Talk:2011–12 Egyptian parliamentary election

Polls chart

There are so many new parties founded after the revolution. If we include every single one of them in the chart with poll results, it would be rather confusing. Therefore I propose to only include a selection of parties, e. g. the parties that have scored 5% or more in the recent polls. Additionally, we should sort them by a neutral criterion - either alphabetically by name or, as I did it, by the number of their best polling score. How do you think about it? --RJFF (talk) 11:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I added a reference, useful for its detail and for updating: Jadaliyyah’s Egypt Editors, Jadaliyyah, Nov 16 2011 http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/3136/egypt-elections-watch_use-with-caution As a newby to wikipedia, I did not know how to create a footnote, but I welcome a change to footnote form or whatever by whomever. Eleanor1944 (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

What kind of proportional representation is this election following?

So far they don't seem to have published the number of seats per party so I'm trying to work out the number of seats per party based on the number of votes that have been released. But I don't know what kind of proportional representation are they using, the results differ significantly depending on the methods; the Highest averages Sainte-Laguë method & D'Hondt method and the Largest remainder method give different results...My guess is that it is most likely the largest remainder but I couldn't find a source that explicitly supports this. --Tachfin (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This source confirms the use of the largest remainder method. --Tachfin (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A bit of original research: Partial results

Since the Egyptian authorities released the votes but not the seats I had some fun calculating them using the Sainte-Laguë method, which should give almost identical results as the largest remainder method (Which I presume is used). So far the Freedom and Justice Party and the Al Nour Party total about 71% of seats! I wonder what the revolution-happy kids would think. --Tachfin (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Party	Seats	% of 112
Freedom and Justice Party	48	43%
Al Nour Party	31	28%
Egyptian Bloc	16	14%
New Wafd Party	8	7%
Al-Wasat Party	3	3%
al-Islah wa Tanmiya (Reform and Development Party?)	2	2%
Misr al-Qawmi (National Party?)	1	1%
al-Hriya (Freedom Party?)	1	1%
al-Muwatin al-Misri (Egyptian Citizen Party?)	1	1%
Revolution continues	1	1%
Total	112

Common mistake in the media reports

There is a common mistake in the report of the election results. The percentage given to the FJP and Al Nour parties are incorrect. The 36.6% votes went to the Democratic Alliance, lead by the FJP and have around 9 other parties. The same thing with Al Nour, the 24.4% of the votes went to the Salafis Alliance, which consists of 3 Salafis parties lead by Al Nour. If you do not want to add the alliances and just put the leading party, then I think it will be fair to put Free Egyptians party instead of the Egyptian Bloc. As the Free Egyptians party is the leader of this bloc with 80% of the list compromised by its members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ROMMEL HSQ (talk • contribs) 19:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

According to [1], the Free Egyptians party has only 50% of the Egyptian Bloc nominees. the other two parties have 40% and 10%. Hous21 (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats true, but at the head of the list in the majority of districts are from Free Egyptians. I'm trying to found the source for that. ROMMEL HSQ (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Abu El-Ezz Hareri.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Abu El-Ezz Hareri.png, 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) 23:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

PR detailed table

Since Al-Ald didn't get any PR seat, and former NDP parties got 3, I think we should replace "Al-Adl" by "former NDP parties". I think such a change will make the results clearer and will showcase a more accurate political representation. Any thoughts?

Hous21 (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur. This is convincing. --RJFF (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Which party got how many seats?

In the table there are only the results of the alliance lists. The Egyptian Bloc for example consists of three political parties: How many seats did the Free Egyptians Party, the Tadschammu and the Egyptian Social Democratic Party gain? The FJP alone got only (!) 71 seats, not 73. Of which party do the other two National Democratic Alliance Mmembers come from?--88.65.136.150 (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

good point. FJP-allies got at least 4 seats, but not sure how many yet. Someone filled in the break up of the Egyptian Bloc at its respective parties webpage. Not sure where they got these numbers. We probably should keep a look-out for such information. --Hous21 (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"All 508 seats" ?

