Talk:Arab Spring

Proposed rename - 2010–2011 Arab World protests

This was the initial title of the article prior to the outbreak of protests in Iran, after which it was broadly agreed that this article's title should no longer be limited to the Arab uprisings. However, the situation in Iran appears to have largely subsided, making its incidence merely part of a global repercussion that has influenced demonstrations in a broad range of countries including China, the United States, and several others. Thus far, the only protests that have resulted in historic consequences are those that have taken place in Arab countries. I feel that generalizing the situation to the entirety of the MENA region gives this article too broad of a scope. Thoughts? Master&Expert (Talk) 03:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This has been proposed before, but the most recent discussion only had four participants, with two in favour of renaming and the other two opposed. This is not a consensus. I'm reposting the proposal for a broader audience. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - bigoted and feeds the stereotype that Arabs are the majority people in the Middle-East and North Africa. They are NOT. The Copts in Egypt, and the Jews in Tunisia were vital to the Revolutions there. This has nothing to do with the supra-identity 'Arab'.--Smart30 (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually Arab ARE the overwhelming majority in the Middle East and North Africa. The Copts and Tunisian Jews ARE Arabs, being an Arab is a national identity not an ethnicity.

From the article Arab world: 'The Arab League, a regional organization of countries intended to encompass the Arab world, defines an Arab as: "An Arab is a person whose language is Arabic, who lives in an Arabic-speaking country, and who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic-speaking peoples."'. Furthermore, the article defines the Arab world as a region of Arabic-speaking countries. The Arab 'supra-identity,' as you call it, is based on common language, not ethnicity or religion. DerekMBarnes (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Copts are a religion, not an ethnicity. They are Egyption citizens, of Arabic ethnicity and Coptic faith. But this discussion is not about majorities. It's about whether Iran counts as part of the revolutionary wave, or as an outside impact. If it's an outside impact, then the rest of the countries are all part of the Arab world, and the title should reflect that fact. If Iran is part of the revolutionary wave, than it's about Arab World + Iran, which we, and others, call "Middle East North Africa" - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Copts are the descendants of the Ancient Egyptians and some Greeks. They have nothing to do with their Arab neighbors. I assume it was merely an honest mistake on your behalf. --Smart30 (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

They have a lot to do with their Arab neighbours. Copts also speak Arabic, and some of their „arab neighbours” are also descendants of Ancient Egyptians, later Coptic Christians, but of ones who converted to Islam (Islamization of Egypt). I'll asume your mistakes are equally as honest - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I made no mistake sir, the sole reason Copts adopted the Arabic tongue is due to the fact their tongues were cut out if they spoke Coptic. The conversion of a handful of Copts to Islam was entirely marginal, 99% of Egyptian Arabs show no genetic markers suggesting Ancient Egyptian descent. However these markers are unmistakable in the Coptic(native Egyptian) population.--Smart30 (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Completely unfounded claim and off the point. Copts' native language is Arabic, whether they were "forced" to speak it or not 1500 years ago is completely irrelevant.

Besides your word, what evidence do you have of your outlandish assertions? The exact genetic study would be nice. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting... genetic markers or not, this is how both the copts and the Egyptian arabs see the situation. One of my coptic friends describes himself as "Egyptian of the Pharoahs", and despite at one stage holding a key security-related government post, he was never granted a security clearance, purely because of his ethnicity. When performing his duties, he was always accompanied by an arab minder "to make sure I do the right thing". None of these minders had any expertise in the area, so how they were deciding what the "right thing" might be is an interesting conjecture. And the similarity between coptic and Greek facial features, and the contrast of both to arab ones, is striking. Andrewa (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose-the current name is fine as it is, and imho, Qatar, Ertinea and Somalia (the latter is not Arabic) should be added--71.236.0.245 (talk) 04:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Qatar has only seen a failed coup, but I have not seen any source claiming link to the MENA protests, Somalia was discussed, and removed (see archives) and I don't know what Eritrea has to do with all of this. Please share some (WP:RS) links regarding these issues. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - As stated in the last discussion, the unrest in Iran was in connection with prior political events within the country, and was too brief to be considered part of the ongoing movement. I acknowledge Iranian protesters were inspired by Tunisia, but I no longer believe Iran is directly related to these events, and it can be moved to the "Impact" article, voiding the reasons MENA is currently in use. DerekMBarnes (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: How many times are people going to argue about the same god damn point? We cant take out Iran or Western Sahara for example and seeing that none of them are arab states the rename cant be done. -- The Eguyptian Liberal (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, Western Sahara is an „arab state” in the sense that its inhabitants are mostly arabs, but on the other hand it is not part of the Arab League - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Support renaming, by DerekMBarnes's arguments. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Weak Support. Iran fizzled away pretty quick, and the internal factors (last year's post-election protests) seem to (slightly) outweigh the external ones (the „Tunisia effect”). The protests in the Arab countries seem to have emboldened them to come out again, but it was basically Green Revolution, part 2.

