:::Care must be taken when using consensus to inform without evidence in support. For example, despite consensus (outside the U.S.) that one of the U.S. elections was stolen, albeit without the protests we see in Iran, it is not presented as such and the controversy is in fact considerably played down because of the scarcity of evidence of which there was more than is currently available for Iran. [[User:WLRoss|Wayne]] ([[User talk:WLRoss|talk]]) 09:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Care must be taken when using consensus to inform without evidence in support. For example, despite consensus (outside the U.S.) that one of the U.S. elections was stolen, albeit without the protests we see in Iran, it is not presented as such and the controversy is in fact considerably played down because of the scarcity of evidence of which there was more than is currently available for Iran. [[User:WLRoss|Wayne]] ([[User talk:WLRoss|talk]]) 09:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
::::See the compiled list of fraud claims and counterclaims at IRanAffairs.com
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Almost all of this page is about the disputes of this election, should the title have the word controversy in it? Christopher Hitchens has called to stop using the word Election entirely [1] - leaving the title simply as "election" introduces a slight bias.
I propose cleaning up this talk page. A lot of information is repeated more than once. We can divide the page into sections and subsections. I suggest these sections:
General Information About Iranian Presidential Election
Events before official candidates are announced
Campaigning till Election (including polls, debates, campaign messages, ...)
Results
Allegations of Fraud, evidences, counter-evidences
Protests, Arrests, Technology use and TechFirms help (Google Translate support for Persian, Twitter, Facebook in Persian,...)
Reactions: Internal and International (Governments and Organizations)
I will wait one more day and if there is no objection, I will create the sections above and move related parts to those section (without erasing or modifying any text.) 128.100.5.139 (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Results analysis
Right now the analysis is a bit cluttered. I was thinking it would be a good idea to list the issues one by one and write a collection of various interpretations by political analysts underneath. For example:
Mousavi more likely to win in Azeri provinces - Barzega says this. Cole refutes that. Leveretts state this.
Wishful thinking from Western journalists - Barzega, Cole etc. etc.
What do you guys think.
Also, what's up with the "apparent decrease in votes" screenshots? Is there any source for these? I haven't seen the decrease in votes criticised in any article and it is stated in the description that "in the past many votes were cancelled because they were invalid". If it's part of the electoral process and not any irregularity or fraud then I suggest we remove them. Right now it looks like original research.
Malangyar (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is confirmed, but it has been explained. There are two forms for reporting votes, form 22 and form 28. From 22 is filled in polling stations, while form 28 is for reporting sum of these from 22 from a number of polling stations. MOI changed the way it reported the votes in the middle of reporting from form 22 to form 28 and stated that this may caused differences with previous results. It was announced by MOI when they changed from from 22 to form 28. Also note that Rezai whose vote has drop because of this change has not made a complaint about this drop. 128.100.5.129 (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{editsemiprotected}}
I recently did some visualizations of Walter Mebane's results, which I think make his analysis more accessible to non-statisticians. They're available at http://www.math.umd.edu/~lotze. I recognize this may be just self-promotion, but I thought I would request adding this at the end of the Results analysis paragraph:
Not done: That looks like something that might interest the reader, but inserting it in the copy seems awkward; it seems more like an external link. If you agree, could you supply a subsection (new or existing) and text to display. The other way to include your work would be to take one or two of the visualizations and add them as graphics. If that makes more sense to you, go ahead and upload them, then suggest where to insert them. Cheers, Celestra (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
* 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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ...
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
We should make reference to the international reaction - certainly the use of web 2.0 to connect with Iranians on the street. --Xpetrol (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Iranian Constitution states that one of requirement of a presidential candidates is to be well-known political or rigorous figures, in Persian رجال سیاسی یا مذهبی but the word رجال also has the literal meaning "men". Most people who are rejected are not well-known and Guardian Conceal can reject them easily just because of that. Most people say the phrase I noted in Persian means well-known political or religious fihures, whereas another interpretation is that it means well-known political or rigorous men, therefore GC can justify rejecting women candidates. GC is responsible for interpreting the constitution, the original meaning of the phrase in constitution can be tracked back to the notes of the discussion between the members of committee who wrote the constitution, which is published. I have not read it so I can not confirm that the more accepted interpretation i.e., "figures" not "men" was there or not. The thing we know is that GC has never allowed a female to become a candidate. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion of incomplete results
Should we include incomplete results in the page? Then numbers provided by PressTVhere 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think the first counting is finished and is reported also in English media. For Persian I suggest BBC Persian's results here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2009/06/090613_ba-ir88-election-final-results.shtml The election commission releases the results. All candidates had observers in counting stations and although there has been reported irregularities, a fraud of this size seem improbable. Rezaie has accepted the result: http://www.tabnak.ir/fa/pages/?cid=51761 Karroubi does not accept the result: http://www.etemademelli.ir/published/0/00/45/4532/ the same thing with Mousavi: http://ghalamnews.ir/news-21117.aspx . There were reports by Mousavi's team that the first results are from small cities and villages which are counted faster because of their size, accepting that Ahmadinejad is leading in those places they stated that the overall result will change when the result of ballot boxes in more major cities is announced and their observers are telling them that they will lead in those places and win the election, biased on these reports Mousavi claimed victory 2 hours after polls closed and the counted ballots showed Ahmadinejad leading 7 million to Mousavi's 3 million. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[1][2]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You realise that the Basij militia is the ones administering the voting? FRAUD
Conversation not related to article improvement
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) —Preceding undated comment added 12:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
It is an election. We can not reject results because of we don't like it. Let me see, the things reported are not only by MULLAH's REGIME, it is reported by many sources, reformist sites, human-right campaigners, university students, bloggers, western media reporters, ... . If you don't know what is the situation in Iran, don't claim you know. For last three election the persons elected were not the ones supported by clerics. Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is one of most powerful clerics in Iran, he is the head of Assembly of Experts and Chairman of the Expediency Discernment Council, the first solves disagreement between Parliament and Guardian Conceal, and the second one has the power to elect or change the leader and observes his actions and is elected by direct vote. He is also one of the most close friend of leader since many year before the revolution, was the head of Parliament and was also President for two term before Khatami, is a member of the most important conservative party (Combatant Clerics Association), it is claimed that he is very rich and some even used to say that has more power than the leader himself, calling him Akbar Shah. He ran for election against Ahmadinejad in the last election and lost 10 million to 17 million to Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad ran his campaign in this election by saying that he is running against him and people like him who he claims have made fortunes through corruption and Mousavi, Rezaie, and Karroubi are just his friends. Rafsanjani supported and campaigned for Mousavi. Therefore as you see your claims are just baseless and nonsense. The situation and the system in Iran is much more complicated that a theoretic dictatorship as some claim. It is not a full democracy, but it is much more democratic than almost all countries in the middle east. Try to hold free elections in any of Arab countries in Persian Gulf and you will see the one elected is not the one western countries like. We do not like the results but we should try to remain objective. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have my information from a native who is just returned from Teheran. Please come up with any documentation to prove your claim. It DOES NOT live up to the definition of an election. It is you who is spouting baseless nonsense. BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS.... this is is WikiPedia not a forum for your personal theories. Until there is documention that this is an election, it must NOT BE CALLED SO. Saddam Hussein had "elections" too but they were treated for what they were... M99 87.59.76.114 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see now. You are correct, since you have heard what you say from a single person who has visited Iran and returned recently, but I who have lived in Iran for more than 25 years and voted for reformists in 4 Presidential Elections, and all these bloggers, human-right campaigners, students, reformists politicians in Iran; academics, wester media like BBC, ... are wrong because we don't have any facts to support our claim. That is really interesting. If you want, take a look at Iran's constitution which is available on English wiki, at BBC's page about who runs Iran, at Abbas Milani's (a Professor of Politics at Stanford University who has been critical of Iran's regime for many years) talk at authors@Google, at Akbar Ganji's talk at Authors@Google. Also I invite you to select any part of what I have written above, and I will provide you with more than enough references for what I have said. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This only makes much it worse, not only can you not BACKUP YOUR CLAIMS you are also biased. You are obviously not neutral and not fit to write this article. The constitution of Iran is bullshit, anyone knows the Mullahs rule as they like. My FRIEND WAS TORTURED in Teheran so I don't buy your "constitution". And for the last time, either you provide references for your claims or it must be deleted. THERE IS NO INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION OF THE FAIRNESS OF THIS "ELECTION" PERIOD. M99 87.59.76.114 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry, I didn't know that to be unbiased I should not be Iranian. Neither I knew that constitution is bullshit, all I knew is 99% of Iranians voted yes for it. Please tell me if there is a reasonable way to convince you, you don't accept what Iranians say, you don't accept the most basic legal document of Iran, I don't know what I should provide to justify what I said, maybe the only reliable *unbiased* source is your friend who is *tortured in Iran*. If he/she is the only acceptable source, why are you bothering reading wiki, go ask her/him. Can BBC convince you? Check this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8051750.stm, also as far as I know it is referred in all media including western media, as election. The question of how free the election is is different. I have already stated that this is not a full (western style) democracy, but if you are claiming that people have no effect on who will be the president, you are wrong. Nobody expected Khatimi to win, nobody expected Ahmadinejad to win agaisnt Rafsanjani. Also take a look at this: http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Iran%20Survey%20Report%200609.pdf The institution reporting it seems to be a reputable one and noted in CNN and other major networks. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you write this because the more you write. the more it is clear to everyone that you're one the few Iranians supporting the regime. Also, the burden of proof is on YOU(and the regime which you represent) not me. Your cherrypicking of links is of absolutely no value, neither would it matter if I picked a dozen links to the contrary(which are rolling in in numbers btw). NOONE but the mullahs know what happened to the votes, how they were counted, neither CNN nor BBC. THERE WERE NO INDEPENDENT OBSERVERS. I repeat, this is not an election. There is no documentation that it lives up to the definition of an election. Do you even know what an election is? An election is when people vote and the one who gets the most votes win. The only thing this charade has in common with an election is that people vote(primarily to keep their jobs). The mullahs decide who wins regardless of the votes. Everyone knows it was a fraud. Come up with a UN report declaring it fair if you can. M99 87.59.76.202 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Check this: http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Iran%20Survey%20Report%200609.pdf by Terror Free Tomorrow which CNN and other mainstream western media consider reputable and reliable. All candidate had observers in polling stations, both during voting and counting. Refer to the part about observers below to understand. I also want to repeat this from below: Supreme Leader has the final say, yes, but he does not interfere in day to day politics, he is bound by constitution, Assembly of Experts who elect him, have the power to change him, observe his actions, and they are elected by directly from people's vote every four years. Take a look at the files I have linked above by http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/. If you think Iranian people are suppressed, you are wrong. Tell me, why 85% of all people eligible to vote, voted in this election if they oppose the system so strongly as you suggest? Why 24 million out of 46 million people over 18 years old (I agree that it is possible that they have been fraud, but not more than 2-3 million) have voted for Ahmadinejad if they oppose him? Look at poll by www.terrorfreetomorrow.com I provided above. I have asked you above to give me a reasonable way to convince you, but it seems that you have a fixed opinion that no amount of evidence will change. I have provided reliable sources, now it's your turn to support your claims. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"If you think Iranian people are suppressed, you are wrong"? HAHAHAHAHAHhahahaha. LOL you remind me of Ahmadinejad. Constantly repeating himself and acting like a sorry comedian. You know very well it was fraud, so what is the point of discussing? When the mullahs fall, it will be time for you and your Basij friends to exile. I suggest you start packing up now LOL M99 87.59.102.169 (talk)
I see, you have no reliable source or evidence to support your claims, only baseless personal attacks and threats. It seems that you are the one repeating yourself. I don't see any reason to continue this discussion. 128.100.5.198 (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
English sources
I see several sources are in Farsi (Persian), but why not use English sources, so that its easier to know what they say? Like the usage of BBC-Persian, when BBC-English says the same thing. 83.108.225.137 (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BBC Persian usually has more news about Iran than the English BBC World or BBC UK. Most of the things reported in BBC Persian are not available in English. If anyone finds an English version, it is completely welcome to add the source in English. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do we deal with this now with regard to NPOV, virtually all international organisations, voter rights groups in Iran, all the opposition, and the free press are saying that the election was at best rigged, but more likely the result was just made up rather than using the result from ballots being counted, instigated by Ahmadinejad’s henchmen. The “Supreme Leaders” TV channel was broadcasting that it was almost a dead heat when 25% of the vote had been counted, then went off air, the same with revolutionary guards TV channel. He has put troops on the street, banned people collecting in groups, banned protest, blocked most internet media and shut down the mobile telephone network to help him in his theft of the presidency.
It seems obvious to everyone apart from Ahmadinejad’s minions (and probably even them) that the election was rigged, yet this article mentions almost nothing of this, just one line that hints that some people may think that it has been. MattUK (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has been reported that Ahmadinejad even received a huge majority in the heartland areas of the opposition, in areas where exit polls showed that he would have got 1-2% of the vote, the election board reported that that he got 80%+ of the vote, if someone was going to rig an election they should at least try to make it beleivable. MattUK (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From having a look at various news sources it seems that most of the Iranian news media dose not qualify as a reliable source as it it controlled by Ahmadinejad, and just follows his orders, it could be used to state a point of view but I personally don't think that it could be used as a "reliable source" for facts, probably the same would apply for the Election Board, what do others think? MattUK (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I personally am willing to believe the election was probably rigged, your argument here seems to use weasel words. Can you provide some sources? Maybe we can write an entire section on the fraud allegations? Kari Hazzard (T | C) 14:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, we have to comply with NPOV here... Let's be willing to believe, for the sake of argument, that he could have won 2/1. Supremely doubtful and implausible, yes, but it's possible. And currently we have no reliable sources giving us different numbers. So as Vyvyan Basterd said, let's wait until we have more reliable information. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant what we believe. All that matters is what reliable sources say. As it stands now the article gives several sources which do dispute the result. The fact that he won 2/1 is neither here nor there, since there's no evidence from the article that he didn't have this level of support beyond a bunch of polls with extremely high variance and which the article itself says "The opinion polls in Iran have been considered unreliable. A number of polls conducted between relatively small voting groups, like university students and workers, have been reported as election propaganda. More general polls reported in the media do not state the polling organization nor the basic facts about the methodology. The results show a high variance and depend heavily on who is reporting the poll" Nil Einne (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I have no opinion about the results, 32% of 75% of 46 million is a LOT of people (I see the article gives 13,216,411), enough to have a major riot. And there definitely have been riots cause by a minority in the past in many countries. Therefore the fact that people are rioting doesn't demonstrate anything other then the existence of a dispute. Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, those who riot over soccer games or burn flags/effiges typically get uspet over other things too. As to all the 'Death to the dictator' chants going on, as they say: People who live in glass houses shouldn't stone people. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although you can rig a couple of thousand votes. We are talking about more than 12-15 Million votes. It is impossible to rig an election in such a way. In addition: Karroubi had observers in every voting station so let us not insinuate in any way that rigging has occured, there is NO proof of rigging and the accusation is unfounded. Rezai, a candidate says we must accept our loss and help Ahmadinejad's government improve Iran. The protesting because of 'rigging' was proportional and the streets are now calm. Mousavi expected a victory with less than 2 weeks of campaigning, it is surprising that he even gained the 30% vote that was given to him. Please let us stay on point and provide Facts and not allegations, I understand allegations are more than easy to come by and use in this article, but there is no rigging found anywhere during the election by any observer. In addition, there was no reason to rig candidates as they were already approved beforehand as we all know. Unfounded. Paradoxic (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above we should just stick to what is found in reliable sources. Nothing more. We are not here to speculate about these things nor are we here to dismiss what is found in reliable sources. Obviously there are conflicting views here and we report them without evaluating what is or is not correct or plausible. We just report what is found in the sources per our usual standards for inclusion of information. That's it. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"ousavi announced on his website that he in fact was the person that received the majority of the voting and that his name was replaced by Ahmadinejad's.[3] Several political analysts have contested the results.[4]"
This is reported by Moj webstie, but Mousavi's website, Ghalamnews does not state it. Ghalamnews states that the people should not pay attention to suspicious emails and sms and websites saying Mousavi said something and all of his announcements will be made by his team and made available on his official websites like Ghalamnews. Therefore Moj's report about what Mousavi said is not reliable and I suggest removing it. Note: Moj is website of young supporting and campaigning for Mousavi, but not official. The results have shocked many, and feelings are running high. So we should be careful in using sources when they claim someone said something while the person's official sites do not mention it. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Were those men there during the vote counting? Were those men there to make sure they didn't lie about who had more votes? Think about it.. secret counting only leads to fraud.Besides.. all those people who protested seem to disagree with your statement... and Riot police are VERY useful for dispersing crowds if you didn't know they had those guys as well.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they were. Mousavi's team first announced at 2am local time, when Ahmadinejad was leading 7 million to 3 million implicitly that the count is correct but these are rural areas and small cities and the result will change when the result of major cities is announced and Mousavi is going to win. Why they did not object just after the polls closed? Why they didn't object after first results arrived? Riots can be explained easily, because many people (including me), specially young in Tehran thought based on polls and Mousavi's campaign, Mousavi is going to defeat Ahmadinejad. One third of voters have voted for Mousavi. These people have campaigned fiercely for Mousavi. It is hard to accept the result for these people, the feelings are running very high. I have read on some blogs of people in Karroubi's and Mousavi's campaign head quarters state that they don't think that a fraud of this size is possible and they lack evidence for it. There are irregularities, but it does not seem that they can come close to change the result this much. I also want to point out the opinion polls reported by Alef a few days ago. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is ALL speculation, as an Iranian I also voted. It is surprising that Mousavi even got 34% out of 2 weeks campaigning. That is praiseworthy. But let us NOT speculate about fraud because some people are not happy with the outcome. The west especially wants to press on this issue because it does not want to tolerate another 4 years of Ahmadinejad. But the idea of rigging is completely unfounded propaganda and gossip. Please specify this clearly on the page.--Paradoxic (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's self-evident that any government finds it implausible that it rigged an election. Right now we should wait for any official international reactions to appear in reliable sources and then make sure we add the Iranian government's responses to those statements. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check this: http://baharvin.blogfa.com/post-384.aspx This is the blog of one of women campaigning for Karroubi. She says that Mousavi and Karroubi's teams has ignored the results of opinion polls by relatively creditable polling organizations with a long history of polling like this (it is not possible to include the link, wiki says it is blacklisted, please check her website) to not drop the support for Mousavi and increase the number of voters by not disappointing them. The results of the poll are very similar to the final result. She also states that the polling organization is close to Mousavi. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Supreme Leader has the final say, yes, but he does not interfere in day to day politics, he is bound by constitution, Assembly of Experts who elect him, have the power to change him, observe his actions, and they are elected by directly from people's vote every four years. Take a look at the files I have linked above by http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/. If you think Iranian people are suppressed, you are wrong. Tell me, why would 85% of all people eligible to vote, voted in this election if they oppose the system so strongly as you suggest? Why 24 million out of 46 million people over 18 years old (I agree that it is possible that they have been fraud, but not more than 2-3 million) have voted for Ahmadinejad if they oppose him? Look at poll by www.terrorfreetomorrow.com I provided above. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed it a bit but I'm not opposed to removing all the uncited information. I suspect some of it may simply be from people experiencing these blocks first hand but we should rely on reliable third party sources only. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know some people do not favor certain news orgs, and this article isn't of the best unbiased quality, but it can still be used as a reference to the Facebook section as it mentions the blocking: FoxNews article. BobertWABC (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This does not take into account what PC Mag may have been defining as "supporters" (not just group members). They could be discounting supporters who clearly would not have voting rights in Iran, or are not of Iranian descent, and then making an estimate based on a random sampling. Therefore, I believe the quoted "40,000 supporters" may not be a valid comparison and I will remove that segment. The other problem is that it does not give a time of day in which the 40000 was measured - if it was early or late in the polling, before or after results were announced. 99.141.180.36 (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to thank all the contributors here, esp. during the coverage of protests of the election. I have read your selections quite often so as to stay current as events take place. I write for Associated Content and the only photos I can use in my articles are those posted at WikiMedia Commons. Do not hesitate to provide more of them as I write about 4 articles per day devoted to Iran and the protests. God bless your countrymen. USAdeo (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
seems like a resonable well sourced section to me, its not like its 8 diffrent articles of primary opinion polls for the United States 2008 Presidential election. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence is an opinion and is unsourced. Opinion poll covers many of the quaility issues of opinion polls. As an encyclopedia we aren't stating the validity of the poll, merely citing the pressence of the poll. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are reported by major Iranian newspapers and news sites. We have put this table before the election results were known, they were the only source we had about the situation in this election. Maybe it is now better if we move it to a new page about 2009 presidential election opinion polls in Iran and put it there, it will also make the article shorter and easier to read. Any opinions? 128.100.5.143 (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elliskev: reliable polls and reliable sources are two different things. A reliable source can report what politician X claimed is the true state of the economy, but X's claim itself may well be unreliable, while at the same time, claims by politicians X, Y and Z on the state of the economy can be notable information. Boud (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. We just report what is in the sources. From a statistical point of view the polls aren't reliable since those asked weren't chosen randomly among a representative subsection of the Iranian people. This is true for most countries where not everyone has a phone or where people might be afraid to speak openly about their political views. However, that's original research and doesn't belong in the article. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 05:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not original research. I have provided 2 sources for the claim, BBC and a letter by a number of journalist including Abdi who has ran a polling organization. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
128.100.5.143: i don't see the urgency. Given that even the pre-election polls that could be suspected to be biased in favour of Ahmadinejad gave slight under-estimates of his vote compared to the official results, this is an important part of the historical record regarding this election. The various newspapers/organisations that reported polls should be judged (by historians, citizens, political organisations, whoever) for their biases or poor methodologies based on precisely what they claimed, rather than on vague claims that "they're biased because they're biased". On the other hand, if there's a general feeling that it's worth an individual article, without it later suffering a non-notability attack, maybe it could be a good idea. Boud (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is not urgent. One more thing, I have read on a blog of one of women-rights campaigner in Karroubi's election head quarter that they had polls showing Ahmadinejad is going to win although she thinks that there has been 10-15% fraud to make Ahmadinejad's votes more than Khatami's votes when he was elected 12 years, and has provided a link to the file reporting 30 pages of details provided by the polling organization, but reformists didn't made it available so making it more probable that more people will vote and it might be possible to at least go to the second round, here is her blog, the link is in the post (I can't add it here because it is blacklisted by wiki, it is a link to a file sharing site):http://baharvin.blogfa.com/post-384.aspx and an other poll conducted by an international organization http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Iran%20Survey%20Report%200609.pdf Both of these pre-election polls seem much more detailed, conducted by more reputable polling organizations and are much more closer to the final election result. Maybe we should add them to the table. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the distinction between the poll data as reported by reliable sources and the poll data as reliable. I have a problem the inclusion of data, especially as it is presented, that is known to be of questionable reliability. Sure, it's not covered by WP:RS, but it just seems wrong and misleading to give any of it any weight. A summary might be appropriate, but that's all. --Elliskev16:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Not credible" quote
From the cited Fox News article (citation #8): "U.S. analysts find it "not credible" that challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi would have lost the balloting in his hometown or that a third candidate, Mehdi Karoubi, would have received less than 1 percent of the total vote, a senior U.S. officials told FOX News. " I don't see how the vague "US Analysts" can turn into the "Obama administration". While I personally am both an Obama supporter and think the Iranian election results were not credible, I think it's completely inaccurate to say as though it were encyclopedic fact that the Obama administration said the results weren't credible. If I don't hear any arguments, I'll be removing that line. Eeblet (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
agreed remove it. However the Gibbs written statement and the Clinton statement say the White House is keeping a close eye on the situation as it unfolds including accusations of voter fraud and hopes the final outcome honsetly reflects the will of the people. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pigflu, if you wanted to add a paraphrase of that, it might be good; it would accurately capture the middle line the administration is sticking to. I went ahead and removed only the latter half of the sentence, left the rest including the citations. Eeblet (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is wikipedia-worthy, but twitter seems to be playing a big role in this. Anybody remember Twitter's role in the Moldovan protests a couple of months ago? I can't find any credible news sources about Twitters role, but here's a couple of blogs: [2], [3]. Twitter reports are also producing a bunch of unconfirmed points that have not made any reliable sources yet: Mouassavi arrested, Khatami under house arrest, and more. Obviously until these points are reported by a reliable source, we cannot trust them. Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering where these reports are coming from. NPR is reporting that cell phone and internet services are off line in Tehran and much of the rest of the country... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly counterproductive. A reporter looked at 30,000 Iranian accounts and found most can be traced to just five email accounts created on June 13th with half of them using the same profile photo. Another 23 accounts disputing the Iran Election have been listed as spreading misinformation and spamming by Twitter. I feel Twitter can't be classed a reliable. Wayne (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be interested in seeing the source of your report On the other hand, I've also seen reports on tech sites that point out how the government has been creating propaganda (albeit badly done) through twitter; I would agree that anything there should be taken with a grain of salt--which many news sources have done (i.e. "these reports cannot be verified"), but some of it is undeniably valid. There's nothing unreliable about simply taking note that the service has been a definite player in a situation where information through more traditional means is being suppressed. Efrafra (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "and urged his backers to resist a government based on "lies and dictatorship."" is not correct. Mousavi has called for calm, asking people to do not go to streets for protesting. His election team has also asked people not to trust sources other than statements released by the team which they have stated will be made available on his websites like ghalamnews.ir. http://ghalamnews.ir/news-21118.aspx Also the phrase "agoverment based on lies and dictatorship" is not part of recent statement, but taken from one of his campaign speeches. I suggest correcting it. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lead/introduction - please do not add new material to the lead/introduction
The lead section/introduction is for summarising the content of the article. That content should be appropriately NPOV-ed, RS-ed, etc. in the appropriate subsection. A reasonable summary (including repeats of a few of the most important references e.g <ref name="bloggsdaily" />) can then go in the lead. The lead is not the place to introduce new facts, and it's not the place to introduce the WP:WEASEL word "However" followed by anonymous "international" analysts' statements from one single country. Let the NPOV-ing take place in the subsection and then a consensus summary for the lead should not be too difficult. Here i'm just summarising in my own words. See WP:LEAD for a better, longer explication. Boud (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MakeBelieveMonster in this edit you introduced material that is not in the main content of the article. Please read WP:LEAD and WP:WEASEL. It is true that the election result is disputed by some people in the US with political/economic/geostrategic interests in Iran. Please introduce that material in the international reactions section and work with other wikipedians to find a reasonable NPOV summary. Maybe propose it here before trying to add it to the lead/introduction. Boud (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally "observers" in relation to elections tends to mean people who monitor how the elections are run. In this case, AFAIK international observers were not present (except maybe for a few random journalists). Boud (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only people permitted to stay at the polling stations when people were voting, and when ballots were being counted are: Security, local reputable people conducting the poll (taking, checking, and stamping ID cards, giving the ballots to the voters, ...), observers from Guardian Council (which is not running the election), MOI (internal observers and coordinators), and people selected by candidates to be present at polling stations as their observers. No other person is permitted to stay at the polling station or be present when votes are being counted. I have read that candidates had observers in at least half of polling stations, although if I remember correctly MOI stated that they had in all of them, both during the voting and counting. (IMHO, this makes it very hard to claim that there was a major result changing fraud. I have not read any claim of major fraud till 3 hours after MOI started to release the results, Ahmadinejad was leading 2 to 1 but Mousavi's election team released an announcement that people should not worry and Mousavi is going to win when the bigger ballot boxes are counted. The claims of fraud started after later released results did not fit what Mousavi's team predicted.) My point is, as no one else could have observed the voting, these other observers (journalist, and other claimed observers) could have only observed the campaigning period. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to repeat this and some other points for people who wish to summarise the internal subsection and put that summary in the lead. Please discuss here if you disagree.
