Talk:Iran

Please consider reading the archived discussions for this article before asking any questions on this talk page or initiating any new debate.

Grammar mistake

I found a grammar mistake in first paragraph of this article. In First paragraph and in 7th line we have: "country that has both a Caspian Sea and Indian Ocean coastline. Iran has been of geostrategic importance because of its". Article "a" before "Caspian Sea" is not needed and I think correct text would be: "country that has both Caspian Sea and Indian Ocean coastline. Iran has been of geostrategic importance because of its".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotoodi (talk • contribs) 12:24, 24 March 2014‎ (UTC)

Fix the messed up syntax in bold red in the middle of the entry.

These edits from 4/30/2014 ( Current: "nearby regions wich would last for many centuries onwards." Correction: "nearby regions which would last for many centuries onwards."

Current: "Iran reached it's greatests extent since" Correction: "Iran reached its greatests extent since " )

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Foreverchang (talk • contribs) 01:38, 1 May 2014‎ (UTC)

Social Media and Women's Empowerment

Women living in Iran have encountered various challenges and obstacles socially, politically, economically, and psychologically that have affected character and integrity. In Iran today we see women’s rights activists have very little opportunity to voice their opinions. Although academics and lifelong learning is deemed valuable in Iran historically and religiously, there is legislation aimed to undermine women’s social and legal progress. An example is women’s rights to an education in Iran. The right to an education is increasingly viewed as a basic human right worldwide but it monitored and regulated in Iran. We see education is strongly correlated to economic growth and political stability. It nurtures awareness, liberation, critical thinking, and success.

The rise of independent women’s rights activists is due to developments in technologies and increasing participation in digital spaces. The reform movement in Iran in the 1990’s encouraged secular thought and feminist thinking. This challenged Iran’s traditional structure by raising self-awareness of social issues, notably women’s rights issues. The emergence of social media has been a great tool to abolish pre-conceived notions of Iranian Women and have gave them a platform to reach out to the world. The media shapes the worlds opinion by deciding what and what not to broadcast. Social media has aided the empowerment of women by attracting global recognition. It gives a voice to the most marginalized groups in society and energizes activists to spread information and create discussions around the world, instantly. Social issues can no longer be hidden from the world by the Iranian government because public scrutiny forces their actions into light, and holds them accountable for wrongful discourse. Bloggers continue to demand social justice and refuse to be silent, knowing there is a possibility of harassment or jail time.

Feminism and activism pose a direct threat to the current power balances in Iran. Media of all forms is a great way to raise important questions and start conversations about women’s lack of rights in Iran. Communication technologies including Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. creates a stage for awareness and participation. Digital and social media is a very powerful tool and one of the most effective ways to advocate for women’s rights. The future gains of these technology platforms are endless. We can note that technology presents its own challenges in itself, because it is difficult to regulate and is quickly revolving. Women contributing equally to society will have an immense impact on socio-economic, social, and political development. Women being allowed to participate in society will not only benefit women, but all Iranian citizens; and on a bigger scope, the world.

