Talk:2012 Egyptian constitutional referendum

Results

To someone uninformed about referendums, the page does not quite make it obvious what "Yes" and "No" mean in the reported results, ie. which outcome. Could someone clarify those labels? 74.132.189.99 (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Criteria for passage

Am I to understand that the constitution would be implemented as long as it got a simple majority of those voting? --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 11:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. According to a news article: "In order to pass, the constitution must be approved by more than 50 percent of those casting ballots." David O. Johnson (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Different results claimed for 1st round

The National Salvation Front is claiming that the no vote won. http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/60612/Egypt/Politics-/Egypt-opposition-claims-victory-in-constitution-po.aspx Maybe we should include these numbers as well? David O. Johnson (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Egyptian constitutional referendum, 2012

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Egyptian constitutional referendum, 2012's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "results":

• From 2011 Egyptian revolution: "الأرقام الفعلية للتصويت" (in Arabic). اللجنة القضائية العليا للإشراف علي استفتاء تعديل الدستور المصري. Archived from the original on 30 April 2011. Retrieved 20 March 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
• From Egyptian constitutional referendum, 2011: "الأرقام الفعلية للتصويت" (in Arabic). اللجنة القضائية العليا للإشراف علي استفتاء تعديل الدستور المصري. Retrieved 2011-03-20.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Voter turnout

The vote was boycotted so how does a voter turnout of 32.86% count?--71.246.31.168 (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? The turnout suggests that 67% didn't bother voting/boycotted. Number 57 13:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you're agreeing.  :) ChristopherGregory (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The 80% majority of egyptians didn't vote yes for the constitution. The 80% majority of egyptian voters (and 88 to 89% of all egyptians) is being ignored in this wikipedia article, and 20% minority presented as the majority of the country is a manipulation of the facts.

My first comments were removed from this talk page by an interfering editor, as happens with all edits anywhere on wikipedia which have any relation to islam or islamists in real events in the world, by people who insist on controlling information about islam and islamists in the world to only present the islamist side.

The 80% majority of egyptian voters (and 88 to 89% of all egyptians) is being ignored in this wikipedia article, and 20% minority presented as the majority of the country is a manipulation of the facts.

Why is wikipedia not making out clearly to all who view the page, that only a minority of 20% of the egyptian voters voted for the constitution, while 80% did not vote for it, or voted no. And clearly 20% of voters (11 to 12% of all egyptians) imposing a constitution on all egyptians, is not democracy, and is not legal. And wikipedia should be doing it's job to point this information out clearly, and not just brush it under the carpet and look the other way.

The person who removed my talk page comment said: "Wikipedia is not a forum". - No maybe it isn't a forum, but it is meant to "present the true facts and reality, and not let a false reality be presented - that 20% of electorate are a majority, just because 67% didn't vote, and 13% voted no." If truth can't be written on the article page, then at least allow it to be written in the talk page!

Where is this drawn attention to on the article page? Instead of presenting it as a 67% majority of "egyptians", which is it not. It is only 67% of a 33% of voters, who are all islamists! And are the minority of egypt. Wikipedia is telling facts about whether a constitution is voted for by a minority or majority? Or is wikipedia being used as a propaganda page for the muslim brotherhood, who want to say they are the majority (20% of the electorate) and that 80% of the electorate are the minority!

I am not surprised by the wikipedia fear of complaints by islamists, or bias in the article, but i thought the fact that a majority of egyptians did not vote for the constitution, could at least be written on this talk page without someone interfering and deleting it. But no it was removed. It can not be pointed out to readers at all!. Wikipedia is not a free to edit wiki by all people at all (not even a talk page). It is controlled by a group of people, and that group will decide what information is presented. And freedom of information and presenting the truth of all facts, and not just one side, is not what wikipedia is, because it is not what wikipedia's editors who control the information, are. And they obviously have no oversight, and truth is not put above propaganda and presenting certain views and revisions of history, that the editors want to show. Alternative viewpoints are censored and frequently removed, by editors who are "some presumably unqualified unpaid staff" and are able to censor other people's contributions, even from a talk page.

