Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

weasel word

He has been condemned internationally

internationally: Of, relating to, or involving two or more nations

Iran and Syria consider Israel a terrorist state, Israel is known internationally as a terrorist state.--Gerash77 20:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The solution is to provide a count of the number of nations that condemned the statement. The Behnam 22:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Would something like "condemned by the Western world" be more agreeable to you, Gerash? You seem to have missed this definition, "throughout the world", at the bottom of your dictionary.com results and instead picked one that supported your argument about semantics. It seems obvious from the context that in this case "internationally" means "throughout the world" or at least "throughout the Western world" and not just two or more countries. Littleman TAMU 22:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

On that particular comment, it was more than the Western world condemning, if I am not mistaken. The Behnam 22:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I also believe that is the case. I was being a bit facetious with the "Western world" parts since Gerash's "trust in the western media has been shattered". Littleman TAMU 22:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to reword the foreign policy section to remove your POV dispute. Though it looks like someone reverted all your edits except the tag while I was doing my edit. Littleman TAMU 22:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

well that was a waste of time! I will wait until he/she explains himself before editing it again. actually now that I look back it seems I also used the words claim/allege which should have been changed to 'state/say'.

Also rooz website which is used as the source of most of the article's statements, is not a neutral source, and they must be tagged to find better sources.--Gerash77 22:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

rooz isn't the source of most of the article's statements. It's the source of eight statements. None of which seem to introduce any sort of bias and seem neutrally worded to me. Several of of the statements are backed up by what most would consider neutral sources. Littleman TAMU 22:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It astonishes me that people still think these things are little debating forums, where we can hammer out just exactly how much condemnation Ahmadinejad has received. Instead, we just quote what reliable sources say, per policy:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who since coming to power in 2005 has drawn international condemnation by describing the Holocaust as "a myth" and calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

Did you note the part that said "international condemnation"? Or this:

And there are plenty of other sources that say the same, or much the same:

He was even condemned by all 15 members of the UN Security Council! That never happens. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what western media who are known to use hyperbolic words say, "internationally" is a biased word, for it implies the whole world, which is not the case here.--Gerash77 23:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Internationally" in no way "implies the whole word", and we quote what reliable sources say, not your opinions on the matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the term you boys and girls are looking for is "most of the international community" Yas121 13:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

weasel word?

Looking over the conflict here it seems like this tag is because Gerash77 claims that "internationally" is a weasel word. To tell you the truth, however, I think this material about one particular issue -- the holocaust conference -- does not belong in the intro. There's plenty to complain about with re:MA, and this focus on a PR stunt (the holocaust conference) seems a bit overblown. I'm removing the tag and that bit in the intro. Sdedeo (tips) 00:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you should have read a bit more; the "weasel word" complaint is about a different section entirely, and there is a consensus now on the current intro, which includes all the notable information about Ahmadinejad in a neutral way. This agreement has been hammered out among many individuals over painful weeks. If you want to change the intro, please get consensus first. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine. Don't have the hours necessary to horse-trade on this! Sdedeo (tips) 01:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

Compare the current strong POV with my suggestions

An exception to this pattern of suppression --> However, a contradiction to these statements
among their complaints the fact that there had been a crackdown on dissent --> among their complaints that there had been a crackdown on dissent
Ahmadinejad has appointed and promoted officials directly involved in torture and murder of dissidents, including the prosecutor responsible for the death of journalist Zahra Kazemi --> Some say that Ahmadinejad has appointed and promoted officials directly involved in torture and murder of dissidents, including the prosecutor responsible for the death of journalist Zahra Kazemi
Despite the government's hostility toward NGOs --> Although some critics say that government is hostile toward NGOs
see: [1]

Also, a removal of all poorly sourced from rooz is necessary.--Gerash77 03:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gerash77 -- point by point:

I suggest not "analysing" things. How about "Reactions to protests and dissent are variable..."
Sounds fine.
I don't think it's questionable whether or not A has promoted these people, ~~nor that the prosecutor was indeed responsible?~~: how about: "Ahmadinejad has appointed and promoted officials that some say are directly involved in torture and murder of dissidents, including the prosecutor responsible for the death of journalist Zahra Kazemi."
I think it is pretty clear that the govt is hostile towards NGOs: many (in fact, I believe all?) at this point are banned.

