Jump to content

Talk:Tunisian revolution

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andrewa (talk | contribs) at 11:43, 25 February 2011 (→‎Requested move: moved). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Islam Politics and Influences

Evidence of attempts to use this protest to create a new regime (popular or otherwise) based on Islamic Law should not be suppressed or hidden or denied or removed from this article (nor should people refrain from adding them). Regardless of the hype about this being a revolution, while the former leader of Tunisia was corrupt and authoritarian (as are most African governments, it would seem, regardless if their politics) ... a possible outcome of all of this is that strong Islamic law will be established in Tunisia and the usual implications will result. While Tunisians may be poor and suffering, it is very likely that a stronger religious presence will be argued as the answer to their problems, and there may very likely be resulting suppression of human rights (of women, homosexuals, forced religious schooling of children, etc)... I know that people want to frame this in other terms but history has shown that revolutions like this usually lead to conservative religious rule and not pluralistic democratic/liberty-based tolerant governments (regardless of what labels they use.) If there is any place where attempts to set up a new purely Islamic regime should not be denied or covered up it is Wikipedia. In Iran, a lot of people had hoped that the Shahs oust would lead to a European style populist democratic/liberty based government, and it did not. We shouldn't pretend that such a thing won't happen in Tunisia either, and any hints at attempts by muslims to influence or lead this event should not be disputed or removed out of hand. Wikipedians need to document cases where protesters are calling for the following: Islamic law, a caliphate, an intifada (holy war) a pro-Arab centralized government with single party rule and similar. People should not reflexively censor or dispute any such reports automatically... any such censorship will make this article of far less value to Wikipedia users the world at large.----Radical Mallard (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree 100%. That is frankly POV the event is not over and frankly because there is no historical precedent to popular revolt based on socioeconomic events in the Arab world I don't think the outcome of these protests is yet clear. Also your comment reeks of stereotype as that states with majority Islamic religion cannot have a democratic/liberty based government. If Islam is becoming more modest as Christianity did at the turn of the 20th century. (Which is something we can't realize right now) Then it is certainly probable to have a truly free Islamic state. --Kuzwa (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that mainstream sources are speaking of the hopes Islamic parties have of using this event to their advantage, and Islamists around the world are applauding the uprising. (Time)(AlArabiya)(SAPA-AFP)(ANSAmed)(Ma'an)(Reuters)(AsiaNews)(Human Events)(PressTV). So whether or not Kuzwa disagrees is irrelevant. The fact is that these things are possiblities that are openly desired by Islamists and that are being discussed in the public forum, so they have a place in this article. 99.231.200.55 (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I am mentioning these articles in a better format below. Please make a Wikipedia account and sign your username with four tilde characters in the future? --Radical Mallard (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A sentence about this could be appropriate. Something along the lines of "some commentators believe that the Tunisian movement (or whatever) could lead to an increase in influence of Islamic parties". That is all it deserves, and not all of those sources are good. Only Reuters is watertight, and its article does speculate alot, so keep that in mind. ValenShephard (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only Reuters is watertight? Remember Adnan Hajj? If Reuters is acceptable, what's wrong with time? Why are Italian and South African and Middle Eastern news agencies not reliable? What about AP (AP)? What about (The Canadian Press)?. 99.231.200.55 (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about (France24) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.200.55 (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
