Talk:Iranian presidential election, 2009

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Iran (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Elections and Referendums (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

delete[edit]

The European Union, the United Kingdom should be deleted or add other european countires as well as uk and us in there as uk is part of europe so counts as european union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.199.25 (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Opinion polls section[edit]

Is this section really necessary? Or can't we at least trim it down? Bsimmons666 (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

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)
The first sentence says that they are unreliable. What's the point of having anything beyond that? --Elliskev 20:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
Do we get rid of that sentence, then? --Elliskev 20:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

Why do we have Tehran specific polls in the table? They have no bearing on the overall election result and should be removed. I also have a problem with the leaked poll report being in the table as it is unsupported and the news agency was likely shown a fake poll. Wayne (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"How do you count almost 40 million handwritten paper ballots in a matter of hours and declare a winner?"[edit]

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

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)

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)

Actually from the information in the free press around the world is that most of the counting was done at the MOI. Also virtually all the free press around the world has been stating that the opposition observers were denied access to the polling stations and that it was only Ahmedinejad’s henchmen who were allowed free access while voting was going on. There are also irregularities in the fact that the few regions that announced their results independently had their news sources shut down immediately, and then when they “official” sources were released the numbers were dramatically different from the original (surprise surprise to the benefit of Ahmedinejad).

I think what you meant when you said “The count from each station were then transferred to MOI where they summed up the count and released it” was that the already “adjusted” figures were sent to the MOI where they were totally disregarded and the MOI published figures prepared by Ahmedinejad to give him the election, meanwhile where the ballots were in transit, some of the ballot papers were switched for papers with votes for Ahmedinejad.

Isn’t it also amazing how virtually everyone who was illiterate (a not insignificant proportion of the population) voted for Ahmedinejad, quite surprising how when one of the “officials” in the polling stations tells you that they have written your choice on the ballot paper, it always reads “Ahmedinejad” regardless of what they were asked to write. That apart from the fact that secret police were looking over the shoulders of a lot of people who voted to see if they wrote down the "correct" candidate. MattUK (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant what I said. The votes were counted at polling stations by local people who ran the polling station, and the signed forms (form 22) stating the counted votes are available. The votes are also available, so if required one can just recount the votes. All ballots are numbered so it is also easy to check the number of ballots given to the people and the number of the votes in the box. I have not seen any report about secret police overseeing the people, as far as I know no body looks at your vote when you write your vote down. Also the polling stations were run by local people, so in places where some may be illiterate the voter knows the persons in the polling station, and they can also ask one of their friend who is literate to help them. If you have a reliable source please provide, otherwise IMHO these are just propaganda. 128.100.5.198 (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

128.100.5.198, you also make these claims without citing a reliable source; and I recall also having read what Matt claims (but sorry I didn't note the source). ARE there any reliable sources on this? Probably best is to cite sources, without claiming how reliable they are. Harald88 (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I could not find one in English, the election law states these, take a look at these (use Google translate if you can't read Persian): http://alef.ir/1388/content/view/47867/ http://alef.ir/1388/content/view/47916/ http://alef.ir/1388/content/view/47942/ http://alef.ir/1388/content/view/47821/ http://www.hamshahrionline.ir/News/?id=86405 Ask again if you are not satisfied. Also Minister of Interior have said that there has been at least two observers from candidates in each polling station, therefore at least one observer selected by one of defeated candidates. 128.100.5.129 (talk) 05:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
About the secret police overseeing voters, I don't know what kind of source I can provide. I have voted myself, there was not any one looking at my vote, there was a number of desks near wall and pens over them on one side of the room and the polling station workers and ballot boxes were on the other side, I gave my ID to one of them, they checked it to see if it is stamped and checked my photo for identification, then passed it to the next person who stamped it and gave me a ballot, I went to the other side, wrote my vote, folded it and return to the box and dropped it and received my ID. It has been the same in the previous elections (there is at least one election each year), I have voted in different cities. 128.100.5.129 (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've read it on both The Times and The Telegraph websites, although don't have time to go searching for the correct source right now, I'll try and get to it later. I would hardly say that the election law is a reliable source of what actually happened, yes it's a good source for what should have happened, but not for what actually happened.

You have asked many questions, I will try to answer. First note that the links I provided also contain what actually happened, not just the law. 128.100.5.139 (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I would hardly say that the MOI is a valid source for what actually happened, being that it is the organisation which is primarily implicated in the whole affair, Ahmedinejad may have been the instigator, but the MOI conducted the fraud. International as well as free Iranian (before it was shut down) press all reported that opposition observers were either stopped from entering most polling stations, or were ejected either after a few hours or before the votes were counted.

MOI was not the only sources, there reports from different people who were working in polling stations. What you said is not true, the complaints is that their cards were issued late (MOI says some didn't provided the required documents), the polling station assigned to them where changed by MOI, .... they may be some irregularities similar to these, but they were present, and they have to sign the form 22 and approve it. Why would observers selected by Mousavi and Karroubi sign these if they saw irregularities? All these signed forms are available and it is possible to check them. 128.100.5.139 (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I asked where you actually voted, just that comments from IP's in the range of 128.100.5.###, which all seem to be from the same person have been appearing from just after the election onwards, and the 128.100.5.### range is registered to the University of Toronto in Canada. I would also be interested in where you voted from being that the news reports were that the secret police weren't out in force in Ahmedinejad strongholds as they didn't feel they needed to be, where as in the vast majority of the country where the other candidates were expected to win they were conducing "voter coercion". MattUK (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I am currently at UofT, we went to Ottawa to vote, the result of Ottawa was 85% Mousavi AFAIK. Contrary to your suggestion, I have voted in places which are most reformist parts of Iran, I have voted in Tehran and Wstern Azarbayjan. If you take a look at the result you will see that these are the only two places that Mousavi is ahead of Ahmadinejad, so I have been in places where Ahmadinejad's support is not strong. I have voted in different polling stations in different years and have not seen anything like what was suggested above. 128.100.5.139 (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8110877.stm There is a source stating that the opposition observers were denied their legal right to be present in the polling stations. MattUK (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, BBC's report is not completely correct. As I said there were irregularities, but one can check the result by comparing those form 22s that Mousavi and Karroubi's observers were present and signed approving them. These forms are available and not too little. I read some of supporters of Mousavi has claimed that he had only observers in half of polling stations, this should be enough to check to see if any irregularity has happened in the ones he had not any observer. I don't understand how one observer of these candidates would sign this form 22 and later claim that it is rigged. Also if you look at their announcement just before mid night (when voting ended) and in the first hours after mid night (when the first results were coming) you don't see such arguments, and they even claimed that they have won the election. I don't see how these announcement by Mousavi is compatible with his later positions. 128.100.5.139 (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That source also mentions about the fact that the votes were counted far too fast, where in past elections the count has taken 24 hours, this one it took only 4 which seems a bit odd in itself. It also mentions irregularities which are just downright odd, like the lack of regional variances in voting patterns, and even in the tribal areas of the opposition candidates they votes were against them which is just make beleive. As well as in a few provinces like Khoresan or Mazandaran more people voted than there were registered voters. There are just too many things that point to fraud, for it not to be fraud, if it was a free and fair election then you wouldnt have all these quite major problems with the figures popping up. MattUK (talk) 09:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have already explained it somewhere on this page. Also if you have read the references I provided above you have seen the answer, but I repeat it again: AFAIK Mouavi and Karroubi has asked the votes to be counted in polling stations to not allow the boxes being changed when they were transfered. Also the result were transfered by Computers to the MOI, so it was just summing up a list of numbers. These were two main differences between this and previous elections. Also note that Mousavi's team did not object to this in the first hours. If I remember correctly, at 3am MOI released results of 10 million votes, and Ahmadinejad was ahead 7 million to 3 million. Mousavi's team released a statement that Ahmadinejad's vote will stop at 14 million and he is going to win, no mention of these irregularities at the time. Also note that it did not take 4, it took more than 4 hours AFAIK, I don't know exactly how much but I know that at 5am we did not have the final result. I think I saw the lack of regional variance is also present in polls taken by TFT 3 weeks before voting and the polls show that Ahmadinejad has ahead a large amount in rural areas. About the amount of turnout, I have also seen the higher than 100% turnout but I still it is not a strong argument for fraud, the comparison with those those places that Mousavi had observers should show if there was something strange or not. Also note than the turnout estimate by TFT poll is close to 90% overall. I can't say that there was not fraud, but based on things I have seen I think that Ahmadinejad was going to win this election, and I have not seen any good evidence for it being fraud. The shock is caused by the fact that we did not expect him to win. Anyway, this is not a forum, so if you have reliable sources you can add those to the article independent of our opinion whether they are true or not. 128.100.5.139 (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The straight foward answer is this. Ahmadienjad said this in a CNN Larry King interview. He said that each polling station serves no more than a 1000 people. Each polling station counts induvidually and then sends thier results to the central commitee. It takes longer in the west because each station does not count individually. 99.247.60.143 (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

One major issue with arguments supporting Admadinajad's reelection being valid is that they inadvertently or purposefully ignore the obscene precedents of fraud done by the principalists and ultra-right wingers in recent years in Iran. Let's not forget that currently all the organizations with political and military leverage in Iran are monopolized by the same party of the accused. All major and minor opposition groups including news and media outlets are (and have been) shut down and slight opposition is considered treason and awarded with execution. So, please..., before taking a pseudo-rational tone and cite sources, news and statements from inside Iran and government-sanctioned sources, think twice for citing for such citation would be purely reflexive and flawed.
1374 (1996): The first major instance of fraud, far more outrageous and understated that the current discussion, was when the Guardian Council, which is an outright supporter of Ahmadinejad and has called for more executions for the protesters, in an unprecedented and outrageous act of arrogance "interpreted" the constitution and decided that all the prospective candidates for presidential and parliament race must be "ratified" by the Guardian Council.
1382 (2002): The wide spread disqualification of over two thousand reformist candidates by the Guardian Council in a simple act of defiance to ensure the hegemony of conservatives in the parliament. The most ridiculous thing is that this the Guardian Council was free to do so because this right was given to them by their own peculiar unprecedented "interpretation" of constitution as described above. Many the disqualified candidates were member of the parliament at the time or in the previous terms.
All, this is disrespectful of the wide-spread paranoid butchering of university student's and all other member of the opposition including the internationally acclaimed artists and intellectuals. Not to mention the blatant lies the Iranian state media spreads every day about every aspect of this debate which is so obtrusively contrived, it viciously insults the intelligence of its audience at every instance. Any debate that overlooks the current and previous atrocities committed by the incumbent power in Iran is immoral and merely a simple downplay on the obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.129.8 (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The answer is very simple: They started counting all the votes as they came in, since the beginning of the day. But this just shows how POV wikipedia has become...Kermanshahi (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Translation of letter to Ahmadinejad[edit]

Can someone fluent in Farsi translate this: http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/2742/fnss45.jpg Someone already translated but I'd like it confirmed, since it would be pretty damning evidence... Planetary (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This is letter by Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsuli to the Leader Seyed Ali Khamenei, singed and dated for 1388/3/23, this is my translation, it is not easy to translate:

  • "To the great Leader Ayyatollah Khamenei,
  • According to your concern about the result of tenth Presidential election and your decision to preserve Dr. Mahmood Ahmadinejad as president during this sensible time, all things were organized such that the results would be to the benefit of the system and the revolution, to be announced to the public and all necessary prudences for possible incidences after election has been taken, all heads of political parties and candidates are under strict observation.
  • Therefore for informing you about the real results of counted votes are stated below:
  • Total votes: 42,026,078
  • Mir Hossein Mousavi Khamene: 19,075,623
  • Mehdi Karroubi: 13,387,104
  • Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: 5,698,417
  • Mohsen Rezaie Mirghaed: 3,754,218
  • Problematic Votes: 38716"

I have no doubt this is fake. This is on government paper of MOI, no intelligent being will use such a thing for writing something like this. Also it is dated but not numbered that makes it being written on MOI paper meaningless (all official government papers have to be numbered), and nobody even the most out of mind reformists did not expected Ahmadinejad to get less than 9 million votes, or Karroubi getting more than a few millions. IMHO, this is just propaganda. 128.100.5.143 (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation, seems identical to the earlier one I read. But basically this is substituting one piece of nonsense for another, correct? It's likely no one will ever known (until a revote) what the actual results are. Planetary (talk) 06:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I think a recount of votes can show whether this is fake or not. A number of supporters of Mousavi are trying to sum up evidence to help him in his complaint to Guardian Council to rerun the election. One thing they are doing is asking local people in polling stations who counted the votes to report the numbers to them so they can get an estimate the results independent of MOI. As far as I have heard from them, Karroubi's vote has been very low in the reports they have got. 128.100.5.198 (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
It may be a fake and it probably is but I have to say that 9 million votes for Ahmadinejad is not reasonable(at least not in a free election). His support is more like 10% of the votes. M99 87.59.102.169 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC).
It is your personal opinion, no poll shows something like that. I would like to remind you that he has got 17 million in the previous election. AFIK, no reformist politician or newspaper has expressed something like this, i.e. 10% for Ahmadinejad. Contrary to this, all polls I have seen show that he has at least 20% support, that would be around 8 million, so my 9 million is a conservative estimate. I would be happy to hear what your 10% estimate is based on. 128.100.5.198 (talk) 01:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Hold on, if the elections are really rigged as suggested in the letter, and the real results hidden as they are supposed to be when such an election is undertaken, Do you honestly think that the government was to put this very memo on Paper that is offical, documented, and recorded for the inner circle of the government to see (including the reformists such as Rafsanjani) if it is archived? I think that this paper is one that is not numbered in order to prevent it from being sought out if it is ever needed so and that once it is read by khamenei, it could easily be destroyed without leaving any trail. I have seen several government papers (my Uncle is the head of a department at IRIB, and my documents for their passport also resembles this document) and I think it is quite credible.
First, you have not answered the main question that the numbers in this letter are completely unreasonable. Ahmadinejad got 17 million votes in the previous election, even when popular Khamati won landslide 12 year ago the conservative candidate got 8 million votes. Considering the amount of money Ahmadinejad has distributed in last four years, .... he would have got more than 8 million. And there also the pre-election opinion polls, even the most out of mind ones reported in reformist newspapers are far from these numbers. Reformists were trying to get the election to the second round. No one in reformist camp expected something like this, I was reading the blogs of member's of Mosharekat's (Islamic Iran Participation Front) leaders, they were trying to get to the second round, this was also one of the argument of supporters of Karroubi that he should not drop off. Ahmadinejad getting 5 million votes is much more strange than he getting 24 million votes. There are reports in western newspapers and magazines like Newsweek stating that the US intelligence was expecting Ahmadinejad to win. Second, I agree that the paper completely looks like an official MOI paper, but what you sais works against your own argument, why would one use an official paper if they just want to destroy it? Why would they report it on a paper, they can just tell Khamenei in person, by phone, ... Why would they document it on an official paper? 128.100.5.132 (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The numbers are indeed possible. First is that the numbers from the 1997 election cannot be used to compare to the current one becuase this was before the point in which the youth would take on a much bigger position than they did today. the conservatives were still around and the youth could not vote then, but now the youth can vote and the conservatives have either died or changed to rather anti-Ahmadinejad. The conservative candidate was nothing like ahmadinejad so he could have had a good 8 million votes. And if you add Rezaee votes with it it comes around 9 million for the consevatives in total. 60% of iran is under 30, and they only know problems under this regime or more specifically, this administration. Besides Ahmadinejad is massively unpopular and the numbers from his previous election are going to decrease because of the increase in sanctions and further isolation from the rest of the world. YOu cannot think that his approval will go up because the nuclear program was started long before ahmadinejad, he just publicized it and his threats against Israel further promoted them, He makes useless provocations against the Holocaust, going as far enough to invite David Duke to tehran to talk about it, and this is not going to promote him very well. Next, most of the programs in Iran were started in the Khatami or even Rafsanjani administration. so the fact the claim that he is supporting the poor is dubious and the Iranians realize this because he has slowed them down or stopped them wholly, in order to pay russia or the military. And he has also placed Gas rationing on one of the largest producers of oil in the world. Point, being Ahmadinejad is not going to be quite popular, even within the conservative corners of the government. Karroubi is popular where ahmadinejad supposedly is so I dont see anything wrong with his votes and the upper class and middle class are going to vote for mousavi. Some of the lower class are going to vote for mousavi since they remember his handeling of the economy in the 80's so that will give him lots of extra votes. Rezaee is still really hated due to his running of the revolutionary guard in the 80's. And do you think that the government was going to tolerate a runoff between two reformists that each got more votes than the conservatives combined. Absolutely not in a million years. So the numbers are reasonable as mentioned above. Next is that you cannot rely on polls in Iran or whatever any government group is going to say. The polls that are "official" are made by the government. you know what I mean. and the groups (the islamic participation front) cannot know the exact extent of their popularity because the people fear evin if the open their mouths.
A simple answer to all what you have written above: these are what you say, you are building a theory to make the numbers in the letter reasonable, I have not seen any evidence supporting these claims, on the contrary there are good evidence that your claims are not correct, i.e., your theory is not compatible with known facts and evidences. 128.100.5.136 (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Second point is that i might have contradicted myself earlier. Any memo that is made by the government is going to have the seal on it, making it offical, period. It does not have any numbers in order to prevent trails as I mentioned Earlier. Im going to leave this on the page. The first reason is that the letter, wheather fake or not, is being widely circulated around Iran, so it is being used as a catalyst to the protests. The second is that Wikipedia is not a forum in order to determine wheather or not a document is fake or not, If the document is of encyclopedic value, as it is being actively used within the situation as it is in the protests it should be kept. wheather it is fake or not, It is evidence that is being actively used there is vote rigging,RezaShah4 (Talk) 23:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I have lived in Iran and I can assure you that all official letters are numbered, even those inside a department. Until they are numbered they have no official value. The fact that the letter is used as a catalyst to the protests has no point here, neither the fact that it is circulated. That will only justify saying that there is a piece of paper used by protesters to justify their claims by claiming that these are the real results, nothing more. One should not use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool. The fact that WP is not a forum does not mean that you can add anything you want to the article. I also want to ask you read the header part of the talk page: "This is a controversial political topic, which may be disputed. Please read the comments below and discuss substantial changes to the article **before making them**." 128.100.5.136 (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Although you have not answered my previous questions, I want to provide a better argument that this letter is fake. Reformist candidate have agreed that the number of ballots (which are printed by central bank, so making fake ones is almost as hard as printing fake money, and all of them have serial numbers) are less than 60 million. If the numbers in this letter are real, a random sample of ballot boxes would easily show that the official results are made up numbers, which did not happen although GC agreed to do a random sample of size 10% of all votes. If these are fake ballots, then the numbers will not add up (just add 19 million = 24-5 to the total in the letter.) 128.100.5.136 (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Coup Attempt[edit]

I corrected the statement that Mohsen Makhmalbaf is an "official speaker" for Mousavi. The officials in Mousavi's campaign headquarter has repeatedly stated that the only speakers for Mousavi are member of the headquarter (only the main headquarter, not other groups supporting him) and their official websites: Kaleme.ir and GhalamNews.ir. Mohsen Makhmalbaf claimed that the websites are hacked which was denied by Mousavi. They restated that the people should not rely on any other source as reliable other than those stated as speaking for Mousavi.

LjL said in a note on history page for the main article that: "Merge article that might be deleted, if there is anything well-sourced in it"

Oh, yes - yes I did, and I had not noticed that my template had been removed. I will add it back. I do wish templates like that were left alone or discussed, rather than removed like that. --LjL (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is Coup of 12 June. As far as I have looked at it, it is not very accurate. The only thing I can confirm is that Mohsen Makhmalbaf and a website by supporters of Mousavi named named Moj.ir claimed after first results were announced that a Coup has taken place. This was later repeated on Karbaschi's twitter. In the later weeks some major reformist parties like Mosharekat has used the term in their announcements. I think these can be used in the part for Iranian Reactions. rdt (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I am copying the following from user samic130's talk page: rdt (talk) 05:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - The first paragraph of this part of the article has been "intentionally" misinterpreted from Persian. Mr. Makhmalbaf's claim to be an "official spokesman" of Mr. Mousavi has never been directly denied by any Mr. Mousavi's official websites: "Ghlamnews" or "Kalemeh". In fact, Mr. Makhmalbaf's name has not been mentioned in the Ghalamnews or Kalemeh websites at all, and searching for his name has no result. In addition, Ghalamnews website has not denied the existence of any official or unofficial "spokesman". The translation of Ghalamnews statement which is of course Mr. Mousavi's statement is "There have been some rumors said that the Ghalamnews had been hacked. Hereby, we emphasize that the Ghalamnews has not been hacked, and these rumors are aimed to deviate peoples from the main source of Mr. Mousavi's news." and "We have been emphasized several times that Mr. Mousavi's official news and statements are published in Ghalamnews and Kalemeh websites, therefore if it has been hacked it would not have published his last news and statements." (I have not translated the whole text because the rest of the text seems not to be necessary to be translated). I am sure that there are many Persian speaking WP editors who can confirm this misinterpretation in the article's text. Besides, I have also added some new English references for Mr. Makhmalbaf's speech in the added text. Thanks.--Andi horn (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not vandalism. It does not need to be denied directly, you can not expect them to list a number of people and say look these are not our speakers. They have repeatedly stated and continue to state that who are the people speaking for Mousavi. They do not need to list people not speaking for them, when they say *the only* reliable sources are ghalamnews.ir, kaleme.ir and members of campaign head quarter and people should not listen to anyone else I think it is completely clear that Makhmalbaf is not among those three sources and therefore is not speaking for Mousavi. Take a look at this: http://ghalamnews.ir/news-21222.aspx Read the first line. It says (roughly, my translation): "as there has been unconfirmed reports and gossips circulating around, we repeat that Mousavi's supporters should *only* follow news about him and Dr. Rahnavard [his wife] from ghalamnews.ir" This is just the latest of these statements. They have stated it many times. 128.100.5.132 (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

Hi. I see why you reverted my edit of the first paragraph of 2009 Iranian election protests but I still think it is confusing. It now sounds as if the current protests are called the Coup of June 12 and I don't think that's your intention. Perhaps the naming of the Coup of June 12 should be moved further down in the article? lyonspen | (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I moved it to the overview section. Hope that's good with you.lyonspen | (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


hi Lyonspen!

no it's not good! the main thing about this article is that there is a coup in iran now! (i'm iranian) and this is the most important thing in a country! so don't put it in overview please!! --Samic130 (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Samic130, I advise you not to start a edit war on Iranian presidential election, 2009. This article is about election, not about alleged coup. It is your belief that there has been a coup is Iran, many people do not agree. As I stated in the talk page, IMO, the appropriate place to put this material is Iranian reactions. If you start trying to convert this article to your coup article I will ask administrators to interfere in this problem. I have zero tolerance for people trying to use WP for propaganda. rdt (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I also see that you have tried to do the same thing on 2009 Iranian election protests, and people have argued against what you stated, then you have just started a new page for coup without answering to their arguments. Although your user exists since 2007, you have zero contribution to Wikipedia till 15 June 2009 (after the election), all of them on 2009 Iranian election protests and Coup of 12 June. I should tell you these actions do not look good. rdt (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

being a coup or not is not my opinion! see the related article! also there is no rules for contribution! --Samic130 (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I advised you not to repeat this. Please read the discussion page before reverting. If you have anything you should discuss it on the talk page. I don't understand why you left the discussion on protests page and started a new page if you had any serious argument. It is also noted on deletion page for coup that most of your English references are Op-ed. Only some supporters of Mousavi are claiming that there has been a coup, no independent and unbiased source, contrary to this no other country stated that there has been a coup, all stated concerns have been about the violence after the election, and the situation does not satisfy the definition of a coup. There is serious articles in newsweek and huffington post that state that even US intelegence expected Ahmadinejad to win. All reputable international polls I have seen predict him winning. There is even a poll by polling organization IPSA (Iranian Students Polling Association) which is close to reformists that predict his winning, whereas I have not seen any poll which states the name of polling organization showing Mousavi winning. I advise you to read the text of Mousavi's (it is summery is available on BBC persian website) that reformists should not do anything to stop Ahmadinejad's government from working. In summery, only some supporter of one side are claiming that there has been a coup, which makes it an alleged coup. If you want to continue please continue on the article's talk page. I am coppying this there. By the, just to show how inaccurate your referencing is, Makhmalbaf is not Mousavi's speaker, not even an unofficial one. Ghalamnews refuted his claims, he then said that Ghalamnews is hacked, which was then refuted by Ghalamnews, Kaleme.ir and Mousavi campaign headquarter. rdt (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Also it's intresting that a user like this: [1] is talking about MY contribution!!! --Samic130 (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have stated it before, I sometimes log in when contributing and sometimes do not. My contribution to this article started weeks before election, and I have tried to remain unbiased. The question of amount of contribution comes into question when someone starts to do inappropriate things as you did, e.g. putting a whole copy of a just deleted article when you yourself have put the tag that this article is too long. I hope that you see the point. 128.100.5.132 (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please DO NOT DELETE the added text. You are "editors", not "deleters". Have the courage, discuss and edit the text. This text is based on highly reliable sources.--Andi horn (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are you commenting here when the discussion is continuing above? Anyway, if you have followed the arguments you will see that the persons who do not want to discuss is people who continue to copy the content of deleted coup article here without discussion. The references are not accurate enough as I have given Makhmalbaf as an example. 128.100.5.132 (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Registration[edit]

Minister of Interior, Sadegh Mahsouli appeared on Iranian State television http://alef.ir/1388/content/view/48390/ and tried to answer claims and questions about election fraud. About higher that 100% turn out he stated that this has happened in previous elections. For example he stated that the turn out in Sheminranat (in North of Tehran) was 800% in this election and has been over 100% in previous ones. He stated that this is normal as people are not required to vote where the are registered when they have been born (also note that there is no other registration for voting, therefore the statement without this point that this is birth registration is misleading to people think that there is a separate registration for voting before election which is not the case.) So the sentence that they (Ministery of Interior) considers this normal is correct. He also stated that Shemiranat has more voters than all other places with higher that 100% turn out all together, and two third of votes cast in Shemiranat was for Mousavi. rdt (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my previous edit which you reverted. I changed the word "consider" to "claim." The problem with the word "consider" is that in this context it carries the implication that the Guardian Council thinks or believes this is so. Therefore, that wording implies that the count was honest, because it is stating that their internal mental state is that the turnout numbers reflect an accurate vote rather than a fix. But we can't read their minds to know if they really believe it, so it is better to use a word like "claim" or "state." Otherwise, the article seems to take the POV position that the Council honestly believes what it claims about the overvote. Second, the sentence states that registration occurs at the place of birth (instead of, for example, one's place of residence). I don't know where a person voter registration occurs, but I do know that the cited PressTV article says nothing about registration at one's place of birth. So that shouldn't be in the wiki article unless someone can find a separate citation verifying that. --JamesAM (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for reverting your edit. I think it is OK to use claim in place of consider, although I still think that claim has a negative weight toward saying that this is not true. As I have not read any reformist reject this claim, the probability that it is correct is high. (note: previous two presidential elections have been done by reformist government of Khatami and it should not be hard to verify it). About registration, in Iran, there is no registration for residence in a province or city, neither any other registration for voting. Estimates are based on birth registration records. The minister of interior states this explicitly on the link I provided above. I am not sure if I can find an English source to support it. Google's first pages does not have it. Some Persian speaker can verify the video on alef (this is a copy of the TV broadcast). 128.100.5.131 (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you Rdt? You posted under an IP, so I'm unsure. If "claimed" seems to carry a negative connotation, then maybe a verb like "argued" or "said" or "stated" would be preferable. The verbs that I think would be inappropriate for the sentence are words like "consider" or "think" or "believe" because those words would imply that we know for certain that the Guardian Council is stating its honest belief. I don't think it should be assumed either (1) that the overvote is due to legitimate causes or (2) that those opposed to the election concede the point. Rezaee complained about the overvote to begin with, so obviously he thought it was a problem. Even if there were no complaints, I don't think lack of complaint by any candidate should be assumed to mean agreement (especially in a situation where opposition newspapers have been restricted). If the link in Talk page mentions registration occurring at one's birth site, then I think you should add it as a citation in the article itself. Whether registration occurs at one's birthplace or residence can have implications regarding the overvote total, so it should there should be a citation to support. I don't understand Farsi, so unfortunately I couldn't read it myself. Thanks for your reply. --JamesAM (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi JamesAM, yes, I am rdt. I see your point about the verbs and that you have changed them and agree with your changes. Minister of Interior's appearance on TV has taken place after reformists and Rezaie complained about the over 100 percent turn out, and was an answer to them. I have not seen anything on the reformist websites or blogs of people supporting reformists about answering what minister of interior has said on the television. Of course this does not show that they are correct, but if they are serious about these things they should conter-answer what minister of interior has said, not just say something and when the minister answers move to something else. About the registration, I will add the link to article as you suggested. I hope that someone speaking Persian will verify it. Thanks also for your reply, and sorry again for reverting your changes. 128.100.5.132 (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The only coup attempt was by Mousavi who tried to get his protestors to violently overthrow the elected government. But than as his support was to small he failed miserably. Kermanshahi (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

External Link[edit]

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

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

128.100.5.135|128.100.5.135: It is you who removed the link so that it is you who has to justify your action, not I. --BF 15:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Not true! Have you watched the documentary at all?! All Presidential candidates are invited to watch the documentary and discuss the issues raised in it; Part 5 is devoted to these candidates (two attending with their wises and one, Mr Rajai, has attended with his daughter in addition) discussing the issues raised in the documentary. Despite repeated invitations, Mr Ahmadinejad has not participated in the discussion, but that has been his decision, rather than any partisan decision on the part of Ms Bani Etemad (no doubt, like others, Ms Bani Etemad has her political preferences, but that is not reflected in the documentary). I put the link back, but please next time study something before taking action --- I am certainly not here to promote one candidate above another. --BF 02:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Regardless, it doesn't belong in the external links section. Maybe if it is important enough, you can integrate it somehow in to the text.--Patrick «» 17:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I ask you the same question as from the previous person: have you watched the documentary? Do you know what these women are talking about? If not, where is your judgement based on? Please kindly restrict yourself to the issues that are commensurate with your expertise. --BF 18:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
i see two different points here:
  • non-partisanity - being wiktionary:partisan does not necessarily exclude something from being an NPOV fact, provided it's appropriately NPOVed "X, associated with political party/faction/person Y, claims that...". On the other hand, things associated with the different candidates and/or their parties/support groups would better go on their respective wikipedia entries rather than here. And certainly wikipedia cannot be accepted to be part of political parties'/candidates' political campaigns. In any case, the word seems to have been removed now.
  • Is it relevant to the 2009 Iranian presidential election? i think that people fluent in farsi can debate that here. i don't see any obvious claims saying that the رخشان بنی اعتماد videos are not relevant, by people who know the language (at a minimum), culture, political situation etc. and i do see quite credible claims that the videos are relevant. Boud (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not giving an opinion on the content, which is inaccessible to non-Persian speakers. My expertise is in Wikipedia, and I'm trying to keep the article presentable while looking to WP:ELNO, guidelines for what should be placed in the External links section. Editors should avoid all conflicts of interest, and links should be in English, which exception for official sites, which we make with the other links. Additionally, YouTube videos, per WP:YOUTUBE, though not banned, need to comply with restrictions. Even if your videos do comply, which is the argument the editor adding links must make, I still question whether they belong in a section typically reserved for official sites, election maps, and data from official sources.--Patrick «» 18:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Non-English-language_sites says that one justification for linking to a non-English language site is "when the webpage contains key or authoritative information found on no English-language site and is used as a citation (or when translations on English-language sites are not authoritative)." It seems to me that the translations of these videos on English-language sites are indeed not authoritative, since as far as we know, they don't even exist. So we don't have an authoritative English-language version of the 4 candidates' responses (or non-responses) to a group of women led by Iran's premier female (film) director (claim NPOV-ed on that web page). Also the top of the Manual of Style page says that we should use common sense. To me, common sense says that citizens' groups' analyses that are uncontroversially accepted as being as neutral as is reasonably possible are in fact required if we want neutrality overall - since otherwise we are biased in favour of the existing major candidates and/or political parties. On the other hand, it would not hurt to have something NPOV-able in the text rather than just having an external link... Boud (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I emphasize once again, that the video is absolutely non-partisan. The women who look into the camera and ask questions, do so by addressing all candidates. They say such a thing as: "As a women working with women involved in substance abuse, I should like to ask you, dear candidates, to tell us what you will do for these women if elected President". No candidate (also not the incumbent) is singled out either for praise or criticism. Ms Bani Etemad explicitly says that the idea of making this documentary arose from the fact that once in four years the usual restrictions on the freedom of expression are lifted in Iran and women thought that this gave them the opportunity to express themselves as freely as possible about matters that are close to their hearts. In fact the documentary shows how various women's groups, whether religious or secular, have come together and are working together for the betterment of the conditions of families in general and women in particular --- this is reflected in the fact that some women in the documentary wear very strict Islamic dresses and some do not. In the last part of the documentary (part 5), the candidates (and their wives and in one case one daughter) are given the opportunity to express their views after having seen the main material of the documentary --- in the video, Ms Bani Etemad explicitly says that all candidates were invited, however only Mr Ahmadinejad did not respond to their invitation.
To my best judgment, all the above-mentioned aspects of this documentary make it very suitable for being introduced in the main page of "Iranian presidential election, 2009" --- it is of utmost significance that the documentary does not promote one candidate at the expense of others; it is solely a documentary through which the Iranian women, from all layers of the Iranian society, speak to all Presidential candidates (and do so by showing utmost respect to all of them). Given these facts, I would feel utterly dumbfounded if the pertinent external link were to be removed from the main page --- most sincerely, I am inclined to view the act of removing this external link as unquestionably misogynous. It is important to realise that in the opening sequence of the documentary it is explicitly mentioned that due to lack of time they have not been able to distribute the documentary through commercial channels and that is why they have made it freely available to public. I believe that it is an apt tribute to the large number of women, including Ms Bani Etemad, who have invested such a great amount of effort in producing this documentary, to have the fruit of their labour exposed in the most relevant entry of the en.Wikipedia as regards the forthcoming Presidential election in Iran. --BF 22:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest you to put a page for views of candidates about human-rights/women rights and put the link there. Putting links to a video without any text is not much useful. Then we can add a small section to this article about views of candidates over social issues and have a link to it. It would be nice to have one for foreign policy, one for economy, and one for internal political issues like: views on political parties, media and newspapers,... . 128.100.5.135 (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
You yourself may proceed with whatever you are proposing that I should be doing (that you can be so presumptuous as to issue orders to me, is simply beyond belief), without thereby creating an excuse for yourself to remove the present external link. My argument is not, and has never been, about the possible things that can and cannot be done with this link, rather that the present entry is a most appropriate home for this link. I must be frank with you and tell you that you do not come over as a candid person. In your first comment on this page (after having removed the link from the main page, without having consulted a single person about it) you wrote that you were "not sure it is non- partisan as it is claimed" (your reason being that the mere appearance of Mr Bani Etemad with Mr Mousavi in TV ads had disqualified her for being considered a non-partisan person --- with which statement I did not disagree, adding however that this did not have any bearing on her present work), now you are going to the other extreme by introducing yourself as a "human-right/women right" advocate (as for "text", I have attached a sufficient amount of explanatory text to the external link that people get a clear understanding about the documentary). Can't you see that you are sending out contradictory signals about yourself? Please be frank and tell us what you really want to say but do not. I am not prepared to take any person whose sole contribution to the Wikipedia has been to the present entry (and then has come in through an IP number from University of Toronto) very seriously (university IPs constantly change, offering some people the perfect opportunity to assume different identities on Wikipedia at different times). I am very sorry for my rather unfriendly words, but I have a very low tolerance for those who are not being straightforward; if there is any game to be played, its rules must be known to all parties and kept constant so long as the game continues. --BF 04:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC).
I don't understand your anger. Bani Etemad is campaigning for Mir Hossein. It was completely reasonable to state that I doubt it is partisan. Also this was you who claimed that it is not partisan as a justification. As other editors stated that being partisan or not is not important, I dropped that objection. It is also completely irrelevant what I think about human rights or where I am connecting from, I sometimes connect from my office (which is in UofT!) and sometimes from other places, I sometimes work on wiki when I am logged in and sometimes when I am not, and this is not the only article that I have contributed to. I am trying to be as objective as possible, if you are receiving confusing signals it is your problem. You are attacking people who are trying to create a good article about this election for adding a link that you think it should be there. I am not ordering anything, we are discussing how this article should be. You could have simply added a section for views and stated the views of candidates, one line for each and gave the link as a reference, but you continue to act arrogantly. What have you contributed to this article? I have also seen that you are putting external links to mousavi's page and mousavi's 2009 election page. What else have you done about articles in this election other than adding external links? When I look at your recent contributions, the only thing I see is you are adding a number of external links to a number of pages. Stop attacking people here, stop these personal attacks, stop adding this link while the discussion continues. Also your response to Patrick seems to show your bias toward Rakhshan Bani Etemad. The thing that you love her works does not justify your behavior here. She is nice person is completely irrelevant to this article. It is also completely irrelevant that she is a good film maker. My suggestion about adding a section discussing views of candidates is just what came to my mind after reading one of comments above. 128.100.5.135 (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
BF at 15:58, 11 June 2009 said: "It is you who removed the link so that it is you who has to justify your action, not I." I have already stated the reason I removed the link: I saw someone who was not working on this article had added an external link, where the comment for the modification said that it is nonpartisan. As I knew she was campaigning for Mousavi, I doubted the claim, and moved it to discussion page so we can discuss it as I thought being nonpartisan is a requirement. I have dropped that objection when other editors pointed out that being nonpartisan is not a requirement. Then there was a new objection by an other editor that external links is not the right place for it. But you started to act arrogantly. As you can see there are a number of people who are working on this article for a while, but you started attacking these people. I am happy that you have brought it to the attention of a more senior editor, as you don't seem to accept anything we say, maybe they can convince you that your behavior was not appropriate. I also preserve the right to bring this matter to the attention of other more senior editors if needed. 128.100.5.135 (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I want to add one more objection, what is the use of an external link to a movie in Persian on English wiki without any text? 128.100.5.135 (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
BehnamFarid, I don't think you understand the problem. I'm not questioning if the videos are partisan or not. A recipe for falafel may be non-partisan, but it doesn't belong in this article. Even if it is a documentary made for candidates in this election, it doesn't mean it should be linked. If I post my own video on YouTube where I ask all the candidates questions, do you think that too should be linked? It just so happens that in the real world, I am a documentary filmmaker, and I highly respect the work female filmmakers like Bani Etemad are doing in the Muslim World. If we are going to have this linked, is there no central site? Five individual YouTube links should be consolidated. Finally, I am appalled that you would be so bold to label editors such as myself as "unquestionably misogynous", I am insulted, and have no problem bringing this to an SysOp's attention if any editors continue to make such statements.--Patrick «» 03:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Patrick, please and please and please stop trying to tell me what I understand and what I do not. This is a minor point, and you are making a monstrous thing out of it!!! The election at issue is on this Friday, and it makes no sense, whatever, that we endlessly talk and talk and talk about a minor external link. Would you therefore please leave this issue to peace, and do things that you are best in. Why for heaven's sake do you compare yourself with Rakhshan Bani Etemad? How many works by her do you know? In my opinion she is one of the greatest, the most thoughtful person there is --- if you had heard her talking, you would have known how fascinating she speaks; I have rarely seen a person whose statements are as measured as hers. Given these facts, I find it insulting that you compare her video with one on making falafels. What is that supposed to convey? The present documentary contains so many artistic aspects that one can write a book about them (in some of the scenes the camera movements are just mesmerising -- when I first saw the video, I did not know that it was by her, however within two minutes I realised that it could only be the work of a master; it was then that I looked for the name of its director). I have nothing more to add, except that I seem to have run out of patience. --BF 04:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
You still don't get it, and I don't think you will. Link is gone, per reasons stated, mesmerizing camera movements and all. Please do not start an unnecessary edit war unless you plan to back your edits up with the list at WP:EL, as I had previously recommended you do. Lastly, never, ever, ever edit another user's text on a talk page, regardless of your preferences.--Patrick «» 05:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
On whose authority have you removed the link? There was no consensus on the issue!!! Incidentally, you must learn not to talk the way you do; that you may not "get" things does not means others don't. --BF 12:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Patrickneil: In response to your previous two comments, first I did not accuse you as being a misogynist; please read my comment again, and notice the generality of my statement (it was not directed to any specific individual --- you may think that it was addressed to you on removing the link). Second, I abhor parading my credentials here, and similarly when others do. It is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion at hand whether you are a film-maker or not --- if you did intend to impress me, you failed. For the event that you may not have noticed, I truly was repulsed by your comparison of the work at issue with a video regarding making falafels (there is an unmistakable Freudian slip in your comparison). The fact seems to have been lost to you that this documentary amounts to the voice of over 35 million Iranian women! Are they and their concerns to be compared with falafels? Incidentally, if you are truly insulted by my use of the word "misogynistic" (which, I emphasise, was not directed to any specific individual), please go ahead and file an official complaint about me; I have no hesitation to use this word when it is due. You should realise the nature of the platform on which you are, seemingly proudly, standing: you are in word and in deed (yes, also in deed as evidenced by your removal of the link) proclaiming that the voice of half of Iran's population is irrelevant to Iran's 2009 Presidential election. You seem utterly blind to the enormity of this proclamation. Lastly, your sarcastic remark that "Link is gone, per reasons stated, mesmerizing camera movements and all." reveals a great deal about your general attitude regarding the issues pertinent to the discussions at hand (by my life, I cannot believe that a serious film-maker can make such a sarcastic remark --- in my world view, works of art are sacrosanct). I have now brought the present issue to the attention of User:Khoikhoi for consideration. --BF 13:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
BF: Maybe you have missed the point several of us have tried to make - see above: "I want to add one more objection, what is the use of an external link to a movie in Persian on English wiki without any text? 128.100.5.135 (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)" Another way of saying this: A subsection something like "Women's groups' involvment in/analyses of the candidates" could probably be reasonably added to the page at an appropriate point, but you (or someone, anyone!) would have to do the work of making some reasonable text and including references (e.g. the videos) in the role of reliable sources that would be reasonable enough as a first approximation so that other wikipedians could improve the text without having to redo the subsection from scratch. Boud (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
BF, you're acting very WP:OWN-ey. I see a similarity to specific examples on the WP:OWN page, particularly
  • 1. "Are you qualified to edit this article?"
  • 2. "Unless it is wrong or has errors, please do not make such changes or comments without my/his approval."
This argument is without merit. The link was deemed unnecessary and misplaced, and was removed. You don't own the page, and you don't own the link. You've explained your position as to why it should stay, and it really has nothing to do with this page, not to mention it's not even in English, on the English wikipedia. This documentary is not official, and it's not particularly notable. It's gone.
"On whose authority have you removed the link? There was no consensus on the issue!!!" This is exactly the wrong attitude, along with you peppering your comments with attacks and scolding remarks ("you must learn not to talk the way you do", "that you can be so presumptuous as to issue orders to me, is simply beyond belief"). Watch yourself. Despite your opinions, strong as they are, you're in the wrong here. --King ♣ Talk 14:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Analysis of the Results[edit]

The first paragraph of this section is almost entirely free from citations, and makes sweeping claims such as "No credible evidence of fraud has ever been found." Perhaps I should familiarize myself with the details surrounding the election a bit more, but somehow I highly doubt that such a high proportion of the international community outside of the Middle East would take the allegations and protests so seriously if in fact zero evidence whatsoever had ever been presented. It's written in a style that suggests a highly personal point of view, as if the author had an ax to grind. The first citation is about 4/5 of the way through and links to a "comprehensive report" on a personal blog written by an author without a Wikipedia article of his own (though his non-existen article is still linked to as if someone believed he mightone day become notable)...somehow, this seems to stink not just of non-neutrality but of original research. I'd consider taking action myself, but it's been years since I was active on Wikipedia and I'm a bit trigger shy of making any substantial edits at this point. Theaterfreak64 (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Not every sentence needs a citation, one citation can be provided for several sentences. What you are proposing is to completely delete everything from the article representing the view of majority of Iranians and the government that the elections were not rigged and leave the article with only green movement propaganda. Firtsly I want to make it clear there was no real proof at all, the "proof" provided were: a comparison of Ahmadinejad's 2005 first round results per province (in which 7 major candidates competed and none had a majority) with his 2009 results per province, which ofcourse showed and increase for Ahmadinejad votes everywhere and than the claim that this should be impossible, which "proves" Mousavi won. A claim by Mousavi office that the "actual results" leaked and showed him with 19 milion votes and Ahmadinejad with only 5 milion votes which contradicts the green movement's claims that the eelection results weren't counted at all, because the results were in (supposedly) much to quickly, which is their other "major proof" that the results were rigged. Another "proof" is the myth of "all Azeris would automaticly vote for Mousavi, disregaring all politics and voting purely on ethnic basis" (which should "prove" that the election was rigged as Ahmadinejad won in Tabriz), but at the same time the Persians are not gonna vote ethnicly for some reason unknown to us, infact they were all gonna vote for Mousavi the non-Persian. Other than these flawed theories presented by the Green movement you've got a few claims by them that anonymous government workers have admitted the election was rigged, the problem being that none of this can ever ben confirmed and the assumption that the fact that 100,000 people demonstrated in a city of 14,000,000 (metropolian area) - although nowhere else in the country the Greens could get over 1000 people - should make everyone believe that it is sooo obviously clear tha a vast majority of Iran's 74 milion people support this man. And all of these weak claims are mentioned throughout all articles related (and even articles hardly related) to the elections and/or green movement. Now if this is the only "proof" they have (which it is), why would pro-American governments and the media in their country's take it all so seriously? Simple, politics are politics. There has been a smear-campaign against Ahmadinejad, in western media ever since he got in power and against Iran ever since the revolution, because the Iranian politics do not coincide with American geo-strategic interests. Why do you think their camera crews prior to the elections only interviewed university students in Northern Tehran which spoke fluent English, while no other city, region or population group's views were ever shown on American news? Because they wanted to create an image that Mousavi is more populair, while infact he wasn't, as the fully legitimate results show. Kermanshahi (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

facebook access is yet restricted[edit]

facebook is filtred now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.57.150 (talk) 08:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Were they rigged?[edit]

The idea wikipedians were giving when the election was done was it was rigged. Did this consensus change? --Leladax (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks:Mousavi received approximately 26 million (or 61%) of the 42 million votes cast in Friday's election, followed by Mehdi Karroubi (10-12 million). According to his sources, Ahmadinejad received "a maximum of 4-5 million votes," with the remainder going to Mohsen Rezai. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/212138 29 november 2010, 00:25:28 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.27.87.169 (talk)

This doesn't exactly come from a neutral source. Most respectable independent analysis I've seen suggests that Ahmadinejad would have won a narrow victory anyway, but elements in the government panicked and committed fraud unnecessarily with the outcome that some of the results appeared implausible. Certainly the Western media reports at the time were very fanciful. 85.228.221.187 (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The consensus hasn't really changed. Some Mousavi fanboys in among the Iranian diaspora continue to spread propaganda both here and on sites like facebook, youtube, twitter, insisting the election was rigged, meanwhile there has still been no proof at all, provided by anyone, other than contradicting claims by Iranian reformist leaders. The only thing that has changed is that the protests rapidly died down and inside Iran things have gone a lot more quiet since Ashura last year.Kermanshahi (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the consensus hasn't changed, but I would say the consensus is that they were fraudulent. The only Western professional/academic commentators I've seen arguing that they were legitimate are the Leveretts. I've read everything they've publicly written on the subject but find their views unconvincing. Mostly, it consists of relying on problematic polling and then arguing with other people. The problem is that even if you accept their counter-arguments, that doesn't leave you with any positive argument for election accuracy (aside from those highly problematic polls, where, for instance, most people are undecided a month before the election and the poll was taken before a decisive shift in public mood, or you're asking them their opinions way after the election and after the government has spent the last 6 months beating protestors and throwing politicians and journalists in jail). There's nothing in the Iranian election system that inspires confidence (the Interior ministry and Guardian Council are not independent of Ahmadinejad and Khamanei) and they don't allow international or domestic observers (as distinct from Chavez in Venezuela). They also drastically changed and centralized the vote-counting system for the election. So you can believe what you want, but I tend to think the burden is on governments to prove the legitimacy of their elections to us, not the other way around. Akumabarai (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

So you say American diplomats are lieing to themselves in the cables? that makes no sense.. 15:10, 8 januari 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.27.87.169 (talk)

Unverified leaked confersations between low level diplomats of a foreign country are not proof. They can say whatever they want, how would they know? None of them even had any importance.Kermanshahi (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Eric A. Brill[edit]

Sorry, but who is Mr. Brill and why do I care about his analysis? His website (http://brill-law.com/) tells me he is a corporate/securities lawyer based in San Francisco. Why is his blogged analysis interesting or noteworthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akumabarai (talkcontribs) 01:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see that the Leveretts cited his work in an FP article (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/14/whos_really_misreading_tehran?page=full), but I still don't see why I should care if some attorney blogs something. If he gets his view published in a journal, then I might care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akumabarai (talkcontribs) 01:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Your removal is completely one-sided. The analysis section is become completely one sided. This is a verifiable source, it does not matter if you like it or not or if you need to worry about it. Also by WP policy you should not remove disputed sections until there is an agreement. The analysis should contain the views of others not just supporters if the vote-rigging claim. The analysis part after your edit does not show any evidence of vote-rigging but just what some people have claimed. The previous version had answers to many of claims about vote rigging. I am returning it to the previous state. 128.100.3.42 (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)