between "T" (Tunisia) and "Y" (Yemen).

Demonstrations gathering tens of people on 2 February 2011,^[9] and about 40 people on 20 February 2011^[10], took place in El Aaiún. On 26 February, riots followed by a demonstration were reported in Dakhlah,^[11]. The riots caused one dead and several injured, and the cancellation of the 2011 edition of the "Sea and Desert" music festival^[12]. (slightly edited)

While I understand that there is a debate above, about whether the events of November 2010, which took place earlier than the beginning of the December events in Tunisia, should be included, I don't see why events taking place in February 2011, thus clearly after the beginning of the Tunisian events, should be excluded. Teofilo talk 09:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, its crystal-clear, its non-sense to cut events that belongs to the same protests only because of they being on 2010 or 2011. I dont want to think bad, but sometimes seems that someones want to made a difference between the 2010 & the 2011 ones, wich is totally POV.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If your opinion about the inclusion of the 2010 events is "strong support" and you feel that the 2011 and 2010 events "belongs to the same protests", then your opinion should be "strong support" for 2011 too, instead of deleting. A deletion is a strange way of showing inclusion support. Teofilo talk 17:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

What I do not support is trying to split in two pieces an unitary event, which is at least suspicious. Im not against including the Dakhla events, Im against including ONLY the Dakhla events as a separate event.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

To the contrary of what you did concerning the 2011 events, I have not tried to delete the 2010 events. I am not against including the 2010 events. But let us hear the opinions from this talk page's other members. Teofilo talk 13:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

References

[1]
Moroccans, Sahrawis clash at camp near Laayoune Magharebia, November 8, 2010
[2]
Moroccan forces, Sahrawis clash in Laâyoune Magharebia, October 10, 2010
[3]
HM the King appoints several walis and governors MAP, November 29, 2010.
[4]
The king of Morocco replaces governor in Laayoune by a Sahrawi Todanoticia.com (EFE-MAP), November 26, 2010
[5]
Rabat alega que los disparos que mataron al menor fueron en respuesta a una bala saharaui ABC (Spain), October 25, 2010. (in Spanish)
[6]
Laayoune events: HRW confirms death toll announced by Moroccan authorities, EFE Maghreb Arab Press, November 19, 2010.
[7]
Western Sahara: one killed and seven wounded near camp of exodus in El Aaiun Sahara Press Service, October 25, 2010.
[8]
Eight other dead bodies found in occupied city of El Aaiun SPS, November 11, 2010.
[9]
M.Z. (4 February 2011). "Manifestation à El Ayoune contre l'occupation marocaine et le pillage des ressources naturelles". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |site= ignored (help)
[10]
"Jiménez saluda que las manifestaciones en Marruecos han sido "pacíficas"". 20 February 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |site= ignored (help)
[11]
"Protests in Western Sahara against Moroccan violence | RFI". Retrieved 2011-02-27.
[12]
Said Lahlou. "Dakhla : le festival vire au drame". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |Date= ignored (|date= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Site= ignored (help)

Wisconsin

What about the protests in Wisconsin? They are related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.65.165.120 (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

against. The protests in Wisconsin are about labor unions primarily...completely unrelated to the MENA unrest. ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

But many of the Wisconsin-Ohio protesters admit to being inspired by the protests and revolutions in Middle East-North Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.65.160.237 (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If a RS makes the comparison ten be bold and add it.(Lihaas (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)).

I did add it and someone removed the whole section

Against - A LOT of protests seem to be "inspired" by the protests in Middle East and North Africa. But just because people gain confidence seeing other people fighting for their rights doesn't make it related 'per se'. --Elllit (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does, look at China, that stuff is added, and it is no different from the Wisconsin and Ohio protests. So add it please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.66.203.108 (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You make me laugh, whoever you are. The Chinese protests ARE related and WERE inspired by the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings. Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, they are about LABOR UNIONS. 2 different issues. And where do you get the source that people in Wisconsin were inspired? Kanzler31 (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Check out this link http://www.presstv.ir/detail/166613.html. A professor from the University of Wisconsin-Madison clearly states that protests in the state were inspired by those in Northern Africa. The goal of the protesters is irrelevant to this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnymanos arc (talk • contribs) 20:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, no it's not. These protests were sparked by the overthrow of Ben Ali in Tunisia (which led to the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt) and protests similar to Tunisia. Has anyone in Wisconsin died yet? No? Has anyone been injured? Probably not. Has anyone been arrested? Maybe. Do people in Wisconsin want to overthrow their governor? Most don't. Is Wisconsin and the US in a state of emergency because of these protests? Hell no. but trade union protests and regime change/human rights protests are 2 different things. Kanzler31 (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

many in wisconsin demand the resignation of the governor after the controversial bill. It should also be noted that no one has died in china so by your logic we should remove the china protests as well?

