Talk:Constitution of Egypt

Egypt High‑importance

	Egypt portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt 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.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

English translation

There are some links to unofficial translatons of the draft constitution (2013) available. Could be put somewhere in the text?:

http://en.aswatmasriya.com/news/view.aspx?id=a4e8442c-8a2e-4047-ac55-1ea426e122b8

http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/egypt-s-draft-constitution-translated

http://www.constitutionnet.org/egypt-draft-constitution-dec-2013 (in PDF) 189.60.161.134 (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no, but if there is an official or a curated (major news service hosted) version of the final and not draft would be appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The official final version published by State Information Service : http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/Templates/Articles/tmpArticles.aspx?CatID=2603 Amr Tarek^{Say Hello!}, 05:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested 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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: do not move. There is a clear consensus to keep the current title. Discussions about the fate of the page Constitution of Egypt are a separate issue, on which no consensus has been reached here. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Constitution of 2014 → Constitution of Egypt – Only historical constitutions should have "of YEAR#". The current constitution should be located at "Constitution of COUNTRYNAME" without a qualifier. Article editor (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I moved the discussion here from WP:RMTR at 05:19 on 20 January since it doesn't qualify as an uncontroversial move. Editors planning to comment here should also read the prior discussion at Wikipedia:Help desk#How to change redirect about how to organize the articles about the Egyptian constitution. EdJohnston (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been discussed a bit here [1]; the argument that Arjayay made is that if we move the page as currently requested, links that are supposed to go the 2012 version of the constitution will go to the 2014 version instead. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made two points:-

We shouldn't change a redirect to a non existent article - this has been overcome by starting the article albeit that it needs more work
There are about 300 incoming links to Constitution of Egypt how many are only relevant to the 2012 Constitution, where they were redirected to, and how many will be relevant to the 2014 Constitution, I have no idea, but we cannot simply redirect all the links to a new article. - This has been ignored in that the redirect has already been repointed from the 2012 to the 2014, without these links being tidied up.

Given how many constitutions there have been in recent years, there may be an argument for keeping Egyptian Constitution as a redirect, as it will make re-pointing to any subsequent constitutions easier, whilst I'm not sure what the serious disadvantage of having it as a re-direct is.
What needs to be done is for someone to check and tidy up the links to Constitution of Egypt. Arjayay (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone that move on the article so the page is as it was.David O. Johnson (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The person who proposed the move has some editing restrictions apparently [[2]]. Keep those in mind, I suppose.David O. Johnson (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Constitution of Egypt article has already been reverted twice while this RM was open. I suggest that people leave it as a redirect (which it is at this moment) until consensus is reached here about how to organize the articles. If the edit war continues at Constitution of Egypt it may be fully protected. When consensus is reached, all the incoming links can be fixed up to agree with whatever arrangement is decided to be the best. EdJohnston (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
given the number of inbound links to Constitution of Egypt which are almost certainly NOT about the 2014 constitution and the frequency of changes, i !vote that Constitution of Egypt be a DAB page, at least until the inbound links are cleaned up, at which point a redirect to this page. it will allow maintanance. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- i would also be in favor of the proposal by Andrewa below. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been argued by a user named "The Banner" that "creating 130 links to disambiguation pages" would be not be such a good idea.[3] If we keep it as a disambiguation page, there are numerous templates that reference the constitution in the abstract; those links would have to be fixed so they don't go the disambiguation page. Honestly, neither solution seems that satisfactory right now. Either way, links will have to be fixed. This link may be useful: [4].David O. Johnson (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my vote again to Agree on the move; there are fewer links that would have to be fixed if the article is located at Constitution of Egypt than if it was located at its' current location. Besides, other articles don't have similar titles; it seems that the "Constitution of country" article name is dominant.David O. Johnson (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~, but sort out links and redirects first. With many target incoming links intended for the previous constitution, a simple move may make things worse. I suggest that after the move, double redirects through Egyptian Constitution of 2014 should not be so quickly "fixed", in case this constitution doesn't last. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with User:Andrewa below. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Constitution of Egypt should instead become an overview page, listing the various constitutions and a brief background to each, and using main links to link to articles on specific constitutions, including the most recent of course. There's no useful parallel to countries like the USA and Australia which have had only one constitution, or even France which has had only one since 1958, see Category:Constitutions of Egypt. Andrewa (talk) 09:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: I think you are in essence stating that what is currently at History of the Egyptian Constitution should be moved to Constitution of Egypt and the content here should stay at Egyptian Constitution of 2014? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good idea. Many external uses of "Constitution of Egypt", and many external incoming links will be referring to the content of what is at History of the Egyptian Constitution and will not be referring to the new 2014 constitution, and this will probably remain true, definitely for months, possibly for years. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite that simple. History of the Egyptian Constitution is a very good topic in its own right (although that article badly needs work for other reasons); We want an article at that title too. If we are to have only one article, I'd say redirect Constitution of Egypt to History of the Egyptian Constitution for now, and refactor the lede there to be just one or two sentences followed by a bullet-point list linking to the articles on the specific constitutions. But eventually we should aim to have an overview article or perhaps better a set index (not the same thing) at Constitution of Egypt, with another article (and certainly not a mere set index, this one should be a genuine overview) at History of the Egyptian Constitution. Andrewa (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Constitution of Egypt" should be an overview article, and failing that, should be a set index or disambiguation page, until such an article is written. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Is the vote section needed?

The information in the Vote section is already covered on the page for the 2014 referendum; should it be kept on this article? I looked at a few other articles on recent Egyptian constitutions and none of them had a similar section. I propose that it be removed. If there is unique info on this page that isn't on the referendum page, it can be copied over.David O. Johnson (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a short description would be appropriate, but the amount of detail and comparison to previous votes seems excessive.

conceptually, the 2014 referendum article is a spin-out child article of this topic and we should look at them both from the more historical perspective that we can now have and see what content belongs where. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. No opposition, and seems uncontroversial given that "Constitution of X" refers to current constitutions everywhere else. I don't think we need to take any urgent action on JFG's concerns either, because Constitution of Egypt has been a redirect since 2014 anyway, thus any incoming links have already been dealt with, or at least wrong already for two years. — Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Constitution of 2014 → Constitution of Egypt – WP:PRIMARY. – Article editor (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. — Amakuru (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC) relisted by SSTflyer at 02:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Article editor: Egypt has had several or many constitutions down the years. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Similar to many other countries, the constitution currently in force can have the shorter title, the older ones are "Constitution of Anyland (1963)" or "Anylandian Constitution of 1963", and very often mentioned in the current constitution's article. — JFG ^talk 14:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, seeing the previous RM discussion from 2014 above, in case this move is approved, care should be taken to point incoming links to the correct page, either the constitution in general or to a specific historical version. — JFG ^talk 14:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constitution of 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/20140122010013/http://www.aljazeera.com:80/news/middleeast/2014/01/what-egypt-proposed-new-constitution-201411312385987166.html to http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/01/what-egypt-proposed-new-constitution-201411312385987166.html

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) 02:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]