Also, Ive done a Google news count: Arab spring - ~2,120 results, Middle East North Africa protests - ~5,810 results, North Africa protests - ~6,890 results, Arab World protests - ~9,300 results, Middle east protests - ~16,400 results, Arab protests - ~14,600 results - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to do that count with quotation marks around the words in the search box so they look for the terms specifically. Otherwise, you're going to get results that may not be accurate to what you're searching for. For example, Middle East protests may be just coming up with a bunch of articles that use the terms Middle East and protests in the same articles, but not in conjunction as a single term. Silverseren^C 15:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, can be moved to alternate section but relevant to the article name dispute, here is the revised Google News count according to Silver seren's suggestions: 1,210 results for "arab spring" [1]; 1 result for "middle east north africa protests" [2]; 2 results for "north africa protests" [3]; 17 results for "arab world protests" [4]; 105 results for "middle east protests" [5]; 43 results for "arab protests" [6]; 0 results for "greater middle east protests" [7]; 0 results for "tunisian revolutionary wave" [8]. Insofar as WP:COMMONNAME is concerned, this appears to be a strong argument against the current title, with Arab Spring coming out on top by over 1,000 results. This may not be a particularly refined method of analysis, however I believe it warrants a resurrection of the previous "Arab Spring" discussion, or at least an open discussion of all possible name changes based on popular usage or other elements of Wikipedia policy. I Oppose this name change on both the above grounds and the previous arguments concerning exclusion of non-Arab nations. Laika Talk: Laika 16:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The protests in Iran were and are significant and have been stated explicitly by the opposition leaders there to be in response to Tunisia and Egypt. It was because of the MENA protests that they decided to start protesting again themselves, as expressed by their leaders specifically. Because of this, we have to include Iran in the list and this, thus, makes the name Arab world inappropriate for the article. Silverseren^C 15:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Very Strong Support The protests started in Tunisia, an Arab country, and has caused sweeping changes in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Syria, all Arab countries. The protests in the Arab World were very much influenced by the protests in Tunisia as Arab people in other Arab countries related themselves to Tunisians and watching the protests on Arab-speaking media helped ignite that feeling. That sort of connection was missing in the protests in Iran as Iran did have similar kinds of protests in the past before the Arab protests started and the recent Iranian protests were not as influenced by the Tunisian revolution as the rest of the Arab world protests. I propose separating this article into two: Arab world protests and Iranian protests.

• Strong Support these protests are refered to, everywhere as the Arab world protests or the ARab spring, that's just what this is, yet for some reason, the whole article has to be re-named to include 1 totally irrelevant student protest in Tehran, which happened a month ago and for which practically no-one showed up. It is ridiculous how that has played such a big role in this article, yet protests in other North-African countries like Uganda and Ivory Coast and Senegal and even Somalia (which is part of the Arab League) have been filtered out, the protests in Turkey being totally ignored, but this Iranian thing has to be given major attention. This motivated by political bias and does not fit in the neutrality policies of Wikipedia.Kermanshahi (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• I...suppose it would be inappropriate of me to mention anything about your *cough* obvious userpage. But, being the main contributor to the 2011 Iranian protests article, I can tell you that you are dead wrong about what occurred during the protests. First off, there were more than five major protests over the past month, with most having more than 100,000 people attending. The protests have been just as large, if not larger, than the election protests that occurred in 2009. Silverseren^C 21:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Support. The protests are in general, Arab protests (no need to go into definitions of Arab). Hence the terms Arab Spring and Arab Revolutions (the Arabic page was recently renamed to this). I am for 2010–2011 Arab World protests or even Arab Revolutions (increasingly being used in the media).--Aa2-2004 (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support As an Arab, it saddens me to see Iran lumped with us just because they are the only non-Arab country in the MENA region. There's something about these protests that is inherently Arab, and as mentioned above, they did spread to countries beyond Iran. I go on Facebook groups about these revolutions, and there you meet a mix of Arabs from all backgrounds whether it's about Tunisia or Egypt or Libya or Yemen or Syria or Bahrain or Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, Iranian protests date back to 2009 and have just been given new inspiration by their neighbours' revolts. It also appears that Iranian Arabs are also trying to take advantage of this wave and jump on the bandwagon, with as little success as Shiites in Saudi Arabia, if not less. At any rate, I may be being a little too nationalist here, but even the media is referring to this as an Arab phenomenon. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Support We can seperate Arab World Protests and Iranian Protests if this move is accepted. Kavas (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment perhaps this article should be named "MENA region protests"? USchick (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose My concern is practical. Casual researchers who are interested in better understanding the conflicts and their relationships with each other, and who are not familiar with the nuances of Arab vs non-Arab, etc., need to have the broadest sense of the activities in the middle east. Iranian protests are significant, they are related to the other protests the region, and therefore we do a disservice by not including them. The page is intended to educate, and the context is the education about specific events, not about the distinctions between various ethnic groups. Beecher70 (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)(talk) 11:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC).