agreed that this cant be asserted as some gospel fact BUT the m,ention of suggestiongs that islamic parties would win should be added probably to the media anylsys part. (and the reactions by the party can be added to either domestic responses ror general reactions)(Lihaas (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
It is not "POV" to ask that people not censor the article and that when clear and blatant statements about the desire for a single-party authoritarian Islamic-law based rule are made, as part of the protests, that this not be censored, disputed, attacked, or covered up in a reflexive, knee-jerk way. It is obvious that if people wanted such one tactic would be to deny it until the new regime was in place. If people involved in the movement honestly think homosexuals or women who talk back to their husbands should be beaten, jailed or executed then it should not be hidden or lied about. ---Radical Mallard (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed two inappropriate and badly formatted comments. I want to point out here that unsigned comments (you need to make a Wikipedia account, linked to an email address, and sign your comments with four tilde characters... the key on an English keyboard above the "Tab") and comments that do not discuss how to improve this article are inappropriate, considered soapbox, and are subject to removal. They are against the rules of Wikipedia. This is not a place to make claims about conspiracies by Israel or America, but to talk about this article and how to improve it. If people in Tunisia or Egypt - even though they are brought up under Islam - argue that this is a secular protest for a secular revolution and government, then it is relevant to this article. If religious people from Tunisia or Egypt are arguing for a single-party Islamic government like the Taliban of Afghanistan or the government of Sudan then this is also relevant (and NO assumptions or stereotypes about Arabs, Muslims, or North Africans are to be used or implied.. none whatsoever). This is not a place to argue about conspiracies or plots by "religious enemies", this is a place to talk about the fact on the ground in Tunisia and other North African and Middle Eastern counties. I should also point out that the basic concepts of democracy have been under attack in the United States and in Israel at different times and that regardless of rhetoric by politicians, liberty and democracy are not synonymous with "the west". People in all western countries have had to fight very hard for democratic and liberty/freedom based rights that the government and corporations and conservative & market-rule forces of those countries resisted and tried to suppress. For someone to try to make it seem like when people talk about "Secular", or "liberty" or "democracy" or "popular government" and "term limits" to be compared to support for western corporations or for Christian or corporate or western military interests is a disgrace and a way to cloud the issue. There is a lot of proof that the United states itself has just as many religious fundamentalist Christians as Arab and Persian and North African countries have Islamic fundamentalists... and Israel too has just as many Jewish fundamentalists who dictate Israeli policy... the difference between a country with a large vocal group of Islamic fundamentalists that control the government, and a country with a large population of vocal christian and Jewish fundamentalists that do not have absolute political power is the understanding by the population that a secular government best serves the people and "Delivers the goods" every day - that is, does the basic job of government and no more. If the people of Egypt or Tunisia wish for a secular government then Wikipedia best serves its purpose by documenting this factual information. If the people of Tunisia and Egypt ultimately want a religious theocracy then this too should be reported... but I must point out that this documentation needs to be as objective and impartial as possible. There is to be no bias here for or against the east or west or one religion or another. That is the best we can all do here on Wikipedia. Here are some articles of relevance:

--Radical Mallard (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bouazizi revolution

Much of the press is also referring to this as the "Bouazizi Revolution" (search on Google, and also the BBC mentioned it the other day), in honour of the man who set himself on fire and started this revolution. Perhaps it is worth mentioning in the opening line that it is one of the alternative names?--Jonesy1289 (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wouldnt mind it being added to the lastpara in the lead that lists the various names. OR we could ahve a "nomenclature" subsection womewhere to list them all.(Lihaas (talk) 08:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
  • If it is not already, I recommend creating the page Bouazizi Revolution as a redirect to this article. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC) I have now gone ahead and done so. Hopefully this will not be an issue for anybody. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion was: Page moved to 2010–2011 Tunisian revolution - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Move to "Revolution" in title (Or leave it the same)

Resolved

Okay I am renewing the discussion down here because the one up above is a bit confusing on where consensus stands. Please place Support or Oppose on the proposals.

Proposal One: Jasmine Revolution

  • This is what the event is being referreed to by western media.

(Your comments here)

Proposal Two: Tunisian Revolution

  • I saw this placed in the article's lead so why not.

This is the best idea. It clearly was a revolution. Philadelphia 2009 (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Google gets five times as many hits for "Tunisian revolution" compared to "Tunisian uprising". -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Google gets five times as many hits for "Tunisian revolution" compared to "Tunisian uprising". And how I read Revolution it seems to meet the definition: "revolutions entail not only mass mobilization and regime change, but also more or less rapid and fundamental social, economic and/or cultural change, during or soon after the struggle for state power." Also it is listed in List of revolutions and rebellions. Also being called a revolution by Al Jazeera Glennconti (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Glennconti. Also, the Arab street (from which I have recently been evacuated) is consistent in referring to the events in Tunisia as a thawra, i.e. revolution. Lockesdonkey (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There has never been anything similar to this in Tunisia before, so it's clear that this is the "Tunisian Revolution". I agree with 78.2.44.170 that having "uprising" in the title sounds as if the Tunisians rebelled against a foreign power. --Tocino 22:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the president had stepped down (it's one of the points of revolution). And let's not to cling on pitfalls trying to pove something because you personally don't like the term "revolution" to be used in regards to this event. In Arabic world it's known as revolution, that's important since Tunis is a part of it. NYTimes has officially marked it as revolution. What else as a proof you need? Userpd (talk)
Wikipedia is not based on google hits we dont cater to public opinion. Otherwise ti would be "googlepedia" and it wouldnt be reliable. Google aside, lets see the scope of articles (RS sources) that mention this...
per Lockesdonkey consensus is not built by vote countring (ie "per xxx")Lihaas (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most reliable sources are calling it a "revolution". Both in the region and not. I don't know what you are waiting for. I would think being the last source to call what is happening a revolution is being risk averse to the point of being counter productive (ie being less than informative). WP certainly isn't going to shock anyone at this point by calling it a revolution. The lead for days has been calling it the Tunisian revolution just to keep everybody from correcting the article. Glennconti (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to Tunisia Online News calling it the Tunisian revolution. Not to mention the NY Times, the LA Times, Time Magazine, Guardian UK, and Al Jazeera. I think you are misconstruing WP's use of consensus. We do not need consensus from all news media before we include the facts. I bet Chinese news will never call this a revolution. Are you waiting for the Communist Chinese to come on board?Glennconti (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though I would consider keeping the year(s) in the title, at least for some time. An article's title should coincide with (one of) the subject's name(s) given in the lede (or be a typical shortening of it), and the lede names the event a "revolution" since about a week. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support, per Glennconti. See definition of revolution and uprising (then go on to click on Rebellion and then read the Wikipedia article and decide on which side is it on more so. I feel the revolution article gives it support. Then here are some articles I found on the google page mentioning it as the Tunisian revolution: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Then here are some newer news reports I found with Google news (limited to last week): [7], [8], [9], [10]. Also note that they are even calling the events in Egypt a revolution (Time magazine front cover on the latest issue plus article) yet that is still very much ongoing. I have no strong opinion on whether the dates should remain on the article apart from saying that they should go with whatever is most suitable (although if there has never been a "revolution" in Tunisia before then is there a point of labeling it with a date when there has only been one revolution?).Calaka (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS. It seems that the article is already being called as revolution in the lead yet the article name has yet not changed. I would suggest consistency before a decision is made (i.e. so move the article to tunisia revolution or change the lead until a decision has been made).Calaka (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PPS. Do also note articles 10 - 17 in this wiki article [11].Calaka (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above, the governemnt was ousted here and started a whole series of events. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support everyone not seeing these 2 events as revolutions is in a delusion, out of touch with reality (sounds familiar?). Much less has been called a revolution--78.3.222.224 (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it resulted in the overthrow of the government and all the major press outlets are uniformly referring to these events as a revolution.

GrahamNoyes (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal Three: Bouazizi revolution

  • See the above talk discussion for this one.

(Your comments here)

Proposal Four: Dignity Revolution

  • I have no idea the orgins of this one, I saw it placed in the article though and decided to mention it here.