According to the World English Dictionary, the definition of Concurrent is "taking place at the same TIME or in the same location". Therefore, the 'CONCURRENT World-Wide protests' section is for protests anywhere in the world that happened to be occuring in the same time period as the MENA protests, it may or may not be related to/inspired by the 2011 Middle East/North Africa protests

People make analogies all the time. If somebody made an analogy between a current event and World War II, we don't add that current event to the World War II article, even if a reliable source reports on that analogy. Common sense is in order. Kansan (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

sources on solidarity . to add tot he "concurrent protests" section would be good.Lihaas (talk) 06:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

http://www.startribune.com/local/116307564.html?elr=KArks:DCiUHc3E7_V_nDaycUiacyKUzyaP37D_MDua_eyD5PcOiUr. Here it says that protesters in Wisconsin demand the governor's resignation. Besides I don't think we should dismiss the words of a prominent academic based on "common sense" (whatever that is). And the number of deaths or injuries have nothing to do with what we are talking here. They have to do with government response and not to the goals of the protesters or the influences they received. Protests in Serbia or Oman have been peaceful as well and they are included in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.119.23.59 (talk) 11:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Check out this link http://www.statepress.com/2011/02/21/egyptian-wisconsin-solidarity/. It clearly states that protesters in Wisconsin were inspired by the events in Egypt and it evens mentions the words of some of those taking place in protests. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12517062 again mentions that protesters in Wisconsin have been influenced by Egypt. It's obvious there has been some influence even though their goals aren't the same. I think we should add them in the "concurrent related protests". We have enough sources to back it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnymanos arc (talk • contribs) 11:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem to make a good point, but we need to balance what is related and what is not. If those in Wisconsin DO want their governor to resign, and soon decide to use violent ways of getting what they want, I think it should be notable for a section. 99.64.139.34 (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Violence-needed argument. The Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions were to a large extent (but not uniquely) based on the techniques of Mohandas K. Gandhi of mass non-violent resistance. As for violence, Governor Walker has threatened to use a military reserve force called the National Guard of the United States.NYT Whether or not the National Guard is willing to use violence (e.g. to remove protestors from the Capitol building) would pose a similar question as in Tunisia and Egypt, continuing the relation between the protests.

Chronology argument. If we refuse to include the Wisconsin-Ohio protest here on the grounds that the bill plans and/or protest plans were happening prior to December 2010, then for consistency we would have to remove the Algeria protest section from the article. Frequent protests had been going on there for many years prior to the Tunisian, Egyptian and Libyan revolutions. The Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions only amplified/inspired/etc. the protest movement - as seems to be the case in Wisconsin.

Issues argument. Tunisians, Egyptians and Libyans have been struggling not just for democracy, but also for their human rights, including economic and social rights. "The right to collectively bargain is recognized through international human rights conventions." - according to Collective_bargaining#International_protection

Boud (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Against This is about protest to a bill not protest to overthrow a government here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The protests in bahrain are about economical opportunities, and equal rights, not overthrowing a government. why not remove it as well?

- Don't you think Tunisians and Egyptians have been interested in constitutional and legal changes? There are lawyers and constitutional courts there. They wanted (and still want) changes in the constitution and laws because of effects those rules have on human rights. People in Wisconsin want to block a law which would remove the (partial) implementation of one of their human rights. Many of the Gulf protests (at least initially) seemed to "only" ask for legal changes, e.g. to a constitutional monarchy, not for overthrowing the monarch. But they are included here. So should they be removed from the article? Boud (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  - The right to collectively bargain is not a human right. And yes, it should be removed from the article because it has nothing in common with the MENA protests aside from them happening at about the same time, and writers who need something to write about comparing them inaptly. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

US Protests? Don't really think they should really be considered related

I was just reading over the article and saw that the current protests in Wisconsin are listed in the 'Concurrent related protests' This is just my 2 cents, but I would think calling what is going on in Wisconsin 'related' would be a stretch. It seems to me that union protests (WI) and protests against dictatorship (MENA) really don't go together. I'm not really crazy about the cited source either.

