Talk:2013 Iranian presidential election

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

Just a simple formatting error[edit]

In the mini section "Votes by provinces" Rezaee won the province Khuzestan, but Rowhani's "675,492" is printed in boldface. Should be changed easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.64.22 (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Out of date?[edit]

This wording may be out of date:

"In December 2012 new legislation sets a minimum age of 40 and a maximum of 75, which disqualifies former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani from seeking the office again. It demands a candidate have at least a doctoral degree or its seminary equivalent, which eliminates many midranking clerics."

According to this article, that wording was deleted at request of Guardian Council:

http://www.rferl.org/content/changes-iran-election-law-power-struggle-ahmadinejad-khamenei/24888075.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.60.106 (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Iranian presidential election, 2013[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Iranian presidential election, 2013's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "free":

  • From Iranian presidential election, 2009: "Ahmadinejad defiant on 'free' Iran poll". BBC News. 13 June 2009. Retrieved 13 June 2009.
  • From Elections in Iran: "Ahmadinejad defiant on 'free' Iran poll". BBC News. 13 June 2009. Retrieved 13 June 2009. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Reference named "tele":

Reference named "daily":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latest updates[edit]

  • As of today, the article has been updated with latest announced candidates and well sourced potential candidates. Also, structure of the coalitions and alliances in under development. Some sources are unfortunately in Persian but the structure of the article is in accordance with the Persian article which has more comprehensive information.Sina (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani[edit]

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is a Reformists not a Conservative.81.58.144.30 (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the title "Independent" is more suitable for the person because he is not aligned to neither of two major parties, he has his own independent personality in politics and no one can exactly determine he is reformist or conservative. Soroush90gh (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polls[edit]

I think that opinion polls section should be removed. None of the websites listed there are reliable neither notable. Some of them are basically propaganda website which promote their own candidates.Farhikht (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Na Farhikht jan, I don't agree with you. You know, we haven't any reliable institute for this kinds of polls except their result is secret. For example IRIB holds that for all the elections but doesn't publish its results because of ridiculous reasons. This sites aren't reliable, you are right, but a collection of them is better than nothing, in my idea. Kheili eradatmandim!!! Soroush90gh (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't have reliable polls then we don't put them. All materials in Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources. These websites are forums, local web news, and these polls got no coverage in reliable sources. This section is against multiple parts of this policy, for exemple: WP:FORUM, WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:IINFO.Farhikht (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't agree with me then we can request an outside opinion at WP:3.Farhikht (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's interesting to have these polls though of course, it would be much better if the allegiance of each site could be determined. Even if this is not possible, after the election it will be interesting to compare the results with what each site had announced. What worries me is that some polls are really messy. I don't really understand how the late alef polls' data were organized when they give three numbers for each candidate and what's worse, they mingle individual candidates and currents. How was the decission taken of dividing the Reformists' 25% into two equal parts for Aref and Rouhani? Isn't Ghalibaf part of the 'Threesome alliance'? Where were Jalili's 11.6% taken from? And the Others and Undecided 1%?
So I do think polls are useful but not any poll. Maybe we could have a table for individual-based polls and another one for the current-based ones? But then, where should Alef's go?--Maš Mânú (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against putting polls in the article. The problem is the accuracy of these polls cited in the article. So I present these sources here to those who don't know Persian:
  • This source is Rasanehiran.com and the opinino polls cited here is conducted by IRIB, State TV -which is not independent. About section of the website is empty.
  • Akharinnews cites a polls conducted by Tebyan.net. Tebyan is one of the website of the Islamic Ideology Dissemination Organization which is officially under the control of the Supreme Leader.
  • ie92.ir can't be considered as a reliable source. Here the website claims that they support "the interests of the Islamic Republic".
  • this one: Nothing about the website. Who is behind this website? An online survey.
  • iranelect.ir is not an official website and again nothing in the about section. Online survey.
  • Tebyan see above.
  • a forum.
  • alef.ir is the website of Ahmad Tavakoli. The polls here is conducted by "a reliable organisation". Which one? What is the name of this organisation?

