Talk:2010 Iraqi parliamentary election

Iraq Top‑importance

	Iraq portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Arab world Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Untitled

You are incompetent. This article is about the legislative election which is due to take place in December.

I deleted some of the text because it is related to the provincial elections which have already taken place.

Next time you warn me get your facts right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.105.6 (talk • contribs)

Indeed, you're right, the two elections have been confused somewhere along the lines. I'll try to tidy it up. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of the Iraqi National Alliance

The leader is clearly not Ammar Al-Hakim. It is clearly Moqtada Al-Sadr, who won 39 out of the INA's 70 seats. Zalali (talk) 08:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useful refs

Left here as a holding point for later inclusion in the articles:

^[1] ^[2]

AndrewRT(Talk) 22:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article title & Infobox messed up

Shouldn't this article be called Iraqi Parliamentary elections, 2010 & does anybody know how to fix the Infobox? GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I know I messed it up but I couldn't work out how to fix it fully. I've now turned party_colours to no following the instructions at Template:Infobox_Election which seems to have worked. On your other point, both previous elections (Jan 05 & Dec 05) were termed "legislative" rather than parliamentary elections. I'll see if I can find any guidance on this. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legislative or parliamentary?

As suggested above, I'd like to propose renaming this article as the Iraqi parliamentary election, 2010. At the same time, the elections in Jan 05 and Dec 05 should also be renamed. Looking through the talk pages for those articles, it doesn't seems the legislative/parliamentary name issue was ever discussed.

I can't find anything categorical about when to use legislative rather than parliamentary and looking through Electoral_calendar_2009, I can't see any consistent rationale for why "legislative" is used sometimes and "parliamentary" other times - not even for instance where you have separate direct presidential elections. Clearly the Council of Representatives of Iraq is both a legislature and a parliament, although I guess the latter infers a role in executive government (i.e. a parliamentary system) in addition to their role in passing legislation. The Iraqi case is clearly parliamentary in this case. Furthermore. googlehits gives 149,000 hits for parliamentary election and only 22,000 for legislative elections.

Please let me know if you agree before it is implemented. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the move. Parliamentary is the more common used word, and we also need a consistency with the other Iraqi election pages. Iraqi (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 155.192.161.120 (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates

Here's a list of all the candidates in the elections, split by governorates [[1]] Iraqi (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Results

Preliminary results section and map in this article are way out of date. offical results need to be updated...here is the link by provence http://www.ihec.iq/Arabic/result.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.8.131 (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map is not out of date, it has actually been updated. Preliminary results are not out of date, they don't show the final results (which BTW have not been released yet), they are only about the preliminary results, in which no significant changes have happened since last updated.Kermanshahi (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to update your info. the final results have been published. its everywhere in the news. here is the link to the offical and final results listed per provence:

http://www.ihec.iq/English/announcement_of_results.aspx.

you can check them yourself or ask an arabic reader you trust to read them for you. it's not my fault that the IHECI dosnt publish its results in english. afterall arabic is the offical language of iraq.--86.146.8.131 (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally someone listened, now the map is right and not biased.--86.146.8.131 (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number of registered voters

What is the source for the table showing the number of registered voters by governorate? I can't see this information at the IHEC website. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who put those numbers. I put the source as well, but it seems that someone deleted it. Iraqi (talk) 09:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, so what is the source? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic reader required

Full results should be available at http://www.ihec.iq/English/announcement_of_results.aspx – but only in Arabic; I'd compile the results (all it requires are an excel sheet and half an hour of free time), but I don't read Arabic, I'm afraid. Could someone else do it? —Nightstallion 06:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to work. Iraqi (talk) 08:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify (in case the seats-per-province table you added to the article was what you meant), I meant the votes each party received, so that we have an official result of votes and percentage for all parties which contested the election...? —Nightstallion 09:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final results have still not been published at the IHEC website, only provisional results. These results give voting figures for each governorate, but only for lists which succeeded in having candidates elected. These results have been summarised in English here: http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/i/iraq/ Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help Needed

Hi. I need everyone to help me improve another article about Egyptian Shura Council election that are being held today. thank you -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud section

It was moved to controversies. While generally that would be the right move, the frauds were a result of the actually election not the buildup so i think it should in its previous location under the results. (aking to the Afghan election)Lihaas (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that the subsections were pre-election related, but I moved it under there because it is a controversy. I think the section should be for all controversies, not just pre-election controversies. I just considered it a straightforward move in light of the new controversies section. Just my 2 cents, move back if you feel more strongly about it. Int21h (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have identified the controversies section as pre-election controversies only. Int21h (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, sorry i didnt reply. It seems you did have consensus then. Anyway, seems youve found a good edit ;)Lihaas (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

prelim results

the prelim results were added back whole scale and "As is" without explanation. It was originally removed (not sure if by me), as it was now outdated because official results were in. However, feel free to re-word relevant portions of "early estiamtes..."Lihaas (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was pretty relevant since it took a long time for the votes to be counted and the whole process of vote counting was important for the way this election and government formation went, for instance as al-Maliki led the polls Ayad Allawi claimed fraud and when this started to shift in favour of Allawi, al-Maliki started claiming fraud and this created much of the hostility. But one thing that I definetly disagree with is how you keep placing the results of the unofficial Sadrist Referendum in the "candidate votes" section which is about which MPs won the most votes during the actual election and has nothing at all to do with the Sadrist referendum.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the gist of what you said, but the details about after poitn X, Y the results stood at, dont see relevant now that its out. Sure content was well-sourced and some of it probably is relevant. But we have to word it better rather an putting it all in. If you feel like it go ahead and work back in the content, i inly think it should be worded in way to make sure it is/will be relevant looking back at it.