One Issue I would like share you friends,that we also claim that many Iranian people are of Arab origin. In fact one key revolution in Iran is that of AHWAZ or AHVAZ (Arabic term: احواز). Even though many of them are Shiia not Sunni, they are looking to separate back from Iran. --196.1.70.203 (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)(Abu Ahmad).--Nizarsh (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.1.70.203 (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That is an important point. Most protests in Iran have been in the Ahwaz region, which is mostly Arab. Another reason to rename to 2010–2011 Arab World protests or even Arab Revolutions.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support The protests and revolutions are occurring in a region that is overwhelming composed of Arabs, with the only exception Iran. Even the media is usually referring this event as the Arab protests. I also support splitting this article into two: one for the Arab protests and revolutions, and the other for the Iranian protests. —Terrence and Phillip 23:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Support Googling "Arab Spring" gets you ~17 million results, and "2011 Arab protests" bring ~15 million results. Googling "2011 Middle East and North Africa protests" gets only 100k results. The most severe protests so far have been in Arab countries, and this is what it is being called in many places. Unflavoured (talk) 07:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support I agree with the supportive comments above. It should be renamed "2010–2011 Arab protests", "2010–2011 Arab revolutions", or "2010–2011 Arab Spring" --Tonemgub2010 (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose The focus might be on 'arab' people, but you can't just ignore the huge protests and killings in non-arab countries or by people in majority arab countries who don't consider themselves 'arab'. It might be a simpler title, but definately not a more accurate one. 87.194.68.101 (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this: "more accurate one" is not the Wikipedia policy. You are correct, since there are some non-Arab countries whose protests are within the scope of this article. However, "Arab Spring" or "Arab Protests" is what it is being called by most sources. On Wikipedia, "verifiability" trumps "correctness." You can find plenty of verifiable, reliable sources calling this "Arab Spring" or "Arab Protests," but not "North Africa and Middle East Protests," even though the latter is actually more accurate. Unflavoured (talk) 03:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from, but i disagree. Verifiability goes along with NPOV. Newspapers and TV might prefer 'arab spring' because it is a simpler phrase, but newspapers and TV aren't bound to NPOV. Any proper academic writing (ie. more reliable sources if we are talking 'verifiability') will acknowledge the wider-than-arab nature of these events. Also, you missed my point about protesting people in 'arab states' that might not call themselves arab (eg. Copts.). 87.194.68.101 (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose: These protests have affected countries that are either minority or majority Persian, Berber, Copt, Chaldean, Kurdish, Armenian, Azeri, Ethiopian, Somali, Turkmen, and Tuareg, among other non-Arab groups. We already note within the article the emphasis placed by media on the "Arab Spring". There's no need for us to endorse that rather narrow view by giving a giant middle finger to non-Arab groups involved in this revolutionary wave, nor for us to constrict its definition by assuming this is an Arab phenomenon in spite of overwhelming evidence that it is not. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support: There is double standard that it was changed immediately for Iran, but not for Armenia and Azerbaijan. Everyone seems to think this is an Arab only thing anyway, so change the name back and put the remaining non-Arab countries in the Impact of 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests article. TL565 (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• VERY VERY STRONG SUPPORT: For the love of God, change it already. All major wikipedias are calling it "2010-2011 Arab World protests">

173.245.84.140 (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not the Great Arab Revolt or Second Arab Revolt to connect it with similar protests during the days of the Ottoman Empire. That too signaled a paradigm shift.

Revolutionary-STRONG Support! Oh, C'mon! Check all the 22 countries that encompass the "Arab World", arabs consist mostly >95% of the population. I believe it's the right thing to name. BESIDES, it's shorter and more convenient to refer to. Think of the bandwidth usage you'd spare! XD

Turkey Major Protests!!! Happening at this moment!!!

