Talk:2014 Egyptian presidential election

Links

>> Egypt to hold early presidential election>> Egypt's Sisi given okay for presidential run>> Egypt says Sisi misquoted on presidential bid >> Putin backs Sisi to be president of Egypt>> Egypt issues presidential election law >> The state of Egypt's news media *(but be carful, Al JKazeera is not neutral on this)(Lihaas (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)).

Neutrality

The article needs massive work to provide a neutral point.--M. Hassan talk here 15:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"Opinion polls" section contains unreliable information and the table is not clear and provides false information, since officially non of those mentioned in the table have presented their papers and applications for candidacy.--M. Hassan talk here 15:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Support and opposition section have to be split to reflect the actual portion of the population and deliver a simpler more accurate idea to the reader. --M. Hassan talk here 15:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is not neutral? Can you specify your concerns so they can be addressed?David O. Johnson (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@David O. Johnson:, thanks for your concern. Well there needed to be added a section about disputes, some information are already available under the section; Support and opposition. However, mixing the information give a misleading idea about the support and opposition. I am looking for other opinions, as well. Ultimately, the article should reflect the reality reported in various news articles.--M. Hassan talk here 13:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we could transfer certain portions of the Support and Opposition section, possibly even information from other segments as well, to a section more specifically devoted to the ongoing conduct of the election and attendant controversies. For example, the campaign related arrests, legal ability of political movements, including those considering themselves as opposition, to operate, and questions about the fairness of the process. Some of that is related to why certain potential candidates withdrew, though much of it is presently in the Support and Opposition section. Recent events might further increase the utility of creating such a potential new section. Lacertilia the Magnificent (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I will be creating a section called Conduct (or perhaps Conduct and Controversies) and move most of the information about the disputes to that section. It should help consolidate and streamline other sections as well. Lacertilia the Magnificent (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Can the neutrality tag be removed now? David O. Johnson (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Would there be any objections to relocating the sentences in the Support and Opposition section to follow a pattern of the support first, then the opposition? Particularly, this would mean consolidating the sentences mentioning factional support for Sisi in the first part, followed by the opposition and criticisms of his candidacy. It would also apply to be Sabahi, yet there seems to be no equivalent level of cited opposition to him and thus no need currently to change the Sabahi paragraph. Doing this would take care of one of the other concerns voiced by the person who put up the disputed neutrality flag (about the mixing of support/opposition). It would be nice to have credible polls, but only the unreliable and dubious kind seems to exist. Lacertilia the Magnificent (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The Support and Opposition section has been reorganized to more closely follow a pattern and is now less mixed together. Lacertilia the Magnificent (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Th Vote for pimp article needs to be a redirect as it is no more that an attack page. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect - It's not an attack page, but the notability is not enough as a stand-alone article. So redirect. Coderzombie (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Merging - First; The term (Pimp) deserves explanation on its own page hence the reader can understand its roots. Second; Egyptian_presidential_election,_2014 is not the right context for such terminology. Third; the hashtag has become very popular worldwide and should have a dedicated page in its own. Fourth; Criticism in politics should not be monitored or judged as attack, Wikipedia includes already more severe terms and no one complained. Fifth; one of Wikipedia basic principles is the freedom. based on this I oppose the merge with other articles. Thanks 112.133.203.148 (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Sock on a proxy, now blocked Darkness Shines (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Merge - The article only warrants temporary notability and it is not part of Egyptian culture at all, unlike what some editors try to portray using peacock terms. Doesn't qualify as an attack page but it was meant to be one in the beginning, as it was created by a blocked POV pushing sockpuppet which should be taken into account. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Merging - Also this term became known in the next day to Abdel Fattah el-Sisi announcing his candidacy to the anticipated elections. The term itself and how it is used is nothing to do with the upcoming elections. It is just a cultural trend.--M. Hassan talk here 13:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment, to better understand how the term is being now used as a slogan/trend regardless of the elections, kindly watch this video Activists Protest Egyptian Minister of FInance outside Chamber of Commerce.--M. Hassan talk here 17:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
• Merge, A Hashtag is a hashtag, doesn't deserve an article. it's related to the presidential election article. Amr Tarek^{Say Hello!}, 04:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Merging This vote can also take place for another election in Egypt. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Opinion polls

Maybe we can delete the percent No voters. hat's not pretty and it is not necessary81.58.144.30 (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Images of Sisi and Sabahi by "KareemBaligh"...

I doubt the images uploaded by "KareemBaligh" and now apear in "Infobox election" are his "own work" as statd in those image pages. It just looks like too professional... --Midrashah (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Certain words in the Timetable section

Some of the phrases are difficult to understand for an English speaker (e.g. "The disposition of grievances cases" or "Last date for abdication"). There are a few other phrases as well. Could someone improve the unintelligible phrases that are in that section? David O. Johnson (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• The real problem is that the whole thing is unreferenced. Someone should work on this soon if we want it to be acceptable for ITN. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

That is now done; each sentence has its' own reference; I removed the info that I couldn't find in any of the sources.David O. Johnson (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. Maybe the only thing left now is to deal with the still unexplained POV orange tag. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Image of Al-Sisi by "Raafat"

I doubt the image of Al-Sisi, by "Raafat" is his "own work" (as stated in the image page). First, hardly anybody, other than his bodyguards gets so close to him (due to two assassination attempts), let alone taking a picture. Second, if I recall well, I have seen this image sometime ago I think somewhere in his either instegram or google+ or something in that natue... --Midrashah (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

English

Firstly, the neutrality of the article is very poor and I had to correct a lot of the first paragraph so that it actually makes sense. But if someone were to merge the two articles at the same time as correcting all the mistakes and removing the bias, that can't be a bad thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.213.196 (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Unofficial linked results, turnout etc are being posted on the article by user:Matty.007

these number can not be confirmed. I have deleted them and asked for him to wait for the official results. --Midrashah (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Numbers not relative with reports of low turnout and hundreds of videos showing very low to non-existent turnout.

