Talk:Yemeni revolution/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. 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

cats

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

Categories are supposed to be in the most specific subcategories. i suspect that is why several categories were removed, since they are super-categories.

It seems reasonable to me that [[:Category:2010–2011 Arab world protests|Yemen]] is (or should be, by people working on sub- and super- categorisation) a subcategory of:

and Category:21st-century revolutions seems rather WP:CRYSTALballing at the moment, and [[:Category:2010–2011 Arab world protests|Yemen]] should also be a subcategory of Category:21st-century revolutions anyway.

i didn't do the removal, i'm just guessing why. Boud (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC) / Minor corrections. Boud (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

i'm not quite sure of how the subcategorisation works when there are [[Category:something-generic|something-specific]] type categories. Someone who has checked out the proper Venn diagram implementation can comment better here... Boud (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC) (s/Zenn/Venn = minor Sreudian flip correction :P. Boud (talk) 09:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC))

Growing internal opposition to Saleh

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

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

it may be the closes to what we seek but its still only an american opinion.

Im moving to a new section, see if its okay. if not well come back and dsicuss.Lihaas (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it's an opinion is not in itself a problem.
Regarding the section, it doesn't make sense as a "reaction". It's a "pre-action" (pre-judgment), more commonly called "Background" in these type of Wikipedia articles. 2009 chronologically precedes 2011. An article in general does not have to be purely chronological, but chronology generally is a natural way of organising material. Saleh's advisors were, according to Angie Bryan, starting to criticise him in the last few months of 2009. That happened before the Tunisian Revolution and the spread of protests in the Arab world of early 2011. Those advisors did not react (at that time) to the Arab world 2011 protests. Boud (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

im not saying its a problem, otherwise it wouldnt even be here.

Hear your point about "reaction," but its also a opinion of one state. to set that as fact would be pov. Perhaps naother section of "exteral views/actions" could be added. "according to Angie Bryan" is the caveat. Others have other opinions naturally. Would Saleh say the same? the opposition? other sattes? like saudi?Lihaas (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The US diplomatic cables often tend to be summaries of things that are "generally known" by locals and by people who study a country carefully enough, so this is unlikely to be the only possible source - it's just (probably) the easiest source to find. There could be disagreement on the claim. i am certainly not against including other POVs on this. Academics in English-speaking countries who study Yemen, and Arabic-language sources from Yemen or Arabic-speaking academics in the Arab world or elsewhere may have online material on this. If Saleh has denied the claim, then let's add that. Boud (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Minor modifs, Boud (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC).

thats not true at all, reading the india ones its complete nonsense and thereir opinion thereof. although trahul gandhi stuff et al. it needs to be verified neutrally if its ot written as a reaction.Lihaas (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

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

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

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

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

Day of Rage: 20,000 protesters

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

Osama bin laden

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

Sanaa presidential palace

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

Wikipedians witness

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

do that for now, it nothing comes then we can remove it. the tag si also a call for other users who may have a source.Lihaas (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably the best would be to do original reporting at {{sec link auto}}, and if the report is accepted at wikinews, then i expect it can be used as a source here (so not only as a wikinews templated sidebox). At least in principle, an original report with detailed notes, following the minimum of the recommendations at {{sec link auto}}, should (could?) count as "fact-checked and reliable", though personally i haven't checked any original wikinews reports for several years... Boud (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Timeline condense

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

For now I just moved it to the end of the article. I wouldn't recommend condensing it now, as the protests are still in progress. Later on it will be clear what were important turning points and so forth. No rush. Flatterworld (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, The Egyptian Liberal didn't like that, so he reverted it "because it didn't look like Egypt's". So we now have a section called 'Analysis' which consists of nothing but a 'discussion' of the use of the color pink, and everything else is scrambled around. Flatterworld (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

We can split it off after the page expands a bit. Similar to the other protests.Lihaas (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

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

As soon as Ali leaves, we spilt the timeline to a different page (He will leave very soon, Maybe before the friday). The article right now is mainly about the timeline. No need to rush things up. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Refs

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

I am sick and tired of fixing up incorrect refs. If you don't know how to use the name parameter of a ref, then please leave it to those of us who do. Flatterworld (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, calm down and be WP:Civil, not is shouting.

what name refs are you talking about? Lihaas (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

instead of such edit summaries it would help to discuss (something you still didnt do before fighting back). 1. the red links are sea of people who are not notable to ever have a page. (although i suppose the ministries as red links are valid). 2. we know the rulign party, why eb vague? 3. why was the first one removed?Lihaas (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Flatterworld, Is this the first article for you to work on about the MENA protests? If its, Please have a look the Egyptian one to understand how the outline of the page should look like (We had discussed there before and the majority agreed to it). Another thing, Lihaas is right about the Refs. It ok to have different opinion just try to be claimer when representing your point of view. and to everyone, else keep in mind that some of the family member's of the victims reads these pages, so always be respectful. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