Government of Iran

UCaetano It's better not to over-describe the political system of Iran, let alone the government. A more practical description is that Iran is an Islamic Repubic; not whatever you describe it as. As far as Iran is officially concerned, it is an Islamic Republic. --Vormeph 22:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with UCaetano. The pre-edit war version more accurately reflects the position. Vormeph has offered no real explanation for their change. DeCausa (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Firstly, there is bias in the wording. Using the word 'some' immediately implies sarcasm, which means bias. Because the entire wording was long and too descriptive, it wasn't appropriate at all to be included. The government_type of Iran is Islamic Republic. That's essentially that, and set in stone by Iran's own constitution, whatever you, or I, or UCaetano might say. Heck, it's even on the motto, so I have no idea why you're refusing to accept that. The fact I've been reported under these grounds (under the exploit and pretext of the so-called 3-reverts-rule) shows much irony in that a dispute between me and UCaetano has somehow been elevated by you (@DeCausa:) which means that clearly you are refusing to honour the edits I make. As far as I know, you yourself are also an edit-reverter, and we encountered each other on the Kids Company page. You gloriously rage-quit that article, bravo! --Vormeph 23:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Vormeph: There is no sarcasm implied in "some", but I'm ok with replacing "some form of" with "a form of" if that makes you happy. Government type is not as simple as that, and "de jure" clarifies that: while the government is labeled as a "islamic republic", in practice it is a republic system subject to a theocracy. I see no reason to move away from the original description before your change. And PLEASE stop edit warring. UCaetano (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@UCaetano: A more appropriate phrase is some variant of. Iran is indeed an Islamic republic, but it is not 100% a theocracy, but it's not 100% a full democracy/presidential republic either. It's therefore illogical to say that Iran is a de facto Unitarian presidential republic (considering the fact the president doesn't have as much power as the Supreme Leader). Hence, to avoid this discussion as to what government Iran is, it's better to just label it as Islamic republic and accept whatever government Iran says it is. It's not in our place to decide what kind of government Iran is; we're just editors, not politicians. This issue has been politicised enough following my referral to the administrators. My point is clear wherein Iran has a government whereby it is a variant of theocracy (or rather an amalgamation of theocracy and democracy). You could argue that Islamic republic is too broad since there are various Islamic republics unlike Iran. But as far as I'm aware, it is still more practical to use that term than what you've prescribed. -Vormeph 10:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's better for us to describe that amalgamation in as much detail as possible than to simply omit it for the sake of meaningless brevity. Rwenonah (talk) 11:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the word "some" can be omitted but otherwise the text should remain as it wss before the edit-warring. No need to dumb down, for, as Rwenonah says, meaningless brevity. DeCausa (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Rebooting the spacing. @Vormeph: you first said the "some" is sarcastic and introduces bias, but now you say "some" is a better phrasing? Iran isn't a "de facto" unitarian presidential republic, it is "de facto" an unitarian presidential republic subject to a Theocracy. Wikipedia isn't here to say exactly what governments want to be said, it's here to present a NPOV. If Iran starts claiming tomorrow that the sky is green, or that there is no such thing as gravity, none of that will matter for gravity or the colour of the sky. You're mistaking keeping a NPOV for NOR. There are plenty of sources listing Iran as a theocracy or theocratic republic, and we should make that explicit. UCaetano (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@UCaetano: Wherein, we approach the argument that sources should be cited ere we derive a conclusion as to what kind of government Iran is. There are many sources out there that can give contradicting viewpoints. Some may say Iran is simply a theocratic republic; or even an Islamic democratic republic; or even just simply an Islamic republic, which as I said earlier is simply an amalgamation of the former two mentioned. With regards to the word 'some', it's my bias that stands there, but it's one bias that should not be mentioned through my writing on an official article. Our position is this: we find sources of whichever side of the argument, and we come to a conclusion agreed as to what government Iran is. Vormeph 14:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not our role to "come to a conclusion agreed as to what government Iran is". The previous version, before your edit war, was the long standing consensus, and everyone here objects to your change and edit war. We need to keep a NPOV and, when relevant, show multiples sides of a question. You want to over-simplify and simply show the self-declared official position of Iran's government. Please stop trying to push you POV. UCaetano (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not my POV, it's Iran's. Let's take another country as an example: Britain is a constitutional monarchy. But according to your logic, Britain could also be a republic or some other government instead. In truth, I am only upholding what the original government is calling itself: that's not bias, that is just fact. Iran is an Islamic republic because its government says it is. North Korea, objectively isn't a democracy despite the name it has, but that doesn't mean you can change the name of the country to reflect the lack thereof. Remember, you gotta accept whatever reality there is; and we as editors simply have to abide by that, regardless of what the consensus is. Just because a majority of people disagree with the context of a government doesn't mean that context or government is correct by the name prescribed. I still stand by my argument that Iran is an Islamic republic and that the government's type is inscribed not only onto the name of the country, but also onto the motto, anthem and even in other places related thereto. It's more a case that you @UCaetano: are advocating what you feel is correct. Just because there's been a long-consensus on something doesn't mean it's the right one. Hence, the current modifications as yet are decent as they are truthful, despite the sarcasm in using 'de facto' and 'de jure'. Vormeph 15:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Iran's POV is being noted in the description box, but remember that WP aims to keep a NPOV, showing 2+ sides where necessary. That's why there's both "de jure" (what the government claims to be), and "de facto", what is generally agreed as being factual. regarding Britain, take a look at the United Kingdom page, Government is listed as a Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy. Plase stop strying to push your POV that the POV of Iran's government is the only one that matters. This is not the case at WP. It has nothing to do with what I feel is correct or not. UCaetano (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Vormeph, Absolutely not. Reflecting "Iran's POV" is not what we do and contravenes WP:NPOV. And we don't call North Korea "democratic" in its infobox. DeCausa (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: & @UCaetano:, for what it's worth, as it's controversial what the government of Iran is, it's better for us to actually cite sources pertaining to it. And what's more ironic, Mister DeCausa, is that you reported me based on that edit that you now quoting me on. I am not pushing anyone's POV here, but clearly there's an elite that wants their own POV upheld. If Iran isn't an Islamic republic, then what is it? Some banana republic with a cherry on top? Vormeph 17:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Please cut out these absurd personal asides. I have no interest in this imagined feud you think you have with me but which is only in your mind. We had one minor exchange several months ago which I can barely remember. You breached 3RR, which is the only reason I reported you - nothing to do with the edit itself or anything else. The answer to your question at the end of your post is the text which you tried to edit-war out of the article. It seems to me (I didn't write it) a reasonable summation of the WP:RS on the topic. We don't reflect any particular POV and certainly not that of the subject government. We follow WP:NPOV which states that we must represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." That summation, in my view, does just that. DeCausa (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You know @DeCausa:, I respect you for what your conscience dictates to be right; but what we deem as right is indeed questionable. The reason being is that an edit as controversial as what @UCaetano: made is controversial enough. Interestingly enough, we just have to learn to get along with one another as wiki-buddies because otherwise we're just going to tear up each article in the name of wikipedia. At its end, you have to understand that we're not always seeing things eye to eye, but it's important that we both look to each side of the argument. The fact of the matter is that I'm satisfied with the current edits I personally made to the article and am happy to leave it at that if all editors herein do agree as well. I did talk about Iran perhaps being an amalgamation of theocracy and democracy, wherein it can be explained within a section herein or another place. Regardless, I'd appreciate it if @DeCausa: had more convenience in respecting the decisions of others. We don't have to be foes. I forgive you for reporting me (which if you must be humiliated to know, was just a waste of time since it made no change whatsoever) but we can't be at each other's throats for any longer, especially now that I've landed in this article with a firm purpose of contributing. Vormeph 19:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work like that. You may be "satisfied with the edits I personally made to the article and am happy to leave it at that" but have you noticed that no other editors who have posted in this thread are happy with what you have done? Read WP:CONSENSUS. DeCausa (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, User:Vormeph has obviously made this more about inciting some kind of personal conflict with User:DeCausa than actually contributing - thus the fact that 95% of his post is about the latter editor and not the article. I don't care about the backstory Vormeph refers to, if it exists - he's harming the article with WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Wikipedia isn't a place to fight idealized conflicts with other editors. I'm not satisfied with the edits he's made, and nor is anyone else, so ... there's no reason for it to stay up. Again, there's no reason to omit the major aspects from the info box except some goal of arbitrary brevity, which I see no reason to support. Rwenonah (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I therefore call on all editors to cite where appropriate, and thusly prove, that Iran is a Unitary presidential republic OR an Islamic republic. It makes no sense that we have to go through this quarrel and government. The reason that @DeCausa: has a problem with me is because he wants everyone to think he is most credible for editing and not some other editor. I know he likes what I have to say here, but the guy is clever and very subtle in the way he does things. We must be careful, and I call on all editors to take heed and ensure that Wikipedia is not infected by false alarms and false facts that are being advocated on an epic scale by editors who think that a country ought to be what ought not to be. It's not in their place to decide that a country is democratic or not; it's not in their place to decide whether a country is a country or not. This is Wikipedia, not a political arena for discussion. It's silly enough that I've been reported; and it's stupid that this article has been locked because of it. If anything you have only @DeCausa: to blame for causing this mess which otherwise would have been solved peacefully and with dialogue. I can't believe that people are pointing the finger at me while he is roaming free and causing so much trouble. Just take a look at this talk page, and the archives thereof. I was even about to put sources to cite besides what I had edited erewhile. It's amazing that despite my efforts to contribute to the article, people continue to hold the view that I am disrupting the whole process thereof. I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm attacking people, but I'm really not; I'm only upholding what I hold dear for the sake of the article and for Wikipedia in general. I'm honestly astonished by what's happened in the past 24 hours and those responsible should be ashamed of themselves. I even created this section within the talk page to resolve this issue. Vormeph 21:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You were reported for violating Wikipedia rules. It's frankly narcissistic to think it occurred because of bias against you. To say that Iran is a "unitary presidential republic" utterly fails to do justice to the complexity of Iran's governance, in which the president is only one facet of a government controlled largely by Islamic clerics and heavily influenced by the military. It's an inaccurate oversimplification. Islamic republic is a meaningless term which can be interpreted in virtually any manner and provides no information to the reader. Moving on, "thusly" isn't a word. Finally, I'd ask that you not drag your obvious vendetta into otherwise stable articles; if you feel the need, address it through appropriate channels like WP:AN/I. Rwenonah (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rwenonah: Firstly, I never advocated the use of Unitary presidential republic as the government of Iran. But I used Islamic republic as a means of simplifying any concerns that there may be regarding Iran. I don't want there to be an entire description devoted to the government thereof, just beause we can't abstract a few things. It's silly to call me a narcissist beause I am not, but I am very forward in the way I think so I can see why you would call me that; but it's better not to judge me in such a way. Sorry if I gave off that impression. Vormeph 22:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Vormeph: Please do not portray this conflict falsely by saying "an edit as controversial as what UCaetano made". That is a blatant lie. You are the one who made a controversial edit. I reverted and you engaged in edit warring. If you really insist on this point, why don't you open a WP:RfC? Every single editor in this discussion disagrees with your proposed change. Stop trying to push your POV, you failed to do it by edit warring, and you failed to convince any other editor of your POV. UCaetano (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary @UCaetano: I have acted with a firm Conscience insofar I can attest. The fact of the matter is when it comes to comparing

de jure Islamic republic

de facto some variant of Theocracy: Unitary presidential republic under absolute islamic sovereignty