All Wikipedia users please listen to the demand of Turkish people for demonstrations. Create and expand the section to add the latest anti-goverment demonstrations which have taken place in Turkish biggest cities Istanbul and Ankara. It is amazing of how many people have participated in these demonstrations condemning the current goverment and demanding a change in this dictatorial style goverment! The harsh and barbaric treatment of Turkish police forces with the arrest of Turkish journalists who wrote against the goverment actions has led to a massive chain reaction. Also many political analysts and journalists all over the globle are describing Turkish democracy as fake and only benefiting those close to the military or goverment organisations. Please expand the article on Turkish recent minor demonstrations which are continously becoming more and more serious.

Turkish protests in Turkey is clearly not related to Kurdish Protests in Turkey. Kavas (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's important to bear in mind that there are going to be the usually pre-election rallies and demonstrations, as well as various other protests. None of the demonstrations from Turkey this year aside from the protests by the Kurds have really resembled what we've seen emanating from the shockwave of Sidi Bouzid, and only those Kurdish protests have been compared or related in any serious way by WP:RS to the Tunisia Effect or the so-called "Arab Spring". -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Kurdish Protests in Turkey

Just noticed this on yahoo news... [9] 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: [10], [11]. 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. [12], [13], [14] 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 [15]. 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 [16], 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)

Syria & Yemen = New map status

There is already an open discussion about moving Syria from "Governmental Changes" to "Major Protests". Actually, the status of "Governmental Changes" is meant to be one step higher than "Major Protests", but the problem is that countries such as Syria and Yemen, with big events and hundreds deaths, are now mixed with lower activity level countries such as Jordan, Oman and Kuwait where the death toll is between 0-6 people in total.

I recommend that we create a new status / new color for Syria and Yemen to give them credibility without misguidance. The new status will be a step below "Revolution". In this way, we can clearly see the difference between the countries with status "Governmental Changes" in which hardly anything happens and countries where dozens die every day as Syria and Yemen.

Do you agree or are you against this suggestion? --Tonemgub2010 (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Uploaded by Kudzu1 (talk) 10:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC) - see comment below. Major update Kudzu1 (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC).

Why couldn't we just have Syria and Yemen striped a combination of orange and light blue, to signify both major protests and governmental changes? Jordan would be striped yellow and light blue.Whitesoxman (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree I think that's a good idea, that will also circumvent the question of which category ranks higher. Lampman (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed The stripes sounds good Dynex811 (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree I'm all for it. Map needs some revisions anyway. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree The stripes sounds like a good idea for me as well. Fair enough. --Tonemgub2010 (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's try it and see how it looks. I'm not sure how to do stripes, someone else will have to give it a go. ZeLonewolf (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not know how to do stripes either. Here is an old file that had stripes before, does it help? --Tonemgub2010 (talk contribs) 19:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree The stripes are a fantastic idea; but Syria is approaching uprising so if the consensus becomes that it is an uprising, it would be blue and red striped while Yemen remains orange and blue, I reckon. 18:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.119.235.104 (talk)

Comment Here's a mockup as to what the new map would look like (without inset boxes). It's not perfect because it's a PNG image file, not SVG (I don't have the tools to manipulate SVG format). I guess if this looks good somebody with SVG know-how can go about making an SVG version, plus insets. -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree - Although I think Syria and Yemen need to be upgraded from major protests/governmental changes to a Libya/Pre-revolution colour - Am I right in saying the situation in Syria is characterised as an armed conflict and maybe Yemen too? George5210 (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The protests in Yemen have remained remarkably peaceful throughout, so no on Yemen. As for Syria, the article has been moved to 2011 Syrian uprising with consensus, and there have been some reports of fighting between loyalist troops and defectors, but I don't know that it meets the definition of an armed conflict yet. So far I'd consider it to be a civil uprising but not a bona fide conflict; Yemen might meet that definition as well, but WP:RS aren't as sure. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The fantastic idea of having the stripes did not look as good as it sounded. It is just more confusing now than what it was. I think we should keep the map as it is and we just need to "upgrade" Syria and Yemen to a "Pre-Revolution"-kind-of-status. Any thoughts? Tonemgub2010 (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a "civil uprising" or "government changes but major protests continue" intermediate status perhaps should be tried. Let me give that a whirl. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Disagree On the new map Turkey should be added due to the ongoing uprisings taking place by Kurds in many cities especially Istanbul. Turkey is the new country facing ongoing rebells. Websites such as Tweeter, Youtube and Wikipedia are blocked by Turkish authorities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.183.50 (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a separate discussion entirely. I'm not opposed to adding Turkey if WP:RS finds protests there are linked to this broader wave, and I'm certainly open to that. As to just updating the map and adding an intermediate status for Syria and Yemen, what is your opinion, if any? -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