The whole concurrent protests subsection seems like a distraction from the rest of the article anyway. Perhaps another article for other 2011 protests/unrest/rebellion/etc?

Again, just my $0.02 Feel free to act on this, respond, ignore it, or whatever.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed I am so tempted to just delete the section from the article. Why are people adding unrelated protests? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

then by that logic why dont you remove the 2011 china and Albania protests as well? they are unrelated as well

I thought we had already removed the US info from the article? How the heck did it get back in there again? Silver seren^C 21:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

~~I'm gonna be bold and pull it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)~~ Never mind someone pulled it already. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Dont worry, I put it back in — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ass711 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we should try not to consider every protest taking place in the world is somehow related to this. Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Then why even have a 'Concurrent protests' section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ass711 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they should be grouped together. The MENA and Chinese protests are all about democracy, freedom, corruption, dictatorship issues. The Wisconsin protest is just about a controversial bill. Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I Think they should be grouped together because the wisconsin protests are inspired by the egyptian protests, I even mentioned the relation in the US section. Many analysts, government officials and commentators have been making that relation, due to the fact that it is job-related and it created mass protests made up of union members, students, teachers, social workers, cops, firefighters, and other public employees, similar to events in Egypt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.108.96 (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

So why again is the USA still omitted from the listed of countries with concurrent related protests? Is wikipedia trying to say that: 1) Either they are not concurrent, I guess using some new system of time keeping. 2) Or are are not related, this despite the main article for Wisconsin protests were inspired by the MENA protests in the first paragraph and having 5 references to that statement. 3) Or that what is going on in Wisconsin is not a protest. 165.112.61.209 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There are way too many references

Does Bahrain qualify as Government Change?

Suggested table update

timeline article

Djibouti, Djibouti

Israel

Lebanon?

I'm afraid I don't know much, but aren't there minor protests in Lebanon now as well? 140.247.244.186 (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"Hundreds Protest Lebanon's Sectarian Government System" - Voice of America

Seems so, yes. I propose we upgrade Lebanon to minor for now. Silver seren^C 22:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

the Protests are unrelated and are following in a long line of protests. Keep Lebanon without color.--Smart30 (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

They are related please read: Lebanese protest against sectarian political system. the second paragraph reads: Emulating protests that have spread across the Arab world in recent weeks -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Those are just the protests on Sunday - and as Reuters states they're related. The prior protests were not. In this light, mark Lebanon as yellow.--Smart30 (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There's also this article, which discusses Lebanon's unique governmental system as well and what exactly the protesters are protesting against, considering there is no real single ruler. Silver seren^C 04:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

reuters is rubbish and uninformed then. the protests in Lebanon dont have anythign to do with this. see Lebanese government of November 2009 (which could perhaps be a see also here)Lihaas (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how this source contradicts Reuters. This source still states that it is in line with the rest of the protests going on in the area, just that this protest is a little different because the governmental system is different from all the other countries in the area. That doesn't change the fact that the protests are going on in relation to or likely in response to the rest of the protests in the area. Silver seren^C 18:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There have also been protests in Lebanon, but I'm not sure if they are related or should be included - http://www.yalibnan.com/2011/02/27/lebanese-youth-protest-to-overthrow-the-sectarian-regime-photos-feb27-lebanon/.

they are somewhat inspired by the protests in the MENA region , their not exactly related and their dont have the same background but they are inspired. The thing is that not every protest in should be considered with the same background. The background for such protests like in Lebanon and Israel.Oh and the Voice of America article in the beginning of this section is far from reality and their very uninformed. and as a Lebanese I fail to see the relation between the Murdering of PM Hariri and the call for secularism,In short it should be disregarded and not referenced to . jadraad —Preceding undated comment added 07:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

Who took Lebanon out of the article??! -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

North Cyprus

If we are going to discuss the protests in Northern Cyprus in the article, then should that not be applied to the map? -Marcusmax(speak) 23:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

no, its mpot directly related, but the concurrent section should be ood. its not MENA either.Lihaas (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)LINK

LINK2:: : (page 169), shows Cyprus is a Middle East country. And I have shown that the protest is called Yasmin Revolution by the organizers. Kavas (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

