Talk:National Democratic Party (Egypt)

regarding "multiple issues" flagger
Please post here specific issues with the article's impartiality. This article was constructed as part of the wikipedia public policy initiative late last year, as was also a recent "Did you you...?" article featured on wikipedia's frontpage. Several wikipedia campus ambassadors assisted in the formatting of this article, in addition to the online wikipedia admins/ambassadors (fetchcomms for one). The citations are all there for further scrutiny - and they are mostly peer-reviewed, with the exception of news articles and the journal for democracy, which is not peer reviewed.

The "style" of the article may be more academic and essay-formatted than is per'usual for wikipedia; this is a product of my training and my status as a graduate student at the center for contemporary arab studies @ georgetown. The style, though, should not be a reason for "multiple issues" flag.

Again, Toa Nidhiki05, I invite you to list your specific criticisms here and I can work to address those for you. Nerdpenguin (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you actually added new comments at the bottom of page, as is the norm around here, you would see them.
 * First off, the opening 'Electoral system in Egypt' section has little to do with the party itself - it is merely a rant against Egypt's system. For example, read this line -

"So why then is there talk of democracy by Egypt's leaders and parliamentary elections? Liberal reforms undertaken in the authoritarian states of the Arab World are spurred by a desire from the countries' leaders to garner internal and external legitimacy; however, these reforms lack the substance needed to open the way for meaningful democratic change..."

The use of the question mark, which I have bolded, proves this is an essay, not an encyclopedic page. Encyclopedias don't ask questions.
 * Also, instead of focusing on the party itself and its role in Egypt's one-party system, it focuses on Egypt's political system at large. I see nothing on this page about the ideology of the party.
 * This article is to be a NPOV, encyclopedic article about the National Democratic Party - not a rant on Egypt's political system.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  00:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey great, thanks Nidhiki for being so kind in pointing out that I should start writing at the bottom. I appreciate your tone and italics. It's a wonder that with such great, warm, and not-at-all condescending user like yourself that we don't have more academics contributing to wikipedia.

The section on Egypt's electoral system is meant to give context to the article on the political party, the NDP. It is necessary to comment on the hallow democratic reforms of Egypt's electoral system, because these are (frankly) a bedrock of the NDP. One cannot be understood without the other.One can read the entire article from start to finish, as have many campus ambassadors and wikipedia ambassadors, without commenting on the objectivity of the article. You are a lone voice on this. The question mark is a rhetorical question. You might be able to find an article on uses of the rhetorical question here on wikipedia. Otherwise, I suggest any number of high school English grammar books.

Your criticism has been duly noted. And I invite you to remove the rhetorical question, if it so offends you. Otherwise, I will be removing the flag and ask that you submit it to an arbitration team, or however Wikipedia deals with these things. You know how things work around here, apparently, and I do not. Thanks again for the criticism Nerdpenguin (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

And as an afterthought, graduate students participating in wikipedia's public policy initiative are not encouraged to write in Encyclopedia format - whatever that is. We are encouraged to write objectively and without bias, which is the manner in which this article is written. I am glad that you have got a second opinion, where ever that may have come from. Now I ask that you submit your contention to an admin or a arbitrator. However it works. Nerdpenguin (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There is not such thing as objectivity - our job is to report what people have said about it rather than what is so.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  16:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

protest picture
I take exception to your remark, Everyking, that the picture of Egyptian security forces beating protesters is irrelevant. The picture relates to the state of emergency and indiscriminate use of force available to the government, as clearly mentioned in the electoral system of egypt section. Given the current demonstrations in Egypt, led by the nation's youth (1/27/11), the images available now on the news correlate to the picture (i.e. police repression), making it timely, topical, and relevant.

I would submit your contention to an arbitrator moderator, but I don't spend enough time on here to know how to do that. I will ask one of my wikipedia campus ambassadors how to do this so that we can resolve this dispute amicably. Until then, cheers! Nerdpenguin (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

subheadings
Great job! This was a large and dense topic to handle and you really went into the history and the evolution of the party and how it has impacted the NDP today. Maybe including some diagrams of the Egyptian government or pictures of other presidents will make it more catchy. However, this is not urgent. I think you also need to split the sections more. For example, the history can be divided by each president and under each president divide different topics discussed as subheadings. This will make it easier for the reader to find the information he or she is lookign for. Read through the article and make sure that readers who aren't too familiar with Egyptian politics or the NDP would be able to follow. When discussing electoral systems in Egypt I think you need to draw out the idea of the need for Egypt to present itself as democratic for appeasing international allies. Also discussing national public and whether the NDP actually needs public support is important in discussions of democracy. I also think you need to include more discussion of the relationship of the NDP and the Muslim Brotherhood. And maybe providing more information on who is supporting the NDP and why.