@87.228.183.50. Do not write false information. Websites such as Twitter and Wikipedia are not blocked. Yes, Youtube is blocked (because of videos insulting Ataturk), but similar websites such as Dailymotion, Google Video, Metacafe etc. are not blocked. Randam (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - for Kudzu1's map, it's perfect. Let's wait(to add Turkey) when Turkey truly develops country-wide protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart30 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Regarding Turkey, I'm tending toward support for including those protests in this article. Protests have been staged in Istanbul and Anatolia, from Kahramanmaraş to Hakkari, and they're growing increasingly contentious. I'm seeing a lot more comparisons to Egypt and Syria than I was just a few days ago. I do think it's about time we add Turkey to this article, as well as an addition to the "background" section mentioning that some of these protests (Turkey, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Armenia, Sudan, etc.) are essentially the reemergence of old grievances given additional impetus because protesting for your rights is kind of the thing to do these days in the Middle East (worked for Tunisia, Egypt, and Cyrenaica, after all). -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree I think it's a good idea to add Turkey. This article gives a broad overview, and should show as much as possible the different, related conflicts. Other articles can deal with the fine points of what is Arab, what constitutes western asia, etc. Beecher70 (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Support Turkey is increasingly becoming the new country facing ongoing protests and as it seems we are expecting a revolution. What I am a lot afraid of is that powerful and very equipped Turkish army will kill civilians and other protesters. Also due to the lack of Internet websites such as youtube, protesters will not be able to broadcast every single protest to give us a clear image of the magnitude of their struggle for their liberation! Please we must all support them and give them a hand of hope through Wikipedia. Solidarity towards the Kurds and other Ethnic groups protesting against Turkish goverment is necessary to establish a succesful and stable democracy in our region! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.183.50 (talk) 09:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Supporting them isn't our job here; in fact it's the exact opposite. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog or advocacy website. However, it is our job to document these events and preserve them in an accessible, verifiable, user-friendly format for education and posterity. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone constantly changes the map of Middle East countries where Turkey is included! Please add the map where Turkey is included as part of major middle East protests! This page was supposed to be protected but many make changes constantly without discussing them first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.183.50 (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

We're of the same opinion here, but a user is holding up consensus on keeping Turkey in the article and I'm not going to put it in unilaterally. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Armenia and Azerbaijan

Since it looks like its not going to be changed to either name, these countries should be removed or put into the Impact of 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests. I have never heard of Armenia and Azerbaijan being in the Middle East. Greater, yes but just Middle East, no. I have tried to propose a minor name change to expand the area and accommodate these countries, but I keep hearing the same excuses that look like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, such as "Its euro-centric", or "Not widely used", instead of real reasons. The more countries we add to the page, the harder it will be to put them under one geographic area, so expand the area or don't add them at all. TL565 (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree, Armenia and Azerbaijan do not belong, they should be in "Impact" article. They are not generally included in the MENA protests by WP:RS, and do not belong to geographic Middle East ("Greater Middle East" is a politic term, still sometimes used in Britain and US, but except confusing some people and media, doesn't do any real purpose for definitions).87.69.107.188 (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose The current argument above is to use the title of what most sources are using. Obviously, any title change would hence be long in coming because any new title in usage, even if every source changed to using it, would still have to out-pace all past usages of other names first. I say that we disregard the title in determining what is included in this article and include the protests that reliable sources say are connected and involved. Silverseren^C 17:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well that's where the Impact of 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests article comes in. Some people are even saying that this is an Arab thing only and that non-Arab countries should not be included as well. TL565 (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with Silver seren, reliable sources need to be followed in terms of both the article title and article content. The protests are spreading and it is quite likely that reliable sources will in time give the protests a different name, perhaps a non-geographic one or even a global one. However that will happen slower than the protests can spread. Armenia and Azerbaijan are geographically close and reliable sources very closely associate the protests there with those in the region generally described as the 'Middle East and North Africa'. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok fine, lets add China or Wisconsin then, geographic area doesn't matter right? Who cares about the name? Lets just put in any protest anywhere in the world in the article because they "seem connected". You people are being less logical the more I talk about this. I give up. TL565 (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Except that the connections between the protests in China and Wisconsin have not been connected in reliable sources. China may have been somewhat, but hasn't really formed enough to be a real protest or part of what is happening here yet and Wisconsin, obviously, has little to nothing to do with this, as it is about an entirely different issue. But reliable sources, since the onset of protests in Armenia and Azerbaijan , have been specifically connected them with the other protests in this article's subject area. That's why they should be included here. Indirect protests are what belong in the Impact article, but the protests in these two countries are being described as directly related. Silverseren^C 21:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Wikipedia itself concedes that the ill-defined region known as the Middle East can include Armenia and Azerbaijan by some definitions. There's a clear factor of geographic proximity here, and from the very start of protests in both countries, the connection to events elsewhere in the Middle East was pointed out. What's more, if we're willing to include Djibouti and Mauritania as part of North Africa, it shows that we're willing to use the most inclusive definition of these terms to suit both WP:COMMON and the reality of the situation (which is that protests as part of the same wave are taking place in countries that might be considered peripheral/marginal/borderline but for the purposes of this article are part of the same geopolitical region). Armenia, Azerbaijan, Djibouti, and Mauritania certainly have far more claim to being Middle-Eastern or North African than the PRC or Wisconsin, and there are far more historical and political commonalities to be seen there. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Armenia is neither geography wise or politically in the Middle East, and thus putting Armenia here is very inappropriate. Armenia is part of the South Caucasus and is politically part of Europe. Georgian, Armenia, and Azerbaijan all fall in the same category. There is a sharp difference between the Caucasus and the Middle East, cultural, political, history, and obviously geography. This is common knowledge that educated people should know. MosMusy (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

