Talk:Tunisian revolution

led poisoning :)
Too many uses of the word "led" in the opening paragraphs.... And anyway, isn't the use of this word somewhat not NPOV? --Rebroad (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The last part of the article's introduction does not seem to be referenced with a link/fact to back it up.

"Following further public protests, Ghannouchi himself resigned on 27 February, and Béji Caïd Essebsi became Prime Minister; two other members of the Interim Government resigned on the following day. On 3 March 2011, the president announced the elections for the Constituent Assembly, which were held on 23 October 2011 with the Islamist Ennahda Party winning the plurality of seats."

I think there should be a source added to these statements to make sure they can be fact-checked by other editors and readers.

Also, in the subsection "Impact of the Internet," the phrase "A blog associated with Wired described the intricate efforts of the Tunisian authorities to control such online media as[195] Twitter and Facebook" doesn't really point out what the blog describes the efforts as, it just mentions that the blog discussed the efforts of authorities. Markaberk (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Chronology is out
I propose to reorder some sections of this article unless some else does it first, or there are clear reasons for not doing so. It does not follow chronological order, so that issues involving the post Ben Ali government are discussed before his removal is described. Effectively much of secti three needs to be moved to later in the article. Mccapra (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Now done and the content presented as a timeline

Aftermath
This article has a short section called 'Aftermath'. This contains a couple of points which really have no direct relation to the 2011 revolution or the events described in the rest of the article. I propose to cut this section altogether and move the material to other articles where it is a better fit.Mccapra (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 April 2023

 * The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is no policy base given for the requested move. I don't see any chance that a consensus to move will develop, especially considering a potential violation of WP:NPOV. Hence, this. is a snow close. Estar8806 (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Tunisian Revolution → Tunisian Revolution of Dignity – This is the common name which is more respectful to the Tunisian people. LichCake (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and rapid close per WP:SNOWBALL. Not only have you failed to demonstrate that this is the common name, you are openly calling for violation of WP:NPOV. You have repeated this behavior here and on the 2011 Syrian Revolution article. 〜 Festucalex  •  talk  07:07, 14 April 2023 (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.

Requested move 21 April 2024

 * The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 20:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Tunisian Revolution → Tunisian revolution – Since it's not consistently capitalized in sources, per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, we shouldn't be dressing it up as a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2024 (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.
 * More book n-grams stats here and here and here if you want more context. Dicklyon (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note – I just noticed that this title went back and forth between capitalized and lowercase several times in 2011–2013, in a series of thinly participated RM discussions and other moves.
 * See Talk:Tunisian Revolution/Archive 2 and move logs of:
 * Tunisian Revolution
 * Tunisian revolution
 * 2010–2011 Tunisian revolution
 * 2010–2011 Tunisian Revolution
 * Tunisian Revolution of 2010–2011
 * 2010–2011 Tunisian uprising
 * Hopefully we get more participation this time. Dicklyon (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I'll be upfront and say that I prefer having it be "Tunisian Revolution". Having said that, this isn't like the Syrian civil war where there is a very clear preference for a certain capitalization. Here's another result. SailorGardevoir (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think this discussion is supposed to be about your preferences. Your "another result" stats clearly show, again, that it's nowhere near consistently capitalized in sources; not even half.  So per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, WP prefers lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "I prefer" is not a rationale with any meaning here. Either there is a source-based argument (or a WP:P&G-based argument, or an argument based on both), or there's not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support since it is not consistently capped in the sources. Primergrey (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, since it's not "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent reliable sources". The majority of descriptive phrases for military, governmental, or societal events and processes and causes and movements are lower case. We only capitalize the small subset that are consistently treated as capitalized proper names in the source material, e.g. World War II, the Glorious Revolution, the Hundred Years' War, etc. A large number of conflicts like this Tunisian one have multiple descriptive phrases in use about them in the source material, without any of them clearly rising to the level of conventionalized proper names consistently used by almost everyone and consistently capitalized by almost everyone. This one in particular is clearly known by multiple such terms, including Jasmine revolution, Tunisian revolution of dignity, Tunisian dignity revolution, etc. PS: after this RM is over, the text in the article needs to be adjusted to stop applying such "signfication" capitals.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per our long-established practice. Tony (talk)  06:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This is a descriptive term with no intrinsic need to capitalise. The evidence by nom and SailorGardevoir shows it is not consistently capped in sources; therefore lowercase per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)