Talk:Guardian Council

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

A Photo question[edit]

This article lists some names of the various members of the Council. There is a link to a Persian-language site regarding the Council that shows the photographs and names of the Council members, but there is no English translation of the names. Can someone please download the photographs from the official Council webside and paste them into this Wikipedia article so we can see and match the names with their photographs? Thank you.

--Bill 19:11 12 June 2006

You can refer to http://portal.irisn.com/aza/aza.htm for their pictures. Farhoudk 11:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


--Penguin020 06:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question[edit]

Is the appointment of the clerical members of the Council by the Supreme Leader subject to Parliamental approval ?

-- Siyac 17:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

No. Also, Majles is a joke since the intelligence services (VEVAK) are known to have manipulated their decision through threats and coercions. --19:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

VEVAK is not a correct terminology. It is in fact Ministry of Intelligence and its Minister is a member of Cabinet council selected by the President and must receive confidence vote from the Parliament. By the way, appointment of the clerical members of the Council by the Supreme Leader is not subject to Parliamental approval. Farhoudk 11:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Can the members be impeached or removed? If so, does the Supreme Leader have this power or does the parliament? Sandwich Eater 17:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of them have power but for their part. Farhoudk 11:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- --Penguin020 06:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Is there a term limit? Text implies that half the membership changes each election[reply]

The term limit is 6 years. Farhoudk 11:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bias[edit]

This series of articles suffers from a great deal of vandalism due to anti-IR propagandists. please people remain npov! Hayadel 07:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Please explain why do you think it suffers from a great deal of vandalism due to anti-I.R.Iran propagandists. This article tries to reflect the existing situation. I think other constitutions may have some problems also Farhoudk 10:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns were based on a review of the sources and the tone of the article. First of all, I think it is important to understand that no system of government should be presupposed to be superior to another (as far as article writing goes). Therefore, one should not presuppose that democracy is better than a republic or whatever we are talking about (again, as far as npov articles go). Systems of government are different everywhere, and everyone has problems with how they do their jobs. In the case of the Islamic Republic, the Islamic Revolution replaced the regime of the Shah because of popular discontent, this does not mean that everyone was happy, but simply that the revolution had the necessary popular momentum to achieve its aim. If the Guardian Council does not fit into your ideal political system that is fine, but that view should not be part of your agenda for contributing to this article. As far as specifics go, some of the sources for this article are taken from anti-IR websites and organizations. As long as these are balanced out in some way, I don't have a problem, but it should be assumed that for every entity that does not like the Islamic Republic, there is one that supports it. All I'm worried about is that wikipedia does not become an outlet for biased agendas. Hayadel 21:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of the time of your edit, all 14 references emanated either from the official constitution and other Websites of the Islamic Republic. You have claimed bias without any valid points and examining the article.--Patchouli 16:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if everything is equal, then why do you want to learn about the Guardian Council? Not having any knowledge is the same as having knowledge? If the same, then why does one expend time to learn more?--Patchouli 16:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read especially the first paragraph comparing the US and Iran, discussing checks and balances. This smells funny. I have inserted NPOV template. Please do not remove without debate. Shagmaestro 18:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no checks and balances. The Supreme Leader and the like-minded clerics control everything. The fact that many positions are are occupied by clerics based on law or Islamic Republic tradition is un-democratic; as if mullahs are a separate species and no ordinary human can, for instance, become the head of the intelligence agency.--Patchouli 16:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power to dismiss?[edit]

Since the Supreme Leader has the power to appoint just 6 of the 12 members of the GC (the clerics), doesn't he just have the power to dismiss those 6? From what I've read, only the Majlis, which approves the other (lawyer) members can dismiss them. Of course, this would be the logical setup, but as most of the government's structure is unfair and illogical, I wouldn't be surprised if he had the power to dismiss them all. Any thoughts? If there aren't any, I'll probably revert a recent edit regarding this.-67.167.93.51 23:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


According to the Article 91 of the constitution, selection of six Faqih is in the hands of the Supreme Leader who can also dismiss them, as it is the case right now. Please see Vicious Circle inside the article.

