Talk:2009 Equatorial Guinean presidential election

A news item involving 2009 Equatorial Guinean presidential election was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 5 December 2009.

Wikipedia

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

Africa: Equatorial Guinea Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Equatorial Guinea (assessed as Low-importance).

Nobody Wins With 95%[edit]

The claim that the incumbent has won with 95% of the vote is absurd on face value. Perhaps the government claims it won by 95%, but nonetheless, this is an encyclopedia and blatant electoral fabrications should not be presented as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nogburt (talk • contribs) 04:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normally in these matters I'd qualify it by saying "according to official results", but it's just an intro summary. Anyway, Wikipedia can't simply assert that the results of past elections were fraudulent. What do you suggest? Everyking (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That Wikipedia simply asserts that the elections were fraudulent. The government has a Point of View that the election should be rigged. You have a point of view that Wikipedia articles should view the crazy assertions of crazy regimes as a credible source. I have the Point of View that treating Nguema as a credible source is the same as basing an encyclopedia article of the rampblings of the homeless genteleman by my work. Perhaps we should just delete this whole article as POV-coated quagmire.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that 95% is what the government released and most international observers look at how the election was run and say, "Wait a minute, the government must have been doing something wrong." See the section about competition within the election. As far as I can tell all sources concerning the election have a natural POV.We can not go around deleting articles because all of the available sources have systematic bias.SADADS (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some possibly useful links[edit]

I agree with the criticism of this article posted above. There are widespread news reports that this election was a farce, and yet we are currently reporting it with a straight face.

BBC - "Equatorial Guinea's main opposition candidate has said he will not accept the result of Sunday's election because polls were not free and fair." "Human rights groups say the vote was unlikely to have been free and fair..."

Associated Press - "The government of Equatorial Guinea says the African country's ruler of 30 years has been re-elected with 95.37 percent of votes, while opponents and international human rights groups denounced the electoral process in Africa's No. 3 oil producer as fraudulent."

Voice of America

[1] - "It was another election in which the voters had a gun held to their heads – literally, in the case of one opposition official, who had a pistol applied to his temple to encourage him to sign off on rigged returns."

--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Made some changes, working on changing the front page info.SADADS (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is all well and good to add information, but this article was written in strict accordance with our own NPOV policy and your criticism is completely unfair. I included the positions held by the government as well as those held by the opposition. At no point did I write that the results were legitimate—I simply reported them as the "official results", without casting a POV judgment. Would Jimbo like us to simply declare outright that the election was rigged? The NPOV instructs us to report and attribute the positions held by each side in a controversy, without using language that suggests one side is right and the other is wrong. Everyking (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read carefully what he said and what was added. He was a afraid that we were ignoring the predominate 3rd party approach to this election, and quite frankly I agree. A Majority of the media has reported such corruption charges and it seems both the international community and non-profits are looking at it in the same way. I made the changes and commented on them at User talk:Jimbo Wales, and he feels that the changes are adequate. (And I would have done the same if another editor had offered the same request. He did not ask for us to report the election as false, but rather to ensure that this other perspective was taken into account.)SADADS (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes are fine with me. What I object to is the notion that the article was some kind of whitewash, when in fact opposition criticisms of the election were given at least as much space as the government and ruling party's positions. Everyking (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, but it is silly to argue over it if we agree with the current state of the article. SADADS (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is no longer the whitewash that appeared in the old version. Thanks for the cleanup.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only substantial difference is the addition of a sentence to the introduction that summarizes what was already discussed later in the article. I'm glad you're content with the article now, though. Everyking (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next election[edit]

Does someone know when the next Equatorial Guinean presidential election will take place ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desplow (talk • contribs) 23:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]