Talk:2014 Syrian presidential election

two more candidates

http://sana.sy/eng/21/2014/04/24/540785.htm

Maher Abdul-Hafiz Hajjar - Party : Communist

Hassan al Nouri - Party : National Initiative for Adminstration and Change in Syria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.135.69.45 (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Links

>> Assad and two others in Syria poll fray

First multy-candidate in Syria ever.

The first paragraph says "It was the first multi-candidate election in decades since the Ba'ath party came to power in a coup."

This is not true. Trere were no multy-candidate elections in Syria ever. Not before the Ba'ath coup as well. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits by IP 94.197.120.41

IP editor 94.197.120.41 recently made some rather POV edits to the article. S/he changed "Some domestic and foreign-based Syrian opposition groups boycotted the election" to remove the "Some." The result was patently false and misleading, as clearly not all opposition groups boycotted the election. There were opposition candidates running against Assad and their supporters voted for them. This opposition would be referred to in some countries as the loyal opposition, given that while they oppose some of Assad's policies they're loyal to the Syrian state and its institutions. They're seeking change within the democratic process rather than attempting to overthrow the government. In any event, I've reverted this edit.

This same IP editor also modified the reported voter turnout with the highly POV qualifier "Assad Regime claim." In fact it's normal practice that a government is the source for statistics on voter turnout in its own elections, and Wikipedia does not editorialize in such a way as to cast those statistics in doubt. For example, in the article German federal election, 2013, Wikipedia simply reports the voter turnout of 71.5% (as reported by the German government) - it doesn't qualify that statistic as "Merkel Regime claim." I've reverted this edit as well. -Helvetica (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Under Refugees

The statement: "Numerous Syrians stated however that they took part in the election due to a fear that if they hadn't they would have been prevented from re-entering Syria." must be removed because these are based on a few interviews with random people by anti-government news sources, and based on no credible data that these people were not "allowed to return to Syria".

Also remove:

"It was reported that ballot workers in the Syrian embassy in Lebanon handed out ballots to voters without asking for proof of registration, with even foreign reporters being handed ballots to vote."

The election workers hand ballots to everyone (there is no check-up line to obtain a ballot). I have one - however, you can only submit the ballot to be validated if you have the proper documents (which is what matters). This has nothing to do with the article, if you want to dispute the legitimacy of the election then open a new section for that and let us all present articles.

I will remove these later if no one does. Let us keep this page objective.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.127.203 (talk) 07:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Given that no one deleted the propaganda mentioned above I will go ahead and delete it now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:9400:20D:84D0:EB3:E1BB:F884 (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Syrian presidential election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140607210624/http://www.arabnews.com/news/581661 to http://www.arabnews.com/news/581661 now http://www.arabnews.com/node/581661. Can someone please edit to reflect the new link? (19/09/17)

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Election observers' assessment?

And, what did they say about the fairness of the election? HilmarHansWerner (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Should the views of Iran, Russia and Venezuela be in the lead?

Should the lead include a sentence saying that a delegation led by officials from the authoritarian states of Iran, Russia and Venezuela concluded that the election was free and fair? (note that there's a scholarly consensus that the election was not free and fair) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• No. It adds nothing of value (these states affirm all elections by allies as democratic). By giving such prominent placement, it also gives readers the false impression that there's an active dispute about whether the election was democratic or not. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

::The lead already states the scholarly consensus so there is no "false impression".Jorge1777 (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC) * Yes The election was of vast international interest and reaction. It only makes sense to survey the various reactions of the geopolitical players. Also enough of the CIA propaganda about Iran and Venezuela, this is a talk page not a forum or a soapbox. Jorge1777 (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)strike sock-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I think there's room in the fourth paragraph of the lead to include some form of mention of the at-issue content, especially if some of the existing text is edited so that the framing for the paragraph is between the opinions of states aligned with and against Syria, rather than giving this equal weight to scholarly opinions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Including the mentioned sentence seems to be more related and informative; (i.e. adding of "a delegation led by officials from the authoritarian states of Iran, Russia and Venezuela concluded that the election was free and fair"). In the meanwhile, Jorge1777 mentioned true point(s), as well. Because, there are diverse positive/negative viewpoints in regards to the mentioned elections; hence adding the pointed out sentence (as the other side of the reactions) will be relevant and informative; since the goal of the article is not to support one side, haply to express two/all views. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• No. agree with Snooganssnoogans. Though it might seem worth mentioning, it could easily be misleading to the readers as well. Idealigic (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes-Opponents of Assad say that the election was not fair, while supporters of him say that it was. Why should we lend all coverage to one side and none to the other? Display name 99 (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• No The argument of these authoritarian governments isn't true and isn't especially notable. I don't think it can be inserted in a neutral way that everyone can agree on. We are better off leaving it out entirely.Katemeshi101 (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