However, the protests in Armenia have been very directly linked to the protests here, unlike most other protests in the Impact article. Because of this, it is likely better for us to utilize WP:IAR in order to include Armenia in this article regardless of the title, because it applies to the topic in general. Silverseren^C 22:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

So then why not make a little change in the name to accommodate them? Like the above poster said, they are a part of the Caucasus, not traditional Middle East. Yeah, some people "claim" they could be, but why not avoid the dispute altogether and change the name? I don't think there is an official name for these protests and Armenia and Azerbaijan still don't seem to be in the major focus. To me, it has to be either rename the article or remove these countries, but can't stay the way it is now. TL565 (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It hasn't changed because there's no consensus to change it. I supported the change too. So we're using an expansive definition of Middle East because it's more irresponsible to exclude Armenia and Azerbaijan than it is to use a definition of the Middle East not preferred by the U.S. State Department. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I also supported the change. But we should be following what sources say are connected to this, regardless of what editors decide the title of the article is. We're meant to reflect the references. The reason why it is so difficult to change the name is because sources have yet to express a more expanded title themselves, which is fine, I suppose. But the sources have also directly linked Armenia and Azerbaijan to this, so it is our responsibility to include them. Silverseren^C 23:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree per MosMusy - There are also other protests very directly related that are not included here including China, the fact is that we can not include every country and these two countries are not part of the arab world and where this all started. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree This WP article is on the Middle East Protests(Arab Spring) that started in Tunusia after Bouazizi killed himself. I think we need reliable sources that clearly say Armenia and Azerbaijan protests are part of Middle East Protests. Kavas (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC))

Syria

I believe that Syria deserves to have its own section, above "Other countries affected," since it has escalated to the point that it can be compared to the beginning of Libya's civil war. They did deploy tanks after all. All other countries in that section are still "Protests," but Syria has escalated to "Uprising." If no one objects, I would like to make that change. Unflavoured (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Support, now an event of very great importance.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Support, for the same reasons. --ERAGON (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Syria is showing great signs of revolutionary activity and therefore, as stated above, should have it's own section in "Other countries affected." 60'smusic (talk) 22:44, 27, April 2011 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.101.22 (talk)

Djibouti

What happened in Djibouti to change the color? There is no evidence of major protests listed anywhere in Wikipedia.Ericl (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree On review, the protests seem fairly minor, considering I'd call the 2011 Armenian protests just on the "major" side and tens of thousands of people calling for regime change have been involved. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree - should be minor. --Smart30 (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

yeman

i think u must move yemen from governmental change to civil uprising because the situation in yemen more close to syria then jordan and kuwait and oman. great article Lebanese journalist

I agree and that change is under discussion at Talk:2011 Yemeni protests. Thanks and hope you stick around. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Saleh recently agreed to step down. When he does ( if he does ), then it can be considered a revolution. But until then, I think it should be kept as major protests. Unflavoured (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

