Talk:October 2017 Kenyan presidential election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title[edit]

Hi I am against the current title because Kenyan presidential election, 2017 also means "August presidential election" which is a part of 2017 general election. We should restaure the desambiguation page under a new title. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The August election was part of a general election. This is solely a presidential election. Any confusion is dealt with by the hatnote. "Next Kenyan presidential election" is unnecessarily ambiguous because we know it has to be in 2017. Perhaps we can rename when we know the month, but the current title is probably the best for now. Number 57 17:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57, Srnec, ZiaLater, Cambalachero, Impru20, GoodDay, Cordyceps-Zombie, and Sundostund: but the August presidential election was a full presidential election. So, the title is ambiguous according to the sources and all the people who are looking for the page do not know that it is a general election. And if sur renames temporarily to Kenyan presidential election, September 2017, Kenyan presidential election, October 2017 or Kenyan presidential election, September/October 2017. But the disambiguation page I created must be restored under the title Kenyan presidential election, 2017 (desambiguation). --Panam2014 (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is really no point in a disambiguation page. As I said, we could move this article when we know which month this election will be held in, but for now (and it should only be a matter of days) the hatnote should suffice. Start an RM if you really feel that strongly about it. Number 57 17:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: :We have a desambiguation page for Haitian presidential election, 2016. It should be deleted ? --Panam2014 (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Different situation. Both those articles are at "presidential election" titles. Number 57 17:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it should all be in one article or separated. The first election is notable on its own but they're both related elections. Not sure of the "annulled" election articles here on Wikipedia.--ZiaLater (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend merging this article with the 2017 general election article, under the 'general election' title. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that the present title is bad. If Number 57 is correct and we'll know the month in a few days, then I suggest we wait until then to make a change. Srnec (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This should be merged into the Kenyan general election, 2017 article, because it's not a truly new election but, rather, a re-run of the August vote as a result of it being annulled. Check Austrian presidential election, 2016 as an example of how could this be treated (August results preserved for encyclopedic interest, but noted as "annulled" and new results added into the article). Impru20 (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, this is slightly different to the Austrian election – in the Austrian case only the second round was invalidated, not the entire election. Here it's the entire election (albeit only one round), so is perhaps more akin to Serbian general election, 1997/Serbian presidential election, 1997 or Montenegrin presidential election, 2002/Montenegrin presidential election, February 2003/Montenegrin presidential election, May 2003 where two successive elections were annulled (Serbia also has a couple of other cases). Number 57 23:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, only the first round was anulled here (mostly because no second round was needed). In reality, this is much more similar to the Austrian election, because in both this and the Austrian case, it is a court declaring results as null after reviewing the election process. The Serbia and Montenegro cases are instances of elections being invalidated (but NOT declared null) because of pre-set turnout requirements not having been met. This is, in Serbia and Montenegro those were legally different elections, but for Kenya and Austria, it is the same election round being held anew.
I think we should make a difference on whether an election is merely invalidated because of an specific legal requirement not having been meet (this would also be the case for Spanish general election, 2015/Spanish general election, 2016), or because of a court effectively declaring the election itself as null and void. Impru20 (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it appears that this is a legally different election – see this article in the Kenyan press, which notes that new candidacies will be allowed rather than it being a repeat with the same candidates. Number 57 11:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source only says that it won't be a repeat with the two front-runners, but rather, that other candidates, including those not contesting the August vote, may have the chance to stand as well. But I don't think that makes it a different election (it's a logical outcome, given that the whole process first round ballot process is to be rerun). The same media source also specifies that the August vote has been declared null and void, meaning "an absolute nullity — the law treats it as if it had never existed or happened". The CNN also specifies it is a rerun of the same election. I don't think there's much precedent for this in Wikipedia (the only one I can find of a similar situation where a court declared a vote null and void and demanded it to be held anew is Austria 2016), so this is later tricky and we can only give our views here. However, under my opinion, the next, late-2017 election, would be the 2017 presidential election under Kenyan law, because the other was nullified. Of course, we all know the August vote happened, but under Kenyan law, it will be trated as if it had never happened. Creating separate articles would mean those are given equal legal status as different election processes held in 2017, when legally it would be the late-2017 vote the only valid one. Impru20 (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there are different candidates, it's clearly a different election IMO. Having a separate article is not a comment on legal status. Number 57 20:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There can be no "different" election to one which has been annulled. That's the point. It's not different, it's legally the same one, but held anew at a different date because the previous vote has been declared void as if it had never been held. "Null and void" means "null and void". Candidates don't make an election different (so, if there were the exact same candidates, you would consider it not different despite all other circumstances?). The one