Talk:Moncef Marzouki

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

President-elect???[edit]

He is not, he was not elected by the Tunisian people. He is the President-designate of Tunisia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.1.30.25 (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All over Wikipedia it's saying he is already President, but the information was cited to a source that said no such thing—only that the parties had agreed on him. I searched and could find nothing about his being elected or sworn in as President. Everyking (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Docteur Moncef Marzouki.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Docteur Moncef Marzouki.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support of convictions for "insulting the sacred"[edit]

In light of the discussion of "human rights activities", I believe this is an appropriate counterpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 02:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it wasn't even Marzouki who made the statement, but only his spokesman. And he only commented a court ruling, the application of valid Tunisian law. (By the way: insult of religious beliefs and symbols is a criminal offense in a number of Western counries, as well) It is not Marzouki who passed the verdict, nor can he as the president interfere in the judiciary, due to separation of powers. I agree that this case is notable for freedom of speech in Tunisia. However, it is not an important part of Marzouki's biography that he let his spokesman comment on a single criminal case. This incident is not notable for an encyclopedic article on Marzouki. Please read also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --RJFF (talk) 11:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So if the president of a country with a history as a "human rights activist" supports human rights abuses, but only his spokesman comments on it, it is not a valid part of his biography? In that regard, it is worth pointing out that the highest-ranking individuals in regimes that are responsible for such abuses often prefer to let others do the talking about it. William Jockusch (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The user William Jockusch (who no longer exists) clearly has a familiar agenda. The actual quote from Moncef's office can be found at any of the other myriad sites covering the controversy. And it is not at all as the current smear here at Wikipedia has depicted.
It's your opinion that this is "human rights abuse". Again: insult of religious beliefs and symbols is a criminal offense in a number of Western countries, that are considered democratic and respecting human rights. There is no country in the world where freedom of expression is unlimited. Every democratic state can put the freedom of expression into certain limits (e.g. outlaw insults, libel, defamation, hate speech). Some countries, including democratic and secular ones, consider public insults or disparagement to religious beliefs criminal offenses. Freedom House, a US-based human/civil rights organisation strongly oriented on Western values, considers post-revolutionary Tunisia a democracy. If the legislature of a democratic country passes a law banning insults to religious beliefs, and a criminal court correctly applies this law, what else can the head of this state do but approve of this democratic and legal process? --RJFF (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS. In a system of checks and balances, the head of the executive branch is not responsible for judicial decisions. Barack Obama is not responsible for the verdicts of US courts, either. If the Congress passes a law, and a US court applies it correctly, the President will usually approve. Presidents who have criticized court rulings or tried to influence them, have been rightly criticized for exceeding their powers or authorities. --RJFF (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Blasphemy law, Blasphemous libel, and Blasphemy law in the Republic of Ireland
Well, has any Western European country recently sentenced someone to seven years or more for insulting a religion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 01:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the question whether or not we approve of this court ruling. Don't get me wrong: I think it is excessive and a massive and unjustified interference in the freedom of expression. But again: letting his spokesman comment on a court ruling is not an important part of Mr. Marzouki's biography. Pronouncing punitive sentences does not belong to the authorities of the president. And whether he approves or disapproves of the court ruling in an individual criminal case (he might have tactically declared approval, because he doesn't want to exceed his authorities and disgruntle the other political forces in the country), is not relevant enough to be mentioned in a short, encyclopedic biography. It is WP:UNDUE to highlight this individual case that has no direct connection with Mr. Marzouki, his life, his office or his administration. --RJFF (talk) 10:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say this -- The thing that bothers me the most is that you keep finding reasons it does not belong in places. I originally put it in Ennahda because that seemed like the best place. But you felt it was out of place there, because Marzouki was not part of Ennahda. So I moved it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.48.17 (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper, this incident doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all. Wikipedia cannot collect all criminal cases from around the world. If there were reports that this is part of a major trend in Tunisia to curtail freedom of expression, it would belong. But this is only a single case out of context. And yes: it doesn't belong in the articles Ennahda Movement or Moncef Marzouki. Because it was neither Ennahda nor Mr. Marzouki who passed the verdict. It might belong in an article on Blasphemy law in Tunisia or Freedom of expression in Tunisia, but both have yet to be written. --RJFF (talk) 07:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about "major", but there are reports that freedom of expression is being curtailed there. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/08/tunisia-ennahda-party-emails-hacked-anonymous_n_1411370.html. It appears to be part Government crackdown, part Islamic Fundamentalists, with the Government opposing the Fundamentalists only when pushed to do so, and with a level of seriousness/sincerity that is unclear. http://www.alquds.com/news/article/view/id/345557 http://www.businessnews.com.tn/Tunisie-%C3%82%E2%80%93-L%C3%83%C2%A9cole-russe-et-le-cimeti%C3%83%C2%A8re-chr%C3%83%C2%A9tien-de-Montplaisir-attaqu%C3%83%C2%A9s,520,30347,3 http://www.fletcherforum.org/2012/04/08/ennahdas-split-personality/ http://news.yahoo.com/tunisia-govt-under-pressure-crackdown-101933393.html http://www.tap.info.tn/en/en/politics/13251-president-marzouki-visits-russian-orthodox-church-and-denounces-recent-attacks-.html Note that the actions described in the last two articles came only after criticism. At any rate, unless the Gov't takes effective action against the radicals, people will be scared to speak out. And if all the Gov't does is take just enough action to quiet criticism, the Fundamentalists are likely to continue to do their thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 21:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you think it is important, why don't you sit down and write an article about Freedom of expression in Tunisia, instead of adding the information randomly to articles that might be affected peripherally? I don't think that Moncef Marzouki is alone or most decisively responsible for the situation of this civil right in Tunisia. If you want, I could help you with putting together an article. There seems to be enough material to base it on. For the start, it might be enough to add a Tunisia section to the article Freedom of speech by country. Currently, Tunisia isn't mentioned there at all. Let's change that. Cheers. --RJFF (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer. You are reasonably close to the mark. What really bothers me is the continual attempt in certain quarters to portray islam and islamist movements as "moderate" when they are in fact anything but. The Marzouki and Ennahda articles are perfect examples of this. It is true that Ennahda is routinely referred to as "moderate" in the Western media. However, this "moderation" is only relative to other Islamist movements which will happily kill people with whom they disagree. If we used that yardstick here in the USA, it would be perfectly correct to describe (say) Jerry Falwell, Michelle Bachmann, Andrew Breitbart as "moderates". After all, as far as I am aware, none of them have advocated killing those with whom they disagree -- or even, for that matter, long prison sentences for expressing ideas they view as hostile to their own. William Jockusch (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that may be enough to warrant deletion of the reference on the basis of bias. The section I just added about Marzouki's reaction to the Persepolis conviction is much more factually grounded than your flimsily-founded reference to something his spokesman said.Liberal92 (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fake website finally found and removed[edit]

This is the edit where Marzoukis official website was replaced with a fake website. Noting it here just in case it should happen again. --PanchoS (talk) 07:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Moncef Marzouki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the Tunisian President is alive and well.[edit]

the Tunisian President is alive and well. Medaminetahiri (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moncef_Marzouki&oldid=1208476457"