As I've posted on Talk:2011 Yemeni protests, a number of WP:RS are referring to the situation there as an uprising, and it does appear to resemble the situation in Syria in some ways. When Saleh steps down, if reliable sources call it a revolution, I would support the name also being changed then. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Note concerning related pages

I'm honored to be part of the editing community on this page. But I've noticed some of the other articles this page links to, including 2011 Yemeni protests, 2011 Syrian uprising, Impact of 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests, 2011 Armenian protests, 2011 Moroccan protests, and 2011 Azerbaijani protests, as well as the arguably related but unlinked 2011 Kurdish protests in Turkey, have been fairly neglected despite covering ongoing events. If you are able, I think the Wikipedia community would definitely benefit from our crop of good editors here keeping an eye out both for news updates (and adding that information, with citation, to the relevant page) and for unconstructive edits to those pages. Cheers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Arab Spring

Reuters: [17]
Fox News: [18]
CBS: [19]
BBC: [20]
Wall Street Journal: [21]
CNN: [22]
New York Times: [23]
Aljazeera: [24]
Huffington Post: [25]
Guardian: [26]
The Nation: [27]
Time: [28]
Christian Science Monitor: [29]
They are all calling it the Arab Spring. In the article, it is made very clear: "several affected countries are not strictly part of the Arab world," so this is not an issue. Try Googling "Arab Spring" and "Middle East and North Africa protests," and exclude Wikipedia. I believe it is time for the article to be called what everyone else is calling it. Unflavoured (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that it's the term they're all using now. And because it's just a term, even though it uses Arab in it, it doesn't necessary exclude any specific countries, just so long as other news sources specifically attribute them to being a part of the Arab Spring. Silverseren^C 02:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. We have the redirect in, and it's clearly mentioned as an alternate title. I'm willing to have a conversation about moving much of the Arab-specific information here to a new article (and perhaps creating an equivalent for Kurdish protests as well) while keeping this as an umbrella page for the revolutionary wave (including non-Arab states like Djibouti, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iran, and Armenia, as well as marginal cases like Western Sahara and Sudan) as a whole, but I think it would be irresponsible to change the name of this page to be Arab-specific while leaving non-Arab countries in, and I think it would be irresponsible to leave non-Arab countries out. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding me. I speak only about the title of the page, not the content. This has nothing to do with "irresponsible," as we are not saying that we should take out any current countries. The name "Arab Spring" is what is being used by everyone now. The sole place that you can find "Middle East and North Africa protests" is in this article. All news outlets are calling it "the Arab Spring." Unflavoured (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And, as I said, Arab Spring as a title doesn't mean that only Arab countries could be included, as many non-Arab countries have been considered a part of the Arab Spring by reliable sources. Silverseren^C 05:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree: We need to change it to a non-geographic name so that it doesn't cause problems and this name seems popular already. Non-Arab countries can still be apart of the protests and the name is fair because it all started with an Arab country anyway. TL565 (talk) 05:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have misgivings about this, but I'm not going to block consensus and it does appear to be WP:COMMON. I do think we need to consider making changes to the map and table, as Iran, Djibouti, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey (not presently included) are Middle East/North African countries that have experienced protests inspired by the Arab Spring and are considered to be part of the same outbreak of popular unrest - but they aren't Arab countries. I think perhaps the best solution would be to change those countries on the map to a different color (perhaps green) and fold them back into the impact article, giving that article much more prominence on the current page (trying to keep it from just being remainders, and I think a reminder on the map would be useful in that regard). I'd consent to that as long as a couple experienced editors are willing to commit to maintaining and improving the impact article. Adding a new template box for Arab Spring rather than just booting the non-Arab countries out of the current MENA protests template box (which could even be retitled as "Tunisia Effect protests" or something and split up by geographic region) would help with that, too. I dunno, just tossing some ideas around. It's a tough situation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove any of the current content that is not being challenged. This is about a name change for the article, not about removing Iran, Djibouti, etc etc. Unflavoured (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Enclave of Oman

There's a small enclave (Musandam) of Oman at the tip of the United Arab Emirates that's not colored blue on the map like the rest of the country. —Salmar ^(talk) 03:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will fix that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Potential Recategorisation (and new map?)