I have to ask if that is accurate. According to People's Assembly of Egypt, only 498 are elected and the other 10 are presidential appointees. Has that been changed? Also, how are 250 seats a majority of >500? 76.117.247.55 (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

you are right. Only 498 seats are elected. 250 is a majority in the elected seats. this should be clarified. Hous21 (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

parties with no elected MPs

We are listing parties that didn't get any elected MPs. I guess the idea is that some parties with lower national percentages got MPs, so we are listing parties with no MPs but a higher national average.

I think this is pointless, because: 1) the election is on the governorate level, not national, thus having a better score nationally but not in a governorate is pointless. 2) many MPs are elected as FPTP. 3) we are not being consistent, in the second phase we list Al-Adl, but don't list other parties who fared better than al-adl, and we omit parties who did worse.

I suggest, for each phase, to list all parties that had at least one deputy. And to remove parties with no MPs.

what do u all think? Hous21 (talk) 03:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Article cleanup

the article is poorly written (at least in the result section i just cleaned) contains plenty of OR and vague comments as well as some unrelated stuff i removed from the result section. With that, the other sections need some review too. Also the opinion polls section replicated exactly whats in the table and adding more page size unncessarily without new info

And plase move the tables to a template to decrease the size of the page.(Lihaas (talk) 12:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)).

Elected (first-past-the-post) v. appointed (proportional, list) representatives

The first-past-the-post voting versus proportional representation systems seems to be an issue. I changed a sentence where the first-past-the-post system was identified as favouring the NDP. Not only does the source not say this, I believe this is flat out wrong.

In first-past-the-post systems, the candidates are elected, whereas in proportional representation systems candidates are appointed, where the entity deciding the representatives is probably not the electorate (usually the party, but sometimes using preference votes, which are usually not binding.) In some party list systems, like Sweden, the parties choose the representatives based on how many seats they were allocated by the electorate; in other words, they are not so much elections as "seat allocations". (I have not conclusively determined if the parties may remove representatives there as well, or if preference votes are binding.)

From what I can tell, Egypt switched to a Additional Member System whereby some representatives are elected, and some appointments are delegated to party apparatuses (via seat allocations) by the electorate. But just how are those non-elected representatives appointed to those seats? Is there a party conference or caucus? Is there some sort of party primary? Is there a central committee of insiders, as is used by most Communist parties? Is there a system of preference votes, and are they binding or may they be ignored?

In any event, I will be making fairly substantative (and probably controversial) edits to reflect these views and answer these questions, as this article discusses them, and merge them to elections in Egypt. Int21h (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

FPTP voting is favoring the majority party (FJP in this case), definitely not the NDP. Check [2] for resource on how seats are assigned. In a nutshell, each party submitted a closed-list for the proportional elections. That is, each party named the candidates and ordered them. U can see the members of each electoral PR list at [3] (in arabic). Now the parliament must have at least 50% farmers/workers. The candidates on each list must be at least 50% farmers/workers, with no two professional candidates back to back. Each list must have at least one woman.

Comes the elections, each list gets assigned seats according to the PR system. The first candidates of each list get elected. The exceptions: 1) each party must pass the threshold of 0.5% of the national vote for it to get any PR seats. 2) if the professional quota in the parliament has been reached, which is topped at 50% of the parliament, the professional winners on the PR lists get replaced by the next in-line worker/farmers. The actual law, in arabic, is at [4]

This said, there is no party apparatuses delegation as you described.The voters know exactly who the PR list members are, and their ordering. Each party is free to use whatever mechanisms it wants to decide on the ordering of its PR list. No preference vote,just standard closed-list PR vote. Please consider that before making your changes. Hous21 (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the closed list is the missing component, as unlike an open list the appointment of the candidates to the allocated seats as determined by the parties is known in advance of the election. I don't think anyone really knows how closed lists are decided in any country which they are used (even Scotland), so that is probably a non-starter. Int21h (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

There is probable vandalism in the "PR per governorate and district" section. Can someone remove it and put in the correct words? Thanks. 69.225.234.228 (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Mysteries of the election results