observers: See a few lines above regarding observers - there were no international observers at the election. (According to 12.100.5.143, there were observers from the candidates support groups at about half the polling stations according to a non-MOI source, while the MOI claimed candidates' observers were present at all polling stations.) We cannot use the vague term "observers" as an intelligent-sounding substitute for "people". Boud (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
world-view: WP:BIAS - en.wikipedia is not the US+UK wikipedia. The US+UK are not the international community (and in practice, whether right or wrong, generally oppose the majority of the international community). Boud (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC) - corrected wrong link Boud (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
notability/reliable sources/etc.: How important and notable are these various "analysts" and "journalists"? This is a more subjective judgment. IMHO, whatever the US/UK mainstream media claim, those claims are notable by the fact that these are highly influential sources of beliefs about the sociopolitical events, independently of whether the claims themselves are just urban legends or something close to the truth. Boud (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reformist? Conservative? Aren't they all chosen by the Ayatollah?
The terms "conservative" and "reformist" are used throughout the article with no explanation of their meaning or what the candidates stand for.
Given that all candidates must be approved by an extremely conservative Ayatollah, aren't all the candidates going to be far more conservative than the conservatives in other countries?
Are these the terms the candidates use to refer to their policies, or are they opinions of editors? Either way, it should be indicated what is being referred to.
I'm left with no idea what the candidates are standing for.
There's a link to Iranian reform movement at the beginning of the Campaign section. Please feel welcome to provide an appropriate point (or points) to link to that article earlier on in this article. Links are generally not supposed to go in section/subsection titles, so probably some text has to be added. Try looking through the articles on the individual candidates, and other Iran related articles, and you may find other useful links to crosslink. Boud (talk) 04:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone find an MOI web site table of detailed official results?
Does anyone by any chance know of an official, relatively detailed table of results (e.g. breakdown by province, district)? A site in persian with either persian-arabic or western-hindi numerals would be ok. Right now 04:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC), the MOI - ministry of the interior = www.moi.ir home page has a filled-up hard disk problem (so it seems) - Server Error in '/Portal' Application. The transaction log for database 'tempdb' is full. To find out why space in the log cannot be reused, see the log_reuse_wait_desc column in sys.databases ... Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:2.0.50727.3053; ASP.NET Version:2.0.50727.3053 (Rather ironic that the MOI chooses to depend on a US corporation that sponsors the US government for its web software...)
IMHO we might want to include some info regarding detailed results in the article, and even if we don't, the existence of the detailed info would itself be a useful fact.
Boud (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the MOI is unwilling to publish this info immediately, then IMHO that would be a bit suspicious (but my suspicion would be original research only; on the other hand, an overt refusal to publish the data would be an NPOV fact). Nothing should be embarrassing about publishing corrections later on. Hmmm actualy, the request by Rezaie could be added to the article - IMHO it's notable. Boud (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He has made this request just one or two hours ago (right now it is Sunday 9am). If MOI does not provide this information today, then I agree it is suspicious. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A backup of the xls file is now here: http://www.webcitation.org/5hXHfYNbN so it should be kept nicely archived at the U of Toronto (no conspiracy theories, please!) in case the MOI decides to change its mind regarding the figures it has just published... Boud (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guardian Council has stated that they has received letter from Mousavi and Rezaie complaining about the results and they are going to review the details (they have 7 to 10 days to do it and approve election). They have also said that they will release box by box results for the first time though they are not required to do this to inform people. Here is the link: http://tabnak.ir/fa/pages/?cid=51895128.100.5.143 (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
International Observers
There has been no international observers present in Iran for election, only Guardian's Concil, MOI, and candidates had observers. I suggest removing "observers" from that sentence and moving it to international reaction section. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See above about "lead"/intro. i agree that this should be changed in the international reaction section. If someone wants to propose a summary of international reactions for the lead, IMHO it would be best to propose it here on the talk page. After reasonable consensus, someone can put it in the lead. Boud (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Main infobox statistics
They seem flawed for a couple reasons:
1- they don't match any of the numbers provided by any side
2- they imply an acceptance of one parties numbers if we do provide them
3- they imply strongly that such firm numbers are accurate.
I really recommend we remove those statistics from there, or at least make its very clear that those numbers are contested.
1- The material is self serving, propaganda value.
2- Clearly violates this one
3- Meets this criteria
4- There is reasonable doubt though.
5- Thankfully not.
HawkShark (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Background to the election
I revamped the section. It should now be clear what the differences are between the President and his rival.
I haven't been able to find a ref for that bit about the "Vice Police" being proposed to be eliminated. I heard this information in a PBSpodcast. I'm sure supporting citations can be found somewhere. The Squicks (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mousavi, Rezaie, and Karroubi all said that they will get rid of the moral police, they all stated it clearly in their TV debates. Ahmadinejad has also claimed that he is against it, but there has been some reports that his government asked for these moral police. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Others pointed out that the ballots seemed designed to lead opposition voters astray. Voters were obliged to choose a candidate and fill in a code. Though Mr. Moussavi was candidate No. 4, the code No. 44 signified Mr. Ahmadinejad.
One employee of the Interior Ministry, which carried out the vote count, said the government had been preparing its fraud for weeks, purging anyone of doubtful loyalty and importing pliable staff members from around the country.
“They didn’t rig the vote,” claimed the man, who showed his ministry identification card but pleaded not to be named. “They didn’t even look at the vote. They just wrote the name and put the number in front of it.”
"Ahmadinejad's official victory was hailed by Syria, which maintains close relations with Iran, and by Gazan ruling militant group Hamas, which is viewed by many as an Islamic Republic proxy." This part about Syria seems so biased. I think we should leave only the official reaction of Syria and remove the part about Hamas and proxy. Some could argue that Canada is a proxy of the United States so it's opinion has no value. --zorxd (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. i also noticed that the entry on the US reaction says nothing about the fact that the United States together with the United Kingdom played a major role in successfully overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran. Rather than add this sort of context, i removed the point that Syria and Iran have close relations. Readers can look up country articles or CountryX-CountryY relations articles to find more info. Hmmm maybe adding links to these sorts of articles would make sense... Even if many are in rather uncertain states of quality. Boud (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that it was the Eisenhower Administration that committed Ajax (which makes it long-past distant history without relevance to today), whereas the Hamas-Syria-Iran nexus is something that is the current foreign policy of those three groups and is something directly created/sustained by Ahmadinejad. The Squicks (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regime change in Iran was part of recent US foreign policy before Obama administration. Bush administration has supported different opposition groups against it, and named Iran in Axis of Evil. So this does not seem to me distant history. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
US presidential election system is irrelevant to this article
Just in case some edits like this and this one by someone who gave the reason "Like many US presidential articles, the infobox should just have the main candidates and not the independents who got less than 10% of the vote" are repeated, the reason for not accepting these edits is that this election concerns Iran, not the United States, and this is not USA.wikipedia.org. Boud (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New Yorker blog oneliner - dissident MOI employees' open letter
We presently have a citation to a single sentence in this New Yorker blog claiming "There can be no question that the June 12, 2009 Iranian presidential election was stolen. Dissident employees of the Interior Ministry, which is under the control of President Ahmadinejad and is responsible for the mechanics of the polling and counting of votes, have reportedly issued an open letter saying as much." If this is true, it should be fairly easy to find this "open letter" in the original persian/farsi. Remember that "reportedly" is a way of saying "we're not totally sure if this is just a rumour or not".