Noosaelgamoosa (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)noosaelgamoosaNoosaelgamoosa (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Young Reformists vs Old Guard
I feel like these sections are not very well-rounded nor in-depth enough. There has been much said about the relationship between the "Old" and "New guards". Personally, i think the division is over-rated and mostly cosmetic. In fact, i would go as far as to say that this division is a sham that a) serves to create the impression of change (the fall 2005 parliamentary elections demonstrated the impotence of the new ways in securing votes during the first election round and the reverting to the "Old" ways as the elections progressed) and b) is intended to portray Gamal Mubarak and crew (heir-apparent?) as a breath of fresh air, a reformer, just what the country needs. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bassemkhalifa (talk • contribs).
 * First of all, a lot of this reads like original research. There needs to be some articles (with reliable sources) that define the "Young Reformists" and the "Old Guard"; otherwise, we seem to be making the distinction and that is not Wikipedia's purpose. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I had to remove the entire Young Reformists section here as it was all from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3147682.stm word for word in large parts. If it needs to be there, it needs to be rewritten. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

History
Maybe some information about the history of the party. How it has evolved. In particular, it may be a good idea to include more detail on their sudden ostensible move to a systematized "policy-formulating" approach. Over the last couple of years the party/government has made a big show of their "conferences" and the policy secretariat.-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bassemkhalifa (talk • contribs).

Spelling correction : الحزب الوطني
A spelling correction of the word الحزب الوطني, it was posted الحزب الوطن before missing the letter ي. nÅnNü 17:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I BELEIVE WITH THE NEW IDEA OF GAMAL MUBARK THIS PARTY WILL SEE MUCH IMPOROVMENTS IN NEXT PERIOD BECAUSE HE DOES NOT TO TALK MUCH, I CAN TOUCH & SEE SOMETHING NEW & GOOD BY THE WAY YOU NEED TO PREPARE SOME ESPCILAIST PERSONS TO REPLY BY INTERNET ABOUT ALL THE OUR QUESTIONS ,I KNOW SOME OF THE PEPOLE WHO ASK QUESTIONS ARE NOT CIVILIZED BUT U HAVE TO REPLY ABOUT CIVILIZED QUESTIONS ONLY HAVE A NICE DAY. EGYPTIAN MAN MISS EGYPT SO MUCH

Secularism
the article says that one of the party ideologies is Secularism. How is that possible? the second article of the Egyptian constitution stats that "Islam is the Religion of the State. Arabic is its official language, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).". -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Social Democracy
It also says that one of the party ideologies is Social Democracy. How is that possible? The party has been in power since Sadat's time. meaning they have never left power since it was established in 1978, more than 30 years ago. Also note that the party has been promoting privatizing of the public sector with no progressive taxes and the taxes in Egypt are very low. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Capitalism?
I've heard Mubarak referred to as "Capitalist". Upon further research, I discovered that he was a member of this party. I'm wondering if it was merely a misuse of words or if there's some validity to the claim. Any insight? (Albert Mond (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

NPOV
This page has some very serious issues IMO.
 * First off, this is written more of as a history/criticism of Egypt's political system, not of the history of the party. The lengthy, 'Electoral system in Egypt' section proves this. In fact, the whole tone is not encyclopedic and read more like a lecture/rant on Egypt's corrupt system.
 * Second, this page has little to nothing on the party's actually ideology. Are they capitalist? Socialist? Right-wing? Left-wing? This article does not answer anything about their stated ideology - even articles about authoritarian parties like the Communist Party of China have their ideology listed.

These issues need to be addressed quickly.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  22:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I looked at the article and the section called "Electoral system in Egypt" has a strong POV and a tone that is not encyclopedic. It should be tagged, discussed and re-written including the section title. Much of the current content may need to be moved to a more appropriate article topic as it appears to be info not directly related to the current topic. Also agree with your point that the a description of the party's platform, mission etc should be front and center in both the lead and the first section.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I am putting the tag back up since my opinion on this is seconded. If anyone can explain how this section is encyclopedic, please elaborate here.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  23:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Details?
With the interest in this subject, improvements might be possible.

From ref 14 "The political system is designed to ensure solid majorities for the ruling NDP at all levels of government", it is not clear how this design is different from the NDP just being the only party. Is there something special "to ensure solid majorities"?

The ref 53 report from Al Jazeera cites the Higher Administrative Court. What were the actual findings by this court, and did it actually have jurisdiction over the complaints, or was it just an available vehicle?69.72.27.130 (talk) 08:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Political position "center-left"
Why is the political position listed as "center left" when, as the article points out, it was a centrist party for most of it's existence? Either we remove political position because it was too vague for this party, make it "centrist" since that's what it was for most of it's existence anyways, or point out when it shifted from center-left to center (Eg. Center-left (pre-1970) center (post 1970)). Unfortunately I don't know if there's an exact year the party became centrist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.185.72 (talk) 03:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on National Democratic Party (Egypt). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110128234139/http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/07/09CAIRO1468.html to http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/07/09CAIRO1468.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110202225657/http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/middleeast/news/article_1616606.php/BACKGROUND-Egypt-s-ruling-party-a-conglomerate-of-many-interests to http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/middleeast/news/article_1616606.php/BACKGROUND-Egypt-s-ruling-party-a-conglomerate-of-many-interests
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050901103342/http://www.ndp.org.eg/ to http://www.ndp.org.eg/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704032830/http://www.ndp.org.eg/en/Index.aspx to http://www.ndp.org.eg/en/index.aspx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)