If no one comments here, I'll go ahead. Kavas (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The protests are only in TRNC, there is no protest in South. Please see the deleted section in the article covering protests in TRNC. Kavas (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

1. lets wait for support to see which section

2. TRNC is not a country. we dont list entities here. (palestine granted but its declaration of independence was recognised by over a 100 countries and even then its the "territories" Furthermore the protesters did NOT have the TRNC flag but the cypriot flag the article says, which is initself indicaive of something else.Lihaas (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply: 1. Cyprus/TRNC is a MENA country. That's proven by the sources above. Indeed, Wikipedia also classifies Cyprus in MENA countries. (If you don't know this, this is your problem.) The legal status of TRNC should not make us to remove sourced information about the protests in TRNC. (Is there a Wikipedia rule on this?) Note that there's no protest in South Cyprus. 2. They use Cypriot flag because the protest is against Turkish government and TRNC government. The aim of the protest is to get rid of isolation of the country. Kavas (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Be WP:Civil and refrain from WP:NPAs.

I was did not mention anything about keeping it out, my discussion was on the label. the label is Cyprus as TRNC is not a country.Lihaas (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I mean it's needless to discuss "Cyprus is a MENA country" or not. BTW, today there was a 2nd demonstration in the TRNC, they said that the organizers said that they the protests in North Africa were examples for them. Yes, the status of TRNC is problematic, but mentioning "protests in Cyprus" can be misleading since there's no protest in South. Would any 3rd person comment here? Kavas (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As we agreed on not keeping it out, I added it back. Now, the debate is on the legal status of the island, while keeping in mind that the protest was only in the North part of the island. Kavas (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Eritrea

Article size

its way too long and expanding. Egyptian Liberal's idea for the split is good. we can probably take out the reactions. Also the summation of each needs to be cut for space. The details can go on their own page.Lihaas (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to spilt the international protests in a new article. I know some people have tried before in different articles (2010-2011 Worldwide protests, 2010–2011 anti-government protests and Jasmine Revolution) but need to address this issues at one point -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see real attempts to pare this article down before a split is performed. The biggest way to save space is to delete redundant references. This article is overreferenced as is. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

haha169 explained to you why that would be a bad idea and I agree with him -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really, no. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been tried several times, but some have deleted those articles quickly.Ericl (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

We need all the references we can get - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot - In a few years newssites may purge their databases or move, then we can use the extra info. - AlwaysUnite (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As a note, it may be in everyone's best interest to archive these articles with a services such as WebCite. It is an extremely useful tool, especially when articles are prone to being shifted, deleted, or changed. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I say split the Concurrent related protests section into a new article. it takes up way to much of the article - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed a link works fine I think as they are related but not the same subject. Although Somalia and Djibouti should be kept on this page as they are defenitly arab and belong to the region(let's not start the title discussion again, but..). Those countries are more closely related to the MENA region than to say Gabon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East#Criticism_and_usage) - AlwaysUnite (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Somalia and Djibouti are part of the Arab League, so they should be kept. I was refering to the Concurrent related protests section exclusively (Albania, Bolivia, Cameroon, Gabon, etc). - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

PS. If Related Protest is split, the non-MENA Preemptive Actions should go with it (except the Palestinian Teritorries section) - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is time to eliminate the 'Concurrent Protests' section

I think it is time to just eliminate the 'concurrent protests' section.It is really becoming nothing but a distraction in the article, and think that it would be best if it were removed. Some of the included protests seem, lacking in notability (Senegal, Cote d'Ivore, Cameroon, & Sri Lanka [Actually, I believe Cote d'Ivore is on the verge of another civil war currently and provided that there is an article on that, any news of protests would be more relevant there]), or about a completely different subject (Wisconsin union bill protests, which I have seen removed and re-added several times). Any that are notable enough to have their own articles (Albania & China) should just have their links listed in a 'see also' section. I mean really? where does it stop? Do we add mention of a protest in Minnesota about abortion rights or gun control or whatever, a protest in Belgium about...whatever social issue it is that Belgians protest about, etc. Just cause it happens at this time, and falls under the umbrella term 'concurent' does not mean it is relevant enough to take up space in this article. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

haha, in Belgium, it would be a protest over the government's inability to form a government :P. But I digress, yes, I agree with you. Not completely removing it, though, but shaving off around 85% of it. --haha169 (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Against - it's already been shaved. let's not make it bleed. --Smart30 (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Split it into new article. I takes up way too much space - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 08:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree - Get rid of all of that. Maybe just give a list of the countries that have seen concurrent protests, but don't give any detail in this article. Macarion (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - Yep, go ahead, it will make it nice and tidy. - AlwaysUnite (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