that is going to be held in late 2017 is meant to be the only legal presidential election in 2017, and meant to be part of the 2017 general election process. Impru20 (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there can be a different election – people are going to vote in it later this year – just because the August one was annulled, didn't mean it didn't happen. Wikipedia is full of articles on events that legally didn't happen (often retrospectively), but the articles exist because reality is often different to what is considered de jure. Number 57 22:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm not saying that the August vote didn't happen or that we should consider that it did not happen. Since no President was sworn in after the August vote as a result of a court ruling, we can't say an election actually happened, since no one was elected and the election process was left unfinished. We are not speaking on whether this is a whole different event (since we know the obvious connections between the two votes here), but on whether this is a legally separate vote or, rather, a vote still part of the 2017 Kenyan general election. Under such circumstances, I think having two articles would be a needless splitting of content, given that, essentially, most of the background and the info included here involves (and is a result of) the previous (and failed) vote. Impru20 (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Kenyan presidential election, October 2017. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number 57 So it looks like, indeed, this will be a run-off between Kenyatta and Odinga, which under what has been previously explained, makes the separate article even more pointless. The only relevant content in the article is a link to the previous one in the Background section, which in the end would make it easier for both articles to be unified. I think that a formal WP:MERGE proposal should be made, at least for the issue to be considered and discussed with more depth, given that I've not been the only one voicing an opinion favourable to merging both articles. Impru20 (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57, Srnec, ZiaLater, Cambalachero, Impru20, GoodDay, Cordyceps-Zombie, and Sundostund: have you got an opinion ? --Panam2014 (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be merged into the Kenyan general election, 2017 article. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would still vote for having these two merged, in light of WP:MERGEREASON and considering factual circumstances. Impru20 (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to move it to Kenyan presidential election, October 2017. I don't support a merge. Number 57 22:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about "Kenyan presidential run-off election, 2017"? That might be better disambiguation than the month. I lean towards opposing a merger since this upcoming election because the de iure fact that this election is part of the general election held this year should not obscure the fact that this is really an unforeseen, unplanned second election the existence of which was unknown at the time of the actual general election. Srnec (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Such a disambiguation would not meet naming conventions. Also, I don't think the fact it was unforeseen makes it worthy of being separate if it's de iure part of the general election. Check Austrian presidential election, 2016 for a similar "unplanned run-off" being dealt with in the original article. Impru20 (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)The problem is that it's not a run-off – these only happen in two-round system when no-one crosses the threshold in the first round, whereas this is a fresh election from the start. Legal arguments about this are ongoing (note the reference to when a runoff would be held).
With regards to the Austrian article, that was specifically a repeat of the second round, not a fresh election from scratch. Number 57 23:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "fresh election" argument is quite shaky, as there are no sources considering it "fresh from scratch" but, rather, a re-run of the anulled August vote. Indeed, the electoral agency did state that this would be a run-off between Kenyatta and Odinga, with discussion coming from a third-party candidate who filled a complaint on such a decision (it's explained in the link you provided). It's obvious that Kenyan authorities are not treating this as "fresh" and different to the general election in August, but part of it, so this is looking exactly like Austria 2.0 with minor changes (if any). Impru20 (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this rather than go round in circles. I would advise that you read Kenyan sources rather than the international media when forming your opinion though. Number 57 23:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57, Srnec, and Impru20:I am for the renaming. But against fusion. It is not because only two candidates are allowed to participate that it is a second round of the August election. Indeed, the August presidential election was canceled. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Panam2014: No one has argued that the reason for the merging is because this is a second round of the August election. It obviously isn't. But the Austrian case provides an example of an annulled election that is held anew not being placed in a different article, but rather, in the same one. Also, I believe all merging reasons are of application here. The subject of both articles revolves on the same election and subsequent anullment (with the October election being a direct result of it). Indeed, this article is just a stub just using information already provided in the August election article (and it is not that, aside from election results, it is expected to grow any different). Such duplication and overlapping also proves that this short article requires background material and context already provided in the broade--Panam2014 (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)r one. Impru20 (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In Austria, only the second round has been cancelled but the first round has been validated. The Kenyan case is similar to the Haitian case: Haitian presidential election, 2015, Haitian presidential election, 2016. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looking at the Haitian case, it looks like a much more complex situation (there was an indirect presidential election held in the middle with a different procedure, and the initial pres. election was not anulled right away but, rather, the run-off was postponed several times before it) but also, it is weird how Haitian 2015/2016 presidential elections have their own articles BUT parliamentary elections were merged into a single one. It does not seem consistent.