  Revolution   Ongoing Civil War   Sustained Civil Disorder and Governmental Changes   Protests and Governmental Changes   Major Protests   Protests

As the situation is constantly developing, I think its worth thinking about how we are representing it. I have come up with a draft new map (right) to combat several things that I don't think work with the current one, including:

• Not showing the level of protest where there are government changes. Also having some disparity between whether the level of protest or government changes are shown (eg. Bahrain vs. Yemen)
• That Syria is represented separately. To me, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain all bear similar levels of what I have called 'Sustained Civil Disorder' (with significant numbers of dead within ongoing protests).
• That the colour scheme has been lost, and it is no longer 'graphic' enough to make a visual impact

I think it is worth getting more input on this, even if this isn't this plan isn't used directly on the main page. My main question is - do you think this system of categorisation works better than the existing? Twelvechairs (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support I love this, and I think we should absolutely use this map. I'm not sure I'd classify Bahrain as having "sustained civil disorder" as I think protests that are ongoing are at a fairly subdued level, but that's just a quibble. I definitely agree that Yemen and Syria should have the same status, and I've put in a request to that effect over at 2011 Yemeni protests. Anyway, great job, and the color scheme is fantastic as well. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - I vote in favor of the map, although I too, express concern over Bahrain's status, as it is not in the same situation as Yemen-Syria.--Smart30 (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The map is excellent but Turkey should belong to major protests —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.183.50 (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Add Turkey to "other regional incidents"?

As we appear to be at loggerheads as to whether the 2011 Kurdish protests in Turkey are properly part of this wave of demonstrations - with some arguing that they are the continuance of a long series of protests that have recently flared up not because of the "Arab Spring", but because of approaching elections, and others arguing that commentators and organizers of protests have drawn explicit parallels and cited inspiration from the protests elsewhere in the Middle East (and in North Africa) - I think a compromise may be in order. This page makes no mention of these ongoing demonstrations in Turkey at all, which makes no sense, because the impact has clearly been felt there. So, my proposal is to include Turkey in the "other regional incidents" while using language that makes it clear that there are other things going on in Turkey, but the success of the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions and the protests among Kurds in Syria and Iraq have been cited as an influence on the turn protests have taken this year.

That would bring the Turkey protests roughly in line with the protests in Western Sahara, which we do mention on this page while making it explicit that the Sahrawis have caught a wave rather than actually starting fresh protests because unrest is in the neighborhood and the regime is unpopular (which seems to be the situation in all of the other countries currently on the map; a few of these countries were already unstable, but they weren't accustomed to anything like major protests just starting up spontaneously). -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ordering the table by 'result'

I ordered the table by the "result" column, and as I expected, it was ordered by alphabetically by the name of the outcome. It would, I think, be much better if we could get it to sort by the "severity" of the result, eg: Revolution, Armed conflict, Governmental changes, Civil uprising, Major protests, Minor protests. I was considering adding in invisible unicode characters at the start of the names, but I didn't know if there are enough, and it would be easily broken by an unwitting editor. Is there any way we can make this happen? maybe a template of some kind? Quantum Burrito (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we pretty much just copy-and-paste that unicode text anyway. If you know how to do it, I'd say go ahead and add it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Western Sahara flag

Why not have a flag for western sahara when we have one for the palestinian territories? Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 00:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Palestinian flag isn't disputed. The flag of the territorial authority is the same as the flag claimed by the partially recognized country. However, in Western Sahara, the claim of the SADR conflicts with that of Morocco, which holds that Western Sahara exists under the Moroccan flag. In keeping with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, we are therefore not endorsing either view by not using either flag for the territory. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I see, but the fact is that the palestinian authority doesn't control the whole territory and much of the palestinian territories is in fact disputed, controlled and claimed by Israel, so in that regard the situation is the same for the palestinian territories as western sahara. So we should either not use the flag or instead of Palestinian territories write Palestinian authority whos flag isn't disputed.Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 00:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Much of the Palestinian territories is occupied and partially administered by Israel, but the Israeli government does not consider the territories to come under the Israeli flag. It's a subtly different situation. Morocco and the Polisario Front refuse to work with one another, while Israel and the Palestinian National Authority have an agreement whereby the Palestinian territories themselves exist - as established by Israel. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't East Jerusalem ofthen considered part of the palestinian territories? Because I can guarantue you that the Israeli goverment consider it to come under the Israeli Flag. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 00:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the Palestinian territories article itself East Jerusalem is part of the palestinian territories and recognized as such by the UN and the palestinians, but Israel claims this territory and as I said the Israeli goverment definitively consider it to come under Israeli flag. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 00:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

East Jerusalem is claimed by Israel as part of its territory, though it is geopolitically considered part of the West Bank and the Palestinian National Authority believes East Jerusalem should be part of the Palestinian territories. But that's an issue of disputed territory rather than a disputed flag. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it would be best to use both flags for Western Sahara. Also, same should be done for Libya. --93.139.0.116 (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)