Talk:2009 Iranian presidential election

TV debates between candidates

I have added a section for these debates. The schedule is available here: http://pr.irib.ir/Pictures/upload/upload17293ghoree-keshiphot.jpg Karroubi vs Rezaie were the first one, Tuesday 88/3/12. Ahmadinejad vs Mousavi was the second one, Wednesday 88/3/13. I think this one was a good debate which makes comparing their policies easy. I am transcriptting it and will put it here soon. I am planning to translate it to English and then we can decide which part of it should be on the main page. 128.100.5.135 (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I found that it is already transcribed:

• Karroubi vs Rezaie: http://www.irna.ir/View/FullStory/?NewsId=524357
• Ahmadinejad vs Mousavi: http://www.irna.ir/View/FullStory/?NewsId=526001 128.100.5.135 (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for more info: electoral system

The article does not specify in what way the election is fought. This may be obvious to Iranians living in Iran, but it is not for international readers (such as me). Does the candidate with a plurality win? Are there multiple rounds? Is the popular vote used or is the vote counted using multiple districts? Who are eligible to vote? If someone who knows could add this information, it would be a major contribution to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.131.189.89 (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Note: Add references and the requirements for being eligible to enter the race and become a candidate. rdt (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a good explanation: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8081440.stm Should we put some of it on the page? 128.100.5.135 (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

External Link

• Moved from main page to here for discussion:

* We are half of the Iranian population (ما نیمی از جمعیت ایران هستیم), a non-partisan documentary by Rakhshan Bani Etemad in which amongst others women ask the Presidential candidates questions, in Persian, 7 June 2009: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.
Note: The text in the opening part of this documentary grants permission for the non-profit public viewing of it.

Rakhshan Bani Etemad has appeared in one of Mousavi's TV advertisements, therefore I am not sure it is non-partisan as it is claimed. 128.100.5.135 (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

128.100.5.135|128.100.5.135: It is you who removed the link so that it is you who has to justify your action, not I. --BF 15:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not true! Have you watched the documentary at all?! All Presidential candidates are invited to watch the documentary and discuss the issues raised in it; Part 5 is devoted to these candidates (two attending with their wises and one, Mr Rajai, has attended with his daughter in addition) discussing the issues raised in the documentary. Despite repeated invitations, Mr Ahmadinejad has not participated in the discussion, but that has been his decision, rather than any partisan decision on the part of Ms Bani Etemad (no doubt, like others, Ms Bani Etemad has her political preferences, but that is not reflected in the documentary). I put the link back, but please next time study something before taking action --- I am certainly not here to promote one candidate above another. --BF 02:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, it doesn't belong in the external links section. Maybe if it is important enough, you can integrate it somehow in to the text.--Patrick «» 17:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I ask you the same question as from the previous person: have you watched the documentary? Do you know what these women are talking about? If not, where is your judgement based on? Please kindly restrict yourself to the issues that are commensurate with your expertise. --BF 18:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

i see two different points here:

• non-partisanity - being wiktionary:partisan does not necessarily exclude something from being an NPOV fact, provided it's appropriately NPOVed "X, associated with political party/faction/person Y, claims that...". On the other hand, things associated with the different candidates and/or their parties/support groups would better go on their respective wikipedia entries rather than here. And certainly wikipedia cannot be accepted to be part of political parties'/candidates' political campaigns. In any case, the word seems to have been removed now.
• Is it relevant to the 2009 Iranian presidential election? i think that people fluent in farsi can debate that here. i don't see any obvious claims saying that the رخشان بنی اعتماد videos are not relevant, by people who know the language (at a minimum), culture, political situation etc. and i do see quite credible claims that the videos are relevant. Boud (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not giving an opinion on the content, which is inaccessible to non-Persian speakers. My expertise is in Wikipedia, and I'm trying to keep the article presentable while looking to WP:ELNO, guidelines for what should be placed in the External links section. Editors should avoid all conflicts of interest, and links should be in English, which exception for official sites, which we make with the other links. Additionally, YouTube videos, per WP:YOUTUBE, though not banned, need to comply with restrictions. Even if your videos do comply, which is the argument the editor adding links must make, I still question whether they belong in a section typically reserved for official sites, election maps, and data from official sources.--Patrick «» 18:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Non-English-language_sites says that one justification for linking to a non-English language site is "when the webpage contains key or authoritative information found on no English-language site and is used as a citation (or when translations on English-language sites are not authoritative)." It seems to me that the translations of these videos on English-language sites are indeed not authoritative, since as far as we know, they don't even exist. So we don't have an authoritative English-language version of the 4 candidates' responses (or non-responses) to a group of women led by Iran's premier female (film) director (claim NPOV-ed on that web page). Also the top of the Manual of Style page says that we should use common sense. To me, common sense says that citizens' groups' analyses that are uncontroversially accepted as being as neutral as is reasonably possible are in fact required if we want neutrality overall - since otherwise we are biased in favour of the existing major candidates and/or political parties. On the other hand, it would not hurt to have something NPOV-able in the text rather than just having an external link... Boud (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I emphasize once again, that the video is absolutely non-partisan. The women who look into the camera and ask questions, do so by addressing all candidates. They say such a thing as: "As a women working with women involved in substance abuse, I should like to ask you, dear candidates, to tell us what you will do for these women if elected President". No candidate (also not the incumbent) is singled out either for praise or criticism. Ms Bani Etemad explicitly says that the idea of making this documentary arose from the fact that once in four years the usual restrictions on the freedom of expression are lifted in Iran and women thought that this gave them the opportunity to express themselves as freely as possible about matters that are close to their hearts. In fact the documentary shows how various women's groups, whether religious or secular, have come together and are working together for the betterment of the conditions of families in general and women in particular --- this is reflected in the fact that some women in the documentary wear very strict Islamic dresses and some do not. In the last part of the documentary (part 5), the candidates (and their wives and in one case one daughter) are given the opportunity to express their views after having seen the main material of the documentary --- in the video, Ms Bani Etemad explicitly says that all candidates were invited, however only Mr Ahmadinejad did not respond to their invitation.

To my best judgment, all the above-mentioned aspects of this documentary make it very suitable for being introduced in the main page of "Iranian presidential election, 2009" --- it is of utmost significance that the documentary does not promote one candidate at the expense of others; it is solely a documentary through which the Iranian women, from all layers of the Iranian society, speak to all Presidential candidates (and do so by showing utmost respect to all of them). Given these facts, I would feel utterly dumbfounded if the pertinent external link were to be removed from the main page --- most sincerely, I am inclined to view the act of removing this external link as unquestionably misogynous. It is important to realise that in the opening sequence of the documentary it is explicitly mentioned that due to lack of time they have not been able to distribute the documentary through commercial channels and that is why they have made it freely available to public. I believe that it is an apt tribute to the large number of women, including Ms Bani Etemad, who have invested such a great amount of effort in producing this documentary, to have the fruit of their labour exposed in the most relevant entry of the en.Wikipedia as regards the forthcoming Presidential election in Iran. --BF 22:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest you to put a page for views of candidates about human-rights/women rights and put the link there. Putting links to a video without any text is not much useful. Then we can add a small section to this article about views of candidates over social issues and have a link to it. It would be nice to have one for foreign policy, one for economy, and one for internal political issues like: views on political parties, media and newspapers,... . 128.100.5.135 (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You yourself may proceed with whatever you are proposing that I should be doing (that you can be so presumptuous as to issue orders to me, is simply beyond belief), without thereby creating an excuse for yourself to remove the present external link. My argument is not, and has never been, about the possible things that can and cannot be done with this link, rather that the present entry is a most appropriate home for this link. I must be frank with you and tell you that you do not come over as a candid person. In your first comment on this page (after having removed the link from the main page, without having consulted a single person about it) you wrote that you were "not sure it is non- partisan as it is claimed" (your reason being that the mere appearance of Mr Bani Etemad with Mr Mousavi in TV ads had disqualified her for being considered a non-partisan person --- with which statement I did not disagree, adding however that this did not have any bearing on her present work), now you are going to the other extreme by introducing yourself as a "human-right/women right" advocate (as for "text", I have attached a sufficient amount of explanatory text to the external link that people get a clear understanding about the documentary). Can't you see that you are sending out contradictory signals about yourself? Please be frank and tell us what you really want to say but do not. I am not prepared to take any person whose sole contribution to the Wikipedia has been to the present entry (and then has come in through an IP number from University of Toronto) very seriously (university IPs constantly change, offering some people the perfect opportunity to assume different identities on Wikipedia at different times). I am very sorry for my rather unfriendly words, but I have a very low tolerance for those who are not being straightforward; if there is any game to be played, its rules must be known to all parties and kept constant so long as the game continues. --BF 04:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC).

