Talk:Kenyan presidential election, 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Africa
Africa Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Kenya. See also The Kenya Portal.
Assessment comments


Elections date may be changed and definitely fixed as soon as today or anyway in the next days. Keep pending to eventually adjust the date. Maximiliano .

Contents

[edit] revert

Kihiu (talk · contribs) just removed my addition of analysis from The Economist magazine (diff) with the misleading edit summary "Fixed timeline section". Has there been some decision where context and subsectioning is now a "mistake? - BanyanTree 23:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The new/added text contained a repetition of the endorsement by former President Moi which is at the beginning of the paragraph. Both Kibaki and Odinga have campaigned in Coast areas both appealing to Muslims and promising not to victimize wrongly in the war on terror. Yes Kibaki does have a strong backing of the Kikuyu community and Odinga has a strong backing of the Luhya. This is evident from the detailed regional opinion polls and any commentaries pertaining to this should be added there/campaign issues. The article mentioned that Muslims are unhappy with Kenya's support of the West's war on terror Banyan put Kibaki in place of Kenya. The platforms on which both candidates are running on should probably be addressed in the campaign issues. The timeline was wrong as Pius Muiru officially launched his bid prior to Parliament being dissolved. Also what criteria was used to determine that Pius Muiru is a minor candidate. He probably is (in my own opinion) but there is no poll/citation to show this.Kihiu 00:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Now why didn't you say that in the first place, rather than reverting under a misleading edit summary? Now that you've demonstrated that you know what you're talking about and have reasoning, I'm happy to leave the article to you. - BanyanTree 01:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the misleading edit summary note. I just meant to summarize all the issues briefly. Please feel free to make any contributions and correct me where I go wrong.Kihiu 02:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note on results and change of power

As far as I'm aware the formal declaration of the result is not the very second where one presidential term ends and the next begins. Please see User:Bearcat/Post-Election Edit War Syndrome to be wary of the problems that have arisen when power has changed hands as the result of an election and umpteen edit wars have ensued. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The Kenyan constitution dates back to times when there were no presidential elections. Therefore, there are no written rules when and how the handover takes place. In 2002, Mwai Kibaki took the power almost immediately after Electoral Commission of Kenya declared him as the president and all went without a hitch. This time the situation is a bit more complex, as the incumbent president is one of the candidates, and the race is expected to be very tight between Raila and Kibaki. That could result in protests, possibly delaying the handover. Julius Sahara (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday, 03-JAN-2008, I posted a weblink here to the Kenyan constitution that noted the transfer of power to a new president. It was deleted by Kipala. May I know why?--Eddylyons (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source of results data

There are a number of sources for the results - I think we should report as from the official Electoral commission. Wizzy…☎ 07:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The ECK result counting is really slow. By now, they have tallied less than three million votes out of ten million. The results by KTN include over eight million votes. But I doubt whether it is wise to post incomplete results at all, since they do fluctuate alot depending on what parts of the country votes are counted. Julius Sahara (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
All the others are exit polls. Do you really think KTN counted votes before ECK ?? Wizzy…☎ 08:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
KTN, Nation and others get their information straight from officials at polling stations. ECK uses the same data, but is slow at officially announcing it Julius Sahara (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that the results are actually in dispute, I would drop the loaded term 'official' and just report the figures while highlighting the source. This should be true for any election report in Wikipedia - including the disputed USA Presidential! Pacificbiblio (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turnout

Are the turnout figures of 5-10% in some areas normal? Nil Einne (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I have taken the liberty of merging the riots and election results together. I think it would be better to do so. JoshHuzzuh  Talk  16:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Results

The figures given for the presidential election are NOT those which appear at the ECK website, which is given as the source. What is the ACTUAL source of these figures, and why is this source not given? Are these official figures or taken from a media source? This needs to be disclosed. If it is not I will delete the figures as UNSOURCED. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aftermath Section

I feel that the entire wording on that section is horrendous. It doesn't meet the criteria, as there are grammar and spelling issues. Not to mention that it doesn't follow the style of the other sections. JoshHuzzuh  Talk  12:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Results

As foreshadowed above, I have deleted the tables of results, which are unsourced. The only source mentioned is the ECK, but these figures do not appear at the ECK website. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Violence

It is obviously not just a Luo against Kikuyu pattern. Violence goes mainly against Kikuyus because they are identified with Kibaki who is Kikuyu and is perceived by non-Central Kenyans to be the one who stole the vote - but sadly that happens all over Kenya, See the reports about Kalenjin-dominated Eldoret or coastal Mombasa. --Kipala (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The article said primarily, based on a New York Times article. We could describe the ethnicity of riot participants in greater detail, but for that we'd need sources. Everyking (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem - relying primarily on a single source. From much of my info, the original violence was not ethnically based but against rich government members/supporters. Some other sources worth citing

Guardian UK [1]

and also

Pambazuka News [2]

Pacificbiblio (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to add that the article should note that much of the violence is from the Kenyan police & perhaps even army (NRA troops) against civilians. The Kenyan police is not known for its civility nor as being above politics? [3] Pacificbiblio (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarified on the ethnic ("tribal") characteristics of the election and the aftermath. Kikuyu vs. Luo is a stupid scheme employed either by lazy journalists or editors who don`t like to bother their readers/audiences with a bit more complex reality. Widespread perception is rather "Highlands" against the rest of the country (or less tribal: fat big cats of an upper class sitting in nice walled homes and meeting in luxury hotels in Nairobi whipping up the tribal sentiments of their poor and uneducated countrymen in order to get a larger share of the national cake). As usual each gossip has some truth but still is stupid.--Kipala (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A separate article on riots?

