Talk:2009 Iranian presidential election: Difference between revisions

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Iran C‑class High‑importance 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Elections and Referendums C‑class 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics C‑class Mid‑importance 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving 2009 Iranian presidential election was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 13 June 2009.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives

/Archive 1 (start - end of May 2009) /Archive 2 (1 June 2009 - )

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]

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]

I found that it is already transcribed:

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

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

• Moved from main page to here for discussion:

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

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

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]

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)[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]

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

"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]

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

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)

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]

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]

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

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

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

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

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

Looks like someone found an updated source in Aljazeera.Rick Evans (talk) 21:43, 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]

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

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

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

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

final results in English: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8098896.stm 128.100.5.143 (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

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

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]

OPk.. the lead is really choppy,... and alot of short sentences... cna we fix this?--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 13:22, 13 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]

Please stop posting so we cna comment. It is obviouse it was rigged or lied whatever.... this man does NOT have that much support--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 13:38, 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]

He won 2/1. That alone shows it...--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait for the international reactions and cite reliable sources. Obviously it was rigged... Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 14:47, 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]

Ahmadinejad upon seeing a group of marching students in Tehran, ""There go my people, I must find out where they are going so I can lead them." --PigFlu Oink (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If so many people voted for him... why are so many people rioting--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 15:47, 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]

How cna we say it's impossible?--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 18:11, 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]

Also check this opinion poll, which is by an international institute outside Iran: http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Iran%20Survey%20Report%200609.pdf 128.100.5.143 (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wheither the Election was fraudulant or not, is irrelevant. The Supreme Leader has the final word. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 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'm not that interested in Iranian politics. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's two clips off YouTube showing protesters and some rioting:

1) Protest march

2) Rioting

Not really sure how to weave this in, but I thought I would add them here in the event they can be used. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph appears to not be neutral and is also uncited. KJS77 18:34, 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]

Is this section really necessary? Or can't we at least trim it down? Bsimmons666 (talk) 18:38, 13 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 says that they are unreliable. What's the point of having anything beyond that? --Elliskev 20:23, 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]

Do we get rid of that sentence, then? --Elliskev 20:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is sourced, refer to http://www.daal.ir/2009/05/341.php which is a recent letter written by a number of reformist journalists including Abbas Abdi, who was also one of the senior members of Ayandeh polling organization. Refer to Abbas Abdi's wiki page for more information. Also it is stated in BBC Persian's article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2009/06/090611_ra_ir88_polls_election.shtml It has been discussed already. Refer to discussion above. I am putting it back as the objection that the sentence is not sourced is not correct. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Wikipedia's standard is that we only use reliable sources. Why are we including data that is unreliable? --Elliskev 02:14, 14 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. --Elliskev 16:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Also agree, in fact you beat me to it as your edit conflicted with my simular edit ;) Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 19:05, 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]

 Done --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:27, 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: [1], [2]. 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]

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]

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]

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.

61.68.168.203 (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I believe that more information should be supplied in the campaign section as well. The Squicks (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Rezaie has also asked for the same information today, i.e., the break down of votes to ballot boxes and similar information: http://www.tabnak.ir/fa/pages/?cid=51810 128.100.5.143 (talk) 04:55, 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]

I just heard on BBC Persian TV that MOI has released the details. I will provide a link to a source as soon as I find one. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the page: http://www.moi.ir/Portal/Home/ShowPage.aspx?Object=News&ID=e3dffc8f-9d5a-4a54-bbcd-74ce90361c62&LayoutID=b05ef124-0db1-4d33-b0b6-90f50139044b&CategoryID=832a711b-95fe-4505-8aa3-38f5e17309c9 128.100.5.143 (talk) 20:35, 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=51895 128.100.5.143 (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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.

Also, we might want to add a couple links to other examples of contested debates. Thoughts? HawkShark (talk) 07:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 - They were just vandalized.

2 & 3 - Verifiability, not truth. They are the official numbers so we use them. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No i understand Verifiability, not truth, but in cases where there are directly contradictory bits of info out, there should be a 1 (currently very disputed) notation or something similar. Besides this fits under, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SELFPUB

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]

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 PBS podcast. I'm sure supporting citations can be found somewhere. The Squicks (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd wanted a background section for this article for a while.--Patrick «» 18:50, 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]

From the New York Times:

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.”

Esn (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I added it in. Esn (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is noteworthy or not, so just mentioning it here for now. [3] [4] Esn (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see/discuss at the section above regarding the "lead" (introduction) to avoid us having to repeat explanations of wikipedia guidelines. Boud (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"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]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8099374.stm 128.100.5.143 (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

I object to posting the following in the main article for the reasons below:

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

Reargun (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

An encyclopedia is no place for such speculations anyway. Miguel (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Yes, this is much ado about nothing (or, at least, something that is not that notable or important at all). The Squicks (talk) 00:41, 15 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]

It seems the role of twitter and the internet generally in the election aftermath will be worth commenting on; it has affected mainstream media coverage see here for example. csloat (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ALL i can say is it seems shit is in freefall in iran.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could a Farsi reader please verify the claims made about the television image as a matter of urgency? Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:33, 15 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]

It has dropped. It is also reported in mainstream news websites like bbc persian and hamshahrionline. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyybody have user boxes for supporting one of the canidates?--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 06:41, 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]

Do you have a suggestion how better to organize the content? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would give up the categories, merge the two sections and instead order chronologically. CuriousOliver (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering now the 'Supreme leader' is calling for an investigation, the sections would be better if merged. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because theres an election doesn't mean anything good will come from it. They could lie just as well.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 14:03, 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.VR _talk 16:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be organized by person. The Squicks (talk) 22:05, 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 [5]. 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]

Finally loaded: Interior Ministry: vote counts for each province here --PigFlu Oink (talk) 14:05, 15 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]

• http://alef.ir/1388/media/ostan.xls 128.100.5.143 (talk) 05:03, 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.

Once again, I would like to see reliable sources, and not wikipedians, make allegations of "FakeResults".VR _talk 16:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rezai has not accepted the results. It was reports in the begining that he did but he denied later--St. Hubert (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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, VR _talk 18:47, 15 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]

No, they indicate votes counted too which were dropped in 4 hours. Is n't strange that numbers drop in 4 hours?--St. Hubert (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or will it be a second round?--MathFacts (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the government ?He is... --Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 17:33, 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]

A simple majority is enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything more then 51% nets you the win--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 21:02, 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]

Either way hes still president--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 01:14, 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]

Press tv didn't have 'Lorestan' on their page. warning long load times, as they are state owned and I can't find the Interior Ministry webpage, they are the 'most offical' source of the results; such as they are. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:15, 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]

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 thread Esn (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 [6] - removed by Blogspot today at 6:04 PM Eastern Time. Esn (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please add this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Iranian_election_protests
Samic130 (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations that Ahmedinejad placed third have surfaced.[7] Iceberg007 (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reports of leaked results are already mentioned. The Squicks (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/609.php?nid=&id=&pnt=609&lb=brme

I think we can use this information:

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]

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]

Weird... M99 87.59.76.239 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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]

The section is getting very long. I suggest we spin it out to a new article, International reactions to the 2009 Iranian election and protests, leaving a summary here in regular text - as opposed to bullet point - format, as well as a corresponding appropriate summary in the 2009 Iranian election protests article, per WP:SUMMARY. Any thoughts? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea. It's a notable enough topic to stand on its own- especially considering the intense international reactions that have been made. Go for it. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 01:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]