Talk:Social media's role in the Arab Spring

Ianmckeachie (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC) Ianmckeachie (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Edits Needed
Hello all! I noticed some changes needing to be made on this article and thought I'd check in before making any big edits. Overall, I'd like to edit this article for:
 * Sentence structure (phrasing)
 * Paragraph information structure
 * Links
 * Images
 * Check for grammar and spelling

I'd like to go ahead and edit the first sentence of the article so that the concept of the article is clear. I've included the original and my rewritten version below.

Original:“The role played by social media during the Arab Spring as a revolutionary wave of demonstrations and protests (both non-violent and violent), riots, and civil wars in the Arab world represents a highly controversial issue. The impact of social media on the events in the Middle East and North Africa as a factor of political uprising and turmoil is highly debatable and fostered both criticism and approval.[1] Protests took place both in states with a very high level of Internet usage (such as Bahrain with 88% of its population online in 2011) and in states with one of the lowest Internet penetration (Yemen and Libya).[2]”

Rewrite:Social media’s role in the revolutionary wave of demonstrations and protests that came to be know as the Arab Spring remains a highly debated subject. Uprisings occurred both in states with very high levels of internet usage (such as Bahrain, with 88% of its population online in 2011) and in states with some of the lowest internet penetration (Yemen and Libya, with only XX% of its population online).

Please comment if you have opinions/hesitations about these changes! Thanks. Birkentalk (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference to Libya in the lead section
I undid the latest edit to Social media and the Arab Spring that removed reference to Libya in the lead section, and wanted to explain why. Before the edit, the lead section said this (I added the emphasis):

I believe that it is appropriate to keep it this way, because the source says this:

If someone has a new source that refutes the existing source, let's add that to the article and then make the edit. Thanks, Romhilde (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Article Could Use Updating
While the article summarizes scholarly debate about its topic, the sources are mostly over ten years old as I write this. I just added one quotation from _Twitter and Tear Gas_, a well-known book on the subject, which came out in 2017. Someone could more thoroughly update the whole article, using this and other sources. Aurodea108 (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I just checked the use of the Update template, but I think what I said above doesn't quite meet that standard, it's more of a suggestion. Aurodea108 (talk) 04:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)