Talk:Tunisian Revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Tunisian revolution)
Jump to: navigation, search

Where is the Jasmine Revolution?[edit]

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.

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 (talkcontribs) 02:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Islam Politics and Influences[edit]

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)

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)
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. (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)?. (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
How about (France24) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
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)).
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)

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 (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Bouazizi revolution[edit]

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)

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)).
  • 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)
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)

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


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[edit]

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

(Your comments here)

Proposal Two: Tunisian Revolution[edit]

  • 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)

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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 that having "uprising" in the title sounds as if the Tunisians rebelled against a foreign power. --Tocino 22:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
PPS. Do also note articles 10 - 17 in this wiki article [11].Calaka (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per above, the governemnt was ousted here and started a whole series of events. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • 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-- (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • 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)

Proposal Three: Bouazizi revolution[edit]

  • See the above talk discussion for this one.

(Your comments here)

Proposal Four: Dignity Revolution[edit]

  • 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[edit]

  • 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)
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.-- (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
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)

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)

      • 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. (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


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)
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)


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)

Looks like Lihaas you are the last man (non-IP) standing to oppose. Glennconti (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
okay. Yes check.svg Done but its the 'r' is not caps as in a proper noun.Lihaas (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

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[edit]

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 (talk) 17:02, 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: [12]. Jmj713 (talk) 04:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

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 (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
agree with Jmj713 if sentiment is ongoin its clearyly NOT overLihaas (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know how that happened. =( Anyway, wait until the sources say so in some way. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 16:50, 28 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)

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)
but there's a new problem with dozens of vessels with immigrants heading to Lampedusa-- (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
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)

Wikipedia policy: Article titles[edit]

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)

Requested move[edit]

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)

2010–2011 Tunisian revolutionTunisian 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)

  • Support as there was no other Tunisian Revolution. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • 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. (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
  • Support this as Celestial City noted above. Neutralitytalk 15:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. There were coups in Tunisia previously, but not revolutions. Twilightchill t 10:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Completely agree. There are many places on Wikipedia where the "year" designation is totally unecessary. Colipon+(Talk) 05:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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.


Apologies, I did not notice the proposed change in capitalisation when performing this RM, and moved to Tunisian revolution (etc) when the consensus above was Tunisian Revolution. Thanks to those who have fixed this. Andrewa (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There are also wikipedia policies made through longer consensus and discussions that this that already mandate certain naming conventions Wikipedia:MOS#Article_titles.2C_headings.2C_and_sections and Wikipedia:Article_titles. The dte and the capitalisation is what matters not a heat-of-the-moment discussion.Lihaas (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Not quite sure what your point is here. Do you think the current name Tunisian Revolution is wrong? If so, why exactly? There's no obvious problem in terms of the links you gave above. What do you mean by heat-of-the-moment discussion? It seemed a very reasonable and constructive discussion to me. Andrewa (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I didn't notice this before either - in fact I think it ought to have a small "r", since it's far too early to conclude that the description of this event has become a proper name in English.--Kotniski (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
As the Tunisian Revolution refers to a unique occurance (unlike, for example, "Tunisian protests" which is more general), the capatalisation as a proper noun would seem to be correct. The Celestial City (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Not necessarily; there are many unique events (even iconic ones) that I don't think would normally be capitalized in English: the assassination of JFK, the first moon landing, the September 11 attacks...--Kotniski (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Good points. I was merely addressing the issues of process; The consensus as expressed at the time of closing was clearly in favour of the capitalisation, perhaps in hindsight because many of us didn't even notice it. I think this may be a borderline case, and tend to the small r but I'm not altogether sure why. The fact that at least two competent pedants (I was ten years an auditor and so have some claim to cred in two different areas of professional pedantry) missed it seems to indicate that it's not all that important. Andrewa (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
In this case, if you are referring to the revolution in Tunisia by a title, i.e. (The) Tunisian Revolution, capitalization is correct. However, if you are referring to a 'revolution in Tunisia' or [The] 2010-2011 Tunisian revolution', it is lowercase. If we are content with naming the event the Tunisian Revolution, then it can stay as it is. In the same light, Category:2010–2011 Tunisian Revolution is incorrectly capitalized, because that is not a proper noun. The name is implying it is a revolution in Tunisia in 2010-2011, not the Tunisian Revolution by name. — Moe ε 22:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I think a capital R is more appropriate, considering most Revolution articles in Wikipedia use it anyway (American Revolution, Argentine Revolution, Belgian Revolution, Cuban Revolution, French Revolution, Haitian Revolution, Iranian Revolution, Mexican Revolution, Monegasque Revolution, Philippine Revolution, Romanian Revolution, Russian Revolution, Serbian Revolution, Spanish Revolution, ect.). Charles Essie (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Lack of support on beaten Italian reporter[edit]

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 (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Background to the revolution[edit]

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)
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)
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)
I just want to add to this discussion, that the former Tunisian government was very good in producing nice looking statistics, and that international organisations took them with delight just as they were. A good book, for all those who happen to read French: Béatrice Hibou, "La force de l'obéissance: économie politique de la répression en Tunisie". It talks about economic mechanisms creating or reinforcing repression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Post-Ben Ali government - needs current additions.[edit]

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. (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 (talk) 17:35, 27 February 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 (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Tunisian Revolution > Tunisian revolution[edit]

I've changed the article title from Tunisian Revolution to Tunisian revolution so that it tallies with 2011 Egyptian revolution and 2011 Libyan civil war. It seemed silly for this to remain Revolution, and the sources we use to support the naming all use the word in lower-case. Ericoides (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at French Revolution; that conforms to naming conventions for uprisings and revolutions. -- (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it should be capitalized, personally, but conventions may be more standardized in future. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Libyan Civil War and Egyptian Revolution should be capitalized as well. It looks unprofessional to not capitalize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
It really doesn't matter one whit if you think it "looks unprofessional". We go by what the majority of reliable sources use. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Needs to update time[edit]

According to headlines, the Tunisian revolution had been one in 2011 and has stopped. This article really has to update, otherwise, 30 years from now, people will look at this page and say, "It's still going on?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maggnotta (talkcontribs) 22:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC) good point.there has been no new protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plijygrdwa (talkcontribs) 06:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


Last protests happened months ago, goals of revolution may not have been established yet (ie democratical elections) but that same applies to Velvet revolution or any revolution during 1989 which timeline ends with last protests. I suggest we finally put an end to the timeline, giving end date on January 27 and all related incidents shall be mentioned in Aftermath or other section. It´s established that Tunisian revolution had happened and is not happening now by all major media outlets. --EllsworthSK (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"The people want to topple the regime."[edit]

I have heard many times that Tunisian's started the slogan “The people want to topple the regime.” For example in yesterdays NYTimes article (

Tunisia can claim the slogan of the Arab revolts: “The people want to topple the regime.”

That seems like it's worth mention in this article, but I don't know enough to say where.

Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Transition (post Ben Ali) need a comprehensive article[edit]

We are now and for the last 6 months in the transitional phase, which is as important and complex as the revolution itself. A clear, comprehensive article on this transitional phase and its actors, problematics, dynamics, and moves is very need. Yug (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Updated Montage[edit]

When comparing this page to the Egyptian and (now) Libyan revolutions, I believe the opening image (currently one of the flag being flown on the 23rd Jan) needs a revamp with a montage of highlights of this revolution. Anyone kind/skilled enough to create one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2[edit]

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. No consensus to overturn previous discussion result. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Tunisian revolutionTunisian Revolution – I cannot see why the "Revolution" part should not be capitalized. Personally, I feel that the "bring it in line with Egyptian revolution and Libyan civil war, et al. are irrelevant because the title does not have a "2011" prefix like the aforementioned other two.

Either that, or we move it to 2011 Tunisian revolution. 48Lugur (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose – straightforward MOS:CAPS; sources don't mostly capitalize it Dicklyon (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • STRONG Support – This is how the article's name was originally formatted following the previous move and consensus, before somebody decided to change it virtually without discussion. Besides, it fits with all the naming conventions regarding similar revolutionary events, such as the Cuban or French Revolution. -- (talk) 08:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 3[edit]

FYI: User:JCScaliger has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Pmanderson (blocked for another year for abusive sockpuppetry).
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: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Tunisian RevolutionTunisian revolutionRelisted. Jafeluv (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC) I know we just did this, and it closed as a move with two in favor and just me opposing, but I think it deserves to be looked at more closely. The reasoning "No consensus to overturn previous discussion result" is saying that it should not have been downcased because a previous RM discussion had upcased it; but that previous discussion had little or nothing to do with case; case was not discussed until afterward. So let's look at the case issue itself, instead of treating it as settled. The arguments for capitalization are specious, contrary to MOS:CAPS, and not supported by sources. Take a look at the news stories on the topic. Do they capitalize it? No. Do the cited sources capitalize it? No. Is "Tunisian Revolution", or even "Tunisian revolution", the accepted term for what we're talking about? Not really. It's an OK descriptive term, but is seldom or never treated as a proper noun. So we shouldn't either. Maybe in a few years... But for now, can we get more than a couple of people to evaluate the situation objectively please? Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. It may well be that we will want some other term; but not this proposed one. There have been many revolts and revolutions in Tunisia; until last year, the Tunisian Revolution meant what happened in the 1950s. The title "Tunisian revolution" would mean all of them - just as the French Revolution means 1789 but "French revolution" runs from the Jacquerie to de Gaulle - a useful article, which could be written; but not this article. JCScaliger (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I see that you are right; this book and these books. The RM 1 above succeeded on the false assertion that nothing else had been called a Tunisian revolution. So probably the right move is back to 2010–2011 Tunisian revolution, or Tunisian revolution 2010–2011 or something like that. You have a preference? Dicklyon (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't see anyone else capitalizing it. Here is BBC. If someone wants to write an article on the various revolutions of Tunisian history, the title is obvious: Tunisian revolutions. Kauffner (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. The RSs tend to call it “Tunisian revolution” or describe the phenomenon like “Tunisia’s Jasmine Revolution”. There are other indicators that the term is not treated as a proper noun by the RSs any more than the 1992 LA riots is treated like a stand-alone proper noun. Greg L (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support (ps, I think the previous post was by User:Greg L) {Yup; now fixed Greg L (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)}. JCScaliger, I don't follow: why would a reader know by the caps that it refers to one of "many" revolutions in Tunisia? Upper or lower case, it doesn't change the recognisability, does it? Tony (talk) 08:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. It's not a name, is it? Paved with good intentions (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

redirect hatnote[edit]

Two of us have removed this odd hatnote: ""Wikileaks Revolution" redirects here. For the site in general, see WikiLeaks." Is it plausible to anyone that a person looking for Wikileaks will instead find themselves here via Wikileaks Revolution? And shoudn't we include a paragraph about this term in the article if we're going to have a redirect by this name? Dicklyon (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone else think this belongs in the external links?[edit]

The internet archive has a nice collection of Tunisian blogs and videos during the revolution.

Does anyone else think this belongs in the external links section? I wanted to check with others before adding it myself. :)

-- (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Issue: The "policewoman" who slapped Mohamed Bouazizi was not a policewoman.[edit]

She was interviewed by blogger and independent journalist Michael Totten:

In it, she self-identifies as a government worker, not a law enforcement officer. Quote: "My job was to chase away illegal fruit vendors. I don’t carry a gun. I don’t have a truncheon. I don’t carry a weapon at all." She also disputes many details of the current narrative, including the charge that she slapped the man.

I post this topic to see if anyone knows of anymore details about that woman (Faida Hamdi), her specific job, and the details of the actual initiating event. The details in Ms. Hamdi's interview are at odds with the narrative as it's currently been published in the news and in this article as well. I'd just go ahead and correct the identification of her as a police officer myself based on that article alone, but I don't know what to replace it with ("Government Official"? "Health Inspector"? "City Food Cart Vending Official"?), and I'm reluctant to change the details as posted in the live article without confirmation beyond Mr. Totten's column. It's a compelling interview, but it *IS* merely one, single source. Anyway, I'm posting this to see if anyone has anything else to add, and hopefully knows more than I do so that any update made would be accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldctjoc (talkcontribs) 14:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Who coined Jasmine Revolution?[edit]

The article gives credit to the term Jasmine Revolution to a French blogger in January 2011, but they weren't the first person to use it regarding Tunisia, or even prior revolutions.

For better or worse, I began using the phrase on Twitter on December 28 when I began my coverage of the Tunisian revolution for NPR. The phrase "jasmine revolution" and "jasmine revolt" were used by me and other media sources between December 28 and the date credited to the blogger. For example, this article I wrote for NPR on January 13. I wouldn't be surprised if others came up with the term independently, but it was definitely in use by me and other journalists as early as December 28, 2010.

Also, versions of the term had been used several years earlier in Pakistan, also created independently by Pakistanis.

Acarvin (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Since no one else made the edit, I've gone ahead and made it myself, including the appropriate citations. Acarvin (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Dubious WikiLeaks influence[edit]

The citation for the supposed influence of WikiLeaks on the uprising is exceedingly dubious. From their 'About' page: "Strike The Root is a daily journal of current events and commentary from a libertarian/market anarchist perspective. The mission of STR is to advance the cause of liberty, primarily by de-mystifying and de-legitimizing the State. STR seeks a world where people are free to live their lives as they see fit, as long as they don't use force or fraud against peaceful people." Omehegan (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 4[edit]

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. No oppose votes (after one was withdrawn) and several supports, with valid reasons, after full listing period. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Tunisian revolutionTunisian Revolution – Almost all "Revolution" articles feature a capital "R" (American Revolution, Argentine Revolution, Belgian Revolution, Cuban Revolution, French Revolution, Haitian Revolution, Iranian Revolution, Mexican Revolution, Monegasque Revolution, Philippine Revolution, Romanian Revolution, Russian Revolution, Serbian Revolution, Spanish Revolution, ect. Charles Essie (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support This describes a particular historical event, not all revolutions that took place in Tunisia or were of a Tunisian character. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is about one specific event in Tunisia's history, not a general phenomenon of revolution in Tunisia. —  AjaxSmack  00:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment (vote edited from Oppose). When deciding these issues our criteria should be 1. rules, 2. sources, 3. conventions (in that order). Alright, so MOS:CAPS tells us "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. Most capitalization is for proper names or for acronyms". So we know that we capitalize if most RS's consider the full title a proper name. If it is split or unclear, tie goes to the uncapitalized form. 2. Sources. To assess this I looked at top 40 hits for "Tunisian Revolution" in google scholar: of the source I could see 26 did not capitalize 8 did capitalize. So, the rule says don't capitalize unnecessarily, the sources tend to not capitalize, so now we turn to conventions. 3. The convention of Arab Spring events (certainly a better place to look than the Belgian Revolution) tends to not capitalize: Egyptian Revolution of 2011, 2013 Egyptian coup d'état, Libyan civil war, Yemeni revolution, Bahraini uprising (2011–present), Syrian civil war, 2010–12 Algerian protests, etc. Most of these pages have had this conversation and decided for lower-case. That means that this move generally is against the Manual of Style, the sources, and the conventions. Note: If there was a discussion on renaming all Arab spring events (or all Arab spring events except the protests), I would vote to capitalize. But piecemeal adjustments based on consistency with irrelevant world events doesn't seem the best way to figure this out. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I would definitely support a move discussion on most Arab Spring articles (personaly I think Libyan civil war should be Libyan Civil War and Syrian civil war should be Syrian Civil War) for the same reasons as I have discussed here, most "Revolution" and "Civil War" pages are capitalized and it seems silly that the Arab Spring pages should be an exception. Charles Essie (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
AbstractIllusions, you're citing the exceptions. The great majority of members of the subcats of Category:Civil wars use title-case capitalization, which is appropriate for proper nouns like specific historical events. Using sentence-case capitalization just because newspapers are talking about "civil war in Syria" rather than "the Syrian Civil War" gets into the specialist style fallacy. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I think BDD is generally right here. I'm just a little more agnostic about what a proper noun is (if Middle East Monitor, The Africa Report, Al-Ahram, and the U.S. State Department--to take only the top Google News hits in a search for "Tunisian Revolution"--don't treat it as a proper noun, I'll go with that. Of the 26 Google News hits I get, none of which use the "revolution in Tunisia" form, 21 do not capitalize revolution, 4 do, and 1 uses 'Tunisia's revolution'). My oppose vote is a friendly oppose--I prefer the move but want to settle the issue and get most 'Revolutions' and 'Civil Wars' on the same style through broad understanding. I just want to have a more prominent conversation, maybe at WP:NCCAPS or something. If I'm the only oppose vote, closing admin should of course see that as a more general consensus and close with the move. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I think my oppose vote was a little too pointy in its objectives. Sources don't capitalize it seems. And I'm wary of some of the arguments in their farthest manifestation--but that's no reason to hold back a move that makes the most sense. Vote changed to a comment and that comment can be summarized thus: Ad-hoc fixing of pages is good, developing a rule that can help avoid these issues in the future is better. We should be able to reach consensus to capitalize most Revolutions, right? Maybe not. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


>> Tunisia's second revolution >> Some Tunisians still waiting for revolution>> Revealing Tunisia's corruption under Ben Ali (Lihaas (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)).

@Lihaas: Is there anything new? OccultZone (Talk) 16:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

this is wrong[edit]

too many errors in this article. Vietcong nuturlizer (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific? Naming them will help us to fix the article. Even just pointing out a single error would help with this. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 9 Adar 5775 01:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)