with simply Islamic republic, Reason agrees that the latter is more correct. The former isn't because it's actually incorrect. In Iran, Islamic law (Sharia) doesn't have the final say in constitutional matters; in Iran it is only there for guidance to ensure that laws are as Islamically-correct as possible. That doesn't mean Iran is under so-called 'absolute Islamic sovereignty'. Mind you, you lowercased 'islamic' which shows your utter disrespect towards other religions. Note also that Iran isn't completely a unitary presidential republic because the President doesn't have complete power over what happens in the country, it's the Supreme Leader. Iran is not a variant of theocracy because it never preached theocracy to begin with; like I said earlier Iran doesn't hold Sharia in full absolutism; if it were then Iran wouldn't have a constitution to begin with! One can safely say that Iran is an Islamic democracy, which is an amalgamation of Islam and democracy. Much like Christian democracy, they are simply fusions of a religion and democracy. That doesn't mean a country like Iran is a theocracy. There's a very well-drawn line between a theocracy and a religious democracy. The Islamic state is a theocracy, and an extremist one of that. That's how wrong you are. Do some reading first before you throw complete nonsense into Wikipedia. Vormeph 15:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Vormeph, your ill-informed opinions are not suppoted by WP:RS. You say that Sharia does not have the final say in constitutional matters. Yet Ran Hirschl (5 May 2011). Constitutional Theocracy. Harvard University Press. p. 37. ISBN 978-0-674-05937-5. says the exact opposite. You say Iran is not a variant of theocracy yet Juan Cole (4 October 2002). Sacred Space And Holy War: The Politics, Culture and History of Shi'ite Islam. I.B.Tauris. p. 190. ISBN 978-1-86064-736-9., Masoud Kheirabadi (1 January 2009). Iran. Infobase Publishing. p. 77. ISBN 978-1-4381-0512-3., Tom Lansford (1 September 2007). Democracy. Marshall Cavendish. p. 90. ISBN 978-0-7614-2629-5. all say the exact opposite. Most of the time it's hard to understand what you are saying because you mix in so much personal invective (are you aware of WP:NPA?) but when you do try to say something that's on topic, it's invariably based on nothing but WP:OR. DeCausa (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: You know, ignorance has no measure. I have the Constitution of Iran right in front of me and I have read it and it says nothing about it being a theocracy, and it says nothing about Sharia law being above Iranian law. In fact the opposite is true; Iranian law supercedes Sharia. As you are a lawyer, I think you should be better accustomed in interpreting this. It's very ironic that despite you being a lawyer you cite sources, yet not the origins of them all: the actual constitution! Go read it and then decide whether Iran is a theocracy or not. If Iran is a theocracy then it wouldn't have a constitution. Saudi Arabia is a theocracy because it uses the Qu'ran and Hadith to justify its decisions. Despite the first article of Iran's constitution, there's no real harm in it as the constitution actually asserts what the Iranian government does, rather than what God expects thereof. Iran is simply an Islamic democracy. I draw that from the actual constitution, with the amendments. You know, Britain can actually be dubbed as a Christian democracy because it still has Christianity as that state religion since our monarch is legally tied to the church of England. Would it be correct then if I say our country is also a theocracy despite the fact every morning Christian ceremonies occur within parliament? And that still we discriminate Catholics pertaining to our monarch? Indeed, it's hypocritical to preach theocracy there, my friend. Take that into account. Vormeph 18:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Voremph, read WP:PRIMARY. Your personal interpretation of the Iranian constitution is utterly irrelevant in the face of a reliable secondary source pubished by, for example, Harvard University Press. Sorry, but this is how Wikipedia works. All we do is just reflect what reliable secondary sources say, right or wrong. It's quite limited really, and doesn't suit everyone. We're not the place to challenge what secondary sources say from our own analysis of primary sources. We're not even a forum to express our personal views. We're also not a place to get into anything personal with anyone else. Maybe another website would suit you better. DeCausa (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Sorry to disappoint you; this guy will not be leaving any time soon. For what it's worth, rules can be broken if there is an imbalance between context and Reason. The sources you provide only describe one viewpoint of Iran, and for what it's worth it's pretty flawed because they are not experts of Iranian law: valid objections, of course. But neither are we experts at Iranian law, and we simply deduce a conclusion based on what Iran says and what Iran does. There is no mention of Sharia in the Constitution; but the fact of the matter is that Iran's Majlis passes laws that are to be compatible with Islam and the Constitution. That doesn't mean Sharia is above the law: quite the contrary. In fact, Sharia is actually a component, and it is only used when an interpretation of Islam vs. and interpretation of the Constitution can not confer on a certain argument. At any rate, just because Wikipedia is 'limited' doesn't mean people can't contribute based on anecdotal evidence, videos, pictures and all sorts which describe events that occur worldwide. Information travels at a much faster pace in our world today, it is trivial and cumbersome to look in books (or ebooks) to find evidence of something; hence we now have social media, online news articles, blogs, pictures and videos that all describe and reveal current events as they really are. Interviews are also a given in this regard. What I am saying is that maybe this is just the website that requires the compilation of all such media, which by itself creates a fair and just environment for research and learning for everyone. I'm not stupid; telling me to politely f off isn't professional. The funny thing about you though is that whenever I talk with you at a personal level you bring up a Wikipedia rule like a cover to justify your shield. Instead lower it, and talk without citing such. I'm not here to hurt people, but more to enlighten them as they unto me. The fact regarding the government's name in this article is that it was incorrect and didn't reflect Iran. The argument still stands: Iran is not a theocracy. It's a democratic Islamic government: an Islamic republic. Vormeph 19:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. I skimmed your post to see if you cited any sources. Predictably you don't, so you don't warrant a substantive reply. I did spot that you are here "to enlighten" us, which was entertaining. DeCausa (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: I did not know lawyers skim read text as they do their meets when they see it. Come come, it is clearly obvious you are more comfortable in talking to legalised text than a sinful art! Vormeph 20:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. Your interpretation of the Iranian constitution is irrelevant here. Rwenonah (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@UCaetano:That's a lie! You never edited it to that, no sir! You put:

de jure Islamic republic

de facto some variant of Theocracy: Unitary presidential republic under absolute islamic sovereignty

And I initially put

Islamic republic

Simply because it makes sense as it is a type of government, and valid too. Remember that a government_type doesn't mean every government ought to follow how that type ought to be. France and Russia are both presidential republics but they function extremely differently. Likewise, Iran isn't completely a Unitary presidential republic. But because I was being reported, threatened and harassed on my own page I had no other choice but to compromise with the government_type current on the page as of this date. I'm the one who's creating problems here? I'm the one who's trying to resolve the problems! You're the one creating problems by falsely putting information about Iran and then reverting all edits made. Even before I arrived you were already liberally reverting any edits you didn't agree with. It just so happened that I've planted my feet on this article firmly and I ain't moving and I'm gonna continue editing. And trust me, we're going to have a brilliant working relationship together. That I can certainly assert with confidence. Vormeph 15:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Support long-standing consensus version prior to Vormeph's edit-warring on 29 0ctober (although I have no objection to constructive tweaking such as the removal of the word "some"). The essential issue is that Vormeph wishes to reduce the description to "Islamic Republic", and particularly to remove the reference to "theocracy". His/her reasons are that we should abide by the Iranian government's POV[1] and, per WP:OR, it is his/her reading of the Iranian constitution.[2][3]. Whilst Iran describes itself as an "Islamic Republic" the reliable sources describe it as a nuanced mix of theocracy, democracy and presidential republic[4][5][6][7] albeit subject to the ultimate authority of Sharia.[8]. The current wording is a reasonable summation of this nuanced mix. Vormeph's version fails WP:NPOV and does not reflect the WP:RS. DeCausa (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Support long-standing consensus, per DeCausa. I have yet to see a valid issue with it pointed out. Rwenonah (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: & @Rwenonah: The term theocracy doesn't make sense; if Iran were really a theocracy then that implies any country with a state religion is also a theocracy. It also implies Britain is a theocracy because the clergy still have a say in political and legal matters here. Heck, we even got clergy in the House of Lords! We even have a state religion. Britain, however, isn't a theocracy; but simply a religious democracy albeit more secular. Iran is also a religious democracy, and it evolves according to the will of its people. At any rate, I am satisfied with the current edits made, despite the flaws in using de facto and de jure. Iran is an Islamic republic; it may not be secular, but that doesn't mean it's theocratic. Religious democracy is more the best of both worlds in this regard. Thus, it boils down to having either Islamic republic or Unity presidential republic. Either are fine because both of them apply to Iran. But the rest of the drivel that I had to remove because it was biased and lacked a logical foundation. Just because some sources from outside Iran claim the country is a theocracy doesn't mean it is one. I've read countless articles about the USA being a very Christian nation, but that doesn't mean it's a theocracy. But anyway, it's all down to having the Iranian government either as:

A. Islamic republic

B. Unitary presidential republic

They are short and to-the-point. Vormeph 00:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You're displaying a serious lack of understanding about Iran's government. A cleric is the head of state, controlling the military and possessing primacy over the secular President. Iran's system of government is based on rule in both secular and religious matters by religious jurists. Thus, a theocracy - "government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided ". Islamic republic is a meaningless term that has been used by numerous different, wholly different states, from Pakistan to Afghanistan to Iran. It's like people's republic - it's a term that is too broad to have meaning to the reader. Iran factually isn't a presidential republic, either, since a cleric ultimately holds supreme power, which contradicts the basis of republicanism. It's fallacious to compare Britain and Iran, given that British people are one of the most sceptical about religion worldwide and almost totally support a secular state. Ditto for the US - there's a massive difference between being a religious nation and being literally governed by clergy. In short, there's no reaosnw e need to choose your cherry picked, truncated options when we can give a full, neutral description based on reliable sources. Rwenonah (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The Supreme Leader doesn't have control over everything literally. The Supreme Leader is only in charge of overseeing that Islamic law is enforced, rather than Iranian law. But the fact of the matter is that secular elements do exist within Iran, but it's moreso on the President and Parliament's side, not the Supreme Leader's nor the clergy. For what it's worth the Guardian Council is composed of 50% clergy and 50% secular lawyers. If Iran were really a theocracy, there would be no option for such an arrangement. Iran can be safely described as an Islamic democracy because it is in fact democratic (even the Supreme Leader is elected). Logically speaking, Iran's law supercedes Islamic law (Sharia); but the Hadith (regulations) and Sunnah (traditions) are simply advisory and are only consulted if a disagreement is found; in most cases Sharia is used as well if there's a need for it. It's dependent in the end. Thus, Iran is constitutionally not theocratic; but simply wants to get the best of both worlds in being secular and Islamic. I assure you. The term Islamic republic was used to describe a certain political system whereby Islam can function within a democracy. Just because the clergy are in power, doesn't mean that it's theocratic. Our monarch is Head of the Church of England; but that doesn't mean the UK is functionally theocratic. Every MP must swear allegiance to that monarch (and thus the Church); that doesn't mean the UK is theocratic, but it's just customs there. I think some people are overusing the term 'theocratic'; not only that but are also comparing theocracy to oppression/strife/extremism. The Holy See is a theocracy, but as far as I'm aware it doesn't oppress its adherents, not outdoors anyway. Vormeph 01:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vormeph (talk • contribs)

The Supreme Leader is the head of state and most influential part of the Iranian government. He appoints the judiciary, which is overwhelmingly based on clerical interests. So obviously the clergy has a significant amount of power with in the government, probably to the point of being the most powerful element.

But more importantly, your entire post illustrates how Iran is infinitely more complex than simply "theocracy" or "Islamic republic". No one here is saying Iran is an absolute theocracy; it includes elements of theocracy and democracy. It certainly isn't a democracy - all candidates for any positions are vetted by the Guardian Council, which incidentally is wholly made up of Islamic jurists, meaning that the people get relatively little choice. Nor is it a state wholly governed on religious principles or wholly by clergy. The question is, does "Islamic republic", your preferred choice, illustrate this best? Or does "de jure Islamic republic, de facto some variant of Theocracy: Unitary presidential republic under absolute islamic sovereignty" better illustrate this complexity? I think the answer is evident. Rwenonah (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Rwenonah: Hence, Islamic democracy. If you want, we can amalgamate all this and dub Iran as: Islamic democratic republic. In doing this, we:

1. Acknowledge that Iran is a Republic;

2. Acknowledge that Iran is democratic: BUT

a. is governed by Islamic law

b. not all positions are democratic: AND

i. it is ruled by Islamic clergy

ii. Sharia/Hadith/Sunnah are cited but not always used

It spares having to use all the descriptive factors pertaining to Iran neither being completely a presidential Republic or a theocracy. But I still disagree with the notion that Iran isn't an Islamic republic because, well, it is, no matter how flawed it may be. At any rate, this is the only compromise I can think of which is not only neutral but also truthful to what Iran is currently. You can't say that Iran isn't democratic because that's illogical. In fact, all political positions in Iran are in some way elected either directly or indirectly by the people. The general idea is that the democracy in Iran represents what the Iranian people want. It may not be what we want due to our secular ways, but the culture in Iran is different. Know this, because we need to stop looking at countries from our own point of view, but instead view them objectively from the top-down. That said, the compromise I have offered is something I have forwarded. It is either Islamic democratic republic or the current edits that have been made, which are simplification of the bias that was introduced to the article for a while now. Vormeph 01:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

So you agree that Iran is a de jure Islamic republic. You seem to agree it is some variant of a theocracy since it is ruled by Islamic clergy. You seem to agree it takes the form of a unitary presidential republic. I'm not sure if you agree that it is under absolute islamic sovereignty, but that's hard to dispute since its founding doctrine is "absolute guardianship of the jurist". So where do you have issue with that description? You want to include something that supposedly better describes those elements but is shorter and more vague? I'm confused. Francis Fukyama calls it "a mixture of theocratic and democratic elements" - that's the best way for us to describe it, and in line with, as far as I know, preponderance of reliable sources.

Now, let's clarify something. It's not "either Islamic democratic republic or the current edits". It's whatever consensus decides. Islamic democratic republic is worse, since it not only implies that Iran is a republic, which it de facto isn't, since supreme power is exercised by unelected authority, but also calls it democratic, which it isn't for the same reason. Viewed objectively, Iran isn't a democracy or a republic - it includes bits of both, but also theocratic and oligarchic elements. The more we describe that, the better. You need to prove why we have some obligation to be brief rather than simply describing it in detail. Rwenonah (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we please keep the ongoing discussion in the other section, and leave this space open for other editors to comment? I'll move the discussions to the other section. UCaetano (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, moved the discussion back the the according section. Vormeph, please see for yourself, the current consensus about the Gorvernment Type was added about a month ago by an IP, and nobody has objected (change diff here). You changed (here) to "Islamic Republic" only, which we all objected, and I reverted (here), while you proceeded wage an edit war. You're the one who made controversial changes, and the burden is on you to convince other editors. UCaetano (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Rwenonah: What do you mean? They are elected you know! The Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts and can be removed at any time by the said Assembly. The people elect who is part of the Assembly of Experts. That's democratic; it is very much just that. Do some research first. Vormeph 11:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The Assembly of Experts is wholly made up of Islamic theologians, voted on from lists of candidates vetted by the Guardian Council, which is itself selected by the Supreme Leader. A system where a group chosen by the leader chooses who supervises the leader is obviously not democratic. In fact, the Guardian Council vets all candidates for all elected positions, so the Supreme Leader controls who can be elected. I'm not sure if you're just ignorant about how the Iranian government works or trying to pretend it is democratic for some other reasons of your own, but that's obviously not the case. Rwenonah (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian Council consists of 50% secular lawyers and 50% Islamic lawyers. The duty thereof is to ensure candidates are adherent to either the Constitution or Islamic law and values. Naturally this is what's to be expected from an Islamic republic. The point here is that Islam isn't being held in absolute Sovereignty but rather it is being used as a prerogative to ensure colleagiality between the executive and the legislature. It's ironic you call me ignorant, while the ignorant never answer questions but only ask them. Iran is a variant of democracy, and it does so by fusing it with Islam. No matter what you nor I think, that is the case with Iran. It's not in our interests to randomly put new labels under the government_type. Iran, whether you are willing to suck it in or not, is an Islamic republic which at its core means a republic that is governed by Islam. The other alternative, is to talk about Iran being an Islamic democratic republic. As far as I'm aware, the people in Iran haven't risen up against the system which shows that they are satisfied with it. You know, currently under Britain's government_type it says constitutional monarchy, but that term constitutional monarchy is too broad as well. Literally, there are countries that call themselves constitutional monarchy like Kuwait or Norway yet they totally different functioning systems. Maybe I should go to the Britain wikipedia to address this vile hypocrisy? The more this debate continues, the more hypocrisy I see from the editors here. It only makes me more right in the changes I made to the Iran page in that it is an Islamic republic despite the varying differences among countries' use of the term; likewise Britain is a constitutional monarchy despite the broad term for it. The fact you are discriminating Iran under the pretext that Islamic republic is too broad is hypocritical as opposed to what other countries have as their government type. What do you have to say now? Vormeph 14:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vormeph (talk • contribs)

New proposal: de jure Islamic Republic de facto theocratic-republican hybrid: unitary presidential republic subject to an Islamic Supreme Leader

Very well sourced (from Harvard Law School) and accurate. What do you think? UCaetano (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Why should we use sources that are written by people who have no relation to Iran whatsoever? At any rate, I've found something very troubling: an anonymous edit was made to Iran's government_type which changed it from its previous name to the one that I opposed. Here is the link: old_version of Iran page. What that means is we cannot verify the integrity of absolute Islamic Sovereignty or that variant used in the old version. The second description would be accepted, but it's too wordy. Instead, it should be:

• Islamic Unitary presidential republic

You can cite as much as you want under the relevant sections pertaining to the government of Iran, arguing that the Supreme Leader has sovereignty etc, provided there is a reference (which you have). Like I said, it acknowledges that Iran is an Islamic democracy (be it as it may, despite how controversial it may be), and with all other tokens appreciated. Vormeph 14:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vormeph (talk • contribs)