If you say that they aren't notable simply because the governments are authoritarian, that is using your own biases and inclinations to dictate what goes into articles. That is not how Wikipedia is supposed to function. Display name 99 (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the argument here is that there's nothing notable about "election monitoring" conducted by dictatorships which have zero intent to in any objectives sense determine whether an election was free and fair, and who defend all elections by their authoritarian allies, regardless of how ludicrously undemocratic they are. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively, I could say that election monitoring conducted by Western globalists, imperialists, and Zionists would have no interest in deeming a country's election to be free and fair when that nation's objectives, namely conquering Islamism and countering Zionism, contradict their own. Display name 99 (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you may be in the wrong forum. This is not an InfoWars comment section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I visit Infowars daily and it does not have a comment section. Display name 99 (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• No. I agree with Snooganssnoogans - there is nothing notable about several brutal dictators praising the alleged democratic election of another brutal dictator. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Too much at risk in terms of bias otherwise. The very fact that, presumably, the wording will include the fact that Russia, Venuzuela and Iran are the ones describing the elections as 'free and fair' will tell readers all they need to know - omission gives a mistaken impression of consensus as to the non-fairness of the elections. VeritasVox (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• No Brutal dictators aren't unbiased when they assess if an election is free and fair. They say that not because its true, but because it serves their own personal interests. Smith0124 (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Striking sockpuppet vote and comment. Humanengr (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Invited by the bot. No, not in the lead This would probably be useful info in the body, possibly with some sourced analysis that such is not credible. North8000 (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• No- Agree that this is not appropriate for the lead. Tchouppy (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible alternative framing

Presidential elections were held in Syria on 3 June 2014. There is a scholarly consensus that the election was not democratic.

...

Bashar al-Assad was sworn in for his third seven-year term on July 16, 2014 in the presidential palace in Damascus. The Gulf Cooperation Council, the European Union and the United States decried the election as illegitimate. Members of this coalition have been condemned by supporters of Assad for supposedly illegally intervening in the Syrian Civil War. A delegation from Iran, Russia and Venezuela, states allied with the Syrian government, concluded that the election was free and fair.

I'm not sure it's accurate to call Venezuela a Syrian ally (and obviously we need citations), but I wanted to begin to flesh out the framing I proposed above. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

::I find it interesting that whenever we are describing the Assad friendly views it is always accompanied by the compulsory qualification that they are "allies of Assad" or what have you, but when we are describing Assad unfriendly views there is no mention of them being enemies of Assad, instead they are presented as neutral spectators with no stake in the region. That's a double standard.Jorge1777 (talk) 10:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC) strike sock-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's pretty self-evident that a country that stands accused of intervening against a given government is that government's enemy. At any rate, the above was intended as a first step toward a compromise, I'm open to suggested revisions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, this is a version that I can get behind. It demonstrates that opponents of Assad did not consider the election fair, while his allies do. Venezuela and Syria are allies, even if not in the sense of providing military aid. Assad backs Maduro as the legitimate head of state in Venezuela, and Iran has close ties to Venezuela and has sent ships to the country to trade. If a good source cannot be found stating that their allies, a caveat could easily be added. Display name 99 (talk) 04:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Refactored the above comment for clarity, Display name 99 you may want to revise your praise depending on how you feel about it in context. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, I don't support a statement that there is a scholarly consensus that the elections were not democratic when all of the scholars come from Western countries who are against Assad. Display name 99 (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

References

WEASEL language

The editor Jorge1777, who was created three weeks ago (yet bears all the hallmarks of being familiar with Wikipedia editing practices), has decided to pluck one quote from one of several academic publications, and spin it so that its determination that the election was non-democratic is made less clear. The sources all clearly state that the 2014 election was not democratic, yet the editor purposely chose one quote "within an authoritarian context" to make this determination less clear. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

: If quoting your own source makes it "less clear" then you are simply improperly sourcing and need to improve in that regard. Anyway I dont really care anymore, feel free to do what you wish.Jorge1777 (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC) strike sock-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