Can someone find any more direct report of this open letter or even better, the letter itself? After all, there's not much point just saying an open letter exists. Otherwise it's not terribly open... Or is it just a rumour that will feed back on itself and grow? Boud (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your implications that the item is less reliable because it is mentioned in a single sentence, or that The New Yorker would print rumours without designating them as such, seem somewhat strange. I couldn't find another source, but The New Yorker will do until things clear up a bit more. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article already says A report by The New Yorker has stated, which means that the claim is attributed properly. Scare quotes and loaded anti-New-Yorker language are not acceptable. The Squicks (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The New Yorker has indeed designated the rumour as such, but using a weasel word:
see wiktionary:reportedly: according to reports or rumors; supposedly (Example:) They reportedly went last week, but I couldn't prove it.
see WP:WEASEL#Examples of examples not to follow: "It has been reported that..."
Squicks - you're right that we should put quotes around the whole thing if we keep it and not just one word - done. To both of you and others reading this: for the moment i'm not suggesting we remove it. Maybe it is something more than just a rumour, but we certainly cannot convert this to something that is more definite than TNY claims it is. As for "loaded anti-New-Yorker language", it's TNY itself which uses the weasel word. Feel free to write to TNY and complain if you believe that this is below their usual standards. Boud (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for Pete's sake, "Boud". Imagine if I wrote that President Obama said, "reportedly", that "Boud" was (...) or something like that. These things are scare quotes, plain and simple. And the New Yorker did not call it a "rumor", this is nothing but pure original research by you. The Squicks (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i agree with your point about scare quotes - quoting it alone is too ambiguous. Given the meaning of the word "reportedly" as given by wiktionary, there's no need to quote it - it's a weasel word and so should not normally be used unless it's part of a longer quote, so that the weasality is attributed to the source, not to wikipedia. See wiktionary and WP:WEASEL regarding your OR suggestion. i did not work on that particular wiktionary page, and if i ever worked on the WP:WEASEL page, it's a long time ago, so neither of these can be my own OR. i agree that TNY did not literally use the word "rumour"; it used a weasel word that sounds like it means something more serious than a rumour. In any case, we seem to have consensus on a valid sentence as of the version as of the present version. Boud (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result "details"
I object to posting the following in the main article for the reasons below:
Distribution of votes between the two major candidates as the results came in (in millions). The data shows an R-squared value of .998.[5]
Another inconsistency has been alleged in the way the results were reported. Six sets of data released by the Interior Ministry show an almost perfectly linear progression of the distribution of votes between Ahmadinejad and Moussavi, which has been seen as a statistical impossibility.[5][6] Statistician Nate Silver, however, has compared the data to those of the 2008 United States presidential election and concluded that this data set cannot be used as evidence of a flawed election– without thereby making any judgment on whether the election was rigged or not. [7] This claim by Nate Silver is disputed.[7]
Nate Silver was disputed on his website. Several said the Iranian results has an accuracy much greater then the US election. Some that his values selected were not in order of time. I tried to find some figures for release of the US election results by time to check but could not find anything
The original "statistical impossibility" claim is not based on any statistical model, no null hypothesis is given, no p-value. Nate Silver is right in that you are not supposed to do a linear regression on a time series which is effectively what the "statistical evidence" is. But Nate Silver also doesn't use a statistical model, a null hypothesis or a p-value.
If one plots the new votes reported in each of the six waves of results one gets
which is a lot more noisy than the plot of the cumulative totals. But the plot of the increments is the proper plot to do because it constitutes independent random variables whereas the cumulative totals are not independent.
I agree with Miguel. "The Lede" in The New York Times reported the same thing, but then agreed it was evidence of nothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The protests are growing. I have received email from groups set up for sharing information about the situation in Iran (It seems that websites are blocked, Internet speed has dropped considerably, ... government is trying to control the situation) that police force has entered some University dormitories in Tehran, like Tehran University. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The upper picture says 633048 (2,08%), the lower one 587913 (1,71%). Looks like the number of counted votes dropped overtime. --Emesik (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The situation in Iran is more complicated than the bipolar categorization into "pro-opposition" and "pro-government" suggests, which is especially indicated by placing Rafsanjani's reaction in the "pro-government" section, even though he is a supporter of Mousavi. CuriousOliver (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the categories, and organized it by person giving reaction. I think there are several actors in this election, and that it is unfair to group Rezai and Ahmedinejad into the same category, or to show that Rafsanjani is pitted against Ahmedinejad. Also, Khamenei seems to have become more sympathetic towards the reformists (as compared to his "divine assesment" speech), so we also can't categorize him.VRtalk16:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(not really on topic but meh)PressTV.ir (the iranian state run english news site) is down with 'Server is too busy'. I didn't get this error at all on Friday or Saturday (when I would think the server would be even busier) Is anyone else getting this error and is there a way (other website/tool) to determine if a site is actually down of if it is just displaying a null page? --PigFlu Oink (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The server is not legitimately busy. When a webserver is too busy to actually serve the website it's supposed to serve, it will generally just not send anything (such as in the case of a DDoS). In this case, it sends an "error" message. But here's the interesting part; it allows you to download the website "favorite" icon (like Wikipedia's W in the adress bar) from [6]. What does this mean? It means someone cracked the machine and replaced the website with a fake error message. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 14:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. If a website is dynamic, as a news service website usually is, then pages are not stored but created from a database, which takes time. In this case, it is quite usual for a server to serve an error message if it can not keep up with generating the pages. Loading an icon is not affected, since the icon is stored and requires not processing. I am sure the server faces more requests right now than usual. CuriousOliver (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or it could be the servers are in Tehran and the Security services are throttling the entire network in an effort to prevent video reports getting out. They might be inadvertantly hurting themselves. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That could be the case, but the hacker example wouldn't surprise me. Pro-Khameini and pro-Ahmadinejad websites have been reportedly taken down by pro-Mousavi hackers. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 14:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some Iranians are DDOSing the websites, there is a group on Facebook about it, and mailing groups set up by Iranians for sharing information about the situation have discussed it. Websites of pro-Ahmadinejad newspapers like Keyhan are also DDOSed. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if PressTV results does not contain lorestan, the one released on MOI contains it. One of the editors have archived Province by Province vote. Please check above. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image is "File:FakeResults Iran.jpg" is currently used in the article. There are several reliable sources that have documented the irregularities in the election.
However, is there a reliable source that is using Iranian television reports to claim irregularity. Furthermore, the image is alleging irregularity towards Rezai. However, he has already accepted the results.
I haven't seen a source that says that, but I'll take you word for it. That still doesn't change the fact that allegation of "fake results" is not coming from a reliable source in this particular case. If it is, then show me the source. Cheers, VRtalk18:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't open any of your "Center for women..." links. But if we assume they work, even then its invalid.
The above is a prime example of WP:SYNTH. You have taken two sources, A and B, to say C, namely that the government forged results. Neither A nor B quotes the other source, to say C, that the government forged results. I'll tag this, and shortly remove it thereafter.VRtalk15:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They quote the same source: The National Elections Commission of Iran (one of them quotes them via Iranian state-run
It doesn't count as a reliable source because it's a blog, read WP:SPS. I haven't read any mainstream media article referring to the apparent loss of votes. If this was really an issue I'm sure they'd be all over the screenshots by now. But they aren't, they haven't been mentioned anywhere.
The source is much appreciated though I cannot read Persian and thus cannot verify it. There seems to be a bunch of comments under the item. Tried going through them with Babylon translator to see if any of them elaborated on the missing votes, but the translator sucked too much. The screenshots still don't make any sense to me because 1. Rezai has accepted the results (pointed out by Vice regent above) and 2. No other major news outlet has had even a single remark on this supposedly blatant and in-your-face election fraud.