I don't understand your anger. Bani Etemad is campaigning for Mir Hossein. It was completely reasonable to state that I doubt it is partisan. Also this was you who claimed that it is not partisan as a justification. As other editors stated that being partisan or not is not important, I dropped that objection. It is also completely irrelevant what I think about human rights or where I am connecting from, I sometimes connect from my office (which is in UofT!) and sometimes from other places, I sometimes work on wiki when I am logged in and sometimes when I am not, and this is not the only article that I have contributed to. I am trying to be as objective as possible, if you are receiving confusing signals it is your problem. You are attacking people who are trying to create a good article about this election for adding a link that you think it should be there. I am not ordering anything, we are discussing how this article should be. You could have simply added a section for views and stated the views of candidates, one line for each and gave the link as a reference, but you continue to act arrogantly. What have you contributed to this article? I have also seen that you are putting external links to mousavi's page and mousavi's 2009 election page. What else have you done about articles in this election other than adding external links? When I look at your recent contributions, the only thing I see is you are adding a number of external links to a number of pages. Stop attacking people here, stop these personal attacks, stop adding this link while the discussion continues. Also your response to Patrick seems to show your bias toward Rakhshan Bani Etemad. The thing that you love her works does not justify your behavior here. She is nice person is completely irrelevant to this article. It is also completely irrelevant that she is a good film maker. My suggestion about adding a section discussing views of candidates is just what came to my mind after reading one of comments above. 128.100.5.135 (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

BF at 15:58, 11 June 2009 said: "It is you who removed the link so that it is you who has to justify your action, not I." I have already stated the reason I removed the link: I saw someone who was not working on this article had added an external link, where the comment for the modification said that it is nonpartisan. As I knew she was campaigning for Mousavi, I doubted the claim, and moved it to discussion page so we can discuss it as I thought being nonpartisan is a requirement. I have dropped that objection when other editors pointed out that being nonpartisan is not a requirement. Then there was a new objection by an other editor that external links is not the right place for it. But you started to act arrogantly. As you can see there are a number of people who are working on this article for a while, but you started attacking these people. I am happy that you have brought it to the attention of a more senior editor, as you don't seem to accept anything we say, maybe they can convince you that your behavior was not appropriate. I also preserve the right to bring this matter to the attention of other more senior editors if needed. 128.100.5.135 (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to add one more objection, what is the use of an external link to a movie in Persian on English wiki without any text? 128.100.5.135 (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

BehnamFarid, I don't think you understand the problem. I'm not questioning if the videos are partisan or not. A recipe for falafel may be non-partisan, but it doesn't belong in this article. Even if it is a documentary made for candidates in this election, it doesn't mean it should be linked. If I post my own video on YouTube where I ask all the candidates questions, do you think that too should be linked? It just so happens that in the real world, I am a documentary filmmaker, and I highly respect the work female filmmakers like Bani Etemad are doing in the Muslim World. If we are going to have this linked, is there no central site? Five individual YouTube links should be consolidated. Finally, I am appalled that you would be so bold to label editors such as myself as "unquestionably misogynous", I am insulted, and have no problem bringing this to an SysOp's attention if any editors continue to make such statements.--Patrick «» 03:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Patrick, please and please and please stop trying to tell me what I understand and what I do not. This is a minor point, and you are making a monstrous thing out of it!!! The election at issue is on this Friday, and it makes no sense, whatever, that we endlessly talk and talk and talk about a minor external link. Would you therefore please leave this issue to peace, and do things that you are best in. Why for heaven's sake do you compare yourself with Rakhshan Bani Etemad? How many works by her do you know? In my opinion she is one of the greatest, the most thoughtful person there is --- if you had heard her talking, you would have known how fascinating she speaks; I have rarely seen a person whose statements are as measured as hers. Given these facts, I find it insulting that you compare her video with one on making falafels. What is that supposed to convey? The present documentary contains so many artistic aspects that one can write a book about them (in some of the scenes the camera movements are just mesmerising -- when I first saw the video, I did not know that it was by her, however within two minutes I realised that it could only be the work of a master; it was then that I looked for the name of its director). I have nothing more to add, except that I seem to have run out of patience. --BF 04:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You still don't get it, and I don't think you will. Link is gone, per reasons stated, mesmerizing camera movements and all. Please do not start an unnecessary edit war unless you plan to back your edits up with the list at WP:EL, as I had previously recommended you do. Lastly, never, ever, ever edit another user's text on a talk page, regardless of your preferences.--Patrick «» 05:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

