![]() | 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 | Archive 2 |
when we get the next report we should be ready to move this to 2010-2011 Tunisian protests, without controversy.( Lihaas ( talk) 05:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)).
In addition to what I said here:
Talk:Tunisia#2010.2F2011_Protests_Missing have a look at this article:
[1]. Obviously since it is only Twitter it is nothing substantial but things might accelerate from now so keep it in mind. Kind regards.
Calaka (
talk)
05:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I've no idea why their friends chose to highlight their Pirate Party affiliation (or what it amounts to), but they did, and the reference exists (there might also be a more direct one at http://partipirate-tunisie.org/ , but I can't read that) - what's dubious about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.70.215.172 ( talk) 20:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The Pirate Party affliation shows that they were targeted as political dissidents. It shows its a political crackdown. I also ask what is dubious about it? Ottawakismet ( talk) 17:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Right from the get go one can see that this article is biased. The box at the side lists the government as "Belligerents" and the rioters as defenders. In armed conflict, the term "belligerent" applies to all parties partaking in it; regardless of whether those parties are perceived as the aggressors or not. Every other wiki article lists all the parties to conflicts as "belligerents", not just the party that the current editor is sympathetic with. This needs to be fixed. 99.231.200.55 ( talk) 12:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem seems to be that there is not a appropriate Template in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:History_and_events_infobox_templates so maybe we better stick to the Template:Infobox_civilian_attack already in use from there. It is used generically on some articles not about "civilian_attack" e.g. Halifax Explosion. The Template:Infobox law enforcement action there is perhaps also a candidate but it seems to focused on police action in a limited time frame and place.-- Alcea setosa ( talk) 00:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Who knows, it is maybe too early to know the category this will end up having. This could very well be an historic event for Tunisia... Anyhow, in the background section, I miss a bit of a long term background. Like the rig of the last general elections, the widespread accusations of Kleptocracy related to the first Lady family, that sort of things. Leirus ( talk) 17:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Wow, as per the spanish press, the president just fled from the country, historical, indeedy. Leirus ( talk) 17:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Someone should write that Ben Ali offered to not run for office in 2014. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.205.48.151 ( talk) 20:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm no expert on Tunisia so I'm not going to start making changes to this, nor the Tunisia article, but I'd say this is pretty historic and needs some coverage Capeo ( talk) 18:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I am Tunisian and I confirm that the ex President fled the country and landed in Jeddah, according to many reliable sources, such as Al Jazeera news channel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.0.83.110 ( talk) 13:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Links: AlArabiya, AlJazeera, BBC - ArnoldPlaton ( talk) 18:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
This sentence needs work: "This came despite media networks pointing out that riots in Tunisia were rare as it was generally considered stable in its region and amongst the wealthiest." It is not clear exactly what meaning is intended. Probably because of the use of "it". Please rework it. Kingturtle = ( talk) 23:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
How about this: "As pointed out by media networks, riots in Tunisia were rare and noteworthy; especially since the country is generally considered to be wealthy and stable as compared to other countries in the region." Glennconti ( talk) 23:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Done. Glennconti ( talk) 01:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the "Media and pundit reactions" should be edited to better reflect NPOV. My main concern is the sentence, "The mainstream media's conspicuous silence, particularly in the Western world, was noted for its rush to call on Iranian protests and the Green movement as well as China's censorship, yet without similar parallels in Tunisia where the "US government--which intervened heavily in Iran, approving circumvention technology for export and famously asking Twitter to halt updates during a critical time period—has not made any public overtures toward Tunisia at this time."" The citation for this sentence is an opinion piece (not a news article) by Jillian York, which is specifically labeled as an opinion piece at the source. The sentence refers to the "mainstream media's conspicuous silence, particularly in the Western world." That's objectively false (or one could diplomatically call it hyperbole). The New York Times, a mainstreaam Western newspaper, has been covering the story on the top of its main page for several days now. At one point, either yesterday or Thursday, the NY Times ran three separate Tunisia stories on the top of its main page. CNN.com has run Tunisia stories on the top of its home page for at least a couple day now. There have multiple stories there right now (although CNN tends to alternate the stories on the top of its website). The article characterizes the U.S. as having intervened "heavily" in Iran, and I think that should cast more as York's opinion. The next gives the sense that Tunisia isn't being covered as part of a U.S./Western conspiracy to stifle the Tunisia people. It ignores the fact that Iran is a larger and much more populous nation, which is likely to garner more media attention due to its historic interaction with the U.S. (not necessarily due to any negative opinions about the Tunisian protests). I'm going to remove/modify the conspicuous silence and try to reframe it to reflect that it's a particular commentator's opinion. -- JamesAM ( talk) 17:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I have heared on the BBC that a minor anti-goverment rally tookplace in Jordan and 50 or so people held a anti-goverment rally in Cairo.-- Wipsenade ( talk) 19:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, thousands of people have protested in Jordan.
Shouldn't there be a Wikipedia article about these protests? There is already an article about the protests in Algeria. Vis-a-visconti ( talk) 00:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Sooo... with people rioting in Algeria and incidents in Libia, Yemen and Jordania, it seems we will have to do an aftermath section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leirus ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Urgh, I always forget signing Leirus ( talk) 20:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
as mass protest grows in the capital, it would now be proper to retitle the page 2011 Tunisian uprising. Revolution might not be far down the road. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottbp ( talk • contribs) 12:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Uprising has to involve more militancy, where the police and army are under attack, so far its a primarily peaceful protest, not a militant uprising. Ottawakismet ( talk) 17:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
peaceful? ehh, not so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottbp ( talk • contribs) 07:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Many articles are coming out mentioning that both Wikileaks, twitter and anonymous had a big if not substantial role in the Tunisian revolution or the unrest or however it will end up being called. Many other news articles also point out that while these entities were great to help or act as catalysts etc. it was really the peoples revolution. I just thought I place all these references I found and hope people can use them to expand the article. I will also post this on to Wikileaks discussion as I believe they can use a section mentioning how they helped (I would say caused as too strong a word) with the revolution/uprising/etc. Any comments/thoughts/etc. are of course welcome. Not bold enough to add these in to the article myself. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]
It's not as if the Obama administration doesn't understand what kind of regime it was dealing with in Tunisia. As the now infamous WikiLeaks cable from the US Ambassador in Tunis to his superiors in Washington made clear, "By many measures, Tunisia should be a close US ally. But it is not." Why? "The problem is clear: Tunisia has been ruled by the same president for 22 years."
Indeed, WikiLeaks did Clinton and Obama's job: It told the truth, and in doing so was a catalyst for significant change in the country - yet another example of how the release of all those classified documents has helped, rather than harmed, American interests (or at least the interests of the American people, if not its political and economic elite), even if the Obama administration refuses to admit it. The WikiLeaks cable that by many accounts helped encourage the protests that have now toppled the Ben Ali regime had the virtue of being honest, as it explained that the incredibly deep and endemic corruption up through the very top of a regime that had completely "lost ouch with the Tunisian people" produced an untenable situation. |
the media/puindit reaction is getting awfully longer. I propose we have an "analysis" section perhaps at some point as a subsection of regional instability or a whole section just beside it.( Lihaas ( talk) 09:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)).
for editors who want:
Code | Result | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
{{ User:Lihaas/Tunisiaprotests}} |
|
Usage |
( Lihaas ( talk) 22:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)).
I removed a line saying that this is the first time that an Arab leader was toppled by street protests. While the line was correctly sourced to the NYTimes, I believe that the NYT was mistaken. The Sudanese ex-President Gaafar Nimeiry was [overthrown by a popular uprising]( http://blogs.ssrc.org/sudan/2010/04/06/the-intifada-jubilee/) in 1985. Even earlier, another Sudanese ex-President Abboud was [overthrown]( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahim_Abboud) in 1964 by another popular uprising. Karouri ( talk) 17:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is the quaint legalistic term ouster used when the plain English ousting would be better. Ouster is little used and probably not understood by almost all readers reducing the articles accessibility and usefulness. Also Webster says that Ouster implies a wrongful dispossession [30] so it has clear POV implications. I suggest it is replaced throughout by ousting or some other word in common English usage such as depose , banishment , driven out, dislodgment etc. Lumos3 ( talk) 22:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
"2010–2011 Tunisian protests consists of protests that are being held in Tunisia". Thank you, Captain Obvious! Jpatokal ( talk) 12:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Last April Kyrgyzstan exploded and ousted it's old government after prices of electricity, food and other commodities were raised. It seems the same socioeconomic causes were behind both events, is it possible that this is part of it's own recolutionary wave? I do not support the idea of this being a color revolution even though it's called the "Jasmine Revolution" as for the most part the color revolutions were restricted to ex-Soviet states, which Tunisia is not. In fact the color revolution wave has pretty much come and gone the last real one being the Tulip Revolution in 2005. Since then almost all of these revolutions effects have essentially been defeated, such as in the last Ukranian election and last year's Kyrgyz Revolution. So I think even though it's being called the Jasmine Revolution Wikipedia should be careful to call it a color revolution just yet. It will become more clear once the events are over when we can say. Yes, it's a color revolution as it took out one nepotist leader in place for another, or, No, it's not a color revolution as it did make fundamental shifts towards democracy. -- Kuzwa ( talk) 18:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the words "ultimately culminated in" from the opening paragraph and replaced them by "led to". "Ultimately culminated" implies that the whole process is at an end and the resignation of the President was the final act. Frankly, we do not know whether or not this is going to be true, although it seems unlikely; at any rate, we cannot yet judge, and so the more modest "led to" is a simpler statement at this time. Rif Winfield ( talk) 22:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hassan al-Turabi was arrested after calling for a Tunisia-style uprising in Sudan. Perhaps some information on this could be added under the 'Regional instability' section?
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/160998.html
Thanks. Vis-a-visconti ( talk) 08:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
does anyone think its inappropriate to add a link to Lebanon's ongoing political crisis in the region even though it is quite different from these type of protests/calls for protests in the arab world? See Lebanese government of November 2009 for details.( Lihaas ( talk) 12:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).
per [32] i dont see how its "immediate aftermath" as such as its also a "protest," perhaps an "ongoing" protest but not aftermath as we dont know the final outcome just yet.( Lihaas ( talk) 13:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lord Roem ( talk) 18:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Someone put the following link and some text into the WP:LEAD. i shifted it to the External Links section, with some rewording, as " social media timeline by Andy Carvin of United States television station NPR".
Now i've checked the site. With normal browsing, i.e. with NoScript turned on to prevent unneeded javascript and other scripts from running un-invited, the page gave almost no content, apart from one sentence + top bar, side bar, etc. I tried accepting scripts from storify.com and googleapis.com (i think?), and got what seemed to be Carvin talking about his use of storify to make a cool blog of the 2010–2011 Tunisian protests. The scripts went crazy, so i killed the panel, but i did seem to notice something about the Knight Foundation grants, and Carvin being happy with the success of the "storify" script (software).
Apart from certain exceptions, blogs are not generally considered reliable sources, and for a blog to be considered notable, there must be secondary sources that talk about it being important. So some work would be needed to justify inclusion of this in the main content, which would need to become a substantial part of the article before a brief mention in the WP:LEAD would become reasonable.
As for external links, i haven't looked much at external link guidelines. Someone else can comment on this. But the link didn't convince me. Boud ( talk) 21:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Evry body here is asking to change the title to :Tunisian revolution 2010-2011<<but we see no change is made. I don't understand if this is a new policy for wikipedia editors or it is onlny politisation of the subject out of the wikipedia objectivity targets
Or chain reaction or whatever. The point being, this is clearly a series of linked phenomena, rather than a subset of the single Tunisian phenomenon. Separating the related incidents also allows us to create better redirects for people searching for information specifically on the Yemeni and Jordanian protests, which have yet to warrant their own article. Obviously, calling it Arab-world protests does create a bit of a problem for the Albania section, but I'm sure we can work that in somehow. Lockesdonkey ( talk) 12:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
There's also protests in Gabon, a non-Arab African country. Jmj713 ( talk) 05:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that this should now be called a revolution (2010-2011 Tunisian revolution for instance), which is "any and all instances in which a state or a political regime is overthrown and thereby transformed by a popular movement in an irregular, extraconstitutional and/or violent fashion" ??? Hektor ( talk) 06:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Anywhere else this would be called a revolution, so why not here? 98.14.187.28 ( talk) 01:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd be in favour of renaming to 2010–2011 Tunisian revolution or even Jasmine Revolution, but we should wait until the outcome becomes a bit clearer. — Nightstallion 12:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Being bold, I am assuming that there is a consensus to change the title of the article. Therefore, in order to streamline the discussion, these two alternatives should be discussed in this section.
Alternative A: 2010–2011 Tunisian revolution
Alternative B: 2010–2011 Tunisian uprising
Al Jazeera is now calling it a "revolution". Maybe we should too? http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/insidestory/2011/01/2011121165938708665.html Glennconti ( talk) 23:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
If we write "The Tunisian Revolution " in any web search engine we will find an output more important than the output found when we write "Tunisian uprizing" or "Tunisian protests". The uprizing is a limited mouvement who concerns a fraction of the population and doesn't touch the states political and juridic structures. The revolution is a global mouvement which concerns everybody in the concerned country and which changes each in evrything concerning the state. Tunisian people are changing each in evry thing starting from the head of the state to the ruling mode and freedom criterias and practice. Tunisians have the rights to call their mouvement "The Dignity Tunisian Revolution". Also if we check the most importants Medias over the world we will find them calling the Tunisian popular Movement: The Tunisian Revolution -- Missa859 ( talk) 04:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
It also has a prominent editorial using that nomenclature: [36]
It also cites other non-media people as using it, here saying it is being used in social media: [37]
Here it quotes Le Monde using the term: [38]
Here it has a Yemeni activist (Tawakel Karman, senior member of the Islamist Al-Islah (Reform) party and head of human rights group Women Journalists Without Chains. [39]
I would also caution reading too much into Google searches for "Tunisian" uprising/revolution/protests because they're very generic and unless you quote the words together you're going to get results with those two words scattered about. Also, use of that phrase doesn't necessarily mean it's being used as the primary name, but rather as a rephrase after the primary name, something like: "The Jasmine Revolution happened last week, this Tunisian uprising had a major impact..." Jztinfinity ( talk) 19:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
As I type this, the article is named "Tunisian protests" (9481 hits on Google News), the lead calls it the "Tunisian uprising" (3954) and the box calls it the "Tunisian Revolution" (4123). While I think the name is shifting in favor of "revolution", I'm going to reset them all back to "protests" until we agree on a better name and the article is rewritten accordingly. Jpatokal ( talk) 02:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
A Revolution, if the people of North Africa can keep it. But not here, not yet. "Protests/Unrest" seen from here at this point. If a second government collapses, then a larger article worthy of the event will come pretty quickly with something like Revolution in the title. 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 22:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I think "Tunisian Revolution" or "2010–2011 Tunisian Revolution" or "Jasmine Revolution" are all sensible article names by now. — Nightstallion 15:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The recent riots in Albania have been compared to Tunisia though I'm not sure there is really any direct relation. Not really following the situation in Albania what seems to be the cause there? Source: [41] -- Kuzwa ( talk) 03:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
If we write "The Tunisian Revolution " in any web search engine we will find an output more important than the output found when we write "Tunisian uprizing" or "Tunisian protests". The uprizing is a limited mouvement who concerns a fraction of the population and doesn't touch the states political and juridic structures. The revolution is a global mouvement which concerns everybody in the concerned country and which changes each in evrything concerning the state. Tunisian people are changing each in evry thing starting from the head of the state to the ruling mode and freedom criterias and practice. Tunisians have the rights to call their mouvement "The Dignity Tunisian Revolution". Also if we check the most importants Medias over the world we will find them calling theTunisian popular Movement: The Tunisian Revolution -- Missa859 ( talk) 11:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Leaving Albania alone in this article after moving everything over to 2011 Arab world Protests is a bit awkward. I recommend taking it out of this article and either making a small note in 2011 Arab world Protests or leaving it out all together. SargeAbernathy ( talk) 20:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
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.
(Your comments here)
This is the best idea. It clearly was a revolution. Philadelphia 2009 ( talk) 22:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
GrahamNoyes ( talk) 20:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
(Your comments here)
(Your comments here)
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 sensationalism Lihaas ( talk) 00:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
...
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 -- Neutrality talk 14:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
According to everything I have read so far, the Jasmine Revolution is what they are calling the string of Chinese protests related to this International movement. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50077.html
A Google search of "Jasmine Revolution" and "China" results in 1,300,000 hits versus "Jasmine Revolution" and "Tunisia" which yields only 886,00. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge Incarnate ( talk • contribs) 02:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
Post-Ben Ali government By the way, Ganoushi has resigned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.118.66.80 ( talk) 17:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
About an hour ago it was said that Ghannouchi had demitted.
I'm Josh, I forgot my password and don't want to duplicate my participation here. 217.118.66.80 ( talk) :) —Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC).
Excuse me, I was inattentive. Was it Ghannouchi who resigned today? Or not today? I've just heard the new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.118.66.80 ( talk) 17:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
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: [53]. Jmj713 ( talk) 04:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Since when anti-muslim websites like humanevents are 'article of relevances' ??? They never heard about tunisia and now they are talking about jihad ?? And al-arabiya is heavely biased , owned by saudi princes they tend to protect their felow tyrants ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.88.31.77 ( talk) 17:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
French Minister of Foreign Affairs offered to send paratroopers??? What is this nonsense? She told she was to send forces to help the Tunisian Police stopping the riots, so I guess she meant the French CRS (part of the National Police) and absolutely not the Army. Please remove it, it is clearly wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.195.22.52 ( talk) 14:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | 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 | Archive 2 |
when we get the next report we should be ready to move this to 2010-2011 Tunisian protests, without controversy.( Lihaas ( talk) 05:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)).
