Talk:2011 Tunisian Constituent Assembly election

Constituent vs Constitutional

I think, for the sake of consistency, we should decide whether to change this article to Tunisian Constituent Assembly election, 2011 or change the article Tunisian Constituent Assembly election, 1956 to Tunisian Constitutional Assembly election, 1956. If no one disagrees, I will change this article's title in a week.

Abjiklam (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Electoral system

Do we know what voting system will be used for this election? The article should say what it is. -- Cabalamat (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

For each constituency, it will be a closed party-list proportional representation using the largest remainder method. Someone with a better background in political science could explain it better. — Abjiklam (talk • stalk) 21:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense, thanks. Do you know how many constituencies there are, and how many seats in each one? (The importance of this is that it determines how proportional the election is) -- Cabalamat (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

For the number of seats per constituency, you could check this link. It's in French but the info is well presented in a table ;) That link is the source I used for the hidden table summarizing the results per constituency that you can find under the Polls section. From the various news I read in the past months, I remember each constituency is given approximately one seat per 60,000 citizens. However, less populated area such as the southern regions are allocated more seats than there populations would allow so as not to be under-represented (I think there's a minimum of 4 seats per constituency but I'm not sure since I haven't found reliable up to date information). As for the number of constituencies, from the link I sent you, we can see there are 33 constituencies, of which 6 are for the diaspora. Unfortunately I haven't found any official document that explains and summarizes all this coherently. — abjiklam (talk · stalk) 02:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

So since most constituencies have ≥5 seats, parties gathering at least 10% on average (corresponding to ≥0.5 seats per constituency) will be essentially proportionally represented in the Assembly, while smaller (nation-wide) parties suffer from regularly being rounded down to zero seats. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

no results, but Infobox with "First Party, Second Party ..."

As far as I can see, at the moment there are no results yet, at least none are mentioned in the text. However, the infobox orders several of the parties under headers "first party", "second party" and so on! I don't understand this nonsense!--93.104.105.168 (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, the infobox cannot display the results, but only show the main parties that have contended. The order of the parties is not the order of their actual shares of the votes. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

We do seem to be predicting the results, however. -- AndySimpson ^talk? 22:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Now that most "international" results are in [1], we could "preliminarily" sort the parties according to their successes there in the infobox, until national results come in. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Following the actual results, in the section on "Parties", I have removed the description of the PDP as the "second largest party", as in the event they came in fifth place in the election. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Map

In Kebili both Nahda and CPR won 2 seats each. I do not think that the map should show Nahda as the only winner in Kebili - Nahda and CPR are head to head. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Fjmustak (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Diagram

Could this diagram I made perhaps be of any use to the article? [ɛm nɹaɪkein] 03:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MNrykein (talk • contribs) 03:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks great! What are the "disputed" seats? --Fjmustak (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Me and the guy who colored it -- who said he didn't care if he was attributed or not, but I give 'im a shoutout in the metadata -- found some sort of discrepancy in the data, where the results seemed to leave a few seats out. We assumed they were disqualified seats, or something. If someone could edit it if we were wrong, that'd be lovely. MNrykein (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. --Fjmustak (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I also created this world map for the remaining seats. Not sure how to add a second map to the Infobox.

Overseas districts

--Fjmustak (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Party leader

Ghanoushi is the Nahda party leader, even if he is not being named to the post of Prime Minister, and should probably be changed back in the infobox. --Fjmustak (talk) 04:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

i digress, thats for the nahda page, there is NOTW a source saying who is the PM candidate for this electionLihaas (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Aridha Chaabia

The head of the party may have asked for a withdrawal from all seats [2], I think we should wait before removing anything since there was no official decision yet and the elections committee still considers that Aridha won 19 seats. --Tachfin (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

agreed.Lihaas (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Rendering of Arabic names

Can I just put in a plea for more accurate orthography for Arabic names. In particular, it should read an-Nahda, and not al-Nahda. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I've seen it commonly in English media being written in the Tunisian form: "Enahda" Tachfin (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the transcription of Arabic names and words is usually inconsistent, but does follow certain rules. The vowels are fluid, and the "a" and "e" are often in effect interchangeable. What is fixed is that the honorific definite article "al" (or "el") should change to "an" (or "en") before words starting with an "n", and make similar modification before words starting with certain other consonants. Whether or not the hyphen is included is often a matter of personal choice, but I think it aids clarity. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Hachimi.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hachimi.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. 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. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

parties section

as per convention and as cited in the edit summaries the parties section comes BEFORE the result, this is precedent here on a host of election articles. Readers are not stupid that they cant see the result and decide for themselves per [3]Lihaas (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point. But still, it is not necessary to stress that it was the second party beforehand. You are right, that readers are not stupid, still a superficial reader could be confused for a moment. Please don't be stubborn and just keep it as it is now. Regards --RJFF (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

instead of arguing with each other and going to NPA's with stubborn accusations we should accomodate, the "second largest party prior to the election" or somethingof the sort, that then adds more context to the change after the election?Lihaas (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It was just the second largest party according to most opinion polls before the election, but opinion polling in a post-revolutionary country with a still speedy developing party system is very difficult. So, we should not give too much weight to this "second largest party". I do not see why this should be very important. You cannot compare this to an established democracy, where it would indeed be notable if the second party (according to the last election) finished fifth. But this is not the case here. Some opinion polls (of questionable reliability) are not the same as a previous election. Maybe you could try not to get worked up about this half sentence. Regards --RJFF (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thats synthesis and OR we dont judge, we cite by RS. It was added 9by another) NOT me, and removed without due explanation. To repeat we DO NOT makde judgement calls, if thre is something about the RS that is dubious then it should be on RSN.,Lihaas (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you've got me wrong. This is not what I meant. --RJFF (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

if thats not it, then what is it? could you elaborate?Lihaas (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Map 2

I removed the map under the infobox for two reasons: 1) it is outdated now that Aridha regained 7 seats; 2) from the map it looks as though it's only Ennahda that won seats in the blue districts. A map like this would be good if there was only one representative per district, but since each district has many representatives the map misleading. — ABJIKLAM (t · c) 15:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly either way for or against keeping the map. I have to disagree with the first reason. It is not outdated, as I have updated it to show that Aridha gained the most number of seats in the Sidi Bouzid district (dark green). I agree with your second point that it could be misleading. A district is colored by the party with that won the most seats. It could be colored according to the party that received the highest percentage of the votes (in which case Nahda would get all the districts except Sidi Bouzid). I'm not how countries with similar electoral procedures are handled... --Fjmustak (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes you're right I saw you've updated the map. But we agree it is misleading. Even colouring according to highest percentage of votes wouldn't be representative of the actual outcome of the election so I think it is better now if we don't include a map. — ABJIKLAM (t · c) 04:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Docteur Moncef Marzouki.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Docteur Moncef Marzouki.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. 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. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tunisian Constituent Assembly election, 2011. 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/20120613185517/http://www.tap.info.tn/en/en/politics/7105-administrative-court-accepts-appeals-filed-by-al-aridha-peoples-petition-in-five-precincts.html to http://www.tap.info.tn/en/en/politics/7105-administrative-court-accepts-appeals-filed-by-al-aridha-peoples-petition-in-five-precincts.html

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} 19:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)