Talk:Nepalese Constituent Assembly election, 2008
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles of Nepal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | ||
Contents |
[edit] Doesn't make sense
"the seats for the proportional representation system were increased to 335 and the members nominated by the prime minister were increased to 26 from 17."
Increased from 26 to 17? I don't know if it should read decreased or the numbers should be switched but this doesn't make sense.
131.111.1.66 (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Upliftment of article needed urgently
Now there is only 62 days left til the election, and this article could need a drastic boost.
- The article largely has an outsider perspective, describing statements of international donors and peers. This is not wrong, but more inputs from nepalese political debate are needed.
- Details on the development after the Maoists rejoined govt needs to be updated
- Issues in the campaign
- Candidate presentation (at least bios on main candidates) Note that candidatures are not yet final.
- Constituency listing. Can anyone read http://www.election.gov.np/NP/pdf/chhetra2063.pdf ? some devanagari characters are unreadable on my pc. Is there any version in English anywhere.
- Stub articles, at least, on all participating parties. Note the changes made to Template:Infobox Nepalese Political Party, with space for devanagari name and election symbol. Both are available at http://www.election.gov.np/NP/legal/list.php
- Photos. Photos of election meetings and election wallpaintings (have they started to come up yet?) are needed for the article.
--Soman (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
== q? ==
do we know if the king himself voted? --Soman (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Election results
I've now created {{CA2064-Kathmandu-1}}. We need to create new ones like this, once more constituency counts are finalized. Note that this one is exceptionally long, due to large number of candidates. Most rural constituencies will be much shorter. --Soman (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Blacklisted site?
Why is the 'Nepal Election Portal' blacklisted? It looks neutral and it has details not available elsewhere. But I was not allowed to add it. --GwydionM (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nominated seats?
Does anyone know when the nominated seats will be selected? Are they elected by the old interim government or the new one formed after the CA convenes? In the latter case, they should be removed from the results table. --Soman (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- They should be in the table either way, in my opinion. I'm afraid I don't know which of the two options is correct, but
- http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0804/S00158.htm
- http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00451.htm
- http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/stories/20080425250805200.htm
- seem to indicate that the incumbent PM will nominate people from groups left out in the election... —Nightstallion 09:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, it seems the incumbent PM nominates the 26 before the CA convenes. In some sources, can't come up with them at the moment, it says the 26 would be nominated by the council of ministers. I think we will see what happens with these seats once they are nominated. If the nominees are (as some indications in articles) non-partisan technocrats, then we should just mention the 26 en bloc in the bottom of the table, as is done with Anglo-Indians in indian election results. --Soman (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Aye, that would be a good idea if it is indeed a non-partisan nomination. —Nightstallion 15:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, it seems the incumbent PM nominates the 26 before the CA convenes. In some sources, can't come up with them at the moment, it says the 26 would be nominated by the council of ministers. I think we will see what happens with these seats once they are nominated. If the nominees are (as some indications in articles) non-partisan technocrats, then we should just mention the 26 en bloc in the bottom of the table, as is done with Anglo-Indians in indian election results. --Soman (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "Tabled"
The following expression is internationally ambiguous:
"On 15 December, the government tabled an amendment to the constitution"
Since the word "tabled" means opposite things in the two most popular dialects of English, I really don't think it should be used in an encyclopedia that is supposed to be internationally readable. I've assumed it is being used here to mean "considered" and changed it accordingly. Xezlec (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- It was supposed to mean "propose, put on the table, submit for parliamentary process". What else can it mean? —Nightstallion 20:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently in the US it means to kill a motion. Yes I know, Americans are strange but what can we do? Table (verb) & Table (parliamentary) Nil Einne (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Strange. —Nightstallion 10:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently in the US it means to kill a motion. Yes I know, Americans are strange but what can we do? Table (verb) & Table (parliamentary) Nil Einne (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Majority party?