Farhoudk 10:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that he can dismiss those 6, but I was just wondering if this edit is correct. It no longer clarifies only the religious members can be dismissed, implying all 12 can be by the Supreme Leader. Should it be reverted? Thanks.-67.167.93.51 03:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing nothing to the contrary, I have now reverted the edit mentioned above. Please post objections, if any, here before reverting back. Thanks.-67.167.93.51 00:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-mullah institutions[edit]

Here is another evidence of discrimination against non-mullahs in Iran: Only those member of the Guardian Council who were mullahs were ex-officio members of the Expediency Discernment Council as of 2000.--Patchouli 05:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vicious Circle[edit]

Salaam. At the Guardian Council page, there is a section called "Vicious Circle" that is strongly POV and doesn't have any citations. I suspect it is OR as well. Since we are supposed to remove baseless POV from WP, I removed it, but Patchouli reverted, eventually saying that you were the source of the section. I am asking you why it should stay. In order for it to stay, it needs to have citations, and if these are citations to editorials, the editorials need to have authors of significance. If an editorial is used, a statement like "So-and-so has said ..." or another form to show that this is a editorial that is being mentioned. Also, a variety of sources cannot be combined to synthesize a particular viewpoint, in this case that the Guardian Council is part of a "Vicious Circle", unless all of the sources themselves argue a vicious circle. Otherwise it is OR. In any case, you will need actual sources before their appropriateness can be assessed. Please respond to me on this matter so that the article improvement can begin. Thanks. The Behnam 15:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Dear The Behnam,

  • Please be advised that the section which you have deleted it (without notice) had citations. It refers to various articles of Iranian constitution such as article No. 111, 91 and 99. If you would like to have an official reference please refer to the following address and you can add it to the section as well.

http://mellat.majlis.ir/CONSTITUTION/ENGLISH.HTM

  • I intentionally did not mention other references since it is clearly underestandable from context of Iranian constitution.
  • Please do not delete the section. You would better add some comments, criticism etc.
  • I am sorry about/for Patchouli!

Best. Farhoudk 19:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you may have tied things together in a way that makes sense, but the fact is that on WP, that kind of synthesis is not allowed. You need to source the "Vicious Circle" ideas with a source that itself analyzes the Constitution as allowing a "Vicious Circle", and then make sure that the article is clear that this is the research of a certain source, not necessarily a universal fact. Essentially, you researched the Constitution, and analyzed the text to form a "Vicious Circle" conclusion of your own; this fits the definition of OR perfectly. I'll give you some time to think this over, and respond if you feel your section is still acceptable, but I'm not going to add my own OR criticism to your OR section. I think that the further we take this, the more likely this section will be removed. The Behnam 20:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