- DONE - moved section to Tunisia Effect outside Middle East and North Africa- ArnoldPlaton (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Article is still too long

The sections detailing each country's protests/revolution need to be shorter. If they already have their own article then they can be a lot shorter. Macarion (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree and Disagree - I agree in that they need to be shortened, I disagree all of them need to be. My vote of agreement is to shortening Algeria, Jordan, Somalia and Western Sahara.--Smart30 (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Qatar

Self-immolation list

Non-Arab protests

Spelling/date notation

Can someone offer an explanation or justification as to the sudden change (over the last day or so) of both spelling standards and date notation? Prior to yesterday, all dates (such as in the Overview and self-immolation sections) were written as Day Month Year (eg. 05 March 2011). Now the 'overview' dates have all been changed to Month Day, Year (March 5th, 2011), while self-immolation remains Day Month Year. Also, I notice that although the article had established British spelling as common use, someone in the last 24 hours has gone through and reverted to American spellings where they've seen them (chiefly organise -> organize), but has not done a thorough job, and now the article is riddled with some hodgepodge US/UK mix. I'm no professional Wikipedia editor, but is there anything that can be done about this? I thought the prevailing wisdom was that whatever convention has been established should be honoured, particularly where there is no overriding reason to change from one to the other (such as an article detailing a matter of national US/UK importance, for instance). Haku8645 (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

In my understanding, there is no explanation or justification for this. I'm no expert on the dates, but pretty sure they should have been left how they were. But with regards to the spelling, they 100% should have been left as is, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ENGVAR#National_varieties_of_English. I probably won't pick everything up, but I will go through and fix anything I notice now. Perhaps adding a British English banner to the talk page should be considered. Bernerd (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Revert. According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, section 10.3, the day-month-year format is ~~mandatory for all dates in all articles~~ the overall standard. Also, section 15.11.3 states that: "When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety of English it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic." As no such ties exist, British English should be considered the prevalent variety. DerekMBarnes (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

i agree with the revert to day month year format and the general arguments above, but as an aside, the phrase "the day-month-year format is mandatory for all dates in all articles" is not what is stated in 10.3 of the MOS that you linked to, e.g. YYYY-MM-DD dates are OK in references. Boud (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. Fixed. DerekMBarnes (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Map color schemes

Making this topic to aggregate discussions about which color schemes to use on the map. ZeLonewolf (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The map

The black and dark red colours should be switched, since the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions progressed farther than the Libyan "uprising" has. Macarion (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I was kind of thinking the same thing. The lighter colors represent incidents that are less important (gray for other territories, green for other MENA states, yellow for minor protests) while major incidents (orange for major protests, red for governmental changes, dark red for the head of the state being overthrown) are darker. An uprising is refusing to obey order and a revolution is a change in order. If anything, Libya's uprising should be dark red for the uprising and Egypt and Tunisia should be black, for the revolution. — Moe ε 07:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Against - keep it black. No reason to change colors.--Smart30 (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Can the black color please be change to another? Like purple, for instance, or something else. Black just stands out too much and has morbid connotations. Jmj713 (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a reason to change colours. Putting black between bright red and dark red on the "spectrum" breaks the existing pattern and makes the map more confusing. Macarion (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In favor I agree with this logic. Libya still has its leader in power; black should represent the furthest possible revolutionary step. I think Minor, Major, Revolt, Government Change, Revolution should be the progression and Yellow through Black should represent these stages. That makes the most logical sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.21.51 (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, black stands out too much for uprising. No need to change the legend, just make the Governmental change red, Uprising as burgundy and countries where people deposed their leaders should be colored black to state that it's a big change that makes it stand out! ;)(94.249.0.66 (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC))

Why has orrange changed to pink?