First, I suggest you check my contributions before you read further. Second, this is not the first or only 'discussion' I have had with Lihaas about this. She has refused to do anything but ignore 'edit conflicts' and edit comments and simply replaces whatever's been done with whatever she wants. Wikipedia has used INLINE citations for several years now. We do NOT cite a heading, because people can add whatever names they like below whether it's within that citation or not. Who's going to check it out? Furthermore, we are relying mostly on live blogs at this point (Al Jazeera and the Guardian). Sometimes those are retracted or corrected, which is why we update the citations to more reliable articles (often within the same news source) as they become available. Obviously that means each person must have his/her own citation. Third, I see you've moved the daily minutiae back to the top so the focus is on the oldest stuff as much as possible. That's your 'improvement'? As I noted in my edit comment at the time, the timeline was overwhelming the article - but obviously you think that's immaterial. And all your other 'corrections' on structure have also helped bury the important material just so it 'matches' the mistakes you should have learned from with the Egyptian article. Since that's clearly your only goal here, have at it. If you bothered to show me the slightest bit of respect, or considered the reasons for my changes BEFORE reversing them and then lecturing me, I'd be interested in having an actual discussion with you. Flatterworld (talk)

Good god man/woman, this is not a fight. We having a discussing here only. One, I have nothing but respect to everyone who takes time from their busy life to help improve wikipedia; New or old editors. You two are fighting about a non-issue really. The Refs thing is not a big deal. People have different ways of doing it. It doesnt mean one is right and other is wrong. I happened to do it Lihaas and therefor, I agree with her. That's about it. As for the live blog issue, Also it's not that big of a deal. Info is going to be coming somedays with the speed of light and its hard to find a news article about the topic right away so we use the blogs. After the day is over, I usually read the blogs again to make sure it matches what's written in the article. IF it does not, I ask for more sources. Now, the outline of the article, it goes like this

Background
Protests (Timeline)
Domestic responses
International reactions
Analysis

people usually come to read the timeline (I do it in in other articles about the protests). It the main meal. the others are side dishes. hence it needs to be at the top, that's why we have done it in every single article about any protests in MENA which by the way I had worked on almost each one of them. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 05:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Change the name to Yemeni Revolt?

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

Change name to "2011 Yemeni Revolution"

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

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

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

Support Revolution, Uprising, or Civil War. Altho I think we might want to hold off on revolution until there is a massive change (Saleh steps down, new elections, etc...) So Uprising may be the best right now.--Metallurgist (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep for now as it's likely to be resolved very soon and we don't need a different name every day. Flatterworld (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep for now I agree with Flatterworld. Wehn ali leaves (he will soon), we will changed it to that name but for now, it stays the same. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose for now It appears that Saleh will step down soon, but we should wait until that happens until the article is re-named as a revolution. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose It's not a revolution until the leader is ousted from power. Saleh is still in power for now. Silver seren^C 09:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: That's not the definition of a revolution. The situation in Yemen exhausts most existing definitions of "revolution". ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 10:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's how we've been defining revolution for the area in general. Yemen is not even close to the "Armed conflict" level that Libya is labeled as and that is itself a step below "Revolution". I could support uprising, but not revolution at this time, for the standards that we've set for these articles. Silver seren^C 10:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose for now Negotiations for Salah's resignation are going on as we type, and the situation is deteriorating, which means that if he's not gone within 24-48 hours, there's going to be a small civil war.Ericl (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose for now - Until Saleh resigns, it's not a revolution, as in Tunisia or Egypt - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Houthi rebels

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

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

I think we should include these events in this article.

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

photos

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

None so far, but it doesn't hurt to ask! kencf0618 (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I sent this user a message in flickr - hopefully he will agree to re-license some of his images so that they are usable here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

He agreed, and now we have some nice photos! Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Resignations

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

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

President for 32 years?

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

He was the prisident of Yemen Arab Republic from 1978 to 1990, and continued as the prisident of Yemen after unification till now.--Email4mobile (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, need to clarify thatLihaas (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! :-)Wipsenade (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

On changing the name

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

i haven't been following the Yemen situation much, but if Vice-President Abd al-Rab Mansur al-Hadi becomes the new president under the GCC proposal, would his becoming president within the context of non-stop protest + the GCC mediation be enough for the word "Revolution"? The only thing that Wikipedia knows about him (so far) is three sentences referenced from... the CIA. Part of the name debate will depend on what the mainstream media say, and whether or not "Revolution" can count as a descriptive term. With a small "r" it can be a descriptive term under WP:NAME, while with a big "R" it would have to be a widely used term.