"Why should we use sources that are written by people who have no relation to Iran whatsoever?" This point is absurdly irrelevant. Iran has SOME elements of a democracy, but that does not a democracy makes. Ancient Rome was a Republic, run by an elected senate, but wasn't a democracy. There is no "it should be" we. Please stop trying to push your POV. UCaetano (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@UCaetano: Good find: I support that wording. @Vormeph: I have to say it: you are hopelessly clueless when it comes to Wikipedia. Firstly can you learn to indent properly (and sign your posts). Read WP:INDENT. Failure to indent posts on a talk page properly is disruptive. Secondly, what do you mean that the edit was "troubling" because it was by an IP and we therefore "cannot verify the integrity of 'absolute islamic sovereignty'". Are you serious? We don't verify the integrity of an edit in that way. You need to read WP:V. Thirdly, "why should we use sources from people who have no relation to Iran whatsoever?" Because that's not criteria you are entitled to use in Wikipedia. You need to read WP:RS. You are revealing some quite basic misunderstandings of how Wikipedia operates. I don't believe you have read and understood any of the key policies, and because of that you are wasting our time. DeCausa (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: You are right, but Wikipedia guidelines are essentially just that: guidelines, not rules. At any rate, it boils down to what I have proposed and what @UCaetano: has proposed. Vormeph 15:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No, you've got that completely wrong. We have guidelines and they are called "guidelines". We have rules and they are called "policies". You really are wasting our time. DeCausa (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: No time is being wasted. Put aside our differences and let's just think this issue through. It wouldn't make sense to call Iran theocratic because the term 'theocratic' is too broad and can be applied in any sense. It's better to use the term Islamic rather than Theocratic which implies that Iran is specifically an Islamic country (whether theocratic or not). We do away with the de facto and de jure labels because they over-complicate things. I'm willing to have a side-note which references this Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists article. Thus:

• Islamic unitary presidential republic

We not only clarify that Iran is under guardianship of Islamic jurists, but is also a unitary state and a presidential republic. (With no mention of Iran being democratic or not). How does that sound? Vormeph 15:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No. That's now how it works. You have to abide by Wikipedia policies. Have you read any of the policies I've linked to? You didn't even read WP:INDENT because I've just had to correct your indentation yet again. Please please please at least read WP:OR. Nothing can go into a Wikipedia article which is just your own analysis and knowledge of a topic. That's all your post is. It has no value in Wikipedia terms. If you want to put a solution forward, it has to be on the basis that it reflects what the WP:RS say - and please read that. This is what UCaetano has done with his/her proposal. This is the basics have how Wikipedia works. It's about all about secondary reliable sources. If you put forward secondary sources to support what you want, then the discussion to what it should be - a comparison of the sources - rather than what you're doing now which will be ignored. DeCausa (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not even using any sources. I am attempting at compromise based on what you, @DeCausa: want. I am taking into account what @UCaetano: has also proposed. It is also something that @Rwenonah: has also argued. The argument is that Iran is governed by Islamic jurists. Fine. But that doesn't mean absolute Islamic sovereignty. Thus, we don't have to use secondary sources, because the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists article already has the references for us. Before you raise your shield with your references to Wikipedia guidelines, I'd like to remind you that a consensus is about to be reached regardless of what Wikipedia guidelines have to say. But the topic at hand is not Wikipedia guidelines, so please sit down and let us not derail the topic through these fallacies. It's high time that we ended this. Tomorrow the lock will be lifted, and I don't want the page to be locked over this issue because of all this drama. We need a mediator for this to gather what has been acknowledged and what ought to be proposed, if we can't hit a mark. It's interesting but, there are subjective interpretations of Democracy and Theocracy.

I am proposing that the government_type be reworded to avoid bias. The first step is by removing de facto and de jure since it makes no sense in having them. A country can't be de facto and de jure otherwise that implies there are disagreements as to what a country is, even though the officials therein are the only most responsible and accurate to give an exact description. First condition is that those two terms be removed forthwith. Second condition is that the term 'theocratic' isn't used to describe the government because the term theocratic is too broad and can refer to any religion. Replace theocratic with Islamic. Vormeph 16:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You're doing exactly the opposite: adding bias, and by the loads. "de facto" and "de jure" are extremely relevant here, when the government for is extremely complex. Islamic means nothing in this context, it simply redirects to Islam, which again means nothing in this context: it could be cultural, religious, etc. Take a look again at my proposal, it shows both what the government calls itself and what scholars agree that it is in practice. You're trying to oversimplify while adding a very strong bias towards "republic" and "democracy" in a government which, while having aspects of each one, is in practice neither. No other editor so far has agreed with your proposal, and all have agreed with mine, shall we end the discussion then? And PLEASE indent your posts accordingly and sign them. UCaetano (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@UCaetano: Fine, but I was not emptily referring to Islamic but rather Islamic. The latter link is different. So, removing de facto and de jure we can attest:

theocratic-republican hybrid: unitary presidential republic subject to an Islamic Supreme Leader

• We rename theocratic to Islamic. The latter links to the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists article and relates to how Iran is currently governed. Plus it removes ambiguity surrounding the term theocratic and makes it more specific that Iran is a country governed by Islamic law, specifically pertaining to Islam rather than just any religion.

• Because republic is already used more than once, there's no need to repeat it. Thus the government can become:

Islamic unitary presidential republic

The reason I removed hybrid is because it states the obvious. Iran is a hybrid, and the reader can assert that from what is read from the above description. I also removed references to Iran being a democracy and ommitted some as agreed by DeCausa. The latter part of the description subject to an Islamic Supreme Leader is also not needed because it's more suited to being part of a section explaining the government Iran has, rather than it being part of a government type. Because the Supreme Leader is Islamic, there's no need to use it anyway, especially now that we've replaced theocratic with Islamic. We've made it up to here, and the reader will be redirected to the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists page which talks about the system's purpose within Iran. There's no mention of it being theocratic, but that's because Iran is constitutionally not theocratic. All arguments aside, this is the result of such a compromise:

Islamic unitary presidential republic

Why would one object to this phrasing? It not only satisfies both sides of the argument but it also avoids bias and has no mention of democracy in it. Vormeph 17:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Why? Because it's something you just made up and isn't based on any of the sources raised in this thread. DeCausa (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the question is why bother to try to achieve brevity when we can simply describe everything fully? @DeCausa:'s proposal is more specific and accurate (Iran's government is much more complex than simply unitary presidential republic") and more in line with scholarly opinion. Rwenonah (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Rwenonah: How does theocratic-republican hybrid: unitary presidential republic subject to an Islamic Supreme Leader solve our problems? It has many problems because there are broad terms used. Like I said in the above, I do not accept this change and I will remove it if I see it in the Iran page. The fact is, it's not appropriate to call Iran theocratic. The proposal I have made is the most suitable and neutral. Vormeph 23:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

"Solve our problems"? We don't have any problems. You have a problem because you won't follow Wikipedia policy (the "rules"). The protection on the article ends to today. Any editor is entitled to revert the article back to the pre-edit war version. If you revert again I'm going to take you straight back to WP:AN3. And by the way, any change doesn't require you to accept it, a consensus amongst other editors is sufficient. DeCausa (talk) 07:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Vormeph, here are the issues with your proposal:

1. Islamic isn't clear in this context. We don't want the users to be redirected to another link and read an entire article to understand. Theocratic is completely different from "Islamic". It is (again) oversimplifying, and also deceptive.
2. It claims that Iran is a republic. It isn't. It's a republican system operating under a theocracy.

Now what's the issue with my proposal? Your only reply so far is that "Why should we use sources that are written by people who have no relation to Iran whatsoever?", but it is clear, referenced and unambiguous, not requiring any further readings: Iran's government is a mix of republic and theocracy, having an elected republican government subject to a Supreme Leader who must follow Islam. UCaetano (talk) 09:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I will not accept any consensus that is advocated by a man who threatens me. @DeCausa: was the one who intervened without a good cause and got the article locked. He harassed me on my own page, and threatened and reported me which resulted in this page being locked. And now you guys want to accept his proposal? NEVER. He will not be heeded. If DeCausa were more diplomatic, I would be willing to accept his proposal; but unfortunately his conduct has made it impossible for me to accept any solution by him. It's hypocritical because he accuses me of making up terms while he himself made up one just now that you guys are willing to accept.

