Talk:2006 Democratic Republic of the Congo general election

Free[edit]

Free is a relative concept I agree - particularly in this context, and liable to bias. But I think the point is to contrast the elections under Mobutu - were these multiparty? --AndrewRT 20:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiparty, yes, but I already have the feeling that Kabila rigged them. All I can do now is wait and hope that Guy-Patrice Lumumba succeeds. --Ionius Mundus 23:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I'm not sure about this statement:

"the first multiparty elections in 46 years assumed at this point to have been regular"

What is a regular multiparty elections? --AndrewRT 20:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elections involving multiple political parties or organized coalitions of parties that are certified/declared to be regular {basically free of fraud} by international election monitors, as reported by verifiable media reports or other reliable sources. --Fsotrain09 16:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page name[edit]

Why is the format "Democratic Republic of the Congo general election, 2006" used, when Democratic Republic of the Congo general election of 2006 would read far better as an encyclopaedia entry?

zoney ♣ talk 22:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A long established naming convention for elections, I believe. It's out there somewhere, in one of the multiple style manuals. I agree it isn't the best solution: it makes any election article practically impossible to link to without pipelinking. Bolivian Unicyclist 00:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it - there is not a great consistency in such cases on Wikipedia, partly because the "preferred style" could change tomorrow. zoney ♣ talk 15:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't doubt it, it's a fact. The format is "[demonym] [type] election, [year]", whereas [demonym] is sometimes substituted by [country name], like in this case. —Nightst a llion (?) 10:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Elections. I agree it's crap - maybe it should be changed to something that would work in a non-piped form. Personally I like zoney's suggestion. AndrewRT - Talk 19:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the change from ", " to " of " is the only one you're proposing, I'm strongly against it. It doesn't change too much and means lots of work for lots of people. —Nightst a llion (?) 10:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming convention[edit]

I would like to resurrect my previous idea to change the current naming convention for elections. The current convention is:

Use the format "Demonym type election, date", for example "Canadian federal election, 1867"... (WP:NAME#Elections}

I propose this is changed to allow two alternatives, as follows:

Use either this form: political division type election, date, or this form: political division election of date. For example, Canadian federal election, 1867 or Canadian federal election of 1867. Where an article has been created using one form, do not move the article to the other form.

This new option would make linking more natural and make the article names more encyclopedic.

Please comment on this proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#New elections proposal

Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 23:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Federal"[edit]

I changed a reference to the "federal parliament" to "national parliament". True, the provinces stand to gain a fair amount of decentralised power under the new constitution, but -- as I understood matters -- it's not going to be formally federal; the word "federal" does not appear in the constitution, for instance, and un État de droit, indépendant, souverain, uni et indivisible sounds a lot like a unitary state, not a federal one. If I'm in error, you all know how to revert. Bolivian Unicyclist 00:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity[edit]

Has there ever been an African nation capable of conducting a competent election reasonably free of corruption and other wrongdoing? Triumph's Hour 01:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A few recent examples are - São Tomé and Príncipe (2006), Benin (2006), Mauritius (2005), Ghana (2004), and Botswana (2004). --Acntx 05:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be fair, it was quite an acheivement for a society with a shot infrastructure, high rates of poverty and illiteracy, long-suppressed civil society, and a recent history of vicious and atrocious civil war to even have an election this clean! You don't get a perfect democracy straight away AndrewRT - Talk 19:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clashes in Kinshasa[edit]

I have re-added the following text to the subsection on the Kinshasa clashes:

The French Wikipedia has an article about the August 2006 Kinsasha clashes: Événements de Kinshasa d'août 2006 (in French)

While this is an article on EN, we just don't have an equivalent article on the Kinshasa clashes. There are many users on EN for whom English is a second language -- English is the lingua franca these days -- and we should expect that some people reading an article about the RoC will speak Linguala or French. Normally we'd just interwiki, but here, there's no article to interwiki from. So I've taken the liberty of simply pointing out the French article's existance, nothing more. (I'd do the same thing on FR) --Zantastik talk 18:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map of the Second Round[edit]

My website has the full results of the second round of the election as well as a map of the second round. Feel free to use the map in the article but please provide the source.

http://www.electoralgeography.com/en/countries/c/congo/2006-president-election-congo.html

Thank you.

If you're willing to release 2006-congo-presidential-second.gif under the GFDL, we'll include a link to the site in the caption, but please do not add the electoralgeography link to the external links section (it merely duplicates the information we already have). Sorry for my last edit summary in the article, I overlooked this note. This, though, I suspect is the reason the link keeps getting removed. Thx. Regards, El_C 11:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what GDFL stands for and what "including a link to the site in the caption" is. Can you do what you were trying to say yourself first so that next time I would know?

Official observer report needed[edit]

Could someone add an observer report on the election conduct? QZXA2 18:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Democratic Republic of the Congo general election, 2006. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 13:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on Democratic Republic of the Congo general election, 2006. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 16:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Backtowel.jpg"[edit]

Can someone explain to me why there is a huge image labeled "backtowl.jpg" on this page? I can't find it in the editor so can't remove it but it's just a huge photo of a woman's rear end. 86.163.3.2 (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]