There were multiple sources cited and you, who did not add any source, purposely chose to change the language so that it only reflected one source and that it reflected it in a misleading way. But since you now say you don't care and that all your tendentious editing was just pointless time-wasting, I'll proceed to restore the language that actually reflects the sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

:::Pro tip - If a source doesn't say what it's sourcing then don't add it! Jorge1777 (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC) strike sock-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Jorge may have been a sock, but what he said happened to make sense, whereas what Snooganssnoogans said was wrong. How could using the actual quote from the source be 'misleading' as to the position of the source? If it were true that 'The sources all clearly state that the 2014 election was not democratic', then surely using one of the quotes supposedly stating that should be OK rather than 'misleading'? Snooganssnoogans accused Jorge of not adding a source of their own - why should he, when whoever had added the existing sources had misrepresented them and not bothered to read them carefully? The person who adds a source does not have some kind of monopoly on interpreting it.--62.73.72.3 (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

International Reactions Map

I propose we make a map of the international reactions. Green could be congratulatory and red could be critical, or we could choose more neutral colors to prevent complaints about neutrality. Orange and Blue are good opposite colors without "good/bad" connotations.

International reactions of countries can be shown with full color, and international reactions of bodies based out of countries (for example, France's "Friends of Syria" organization) could be shown as a lighter shade of whichever colors are chosen.

I would be happy to create this map myself if someone has suggestions about what tool to use. Thanks! Mapmaker345 (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Scholarly consensus

I oppose the statement in the first line of this article which reads:
> There is a scholarly consensus that the election was not democratic.
on the grounds that all three of the sources cited originate in Western countries (the United States and the United Kingdom) which are both outspoken opponents of the Syrian government. Perhaps if we could find some sources from neutral or supporting countries we could describe it as a genuine scholarly consensus.Beaneater (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It is not easy to find the backgrounds of every author, but at least one of them, cited in this reference, was based in Australia and previously worked in Spain and Mexico. None of these countries are mentioned on either the 2014 election page or Syrian civil war page as supporting or opposing Assad. CowHouse (talk) 03:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Beaneater The publishers of these sources are Yale University Press, the Electoral Integrity Project at Harvard and Oxford University Press. The authors are affiliated to the the University of Birmingham, University College London, Washington Post, and Rice University. Although located in the US and UK, I think all would be seen as independent, scholarly and reliable, and not the voices of the US and UK governments. The sentence is solid, although maybe should go to the end of the lead rather than the start. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

'Would be seen' so by whoever believes that Western press such as Washington Post (aka the voice of Jeff Bezos) and Western universities (which get financing from Western govts and oligarchs and produce cadres for said govts and oligarchs) are unbiased and reliable when it comes to Western foreign policy vis-a-vis the rest of the world, especially when their governments are trying hard to overthrow another country's government. Which is really a joke. But yeah, I suppose that there is a consensus among Wikipedia editors on this, since they themselves are mostly Westerners (or highly 'Westernised' in outlook). It is Colbert's 'wikiality' after all.

All of which is not to say that the election was especially democratic. Personally, I would be surprised if it was, given the overall context. But the problem is that the quotations given do not contain the claim, as I have shown in another section.--62.73.72.3 (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Small issue with the map

Elections were conducted in Aleppo province, although it was only in Aleppo city, but it's misguiding to tag it as "no election" on the map. I suggest changing that somehow. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Citations in lede

The claim 'There is a scholarly consensus that the elections were not democratic.' is backed with three sources, for two of which quotations of the material supposedly supporting the claim are given. However, one of the quotes says 'The Syrian election ranked as worst among all the contests held during 2014'. This is not the same as saying that it was not democratic; it is conceivable that all of the contests in that year were democratic and it was simply the worst democratic contest. The other quote says 'there is unanimous agreement among serious scholars that al-Assad's 2014 election... occurred within an authoritarian context'. This is a much vaguer claim than saying the elections were not democratic - you can theoretically have a somewhat democratic element within 'an authoritarian context'. The observation that the context was authoritarian is the same thing as just pointing out that the Assad regime had an overall authoritarian character, which is hardly disputed by anyone. If this is the only supporting source, the claim that the elections were not democratic should be replaced by the claim that they 'occurred within an authoritarian context'. Finally, no quote is given from the third remaining source, but given how the editor who gave the sources was unable to realise that the two quotes do not support his claim, this makes me suspect that whatever passage in the third remaining source he thought supported it might actually turn out not to support it either. 62.73.72.3 (talk) 10:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)