"The elections, which were planned to take place for two days, instead took place for three due to poor turnout, overall just over 50% of the country voted despite threats of fines." So 50% is considered "poor turnout" now? This is obvious deception considering the turnout of the previous presidential elections of 2012 of 52%, a mere 2% higher than the current "numbers", which was then considered a pretty high relative turnout (relative to Egypt). This is blatant fraud, every one saw the polling stations and saw that they were semi-empty. Polls & statistics by The Egyptian Center For Media Studies and Public Opinion (Integration of Egypt) show that only 10% of Egyptians would vote in the elections and statistics show that only a mere 7.5% of those bound to the elections tables did participate in the elections in the first two days (26th May, 27th May). Also according to ElMarsad ElAraby for rights & freedom only 11.92% participated in the 3 days of the elections. I hereby announce that the forgery, fraud & lies of the "fallen" regime of Mubarak are back & that the Revolution of 25th January (The first and ONLY revolution since 2011) is still in progress. Links in Arabic language: [1], [2] , [3]. StoneCold45 (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Rebuttal of your commentary: This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Furthermore, the sources you are using are unreliable Brotherhood propaganda outlets full of fucking bullshit. The "Egyptian Center for Media Studies and Public Opinion" you're talking about doesn't exist anymore, and all evidence of its existence is at fringe-ass blogs. (It existed when you posted this bullshit.) It was also an unreliable source. Same with the Middle East Monitor, whose website gets purged the whole fucking time. In addition, social media posts are NOT reliable self-published sources unless they come from the subject of the article, and are about that subject itself. "El-Marsad el-Araby for Rights and Freedom?" That's a fucking Muslim Brotherhood propaganda outlet. The polling stations were NOT (semi-)empty, and the turnout was NOT 7%, 10%, or 12%; it was 47%, with more Egyptians voting for Sisi than Egyptians voting for Morsi in 2012. The voting stations were crowded with millions of Egyptians. The alleged footage of (semi-)empty polling stations was either shot before 9:00 AM, which was when voting began during each election day, or before the day when the election began. Or it could've been certain voting stations in pro-Brotherhood Islamist strongholds where turnout was lower than usual.

Also, you have 2013-Revolution-Denial-itis, a disorder that many Islamists and foreigners have because of poor media coverage. Zakawer (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

user:Raafat is deleting PEC results figures from article

I put the result of PEC and refed it by Al Ahram article, and stil raafat keeps deleting the results --Midrashah (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not all you did, though. You also removed reliable sources and the content based on them from the lead - why? I'd assume that Raafat was more interested in restoring that sourced content than in changing the numbers in the infobox. Huon (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

3.9% or 3.09%? (Sabahi)

One source, Al Ahram, reported yesterday Sabahi got 3.9% of the votes, and I added it in all relevant places in the article. Later-today, another source, Daily News Egypt, reported that Sabahi got 3.09%, and so one of the editors corrected it accordingly, and I folowed him and have also corrected the number at the infobox. I thought that Al ahram must have made a mistake reporting 3.9%, however, a short while ago I saw a new report of Al Ahram where they repeat the 3/9%...?

so, I guess im confused...which one is it? does Sabahi had 3.9% or 3.09%? --Midrashah (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Legitimacy

Are we going to make no mention of the obvious illegitimacy of this election? 96.91% support for the incumbent is not remotely plausible in a legitimate multi-candidate election. 75.76.213.161 (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Listen up, anonydude; Sabahi, a Nasserist, didn't win because he wasn't popular enough, and there were no other non-Islamists to contest Sisi's presidential campaign; they were all unpopular in comparison to the nationalistic Sisi. Plus, the Muslim Brotherhood is less popular than Sisi (source: there were fewer votes for Morsi than signatures to Tamarod's petition or votes for Sisi) in Egypt, but its supporters are more vocal than his. And Sisi's massive support countrywide was enough to earn him a victory in 2014. The election was free, but not necessarily fair. And it's obviously legitimate, Brotherhood supporter! Zakawer (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Egyptian presidential election, 2014. 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/20140413151559/http://www.madamasr.com/content/state-tv-news-anchor-announces-bid-presidency to http://madamasr.com/content/state-tv-news-anchor-announces-bid-presidency

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) 00:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Egyptian presidential election, 2014. 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://archive.is/20140529112958/http://www.themonitor.com/news/apnews/egypt-el-sissi-wins-election-by-landslide/article_425e681a-4835-5643-b152-9f657e5ed07a.html to http://www.themonitor.com/news/apnews/egypt-el-sissi-wins-election-by-landslide/article_425e681a-4835-5643-b152-9f657e5ed07a.html

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) 09:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)