Talk:Freedom and Justice Party (Egypt)

Views

Christians and women

Brotherhood sticks to ban on Christians and women for presidency -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

rafik habib

The party has two vice presidents. | Moemin05 (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Freedom and Justice FLAG.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Freedom and Justice FLAG.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 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. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Page move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to make the move Mike Cline (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Freedom and Justice Party (Egypt) → Freedom and Justice Party
• Freedom and Justice Party → Freedom and Justice Party (disambiguation)

– per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and principle of least WP:SURPRISE. The Egyptian party, being the strongest force in parliament, is by far more notable and more searched for than the Bolivian one (tiny, extraparliamentary, does it still exist? Who knows?) Move the disambiguation page to Freedom and Justice Party (disambiguation), if necessary at all. (maybe a head note on "Freedom and Justice Party" would do it, too) RJFF (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I propose that this page should be moved simply to "Freedom and Justice Party". Right now Freedom and Justice Party is a disambiguation page for this page and Freedom and Justice Party (Bolivia), which is comparatively irrelevant compared to what is now the largest parliamentary party in Egypt. The top of the page should have a "for" notice for the Bolivian party. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. For reasons stated.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• I absolutely concur. --RJFF (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The Egyptian party is clearly the primary topic. --NSH001 (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • note' for clarity, the dab page should be kept, and moved as proposed by RJFF. It already mentions another party besides the Bolivian one, and others of the same name may appear in the future. --NSH001 (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose—how hard do you want to make it for readers? Tony (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that I cannot understand what you mean. How does it make it harder for readers? I thought my proposal would make it easier for readers. It is highly probable that the vast majority of readers who type "Freedom and Justice Party" are looking for the Egyptian and not the Bolivian one. --RJFF (talk) 12:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you know that? And it's translated into English anyway. How many other party-names might be translated in this way or a similar way? It sounds like a common thing to call a party. What is wrong with pinning down the title to the country? Tony (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Egyptian party is by far the strongest force in parliament, while all we know about the Bolivian one is that it won 2.7% in 2002 (!) Maybe it doesn't even exist any more. The article doesn't cite any sources. There is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC if "it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term" This is clearly the case here.--RJFF (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is is far too generic, and the name is not that commonly known to be immediately associated with an Egyptian political party. Many parties have "Freedom" and "Justice" in their titles, and a searcher who is not sure of the exact title of the party he intends might be mistakenly directed here. Or, conversely, if he intends this one, and forgets exactly how it is named ("Justice and Freedom Party"? "Liberty and Justice Party"?) might have a harder time finding it. The disambiguation is unobtrusive and useful. Walrasiad (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course the article would get a Hatnote to inform the readers about other uses of the title. The reader will immediately see: "Oh, this one is about the Egyptian party. I'm wrong here" And one click later he/she will be at the actually wanted article. Does that dispel your concerns? Btw, what other parties do you know that could be confused with the FJP? I only found the (very tiny and insignificant) Bolivian Freedom and Justice Party. --RJFF (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

To underpin my argument: just do a quick google search for "Freedom and Justice Party". It will only supply hits related to the Egyptian Party. Even if you type "Freedom and Justice Party Bolivia", there are some hits being mirrors of the Wikipedia articles, and the rest is related to the Egyptian party. If this is not a clear case of Primary topic, what is it? --RJFF (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Try the same for "Republican Party", and the overwhelming bulk of the hits will be for the US party. Yet here on Wiki, it goes to a disambiguation page. I am not finding this very persuasive. Particularly on prickly things like political parties, where dismissing the Bolivian party (or similar sounding ones) as minor or ignorable could have real-world repercussions. Walrasiad (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This is clearly a case of primary topic. Unlike "Republican Party," of which there are innumerable worldwide, that does not appear to be case for "Freedom and Justice Party". Of the two listed on Wikipedia, the Freedom and Justice Party of Egypt is by far more notable. In fact, it's not even clear if the Freedom and Justice Party of Bolivia is even still operational. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That's what the other Bolivian parties want you to think. And the message you'll be spreading. Please be a bit cautious here. This is very uncomfortable. Walrasiad (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. What I suggest we do instead is to call the Bolivian party's page Freedom and Justice Party (Bolivia) and to create a disambiguation page called Freedom and Justice Party with links to both the Egyptian and the Bolivian parties. --B for Bandetta (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removing proposal

Since there is no consensus to make the move, can we remove the following sentence from the top of the page?

"It has been proposed that Freedom and Justice Party (Egypt) be renamed and moved to Freedom and Justice Party (Discuss)."

Hous21 (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Favonian (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Islamists everywhere!

Can somebody please explain to me why the infobox, the first sentence, and the second sentence of the article all say the word Islamist? Why is it necessary to preface Muslim Brotherhood with Islamist even after we already say that the FJP is Islamist, and when the link provided to Muslim Brotherhood says, in its first sentence, that it is an Islamist organization? nableezy - 16:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

There being no reason given for the addition of the word Islamist preceding Muslim Brotherhood I will again removed it. nableezy - 19:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all, they are 2 different organizations. Because one is Islamist, it is of course not necessary that the other be so. In addition, it is in accord with the refs -- made clearer now with the addition of more refs. Finally, please do not edit war with other editors on this, whose view on this differs. You have already reverted multiple editors on the same issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, edit war? You added something and it removed. Another re-added it without comment. I asked about it on the talk page and waited a day, a day in which you made several other edits without once responding on the talk page. Then, knowing full well that you do not have consensus for your addition, re-reverted with a disingenuous comment on the talk page.

It isnt a question of sourced or not, explain why we need to preface Muslim Brotherhood with Islamist. It is in the linked article. Is there a reason why I should not preface MEMRI with Zionist propaganda outlet? Because that can be sourced too. I will be removing the word again, as you do not have any consensus for its inclusion and the prior state of the article did not include it. nableezy - 23:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You are the lone editor of that view. The other editors disagreed with you. You reverted multiple editors. It is referenced. Multiple times. Your comment that we already use the phrase when referring to a different group lacks thought. It is a different group. As to the fact that we can read more about it in the link --- so what? We can also read in the link that it is a political group in Egypt. Yet we mention that here. And all over the entire project. Just as the refs mention it as Islamist in the articles in the reference. You didn't even seek to delete the other informational descriptive language re the MB. So one might wonder what your edit was all about in the first place. But just as the refs describe MB summarily as an Islamist political group in Egypt, and just as we make similar references throughout the project, there is no reason to delete its reference here. Of the editors who have spoken here, you are the lone editor with your view. Please do not edit against consensus, reverting multiple editors. And please don't argue speciously that you have a reasonable basis for it, because another entity is already described as Islamist ("Why is it necessary to preface Muslim Brotherhood with Islamist even after we already say that the FJP is Islamist") ... that is completely lacking in logic.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

2-1 isnt consensus, especially when one of those editors has said exactly 0 words for why he or she made a revert. You are also misrepresenting my argument, seemingly on purpose. Please dont accuse others of making specious arguments and then being dishonest about their argument is. You have yet to offer a single reason why we should preface the words Muslim Brotherhood with the word Islamist. Why is that necessary? Can you provide an example of a source that, when introducing the FJP as an Islamist political party, says that it is associated with the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood? Again, 2-1 is not consensus, and without consensus I will be restoring the stable state of the second sentence. nableezy - 23:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea why you are adding refs to Islamist prior to Muslim Brotherhood. Nobody has challenged that it is an Islamist organization (though it is much more than that). What has been challenged, and what you have studiously avoided discussing, is why it is necessary to introduce them as Islamist in this article. Besides it being poorly written, it is completely without purpose. Please respond to the point, and do not mistake a single other editor's revert as providing you with "consensus". nableezy - 00:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Just want to chime in here for a bit. This seems like too much discussion for something that's basically common sense. There's no need to mention the Brotherhood is Islamist when we mention the FJP is Islamist. It's not controversial, it's merely redundant. The Muslim Brotherhood is wikilinked and people who don't already know they're Islamist could easily find out. The half-dozen citations used to prove the MB is Islamist is missing the point and disrupts the lead text (See WP:Lead citations.) An alternative approach, if we're going to use the Islamist label at all, is to use the term to describe the Brotherhood which is an inherently Islamist movement (among other things) and not the FJP. Since we're on the subject of the lead, for the sake of neutrality and accuracy it should be noted in the intro that the FJP is centrist in contrast with the hard-line Salafi groups. Furthermore, why does the lead mention that the FJP and the Nour Party have denied intentions of uniting? When was that ever a major allegation? It should be mentioned (in context) somewhere in the body of the article, but its inclusion in the lead (a sum up of the article's important facts) is unwarranted. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I oppose to cease describing the FJP as Islamist. This is the article on the FJP and it is common that articles inform on the political alignment or ideology of the party that is subject of the article. The FJP is described as an Islamist party in several sources. That it is centrist has to be considered your WP:original research unless you provide sources to back it up. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not it is necessary to characterise the Muslim Brotherhood as Islamist in the introduction of this article, as there is a seperate article on the Brotherhood which informs the reader that it is Islamist, and it is quite self-evident that if the FJP is Islamist, the Brotherhood is, as well. --RJFF (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Not one person has suggested that we not describe the FJP as an Islamist party. They very obviously are an Islamist party. As far as centrist, I wouldn't quite say that, but I think Al Ameer's point is that the term Islamist covers such a wide spectrum and the Brotherhood is on the left end of that spectrum as opposed to, for example, the Nour party. nableezy - 15:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position, not labeling the FJP as Islamist was an alternative suggestion. The main point is not to mention Islamist twice to avoid redundancy. As far my "centrist" suggestion, I guess that would be the wrong term. I just think we should make a distinction between them and other Islamist parties, particularly the Salafis. As Nableezy stated, Islamism is a broad spectrum in itself. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Understood. There is no redundancy, because there are two different organizations that are being referred to. A begat B. The fact that B is Islamist does not mean that A is necessarily Islamist. That is why the indicated RSs that discuss FJP described the MB as Islamist.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Repeating the word Islamist three times in the first sentences of the article is not at all redundant? Can you provide a source that when introducing the FJP as an Islamist political party introduces the MB as Islamist? Because it doesnt strike me as as something that could appear anywhere other than Wikipedia. An Islamist political party is closely associated with an Islamist organization. Nuh-uh?! nableezy - 05:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Independent from the MB

Is the only source for the FJP being even nominally independent from the MB the essay in Foreign Affairs? nableezy - 05:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Freedom and Justice Party (Egypt). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120226163145/http://www.presstv.ir:80/detail/222331.html to http://www.presstv.ir/detail/222331.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120114232559/http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2 to http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=474028&version=1&template_id=46&parent_id=26

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Removing social justice/social welfare

Including social justice and social welfare as the party's policies is all well and good, and they are well sourced. They are not, however, political ideologies, and as such do not belong in the ideology section of the infobox. Removing them. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Freedom and Justice Party (Egypt). 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/20111130061551/http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/middle-east/150700-egypt-islamists-form-non-theocratic-party.html to http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/middle-east/150700-egypt-islamists-form-non-theocratic-party.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) 17:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)