Also, we are not talking here about merging two separate presidential election articles, but this separate presidential article to the broader general election article. In Haiti this was seemingly solved by splitting both legislative and presidential elections into different articles and giving them a different treatment within their own scopes. But the scope of the "general election" would also include this one, even if held at a different date, because it is topic-related.
It's also much easier to opine on the Austrian and Haitian cases, because those are already over and we know all facts that need to be known on those (and the Austrian case was just a presidential election, not a general one). But the question on whether this would be an entirely new election with new candidates or just a re-run of the 2017 election with new candidates limited is still not solved. My call would be:
A. If this one becomes an entirely fresh election, then have it separate. But for consistency, the August presidential election should have its own article so that the scope and context of these is limited to presidential elections and kept consistent (because if you've an article called "Kenyan general election, 2017", then a stand-alone October presidential election would be also part of it).
B. If it isn't, merging would be the way to go. Impru20 (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Impru20: for Haiti, it was only the first round who was cancelled. Like for Austria. But for Haiti and Kenya, the result have been cancelled. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, I believe there should be two separate articles. The first article (general election) focuses on a broad range of elections throughout Kenya. However, this article solely focuses on the controversial October election, which is notable in itself.--ZiaLater (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57, Srnec, ZiaLater, Cambalachero, Impru20, GoodDay, Cordyceps-Zombie, and Sundostund: what is the solution after Odinga's withdraw ? --Panam2014 (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I always said a merging was the best choice. Now, with Odinga's withdrawal and Kenyatta seemingly being the only candidate, and with the size of this article set at barely 3,000 bytes, I think its existence is just pointless. I think merging reasons fully apply here and that this should be merged within the wider "general election" article. Impru20 (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a bit too soon to make any decisions; perhaps the election will still go ahead or perhaps it will be postponed. Still opposed to a merger if there's going to be another vote though. Number 57 18:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It'll be safe to wait. If at that point nothing else develops, I would have to say merge and a section could be devoted to explain the occurrence.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seperate. Wizzy…☎ 09:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57, Srnec, ZiaLater, Cambalachero, Impru20, GoodDay, Cordyceps-Zombie, Sundostund, and Wizzy: all of the candidates could participate to the election. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not relevant what they could, but what they actually do. Even the background for this election is more thoroughly explained in the "Kenyan general election, 2017" article than in this one. It's increasingly obvious that a separate article is not needed at all to cover this topic and that reasons for merging fully apply. Impru20 (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Although on head count it is close, on strength of arguments there is strong consensus to move as proposed. Andrewa (talk) 06:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kenyan presidential election, 2017 → Kenyan presidential election, October 2017 – Another election occured in August 2017. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. It's not typical for countrywide presidential elections to be disambiguated by month, but this year's Kenyan elections are not typical. There have been tow of them in 2017, so they should be distinguished by month. I've aware of the counter-argument, that this election has the virtue of actually selecting a president and is in some sense primary - or at the very least it will be the last try this year - but in my opinion both should be disambiguated. After all, the previous election was the one conducted in the normal course of business, until it wasn't. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The August election was part of the Kenyan general election, 2017. This is the only election in 2017 that is solely a presidential election, so I think adding October is unnecessary. There is also already a hatnote on this article. Number 57 20:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Number 57 : 2017 election also means to August election. Hatnote is not enough for people who use search bar to find the article. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though preferred choice would be to merge with Kenyan general election, 2017. However, there is no basis for a "Kenyan presidential election, 2017" article. Even if held solely, "another" presidential election (arguably the same one, in my opinion) was held in August. As I stated in the discussion above, my choice would be for merging this into Kenyan general election, 2017, but if this is going to be kept on its own, then by all means have it as Kenyan presidential election, October 2017. It is not relevant whether there is another similarly named article in Wikipedia for 2017 or not, but rather, whether there was another similar event in 2017 with which this could be confused. Here, it would mislead readers further if this was going to be named without the month disambiguation, as the current name would not be precise enough to identify whether it means the August or the October votes, which are covered in different articles. Impru20 (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Number57, but I would support hatnotes from each article to the other, and creating both month redirects to aid searching. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Patar knight: 2017 election also means to August election. Hatnote is not enough for people who use search bar to find the article. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Creating the redirects would resolve the search bar issue as long as they're not marked unprintworthy, IIRC. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support relying on "general election" v. "presidential election" to differentiate between these is too confusing. I'm not opposed to the merge suggestion, but don't know enough about the topic to support it either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (for renaming, not for the idea of merging with Kenyan general election, 2017) The Wiki ghost (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:October_2017_Kenyan_presidential_election&oldid=1200300373"