You're right that Theoratic is different from Islamic; the latter is more specific and has more context behind it. That page Guardianship of the Jurists has relevance and it relates to the governship of Iran. I will not accept any change without a link that is provided to that page. Sorry people, but DeCausa cannot be credited with resolving this problem while he was the only one who created it by reporting me, especially now that he has threatened to report me if I dismiss his edits. It's very sociopathic and narcissistic of him, and he deserves no sympathy in what he does. Vormeph 09:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't made a proposal. UCaetano has. DeCausa (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Because we have very little time. I propose that we roll back the article before the appearance of absolute Islamic Sovereignty came into being. The government then would be:

• unitary theocratic presidential republic

It has been used on the article and was in place for a while now, without the de facto and de jure elements. This is not my own edit, it is an edit that was put in place before any of us deliberated upon it. All in favour? Vormeph 11:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

"I will not accept any consensus that is advocated by a man who threatens me" That's irrelevant to this discussion, if you have a problem with another user take it out of here, file a complaint or whatever. This is not the place for this type of behavior. "I will not accept any change without a link that is provided to that page". You clearly don't understand how WP works, and are essentially filibustering any consensus to push your POV, please stop. It's not up to you to "accept" any changes, you're the one who introduced the changes everyone else disagrees with but you keep on trying to push you POV. But taking your point in account, here's another alternative:

New proposal: de jure Islamic Republic de facto theocratic-republican hybrid: unitary presidential republic subject to Islamic Supreme Leader and Council of Experts

Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists is a general and broad concept not exclusive to Iran, and the way it applies in practice is the Council of Experts, so the Council of Experts should be in there, not the Guardianship. Happy? If not, let me know and I'll open a request for mediation or arbitration by a 3rd party. This discussion has gone too far and you show absolutely no willingness to compromise. UCaetano (talk) 11:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

So, @Vormeph:, @DeCausa:, @Rwenonah:, what's the verdict? Do we have agreement? UCaetano (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed. With a good source. DeCausa (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Agreed. Rwenonah (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• I've skim read over Governance of the Jurist by Imam Khomeini and have found nothing to support an argument on my side. What I thus suggest, as a means of ceasing all this, is to use the government_type as prescribed in this version of the Iran article: old_version. The fact that the government_type has been constantly edited means there is an underlying problem which ought to be fixed. As far as I'm concerned the government_type used in this older article Unitary theocratic presidential Islamic republic can be used, or simplified to just Theocratic unitary presidential republic. Let's not try to make the government_type too descriptive since that should be devoted to a section in its own right. If we can accept the government_type of how it was before it was tampered with by an anonymous user, then I'm happy to accept that change. Vormeph 21:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vormeph (talk • contribs)

@Vormeph:, you don't agree then? Shall I open a mediation request? UCaetano (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@UCaetano: As far as the logs are aware, I've made more compromises than anyone else here. That requires further compromise and initiative in that your title lacks cohesion in what it's supposed to advocate. I recommend a mediator, but we don't have to go that far as a short-term fix is to simply use the government mentioned in the older article I linked. Vormeph 21:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vormeph: The original one isn't accurate, and that's why it was changed. Iran isn't a republic, it's a mix of a republican system operating under a theocracy. You can't simply call it a republic, do you agree with that? UCaetano (talk) 11:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, I reverted the description to the previous consensus according to WP:BRD. This doesn't mean that the discussion is over, let's reach a new consensus and then change the article to reflect it, ok? In the meantime we keep the previous version. Thanks! UCaetano (talk) 12:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@UCaetano: As far as I'm aware, it's hard to classify what Iran is; but that's why it's important to explain the various elements that govern Iran's leadership. Hence, your proposal that Iran is subject to the Supreme Leader and Council of Experts is partly correct; Iran is also subject to various other councils. In which case, it might as well be supervision by various councils as well as the Supreme Leader. Vormeph 00:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

That's false; the Supreme Leader is the ultimate authority and the entire government is technically subject to him. Rwenonah (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vormeph: I agree that it's hard to classify what Iran is, but it is really easy to classify what Iran IS NOT. It isn't a democracy: laws and rules are made without the people influencing (either through direct or indirect voting); it isn't a republic, as the supreme power in the country isn't held by elected representatives. Ira has some aspects of a democratic system, and some aspects of a republican system, but in fact, it is neither. UCaetano (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@UCaetano: It's complex because jurists who are proactive in Islamic and Iranian law decide on the outcome of anything within the country, including who becomes the Supreme Leader. Iran functions more like a legal Republic whereby governship is done by thsoe who are lawyers, jurists etc. Vormeph 10:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, there is no such thing as a "legal republic", that's a completely made up concept. It's like saying that the Vatican is a "catholic democracy", because the decisions are made by an elected cardinal. That's why we need the info box to be clear, descriptive and accurate. Sometimes it is better to use more words to avoid confusion. As you said yourself, it's complex, so the infobox should make that clear. UCaetano (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@UCaetano: I never suggested the term be used. Although, I think this underlying issue as to what to name Iran's government is more to do with Wikipedia's rigid policies in that we can't produce an interpretation that editors can agree on. To an extent, your suggestion in that Iran's government is a hybrid, although has a citation for its theocracy, technically wouldn't be promulgated according to Wikipedia's own policies. It's more a case that Wikipedia ought to allow editors to be their own historians in ascertaining what ought and what ought not to be according to discussion. At any rate, I think we can reach a verdict that Iran is at least some sort of hybrid. So, hybrid Republic? Vormeph (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

"technically wouldn't be promulgated according to Wikipedia's own policies"

What do you mean by this? And this is where you're getting things wrong: I'm not NAMING the government of Iran, I'm DESCRIBING it. The government NAMES itself an "islamic republic", while the source I gave DESCRIBES it as a "a theocratic-republican hybrid":

The annual revolutionary celebrations provide an occasion to look at how the Islamic Republic’s political system, a theocratic-republican hybrid, has evolved since 1979.

You keep pushing for two things:

• calling it a "republic"
• omitting the term "theocracy" or a varian

Neither make sense in this context. Iran isn't a republic, and the presidential system is subject to a theocratic power. UCaetano (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@UCaetano: Okay, I can compromise here. I'm willing to accept a label of theocratic or Islamic aganist any description of Iran's government. But as far as we're concerned no republic is perfect, and ultimately the term means that a monarchy was abolished; although mentally the clerical elite behave as one. Suffice it to say that we can accept your description, but in the comments section (not visible in the article) make a mention of this discussion and that it should not be changed without further discussion. In the meantime, I move a vote of confidence in favour of your description so long as the comments therein are honoured. Vormeph (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vormeph: Thanks you for taking the higher road and conceding on this issue. I'll make sure I'll mention the very long discussion. And thank a lot for keeping it civil here despite the controversy, that's what makes wikipedia move forward, when despite our disagreements, we can still keep the dialog open. I'll make the changes, have a nice day :) UCaetano (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Rye-96: Can you please explain why you have modified the edits I made in the intro? Iran is technically governed under the idea of Welayat fagih so what's the problem? Vormeph (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

We use English on English Wikipedia. Sometimes we use a foreign word or phrase if it is commonly used in English which is not the case here (the linked to article title is in English per WP:COMMONNAME). We also sometimes do it if there is no direct equivalent in English, but here, as you noted on your own talk page, "you do realise that Welayat Faqih and Supreme Leader of Iran are the same thing". DeCausa (talk) 07:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vormeph: Supreme Leader is what it is referred to in official texts. It is used in Iranian media as well. There is no debate needed in that case.
Rye-96 (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: I'm aware of that. Fair enough if it's a foreign term, but we all have to address things somehow. Vormeph (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Dead links issue