IMO the screenshot is some sort of mistake or a simple misunderstanding regarding the Iranian election process, but I'm happy that we at least got a source on it now. Malangyar (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the screenshots indicate the percentage share, not votes counted. So nothing strange in that the persentage of votes for a candidate falls over time.--MathFacts (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the official result is that he has >66% of votes? This is inconsistent with the results shown in this article (62.63%)--MathFacts (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be officially president, Guardian Council has to approve the results after receiving complaints and checking them. They have 7 to 10 days for it. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that we do not have results from Lorestan? One would assume that the election results are now available from many sources. Is Lorestan missing every time? CuriousOliver (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is moi.ir We have already archive the file of province by province results they made available on their site. Please check above. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Western public involvement over internet
Apparently, there is a lot of support for the protesters by young Westerners over the internet. For example, Anonymous (group) is helping to organize proxies and such. Internet forums, at least in the US, are far more active in the story than most of the news organizations. Some threads from Fark.com: most recent, first threadEsn (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in response to the Iranian attacks on the protesters' information sources, a website was been set up to DDOS pro-Ahmadinejad (and Khamenei?) sites [7] - removed by Blogspot today at 6:04 PM Eastern Time. Esn (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There should also be some information of the allegations of western government involvement in supporting Mousavi , Most notably Great Britain, The United States and Israel. Obviously allegations by Iran have been made, but it is impossible to say exactly what type of involvement they might have. We do know that in the USA for instance, our congress officially appropriates money to fund "covert actions" against Iran. Here's one story detailing some of those those efforts http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh24.207.226.224 (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amount of conservetive/moderate/reformist support in Iran
Alvin Richman and David B. Nolle and Elaine El Assal, "Iranian Public Is Not Monolithic: Iranians Divide Over Their Government But Unite on Forgoing Nuclear Weapons", May 18, 2009
Conservatives: 45% Moderates: 24% Reformists: 18% No Opinion: 13%
"In WPO’s January 2008 survey, we found that Conservatives comprised 45 percent of the total (N = approx. 319), compared to 24 percent for Moderates (N = approx. 168) and 18 percent for Reformers (N = approx. 124).4 The remaining 13 percent fell into a non-substantive, largely “no opinion” group (N = approx. 99). Demographically, Moderates and Reformers tend to be younger, better educated, have higher incomes, and live in larger urban areas than do Conservatives." Page 2
Support for Ahmadinejad between:
Conservatives: 85% Moderates: 60% Reformists: 35%
Overall: 66%
"Iranian President Ahmadinejad – The divergence among the three groups – Conservatives, Moderates and Reformers -- on rating Iran’s president is one of the largest in this study, approaching the differences found on the general measures of regime support discussed above. For example, 85 percent of Conservatives approved the way President Ahmadinejad was “handling his job,” compared to 60 percent of Moderates and 35 percent of Reformers. At the time of the WPO survey in early 2008 the number of Conservatives (45%) more than matched the number of Moderates and Reformers combined (42%). Thus, approval of President Ahmadinejad among the total Iranian public (66%) was heavily influenced by his very positive support among Conservatives." Page 4 128.100.5.143 (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations of Lebanese Hizbollah presence
First of all, I'd like to mention that Tatsuma over at Fark.com has been giving very helpful updates throughout this whole situation. Here, for example. A little while ago, he said that "Der Spiegel, based on a Voice of America report, says that 5,000 Hizbullah fighters are currently in Iran masquerading as riot police, confirming the independent reports. Many different independent reports and video point that way. Even in the last hours other independent twitter feeds have declared witnessing thugs beating on people while shouting in Arabic". Original Der Spiegel source here. Esn (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that Iranian government need more militia, it already has more than it needs to control the situation. There has not been any report of military or Revolutionary Guard Corps being involved, they have used only police. There are also *millions* of registered Basij militia. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it could be an issue, there are strong elements within the Revolutionary Guard who are loyal to the mullas but despise Ahmedinejad and would love to see him taken down which is why they haven't been deployed, so far only police organisations under "Presidential Control" have been used (secret police and regulars), so the presence of Hezbollah who are able to do some dirty work and then just disappear would be very useful to the Ahmedinejad factions. The big problem for him will be guaranteeing loyalty and people actually being willing to carry out his orders to go and beat and suppress the opposition and that is probably the reason for Hezbollah's presence in Iran. MattUK (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The same job can be done by Basij. One of complaints by Mousavi and Karroubi is that Basij has campaigned for Ahmadinejad. The same complaint was also given in the previous Presidential election. I was at Tehran at the time and saw myself that Basij was campaigning for Ahmadinejad, talking with people on many of main square and trying to convince them to vote for Ahmadinejad not Hashemi. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"How do you count almost 40 million handwritten paper ballots in a matter of hours and declare a winner?"
The same way you count votes in ballot boxes before they have been unsealed and opened, all you have to do is have your cronies fill a few of them the week before on the "two for me, one for you" basis, then you know whats in there before you open the box. That's just for some sembelance of legality, it's much easier to just throw all the ballot boxes in a corner and make the results up as you go. MattUK (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The observers from Karroubi, Mousavi and Rezaie were present in polling stations. Local people themselves counted the votes, all of the people present there have to sign a form called form 22 and a form called 28 approving the count. The reason that the counting has been fast was that Mousavi and Karroubi have asked MOI to count the votes in the polling stations to avoid fraud (in previous elections ballot boxes were transfered to provisional government office and counted there, the reformist wanted to avoid this to not allow the possibility of ballot boxes changed.) The count from each station were then transfered to MOI where they summed up the count and released it. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually from the information in the free press around the world is that most of the counting was done at the MOI. Also virtually all the free press around the world has been stating that the opposition observers were denied access to the polling stations and that it was only Ahmedinejad’s henchmen who were allowed free access while voting was going on. There are also irregularities in the fact that the few regions that announced their results independently had their news sources shut down immediately, and then when they “official” sources were released the numbers were dramatically different from the original (surprise surprise to the benefit of Ahmedinejad).
I think what you meant when you said “The count from each station were then transferred to MOI where they summed up the count and released it” was that the already “adjusted” figures were sent to the MOI where they were totally disregarded and the MOI published figures prepared by Ahmedinejad to give him the election, meanwhile where the ballots were in transit, some of the ballot papers were switched for papers with votes for Ahmedinejad.
Isn’t it also amazing how virtually everyone who was illiterate (a not insignificant proportion of the population) voted for Ahmedinejad, quite surprising how when one of the “officials” in the polling stations tells you that they have written your choice on the ballot paper, it always reads “Ahmedinejad” regardless of what they were asked to write. That apart from the fact that secret police were looking over the shoulders of a lot of people who voted to see if they wrote down the "correct" candidate. MattUK (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant what I said. The votes were counted at polling stations by local people who ran the polling station, and the signed forms (form 22) stating the counted votes are available. The votes are also available, so if required one can just recount the votes. All ballots are numbered so it is also easy to check the number of ballots given to the people and the number of the votes in the box. I have not seen any report about secret police overseeing the people, as far as I know no body looks at your vote when you write your vote down. Also the polling stations were run by local people, so in places where some may be illiterate the voter knows the persons in the polling station, and they can also ask one of their friend who is literate to help them. If you have a reliable source please provide, otherwise IMHO these are just propaganda. 128.100.5.198 (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
128.100.5.198, you also make these claims without citing a reliable source; and I recall also having read what Matt claims (but sorry I didn't note the source). ARE there any reliable sources on this? Probably best is to cite sources, without claiming how reliable they are. Harald88 (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About the secret police overseeing voters, I don't know what kind of source I can provide. I have voted myself, there was not any one looking at my vote, there was a number of desks near wall and pens over them on one side of the room and the polling station workers and ballot boxes were on the other side, I gave my ID to one of them, they checked it to see if it is stamped and checked my photo for identification, then passed it to the next person who stamped it and gave me a ballot, I went to the other side, wrote my vote, folded it and return to the box and dropped it and received my ID. It has been the same in the previous elections (there is at least one election each year), I have voted in different cities. 128.100.5.129 (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it on both The Times and The Telegraph websites, although don't have time to go searching for the correct source right now, I'll try and get to it later. I would hardly say that the election law is a reliable source of what actually happened, yes it's a good source for what should have happened, but not for what actually happened.
You have asked many questions, I will try to answer. First note that the links I provided also contain what actually happened, not just the law. 128.100.5.139 (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would hardly say that the MOI is a valid source for what actually happened, being that it is the organisation which is primarily implicated in the whole affair, Ahmedinejad may have been the instigator, but the MOI conducted the fraud. International as well as free Iranian (before it was shut down) press all reported that opposition observers were either stopped from entering most polling stations, or were ejected either after a few hours or before the votes were counted.
MOI was not the only sources, there reports from different people who were working in polling stations. What you said is not true, the complaints is that their cards were issued late (MOI says some didn't provided the required documents), the polling station assigned to them where changed by MOI, .... they may be some irregularities similar to these, but they were present, and they have to sign the form 22 and approve it. Why would observers selected by Mousavi and Karroubi sign these if they saw irregularities? All these signed forms are available and it is possible to check them. 128.100.5.139 (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I asked where you actually voted, just that comments from IP's in the range of 128.100.5.###, which all seem to be from the same person have been appearing from just after the election onwards, and the 128.100.5.### range is registered to the University of Toronto in Canada. I would also be interested in where you voted from being that the news reports were that the secret police weren't out in force in Ahmedinejad strongholds as they didn't feel they needed to be, where as in the vast majority of the country where the other candidates were expected to win they were conducing "voter coercion".
