Revision as of 14:11, 22 May 2013 editFarhikht (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,405 editsm →Colors← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:17, 22 May 2013 edit undoBondegezou (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users45,516 edits →InboxNext edit → | ||
Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
: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 ] or related projects, policies, etc. (The article on american election that you previously talked about was changed and completed after the election.)] (]) 08:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC) | :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 ] or related projects, policies, etc. (The article on american election that you previously talked about was changed and completed after the election.)] (]) 08:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
::Why their name is incomplete?? Why you reverted all my edits in other sections???? ] (]) 10:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC) | ::Why their name is incomplete?? Why you reverted all my edits in other sections???? ] (]) 10:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
::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. ] (]) 16:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Colors == | == Colors == |
Revision as of 16:17, 22 May 2013
Politics Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
Iran Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
This wording may be out of date: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)
Orphaned references in Iranian presidential election, 2013
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":
- From Iranian presidential election, 2009: Freeman, Colin (12 June 2009). "Iran elections: revolt as crowds protest at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's 'rigged' victory". Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 12 June 2009.
- From Iran: Freeman, Colin (12 June 2009). "Iran elections: revolt as crowds protest at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's 'rigged' victory". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 12 June 2009.
{{cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) - From Elections in Iran: Freeman, Colin (12 June 2009). "Iran elections: revolt as crowds protest at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's 'rigged' victory". London: The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 12 June 2009.
{{cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help)
Reference named "daily":
- From Iran: "Ahmadinejad Wins Landslide". Iran Daily. June 13, 2009. Retrieved June 13, 2009.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
|publisher=
(help) - From Iranian presidential election, 2009: "Ahmadinejad Wins Landslide". Iran Daily. 13 June 2009. Retrieved 13 June 2009.
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)
Latest updates
- 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)
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is a Reformists not a Conservative.81.58.144.30 (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
Opinion polls
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)
- 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)
- If we don't have reliable polls then we don't put them. All materials in Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- If we don't have reliable polls then we don't put them. All materials in Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
RfC on Opinion polls
|
Should the "opinion polls" section be removed or not?Farhikht (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. This must be like other presidential elections. Tabarez (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
Inbox
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)
- 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)
- Why their name is incomplete?? Why you reverted all my edits in other sections???? Tabarez (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
Colors
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)
Categories: