Talk:2012 Iranian legislative election

Number of seats

It appears the number of seats has been changed. According to this NYT-article the candidates run for 275 seats. The number of seats needed for a majority thus would be 138. --Dinarsad (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Iranians-new-machin-for-elections.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Iranians-new-machin-for-elections.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Iranians-new-machin-for-elections.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

pro khamenei or pro ahmedinejad

can somebody point out which alliance/party supports ahmedinejad and which one khamenei. we constantly keep hearing that there is a divide between the two but it doesn't say here which is which — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.29.230.163 (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Source of results

The only source given for the results is the Interior Ministry website. I don't read Farsi so I can't check, but from what I know of the attitude of the Iranian authorities to political parties I find it very unlikely that the Interior Ministry has classified candidates as "conservatives", "reformists", "moderate reformists" etc. Can whoever put them up show where at the Interior Ministry website these labels are used? If not, what is their source? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I am going to delete all material in this article allocating seats to parties and tendencies such as reformers and conservatives unless a verifiable source is provided. If it's not sourced, it's original research. I will wait 24 hours for a response. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have now deleted all material claiming to show party results. The article itself says that there are no formal or recognised parties in Iran, and I don't believe the Interior Ministry website gives such results. No other source has been given. If I'm wrong, produce some evidence. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

There was an election and there should be results. I think more reliable sources could be found.

But I disagree with your objection. Just because you "find it very unlikely" that the source is being quoted properly doesn't mean it isn't. I think we should consult with Farsi-speaking users before determining that the source is quoted improperly.

I'm restoring the results.VR _talk 14:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

First I asked, and got no response. Then I warned I would delete, and got no response. Then I deleted, and now I get a response. That's frequently the way. Fine, I agree that whoever it was who cited the Interior Ministry as the source for these results should comment on where the party labels come from. I will wait a couple of days and see. If no information is forthcoming, I will delete again. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Your action is not in proportion to the violation you claim. You claim that categorizing certain parties as "conservatives" and others as "reformists" is original research. But, then you go ahead and delete the number of seats, votes etc.

I would not oppose an action where you delete only the original research, while not disrupting rest of the article.VR _talk 01:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The total number of seats to be filled is stated in the text. Also from memory I did not delete the turnout figure, since I'm happy to accept that it appears at the Interior Ministry website. (Whether it's true or not is another matter.) But all the material claiming that party x won so many votes and so many seats has no verifiable source. There are no legal political parties in Iran, so no government website will give such information. Until a source is produced, it's OR and must be deleted. I note also that the Farsi Wikipedia does not give any such purported party figures, simply the names of elected candidates and the number of votes they polled. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"There are no legal political parties in Iran, so no government website will give such information." What do you mean? I thought, despite the restrictions, some parties were still legal?

In response to the anonymous comment, Wikipedia's own article says: "After the banning of the last two Opposition parties in 1983, parties and candidates usually have operated in loose alignments within two main coalitions, the conservative (osool-garayan) and the reformist (eslah-talaban) both of them coming from the former single-party Islamic Republic Party. Since 2009, only the conservatives have been allowed to participate and prominent reformist parties have been banned and their members jailed." This is why I am certain that the Interior Ministry website, the sole source cited for the election results, does not classify candidates by party as the article currently suggests. It is now nearly two weeks since I asked for better sourcing for this and none has been offered. I will wait another 24 hours and if no verifiable source for this information has been produced I will again delete it. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not always a good source, and political parties, though repressed, still exist. Iran's State TV (Press TV) itself talks about "reformist" candidates winning a certain amount of seats in the elections.[1] I think we should consult some Farsi-speaking users before concluding the source has been misused.VR _talk 03:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The listed results look highly suspect. One would think that, if "reformists" had won more than 25 percent of the seats, the English-language media would have commented upon this fact, but most articles suggest that most of the seats were won by either Khamenei supporters or Ahmadinejad supporters. Can someone who reads Persian identify exactly where on the Interior Ministry website the results are listed by party? Using Google Translate, I was not able to find anything along those lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.69 (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm still certain that these results are bogus, but it's hard to prove a negative. Why do they not appear at the Farsi Wikipedia article? Why has whoever put them here not defended them against criticism? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I now see that the results were added by someone called QSTA, who has since been banned as a sock-puppet for a banned user. This strengthens my view that these figures are either faked or the results of someone's unverifiable opinions. I'm still trying to find a Farsi-speaker who can shed some light on this. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Good research, Intelligent Mr Toad. When in doubt, all questionable edits by sock puppets should be deleted. Have you tried using google translate? Looked at the english section of the site? These results look very fishy to me; there's supposed to be one representative of the Jews. HTH. DeletingCollapsing the results for now, by editing Template:Iranian legislative election, 2012.--Elvey^(t•c) 18:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Religious Minorities

the results on 'Religious Minorities' are wrong

someone whose Persian is better than mine can corroborate. There was an earlier article from one of the official Iranian news agencies claiming that 14 religious minorities were elected to the Majles but this article has since been deleted, and the articles it spawned in English are not updated to reflect this

http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/انتخابات_مجلس_شورای_اسلامی_(۱۳۹۰-۹۱) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.146.130 (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Results for 2012

I just added some results for 2012. We should know by now! Let's sort this out and move on to 2016. Also, User:GTVM92 and User:Pahlevun: Play nice! You are basically the only two editors on Iran election pages, and you don't seem to get along! Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:Erxnmedia. Thank you. I am really happy that a third opinion can be in this article. I want to explain why the article should be reverted to this version.

Regardless of the reliable sources that the version had, the situation of politics in Iran can make it more clear. Iran does not have a disciplined "party system", instead the parties are figure-centered. In most elections, there are electoral lists which serve as a proxy for different politcal figures. So many parties/lists are a front for their spiritual leaders, not real parties. That's why many leaders in the infobox did not run in the election. You can find out more about this issue reading this, this and this.

And now, why this version has fake informoation? Esmaeil Kousari, shown here as the leader of Resistance Front(!) is a member of Stability Front (source: JPEE). If you take a look at this diff, User:GTVM92 has removed this Deutsche Welle peice that says Ahmadinejad/Mashaei proxies (which are Supporters of Justice Discourse of Islamic Revolution and Monotheism and Justice Front) have won 9 seats, while the user has replaced these two with Alireza Zakani who is General Secretary of Society of Pathseekers of the Islamic Revolution (source = Rahpooyan Enghelab Eslami), which is part of United Front of Principlists! This is another version by this user, and as you can see, all the information in the infoxbox, including the popular vote is all made-up!

I am really trying to prevent this user from adding original research/fake information to Wikipedia. I ask you to give a third opinion! Pahlevun (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I hope the user that said knows Iran political situation can be understand this that the lists dosen't have leader! We should add Electoral list head (سر لیست) to the article. In this election, the people that I add was the lists leader, should they name can be in other list like in 2016 and Ali Motahari. And also, may be some of them should change their party in other years. Like Kazem Jalali who was a conservative in 2012 and now is a reformist. GTVM92 (talk) 12:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

So how can you explain this bullshit, which is an edit of yours? Pahlevun (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iranian legislative election, 2012. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150330043149/http://www.todayszaman.com/todays-think-tanks_political-road-map-of-iran-before-the-parliamentary-majlis-elections_273077.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/todays-think-tanks_political-road-map-of-iran-before-the-parliamentary-majlis-elections_273077.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)