The Election Commission (one of the worst-designed websites I've ever seen) has released figures only for the party-list voting. They did give results for the first phase of constituency voting, but then withdrew them. They gave no figures for the 5 December run-offs, and no figures at all for the second phase of constituency voting. Does anyone know what is going on? Are these figures a state secret (as seems to be the case in Morocco)? Does anyone have any other source for these results, in any language? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Results show alliances, no parties

Which party got how many seats? In the table there are only the results of the alliance lists. The Egyptian Bloc for example consists of three political parties: How many seats did the Free Egyptians Party, the Tadschammu and the Egyptian Social Democratic Party gain? The FJP alone got in the first round 71 seats (!), not 73. Of which party do the other two Democratic Alliance for Egypt Members come from?--88.65.136.150 (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox - Major parties

There is a large gap between Egyptian Bloc (according to current results approximately 33 seats = more than 6%) and Reform and Development (11 seats = around 2%) Therefore I have included the Egyptian Bloc to the major parties, presented in the infobox, and the RDP not. I do not agree that parties with only 2% of the seats should be included in the infobox. Only the major parties (more than 5% of the seats) should. Regards --RJFF (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thats an arbitrary number, lets gain sme consensus. Your suggestion was BOLD but already 2 others have questioned it so we need to discuss this here. When we decide THEN we can add it. In the Finnish election last year we put all parties represented (8), though someone added a 9th just for presentzation. Itsa tough call to decide who should be up here, im quite frankly split and dont care what consensus decides. I would however like to see some consensus building fbfore and arbitrary and possibly pov system that favours the establishment.(Lihaas (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)).

I thought I had presented my arguments quite convincingly above: there is a large gap between the 33 seats (6%) of Egyptian Bloc and 11 seats (2%) of Reform and Development. This justifies in my opinion to make the cut between major parties (to be included in infobox) and minor (not to be included) there. The gap between Revolution Continues (10 seats/2%) and the other minor parties, e.g. National Party (5 seats/1%) is not that big. Therefore it is more arbitrary to make the cut here. But including all parties that won seats (15!) is not an option here. I cannot comprehend your argument with the "establishment", because the establishment has not played a role in these elections. (Neither Muslim Brothers, nor Salafis, nor Wafd, nor liberals are establishment) --RJFF (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Opinion polls

we should merge the redundant prose from this section into the table and move the sources there for 2 reasons: 1. redundancy, 2. cuts down page size. per WP:Article size this is 135k+, 45k more than the suggested split off.(Lihaas (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)).

Concur. The prose is indeed redundant, as it only describes the figures in the table. --RJFF (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

There is some major problem with opinion polls. It looks like New Wafd and Salafi names got swapped, by observing the Nov 11 opinion polls & actual results for these two parties. Atif.hussain (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Results?

The results were released yesterday noon (Saturday). Where can you look them up to add the missing data to the election tables?--93.133.86.248 (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The Election Commission has still released no voting figures for the constituency seats. Jadaliyyah has not been updated since 9 Jan. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This infographic might help — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArnoldPlaton (talk • contribs) 11:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the results vary in the different result lists. Where are the official election results?--93.133.112.70 (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Parties' colours

Usually the tables in this article, and the infobox, use the parties' official colours that can be found in the party's logos or on their campaign websites. However, it is impracticable with Freedom&Justice on the one and Wafd on the other hand, both using a very similar shade of green. Therefore, I would propose to use Wafd's official green in the infobox of their own article, but find a colour that is better to distinguish in the election tables, the result summary and the infobox of this article. What are your thoughts in this question? --RJFF (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Combined results section

I am proposing the following table to replace the existing combined results table, which contains a lot of mistakes - I spent the entire day researching various sources, and this is the best I could find. I am citing some references here, but do ask if anything is not clear:

Combined result

	Party	Ideology	Votes	Vote %	PR Seats	FPTP Seats	Total Seats	Component Parties
	Democratic Alliance for Egypt (led by the Freedom and Justice Party)	Islamist - Muslim Brotherhood	10,138,134	37.5 / 100	127	101	228 / 498	217 / 498 Freedom & Justice Party 6 / 498 Dignity Party 2 / 498 Ghad El-Thawra Party 2 / 498 Civilization Party 1 / 498 Islamic Labour Party
	Islamist Bloc (led by Al-Nour Party)	Islamist - Salafi	7,534,266	27.8 / 100	96	31	127 / 498	111 / 498 Al-Nour Party 13 / 498 Building & Development Party 3 / 498 Authenticity Party
	New Wafd Party	Liberal Nationalist	2,480,391	9.2 / 100	36	2	38 / 498
	Egyptian Bloc	Social Liberal	2,402,238	8.9 / 100	33	1	34 / 498	16 / 498 Social Democratic Party 15 / 498 Free Egyptians Party 3 / 498 Progressive Unionist Party
	Al-Wasat Party	Islamist - Moderate	989,003	3.7 / 100	10	0	10 / 498
	Reform and Development Party	Liberal	604,415	2.2 / 100	8	1	9 / 498
	The Revolution Continues Alliance	Leftist	745,863	2.8 / 100	7	1	8 / 498	5 / 498 Socialist Popular Alliance Party 1 / 498 Equality & Development Party 1 / 498 Freedom Egypt Party 1 / 498 Revolution Youth Coalition
	Freedom Party	NDP offshoot	514,029	1.9 / 100	4	1	5 / 498
	National Party of Egypt	NDP offshoot	425,021	1.6 / 100	4	1	5 / 498
	Egyptian Citizen Party	NDP offshoot	235,395	0.9 / 100	3	1	4 / 498
	Democratic Peace Party	NDP offshoot	248,281	0.9 / 100	1	0	1 / 498
	Arab Egyptian Unity Party	NDP offshoot	149,253	0.6 / 100	1	0	1 / 498
	Union Party	NDP offshoot	141,382	0.5 / 100	2	0	2 / 498
	Justice Party	Center	184,553	0.7 / 100	0	2	2 / 498
	Independents	Independents	-	-	-	24	24 / 498
	Total Votes	-	27,065,135	99.0 / 100	332	166	498
	Appointed by the millitary	-	-	-	-	-	10
	Total	-	-	-	-	-	508

Very nice work. Much better than the table we currently have. However, it appears a bit too colourful to me. Usually we do not use graphs for every figure in election tables. Do we really need all the graphs? I would prefare the bare figures a lot. --RJFF (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

How about this one?

{{Egyptian parliamentary election, 2011}} --RJFF (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I kind of like the color bars because they give a good and quick visual idea about each party. I'm curious what other people think about that. Also, we need to come up with an agreement about the difference in figures between your table and mine. --B for Bandetta (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If I don't see any objections to the initial table in the next couple of days I'll add it to the article. Thanks --B for Bandetta (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

So even though nobody replied to my last post or objected to the last version of the table, people are still reverting my edits on the page. Here is the version of the table I last posted as a compromise for people who think the colour bars are too much. Also note that this table has the correct information about seat numbers and percentages, because as you can see from the references posted at the beginning of this discussion, the table posted by the user RJFF contains wrong information. I invite people to share their opinions about which table format they like better, and any suggestions for improvement if they have any. Thanks. --B for Bandetta (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