Their methods and techniques are unknown. So I think that this part of the article should be definitively removed.Farhikht (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with Soroush, he have this also in 2009 presidential election. No website is independent in Iran but we must have this section like other presidential elections in other countries. Keep it and add from other website. Polls are not the official results. Tabarez (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Opinion polls[edit]

Should the "opinion polls" section be removed or not?Farhikht (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This must be like other presidential elections. Tabarez (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just because other articles have opinion polls does not mean this article has to. We should only report reliable source opinion polls. And, given uncertainties about these polls' methods, what about reporting them (if they meet WP:RS) but also including an explanatory note with concerns about their accuracy (preferably again using reliable sources)? Bondegezou (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the above section, these polls are conducted by websites with no editorial oversight. Of course none of them are reliable. Farhikht (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inbox[edit]

I think there's no reason to add all candidates in the inbox section. Only persons that have major chance in polls like the previous election. And next, is that the name of their must be complete. Tabarez (talk) 05:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider that the inbox has place for all names. Why we should remove some of them? We can't judge the chance of candidates based on polls that their accuracy are disputed. Note also that we don't compare articles to each other, what is wrong is wrong every where. Please refer to WikiProject Politics or related projects, policies, etc. (The article on american election that you previously talked about was changed and completed after the election.)Farhikht (talk) 08:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why their name is incomplete?? Why you reverted all my edits in other sections???? Tabarez (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An infobox is intended as a summary: it doesn't have to be a complete listing of every candidate. That is done elsewhere in the article. If there are reliable sources indicating that some candidates don't have any real chance of doing well, then I'd leave them out of the infobox, but I'd be happy to err on the side of inclusion in the absence of reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also say this and do it last night but my edits was reverted. I think only Ghalibaf, Jalili, Rezaei and Aref must be in inbox according to the polls. Tabarez (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Tabarez, Who is sure about result of this election? Who knows which candidate has more chance? Who can predict? Are you 100% sure that Mr. Gharazi isn't our next president? Do you remember the election of the year 2005? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was Mr. Gharazi of that election and he won!!! So in my idea, theoretically and maybe practically (!!!) all the candidates have a same chance to win and all of them must be mentioned in inbox or any other list. Thanks Soroush90gh (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colors[edit]

What is the references for these colors? Are they officially declared? Or you used it randomly? The same for this template.Farhikht (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, Rouhani's color are known. Rezaei are announced blue as his campaign color [2]. Aref are also announced his campaign color is white [3]. Ghalibaf are not announced officially but I'm a member of his campaign and we are using yellow. Other candidates I don't think have official color because of last election (Green, Blue, White, Red). And next, color is not the main we add color because of article's charisma. Tabarez (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jalili also not announced colors but he is back by Paydari and Paydari's color is red. Gharazi is also independent and independents don't have color. Tabarez (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link for color of Ghalibaf [4]. Tabarez (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's OKAY to use other colors (like Green, Orange) for the other two candidates until they officially announcing their color? Tabarez (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haddad changed his website color to blue sapphire. [5] and I think Velayati dosen't have official color. Tabarez (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Velayai also announced. [6] He used brown in all notes. Tabarez (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to this infobox, we use the color to determine the color of the party, not because of the "charisma" of the article. Using an irrelevant color misguide readers.

About your sources: For Rezaei and Aref, it's Okay. But for Ghalibaf, you are not a source as you see here: "Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material." About Jalili: a candidate maybe backed by many parties. The inbox should use its own party color not color of its supporter parties. And the source should mention the official color of the candidate clearly.

So, for Aref, Rezaei and Rouhani it's OK to use colors. For others you should wait until they declare their color.Farhikht (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also add the sources for Ghalibaf, Velayati and Haddad]. Please add this too. Thanks. Tabarez (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources made a claim about the colors. Two of them are primary sources and Guardian estimate that "maybe" yellow is the color of Ghalibaf campaign.Farhikht (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

new sources

Your source says that Ghalibaf has no color, so your previous claim about yellow is wrong. So why you change the article? If you restart your edit war I will report you.Farhikht (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about this? [7] Tabarez (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And we can add this. As I know the coalition candidate is Velayati. Tabarez (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Ghalibaf's campaign reject claim of color use, as you see in Shafaf.ir which is a news website close to Mr. Ghalibaf. Tabarez, I'm pretty sure that Ghalibaf's color is yellow but here in Wikipedia we need a source that support this claim.Farhikht (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will find a good source for this. Please wait. Tabarez (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everybody, the colors index is not mentioned on the map. It is not known which color on the map refers to which candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.247.72.54 (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All candidates in the inbox[edit]

Why you removed half of the candidates of the inbox? Based on what criteria? I will bring them back, because the article in its current form violate POV.Farhikht (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About polls![edit]

I think keeping the outdated polls in the article is not useful at all! But anyway, if we supposed to keep the polls like that, we need to organize the polls. Because now they seems really crazy! For some of them even no ongoing reference (and therefore no online poll) exists! And for some the others, 3-4 updated are represented and for the rest no updates!

If we are supposed to update the polls and keep the previous versions as well, we need to do something for organizing the polls! We can choose a specific color for each reference and after that update the data with the same color and the same name, time by time. An example of this way is presented in the following article.

Opinion polling for the French presidential election, 2012

Or we can making the group of the references (e.g. "ie92" and "Arnanews") the same as here:

Poll source Date updated Ghalibaf Jalili Rezaei Rouhani Velayati Aref Haddad-Adel Gharazi Others Undecided
ie92[1] 14 May 2013 18% 7% 12% 8% 7% 1% 1% 4% 40% 2%
19 May 2013 15% 7% 10% 7% 6% 1% 1% 5% 47% 1%
22 May 2013 31% 17% 22% 13% 12% 1% 1% 0.1% – 4%
24 May 2013 29% 16% 22% 12% 11% 4% 1% 1% - 4%
Arnanews[2] 15 May 2013 8.8% 9.3% 3.9% 0.2% 3.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 70.5% 3.1%
24 May 2013 17.2% 18.9% 6.7% 18.1% 3.9% 33.8% 0.7% 1.7% – –


However, it will be much better and more convenient to remove the ones that don't have any specific reference and also remove the outdated ones! Also it is no need to keep the outdated poll result from a specific reference in addition to its new poll result! In this case, we can easily updated the poll results day by day, because all of the polls are ongoing polls. Therefore and by removing the extra ones such a table will be ideal for keeping in the article:

Poll source Date updated Ghalibaf Jalili Rezaei Rouhani Velayati Aref Haddad-Adel Gharazi Others Undecided
Fararu[3] 23 May 2013 18.84% 9.56% 7.49% 24.36% 3.86% 30.96% 0.93% 4.01% – –
Ghatreh[4] 23 May 2013 17.57% 16.83% 6.38% 17.32% 6.9% 30.87% 1.16% 2.92% – –
Seratnews[5] 23 May 2013 22.96% 40.47% 4.84% 10.14% 6.93% 9.97% 0.84% 3.84% – –
Ofoghnews[6] 23 May 2013 20.00% 19.00% 6.00% 20.00% 8.00% 23.00% 0.1% 4.00% – –
ie92[7] 24 May 2013 29% 16% 22% 12% 11% 4% 1% 1% - 4%
Entekhabeshoma[8] 24 May 2013 30.09% 27.00% 6.04% 9.00% 8.00% 3.80% 0.05% 0.09% – –
Arnanews[9] 24 May 2013 17.2% 18.9% 6.7% 18.1% 3.9% 33.8% 0.7% 1.7% – –
Eghtesadeiranonline[10] 24 May 2013 10.2% 8.7% 3% 36.4% 12.8% 26.6% 0.7% 1.5% – –

Regards, Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 11:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ ie92 poll result
  2. ^ به کدامیک از کاندیداهای زیر رای خواهید داد ؟
  3. ^ "Choise your candidate". fararu (in Persian). 23 May 2013. Retrieved 23 May 2013.
  4. ^ نظرسنجی انتخابات ریاست جمهوری
  5. ^ نظرسنجی
  6. ^ نظرسنجی انتخابات
  7. ^ ie92 poll result
  8. ^ [1]
  9. ^ به کدامیک از کاندیداهای زیر رای خواهید داد ؟
  10. ^ شما از بین نامزدهای تایید صلاحیت شده به کدام یک رای می دهید؟

Debates[edit]

Can anybody create an article about debates and TV programs like this? Tabarez (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time Schedule Table in Iranian Public TV[edit]

This table refer to an ongoing event and it will be really helpful for the ones who want to follow candidates TV programs. So it should be kept in the main article at least up to 12th of June 2013, which will be the final date of TV programs for the candidates. After that, it will be fine to move it to the related new article Iranian presidential election debates, 2013. I reorganize the table in a way that it will take less space in the main article. Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 12:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polls[edit]

Dear Koorosh1234, I think when he have a page for polls, there's no reason to add it again to the main article. Tabarez (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it from main article. Please add analyses of the polls to the main article. Thanks. Tabarez (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there is another page with many different polls! But having some of the more popular polls (e.g. with more that 10,000 votes) in the article and update their results day by day, will be useful. Of course, after the election day this part will be removed form the main article and only will be kept in the poll page. Even if you check the Farsi page of the article in Wikipedia, they add such an ongoing poll results and update them day by day. Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 17:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this version in other elections history. If you see, linked to me. Tabarez (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a complete mess[edit]

The massive [[8]] Nominations subsection in this entry is almost entirely in list form. At the top of that section please note the following:

When I fixed the preceding, I was accused of "vandalism" and my improvements erased. Aside from that huge issue, another huge problem I am correcting is the lack of any substance in this entry about the eight approved Presidential candidates. Overall, this encyclopedia entry is incoherent; i.e., the 'organization' makes no sense. I've been told by Tabarez that I'm trying to reorganize the entry in a non-Wikipedia way, but I don't see that. Here are four examples of normal national election Wikipedia articles: Brazilian presidential election, 2010, United Kingdom general election, 2010, Israeli legislative election, 2013, United States presidential election, 2012. They are almost entirely prose, and note that the articles focus primarily, especially near the top of the entry, on the substantive issues that matter in the election. In the case of Iran, for example, there should be a narrative on the issues, in general, that will be important in the election: off the top of my head, these probably would include the economy, the nuclear program and related sanctions, international relations including Syria, religiosity (for lack of a better word), and the legacy of the 2009 election. Let's go, let's get this baby fixed up!Haberstr (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your edit, is this a Wikipedia format?! Please note that this is a presidential election article not parliamentary (you add United Kingdom's elections as an example) and the candidate's views must be included in their own and campaign articles. Here only must add their last post. And about my mean about Vandalism in second backup, I first said that your edit is not good but you again undo this and I said your reverted maybe vandalism. Tabarez (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know what vandalism and you know what I did was not vandalism. You just disagreed with me so you got angry and used that word. You have a right to disagree, but you don't 'own' this article and neither do I. There is no meaningful difference between the standard Wikipedia parliamentary (2 of my references) and presidential (the other 2 references) election articles. They _always_ are almost all prose. They always explain, usually in depth, the main issues under contention. They always give snapshot summaries of the positions and biographies of each major candidate. None of that is happening so far, but I am very happy to help improve the quality here.Haberstr (talk) 09:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcomed Haberstr to improve this article and others election related articles. Basically some of them contain grammar and language mistakes. I appreciate your help.Farhikht (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits in grammar mistakes is very good but I mean the Nomination's section. It's a very bad style that I don't saw in your examples. You add another section (The eight candidates) and blank nomination section. Also article had a good gallery of images of the candidates but you remove this and add pictures to the right and left of the article. This only using for one party's candidate not all list of them. And next, I don't understand what is need for the biography of the candidates here when they have independent article? Or adding 2+1 coalition when they are already in the party conventions section? Tabarez (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also I think you don't have good editing in wikipedia style not grammar. I see this when you use See inestead see also with {{}}. Tabarez (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found a good style for that is in your mind. Tabarez (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Haberstr is right. I can't say the format of their edit was perfect, but I agree with their position regarding presenting the relevant issues in the election and providing more information on the candidates' positions. I, for one, came to this article seeking to understand the issues better, but all I found was some technical information regarding candidates' histories, etc., mostly in point form, which, although necessary, does not provide the reader with any substantial understanding of the actual issues, or the candidates' positions on them. Yes, each candidate has a page, but my experience with Wikipedia has always been that each article provides at least a summary of any relevant information, with links to other articles where these provide more information in case the reader needs it. After reading this entire article, I don't feel like I know anything more about the current Iranian election than I did before reading it. This leads me to believe the article is severely lacking in the most critical type of information that a person reading it is seeking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monagz (talk • contribs) 01:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think most readers come to the article wanting to know some general information about the issues and the candidates' positions on those issues. And that is what a normal Wikipedia article on an election campaign is mostly about. My initial changes were just to get things started. People should add to them, change them, and expand them. Not delete them entirely in order to protect the 'Nominations' section list form.Haberstr (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined candidates and other unreferenced materials[edit]

What is the criteria for putting some names on the "declined candidates" section? For ex. Moussavi, Karroubi, and Rahnavard never announced their intention for the presidency.Farhikht (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

These articles are too short. I think that they should be merged into this main article since they won't be expanded.

Some of them contain nothing.Farhikht (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. By the way, the home Wikipedia pages of each individual could contain their full biographies.Haberstr (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can add notes to these pages like Aref and Rezaee's articles. I will start this if you agree. Tabarez (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some info to Rouhani's page. I guess having separate pages for campaigns is more suitable.Soroush90gh (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Velayati and Liberalism![edit]

In political spectrum of candidates, about Velayati someone has added Liberalism! I think this is the best joke I've ever heard :D Soroush90gh (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Issues section needed[edit]

The candidate are covered but there is almost little to no coverage on issues like the economy, foreign relations amongst other things. The US 2008 Presidential Elections page had a section devoted to the issues and each respective candidate's stances towards it. Suffice to say this is a major component of the article that is yet to be included. --Droodkin (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just add some issues to the article adding from other websites, but I think there's no good enough. Please help me in grammar sections and also adding other issues to the article. Thanks. Tabarez (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rouhani, a conservative or reformist or non?![edit]

A user says Hassan Rouhani is a conservative as he is a member of Combatant Clergy Association. Rafsanjani is also a member of this party but was reformist's candidate in this election as now Rouhani is. This is also Islamic Republic's official news agency said Reformist candidate. Khatami as the leader of the reformists also supported Rouhani. I think the best for Rouhani is just moderate as Rouhani never claiming that is conservative or reformist. You can see [this. Tabarez (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rouhani is a reformist, it's obvious because of his speeches and behaviors, it doesn't matter what a politician says just pay attention to their behaviors. Ahmadinejad said after 2009 election that he is both reformist and conservative, did yo believe that?Soroush90gh (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soroush, I also think that he is a reformist but User:Farhikht always add conservative to the article, a user that add to the Ghalibaf's page that Ghalibaf was a candidate in 2009 election!! When Ghalibaf was a candidate of previous election. I don't know. Maybe we have mistake!!! Tabarez (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I provided a source about Rouhani's affiliation. We don't pay attention to "behavior" or any claim of a politician. We just put sourced materials to an article. For Rouhani maybe "centrist" is a better description as CNN claims.Farhikht (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Good. A centrist moderate. I add to the article. Tabarez (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh source materials! OK but if you just search in Google, you can find different paradoxical "Sources" (like CNN, BBC etc.), they call Rafsanjani a moderate, a reformist, a conservative, some of them even claim he is responsible of Amia terror case or he is a liberalist politician or his sons are human right activists!!! You see, you have to select just one of them, and this is the time you have to pay attention to their behavior in the complicated world of politics. Khatami is symbol of Iranian reformist movement, when he supports Rouhani and Rouhani doesn't denounce that so Rouhani is a reformist. When Mesbah Yazdi supports Jalili and Jalili accepts that, so Jalili is conservative. This is "Behavior" of politicians.Soroush90gh (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This debate is hopeless, and you state clearly that there are many different sources classifying this politician in many different ways. It is not our job to select from the NPOV sources which classification is best. The whole classification column should be deleted, as I argue in a section further down on this talk page.Haberstr (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rouhani participated in the election neither as a conservative nor as a reformist. He belongs to a new coalition: the "Moderates"[9] , [10].--Seyyed(t-c) 08:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio[edit]

This is unbelievable! This article is mostly uses copy righted materials. I removed some of them. I think that some of contributors have to read policies on how to write an article, how to use a source, etc.Farhikht (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "political spectrum" from candidate chart[edit]

We need to understand that this is required to be a sourced and NPOV encyclopedia article. Therefore, if we have a "Political Spectrum" classification then there must be NPOV sources for each such classification, and each classification in the end needs to be neutral point of view. Also, for example, "conservative" has to have some meaning across many different cultures and political systems, since our readers are from a wide array of backgrounds. Using the preceding sentences as background, I think it is clear that a one-or-two-word classification under "political spectrum" is almost inevitably both POV and confusing. It is much better to put a balanced perspective into the text that is on the right in each chart. There generally needs to be more prose in the chart, because that's the way you get nuance and NPOV.Haberstr (talk) 09:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was worse than its current form, I removed them. Sorry, I'm not accusing anyone but the way that some users insist to put some materials in this article and other election related articles rises doubts about their good faith.Farhikht (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I took it one step further and just eliminated the column. We should put that sort of stuff into the 'Political background' column, but include sources and disagreements.Haberstr (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IPOS[edit]

No doubt that Washington Post is a reliable source but dedicating an important part of the main article to this polls is not an encyclopedic approach. I ask you to read these parts of this policy: WP:WEIGHT, WP:BALANCE, WP:VALID.Farhikht (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I move some part of it to the sub-article.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

iran political spectrum[edit]

Can anybody put this image/photo in the page? It is the iran political spectrum of this election. http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/6/14/1371195895271/85b02ca3-f2a5-4567-90e3-2073e137c254-460x344.jpeg Source : http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/05/iran-presidential-candidates-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-interactive and http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/14/iran-presidential-elections-polling-day-live. 81.58.144.30 (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a copyright violation. Also, the chart is POV, and would have to be balanced by other perspectives. For example, the perhaps most important aspect of the election for most Iranians is the new president's economic plans, and that's not one of the two parameters of the Guardian's chart. And what does "Hostile towards West" mean? Whose West?Haberstr (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It don't have copyright. "Hostile towards West" means how much hate they the west.81.58.144.30 (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it has a copyright: it is the property of the Guardian. "hostile towards West" is a non-neutral opinion, so not appropriate for an encyclopedia unless it is balanced with the other side of that non-neutral opinion.Haberstr (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Election won without a runoff-- When was the last time this happened?[edit]

When is the last time the Iranian Presidency was decided without a runoff? Everyone is mentioning his moderate views and his connection to the green movement, but this seems to be relavant also.Casprings (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2009 was decided in the first round, as well. The result was contested, though. --RJFF (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
well that's true. Forgot about that.Casprings (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Party affiliation[edit]

But Mohsen Rezaee is a member of the Moderation and Development Party, as well (according to multiple sources). So, are both candidates running for the same party? How can that be, given that Rezaee is supposed to be a conservative while Rouhani is considered a moderate reformist? If Rouhani is the MDP's official candidate, does that mean that Rezaee is a dissident, who ran without support from his own party, or even that he has left the party? --RJFF (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Moderation' does not mean the same thing in Iran as it does in the West. Rezaee and Rouhani are not from the same party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.133.191 (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they are not from the same party, which one of them is not a member of the Moderation and Development Party? --RJFF (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rezaee is a member, Rouhani is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.133.191 (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then, Rouhani is from which party? (Please cite a reliable source, if possible.) --RJFF (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Institute for Electoral Studies, he is standing under the Association of Combatant Clerics banner. Number 57 23:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

here is a link that he is candidate of MDP. Also in the list for the local elections published for the supporters of Rouhani was belong to this party. Rezaee was also supported only by Isargaran. Please add this to the article. Namejavid (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RJFF, Rouhani is a member of Combatant Clergy Association, a conservative party. But in these years and specially after the rise of Ahmadinejad, he and Rafsanjani his close friend and ally, moved away from CCA and as I know during this election the party didn't support him. So officially he is still a member of CCA.Farhikht (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He is a member arbitration board of the CCA[11], however CCA has not supported his candidacy in this election[12]. Thus he did not participate in the election as the candidate of CCA, but he is supported by Moderation and Development Party.[13]--Seyyed(t-c) 08:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But he is not a member of that party only supported. So you can delete it from his page. But i Will ask it him today Maybe i have a Answer tomorrow,81.58.144.30 (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do I get it right: Rouhani is officially a member of the Combatant Clergy Association, but rather ran for the Moderation and Development Party; while Razaee is officially a member of the Moderation and Development Party, but they did not back him? That is very confusing indeed, and not easy to present in a simple infobox in our article. It would be fabulous if the more knowledgable users here could present some sources that explain the exact relations so that we can depict them in our article. Thank you all. --RJFF (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Rezaei is not a member of MDP. Rouhani is a member of CCA but the party didn't back him while multiple MDP (which is not an important party) and other parties supported him.Farhikht (talk) 11:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So he is a member of the Combatant Clergy Association then we must change that in on different pages. But i send him a email, i think we can better wait until he gives a answer.But I think it is Association of Combatant Clerics party or Executives of Construction Party because i read that and the colors are purple by the Executives of Construction Party and that is his color..81.58.144.30 (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)81.58.144.30 (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these parties supported Rouhani in the election.Farhikht (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

support is something else then from which party he has a membership.81.58.144.30 (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt!Farhikht (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So which one we choose for this page or neither?81.58.144.30 (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe such kind of relationships is strange in west, however it is not unusual in Iran because the figures are more important than the parties and people vote to figures not to parties.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said he is still a member of CCA. So we can put it on all the pages since this is the only political affiliation of Mr. Rouhani.Farhikht (talk) 06:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, in this congratulation letter published after the election, Society of Seminary Teachers of Qom calls Rouhani a member of CCA.Farhikht (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to write he is a member of CCA but participated as the candidate of MDP. This is more clear and correct.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I know he didn't participated as the candidate of the MDP. The MDP was one of multiple parties who supported Rouhani. But I think that we should add a note to the party affiliation (and even in the lead section) that the CCA didn't supported him despite being a member of it.Farhikht (talk) 07:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's good idea, however I think MDP is the backbone of his campaign and it may be the main block of his administration.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add this comment to the template:CCA did not supported his candidacy.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rouhani is a member of the Combatant Clergy Association, according to multiple RS. This indicates the complexity of the man and his political perspective, and should not be censored.Haberstr (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we should describe the issue correctly in the lead. Please join to our discussion under lead sub-title in this talk page.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rouhani as a Moderate[edit]

Rouhani participated in the election neither as a conservative nor as a reformist. He belongs to a new coalition: the "Moderates"[14] , [15]. This is a new coalition and new approach.

This is some part of his last night massage: "This victory is a victory of wisdom, a victory of moderation, a victory of growth and awareness and a victory of commitment over extremism and ill-temper," Rohani told state television, promising to work for all Iranians, including the hardline so-called "Principlists" whom he defeated at the poll. "I warmly shake the hands of all moderates, reformists and Principlists," he said.[16]--Seyyed(t-c) 08:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But Rouhani is a member of what has been called the "conservative" Combatant Clergy Association. Generally, I think we should avoid (in this encyclopedia) characterizing candidates with one-word adjectives unless we attribute them. The West, for example, has multiple confused meanings for words like 'moderate' or 'conservative'.Haberstr (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions[edit]

Please deploy reactions section. You can use this and this also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namejavid (talk • contribs) 09:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

I don't see any relation between background and the current article. Therefore I rewrite it so that there is more connection.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

I think lead should be provide short and clear information about the issue. Therefore some details and irrelevant information should be omitted from the lead.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you propose omitting? Perhaps you could add a draft here? Number 57 09:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In first or second paragraph of the lead Rouhani's tendency and affiliation should be made clear. Second, is not short and clear. Please compare these two texts and tell which one is better:

The facts are the same but the first one is shorter and written in a better style.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first one doesn't make sense - "The Guardian Council, a 12-member body supervising the election process, from 680 registered candidates" is meaningless because it's lacking a verb. Also, using terms like "the following" isn't very encyclopedic. I don't even know if we need the description of the Guardian Council if it's linked. Perhaps this is better:

The Guardian Council screened 680 registered candidates, approving just eight to run in the election; Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel, Ali Akbar Velayati, Saeed Jalili, Mohsen Rezaee, Mohammad Gharazi, Hassan Rouhani and Mohammad Reza Aref. Haddad-Adel and Reza Aref later withdrew from the race in the days leading up to the election.

Has Rouhani's affiliation actually been established yet? Number 57 09:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your suggestion for the second paragraph. We also discussed on the Rouhani's affiliation in this talk page. I can summarize it as follows:Rohouni is a moderate politician as described by the Iranians and western newspapers. He is one of the high rank members of ACC, however CCA didn't supported him in the election. Moderates parties such as MDP, Iranian reform movement and some moderate conservatives supported him.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
His affiliation isn't exactly clear, and "is a moderate politician as described by the Iranians and western newspapers" is a bit of a mouthful. Can we just describe him as a "moderate candidate"? Number 57 10:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a moderate. He is a cleric who supports a theocratic government. He has never described himself as moderate or reformist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.133.191 (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rouhani is considered moderate in Iran. His main slogan in the election and after it is "Etedal" which is translated by some western sources such as reuters [17] to "Moderation". --Seyyed(t-c) 09:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the second paragraph with Number 57's suggestion and write third paragraph about Rouhani's affiliation. --Seyyed(t-c) 10:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current event[edit]

On this edit I think that the article is still a current event per WP:CET and due to multiple IPs active on the page. Note that the article has not been yet removed of the main page.Farhikht (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Election Results by Districts[edit]

In this link, the results of Iran presidential election by Districts is provided by Ministry of Interior of Iran. This data could be useful for this article. Regards.--Mostafa 19:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Iranian presidential election, 2013. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Offline 04:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Iranian presidential election, 2013. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iranian presidential election, 2013. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Iranian presidential election, 2013. 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) 15:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Iranian presidential election, 2013. 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) 08:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_Iranian_presidential_election&oldid=1196641111"