20.59% of the electorate voted for the new constitution, and which is only 11 to 12% of all egyptians. And this minority forced it on all other egyptians of the majority. - I don't see this fact mentioned on the wikipedia page. Doesn't it matter that 20% of the electorate and 11 to 12% of egyptians voting for a constitution is presented by the muslim brotherhood as 67% of egyptians, because only 33% took part in the vote, and so the 80% of egyptians who didn't vote for the consititution (67% who didn't vote at all, and the 13% who voted no), don't count. And it can be presented as a 67% majority supporting the constitution, when in fact it is only a 20% minority of eligible voters, and 11 to 12% minority of all egyptians

Yes, calculating by the vote results on the wikipedia article page. Then only less than 20.6% of the electorate voted for the new constitution.

20.5972711 % of the electorate voted for the new constitution

Egypt is a tyranny of the minority (islamists) since it is passing a new constitution of a country into law, forced on all the people of the country. But only voted yes for, by 20.6% of the total electorate who could vote. And which happens to be only 10 million people out of 51 million eligible voters, and only 10 million out of a country of 82 to 90 million.

20% of the electorate, or only 11 to 12% of all egyptians, are forcing an islamist constitution on the other 80% of voters, and 88 to 89% of egyptians.

It seems that to some wikipedia editors who have no respect for other people's contributions. We can't point out facts on the talk page. Even if they are intentionally ommitted from the article.

My original comment is much better. Without having to edit it, and add in more unnecessary parts to have to justify the right to even write the comment for the purpose of stating facts ommitted from the page, hoping to correct the articles unbalance, and complain about people removing it..

Wikipedia editors need to have some self control, and stop acting like controlling people who have to edit and remove every comment and view which doesn't immediately agree with their views, and which they don't like opposing facts to be shown. They are extremely annoying to any person who edited with different true information, not included on the page, and which they don't want this information to be seen by the general readers of wikipedia. Because wikipedia editors are here to present their world view, not to present a source of true facts no matter whether they like the facts or not. This is making me sick and tired of wikipedia. But at least editors should be not standing against reporting the egyptian referendum of a new national constitution, properly. This is a big thing which has a huge impact. 11% or 12% of egyptians imposing a constitution on all egyptians, without their consent. Has to be reported, not ommitted. And if you don't care about it, then take a neutral view, and just let other people write it. Without you deleting the information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.117.89 (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

As a nontheist, you can be safe assured that I didn't remove your section because I'm an Islamist. I removed your article because you were complaining about the referendum and not actually talking about the article as a whole. This isn't a place to just talk about things. That's what online forums, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. are for. Now as for your "analysis", it's really, really wrong. For one thing, who's to say that 100% of the people who didn't vote would have voted no? There are likely millions that would have voted yes but were just lazy, just as there are likely millions that would have voted no but were just lazy. Second of all, many of the people who voted no for the constitution could have done so because they didn't think it was Islaimst enough. As you can read in the article, the Salafi Front opposed the constitution because it should be more closely based on Sharia law. Finally, the dumbest part is that you compare the turnout number with the Egyptian population as a whole. That's crazy! When you're comeparing it with the population as a whole, you're including people under 18 that can't vote! How can you say that all of them would have voted no?! But more importantly, comparing to the whole populaiton is just bad logic because we've already decided that people under 18 can't vote. That's not something that anyone argues against. Lastly, comparing a yes vote to the whole population can turn almost any majority percentage into a minority one. You can say, ooh look, Obama shouldn't have won, look at all these under 18 year olds that didn't vote! That's the worst kind of electorate logic I've ever seen. For now, the article clearly states what the turn out rate is. It's in the lead, the infobox, and in the results. People can easily see it, and make their own inferences. That's not "ignoring Egyptians". Trinitresque (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Multiple maps of results

I suggest that the map in the infobox be removed and that a link should be placed in the infobox so it goes to map in the results section. I tried to do it myself, but the some info still shows up for the map, so I left it as it is. It is unnecessary to have two different maps that relate to the same thing. Besides, the map in the results section looks better. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, I fixed it myself.David O. Johnson (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Egyptian constitutional referendum, 2012. 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/20121230180813/http://www.elections.eg:80/results/referendum-results to http://www.elections.eg/results/referendum-results

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 08:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)