MattUK (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently at UofT, we went to Ottawa to vote, the result of Ottawa was 85% Mousavi AFAIK. Contrary to your suggestion, I have voted in places which are most reformist parts of Iran, I have voted in Tehran and Wstern Azarbayjan. If you take a look at the result you will see that these are the only two places that Mousavi is ahead of Ahmadinejad, so I have been in places where Ahmadinejad's support is not strong. I have voted in different polling stations in different years and have not seen anything like what was suggested above. 128.100.5.139 (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, BBC's report is not completely correct. As I said there were irregularities, but one can check the result by comparing those form 22s that Mousavi and Karroubi's observers were present and signed approving them. These forms are available and not too little. I read some of supporters of Mousavi has claimed that he had only observers in half of polling stations, this should be enough to check to see if any irregularity has happened in the ones he had not any observer. I don't understand how one observer of these candidates would sign this form 22 and later claim that it is rigged. Also if you look at their announcement just before mid night (when voting ended) and in the first hours after mid night (when the first results were coming) you don't see such arguments, and they even claimed that they have won the election. I don't see how these announcement by Mousavi is compatible with his later positions. 128.100.5.139 (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That source also mentions about the fact that the votes were counted far too fast, where in past elections the count has taken 24 hours, this one it took only 4 which seems a bit odd in itself. It also mentions irregularities which are just downright odd, like the lack of regional variances in voting patterns, and even in the tribal areas of the opposition candidates they votes were against them which is just make beleive. As well as in a few provinces like Khoresan or Mazandaran more people voted than there were registered voters. There are just too many things that point to fraud, for it not to be fraud, if it was a free and fair election then you wouldnt have all these quite major problems with the figures popping up. MattUK (talk) 09:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained it somewhere on this page. Also if you have read the references I provided above you have seen the answer, but I repeat it again: AFAIK Mouavi and Karroubi has asked the votes to be counted in polling stations to not allow the boxes being changed when they were transfered. Also the result were transfered by Computers to the MOI, so it was just summing up a list of numbers. These were two main differences between this and previous elections. Also note that Mousavi's team did not object to this in the first hours. If I remember correctly, at 3am MOI released results of 10 million votes, and Ahmadinejad was ahead 7 million to 3 million. Mousavi's team released a statement that Ahmadinejad's vote will stop at 14 million and he is going to win, no mention of these irregularities at the time. Also note that it did not take 4, it took more than 4 hours AFAIK, I don't know exactly how much but I know that at 5am we did not have the final result. I think I saw the lack of regional variance is also present in polls taken by TFT 3 weeks before voting and the polls show that Ahmadinejad has ahead a large amount in rural areas. About the amount of turnout, I have also seen the higher than 100% turnout but I still it is not a strong argument for fraud, the comparison with those those places that Mousavi had observers should show if there was something strange or not. Also note than the turnout estimate by TFT poll is close to 90% overall. I can't say that there was not fraud, but based on things I have seen I think that Ahmadinejad was going to win this election, and I have not seen any good evidence for it being fraud. The shock is caused by the fact that we did not expect him to win. Anyway, this is not a forum, so if you have reliable sources you can add those to the article independent of our opinion whether they are true or not. 128.100.5.139 (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if that would be a good idea now, with information coming and going out very quickly. A lot of the material there is not even properly referenced.
I'm not sure if it would be a good idea either, being that the international reactions are so closely tied to "results" of the election. Also in the article I notice that there has been a split off into an article "2009 Iranian election protests", I'm not sure that this should have happened, and prehaps should be moved back into the main article as it is intrinsically linked to the election itself, being that if it hadn't been rigged and it was a free and fair election there would be no protests. MattUK (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
India's reaction/endorsement. The reference #123(Times Online article) does not reflect this, in fact does not even mention India's reaction. I could not locate India's reaction hence feel this should be removed (all across the page).
Okay ref 123 does mention India's reaction, and I quote, "his re-election was effectively endorsed not just by his hosts but other nations attending, including China, India and Pakistan."
This is letter by Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsuli to the Leader Seyed Ali Khamenei, singed and dated for 1388/3/23, this is my translation, it is not easy to translate:
"To the great Leader Ayyatollah Khamenei,
According to your concern about the result of tenth Presidential election and your decision to preserve Dr. Mahmood Ahmadinejad as president during this sensible time, all things were organized such that the results would be to the benefit of the system and the revolution, to be announced to the public and all necessary prudences for possible incidences after election has been taken, all heads of political parties and candidates are under strict observation.
Therefore for informing you about the real results of counted votes are stated below:
Total votes: 42,026,078
Mir Hossein Mousavi Khamene: 19,075,623
Mehdi Karroubi: 13,387,104
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: 5,698,417
Mohsen Rezaie Mirghaed: 3,754,218
Problematic Votes: 38716"
I have no doubt this is fake. This is on government paper of MOI, no intelligent being will use such a thing for writing something like this. Also it is dated but not numbered that makes it being written on MOI paper meaningless (all official government papers have to be numbered), and nobody even the most out of mind reformists did not expected Ahmadinejad to get less than 9 million votes, or Karroubi getting more than a few millions. IMHO, this is just propaganda. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the translation, seems identical to the earlier one I read. But basically this is substituting one piece of nonsense for another, correct? It's likely no one will ever known (until a revote) what the actual results are. Planetary (talk) 06:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a recount of votes can show whether this is fake or not. A number of supporters of Mousavi are trying to sum up evidence to help him in his complaint to Guardian Council to rerun the election. One thing they are doing is asking local people in polling stations who counted the votes to report the numbers to them so they can get an estimate the results independent of MOI. As far as I have heard from them, Karroubi's vote has been very low in the reports they have got. 128.100.5.198 (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a fake and it probably is but I have to say that 9 million votes for Ahmadinejad is not reasonable(at least not in a free election). His support is more like 10% of the votes. M99 87.59.102.169 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
It is your personal opinion, no poll shows something like that. I would like to remind you that he has got 17 million in the previous election. AFIK, no reformist politician or newspaper has expressed something like this, i.e. 10% for Ahmadinejad. Contrary to this, all polls I have seen show that he has at least 20% support, that would be around 8 million, so my 9 million is a conservative estimate. I would be happy to hear what your 10% estimate is based on. 128.100.5.198 (talk) 01:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Benford's Law, Karroubi's 7's, and the three big "K=70xx" cities
LOL! This is the first time I have been acknowledged in a paper by my IP address. Thank you. :) (right now I am a little busy to read your paper, but I will do as soon as I find time, after all this is a paper I am acknowledged in!) 128.100.5.198 (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Boud, I think that it may be more helpful if you compare it to a number of other elections, e.g., Iranian Presidential Elections 2005. I have seen hear: http://bpa.und.nodak.edu/economics/seminarseries/paper%20---%20Hadi%20Esfahani%20--%20Voting%20for%20Populism.pdf that MOI has also released it for 2005, but the paper states the percentages not the number of votes. I will try to find something better so you can apply your statical analysis to it and compare it to 2009. You can also apply it to a number of other elections in other countries since if I understood correctly, the same distribution of digits should appear. 128.100.5.129 (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's an update to this paper - it's now at v2 - http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.2789 . Three of the six biggest voting areas all have "Karroubi 7" votes - Shiraz 7078, Isfahan 7002, Mashhad 7098 - and they all voted for Ahmadinejad in greater proportions Shiraz 60.0%, Isfahan 60.9%, Mashhad 66.9% than for the three non-Karroubi-7 voting areas among the biggest six voting areas (49.7%, 53.7%, 43.3%).