You can find more or less similar analysis about Iranian constitution in various sites. Here is an example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/guardian_council.stm But I did not want to refer to these sources since they do not have NPOV. If you want, you can add such references. But deleting a section from an article, without giving a good reason, is not good idea. You would better revert it and put POV tag on that section and let every body come to an agrement about it. Farhoudk 08:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did it. Now there is room for further disussions. Farhoudk 11:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Haukurth said at 15:46 on 6 February 2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guardian_Council&diff=106034439&oldid=106033443 "The BBC article used as a reference does not use the word "vicious circle" or anything like it; on the face of it this is original research. Find a source with a similar analysis." Farhoudk 05:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Behnam said at 22:23 on 6 February 2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guardian_Council&diff=106109881&oldid=106096333 "no POV OR editorial section." Farhoudk 05:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I am sorry to see that Haukurth and The Behnam reject any disscussion, while Haukurth is sysop/administrator on the English Wikipedia.
Farhoudk 05:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't reject discussion; please don't make ill-considered accusations. Do you think I have been waiting ceaselessly for you to add more to the discussion? Don't jump the gun! Besides, I had already stated my reasons for wiping it off the encyclopedia, and your BBC did not change this. In case you did not read this page, I responded to your BBC link earlier. It is mystifying that you think your BBC link describes the Guardian Council as a "vicious circle". The diagram shows what could easily be interpreted as a complicated system of checks and balances, nothing more. The "vicious circle" is a joint OR of you and vehement anti-mullah POV pusher Patchouli. You even originally defended this section by claiming it made sense if you piece together parts of the Constitution[1]; a classic case of OR, and suggests that you aren't altogether familiar with the dictates of WP:NOR. Now, you take a relatively neutral BBC chart and interpret it as a "vicious circle"; again, POV OR. In sum, your BBC link doesn't resolve the problems that led to the removal of the section. It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing. The Behnam 05:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The system could be described as the "Circle of Enduring Righteousness", if interpreted as preserving Islamic purity while maintaining democratic benefits. The Behnam 05:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't reject discussion. That BBC diagram is helpful but somewhat inaccurate - it classifies the Cabinet as an elected institution, which it plainly isn't. It seems to imply that the problems with the system are the unelected institutions on the right while most critics focus on that orange "vets candidates" arrow as the main problem with the system. That arrow certainly means that the system has a much larger amount of political inertia than most democratic political systems have. Haukur 09:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Cabinet is an elected indtitution for sure. See Article 87 and 89 of http://mellat.majlis.ir/CONSTITUTION/ENGLISH.HTM . Farhoudk 09:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Haukurth#Guardian_Council Farhoudk 06:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went. Nothing special about the discussion there. The points have been raised; being OR, it should not remain in the article until proper sourcing can be completed. Being POV, it should not be presented as fact. This is the discussion page, so the page will be discussed here. The Behnam 06:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Dear The Behnam;
  • This is the first time you talk about the BBC.
  • The loop does not show the "Check and Balance" system. It shows tendency of closed loop system toward its extremums. It actually checks but unballances the system toward a specific political party.
  • Remember that all other sections of the article refers to Iranian constitution and use it as reference. I am wondering how it is not allowed to use Iranian Constitution as a reference to show its own problems while at the same time other references are used.
  • I am happy to see that you confirms the existance of a circle and only are discussing about terminology.
  • Now see the following Persian links which belongs to one of the political parties inside Iran. You can see that the section "vicious circle" is not OR. http://www.mojahedin-enghelab.org/ShowItem.aspx?ID=52&p=1 http://www.mojahedin-enghelab.org/ShowItem.aspx?ID=54&p=1 I will add some other links if you would like.Farhoudk 07:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also http://www.sarzamineman.blogfa.com/post-4378.aspx Farhoudk 07:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also http://www.irankhabar.com/headlines/Detailed/16881.html Farhoudk 07:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also http://www.webneveshteha.com/interview.asp?id=2146308180 It is not OR. Farhoudk 07:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also http://www.webneveshteha.com/weblog/?id=2146307749 Farhoudk 07:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also http://isna.ir/Main/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-530995 Farhoudk 07:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also http://sabzesara.blogfa.com/post-10.aspx Farhoudk 09:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also http://www.kayhannews.ir/851006/12.htm#other1206 Farhoudk 10:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also http://sphinx.blogfa.com/post-50.aspx Farhoudk 10:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also http://moradian.blogsky.com/?PostID=105 Farhoudk 10:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also http://welayat.persianblog.com/?date=13820419#616284 The Behnam, Is that enough to show that the section is not OR? Farhoudk 10:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. Most of those are blogs; there is no reason to consider them reliable sources. One of them could be your blog, another could be Patchouli's blog, and so on. I don't understand enough Persian to confirm that they even mention a "vicious circle." But seriously, it is laughable that you consider these blogs a good reason to include that little POV piece, especially since it is after you put the section based upon your OR. I suppose I didn't talk about the BBC before, but I did last time, and there is still no way to draw "vicious circle" or anything like it from the BBC source, so you do not have any point there. The Constitution can be used to state basic guidelines for the Guardian Council, but you tied together a few selected parts to advance your "vicious circle" thesis. This is OR, this is POV, this is unacceptable, and a bunch of whiny blogs ain't gonna change nothin here. The Behnam 15:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.mojahedin-enghelab.org is an official Iranian party which currently exists and is active inside Iran.
  • http://www.webneveshteha.com/ is official web site of Mr. Abtahi who is well known clerics in the Iran for his being head of Office of President during presidency of Mr. Mohammad Khatami, the former president of I.R. Iran.
  • http://isna.ir/ is official web site of a broadcasting orgnization inside I.R. Iran.
  • http://www.kayhannews.ir/ is official web site of a very famous Iranian newspaper which belongs to conservative Iranian parties.
  • Other websites included to show that everybody knows and talks about it.
  • I do not have any blog. I am not sure about your friend, Patchouli, and I do not care.
  • Your name is 100% Iranian and pure Persian. How is it possible for you not to underestand Persian language well?
  • The vicious circle as it is clear now for you is not my OR. But it is a well known deficiency in Iran for everybody.
  • Be advised that you are going to violate 3RR.
Farhoudk 16:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