Government Overthrown

Uprising

Governmental changes

Major protests

Minor protests

Other MENA nations

Other nations

The color for major protests which used to be orange has changed to pink. I think it should be changed back for two reasons. The first is that orange fits with the color scheme of darker equals more serious protests (gray, green, yellow, orange, red, burgundy). The second is that pink makes it hard to distinguish between the newly created category "popular uprising" (for Libya) which is colored magenta. Can Pink be changed back to orange? Dynex811 (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Government overthrown

Open Revolt

Significant government change

Major protests

Minor protests

Other MENA nations

Other nations

I agree with you.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think they changed it for a person who was colorblind. I still think it should have the original colors as it showed which were more serious the darker the colors became.TL565 (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Except for the fact that the uprising in Libya was originally black and the revolutions countries were dark red. I really don't think pink and purple are the best colors. How do people change these colors? Splent (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that these new colors look terrible. The contrast is way too low. The yellow-to-black scale was much better. Please revert!! ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

They must be reversed back. The vast majority of Wikipedians are not colorblind and so we should not cater to the colorblind.--Smart30 (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The colors as they stand now are hard to see for colorblind and regular vision alike. The pink, red, and purple shades are far too close. In addition, the yellow-orange-red-maroon-black made sense as a color progression which was consistent with the degree of unrest. ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

These Colours are terrible, not just aesthetically, but practically. I can't tell the difference between the two different shades of pink/purple ("Uprising", "Major Protests"). Some sort of Rainbow type colours would be better, with no different shades of one colour being repeated. --Hibernian (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The colours were changed because a purple/magenta was suggested previously to replace orange for accessibility purposes (Talk:2010–2011_Middle_East_and_North_Africa_protests/Archive_4#Overview_map_accesibility) and there were no disagreements at that time. Please suggest a new colour range and amend the legend at the top of this section. There was very little comment for the colour change, and it would be nice to have some reasonable discussion about it. gringer (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought I was pretty clear with this request change pink to orange but I've added a legend regardless. Dynex811 (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

My recommendation

I suggest the following breakdown:

Government overthrown

Open Revolt

Significant government change

Major protests

Minor protests

Other nations

I would drop the "other MENA" category as it does not add value. ZeLonewolf (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this colour scheme. -Kaishou Izumi (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm colorblind myself, and it seems like they didn't take into account blue/purple color blindness (which is mine). While the new scheme works for red-green color blind people, I'm having trouble distinguishing between the two shades of pink that form Egypt/Libya. We can do better than this. I suggest something like what they have for the same sex marriage in the US map. --Watchreader (talk) 04:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps something like this?

Government overthrown

Significant government change

Open Revolt

Major protests

Minor protests

Other nations

ZeLonewolf (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this would work well. Macarion (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems fine Easy on the eyes for everyone. I'd prefer the yellow to black scale but as people have been saying that might be hard for the color blind. Honestly, anything is better than what is up right now Dynex811 (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay done, colour changed to this one. gringer (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok my problem is I am colour deficient so the colours that are similar look the same to me, can something be done about that please. Thanks Enlil Ninlil (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Please suggest better colours, as has been done in this section. People with non-deficient vision have a lot of trouble working out appropriate colours. gringer (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget to change the key Dynex811 (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Against - It looked better before. Now the colours are too faded and the light blue is hard to distinguish from the grey, and minor and major protests are also too close to each other. The map is harder to read than before. The old scheme worked much better imo. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Against - It needs to be changed back to what it was 2 days ago. Revolution[Maroon]-Uprising[Black]-Major Protests[Orange]-Minor Protests[Yellow]-Government Changes[Red]-Other MENA States[Green. The map should not have any blue or light colors. It looks terrible right now.--Smart30 (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

What it was 2 days ago is not appropriate for accessibility reasons. I've used the colour insensitivity filters in GIMP to approximate what the legend looks like for different situations here (normal on the left, red/green deficient in the middle, blue on the right). Note that for the more common red/green deficiency, the three top colours look similar. gringer (talk) 10:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It does not make sense for "uprising" to be black if "revolution" is dark red and "governmental change" is regular red. If the light blue is hard to distinguish from the grey, I would suggest making both shades of blue darker. Macarion (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The new color scheme is way too close together and hard to distinguish. How about this? I think the shades are far enough apart that people would be able to distinguish between each category. I do not have a wikimedia account so if this is used please someone else do it.Splent (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Government overthrown

Significant government change

Open Revolt

Major protests

Minor protests

Other nations

The color scheme at 2011-02-26 13:38 UTC is the best so far for this mildly red/green colorblind user. Gringer's filters were accurate. See for suggestions. Use garish colors! If there aren't enough colors, consider using stripes, hashes, or other textures. On the other hand, many cases where one needs to use six or more colors are better solved by reducing the number of categories. Grant David Meadors (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Splent's suggestion at 13:08 would be good if "significant government change" had the color proposed for "government overthrown" while "government overthrown" were black. Grant David Meadors (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

So... like this?