Is there already enough content to create a separate article on the elections aftermath? This should be sufficiently covered. --Tone 18:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah, there's really no point to separate the articles. JoshHuzzuh  Talk  23:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The riots are clearly important enough to warrant coverage beyond the scope of this article. Everyking (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I also agree that the topic is important. I have for now created an article 2007-08 riots in Kenya with most of the content from the aftermats section but it needs to be expanded. --Tone 11:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I am doubtful if it is helpful writing articles as events unfold. This article is an example: surely it may have been interesting to see all the opinion polls developing but for an article on these elections they are just an eyesore. If I want to get Infos about the election 2007 I dont want to fight my way first thru a mass of figures of earlier polls that have become irrelevant by now. --Kipala (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we should have a separate article on the riots; to Kipala's criticism: you're right, but we can always (and usually do) refine the articles after the events are over. —Nightstallion 12:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The article on the riots (especially the timeline) is much better than the section within this piece - may I suggest that the Timeline section replace this sections article together with a link? Pacificbiblio (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stop trying to imitate the newspapers

I think it is a nuisance to try to imitate the newspapers in an encyclopedia. What is the point of adding statements that change daily (like if Odinga calls a rally or calls it off?) Time will show later if and which of such calls have any relevance. For now it just pumps useless information into an article which makes it difficult to read. Wikipedia is full of such bloated articels and of course it does not happen that all of these are cleaned up. Just look at this one: Still all those opinion polls which do not add to the value of this article. Who is going to throw that out?--Kipala (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinion polls gone. Wizzy…☎ 14:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
We don't determine notability according to what has long-term significance. We aim for comprehensive coverage, not brief summaries. Wikipedia is not Britannica. Everyking (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Everyking: I don`t care about Britannica. What we have is simply an unreadable article with all these yesterday news (its old news and ot relevant facts except for hstorians by now.) What do you want to determine "notability" on? Just the fact that whosoever decided whensoever to add some opinion poll? Let few months go and this clogged stuff is going to continue as a nuisance for readers who look for information. Only that by then probably kwoladgeable people are fed up with adding to this article. For people with historic interest, ok lets take the polls out in a separate article. As longa s wikimedia can afford the storage volume, fine. It may have a value because these inline resources will be lost (maybe they are already) on the original servers. Its time to clean up and move on. --Kipala (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
A separate article is fine and is probably better than cluttering up this article; I just didn't want to be the one to dump a bunch of tables and numbers into some new article without having some proper text to go along with it. The important thing to me is just that this information remains somewhere on this project for people who want it and isn't lost to us. Everyking (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone put them back. I saw this one

Presidential results as per ECK on Jan 8: Kibaki loweer!
Presidential results as per ECK on Jan 8: Kibaki loweer!

on the web and uploaded the screenshot (lets see for how long it survives). Did not see a comment in any newspaper on this - just more sluggish work of ECK or some recount? Very narrow margin now! --Kipala (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The figures that the media is quoting come from the website of the Office of the Government Spokesman (see link in article). These are presumably official figures, although they may of course be fabrications. We still don't know why the ECK has stopped posting figures. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Check the constituency results on that page. For Nakuru Town,

PNU - Party of National Unity Lee Maiyani Kinyanjui 52,349 100%

Everyone else got zero votes. Nada, nothing. Wizzy…☎ 07:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] www.eck.or.ke updated : Official Results as at 1605HRS 08-Jan-2008

National results - Kibaki's lead narrowed to

MWAI KIBAKI         3,270,433  PNU  PARTY OF NATIONAL UNITY
RAILA AMOLO ODINGA  3,230,063  ODM  ORANGE DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT

40,000 votes.

Results per Constituency still not updated, Provincial Results are there. Wizzy…☎ 15:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

While these figures are somewhat more "official" than the Office of the Government Spokesman figures, they are well behind those figures. We have no way of knowing which is the more accurate or honest - either or both may be fabrications. The article should probably include both sets of figures. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting

Notice that I have split almost all of the "Aftermath" section into Civil unrest in Kenya (2007–present), where it should really be going. I didn't summarize very well, and you can help tweak that, but please do not readd the info without contacting me on my talk page. Editorofthewiki (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have disputed this on the grounds that I feel there should be two separate subarticles; it is awkward to merge everything into the clashes article, because the "aftermath" content deliberately avoided detailed discussion of the clashes and instead focused on the political dispute. And while I have contacted you on your talk page, I do not feel it is appropriate to expect this; you did not consult me before making a major editorial decision about the content I wrote. Everyking (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)