On whose authority have you removed the link? There was no consensus on the issue!!! Incidentally, you must learn not to talk the way you do; that you may not "get" things does not means others don't. --BF 12:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Patrickneil: In response to your previous two comments, first I did not accuse you as being a misogynist; please read my comment again, and notice the generality of my statement (it was not directed to any specific individual --- you may think that it was addressed to you on removing the link). Second, I abhor parading my credentials here, and similarly when others do. It is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion at hand whether you are a film-maker or not --- if you did intend to impress me, you failed. For the event that you may not have noticed, I truly was repulsed by your comparison of the work at issue with a video regarding making falafels (there is an unmistakable Freudian slip in your comparison). The fact seems to have been lost to you that this documentary amounts to the voice of over 35 million Iranian women! Are they and their concerns to be compared with falafels? Incidentally, if you are truly insulted by my use of the word "misogynistic" (which, I emphasise, was not directed to any specific individual), please go ahead and file an official complaint about me; I have no hesitation to use this word when it is due. You should realise the nature of the platform on which you are, seemingly proudly, standing: you are in word and in deed (yes, also in deed as evidenced by your removal of the link) proclaiming that the voice of half of Iran's population is irrelevant to Iran's 2009 Presidential election. You seem utterly blind to the enormity of this proclamation. Lastly, your sarcastic remark that "Link is gone, per reasons stated, mesmerizing camera movements and all." reveals a great deal about your general attitude regarding the issues pertinent to the discussions at hand (by my life, I cannot believe that a serious film-maker can make such a sarcastic remark --- in my world view, works of art are sacrosanct). I have now brought the present issue to the attention of User:Khoikhoi for consideration. --BF 13:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

BF: Maybe you have missed the point several of us have tried to make - see above: "I want to add one more objection, what is the use of an external link to a movie in Persian on English wiki without any text? 128.100.5.135 (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)" Another way of saying this: A subsection something like "Women's groups' involvment in/analyses of the candidates" could probably be reasonably added to the page at an appropriate point, but you (or someone, anyone!) would have to do the work of making some reasonable text and including references (e.g. the videos) in the role of reliable sources that would be reasonable enough as a first approximation so that other wikipedians could improve the text without having to redo the subsection from scratch. Boud (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad campaign site external link

BTW - we seem to be missing an external link to Ahmadinejad's campaign site, if he has one. Any recommendations on what the most obvious link would be? Boud (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad is claiming that he is not running a campaign. People themselves are campaigning for him, therefore he does not have an official website. But there is a groups which organizes these "people's campaign" unofficially. http://dolateyar.ir/ I am adding it to external links. 128.100.5.135 (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia...

...so try to keep in mind that even though this article about Iran can use the Persian version of dates, it should have a Western date as well, or only Western dates - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dates#Year_numbering_systems. 83.108.225.137 (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I especially refer to the Opinion polls section. 83.108.225.137 (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

done. some conversions of iranian dates to help (note that transliterations of month names may vary):

• 1 may 2009 = 1388-2-11 = 1388 ordibehest 11
• 31 may 2009 = 1388-3-10 = 1388 xordad 10
• 1 june 2009 = 1388-3-11 = 1388 xordad 11
• 12 june 2009 = 1388-3-22 = 1388 xordad 22

Boud (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I repeat: This is a joke!

Same story. If the poll is in favor of Mousavi, it is immediately reflected in poll section even if it is done by some small website; but if it is against him and published by major news agency... http://www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8803190549 ...

