Talk:Tunisian revolution/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

move

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)).

 Done but it woudl have been nice to have left a note.(Lihaas (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)).

Military coup in Tunisia (something to be aware of in the coming days perhaps?) [Note only rumour for now]

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)

Articles from today re Tunisia protests: [2] and [3]

Apologies. There has been an update on the above link. The rumour was proven to be false.Calaka (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

An opinion piece on the guardian [4]

More rumours around Twitter are circulating with Ben Ali being a trending topic (being talked about a lot). Obviously not confirmed but things getting mentioned include "Royal family trying to leave" "protesters continuing" "Royal family went to airport but not allowed to". Getting minute by minute updates hehe. In either case, there might be quite an expansion on this article and even a renaming if this continues. Just a heads up.Calaka (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

[5] Tunisian Government dissolved.Calaka (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Slah Eddine Kchouk, Slim Amamou and Azyz Amamy

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)

Biased article

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)

Removed the biased terms. Not sure what to put in its place, any suggestions?--Alcea setosa (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Its fine to include belligerents, but it should include government/police and protestors both as belligerants. The problem is not the terminology, its labelling one side as belligerents, all are belligerents. Ottawakismet (talk) 18:10, 14 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)

Ben Ali speech

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)

if sourced yes(Lihaas (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)). .

President fled the country and gave up power

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)

Apparently the president has left and there is a new president in place Fouad Mebazaâ of which there is no article on (although searching him on Wikipedia will show you he is linked in a Tunisian related article).Calaka (talk) 18:18, 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)

Ahh I am seeing now more of the prime minister as being the president. The ones for Fouad Mebazaâ I could not verify [6]Calaka (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Live updates from the Guardian [7]Calaka (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The BBC now confirms [8] that Mebazzaa is interim president. He asked the prime minister to form a government.Karouri (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

vague sentence needs work

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)

sounds good.(Lihaas (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)).

Done. Glennconti (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

POV concerns in media and pundit reactions section

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)

This passage was when the protests started. Perhaps change it to reflect the changning nature where in the early days it wasnt covered. (the article also mentions the silence of the domestic media later on so i dont think its pov)(Lihaas (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)).

Another rally

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)

One was scheduled for Jodran, but i havent heard of cairo. (if you find the source feel free to add it).

is it led by the brotherhood, that would be interesting as Jordan's is. seems like the islamic revolution is waking up...(Lihaas (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)).

Actually, thousands of people have protested in Jordan.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/01/jordan-protests-food-prices-muslim-brotherhood-tunisia-strike-thousands-government.html

http://www.thenational.ae/news/worldwide/middle-east/jordanians-take-to-streets-in-protests-against-rising-prices

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)

Yes, there should be. Sometimes it's a good idea to wait for a couple of reports to emerge, so that a new article can be well structured from the outset. As for the style and content of such an article, WP:NOTNEWS provides some information.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thats the wya i intended for the algeria one to expand when bigger (although that needs organiastion too), even though parallels were drawn here. We could move this to that page and then leave a "see also" or add to the "consequenaces" section(Lihaas (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)).

Aftermath

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)

There already is a "regional isntability" section that youre welcome to add with cites too.(Lihaas (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)).

title

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)

i think we can call it uprising now with the ouster in like with the Kyrgyz won last year. (and the supposed "jasmine revolution" terms)(Lihaas (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)).

peaceful? ehh, not so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottbp (talk • contribs) 07:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks/Twitter/People/Anonymous revolution

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]

Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

it seems rather dubiou right now to say these groups were the crux of the revolution whereas social media was not as big here as in the other Twitter Revolution (what with the internet censorship?)(Lihaas (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)).

In the lede it says some people refer to this as the "wikileaks revolution". Yet this is not expanded on in the article. I think that should be added into the article, or that should just be removed from the lede. 174.0.207.93 (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

i support yuo here, wikileaks ia s fringe theory. Wp:FRINGE(Lihaas (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)).

While I agree that Wikileaks was not the sole cause in all of this, I now do believe that Wikileaks did play a part in these events (however small is up for debate I guess and we should look at references). To be fringe, wouldn't the above sources that I listed not be valid that do talk about Wikileaks re: Tunisia?Calaka (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Also I should point out that the US GOV 100% denies or disagrees with Wikileaks having any involvment with this (just putting it out there): [26]. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Libyan leader blames Wikileaks [27].Calaka (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

RS sources have to be here in the first place, but fringe would (despite RS) not widely reported. Granted jasmine revo.. has some credence even if only a segment of the media, wikileaks revolution hasnt been mentioned much if at all outside the few sources listed. regardles of its effect. talking of the term "wikileaks revolution" not right about its effect. (which even then, how much did wikileaks have to do with the protests commencing, it only came up when theat prez's nephew died.)(Lihaas (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)).

Sorry it is too early here but can you clarify what you wrote? I don't think I understand what you are trying to say? :(. Anyhow, there is also this article [28] (One of the sentences in that article say: "The WikiLeaks cable that by many accounts helped encourage the protests that have now toppled the Ben Ali regime had...", but as more sources say it I will post it here.)Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

im not sure about the wikileaks revolution as it has far less sources than the jasmine revolution which is also only on western sources so far,. i think we need atleast some arab/tunisian sources to say so.

the wikileaks aspect is bareky covered in the article itself, or at any point during the protests.(Lihaas (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)).

Note that Al Jazeera is not western media but is based in Qatar. You are fair to say that the article barely covered Wikileaks but it is covered in 3 paragraphs (which seems decent to me). Note I am not asking for a name change to the Wikileaks revolution (I would strongly disagree with that) but rather an acknowledgment that Wikileaks seems to have played a part based on the references I provided (I invite readers to verify/agree/disagree on the articles quality). Here are the 3 paragraphs for reference:

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.

Also the fact that the Libyan dictator Gadafi mentioned it indicated more than just western media (true western media is reporting this but he said this in a video [29])? Even if his claims are wrong? Unfortunately I do not speak Arabic so I can't vouch for any mentions of Wikileaks in their media. But you are correct that further articles in the region mentioning Wikileaks (and its role if any in Tunisia are needed).Calaka (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I dont speak arabic either, but id say anthign wikileaks' cables says is purely te opinion f america diplomatic personnel and doesnt constitue for much reality.(Lihaas (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)).

What do you mean doesn't constitute much reality? You mean that they are fake? Is there any evidence for that? As far as I am aware the US gov can not talk about them because they are still classified (possibly indicating they are legit?) and they never made a statement saying that they are fake (if they did then all the cables would have been ignored). Oh and even if they are simple opinion, they seem to be quite correct in their judgment of Tunisia (they say Tunisia is corrupted etc. etc. in 2006... People of Tunisia would agree quite a lot with that...).Calaka (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

all that maybe, but thats the opinion of the WEST.(Lihaas (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)).

new section proposal

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)).

userbox

for editors who want:

Code	Result
{{User:Lihaas/Tunisiaprotests}}	This user thinks that Mohamed Bouazizi is a hero and should be recognised as such.	Usage

(Lihaas (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)).

Not first time that street protests had toppled the leader of an Arab country

Distribution of Arabic as sole official language (green) and one of several official or national languages (blue). (Arabe people)

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)

that may be but a weblog and wikipage (which is undersourceD) is not RS. do you have another source?(Lihaas (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)).

At least the second case is Wikipedia information (General Abboud). I can't find clear documentation of the process by which Gen. Swar al-Dahab took over from Nimeiry at the moment. Which is silly enough from my point of view because I am Sudanese and I witnessed the popular uprising myself. (Though I was young). Anyway, if I find something I will add it here. Karouri (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Here we are. This paper (http://www.jstor.org/pss/160860) should be good enough in the case of Nimeiry. Another reference here (http://www.jstor.org/pss/1166281) mentions both the October 1964 and the March-April 1985 uprisings. Karouri (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

My hypothesis is that this is the first such geopolitical action in the Mahgreb; I'll give a citation if and when I see such. kencf0618 (talk)

Cool, seems like youre right then. If we have another cite saying something else (although what is "geopolitical" i dont understand) then we add that.(Lihaas (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)).

The downfall of the Ben Ali regime due to street action is unique in modern Arab history. This isn't a dubious assertion, but one that's well cited. The other autocratic regimes have good cause to be worried, as the repercussions have only just begun in the Mahgreb and the Levant. kencf0618 (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

apparently not, see what the other editor from the region mentioned before. the regimes TODAY may have cause to beworried, but its not unique.(Lihaas (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)).

It probably comes down to a matter of definition. Bona fide revolutions certainly haven't been part and parcel of modern Arab political history, so I'll guess we'll just have to see where this one goes, whatever its uniqueness. We can parse the historical record, but there's going to be lot more history made in the Middle East that's off the beaten path. Then we'll have context. :) kencf0618 (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

id agree with here over the name cahnge, (you seem to oppose for now) but not of the "first" the jstore sources here apparently contradict that.(Lihaas (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)).

It is not a matter of definition. Whatever the current events are, it is a fact that Sudan had revolutions. While other Arab countries didn't have such revolutions and the situation is strange for them, the one in Tunisia wouldn't be the first. I though here we are allowed to use facts that are properly cited. If somebody thinks that the references I cited earlier are wrong, then correct me. Otherwise the fact that most Arabs don't know of the Sudanese revolutions doesn't change the fact that they did happen.Karouri (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I concede your point. kencf0618 (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sudan is muslim, not arabic. Yug (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The map shown is a very biased way of defining Arabs. Sudan has introduced another language as part of a recent political situation (peace agreement with the South) in 2005. I am sure that we can't say the Sudan was Arab till 2005 and now it is not. And I am sure no one would argue that Iraq is not an Arab country.Karouri (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Sudan is an Arab countries by all possible definitions. It is part of the Arab League, for example. At the time of both revolutions, Arabic was the only official language in Sudan. English was adopted as a second language in Sudan as a result of the agreement with the South in 2005, and is likely to be removed after the separation of the South. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karouri (talk • contribs) 13:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The best description of the popular uprising in Sudan in March-April 1985, written in English, that I can find is here. This is a web page by a minister in the subsequent governments. I put it here only to give an idea about the events that took place at the time. Known as Intifada (uprising), it started by students followed by syndicates (trade unions).Karouri (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

pretty damn similar me things, if thres wikipedia article we should "see also" it.(Lihaas (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)).

There is no wikipedia article at the moment. I will probably work on that and it will take time. Adding it here "see also" is a great idea, in due course. Karouri (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Along those lines,"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." From WP:Verififiability, a.k.a. WP:V. So edit boldly! It would help this article's historical context, certainly! kencf0618 (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of the term ouster

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)

I certainly agree. If nobody disagrees by tomorrow I would suggest replacing all uses of "ouster" by "ousting". I would prefer ousting to other options like deposing just because it is already used in the page and it has more Google hits already (i.e. the phrase "Ben Ali ousting" is more popular at the moment). Karouri (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

no objection, go ahead with the change.(Lihaas (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)).

Thanks. Done. Karouri (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Worst opening sentence ever

"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)

Relation between Kyrgyzstan and Tunisia

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)

It's too soon to tell, and in any case Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There are cites all over the yard for this having been been dubbed the Jasmine Revolution by Western media, although I have been unable to find who first coined the phrase. kencf0618 (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, its been de-bolded and lowered down in the lead with the due caveat that the western media called it as such. Id be inclined to link media to media sensationalism too.(Lihaas (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)).

The French Wikipedia's version of this article apparently has a section on the provenance of the term. (If any Francophones would like to take a shot at porting the relevant data over here, it would be much appreciated!) I disagree with your assertion of media sensationalism, though. There's always some quick-and-ready term which rises to the top of the lexicon, savvy? kencf0618 (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I added an image from there. (also used on facebook (ive seen it)). What does say about a mafia clan? [31]

can yu point me to the context about the jasmine revolution>?

this section could be good here. and this

This Weslh (?) article is good if anhyone can translate.(Lihaas (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)).

Basically the French article is just explaining that the Jasmine Revolution's name was already adopted when the former power came to power in the 1980's, and followed similar nomenculture as that of other revolutions that had flowers in their name. Such as Portugal. Critics critisized the media for trying to link it to last decade's color revolutions as the color revolutions were non-violent, which is certainly not the case in Tunisia. --Kuzwa (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

wo! thanks for the clarificiation, that delegitimises a move to jasmine revolution even more.(Lihaas (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

Ultimately cuminated

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)

agreed.(Lihaas (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)).

Arrest of Hassan al-Turabi

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)

 Done also added reference to the ongoibg referendum. feel free to remove if opposed.(Lihaas (talk) 12:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

Lebanon

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)).

reorg`

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)).

i agree. But i think part of the motivation for whoever restructured was to put the 3 ministers resigning together with the new government section, which seems thematically reasonably without being OR. i've done another restructure: both the ministers resigning and the street protests seem to have essentially the same political aims: purging RCD people from the government and disbanding the RCD. There's more info in the Al Jazeera article that i haven't included, just because i wanted to get some minimal updates first, and because it's more subtle. A fifth minister resigning is not so subtle, but the relevance/notability of the RCD government ministers resigning from the RCD might need to wait for some non-Wikipedian POVs. My reasoning (OR) here: It's clearly a symbolic step to show that the "ex-"RCD ministers acknowledge the ex-ministers'/street protestors' concerns. But is it enough? Resigning from the RCD apparently is going to weaken the RCD considerably as a structure. But will those some people suddenly lose all their networking of personal contacts (mental and electronic/paper lists of contacts), which is part of the reason that they remain powerful people? Will the ex-ministers/street protestors judge this to be "enough", or will they insist on the ex-RCD ministers to all resign from the government? We can't put this OR and questions in the article. i guess we can say that they resigned from the RCD. But in which section? Remember that this is an encyclopedia article, not a news chronology. In the aftermath section? Boud (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2010–2011 Tunisian protests/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lord Roem (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I will review this article quickly. Considering a quick-fail due to the fact that the protests have a definite end, this GA would be premature. - Lord Roem (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Failing this under Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles#How_to_review_an_article #5 - this is a rapidly unfolding event with a definite endpoint - the protests will not last forever. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Social change is about more than just changing a leader, so it's not so obvious how "definite" an end to these protests could be expected to occur. But i'm not trying to argue against the GA-fail; my motivation here is for the article to be accurate, balanced, sourced etc. However, out of curiosity, since i didn't find any explanation of the fail criterion #5 on the GA page or related pages that you linked to, do you happen to know the motivation? It's not obvious to me why a rapidly unfolding event with an indefinite future can more easily converge to a good wikipedia article as compared to one with a definite end. Surely a rapidly unfolding event with an indefinite future should be more difficult to converge on, and be unstable. Not because of edit wars or POV disputes, but rather because of the continuing evolution of the event and different wikipedians' good faith efforts to try to keep up with an encyclopedic description. New info is continually going to shift the encyclopedic description. An event with a definite end is the opposite: it should be possible to converge once the end has been reached, assuming that sufficient RS'd info is available. Maybe just point us to the place where this is discussed - i assume that there must be some reasonable arguments behind the guideline. Boud (talk)

Why cant it be a good article becasue its ongoing. Its pretty well and accuratly covered, i dont think it leaves a reader "wanting" and is continually added to. It can alwqys be delisted if it becomes crap in the future.

"There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake." but there are no suggestiong here?(Lihaas (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

suggesting here: Wikipedia_talk:Reviewing_good_articles#RE:_How_to_review_an_article_.235Lihaas (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

andy carvin use of storify software - notable and reliably sourced? useful external link?

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)

Hi everyone, Andy Carvin here. Just to give you some context, I run the social media desk at NPR (National Public Radio) and produced the Storify page for our news blog on NPR.org. I worked with a number of Arabic-speaking journalists and other trusted sources I've gotten to known since I first visited Tunisia in 2004, mostly for translation purposes. I also used the page to document the informational chaos, so occasionally I'm trying to make the point that certain info wasn't verified yet. So it's a chronology of how the event took place via social media over the course of several weeks. Meanwhile, Storify is still a new tool, so I'm not surprised the script had problems. I believe they have a json feed available, and are working on an RSS feed too.

Also, does anyone know who coined the Jasmine Revolution? I started using it in late December 2010 but I would imagine others came up with it independently as well. Acarvin (talk) 18:35, 26 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

Split off copycats

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)

I would Support an article called 2010–2011 Arab World protests, on the main page of wikipedia it says that in Yemen tens of thousands are protesting now, soon the Yemen protests might have it's own article and it all seems to be connected. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Just started it. Please flesh it out, as I'm still learning about the various protests. Jmj713 (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

oppose the individual articles are far more compreheanvice (tunisia itself being almost 90k). Arab world needs more details (similar background) and summations of the respective countries' issues.(Lihaas (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)).

Support. As long as the original national articles remain available as separate pages accessible through the Arab protest page, it would be very helpful to have a larger article giving context and showing the links between all the protests in each individual country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haku8645 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

yes i would support that, but i oppose a move TO that article. at any rate, that article needs some solid development.(Lihaas (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)).

That's the idea, for one general overview and context with links to individual incidents. Jmj713 (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Support! PS. I don't think the Albanian protest are really related. Albania is not an autocratic arab state but a post-communist democracy. Protest simply happened to coincide. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

added for the suggestion made in pol. ircles taht it was similar.(Lihaas (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)).

There's also protests in Gabon, a non-Arab African country. Jmj713 (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Name of the article - Revolution

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)

Not just yet -- Ghannouchi is a member of the same party as Ben Ali and claims to have succeeded constitutionally. Jpatokal (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

at any rate such a move owould need extraordinary sources not wikipedia synthesis. though uprising is possible.(Lihaas (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)).

At any rate, it seems the PM has been replaced by someone else. RantingMrP (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that it might be wise to wait a little, I don't think that conformance to the constitution is enough to assume it is a continuation. As long as the president and the current regime was overthrown by force. An interesting parallel is the way Ben Ali himself came to power in what is described as a "constitutional coup". But if the only change is the president, then this is not a (successful) revolution. Karouri (talk) 19:22, 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 digress. a revolution is a re-evolution. nothing much had changed here (fior now)(Lihaas (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)).

That's a revolution: a full goverment have been taken down by street. And as the 1830 July Revolution, one member of the elite take the place of the country leadership, and state his understanding and his will to satisfy the interest of Nation. That's a revolution. Yug (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Lets see what others say, but i think we cant call it that yet. the same regime is still governing, the army/police have not "changed" yet. wed also need extraordinary RS sources not wikipedia editors' definitions. although "uprising" would be more plausible akin to Kyrgz's "uprising".(Lihaas (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)).

According to the article July Revolution, the "revolution of July 1830 created a constitutional monarchy. Charles X abdicated rather than become a limited monarch and departed for Great Britain. In his place Louis Philippe of the House of Orléans was placed on the throne, and he agreed to rule as a constitutional monarch." No similar change of regime has taken place in Tunisia at this moment.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support "Uprising" describes what is happening, and remains correct irrespective of the eventual outcome. The article may be renamed again, of course, if necessary.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

i see your view, but would also like to add do we have a plethora of extraordinary RS' saying so. So far (as mentioned elsewhere here) only a few western sources are calling it as such. not eveen arab sources let lalone tunisian ones. Its not up to us to create news.

you can make it a redirect for now until we wait for the move to "revolution" if youw ant(Lihaas (talk) 01:53, 17 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)

• Support Time magazine and others are calling it a "Revolution". http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2042817,00.html We are not making news. Glennconti (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

most importantly do we have local/regional sources sayin so?(Lihaas (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)).

At this point Al Jazeera is calling it an "uprising" with "seeds of revolution". I get the feeling that they are waiting to see if the uprising will spread to other countries before they will call it a revolution. http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/insidestory/2011/01/201111693415867722.html Glennconti (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

for an arab network i think it bears more credence here than the guardian or any other. so i think the 2 options tight now are "uprising" and "revolution" but its certainly more than a "protest"(Lihaas (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)).

I agree with you it is more than just a protest. If you want to follow Al Jazeera's lead, call it an "uprising" until they get around to calling it a "revolution". Glennconti (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on "revolution" or "uprising" as alternatives

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

• Support No change of regime until now. However, actions on the part of the population constitute much more than a simple expression of grievances, and the reaction on the part of the government and the country's institutions has been substantial.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Arab press is calling it an "uprising" or intifada. Glennconti (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

support uprising NOT revolutinon.(Lihaas (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)).

• Support - the consequences have gone far beyond those of the average "protest" Cjs2111 (talk) 04:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

it seems we have unanimous consensus fora move to at least "2010–2011 Tunisian uprising"(Lihaas (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)).

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)

• Comment Consensus is confusing here there are two alternatives and people just put down Support already in the article and on the main page this is being described as a revolution which looking at the chat here seems to go against consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support These events have been much more than protests, for example, there has been strike action, public advocacy etc. We should call it an uprising. Possibly over time a different name will stick, we will have to watch the media until then. Maybe it will retain the name revolution which some sources have used. Until then: uprising.ValenShephard (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment How many hits does Jasmine Revolution gather? I have seen Time magazine call this event that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

some change seems unanimos. im moving it based on this.(Lihaas (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)).

• Comment: Independent Arab sources (including Arabic Wikipedia and al-Jazeera) generally refer to the event as a ثورة (thawra), i.e. revolution, typically in the form of "الثورة التونسية" (Al-Thawra al-Tūnisiyya, the Tunisian Revolution, sometimes with the 2010-11 date). I think we should be cautious in calling it the "Jasmine Revolution," since that seems to be something of a foreign moniker, but I do think that "uprising" is a little...weak for what's actually happened. Bear in mind that most Arab news organizations are state-owned or -influenced (the latter includes al-Jazeera, but the influence mostly extends to "don't say anything bad about Qatar"), so they have every reason to belittle the revolution/uprising/what have you by calling it an "intfadah" (uprising) and not a "thawra"--we shouldn't rely on them too much. As it is, most of the independent Egyptian press (which I read) uses the term "thawra" fairly regularly for the Tunisian business, although "intifadah" is still in currency to some degree. Lockesdonkey (talk) 13:03, 27 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)

there was a notion above to avoid revolution (not mine) until the regime changes adn not the same party (although that seems to have changed again)(Lihaas (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

• Support: "Jasmine Revolution", as Glennconti pointed out Al Jazeera seems to be using this terminology now, Al Jazeera (admittedly I only read the english Al Jazeera, so I don't know how it is in other languages) seems to be off and on running with it (although sometimes saying often called/so-called):

[33] [34] [35]

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)

Article name: protests, uprising or revolution?

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)

Also, the box claims the revolution ended on 14 Jan with Ben Ali's departure, but obviously the protests didn't -- it seems a little early to call an end. Jpatokal (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

One more interesting data point: even government sources now regularly refer to a "revolution" [40]. If the government and the people both think it's a revolution, then I suppose it is? Jpatokal (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I would still call it an uprising. Google might not be best on this one. Reliable sources, like the Guardian newspaper call it an uprising. Revolution might catch up and we can change it then. An uprising just means a more wideranging movement than protests, which this is. ValenShephard (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

In my view, an uprising is characterized by an actual or perceived threat of the application of coercive force on the part of the participants, while protests may be confined to the expression of opinions and demands.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

An uprising is "an act of resistance of rebellion", it could be non-violent a la Gandhi, so violence is not the main factor. Protests are less wideranging. What is occuring is the 'rising up' of Tunisian society (not just one group or social class) so I think uprising is appropriate for now. ValenShephard (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

An uprising may remain non-violent, but the aspect of potential violence is one of the characteristics of an uprising. As Gandhi said, "I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor."  Cs32en Talk to me  20:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It is hard to tell whether there will be violence or not. The whole crisis was not predicted by any serious commentator in the west, Tunisia was considered a model for the region in its stability. That said, uprising still seems to me to be the best description of events. Some have gone as far as to call it a revolution. ValenShephard (talk) 20:46, 24 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, and discussed above, that a move to at least uprisin g is more than warranted. though id hold off on revolution just yet (unkless it was called a generic revolution with the "jasmine" caveat)(Lihaas (talk) 00:07, 26 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 sources for revolution (#3,4,5) link to youtube and facebook. which i think we can all agree is not RS. Jasmne revolution as discussed here was moved to the unbolded parts of the lead because of its limited nature in the media, whereas the universal media hasnt tagged it as such. And the gerneral bolding og the timeline is unwarranted by any precedent.(Lihaas (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

Albania

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)

The protests in Tunisia are certainly being referenced by the politicians in Albania, but I don't think the reasons are the same. Never-the-less I think 20,000 people after a top official was secretly recorded in a backroom deal is notable. Or if not, then it may soon become a notable event. I sadly don't have time to work on such an article, but I might go add a request for it. EDIT: Which I did. If anyone wants to tackle it there are quite a few news articles out at the moment. SargeAbernathy (talk) 06:13, 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)

apparently the above doesnt belong to this section

but for the albania bit ive added it in the respective section

 Done(Lihaas (talk) 00:18, 26 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)

In fact I'm now changing my opinion in getting rid of it all together. The situation in Albania is different. While the leader of the opposition party did call for protests like Tunisia, I don't think that is enough to make a comparison to the popular uprising happening elsewhere. SargeAbernathy (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

the grievance is not unlike that of yemen (which has been claimed explicitly to NOT advocate regime change as the rest want). and an RS has drawn parallels.(Lihaas (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)).

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

Resolved

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

Proposal One: Jasmine Revolution

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

(Your comments here)

Proposal Two: Tunisian Revolution

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

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

• 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 78.2.44.170 that having "uprising" in the title sounds as if the Tunisians rebelled against a foreign power. --Tocino 22:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• 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: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. Then here are some newer news reports I found with Google news (limited to last week): [48], [49], [50], [51]. 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 [52].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--78.3.222.224 (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

• See the above talk discussion for this one.

(Your comments here)

Proposal Four: Dignity Revolution

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

(Your comments here)

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

• The current name of the article.

• Support (See my comment of February 11 below.) Actual power has not been taken from the established regime, although the movement led the regime to adjust its structure and actions. I power would have been taken by the movement or by a political regime established by the movement permanently, it would be a successful revolution, if such a change of power would be temporary only, it would be a revolution that would have been unsuccessful, at least in this respect. As none of this happened so far, the article describes an uprising, although we may add the diffent labels for the event, such as Jasmine revolution, to the lead section.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

uprising fits more to be a sudden armed struggle against a foreign occupier, like Warsaw Uprising or the First Serbian Uprising. And Tunisia looks more like the French Revolution than Warsaw if I may say so.--78.2.44.170 (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

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. 76.254.35.199 (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)

POV

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

Looks like Lihaas you are the last man (non-IP) standing to oppose. Glennconti (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

okay.  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.

Bouazizi revolution

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

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)

clean/GA

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

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--93.137.6.95 (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

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)

Lack of support on beaten Italian reporter

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

Where is the Jasmine Revolution?

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)

post-ouster reactions in tunisian life

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

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)

Post-Ben Ali government - needs current additions.

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)

Past-tense

Why does the lead say "was a series of street demonstrations"? And the end date of January 27? The protests seem to still be going on: [53]. 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 76.254.35.199 (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)

Islam Politics and Influences

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

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. 99.231.200.55 (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)?. 99.231.200.55 (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

How about (France24) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.200.55 (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:

• Counterpunch.org: The Original Sin of the Israeli State (Israel, too, is full of religious fundamentalists)
• Indymedia.org: Uprising in Tunisia- People Power topples Ben Ali regime
• Sonia Verma Twitter: "This is Still a Secular Protest" (in Tunisia) (reporter for "The Globe and Mail")
• Press TV - Democratic revolution in Tunisia (News video show in English) (Loves Islam & Tunisia but wishes for a secular government)
• Yahoo News: Leader eyes political role for Tunisian Islamists
• Haaretz.com: Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood eyes unity gov't without Mubarak
• International Business Times: Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas seek to increase role in Egypt : Stratfor
• The Washington Times: Muslim Brotherhood supports ElBaradei
• MSNBC: Tunisia security forces chase Islamist protesters
• Time: How Tunisia's Once-Suppressed Islamists Are Re-Emerging
• Al Arabiya News Channel: Women keep wary eye on Tunisian revolt, Fear losing rights gained during ousted secular regime
• The New Age: Tunisia on the way to Islamic rule
• ANSA Med: Tunisia- Al Qaeda Maghreb Chief Wants Tunisians to Rebel
• Ma'an News Agency: Islamists applaud popular uprising in Tunisia
• France24: Fall of secular regime paves the way for the rise of Islamic influence
• AsiaNews.it: Unstable Tunisia troubles Arab world, between Islam and democracy
• Human Events: A Jihad in Tunisia
• Press TV: 'Islam, best option for a new Tunisia'

--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)

Paratroopers??????

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)