In Persian language they call "vicious circle" as تسلسل or دور معیوب or دور باطل. Farhoudk 16:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


From now on I will introduce English references to the concept of "Vicious Circle" in Iranian constitution. This is only to show that the concept is not OR. I am not approving the authors or their parties. Please see: http://www.cfr.org/publication/12215/two_iranian_elections.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F11107%2Flionel_beehner#2 Farhoudk 18:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: http://www.sazegara.net/english/archives/2005/06/lawful_crimesin.html Farhoudk 18:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see http://www.aei.org/events/filter.all,eventID.1435/transcript.asp Farhoudk 19:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I am open to mentioning the opinion of significant critics, but this should not be portrayed as definite fact nor receive undue weight. Also, you are really supposed to use English sources on the English WP, especially for controversial material, so I think only the English sources should be used. There is no way for me to verify the content of the Persian pages, though I know that most blogs are not reliable or noteworthy sources. I know that some Iranians believe there be something that could be described as a "vicious circle" or a 'loophole' in the political system; I think most of my family thinks this way. However, WP needs to be neutral, which is why I have put the hammer down on this particular piece. You may include a "Criticism" section, but it is very important that everything be presented neutrally. While there are many special interests pages on the internet that are against the current government of Iran, it would be nice if these special interests didn't have their way on the neutral encyclopedia. Opposition views shouldn't be given any more of a platform here than government apologists. They can use their own websites to propagate their views; that is why they have them. These articles aren't here to persuade the reader who is right or wrong.

I believe that we should stick to simply describing the institutions and their purposes, current members, and stay away from editorials, opposition or otherwise. This seems the most neutral approach. I hope that you also realize the importance of neutrality to the Wikipedia Project. Tell me what you think. The Behnam 19:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Mehdi Khalaji is the primary source of the term. So, if you want to mention it in a Criticisms section, you would have to say something like, "Mehdi Khalaji, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, describes certain Constitutional guidelines regarding the Assembly of Experts as "paradoxical", leading to a "vicious circle" where the Assembly of Experts can informally influence the Supreme Leader's decisions." Or something like that. The coverage needs to be detached and neutral, and describe the source of the opinion. Also, only significant opinions should be included; this excludes a lot of whiny bloggers. But Khalaji is definitely valid. The Behnam 19:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's some very good advice, I agree with just about all of it. I just want to note that non-English sources are allowed, though English ones are preferred where those are easily available. I often cite sources in my native language, which has less than 1% the number of speakers that Persian has. Haukur 20:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear The Behnam,

  • I regret to say that you did not show openness, since you first deleted the section and then accused me to be MKO, anti-mullah, anti-IR, etc. But I am happy to see that our opinions are now is much closer than before.
  • Thank you Haukur for your comment about Persian sources.
  • I do not enough time to translate Persian sources for you, and I am not sure if you trust my translation or not. But why do you select a Persian name for yourself? Behnam (Persian: بهنام) is composed of two parts; Beh means good and nam means name. I think that you are an Iranian, living in Iran or at least very close to Iran. And I am wondering why you are not able to verify Persian sources.
  • Feel free to refer to reliable Persian web sites which I introduced to you. Do not waste your time with unreliable blogs.
  • The Behnam, why did you accuse the "vicious circle" to be my OR while you were aware that most of your family, who are Iranians, as well as some other Iranians confirm its existance.
  • I agree with you about the neutrality of WP and this is why I included the "vicious circle" section in the article to show neutrality of WP and prevent its bias toward POVs of certain political parties.
  • I am not here to defend Iranian governments or to oppose it and I think editors are not allowed to decide on behalf of the readers.
  • I do not know Mehdi Khalaji and do not like to include his name as a reliable source. I am sure Mehdi Khalaji is not the primary source as well. Please add him yourself if you would like. I think the most reliable sources are the official web sites which are currently active inside Iran, not outside Iran. The sites like http://www.kayhannews.ir , http://isna.ir , http://www.mojahedin-enghelab.org are much more reliable than foreign sources. They show that Iranians inside Iran have their own standpoints about their political and social interests and the article tries to reflect various standpoints without any bias.
  • Please be advised that http://www.kayhannews.ir is under control of conservative Iranian parties for a long time and the article which I introduced from this source tries to respond the criticism. You may know that the conservative parties are the winners of the elections for the City Council, Majlis and presidency in recent years, thanks to the "vicious circle". It is a good idea if you want to add some criticism to the section "vicious circle" using this source. But I insist not to change the name of the section since it may mislead the reader toward other more general concepts.

Farhoudk 09:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • I believe those accusations where characterizations of certain edits. This is definitely the case for the MKO remark. The anti-mullah part was a judgment of Patchouli (who I assume you are not) based upon his/her contribs & remarks. I don't think it is a personal attack, though it may be judgmental; it depends on whether or not Patchouli considers it bad to be "anti-mullah". I could provide much evidence in support of that characterization if I wanted to, though that has nothing to do with you, Farhoudk.
  • My mention regarding non-English sources only referred to sourcing controversial information. Non-controversial information can be vouched as accurately translated by fluent editors, but when it comes to something controversial, it is not a very good idea. How do I know that is what the source says? How can I trust a vouch?
I think the controversial information is better to be addressed from primary sources. Translations normally do not reflect the exact opinions of writers. This is partly due to differnt structure of various languages. I usually try to refer to the primary sources rather than their translations. It is difficult but I prefer it. Farhoudk 17:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am well aware of the meaning and spelling of my name, thanks.
  • We will not use blogs.
  • Some of my family hold positions similar to the "vicious circle" idea, but the inclusion here was original research. Not to say you were the first with the idea, but rather that the elaboration here was OR in that you provided Constitutional references and then advanced the "vicious circle" idea based upon the parts you were tying together. People can come up with all sorts of things; we are supposed to use reliable sources and aim for neutrality here. My experience has it that Iranians are prone to believing conspiracy theories, sometimes very absurd conspiracy theories. But I am not going to go to a page on WP about Iranians and say that they are prone to believing conspiracy theories, even if I develop a completely legitimate case, because working from my own observations and arguments is original research.
Please find somebody to translate some sources which I introduced to you, to see how they conclude their claim. You will find out that they use more or less the same reasoning. I only summarized it.
Beware, Iranians are very clever politicians!Farhoudk 17:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, you should mention Mehdi Khalaji or whoever else is the source of a statement appearing in the "Criticisms" section.
  • Yes, note that "Criticism" is a much more appropriate title than "Vicious Circle" in this neutral encyclopedia. I envision any inclusion of this information as looking like my example from above, and it is good that Haukur agrees. Also, the title will allow neutral coverage of other criticism to be added. Remember, undue weight will not be given to criticism anyway, since the main purpose of the article is to simply detail the structure and purposes of the institutions. The Behnam 03:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Do not offend WP editors, please. This is not a good idea.
OK. Please add "Criticism". Or let me know if you want me to add it.
I have also other criticism which I will add them as sub-sections of "Criticism". And please take a look at them in future.
Farhoudk 07:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm just trying to figure out what variant of my sentence above should be used here. My sentence was about Khalaji's view of the Assembly of Experts, but this is the Guardian Council article. Any suggestions? And yes, I'm willing to check & adjust for neutrality on any criticism you add. It is good we had this discussion. The Behnam 17:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Good luck Farhoudk 21:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Solution[edit]

I read some of those sources and here are some thoughts:

  • The criticism of the "circle" be included under title of criticism rather than WP:WW vicious
  • It should be mentioned that those claiming a circle are from the reformer parties; the response refuting this from conservatives should be there as well: http://www.kayhannews.ir/851006/12.htm#other1206

Behnam is right about OR; the problem with many OR on Iran articles is causing problems, for example see the Tfd bellow, which has been on wiki and its based on Patchouli's own false interpretation of the constitution. --Gerash77 05:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that you add that info? I'm only studying my first year of Persian and I'm definitely not able to tackle big things like those websites. Perhaps my structure from above can be used, except Mehdi Khalaji can be replaced with "Reformist groups" or something like that to reflect multiple sources. Then the conservative response can be given. I try to be as useful as possible, but it is difficult when it comes to non-English sources. I'll check over neutrality in any case; it is important that both sides are represented neutrally if there is going to be a "Criticism" section at all. The Behnam 06:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • It is better to avoid describing VPs of various parties. This will deviate one from the main subject.
  • I will do my best to find some responses to "circle" from primary sources. But http://www.kayhannews.ir/851006/12.htm#other1206 does not have anything important to mention, I am afraid. It does not reflect VPs of Keyhan as well, since the article has been written by a reader, not an editor of Keyhan. Conservative parties usually avoid touching the "circle" problem.

Farhoudk 18:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can add the "Criticism" section for now, and others can add the conservative response later. Just make sure that it is not OR and not POV. We aren't trying to make our own case here, or convince the readers of anything. The section should only inform readers of what the criticism is and who said it, but shouldn't actually argue the ideas. If you want to add a criticism section, please do. I will keep watching to make sure the section is in line with the principles stated in this discussion, and will comment accordingly on this talk page. The Behnam 18:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology:

You can see that it is a well defined term. "Vicious circle" is not an offensive word. If you want to delete part of it, the meaning will change. So leave it as it is. Farhoudk 06:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing the dictionary into it. This strengthens my assertion that the term is POV, since the definitions you provided clearly are talking about 'problems.' So we will not have a section entitled "Vicious Circle," or in any way arguing the view of "Vicious Circle." Instead, we will address the topic neutrally under a "Criticism" section. The Behnam 07:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So please do it yourself. Farhoudk 09:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I had a problem as I stated above. The Khalaji source used "vicious circle," but that was for the Assembly of Experts. What about the Guardian Council? The Behnam 18:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why should we repeat this issue in every Iranian article when its already discussed in Politics_of_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran#The_closed_loop_of_power--Gerash77 04:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even know about that. I just got involved because of the POV OR section in this article. The Behnam 04:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added refs and other pov to that section. Politics_of_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran#Criticism_of_the_System--Gerash77 05:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all the POV OR is added to the Iran articles by user:Patchouli. his behaviour has gotten on my nerves a few times! Nevertheless he has contributed an enormous amount of time and energy to Iranian articles, which is why I have never asked for his blocking, despite infintely many violations! The problem is many people mistake wiki for a weblog. But if we let these people go, no one else is there to edit our articles.--Gerash77 05:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is even more of a problem that a certain user spends so much time and energy adding POV OR. There even appears to be sort of a 'network' of articles, all created by him and tied together, that are mostly POV and often OR. If something could be done about this user, it would probably be better for the system. It is better not to have an article than to have a POV OR article. Some of the articles aren't even real concepts discussed by reliable sources! It is really getting out of hand. The Behnam 05:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does reduce WP crediblity to a great extent. But considering his magificent level of time and energy I would say if he gets banned, he would turn out to be one of those users who evade the bans to vandalize articles even further. I think the best would be to let him be until he cools down.--Gerash77 06:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is good. Hey, why don't we just have criticism sections for Guardian Council, Assembly of Experts, and any other page that was affected by the "Vicious Circle" section just route to Politics_of_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran#Criticism_of_the_System? It would really centralize the issue, since it is about certain institutions constituting a loop together. The Behnam 05:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

centralization of relevent material is a wiki policy, unless patchouli decide to WP:IGNORE!--Gerash77 06:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that he wouldn't be improving the encyclopedia by ignoring the rules. The Behnam 06:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Politics_of_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran#Criticism of the System describes the problem very well. It is a good idea to add it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Council#See_also Farhoudk 06:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


About "Terminology" above I meant: add a section named as "Criticism" and you can use the term "vicious circle" in this section and I think nobody will be offended since it is a predefined term. Farhoudk 07:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what had been deleted by The Behnam since he believe that it is an OR; and finally we came to agreement:

A kind of vicious circle [1] can be understood from Iranian constitution with respect to authorities of the Supreme Leader, the Assembly of Experts and the Guardian Council.

  • First according to article No. 111 [2] of the constitution Whenever the Leader becomes incapable, recognized by Assembly of Experts, of fulfilling his constitutional duties he will be dismissed by them.
  • Second according to article No. 91 [3] of the constitution the six cleric members of the Guardian Council are selected by the Supreme Leader and six jurists nominated by the Head of the Judicial Power and approved by Majlis.
  • Third According to article No. 110 [4] of the constitution, one of duties and authorities of the Supreme Leader is appointment, dismissal, and resignation of the Head of the Judicial Power.
  • Fourth according to article No. 99 [5] of the constitution the Guardian Council has the responsibility of supervising the elections of the Assembly of Experts, which based on this authority it issues a permission for the candidates to run for election or rejects them.

Therefore rejection by Guardian Council of the candidates from rival parties is possible in the campaign for the Assembly of Experts. This will cause the chairs for the Supreme Leader, the Guardian Council and the Assemply of Experts remain in the hands of specified party/parties. It is in violatation with principles of Political Equality between all citizens of a democratic country.

Farhoudk 05:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I simply undid a revision that manipulated the order of conversation on the page by inappropriately placing this chunk of OR above one of my responses. And I don't understand why you have done this; it doesn't appear to add anything to what is largely a finished discussion. The Behnam 05:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/guardian_council.stm
  2. ^ Article No.111 http://mellat.majlis.ir/archive/CONSTITUTION/ENGLISH.HTM
  3. ^ Article No.91 http://mellat.majlis.ir/archive/CONSTITUTION/ENGLISH.HTM
  4. ^ Article No.110 http://mellat.majlis.ir/archive/CONSTITUTION/ENGLISH.HTM
  5. ^ Article No.99 http://mellat.majlis.ir/archive/CONSTITUTION/ENGLISH.HTM

TfD nomination of Template:Tricameral legislature of Islamic Republic of Iran[edit]

Template:Tricameral legislature of Islamic Republic of Iran has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

See also: Template talk:Tricameral legislature of Islamic Republic of Iran

--Gerash77 01:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I request pictures![edit]

Ever since all of the photos got deleted in this change... I would like to see sourced photos. MrMacMan 22:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guardian Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Guardian Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Guardian Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to constitutional council?[edit]

The official website is calling itself the Constitutional Council. It looks like this is the official translation - should we move this article? Secretlondon (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was brought up in March 2021 and user Arccosecant indicated that it went against WP:COMMONNAME - has this changed? (See article history, revision of 15 March 2021) Uhnyt Eiolog (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

State Department Source[edit]

Who is the genius who had the idea to use the US State Department as an “unbiased and objective source?”

I move to remove the addition and/or find an unbiased citation that says something similar. 2001:1970:5163:1200:0:0:0:E6B (talk) 03:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guardian_Council&oldid=1202489049"