Government overthrown

Significant government change

Open Revolt

Major protests

Minor protests

Other nations

Splent (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the light blue is too close to the gray. Here's an alternate of the current color scheme that increases the contrast. Do people like this better?:

Government overthrown

Significant government change

Open Revolt

Major protests

Minor protests

Other nations

Splent's schema at 17:21 looks perfect to me for red-green colorblindness. If it passes the blue-yellow test, then I'm in favor. Grant David Meadors (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's a guess at a modified version of Splent's schema at 17:21. It seems to have reasonable progressions for normal vision and for colour deficient vision. I made the maroon a bit lighter so that it can be more easily distinguised from black for red/green insensitivity. Open revolt looked a bit odd as a yellow that was quite a lot lighter than 'major protests'.

Government overthrown

Significant government change

Open Revolt

Major protests

Minor protests

Other nations

gringer (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

This is absolutely horrible to look at, and there's no natural flow with it. DerekMBarnes's below is much better. -Kaishou Izumi (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I like yours Gringer, but I'm fine with how things go, either yours or Derek's.--Smart30 (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Since everyone seems to be throwing in their two cents, here's my suggestion. This is based on Lonewolf's two-tone scheme, but with more color contrast and deeper hues:

Government overthrown

Significant government change

Uprising

Major protests

Minor protests

Other nations

I've tested it against red-green color blindness and blue-yellow color blindness via digital color filter; it seems to work well for both of them, and is still visually appealing to those without vision problems. Not sure how it holds up to blue-violet color blindness or total color blindness; feedback is appreciated. DerekMBarnes (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. If everyone can see it, then it's the best so far. -Kaishou Izumi (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The blues are too close together. Perhaps something like this?

Government overthrown

Significant government change

ZeLonewolf (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's an updated svg of Gringer's map, with Derek and Lonewolf's colours. I also set Oman to Major and Western Sahara to Minor. Unsure of how to upload it on WikiMedia and on whether Albania should be represented or not. Do with it what you will. -Kaishou Izumi (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Not bad. Does it pass color blindness muster? Also, not sure if we should be including Senegal and definitely not Albania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeLonewolf (talk • contribs) 22:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello all, the above mentioned image is used throughout the whole Wikipedia in several different languages. Why isn't is possible to stay with one color scheme? It is reallly a bit annoying to change the color legend every day. Thanx --89.247.206.28 (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, this current colour scheme is great and I think we can stop changing it. 76.219.170.8 (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this one looks pretty good. Yes, it's changed quite a bit in the last few days, but that's the cost of getting it right. ZeLonewolf (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Since Europe and Asia are trimmed off, can someone please trim away southern Africa? The Middle East and North Africa extend no further south than Somalia, and are out of scope of this article.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Southern Africa is already trimmed off in the template, which uses an annotated image to add in the country clickies. It's kept in the SVG file because there are two images (one MENA, one Arab league) that only differ in the style sheets used. gringer (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we just revert to the original, and create a different version for the colour-blind and link it in the discription of the normal version? GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Pink?

What a distracting color, not suitable at all for a map about (sometimes violent) protests. -haha169 (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Grow up. Macarion (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You grow up, Macarion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.212.129 (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

What's with the colours?

Stop changing them around. No, blue's not a suitable colour. Stick with the original yellow-red-brown-black gradient please. If you are worried about people with vision problems, just tinker with the intensities. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Blue is as suitable as any colour. Macarion (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Not when the rest of the colours are totally different, come on guys now its starting to look like a rainbow, how can "blue" be minor and "green" be major with black and red for more serious situations, it makes absolutely no sense in any form of colour palette.