In any case, anyone looking for work to do :P might want to consider working on Abd al-Rab Mansur al-Hadi: it would be rather embarrassing for Wikipedia if the quality of the article doesn't improve (half the article (= a 1 sentence paragraph) presently consists of alternative name transliterations!) by the time he becomes (interim) President... (Meanwhile, frequent "rare" protests north of the border certainly don't (yet) qualify as a revolution, even though at least one pundit has used that word.) Boud (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

AJE: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/04/20114231818133946.html It sounds like the plan would be for presidential elections within 2 months of Saleh resigning, and Abd al-Rab Mansur al-Hadi as interim president would presumably be in too weak a political position to override that. My guess is that "r"evolution as a descriptive term would be justified. That would avoid any urgent pressure for debate on whether or not it's the "most widely used" term, so it's my suggestion. A decision on "upgrading" from "revolution" to "Revolution" could wait for a longer time frame (e.g. a few months to a year or more) to get a long term perspective. Boud (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC) (minor clarification Boud (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC))

The Muslim Brotherhood

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

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

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

I said Nasserites, Socialists, the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda, User:82.11.86.202.Wipsenade (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

For the first post, let's be careful how we phrase that. That source does not state that those entities are behind the protest, but that Saleh claims they are. We can report what someone claims as their claim, but not as the truth. As for the second post, I think you need to track down some more RS. At least some of the sources listed do not fall into that category.204.65.34.242 (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I re-phrase it "he bleaves that".Wipsenade (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

What dictators say they believe and what they actually believe are two separate things. We can report on Saleh's accusations, but we can't pull thoughts out of his brain. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Point taken.Wipsenade (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Uprising?

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

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

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

Support I agree that it has moved beyond merely major protest/governmental changes and should be placed with Syria as a civil uprising. The announcement of Saleh's 'resignation' or transition or whatever it is being called would suggest this uprising is taking on the characteristics of a Egyptian/Tunisian Revolution. So YES Uprising for now but it is becoming more revolutionary. George5210 (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Support This is certainly an uprising, and hopefully, in the future, a Revolution. --Smart30 (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Support The situation seems to have gotten to the point that it is appropriate to term it an uprising. Silver seren^C 05:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Support Its not a protest movement anymore; its an uprising -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Support I agree, should be an uprising. --ERAGON (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Support Flatterworld (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Support I agree it is so widespread that it is appropriate to term it an uprising.Wipsenade (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Support I agree also; "civil uprising" is the best term to describe the ongoing situation in Yemen at this point and many sources have described it as such. DonT15 (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Support It's not just a protest, now is an uprising.213.81.122.241 (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Support This is close enough to at least "revolution" or possibly even "Revolution" that "uprising" is clearly supported at the moment, by the sources, as a descriptive name under WP:NAME. It's not clear to me that the Syrian protests have been as much an uprising as the Bahraini protests. The Bahraini protests dominated the capital Manama, but the Syrian ones have not had a multi-week occupation of a central Damascus location. In any case, changing the Bahraini protests page to uprising should be discussed over there. Boud (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Splitting the Timeline

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

Agree - Make it so. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree Timeline of the 2011 Yemeni uprising --Smart (talk) 04:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

All done. Thanks Smart. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Update

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

Attempted coup?

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

Saleh will not return to Yemen

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

Dead link

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

http://www.forexyard.com/en/news/Brent-oil-tops-103-on-Egypt-violence-Yemen-2011-02-03T114224Z-UPDATE-6
- In Domestic responses to the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 on 2011-03-17 13:21:50, Error: [Errno 10054] An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host
- In 2011 Yemeni uprising on 2011-06-19 03:07:57, Error: [Errno 10054] An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host

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

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

Should we mention this?

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

Yemeni Revolution

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

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

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

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

Look, I can be accused of many things, but not of pro-Saleh PoV. Some of my friends are active in Arab Spring (on the revolutionary side), so I, naturally, support them. The difference between Yemen and Tunisia or Egypt is that in Yemen, the high ranked members of the former regime are still wanting to stay in power, while in both Tunisia and Egypt, all high ranked military officers, political officials, etc. stated they won't run in the next elections. I would leave Libya aside (because it was not a revolution, but a foreign intervention, which eventually resulted in overthrowing of the government). HeadlessMaster (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Running in the elections doesnt mean that government wasnt overthrown. For example after 1989 revolutions in Central and Eastern Europe everywhere Communist Parties run in upcoming elections despite not changing their member structure. In Czechoslovakia government of national unity - opposition and Communist Party oversaw transition period till first elections similiary to Yemeni government of national unity. However my point is - government was formed by both opposition and coalition members, thus we have significant change in government. And since, despite initial informations, Saleh remained president, although only pro-forma with power handed to vice-president, officialy he is still president of country and thus we shouldn´t call it revolution yet. Changing Arab Spring article Yemeni section to government overthrown as in case of Tunisia, Egypt or Libya is ok but renaming the article from Uprising to Revolution should be postponed until officialy Saleh is out of power, in other words in February when presidential elections will take the place (and if they won´t be rigged Saleh has about 0 chance of winning it). EllsworthSK (talk) 02:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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