In addition to what I said here:
Talk:Tunisia#2010.2F2011_Protests_Missing have a look at this article:
[1]. Obviously since it is only Twitter it is nothing substantial but things might accelerate from now so keep it in mind. Kind regards.
Calaka (
talk)
05:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I've no idea why their friends chose to highlight their Pirate Party affiliation (or what it amounts to), but they did, and the reference exists (there might also be a more direct one at http://partipirate-tunisie.org/ , but I can't read that) - what's dubious about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.70.215.172 ( talk) 20:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The Pirate Party affliation shows that they were targeted as political dissidents. It shows its a political crackdown. I also ask what is dubious about it? Ottawakismet ( talk) 17:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Right from the get go one can see that this article is biased. The box at the side lists the government as "Belligerents" and the rioters as defenders. In armed conflict, the term "belligerent" applies to all parties partaking in it; regardless of whether those parties are perceived as the aggressors or not. Every other wiki article lists all the parties to conflicts as "belligerents", not just the party that the current editor is sympathetic with. This needs to be fixed. 99.231.200.55 ( talk) 12:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem seems to be that there is not a appropriate Template in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:History_and_events_infobox_templates so maybe we better stick to the Template:Infobox_civilian_attack already in use from there. It is used generically on some articles not about "civilian_attack" e.g. Halifax Explosion. The Template:Infobox law enforcement action there is perhaps also a candidate but it seems to focused on police action in a limited time frame and place.-- Alcea setosa ( talk) 00:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Who knows, it is maybe too early to know the category this will end up having. This could very well be an historic event for Tunisia... Anyhow, in the background section, I miss a bit of a long term background. Like the rig of the last general elections, the widespread accusations of Kleptocracy related to the first Lady family, that sort of things. Leirus ( talk) 17:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Wow, as per the spanish press, the president just fled from the country, historical, indeedy. Leirus ( talk) 17:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Someone should write that Ben Ali offered to not run for office in 2014. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.205.48.151 ( talk) 20:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm no expert on Tunisia so I'm not going to start making changes to this, nor the Tunisia article, but I'd say this is pretty historic and needs some coverage Capeo ( talk) 18:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I am Tunisian and I confirm that the ex President fled the country and landed in Jeddah, according to many reliable sources, such as Al Jazeera news channel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.0.83.110 ( talk) 13:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Links: AlArabiya, AlJazeera, BBC - ArnoldPlaton ( talk) 18:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
This sentence needs work: "This came despite media networks pointing out that riots in Tunisia were rare as it was generally considered stable in its region and amongst the wealthiest." It is not clear exactly what meaning is intended. Probably because of the use of "it". Please rework it. Kingturtle = ( talk) 23:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
How about this: "As pointed out by media networks, riots in Tunisia were rare and noteworthy; especially since the country is generally considered to be wealthy and stable as compared to other countries in the region." Glennconti ( talk) 23:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Done. Glennconti ( talk) 01:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the "Media and pundit reactions" should be edited to better reflect NPOV. My main concern is the sentence, "The mainstream media's conspicuous silence, particularly in the Western world, was noted for its rush to call on Iranian protests and the Green movement as well as China's censorship, yet without similar parallels in Tunisia where the "US government--which intervened heavily in Iran, approving circumvention technology for export and famously asking Twitter to halt updates during a critical time period—has not made any public overtures toward Tunisia at this time."" The citation for this sentence is an opinion piece (not a news article) by Jillian York, which is specifically labeled as an opinion piece at the source. The sentence refers to the "mainstream media's conspicuous silence, particularly in the Western world." That's objectively false (or one could diplomatically call it hyperbole). The New York Times, a mainstreaam Western newspaper, has been covering the story on the top of its main page for several days now. At one point, either yesterday or Thursday, the NY Times ran three separate Tunisia stories on the top of its main page. CNN.com has run Tunisia stories on the top of its home page for at least a couple day now. There have multiple stories there right now (although CNN tends to alternate the stories on the top of its website). The article characterizes the U.S. as having intervened "heavily" in Iran, and I think that should cast more as York's opinion. The next gives the sense that Tunisia isn't being covered as part of a U.S./Western conspiracy to stifle the Tunisia people. It ignores the fact that Iran is a larger and much more populous nation, which is likely to garner more media attention due to its historic interaction with the U.S. (not necessarily due to any negative opinions about the Tunisian protests). I'm going to remove/modify the conspicuous silence and try to reframe it to reflect that it's a particular commentator's opinion. -- JamesAM ( talk) 17:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I have heared on the BBC that a minor anti-goverment rally tookplace in Jordan and 50 or so people held a anti-goverment rally in Cairo.-- Wipsenade ( talk) 19:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, thousands of people have protested in Jordan.
Shouldn't there be a Wikipedia article about these protests? There is already an article about the protests in Algeria. Vis-a-visconti ( talk) 00:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Sooo... with people rioting in Algeria and incidents in Libia, Yemen and Jordania, it seems we will have to do an aftermath section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leirus ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Urgh, I always forget signing Leirus ( talk) 20:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
as mass protest grows in the capital, it would now be proper to retitle the page 2011 Tunisian uprising. Revolution might not be far down the road. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottbp ( talk • contribs) 12:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Uprising has to involve more militancy, where the police and army are under attack, so far its a primarily peaceful protest, not a militant uprising. Ottawakismet ( talk) 17:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
peaceful? ehh, not so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottbp ( talk • contribs) 07:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Many articles are coming out mentioning that both Wikileaks, twitter and anonymous had a big if not substantial role in the Tunisian revolution or the unrest or however it will end up being called. Many other news articles also point out that while these entities were great to help or act as catalysts etc. it was really the peoples revolution. I just thought I place all these references I found and hope people can use them to expand the article. I will also post this on to Wikileaks discussion as I believe they can use a section mentioning how they helped (I would say caused as too strong a word) with the revolution/uprising/etc. Any comments/thoughts/etc. are of course welcome. Not bold enough to add these in to the article myself. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]
It's not as if the Obama administration doesn't understand what kind of regime it was dealing with in Tunisia. As the now infamous WikiLeaks cable from the US Ambassador in Tunis to his superiors in Washington made clear, "By many measures, Tunisia should be a close US ally. But it is not." Why? "The problem is clear: Tunisia has been ruled by the same president for 22 years."
Indeed, WikiLeaks did Clinton and Obama's job: It told the truth, and in doing so was a catalyst for significant change in the country - yet another example of how the release of all those classified documents has helped, rather than harmed, American interests (or at least the interests of the American people, if not its political and economic elite), even if the Obama administration refuses to admit it. The WikiLeaks cable that by many accounts helped encourage the protests that have now toppled the Ben Ali regime had the virtue of being honest, as it explained that the incredibly deep and endemic corruption up through the very top of a regime that had completely "lost ouch with the Tunisian people" produced an untenable situation. |
the media/puindit reaction is getting awfully longer. I propose we have an "analysis" section perhaps at some point as a subsection of regional instability or a whole section just beside it.( Lihaas ( talk) 09:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)).
for editors who want:
Code | Result | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
{{ User:Lihaas/Tunisiaprotests}} |
|
Usage |
( Lihaas ( talk) 22:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)).
I removed a line saying that this is the first time that an Arab leader was toppled by street protests. While the line was correctly sourced to the NYTimes, I believe that the NYT was mistaken. The Sudanese ex-President Gaafar Nimeiry was [overthrown by a popular uprising]( http://blogs.ssrc.org/sudan/2010/04/06/the-intifada-jubilee/) in 1985. Even earlier, another Sudanese ex-President Abboud was [overthrown]( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahim_Abboud) in 1964 by another popular uprising. Karouri ( talk) 17:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is the quaint legalistic term ouster used when the plain English ousting would be better. Ouster is little used and probably not understood by almost all readers reducing the articles accessibility and usefulness. Also Webster says that Ouster implies a wrongful dispossession [30] so it has clear POV implications. I suggest it is replaced throughout by ousting or some other word in common English usage such as depose , banishment , driven out, dislodgment etc. Lumos3 ( talk) 22:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
"2010–2011 Tunisian protests consists of protests that are being held in Tunisia". Thank you, Captain Obvious! Jpatokal ( talk) 12:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Last April Kyrgyzstan exploded and ousted it's old government after prices of electricity, food and other commodities were raised. It seems the same socioeconomic causes were behind both events, is it possible that this is part of it's own recolutionary wave? I do not support the idea of this being a color revolution even though it's called the "Jasmine Revolution" as for the most part the color revolutions were restricted to ex-Soviet states, which Tunisia is not. In fact the color revolution wave has pretty much come and gone the last real one being the Tulip Revolution in 2005. Since then almost all of these revolutions effects have essentially been defeated, such as in the last Ukranian election and last year's Kyrgyz Revolution. So I think even though it's being called the Jasmine Revolution Wikipedia should be careful to call it a color revolution just yet. It will become more clear once the events are over when we can say. Yes, it's a color revolution as it took out one nepotist leader in place for another, or, No, it's not a color revolution as it did make fundamental shifts towards democracy. -- Kuzwa ( talk) 18:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the words "ultimately culminated in" from the opening paragraph and replaced them by "led to". "Ultimately culminated" implies that the whole process is at an end and the resignation of the President was the final act. Frankly, we do not know whether or not this is going to be true, although it seems unlikely; at any rate, we cannot yet judge, and so the more modest "led to" is a simpler statement at this time. Rif Winfield ( talk) 22:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hassan al-Turabi was arrested after calling for a Tunisia-style uprising in Sudan. Perhaps some information on this could be added under the 'Regional instability' section?
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/160998.html
Thanks. Vis-a-visconti ( talk) 08:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
does anyone think its inappropriate to add a link to Lebanon's ongoing political crisis in the region even though it is quite different from these type of protests/calls for protests in the arab world? See Lebanese government of November 2009 for details.( Lihaas ( talk) 12:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).
per [32] i dont see how its "immediate aftermath" as such as its also a "protest," perhaps an "ongoing" protest but not aftermath as we dont know the final outcome just yet.( Lihaas ( talk) 13:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lord Roem ( talk) 18:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Someone put the following link and some text into the WP:LEAD. i shifted it to the External Links section, with some rewording, as " social media timeline by Andy Carvin of United States television station NPR".
Now i've checked the site. With normal browsing, i.e. with NoScript turned on to prevent unneeded javascript and other scripts from running un-invited, the page gave almost no content, apart from one sentence + top bar, side bar, etc. I tried accepting scripts from storify.com and googleapis.com (i think?), and got what seemed to be Carvin talking about his use of storify to make a cool blog of the 2010–2011 Tunisian protests. The scripts went crazy, so i killed the panel, but i did seem to notice something about the Knight Foundation grants, and Carvin being happy with the success of the "storify" script (software).
Apart from certain exceptions, blogs are not generally considered reliable sources, and for a blog to be considered notable, there must be secondary sources that talk about it being important. So some work would be needed to justify inclusion of this in the main content, which would need to become a substantial part of the article before a brief mention in the WP:LEAD would become reasonable.
As for external links, i haven't looked much at external link guidelines. Someone else can comment on this. But the link didn't convince me. Boud ( talk) 21:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Evry body here is asking to change the title to :Tunisian revolution 2010-2011<<but we see no change is made. I don't understand if this is a new policy for wikipedia editors or it is onlny politisation of the subject out of the wikipedia objectivity targets
Or chain reaction or whatever. The point being, this is clearly a series of linked phenomena, rather than a subset of the single Tunisian phenomenon. Separating the related incidents also allows us to create better redirects for people searching for information specifically on the Yemeni and Jordanian protests, which have yet to warrant their own article. Obviously, calling it Arab-world protests does create a bit of a problem for the Albania section, but I'm sure we can work that in somehow. Lockesdonkey ( talk) 12:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
There's also protests in Gabon, a non-Arab African country. Jmj713 ( talk) 05:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that this should now be called a revolution (2010-2011 Tunisian revolution for instance), which is "any and all instances in which a state or a political regime is overthrown and thereby transformed by a popular movement in an irregular, extraconstitutional and/or violent fashion" ??? Hektor ( talk) 06:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Anywhere else this would be called a revolution, so why not here? 98.14.187.28 ( talk) 01:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd be in favour of renaming to 2010–2011 Tunisian revolution or even Jasmine Revolution, but we should wait until the outcome becomes a bit clearer. — Nightstallion 12:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Being bold, I am assuming that there is a consensus to change the title of the article. Therefore, in order to streamline the discussion, these two alternatives should be discussed in this section.
Alternative A: 2010–2011 Tunisian revolution
Alternative B: 2010–2011 Tunisian uprising
Al Jazeera is now calling it a "revolution". Maybe we should too? http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/insidestory/2011/01/2011121165938708665.html Glennconti ( talk) 23:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
If we write "The Tunisian Revolution " in any web search engine we will find an output more important than the output found when we write "Tunisian uprizing" or "Tunisian protests". The uprizing is a limited mouvement who concerns a fraction of the population and doesn't touch the states political and juridic structures. The revolution is a global mouvement which concerns everybody in the concerned country and which changes each in evrything concerning the state. Tunisian people are changing each in evry thing starting from the head of the state to the ruling mode and freedom criterias and practice. Tunisians have the rights to call their mouvement "The Dignity Tunisian Revolution". Also if we check the most importants Medias over the world we will find them calling the Tunisian popular Movement: The Tunisian Revolution -- Missa859 ( talk) 04:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
It also has a prominent editorial using that nomenclature: [36]
It also cites other non-media people as using it, here saying it is being used in social media: [37]
Here it quotes Le Monde using the term: [38]
Here it has a Yemeni activist (Tawakel Karman, senior member of the Islamist Al-Islah (Reform) party and head of human rights group Women Journalists Without Chains. [39]
I would also caution reading too much into Google searches for "Tunisian" uprising/revolution/protests because they're very generic and unless you quote the words together you're going to get results with those two words scattered about. Also, use of that phrase doesn't necessarily mean it's being used as the primary name, but rather as a rephrase after the primary name, something like: "The Jasmine Revolution happened last week, this Tunisian uprising had a major impact..." Jztinfinity ( talk) 19:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
As I type this, the article is named "Tunisian protests" (9481 hits on Google News), the lead calls it the "Tunisian uprising" (3954) and the box calls it the "Tunisian Revolution" (4123). While I think the name is shifting in favor of "revolution", I'm going to reset them all back to "protests" until we agree on a better name and the article is rewritten accordingly. Jpatokal ( talk) 02:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
A Revolution, if the people of North Africa can keep it. But not here, not yet. "Protests/Unrest" seen from here at this point. If a second government collapses, then a larger article worthy of the event will come pretty quickly with something like Revolution in the title. 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 22:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I think "Tunisian Revolution" or "2010–2011 Tunisian Revolution" or "Jasmine Revolution" are all sensible article names by now. — Nightstallion 15:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The recent riots in Albania have been compared to Tunisia though I'm not sure there is really any direct relation. Not really following the situation in Albania what seems to be the cause there? Source: [41] -- Kuzwa ( talk) 03:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
If we write "The Tunisian Revolution " in any web search engine we will find an output more important than the output found when we write "Tunisian uprizing" or "Tunisian protests". The uprizing is a limited mouvement who concerns a fraction of the population and doesn't touch the states political and juridic structures. The revolution is a global mouvement which concerns everybody in the concerned country and which changes each in evrything concerning the state. Tunisian people are changing each in evry thing starting from the head of the state to the ruling mode and freedom criterias and practice. Tunisians have the rights to call their mouvement "The Dignity Tunisian Revolution". Also if we check the most importants Medias over the world we will find them calling theTunisian popular Movement: The Tunisian Revolution -- Missa859 ( talk) 11:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Leaving Albania alone in this article after moving everything over to 2011 Arab world Protests is a bit awkward. I recommend taking it out of this article and either making a small note in 2011 Arab world Protests or leaving it out all together. SargeAbernathy ( talk) 20:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
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.
(Your comments here)
This is the best idea. It clearly was a revolution. Philadelphia 2009 ( talk) 22:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
GrahamNoyes ( talk) 20:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
(Your comments here)
(Your comments here)
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 sensationalism Lihaas ( talk) 00:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
...
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 -- Neutrality talk 14:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
According to everything I have read so far, the Jasmine Revolution is what they are calling the string of Chinese protests related to this International movement. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50077.html
A Google search of "Jasmine Revolution" and "China" results in 1,300,000 hits versus "Jasmine Revolution" and "Tunisia" which yields only 886,00. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge Incarnate ( talk • contribs) 02:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
Post-Ben Ali government By the way, Ganoushi has resigned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.118.66.80 ( talk) 17:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
About an hour ago it was said that Ghannouchi had demitted.
I'm Josh, I forgot my password and don't want to duplicate my participation here. 217.118.66.80 ( talk) :) —Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC).
Excuse me, I was inattentive. Was it Ghannouchi who resigned today? Or not today? I've just heard the new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.118.66.80 ( talk) 17:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
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: [53]. Jmj713 ( talk) 04:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Since when anti-muslim websites like humanevents are 'article of relevances' ??? They never heard about tunisia and now they are talking about jihad ?? And al-arabiya is heavely biased , owned by saudi princes they tend to protect their felow tyrants ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.88.31.77 ( talk) 17:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
French Minister of Foreign Affairs offered to send paratroopers??? What is this nonsense? She told she was to send forces to help the Tunisian Police stopping the riots, so I guess she meant the French CRS (part of the National Police) and absolutely not the Army. Please remove it, it is clearly wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.195.22.52 ( talk) 14:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)