(Your comments here)

Proposal Five: Leave the article as 2010–2011 Tunisian uprising

  • The current name of the article.
  • Support (See my comment of February 11 below.) Actual power has not been taken from the established regime, although the movement led the regime to adjust its structure and actions. I power would have been taken by the movement or by a political regime established by the movement permanently, it would be a successful revolution, if such a change of power would be temporary only, it would be a revolution that would have been unsuccessful, at least in this respect. As none of this happened so far, the article describes an uprising, although we may add the diffent labels for the event, such as Jasmine revolution, to the lead section.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
uprising fits more to be a sudden armed struggle against a foreign occupier, like Warsaw Uprising or the First Serbian Uprising. And Tunisia looks more like the French Revolution than Warsaw if I may say so.--78.2.44.170 (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at this article for some days now. In the mean time, the new government has repressed an attempted coup by the old regime, so there is definitely a change in regime now, and the current name, i.e. "2010-2011 Tunisian Revolution" is appropriate. (My guess is that this article will be renamed to "Tunisian revolution of 2011" at some point in the future.)  Cs32en Talk to me  23:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong support we need multipel RS and diverse ones to change it first to jasmine, and secondly revoltion. only western sources have used this so far in the dire need to label anything for sensationalismLihaas (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment I agree with IP Address Guy, and as I've stated at least twice on the page, independent Arabic-language sources consistently call this a revolution. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and the people who know it best are calling it a duck...could you explain to me how we're in the least bit uncertain that it is, in fact, a duck? I do agree that calling it the "Jasmine" Revolution, however, is a bad idea, since the phrase is basically unknown in the Arab World; "Tunisian Revolution" (there not having been another revolution in Tunisia, year-based disambiguation is unnecessary) is likely the best title.
      • Strong Support I'd say if we named it "revolution" it would be a possible that we are not being neutral. Keep it as it is. 76.254.35.199 (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...

Also per someone above, the event is not over. Ben Ali is still in exile pending a warrant, a constitution is nt in place, elections havent happened. Will there be a counter-reactions? we cant say with no solid changes.Lihaas (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
talk about the devil, JUTS heard on al ajzeera that the old security structure still inplace and opposition warning it is not safe yet. and that people to need to still matintain whats been gainedLihaas (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV

consensus is NOT deternmined in a day. the arguement is a pretty tight 5-3 and certainly needs more time, this is NOT a news service. (And its not a proper noun either). Furthermore the source cites WIKI[EDIA, wiki[edia cant cite itself.Lihaas (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Lihaas you are the last man (non-IP) standing to oppose. Glennconti (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
okay.  Done but its the 'r' is not caps as in a proper noun.Lihaas (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

post-ouster reactions in tunisian life

ban on hijab lifted (reason given my press tv is that it was banned a a result of french secularism seeiking to impose state norms)Lihaas (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Past-tense

Why does the lead say "was a series of street demonstrations"? And the end date of January 27? The protests seem to still be going on: [12]. Jmj713 (talk) 04:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say that protests mostly ended on January 27, but there are still some protests against the lack of change of the police, but the country seems to be cooling off. So I would say "mostly ended on January 27". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.35.199 (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
agree with Jmj713 if sentiment is ongoin its clearyly NOT overLihaas (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

clean/GA

now that the event is esentially done we need to review and clean the article and update where necessary so as to be read for GA-nomination. Last time it was shot down primarily because it was ongoing, now its mostly refinsed so we can clean it up a bit. Anyone volunteering to help on thi GA?Lihaas (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

update: done a preliminary reorg to consolidate the protests section into one part, although the likes of "Post-Ben Ali government" could e merged into an existing section.Lihaas (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
but there's a new problem with dozens of vessels with immigrants heading to Lampedusa--93.137.6.95 (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thats been added to the intl reactions page as italy is outside tunisia. do you think it should be elsewhere?Lihaas (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy: Article titles

This page should be moved to Tunisian Revolution.

Wikipedia:Article titles states twice that title should "Be precise, but only as precise as necessary." The example given in that policy is that we use Apollo program, not United States Apollo program (1961–75). It is unambiguous that when one speaks of the Tunisian Revolution, we are referring to the events that began late last year and continue today, so in accordance with our policy the page should be moved.