There are loads of dead links on the Iran page. There are also links which reference things which are over a decade old and lack current value. Some opinions and facts which are older than ten years old lack relevance, and I have made a point to remove all such references and links. Overtime, I will find more current references that are younger than ten years of age. The dead links should not be reinstated as it means that the article will have information being referenced by sources which do not exist. (It potentially also creates an issue that a user could also 'make up' a reference and claim that it's dead, in the hopes that such a claim be bought). Suffice it to say that none of this is tolerable, and the dead links will be kept out of the article. For what it's worth, most of the dead links have secondary references which aren't dead. I have checked some of the dead links and this is very much the case. I thus ask editors to please stop adding dead links to the article and to remove dead links because they are unhelpful and counterproductive in the verifiability of the Iran article. Vormeph (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Could we get you to read over WP:KDL and WP:MDLI and pls looks at the references section you edits are causing many errors. -- Moxy (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Moxy: I have fixed the errors caused by the dead links. Thanks! Vormeph (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I beg to differ. You simply removed all dead links without reinstating anything new. Dead links do not mean the references do NOT exist anymore. I indeed as well sincerely suggest you read those WPs Moxy has linked. Also, you need a WP:CON to push for something like this. What were seeing, is that you first mass remove, and then try to push for a talk page discussion upon reversion of your stuff. Sorry, but it doesn't work like that. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You have three editors stating either here or through edit summaries that they don't appreciate your edits. You're going against a pretty clear voice of the majority. Don't revert it again before having reached a consensus for your changes. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: What, so you'd rather have dead references? Wtf. I'm digging out dead references and replacing them with newer references. That is something to be appreciated. Besides, the removal of dead references hasn't harmed the article in a negative way. The only reason you're against it is because I took the time to get rid of the dead references, rather than you. The edit is final, and we are continuing the article without the dead references. I can't believe you're actually accusing me of 'blanking' out or 'vandalising' the page because I have removed references which do not have any existing URL! This discussion is final: the dead references are removed and are counterproductive in keeping them. Vormeph (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course, you do not get to single-handedly decide that your edit "is final". Wikipedia is a community project. Dead links should generally not be removed but tagged and if possible repaired; if a working replacement is available, it can be used, but that doesn't mean removing the dead links before a replacement is even provided. LjL (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Clear threat to continue edit warring. Sure, revert it again, but don't complain you get reported. You're totally ignoring the voice of the majority. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Screw voice of majority! If the majority say 2 + 2 = 5, that don't mean 2 + 2 = 4 no more. It's just outrageous! 2 + 2 = 4 because logic dictates so. And logic also dictates that when an article is smothered in dead links, they have to be removed and replaced by links which are newer. Why? Because it undermines verifiability. If someone new reads the article and wants to verify a source, only to find that source has a broken URL, then that's gonna look bad on the editors and the integrity of the article as a whole. You know, if there were a bug with Wikipedia's website; and a programmer tried to fix that bug, only to find that they can't fix the bug beause the 'voice of the majority' say so, then that's only going to prolong progress and change. I'm sorry, but logic has priority over democracy; and we all agree (even you) that dead links are not feasible to be kept. You can report me all you want, all administrators will agree with me that if a newer link is available, then that is feasible to replace the broken/dead/old links. Vormeph (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Then add the new link (as long as it sources the same content) before or concurrently with removing the old link. If you remove a link (dead or not) and leave content unsourced, people will be well-entitled to reinstate it. Dead links can often by repaired, for instance by using archived versions. LjL (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

First, WP:V does not require that sources are currently available online; indeed, it doesn't require that sources have ever been available online. Second, dead links can very often be repaired. If you can't or won't do that, then you can tag the the link as dead. Other editors who have the skills, tools and/or tenacity, born of an appreciation of the logic and communal experience that underpin WP:KDL, find and repair links once they have been tagged as dead. Third, Wikipedia's ways of working have been developed by consensus; this includes methods for maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia such as those described at Wikipedia:Link rot and methods for protecting the encyclopedia from editors who refuse to accept consensus. NebY (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It's very hard to know why anyone would edit against WP:KDL here the logic and reasonableness of which seems obvious – let edit-war against it. Anyway, Vormeph is now blocked so hopefully that's an end to it. DeCausa (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@NebY: Despite my blocking, my proposal to replace dead links with more recent ones has been realised thanks to @Moxy:. I am also pleased that the article has now taken up a new shakeup whereby we shall remove these dead links and replace them with great care. I was wrong to have removed all dead links without finding the proper references to replace them. When it comes to consensus there are some things which democracy can never answer to: logic. It is indeed logical to remove dead links, nevertheless. Although people who view me as their foe have decided to act hastily in reporting me rather than resorting to diplomacy. Mind you that I created this discussion on the talk page therefore I have shown enough diplomacy in the face of all the opposition made. What has originally been proposed will not be retracted; but how it will be implemented shall be modified slightly to ensure that the callousness of some editors herein are evaded. Btw, @DeCausa:, you know me quite well that there's no end so long as I'm around. Rest assurred of that, and maybe we can collaborate on which dead links are apt to be removed; and perhaps include a few recent ones. Vormeph (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

No one is, of course, against replacing deadlinks. It was your ignoring WP:KDL which was the problem. DeCausa (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok as mentioned above have done some ref cleanup...still lots can be done ..as in replacing alot of the websites (that will all die in time if this is such a concern here) with real scholarly publications. On a side note we need an image clean here ...as in reduction of the amount ...galleries and sandwiching of text is not what we are looking for in a parent articles of this nature. Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts--Moxy (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Images in the section of Classical antiquity

The file Cylinder Seal, Achaemenid, modern impression 05.jpg has been frequently added to the section of Classical antiquity by a user who claims that the file contains an image representing a leading information. It was previously removed due to the lack of conceptual relativity to the paragraphs, the lack of visual considerability, and also the overuse of images into the targeted section. It was replaced by an image of the Gate of All Nations in which we have a view of a remained scene from the first Achaemenid capital, a consideration for a symbol of the concentration of the conquered nations under the Achaemenid rule, and also a view of the integrated architecture used at the site; but the image had been removed, without any explanation, among the numerous recent edits.
The image is now reverted, replacing the Modern impression of Achaemenid cylinder seal.
Please avoid repeating the editions, and to expose your criticism, participate in this conversation.
Thank you for your cooperation.
–Rye-96 (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. Firstly, the text gives insufficient emphasis to the fact that the Achaemenmids supplanted the Mesopotamian Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian empires, which between them had been the dominant powers in the region for around four centuries from the late tenth century until 539BCE, a date which is not mentioned at all in the text as it stands, but which is usually regarded as marking the end of the Neo-Babylonian period and the beginning of the Achaemenid period. I propose that I edit the existing text with a few minor changes and the addition of about two lines to reflect this.

I propose, additionally, and once again, to reinstate the cylinder seal image, which had been in place for a year or two, and to which, so far as I can see, only user Rye-96 has taken exception to. The image depicts a contest/master-of-animals scene which was a characteristic part of ANE iconography for several millennia. This particular variant shows an Achaemenid king, in typical Persian dress, subdueing two Mesopotamian Lamassu figures. I don't think the relevance of that needs further elaboration, but I should be happy to oblige if requested. Furthermore, seals with this image were probably exclusively used by the Achaemenid royal administration, and cylinder seal impressions in general (and going back way earlier) were probably why reliefs (much in evidence at Persepolis, and illustrated in this article) became an important art form. I could go on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phalanthos (talk • contribs) 18:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

...by the way, I've no problems with the Gate of All Nations image and never have had. It wasn't me who removed it!

Please could you let me know here if you are happy for me to make the changes I suggested yesterday?

@Phalanthos: The leading topic of this section is the foundation of Iranian nationality, which began by the emergence of Medes and strengthened by the rise of the Achaemenid Empire. There is no impediment to include further information on the dismissal of Mesopotamian and Assyrian empires, but yet the intended image is not a vital item, where it certainly doesn't offer a remarkable visual portrayal in this article.
This article has already considered the art of these periods, and the typical dress of Achaemenids is already presented in the image File:Medes and Persians at eastern stairs of the Apadana, Persepolis.JPG. The details that you are referring to should be included in an exclusive page with the related subject.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Rye-96 (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. The cylinder seal image succinctly portrays the transition from the Neo-Babylonian period to the Achaemenid, and I think the "visual portrayal" is, indeed, "remarkable" in characterizing that transition. The image, as used by the administration of the Achaemenid period, serves to illustrate and legitimize their conquest, and its relevance to "the foundation of Iranian nationality" is precisely the reason it should be included here. More so, I would suggest, than any one of the other images which currently illustrate the section...