From a strict wikipedia POV, this needs RS. For the moment, the closest things to RS AFAIK are:
the article itself in terms of quoting what the article claims as claims
the total votes, the voting counts for Karroubi, and the proportions of counts for Ahmadinejad in the biggest six voting areas can be directly read from the MOI file without requiring anything beyond elementary arithmetic operations (what voting areas have the biggest numbers? what are Ahmadinejad's proportions of votes ?) and reading Persian- IMHO the MOI is a RS for this information (remember: RS does not mean unbiased, and the MOI is surely a RS for the official vote counts, independently of how closely they match the true counts) - http://www.webcitation.org/5hYWBcT7whttp://www.moi.ir/ostan.xls
in a few days' time there should be a New Scientist article discussing this and, i expect, Mebane's work
The following two figures are GFDL+CC-BY-SA uploaded to the commons - feel free to use them - or redraw them independently, directly based on the MOI data. Boud (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the analysis section there is a quote from Walter R. Mebane Jr.:
Walter R. Mebane Jr., a University of Michigan professor of political science and statistics and an expert on detecting electoral fraud has said: "There are suspicious elements here, but there's no solid evidence of fraud".[106]
"While it is not possible given only the current data to say for sure whether this reflects natural complexity in the political processes or artificial manipulations, the numerous outliers comport more
with the idea that there was widespread fraud than with the idea that all the departures from the model are benign." (from page 13)
OR
"I think the results [of comparing 2005 and 2009 data] give moderately strong support for a diagnosis that the 2009 election was affected by significant fraud." (page 9)
Walter R. Mebane, Jr has updated his paper and found new results in his website he has updated his paper.he says in the paper:"the numerous outliers comport more with the idea that there was widespread fraud than with the idea that all the departures from the model are benign.".please observe this important result. Iranelection2009 (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i renamed the section - this internal link should work, otherwise search "Benford" on this page using your browser find function (e.g. control F). Note that you'll need to create a user account and make enough constructive edits over several days, in order to establish a minimal reputation, if you wish to edit the article page. Details are at the link at the top of the article page. Boud (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a sentence stating that Nate Silver's June 15 analysis "refuted the June 13 claim by Cole that Ahmadinejad overperformed in Tehran." That was problematic for a few reasons. Silver didn't claim that Cole was wrong about Tehran. Silver didn't say that Ahmadinejad's Tehran's result seemed legitimate. So it seems like original research to put those words in Silver's mouth. Ahmadinejad's reported vote share in Tehran in 2009 was actually bigger than the conservative vote percentage in 2005. But what Silver said was that the conservative improvement in Tehran was smaller than his improvement in most other regions. To say that Silver's analysis refutes Cole's analysis ignores what Cole states. Cole states that Ahmadinejad likely only did as well as he did in Tehran in 2005 because of a massive reformist voter boycott there. In other words, Cole is saying that a 2005 to 2009 vote total comparison of Tehran would be flawed because the 2005 results actually overstated Ahmadinejad's Tehran support. Furthermore, Cole states that Ahmadinejad's unpopularity is due to the economic effects of his policies. Therefore, Cole's analysis isn't merely about a 2005 to 2009 poll comparison but also about analyzing how Ahmadinejad's Tehran popularity has allegedly declined since 2005. --JamesAM (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed it. Those were the supposed "true" results being circulated in a letter supposedly sent by a government minister to the Khamenei. Although there are reasons to suspect fraud, I think the "official" results ought to remain listed unless a Talk page consensus decides otherwise. The body of the article makes clear that these results are disputed and the reasons/analysis for disputing them. If there was fraud, that doesn't necessarily mean that the results of the letter are legitimate. For example, the unlikelihood of such a quick count would apply to the numbers in that letter as well. --JamesAM (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has changed it again. Please stop this. A number of people continue to change it back to the numbers in the letter, without any discussion, this is more than three times and the last ones are from IP addresses with no other edits: 206.116.157.193 (three times) 24.87.71.160 68.147.208.14 81.105.115.3. I propose semi-locking the that part. 128.100.5.129 (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once more by user named Psa21, again with no other contribution. I think the semi-protection should be applied to stop this vandalism. 128.100.5.129 (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have counts on how many died in todays' crackdown on protesters? There are videos all over showing people who have been shot/killed by militias but not yet a lot of numbers. Blogs were saying its around 50 dead and hundreds wounded, but its hard to find official sources with Iran blocking the news media. Fuzbaby (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rigging
I suggest that in the light of 1) Underexposure of rigging allegations in popular media 2) The well known history of hostility of the US to a) Double and Triple check the sources on the matter and add more if possible b) If it is shown that is most likely according to sources to have had rigging, to expose this article as much as possible. Wikipedia is not a Party but knowledge should be exposed and Democracy respected. --AaThinker (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think he/she proposes to collect a balanced and even comprehensive overview of opinions about rigging (which I think is quite well on its way!). If the concensus is clear, then according to AaThinker, this article can be used to inform people about what likely happened (with the idea that the concensus probably will be that rigging took place and that concensus most likely corresponds to truth). Harald88 (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Care must be taken when using consensus to inform without evidence in support. For example, despite consensus (outside the U.S.) that one of the U.S. elections was stolen, albeit without the protests we see in Iran, it is not presented as such and the controversy is in fact considerably played down because of the scarcity of evidence of which there was more than is currently available for Iran. Wayne (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See the compiled list of fraud claims and counterclaims at IRanAffairs.com
It shows two men filling out ballots with names and made up ID #'s.
The Iranian ballots come in two halves. One half has your personal information and your national id# (similar to SS# in the U.S.) and other half is where you put the candidate's name and number and that is the part that actually goes in the ballot box -- that is your vote. The first half (with your personal info) is kept as record of your vote by the interior ministry. They also put a stamp in your passport or id card to show that you voted. Each ballot has two stamps at the top and the bottom divided by the vertical perforation separating the two halves. So that once separated each half of the ballot has a partial stamp on it.
Visually, the left half (which has your personal info) has 6 boxes, while the right half (that has your vote) has two boxes.
In this video you can see that at first they are writing on the right halves, (i.e. the votes). The man then beings to fill out the left halves with made up names and ID's. You can see that he is making up the id numbers (the bottom left most box) because he counts the digits to make sure they are right. It also looks like this is happening in someone's house (you can hear a child at the end).
The very existence of this video proves something very fishy. These ballots are controlled by the Interior Ministry and are to be filled at the voting places -- overseen by all representatives -- and all halves must be counted and sealed in the boxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afara (talk • contribs) 00:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, this is fake. Please stop posting material which are only rumors, or provide a reliable source. Also, what you have stated about the voting process is not correct. Note that the page is semi-protected because of heavy vandalism, people trying to use wikipedia for propaganda. 142.1.153.49 (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean it is fake? And why do you say that it is incorrect about the voting process?! Have you ever voted in Iranian elections? I have. I'm not trying to post a rumor, or start a flame war. I'm posting what I've found and it looks pretty good to me. Can you tell me how/why you think it is fake?
Besides people believe they just made up numbers, and box stuffing wasn't a significant factor.
What I find fishy is why would they have allowed themselves to be filmed? On the other hand, it's true that Nazi's filmed their own crimes as they thought that they would stay in power. Perhaps they were sure that nobody would lay hands on that video? Any other ideas? But regretfully, such a film from an unidentified source that is not self-evidently a true event cannot be accepted. Harald88 (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I should clarify this better: it's not such video's themselves that cannot be accepted, but the presentation of them as fact about what really happened (and which we cannot verify). In other contexts they may be appropriate, for example if a big TV station discussed them then a paragraph with mention of that discussion (which is a fact) together with links to the video's could be appropriate (it's also a fact that they exist and that they were noted). Harald88 (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Combatant Clergy Association reaction
Combatant Clergy Association (Persian:جامعه روحانیت مبارز) (which is one of most influential conservative parties and most of its members supported Ahmadinejad for presidency, but since its internal procedure needs two-third of members supporting to announce it officially they did not announced it officially) has not stated that the election result is fraud, completely reverse. I think people have mistaken it with Association of Combatant Clerics (مجمع روحانیون مبارز) which is a reformist party. This needs to be corrected. One more thing, Combatant Clergy Association is not headed by Rafsanjani, he is an influential member but not the head. Also Khatami is a member of Association of Combatant Clerics. 142.1.153.49 (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Iranian political reactions
Almost all of stated reactions are from supporters of Mousavi (exception: leader Khamenei and Minister of Interior Sadeg Mahsouli). I think we should also add other reaction, e.g. reactions of head of Parliment, head of Judiciary, important conservative parties, Grand Ayatollahs, important conservative figures like Hadad Adel and Ahmad Tavakkoli, ... to avoid begin one-sided. 142.1.153.49 (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It says: "All three reformist candidates appeared" (at the rally). That's definitely wrong, as only two of the four candidates are described as "reformist". And if indeed also the conservative candidate appeared, then that is worth to be stressed! Harald88 (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should there be some mention of the fact that British journalists have been kicked out of Iran (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iebU_3yo583gRL6sLkApYrJREpPA), all other journalists who aren't from Pro-Ahmedinejad regimes have been told to stay indoors and if they leave their hotels they will "no longer be safe" and will probably also be told to leave the country. This all sounds like further censorship after the blocking of vast swathes of the internet, now they are trying to block any reporting of the fact that they are beating, shooting and murdering hundreds of opposition supporters. MattUK (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter debacle jeopardised President Barack Obama
Mousavi announced on his website that he in fact was the person that received the majority of the voting and that his name was replaced by Ahmadinejad's.
does not have an English-language reference. The reference used in the article
does not give this claim in its English version. Could someone check if the above claim is indeed stated in the Persian version, and if so, provide an in-context translation of the claim? Without such a translation, foreign-language references are not allowed in the English wikipedia. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mousavi has repeatedly said that his own sites and member of his headquarter are the only reliable sources about what he says and his position. Moj is not one of them, therefore, IMHO, it is completely irrelevant if it is on Moj or if it is not. (FYI, I didn't saw it in the text on the link you provided, you can check it also yourself using Google Translate.). 128.100.5.139 (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are several instances of both spellings of his name. Can someone with write access go through and check his name for spelling consistancy? I do not have write access to this article. I don't know which spelling is correct, but the same spelling should be used throughout the article.
MrMoustacheMM (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I think the preferable spelling to use is "Mousavi" because that is how his name is spelled in the title of his own Wikipedia article and the predominant spelling here. I'll get started. If I miss some, anyone else should feel free to change those. --JamesAM (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. In the excel file released earlier
the total number of votes added to spoiled voted did not match the total number of vote and was less by more 98000 votes.
2. In ballot details in the Lorestan province
there is a ballot number 21 which has negative six (-6) spoiled vote which is unrealistic
WP:SYNTH- do not break down or combine sources to draw conclusions not explicitly stated in said sources.
WP:NOR- No Original Research. Link a source TALKING about the inconsistencies, don't just point them out yourself.
There was more than 100% turnout in some cities for the simple fact that Iranians do not have to vote in their home districts. That is normal in Iran, not a sign of fraud.
Not done: That looks like something that might interest the reader, but inserting it in the copy seems awkward; it seems more like an external link. If you agree, could you supply a subsection (new or existing) and text to display. The other way to include your work would be to take one or two of the visualizations and add them as graphics. If that makes more sense to you, go ahead and upload them, then suggest where to insert them. Cheers, Celestra (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Done --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Boud (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)