To me this seems very straightforward, but please comment here. Thanks to all --Neutralitytalk 14:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


2010–2011 Tunisian revolution → Tunisian Revolution — Suggesting move per User:Neutrality in the section above this. Under Wikipedia:Article titles, it is stated that article titles should "be precise, but only as precise as necessary." As there do not appear to have not been any other defined revolutions in Tunisian history, the proposed title would seem appropriate. The move is supported by the sources quoted in this article and would correspond with most other revolution articles on Wikipedia (such as French Revolution, Iranian Revolution, Cuban Revolution etc.)-The Celestial City (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as there was no other Tunisian Revolution. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the path to Tunisian independence appears to indicate a protacted low-level conflict of many years before the French withdrew, so this can be constructed as a revolution. 64.229.100.61 (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I've never heard it referred to as such. With some exceptions, most wars of independence are not usually termed revolutions – see Mexican War of Independence and the separate Mexican Revolution; Argentine War of Independence and the separate Argentine Revolution; Cuban War of Independence and the separate Cuban Revolution. It is relatively unusual to refer to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War as the "Israeli Revolution", or the Mau Mau Uprising as the "Kenyan Revolution", or the Wars of Italian Independence as the "Italian Revolution". The Celestial City (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this as Celestial City noted above. Neutralitytalk 15:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There were coups in Tunisia previously, but not revolutions. Twilightchill t 10:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Completely agree. There are many places on Wikipedia where the "year" designation is totally unecessary. Colipon+(Talk) 05:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per COMMONNAME and common sense. Why editors feel the need to pin the year to the front of every article about an event is a mystery to me. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, seems to have been move-protected under the wrong name - this was the title that came out of the previous discussion as well.--Kotniski (talk) 08:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Lack of support on beaten Italian reporter

The article references the beating of Italian reporter Claudio Rubino, but the source cited ([49]) is apparently the only one on the Internet that knows about the story. Beyond that, the source is just a video and a short caption. I propose that this event be removed on the grounds of lack of evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.77.54 (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background to the revolution

Ok, I am not an expert on this subject or Wikipedia so this might violate some rules. Please don't bite me. However, I think that the article fails to mention something.

Supposedly, the revolution happened because, basically, living conditions are poor and the government is corrupt, as mentioned in the intro of this aticle. However, after some research, I seriously doubt this.
On the corruption index, Tunisia ranked 59th [13] and has been there for the past few years. It is one of highest in Africa and quite high in the world.
On the HDI, Tunisia is third in Africa and is in the 'high' category[14].
And on other indexes, which I do not have time to find sources now, Tunisia ranked high both in the region and in the world.
Also, note that Tunisia was democratic, with the 'everybody-gets-a-vote', 'parliament' and 'multiparty' system and all that. So theoretically, people could just vote off the people they don't like, since this is the whole point of democracy, or does democracy not work?
It should be clear what point I am trying to make here. Why did the people demand revolution? They live a pretty good life and enjoy democracy, what else are they asking for?Zlqq2144 (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Tunisia was not a democracy, they only pretended to be one by holding non-free "elections". See e.g. Freedom House [15], which rates Tunisia as a non-democracy with the lowest possible "political liberties" score of 7. Ben Ali was a typical dictator.
You seem to be right with respect to corruption and HDI, but I suppose Tunisians compare themselves not only to other African countries, but also to Europe (since Tunisia practically borders on Europe, and the country has many European tourists), where they would rank very low in both comparisons. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the government system is still up to debate. However, if you look at the corruption index, Tunisia is ranked 59th, better than some European countries (e.g. Italy) and IS in the high category. Sure, there's still room for improvement, but they are already one of the highest in the world, so why revolt when they can just change (i mean, whether Ben Ali was dictator or not, he is doing a pretty good job on corruption, according to the index).
And the HDI, they are not only one of the highest in Africa, they are in the high category and they are improving every year (up 17 places from 09 to 10). I mean, it IS a good job for an African country only getting independence in 1957. Zlqq2144 (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tunisian_revolution&oldid=415850165"