I am in no way proposing that the image is presented simply as illustrative of Achaemenid dress as such, but just that what the king is wearing is distinctively Achaemenid, in the same way as the Lamassu are distinctively Mesopotamian.

Since it would appear that Rye-96 and the present writer are at loggerheads on this issue, perhaps someone else would be kind enough to comment? Phalanthos (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is the image in question:

Modern impression of Achaemenid cylinder seal, 5th century BC. A winged solar disc legitimises the conquering Persian king who subdues two rampant Mesopotamian lamassu figures.

Phalanthos (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Elements of Bullying and Indiscretion in the Article herein

@LouisAragon: Can you please explain why you are removing edits I'm making in the Cuisine section? This is despite it having zero references before I edited it. By removing my edits, you also removed citations. Vormeph (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You're using blogs for citations, adding "DO NOT REMOVE EDITS WITHOUT CONSULATION ON THE TALK PAGE, ping|LouisAragon" to the article, and opening article talk page threads headed "elements of bullying and indiscretion [sic]". That you have no understanding of Wikipedia policies or any apparent competence in editing Wikipedia is not your fault. That you arrogantly assume you do, is. Stop behaving so aggressively and listen to what everyone else is telling you. DeCausa (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it any better myself. Simply too much lack of competence, and simply too much of a disruptive user on virtually all fronts. Plenty of resilience has been shown however from various parties towards the user. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: @LouisAragon: Me too, I honestly can't believe how arrogant some people are that they remove my edits with the sources too. Those sources I've researched and read through and there is no indication of bias in them. I have very good eyes and I take extra care to ensure quality in the sources that I include. I mean, the source I included before it was removed contained a reference to snakes and lizards! Vormeph (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, but we still don't use below-standard sources like blogs; if it's a legitimate fact, then a legitimate source can be found. There's probably o need to say Iranians don't eat lizards and snakes; that's true of most countries' cuisines and doesn't need especial mention in my opinion. Don't add warnings not to remove edits on the page. Just a final note on grammar; if you say "in the article", "herein" is superfluous. Rwenonah (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe how arrogant some people can be that they expect people on "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" not to remove or change their edits when they don't find them appropriate according to policy. If you keep getting reverted by multiple people, perhaps you should start asking yourself some questions, eh? Maybe before you get in further trouble, because this has gone on for a bit too long now. Seriously, do you expect to insert comments saying "DO NOT REMOVE MY EDITS" inside the article and not stir up trouble? LjL (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"Those sources I've researched and read through and there is no indication of bias in them." Your opinion of the accuracy or lack of "bias" in the website you cited is irrelevant. Read WP:UGC. DeCausa (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2016

Infobox, Demonym: Please remove "Persian" or clarify it. Because it's confusing and misleading. It was a demonym for all Iranians before 1935. Now it's obsolete as a demonym. Persians now only is an identity for all ancient and medieval Persian-speaking peoples or current Persian ethnic groups (Iranian Persians, Afghan Farsiwans, Tajiks and etc). Persian is not limited to Iran and Iranians. It's an identity for all Persian people. See Avicenna, Rumi, Rudaki and many others. They were not born in current Iran but they're Persian. 188.159.245.192 (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Demonym

Once again, regarding this ungrounded wikilinking in the demonym tab by user "Vormeph";

The name of the country is Iran, and all of its citizens are therefore "Iranians".(Merriam Webster) Just like people from America are Americans, and those from Canada are Canadians. This should not be erraneously linked to the article Iranian Peoples, which is merely about those ethnicities that happen to speak one of the numerous Iranian languages, and nothing else. Iranians as in the citizens from the nation of Iran and this ethno-linguistic group (the latter which should always be mentioned as Iranics in my opinion in order to avoid confusion) are two totally distinct things from each other.

The same goes for the demonym Persians. This does not equal to the ethnic group known as the "Persians", namely those people whose native language is Persian or one of its derived dialects. Prior to 1935, the country nowadays politically known as Iran was known as Persia, and therefore all its citizens were citizens of Persia, thus, Persians. Regardless of being actually ethnically Kurds, Georgians, Azeris, etc, they were all known as Persians, aka citizens fom Persia. Has nothing, I repeat nothing to do with the Persian ethnic group, that comprises the speakers of the language known as Persian. Regarding that fact, its also the reason as for why Azerbaijanis from Iran are also known as Persian Azerbaijanis, and were always mentioned as such prior to 1935 by the then contemporary Western sources. Heck, in the then contemporary Russian sources, Azeris are even called Persidskii, aka, Persians, but this doesn't mean theyre half Persian or something. In 1935 Reza Shah officialy changed the name of the country to Iran, as that was how the natives have always called it (the name "Persia" doesn't even exist in Farsi). During the reign of his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, in 1959, both demonyms (Iran and Persia) were officially made to be used interchangebly, and thats how its still being used in academics, historical, and cultural matters, for there is no difference between the entity prior to 1935 and post-1935, other than used namings by various peoples.

- LouisAragon (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: You are persisting that we should not include a link to Iranian peoples nor Persian people in Iran. Denonym refers to people, not citizenship. In the United Kingdom Wikipedia page, the denonym of the respective area has links to British people which shows that they refer to the ethnicity/people therein, not citizenship. My edits are not disruptive but uphold the majority. I should not have to make this post over a small matter, but as I see you already have problems with other people the cause against you will only mean I have to support it. I am sorry that you are not bright enough to enlighten yourself. Vormeph (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I thoroughly explained what the case is with the inclusion of sources, while you have not, and keep changing content based on your personal opinions. The first line of the British people article tells; "British people are the citizens of the United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories, Crown Dependencies; and their descendants" The demonym given on the United Kingdom page obviously refers to this line. As you just debunked your own case yourself, furthermore, what does this example of yours in any way have to do with linking a nation/its citizens, the latter whom are hailing from diverse ethnicities (Azeris, etc. etc.), to an ethno-linguistic group which are two totally separate things? Since when are "British people" an ethno-linguistic group like Iranian/Iranic peoples? Second, you still unfortunately show what seems to me a lack of knowledge regarding numerous WP's. Regarding that persistent issue, none of your edits sadly have uphold any "majority" here, though you claim they have. Where did you get this rather hilarious notion from? From the fact that about every edit so far of yours have been reverted by numerous users? One can take a simple look at the discussions here above to see that users in the double digits have had (and continue to have) tons of issues with your editorial conduct (or your talk page), so I won't need to further comment on that either. Iranian as in the people of the nation Iran, does not equal to the group of peoples that comprise the speakers of Iranian languages, known as Iranian/Iranic peoples, I repeat. They are two totally separate things, and therefore it should not link to that article. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

What's even more funny ladies and gentlemen, is that the user here in question who uses the fairy-taleish sentence stating that his edits "uphold the majority", some little time ago on this very same page told that the "voice of the majority should be screwed". - LouisAragon (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: You're speaking in an empty theatre. Anyway, my point is why the links to Iranian peoples and Persian people are being removed. Persian isn't a citizen, but Iranian is. Denonym isn't actually referring to citizenship; and that is where you are wrong. Denonym is quite generic in that it either refers to nationality or ethnical background. In many other country Wikipedia pages, denonym is used as a means of linking to other pages pertaining to either of the two; e.g. American people or British people. These are valid. I understand that you are very stubborn, but I will not debase myself to have this argument with you. Either your lack of friends can give you sympathy, or your only friend can leave you now. Vormeph (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Wrong GDP numbers

I check Iranian economic numbers from time to time and it seems there are some suspicious activities trying to distort economic fact about Iran. Would you (anyone) please fix GDP numbers in the first column of the page (up Right side) according to the source pages they are linked to?

The official data for GDP numbers are normally linked to these two pages and normally the highest numbers are put into the country summary but what we are seeing now in IRAN page summery is that somebody changed GDP numbers while the linked sources are saying something totally different.

Please somebody fix IRAN's page economic data summery (up right side of the main article) according to its linked sources:

The links are:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Thanks for your help