--Visitingcause (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Tabnak is affiliated with Rezaie, a conservative, Rajanews, and IRIB are close to Ahmadinejad, ... We have some polls by conservatives, and we try to add any poll we find. I am adding an other recent poll which is reported by conservatives showing Ahmadinejad is ahead. If you find one, you are welcome to add. 128.100.5.135 (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

To Visitingcause: all sources are likely to have some sort of bias. The best we can hope to do on wikipedia is show people the sources - in this case Fars News Agency - and readers will trace information to the sources and judge for themselves. The WP:NPOV consensus about Fars News Agency on that page is (presently): FNA is a privately-owned news agency, but is considered close to the Iranian judiciary. Its managing director Saeid Noubari is a former head of the public relations office of the Tehran Justice Department. It is also considered as a proponent of the extremely conservative part of the Islamic Republic of Iran. So it may be "a major news agency", but it also has a known bias, which could bias it in favour of the politically more "conservative" candidates. Anyway, does that source say "Ahmadinejad 62.5%, Moussavi 25.7%, Karoubi 2.6%, Rezaie 2.1%"? Can you give us more details (date, how many people polled, which cities, etc.) to put in the article? Boud (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not just "show people the sources", but also extract the small amount of claims of relatively objective aspects of the polls (organisation, number of people polled, date(s), city/region). A "small" organisation can sometimes, though not necessarily, do things more objectively than a "big" organisation. In any case, all edits of this article are very publicly logged - see [history of edits] - and discussion is encouraged here on this talk page. The history of the discussion is also publicly logged. Let's give the (relatively) verifiable information to the readers. Boud (talk)

IRIB/Alef/7 June

"more than 16,0000 people, 30 major cities in each Province" in the poll table - should that be "160,000" or "16,000" ? Boud (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

more than 16,000, the source says it was between 16,000 and 17,000 128.100.5.135 (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

concerns about election fraud

That should be a section. Journalist Journalist Hossein Bastani of Rooz has been reporting on this. Additionally the IRGC are interfering with the elections contrary to the law.--Ithinkgood (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Prepare a draft here if you're not confident enough to try directly in the article. Given the huge differences between different polling organisations' claims, we can probably expect claims of election fraud whatever happens... See WP:NPOV and WP:RS for hints. Boud (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

lead section/introduction

i suggest that people keep an eye on this and probably it should remain unchanged (except for my point below on this edit), until there are reasonably NPOV results - probably wikipedia guidelines for election pages should be followed. In any case, frequent changes of the intro make it difficult for people to edit sections in parallel, and tend to be made without first putting the material in the main body of an article... Boud (talk)

Ahmadinejad running for re-election

In this edit someone removed the point that Ahmadinejad is running for re-election, noting that this is redundant. Why is it redundant? At this point in the paragraph, there's no reason for the reader to suppose that Ahmadinejad is either allowed to run for re-election or that he is allowed to and has chosen so. IMHO we should revert this change. Boud (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Rejected candidates

Sorry, I've never edited Wikipedia so I don't want to risk messing the page up. Perhaps someone with experience can help. I thought it would be useful to add something about how no female candidates were accepted, although about 40 had applied (I saw that on Al Jazeera). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.7.199.38 (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of incomplete results

Should we include incomplete results in the page? Then numbers provided by PressTV here are alleged official, and I'm willing to accept that they're true given the source's relationship to the government. (Or at least as true as will be revealed to the public anyway).

Obviously, as new information comes out we should update the numbers appropriately, but I don't see any barrier to inclusion. It's certainly notable and there's no general consensus to exclude election results when not all jurisdictions have finished counting yet. (Indeed, the template itself, used in nearly all election articles, is designed to facilitate this.) Thoughts, anyone? Kari Hazzard (T | C) 21:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should post any results here before they're official. Press TV is the Iranian government, and I don't know how official they're numbers are.--Patrick «» 21:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

But, the election results, reported by Press TV is from the Iran Election Commission. These numbers are being reported by Western journalists as well. Rick Evans (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, how about we see if we can get some of those other, perhaps Western, sources to corroborate.--Patrick «» 21:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's CNN saying "Ahmadinejad leads in early Iran returns", but no numbers.--Patrick «» 21:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just an observation... The Persian Wikipedia isn't including numbers either. I don't know Persian, so I have no way of knowing from the Talk page why they're not included... Just something I noticed. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 21:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

A proposal. How about I post these numbers.