Is there any reason the Maoists are listed as a majority party when they don't infact have a majority? It seems rather likely that the Maoists are going to form the government with the support of one or more other parties, but they are still not the majority party. Might it be best to just leave out the infobox until a government is formed? Nil Einne (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think "majority" in this case simply means the party with the most seats, as it is also used in UK election infoboxes. —Nightstallion 10:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware, the last time the UK had a minority government was in the 1920s so it's somewhat irrelevant. Elections without majorities, are not uncommon especially when proportional systems are used, as was in this case. They are much rarer in FPTP (although presuming that all the results had been the same which was unlikely, the Maoists still wouldn't have had a majority they would have been short by 1). But for example Scottish Parliament election, 2007 we don't even have an infobox. Also note that for New Zealand general election, 2005 was have the government and the opposition. We don't call Labour the majority party, this would clearly be inaccurate since there is no majority party. They are however the government now. I don't know when the infobox was added but it wasn't there before the government was formed [1] perhaps the infobox didn't even exist at the time but it still doesn't make any sense IMHO to call the Maoists the majority party when they are not the majority party. The thing is that AFAIK it's possible albeit perhaps unlikely that the Maoists won't form the government, which clearly wouldn't be the case if they were really the majority party. Nil Einne (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I brought this up in Template talk:Infobox Election Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware, the last time the UK had a minority government was in the 1920s so it's somewhat irrelevant. Elections without majorities, are not uncommon especially when proportional systems are used, as was in this case. They are much rarer in FPTP (although presuming that all the results had been the same which was unlikely, the Maoists still wouldn't have had a majority they would have been short by 1). But for example Scottish Parliament election, 2007 we don't even have an infobox. Also note that for New Zealand general election, 2005 was have the government and the opposition. We don't call Labour the majority party, this would clearly be inaccurate since there is no majority party. They are however the government now. I don't know when the infobox was added but it wasn't there before the government was formed [1] perhaps the infobox didn't even exist at the time but it still doesn't make any sense IMHO to call the Maoists the majority party when they are not the majority party. The thing is that AFAIK it's possible albeit perhaps unlikely that the Maoists won't form the government, which clearly wouldn't be the case if they were really the majority party. Nil Einne (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Soman. I think the infobox is inappropriate and misleading and must be removed. There appears to be a number of other mistakes as well. For example: Sashank Koirala is not the top leader of Nepali Congress. Main leader of Nepali Congress has to be Girija Prasad Koirala, or if selected from FPTP candidates, Sher Bahadur Deuba. According to heirarchy of Nepali Congress, Sher Bahadur Deuba comes after Girija Prasad Koirala.
Kathmandu2007 (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
If in case the new Nepalese government would be a coalition government the Infobox Election page could be done because it is possible to put two pictures and leaders on government and/or opposition. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wow
Nepalese parties have crazy logos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.200.188 (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
These are not logos. They are election symbols only !!!
Kathmandu2007 (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Election symbols
User:Fasach Nua has been removing the election symbols from the article. On one hand, election symbols are very important in Nepalese politics, far more politically relevant than mere logos of Western political parties. When splits occur, conflicts erupt over the right to the election symbol. On the ballot papers, only symbols appear and in the election campaign symbols are used rather than text in many instances. Many of the Nepalese parties have symbols whose names are not easily identified by name to many non-Nepali users, and pictoral representation is necessary for the quality of the article. It is not decorative, but informative and within bounds of fair use. --Soman (talk) 11:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree with that summary. —Nightstallion 17:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- The aim of WP is to produce a free content encylopedia, these images clearly fail wp:nfc#8, and while the symbols themselves may be important, their inclusion in this article is not a neccessity to the reader understanding the concept of the Nepalese Constituent Assembly election, 2008 Fasach Nua (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree with that; due to the important role party symbols play in less alphabetised societies, the significance of the party symbols for this election is very high indeed, and therefore they may and should be included. —Nightstallion 09:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- The symbols are important, I am not diputing that. The issues is "are they nessicary in this article, so that the reader can understand this election?" to which the answer is no. It is possible to search the internet and come across hundreds of pages covering these elections in which these symbols are not used, if other organisations which do not have the aim of not using non-free content can properly cover the subject, then why can't WP? It may be justifiable to have them in article about the election symbols, but they are not needed here! Fasach Nua (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd argue that to fully understand all aspects of this election, the symbols *are* required. —Nightstallion 11:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I would encourage you to do so Fasach Nua (talk) 06:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Due to the large amount of parties with similar names, the identification of the parties through their election symbols is an essential part of the political system and therefore also in this election. —Nightstallion 23:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I would encourage you to do so Fasach Nua (talk) 06:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd also yes that yes, the symbols are needed. Material might be available on other websites as well, but i'd say that most English speakers would encounter problems trying to read the list of political parties at the election commission website. --Soman (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- What you are talking about is translatiosn of names, they have been given english translations, a picture of a peacock makes me none the wiser on the issue Fasach Nua (talk) 06:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd argue that to fully understand all aspects of this election, the symbols *are* required. —Nightstallion 11:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- The symbols are important, I am not diputing that. The issues is "are they nessicary in this article, so that the reader can understand this election?" to which the answer is no. It is possible to search the internet and come across hundreds of pages covering these elections in which these symbols are not used, if other organisations which do not have the aim of not using non-free content can properly cover the subject, then why can't WP? It may be justifiable to have them in article about the election symbols, but they are not needed here! Fasach Nua (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree with that; due to the important role party symbols play in less alphabetised societies, the significance of the party symbols for this election is very high indeed, and therefore they may and should be included. —Nightstallion 09:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- The aim of WP is to produce a free content encylopedia, these images clearly fail wp:nfc#8, and while the symbols themselves may be important, their inclusion in this article is not a neccessity to the reader understanding the concept of the Nepalese Constituent Assembly election, 2008 Fasach Nua (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- In all such articles the actual appearance of the election symbols is indispensable for understanding. Many parties in societies with limited literacy make use of the conceptual associations of their symbols, and their identity is frequently closely bound up with them. This is a classically appropriate case of fair use. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