	Party	Ideology	Votes	Vote %	PR Seats	FPTP Seats	Total Seats	Component Parties
	Democratic Alliance for Egypt (led by the Freedom and Justice Party)	Islamist - Muslim Brotherhood	10,138,134	37.5%	127	101	228 / 498	217 / 498 Freedom & Justice Party 6 / 498 Dignity Party 2 / 498 Ghad El-Thawra Party 2 / 498 Civilization Party 1 / 498 Islamic Labour Party
	Islamist Bloc (led by Al-Nour Party)	Islamist - Salafi	7,534,266	27.8%	96	31	127 / 498	111 / 498 Al-Nour Party 13 / 498 Building & Development Party 3 / 498 Authenticity Party
	New Wafd Party	Liberal Nationalist	2,480,391	9.2%	36	2	38 / 498
	Egyptian Bloc	Social Liberal	2,402,238	8.9%	33	1	34 / 498	16 / 498 Social Democratic Party 15 / 498 Free Egyptians Party 3 / 498 Progressive Unionist Party
	Al-Wasat Party	Islamist - Moderate	989,003	3.7%	10	0	10 / 498
	Reform and Development Party	Liberal	604,415	2.2%	8	1	9 / 498
	The Revolution Continues Alliance	Leftist	745,863	2.8%	7	1	8 / 498	5 / 498 Socialist Popular Alliance Party 1 / 498 Equality & Development Party 1 / 498 Freedom Egypt Party 1 / 498 Revolution Youth Coalition
	Freedom Party	NDP offshoot	514,029	1.9%	4	1	5 / 498
	National Party of Egypt	NDP offshoot	425,021	1.6%	4	1	5 / 498
	Egyptian Citizen Party	NDP offshoot	235,395	0.9%	3	1	4 / 498
	Democratic Peace Party	NDP offshoot	248,281	0.9%	1	0	1 / 498
	Arab Egyptian Unity Party	NDP offshoot	149,253	0.6%	1	0	1 / 498
	Union Party	NDP offshoot	141,382	0.5%	2	0	2 / 498
	Justice Party	Center	184,553	0.7%	0	2	2 / 498
	Independents	Independents	-	-	-	24	24 / 498
	Total Votes	-	27,065,135	99.0%	332	166	498
	Appointed by the millitary	-	-	-	-	-	10
	Total	-	-	-	-	-	508

• B noticed I was editing this article, so pointed me to this discussion. I do applaud him -- along with others -- who put in effort to improve this page. I don't see reason for the reversions. I would just point the reverters to this discussion. This is where consensus should be reached as to any differences of view on this, rather than through reversions, at this point given that talk page discussion has been opened.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I still object. It is unnecessary to give coloured bars for every party. I cannot see that it is helpful or would increase clarity. Moreover, it is an unnecessary divergence from other elections' results tables, which do not have coloured bars either. Finally, I have absolutely no idea where Bandetta's numbers of seats come from, as they contradict to the figures in the given sources. --RJFF (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

More interesting are the different figures according to Al-Masry a-Youm, Ahram Online English and Al-Ahram in Arabic. Ahram Online and Al-Masry al-Youm give Al-Nour/Islamist Bloc 25 FPTP seats, making up a total of 121 seats, while Al-Ahram (Arabic) counts 27 FPTP seats, adding up to a total of 123. The English version of Ahram Online shows 35 seats for the Egyptian Bloc, while the Arabic version only gives them 34 (33 PR+1 FPTP). Should we present all figures of the different sources in parallel or should we decide to rely on only one of these sources, and if so, on which and for what reason? Regards --RJFF (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks RJFF for pointing me to this discussion. I do happen to know why the Egyptian Bloc has 34/35. This is due to El-Badri Farghali from Tagammou, who was running on the FPTP in Port Said and got elected. He was technically running as independent, although he was labeled as Egyptan bloc on their website. Some newspapers didn't associate him with Tagammu or Egyptian Bloc because he left Tagammu for a while, before reintegrating it. Farghali is a long time Tagammu leader and a long time opposition member of the parliament. He has been elected the chairman of the tagammu parliamentary group (see his Facebook page [5]. Jadaliyya for instance labeled him as Tagammu and hence Egyptian Bloc [6]. That is why the Egyptian Bloc has two FPTP seats in the first phase. I suggest we bump the count for the Block to 35. Hous21 (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

References

Naming convention

We vary in the article -- calling the same party the al-Wafd, New Wafd, and Wafd .... Party. I would suggest we use the same name throughout. As to which name that should be, I personally would lean toward al-Wafd (what it calls itself), but I notice that on the article page for the party (at the moment at least) we go with New Wafd.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the New Wafd. Now the other question is why do we translate the names of most parties, but we still say Al-Nour (instead of the The Light) or Al-Wasat (instead of the Center)?? I suggest we either translate everything or keep everything in Egyptian Arabic --B for Bandetta (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