3,462,548 votes (69.04%) for Ahmadinejad and 1,425,678 (28.42%) for Mousavi, with 19.42% of the ballots counted. 1.62% for Rezaei and 0.9% for Karroubi. The numbers are largely incomplete, but I will update them though out the night as I get information. Rick Evans (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's sourced well, then I guess no one can complain. I do recognize this stretches the idea of Wikipedia is all.--Patrick «» 21:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

So, how are we getting vote numbers? I see percentages, but not totals. I don't like editors doing the math themselves, that's original research.--Patrick «» 21:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The vote totals for Ahmadinejad and Mousavi are cited, but I can't find any vote totals for the other candidates. They only cite percentages. I will not put totals until I have a source.Rick Evans (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that counts as WP:OR. It's not an unpublished fact, argument, speculation or idea. Are the numbers in the published source? No, but they are derived from numbers in the published source with a degree of math that even a child could perform. In an article on the number 5, it is OR to say that 5 is the sum of 2 and 3? I'm kind of meh about the whole topic, but I don't follow your argument that it's OR. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 21:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone found an updated source in Aljazeera.Rick Evans (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Something looks suspicious to me in the differences in the percentages going from 5 million to 10 million (19% to 35% ???? something wrong here too, unless the total number voting was updated) - the percentages look much too stable. i'm not criticising the person who made the edit! My instant reaction hypotheses (before checking): either the official sources are falsifying the figures without even trying to make them look credible (they underestimate the ability of citizens to analyse the documentary record), or maybe a wikipedia or al-jazeera editor accidentally copied the old percentages. In any case, something looks statistically unnatural here. Boud (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It may be like an American election in which 35% of the vote means 35% of the precincts. I'm not sure, but this was what is being reported. Rick Evans (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm - maybe. Here's a comment i prepared just now, before i saw your precinct % comment. Al-Jazeera right now 22:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC) has 68.88% for Ahmadinejad, so that reduces the chance that the wikipedia editor made an error. However, the total numbers of votes so far are up to 47.3% of votes counted. That's a lot more than 35%, and the chance that Ahmadinejad's percentage stuck at exactly 68.88% going from 35% counted to 47.% counted looks pretty low to me. Either al-Jazeera or the Electoral Commission have made some obvious errors - part of the article right now reads: According to Kamran Daneshjoo, chairman of the electoral commission at the interior ministry, with 47.3 per cent of ballot boxes counted, Ahmadinejad had received 15,251,781 votes. That compared to 4,628,912 for Mousavi, Daneshjoo said. The figures from the interior ministry so far give Ahmadinejad 68.88 per cent of the vote and Mousavi with just over 30 per cent. The first sentence implies that the total vote count is 15251781 / 0.473 = 32244780. Then 68.88% is 32244780*0.6888 = 22210204 votes for Ahmadinejad (not 15 million) and 4626912/32244780 = 14.35% for Mousavi, not 30%. Boud (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The "precinct" comment is partly relevant here, since "47.3% of ballot boxes" is different to "47.3% of total votes". But the ratio of votes Ahm/Mou = 15251781/4628912 gives e.g. 68.88%/20.91% or 98.85%/30.00%; but not 68.88%/30%. Boud (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone just deleted the incoming results - it seems like reporting results before they are final is standard for news outlets, and is fine to include here! 75.147.135.89 (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the best thing to do is to include incomplete results on the template. Dont transfer the data to the page. We can just save the template, on the main page, once we get the complete data.--Harish89 (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Latest Results from BBC

Could someone translate Persian BBC and update the election results: This seems like the most updated results. It's a reliable source as well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2009/06/090612_op_ir88_latest_result.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by LogiPhi (talk • contribs) 22:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, could someone maybe note that this isn't in English? Thanks! 75.147.135.89 (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking for an English source with these numbers, until then, I'm using this source simply to update the numbers.Rick Evans (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, who the hell deleted the results? 142.68.222.69 (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

How exactly do we plan to do this?

With all the shit going down around the election... the fact SOMETHING is wrong about the results and everything else... how od we plan to "handle the facts" when sides are saying who the government says won and others... this articles going to be alot of "but X says Y" isn;'t it for results...--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Do it at WikiNews, the distill WikiNews' sources? ... First we can have statements by the campaigns of the various candidates, and then we can have reputable international electioneering organizations' statements, and ofcourse the Iranian government. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 10:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The "Reputable iranian government".... How do we know they arn't lying.... When i see the percents i Say BS my friend.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You realise that the Basij militia is the ones administering the voting? FRAUD

This is a charade. There is absolutely NO DOCUMENTATION whatsoever that this is an ELECTION. It is simply people casting votes then the mullahs decides who wins. This article is completely UNFOUNDED and UNDOCUMENTED. The mullah regime CANNOT be considered a reliable source. M99 87.59.77.128 (talk)