Im not sure that was me, but it seems to be put in the right place now.Lihaas (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I have time I'll re-work the content, as for the SAdr referendum, I put it back on the right place. One other thing though, you sure we should put the opinion polls by the lists section rather than by the results? I think it should be just above the results so it can be compared.Kermanshahi (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure go ahead, just keep it as its own section though.Lihaas (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish demands

I think the 20+ demands of the Kurdistan Blocs Coalition (notice the red) has been given undue weight in the "government formation" section. I can virtually guarantee they are not the only party or bloc with a list of demands, but no other party/bloc's demands are listed. Nor should they be, in list form as is anyways. I have already once reverted the edits, and they been reverted back. I say they need to be distilled down from their current form or removed. Int21h (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the red, yes I do, because it's an alliance inside parliament, we didn't make an article, the Kurdish lists themselfes do have articles and they were the kingmaker of the elections. Besides, the KBC is merely the KA+5 other seats. While Maliki and Allawi both tried to form the government themselfes (so they didn't make any demands to join, cause it was them wanting others to join them) it was up to the Kurdistan Alliance to choose who they would join. For this they published that list of 19 demands which was at center of the entire government formation. The fact that at first not all 19 demands were accepted is the reason why the government formation took so long and it is because al-Maliki accepted them (and Ayad Allawi, did not accept all of those demands) that the government formation went this way and why al-Maliki got his second term. Ofcourse, other lists had their own views and items which they demanded for participation, but they held private meetings with each other and once and than came to an agreement, though in most cases (like Sadr-Maliki talks), what exactly was agreed on, remains unknown. The Kurds were the only ones to release a list like that and say "who accepts all of these points is the next Prime Minister" and then, that was exactly what happened.Kermanshahi (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the article to include others is not a reason for deletion of sourced comment on one. if the other lsits are found they certainly can and should be added.

Alternatively, the demands could be added as EL's like on the Kyrgz election page.

Now that i think about it, an EL link may be better than listing it all out here. Not because of removing it but merely becasue of presentation issues to clear the clutter. (or perhaps a new column on the table of parliamentary blocs to link to this)Lihaas (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. It is similar to putting an entire book inline, it is not needed to convey the message, and clutters up the page. There are, by all accounts, several other blocs. So multiply the size of that demands list several times, and that's what we will have, a list of demands several pages long that does little to enhance the article. By analogy, this is like referencing the entire US Libertarian Party's list of demands in a dispute on the US Politics article, but not the Democrats or the Republicans; an attempt to do so would be immediately reverted, for good reason. These are dry, hard facts that are best left to source links, with a summary left behind. Int21h (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And while we are on the subject, can anyone verify these are the actual demands? The ekurd.net link is the only reference I can find on the subject. The demands are probably in Kurdish, so finding it will be difficult, no doubt. Int21h (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be allright, there are other sources like this one, which reported it and from what we can read in all news articles about the election formation (many of which mention some of the demands), the list seems to be OK.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done removed list, and left link.(Lihaas (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

I don't recall any agreement being madea bout the removal of that list, which was of key importance and was infact the most important thing of the entire government formation, since it was al-Maliki's preparedness to accept these 19 demands and Allawi's rejection of them which decided who would become PM and who would be allowed to form the next government. These demands should definetly be mentioned.Kermanshahi (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE

think the table of the unofficial votes for PM also gives undue weight to the unofficial nature of those carrying it out. (and for all its possible biases that it was regional). I propose mentioning perhaps the top 2-3 and then leaving the rest as cites.(Lihaas (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Done as its been almost 2 weeks without opposition.(Lihaas (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

I disagree, either a seperate article should be made about it, including the table, or it should be just fully shown here.Kermanshahi (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You had 10 days to oppose..

How about a collapsible table then? lets go with that.(Lihaas (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Fine with me.Kermanshahi (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ıraqi turkmen-front

Iraqiya coalition ıjad allawi, which is included in the selection and other Turkmen Iraqi Turkmen Front in elections 10 deputies elected deputy Turkmen Turkmen ministry has established the Iraqi Government to 3. Turkmen in Kirkuk, Mosul,Tal afar and Salahaddin been successful cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iraqi legislative election of Dec 2005 with logos.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Iraqi legislative election of Dec 2005 with logos.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 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:Iraqi legislative election of Dec 2005 with logos.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Iraqi parliamentary election, 2010. 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/20100313172823/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com:80/world/middle-east/38-killed-in-Iraq-election-day-violence-Interior-ministry/articleshow/5655030.cms to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/38-killed-in-Iraq-election-day-violence-Interior-ministry/articleshow/5655030.cms

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} 20:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Iraqi parliamentary election, 2010. 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: 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) 10:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] UNAMI concerned about Iraq election law, Al Sumaria, 2009-10-13

[2] Al Sadr Front to hold primary elections, Al Sumaria, 2009-10-13

[1]

[2]