My first issue is that we use an approach that is harmonious throughout the article. But I lean strongly (given the ghits landscape) towards using the Arabic name. Note: The name "New Wafd Party" gets 12,500 ghits, while "Al-Wafd Party" gets 427,000 ghits. I think that militates for the second .... --Epeefleche (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not see a strong need for adjusting the different terms. Our readers are not stupid and can read from the context that al-Wafd, New Wafd and Wafd are used as synonyms and refer to one and the same party. Generally the most common term in mainstream English-language publications should be used. Al-Nour, al-Wasat or al-Wafd are often used in English-language media, while other parties, e.g. Freedom and Justice, the Egyptian Bloc, the Free Egyptians Party, or the Egyptian SDP are always translated. We should follow and not change it out of exaggerated love for consistency. Some variation does not constitute bad style. While comparing ghits for New Wafd and al-Wafd, we have to be careful, because al-Wafd can also refer to the historic (Old) Wafd Party, the predecessor of the present one. --RJFF (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with B as to the general point of using a consistent name within the article. As with many of our editing conventions, we strive for consistency not because our readers are stupid (though, to be fair, we don't know whether they are or not), but because it is less confusing for the reader, and we do them that service. Often this is done by mentioning alternative names in the first instance, and then keeping to one name throughout thereafter. We can't expect our reader to know that al-Wafd and New Wafd are the same party, but that Wafd Party is an old party (which you point out). This can be confusing on its face -- no need to increase the chance for confusion.

If I limit searches -- either on gnews, or on ghits -- to those items written within the past year, I still get an overwhelming preponderance of al-Wafd (32,400 ghits this past year)over New Wafd (774 ghits this past year. It appears, looking through the hits, to be the name most commonly used by English language RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Source of figures

Do these voting figures come from Jadaliyya or from the Election Commission website? They seem to be rather different. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

My main sources are Al-Masry Al Yom (which I tend to trust a lot as an accurate and independent newspaper) : [7] and this list published on many different websites: [8] and I counted the parties one by one. That's how I came up with the results in my table. --B for Bandetta (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Allegations of fraud

Daniel Pipes and others have claimed that the election results do not reflect the true vote. They also provide some evidence, if not very conclusive (maybe not even very convincing) for this. However, perhaps it is worth mentioning. Also, on the same note, there is no info in this article on reactions from the various observers that have taken part so far? Johannes Due 09:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannes due (talk • contribs)

Yes, it seems notable. Other elections' articles include similar reprovals, too. Please incorporate it. --RJFF (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with RJFF that it's important to incorporate. --B for Bandetta (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Women's votes, 3 stages

Two interesting questions were posed on the German article's talk page, which no-one could answer there, so I'll ask them here:

• Are there statistics on turnout among women, and for what parties they voted?
• Was an official explanation/reason given for the unusual 3-staged electoral process?

--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Saad Katatny.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Saad Katatny.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion 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 provide a fair use rationale 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 Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Saad Katatny.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:New Wafd Party logo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:New Wafd Party logo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. 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. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:New Wafd Party logo.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Graphic

I made this graph, but I'm not sure of the results. It seems that there are some uncertainties; seats don't add up to 498 on the article.

• Democratic Alliance 235
• Islamist Bloc 123
• New Wafd Party 38
• Egyptian Bloc 35
• Al-Wasat Party 10
• Reform & Development Party 9
• Revolution Continues 7
• National Party of Egypt 5
• Other parties 15
• SCAF appointees 10
• Independents 21

--Tachfin (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

with the 10 SCAF appointies, the number should be 508, not 498. The 498 are the elected MPs. if the numbs still odn't add up, adjust the independents to make it add up. Basically the sligh variations in counting are due to party members running under independent labels, or independents joining parties. --Hous21 (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

File:DR.mohamed.morsy.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:DR.mohamed.morsy.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 To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:DR.mohamed.morsy.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Egyptian parliamentary election, 2011–12. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110908051921/http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/middleeast/news/article_1629149.php/Egypt-to-hold-parliamentary-elections-in-September to http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/middleeast/news/article_1629149.php/Egypt-to-hold-parliamentary-elections-in-September
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111124085503/http://egyptelections.carnegieendowment.org/2011/09/22/national-democratic-party to http://egyptelections.carnegieendowment.org/2011/09/22/national-democratic-party
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130801064745/http://dedi.org.eg/wp-content/uploads/3rd-Poll-Press-Release.pdf to http://dedi.org.eg/wp-content/uploads/3rd-Poll-Press-Release.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47811614

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)