+1. The current pattern has incompatble colours and looks annoying and visualy distractive. I don't care about colour itself - it can be blue, red, green - whatever. But colours should be compatible. Please, don't forget, that image on commons is used not only in en-wiki, but also in dozens of other wikis, who depend on this discussion.--Abiyoyo (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

+1. The map colours have no logical pattern. suggestion: revolution-maroon, governmental change-green, civil war-red, major-orange, minor-yellow--Wilson (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree -- no pattern, and the combination is incredibly garish. CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The combination is fine, and there's absolutely a clear pattern. Macarion (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Not clear to any of us... CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Protests/violence: Yellow = minor, orange = major, red = basically war. This is a pattern. Governmental change: Blue = some significant change, dark blue = completely changed. This is a pattern. Macarion (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

SUPER LAME MAP

Just to let everyone know,the guy who made the new map must be color blind because the colours are too confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.68.106.26 (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:2010–2011_Middle_East_and_North_Africa_protests#Why_has_orrange_changed_to_pink.3F. This is currently under discussion. Colours will eventually settle on something that works for everyone, but it will take some time. gringer (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Ick, bright yellow is better than this olive yellow. It should be changed back. 128.194.179.93 (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No one cares. This shade of yellow is fine. Macarion (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Just so it's on record, I chose that shade of yellow to make it distinct from the grey countries for people with total color blindness, while still being visible to people with blue-yellow color blindness. I did my best to make a sliding scale that went from light to dark in absence of color while still making it understandable to color-sensitive people. Personally I think the colors contrast well; if you find them confusing, please explain why under my contribution near the bottom of the section linked above by Gringer. I did ask for honest feedback. DerekMBarnes (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The new map is satisfactory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.68.106.26 (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Map problems

Protests? Maybe unrest?

While in some countries there are protests indeed, the Libyan and Egyptian incidents, I would say a more correct description should be unrest, and I think its a more suitable title. In the aftermath, I am sure that there will be a name for it, but for the time being I propose a rename of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.170.84.179 (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree - The real focus of this article should be the revolutions in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt, which are certainly more than protests. Maybe change the title to 2010-2011 North African revolutions, or Arab Spring.

Agree - In Libya it has moved beyond protests and there has been plenty of clashes in other countries to warrant it being called 'unrest'. - Dalta (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - protests is the right word for it certainly in Algeria, Yemen and Bahrain AlwaysUnite (talk)

Oppose - "unrest" sounds to me like a WP:WEASEL word or maybe rather a wiktionary:euphemism. Let's see what wiktionary:unrest says: "A state of trouble, confusion and turbulence, especially in a political context; a time of riots, demonstrations and protests." So it's ambiguous: the first meaning could mean the governmental situation in Belgium independently of any street protests; the second meaning is just the same thing as "protests". Given the ambiguity, switching from "protests" to "unrest" would weaken the implied strength of the protests, from definite protests to possibly just a state of political confusion. The proposer and the two agree comments above seem to suggest that the motivation for a name change is to make the implied strength of protests stronger, not weaker. The unsigned agree-er clearly says that s/he suggests changing to "revolutions". (counterargument: wait if/until another 10-15 of the MENA countries have had revolutions).
In fact, the confusion in this discussion means that we have unrest in this section of this talk page, in the first sense of "unrest" (if we consider that deciding on the name of a Wikipedia article related to political events constitutes a political context). However, i suspect that 2011 Wikipedia unrest would be a candidate for speedy deletion. Boud (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how unrest is a weasel word, could you explain further? Also, these events cover both definitions of the word 'unrest' given by wiktionary, I personally think, though it may just be in my dialect of English, that 'unrest' on its own implies a moderately violent situation, exemplified perfectly by the events in this article. If you add the qualifier 'political', then it could imply politicial instability absent of protests or violence. 'Protests' clearly doesn't cut it anymore because we've seen more than protests, we've seen clashes, government changes, revolutions and now an uprising in Libya and possibly more to come, so 'protests' is innaccurate. Also 'unrest' is definitely stronger than 'protests', I think that is common in all dialects of English. - Dalta (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

[1]
"Qataris launch online freedom movement". Press TV. 2011. Retrieved 2011-03-01.
[2]
"Government in Qatar slams Libya's violent crackdown on protesters". Newstime Africa. 2011. Retrieved 02-03-2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

oman

November 2010 events in Western Sahara

February 2011 events in Western Sahara

References

US Protests? Don't really think they should really be considered related

Status Israel

I think it is time to eliminate the 'Concurrent Protests' section

Article is still too long

Self immolation

The map

Why has orrange changed to pink?

My recommendation

Pink?

What's with the colours?

SUPER LAME MAP

Related Articles