Sdedeo (tips) 22:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again G77 -- saw that you made your comments a few days ago. In case you're not watching the page, I've made the edits and removed the tag. Obviously happy to discuss more. Sdedeo (tips) 00:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully its will not be unilaterally reverted as before.--Gerash77 03:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi G77 -- I've partially reverted your latest edit. Please be more careful when removing content. I don't know who roos is, but you should see if things they say can be substantiated by other sources instead of "instantly removing" them. Sdedeo (tips) 05:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anything about those murderous appointments at canada.com citation. The problem is we have 1000 critics who write the article and one or two such as myself who try to neutralize things!--Gerash77 06:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Strange. I put that in, and must have gotten it from somewhere, but now can't find the statement that MA promoted the official in the AI or HRW reports. Fine to leave it out for now. Sdedeo (tips) 06:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Term of Office & more

It doesn't make any sense to state the end of his term like that. Perhaps if you can site and say "expected" in parentheses or something like that the information will become acceptable. No verifiable source knows if he will indeed last to that day. Also, what is the exact protocol against the "easter egg" link? The Behnam 23:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Atom ?

did a quick search on this page. the word "Atom" is not in the article. Zeq 08:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, neither is "pineapple" :-) Yas121 14:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. You might wanna try "nuclear" instead. Lixy 11:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source

You can't use Wikipedia articles as sources for claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a better source, though I'm not sure how to cite directly to Article 113. I suppose it'll just have to mention that in the ref for the curious reader. [2]. I encourage you to read it thoroughly, Jayjg. Or, you can just read Article 113. Pejman isn't making this up. The Behnam 01:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is it relevant? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know why it would be in the lead either. Perhaps Pejman felt it important to demonstrate that he isn't a "dictator-President" in a formal sense (I guess he is a Vice Dictator :). Maybe it is just to provide more information about his position as President, since a reader may not be aware of his place in the power structure of Iran, since the reader's own country may do things differently. Or to say that the windbag is the second highest official in the country. This is just my speculation. Pejman has said that it is important, so let's have him explain here. The Behnam 01:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that the editors who seems interested to the politics of Iran have not even looked to its Constitution. Please read that! and you can see that president in the system have not any real power. Every center of power (Military,...) is concentrated in the supreme leader. --Pejman47 12:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why it should be included in the lead. The only good reason I can think of is to inform readers that he is not on the same level as, for example, US President in terms of power. But should that be in the lead? The Behnam 15:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

In light of the anti-semitic accusations that were directed to him, I think the true extent of his power should be in the lead. Iran is currently under heavy fire from Bush&co. The main accusation being that Iran seeking a nuclear bomb to blow up Israel. The evidence presented is Iran's civil nuclear program and Ahmadinejad's (in)famous speech that deals with "wipping Israel off the pages of history". Precising the guy's relative role in the government, helps put the character, and by extention the validity of the accusations into perspective. The lead as it stands now, is far from being fair. Such addition might help provide more balance. Hope I made sense. Lixy 18:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

In other words, someone feels the need to make an argument defending him and downplaying accusations against him? That would be forbidden by policy, of course. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a very trollish way to characterize Lixy's response. A less combative description is that Lixy seeks to prevent misinformation along the lines of "dictator" as I mentioned above. Please, Jayjg, AGF. Lixy is trying to "provide more balance." Obviously, some editors think that this article has POV problems aimed as smearing "Dr." Ahmadinejad. I personally think that the contrast to the US president or the powers of other presidents is worth mentioning (Iran has a rather unique system), but probably not in the lead. Something further down like, "As the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ahmadinejad is the second highest official in Iran, beneath only the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. His duties include ..." Perhaps this sort of sentence can be added to the "Presidency" section, probably in its own subsection. Tell me what y'all think. The Behnam 23:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"A very trollish way"? That's disappointing coming from someone who has been complaining about civility. Lixy made it clear the insertion was an argument intended to counter arguments that Ahmadinejad was an antisemite etc. I didn't make that up. I'm fine with having it in the article, but having it in the lead is "protesting too much". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for disappointing you; I'm not calling you a troll, I just thought that your characterization of Lixy's comment was provocative. I think that he is not trying to counter the antisemite accusation, but rather trying to inform readers that Ahmadinejad saying this or that doesn't mean it's going to happen; aka he is not a true dictator. Anyway, I think it belongs in the Presidency section, but we should hear the others' opinions first. The Behnam 23:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Lixy's very first sentence was "In light of the anti-semitic accusations that were directed to him, I think the true extent of his power should be in the lead." I don't understand what is unclear about that. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I was looking more at "The main accusation being that Iran seeking a nuclear bomb to blow up Israel" and "Precising the guy's relative role in the government, helps put the character, and by extention the validity of the accusations into perspective". So I can see how the antisemitic part is related. Ahmadinejad says he wants to destroy Israel, people think that Iran may do this because Ahmadinejad expressed the desire, so his not-dictatorness is emphasized so that readers do not mistakenly think that whatever he says is what Iran will do. Of course, I don't know why anyone would think that the other members of the Iranian government would be much nicer to Israel, but hey, I also don't second inclusion for the 'dictator-clarification' reason. I still think it best to mention under Presidency so that people can draw contrast of his powers to that of other Presidencies. The Behnam 00:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your precision. Actually, your sentence that goes "I don't know why anyone would think that the other members of the Iranian government would be much nicer to Israel" is the real issue here. While every inflammatory remark made by Ahmadinejad is automatically blown out of proportion and propagated thru every media outlet. Anyone remotely knowledgeable in Iranian politics can attest to the president having no power regarding his country's foreign policy. However, anytime the supreme leader mitigates Ahmadinejad's speeches, it's not reported anywhere. [3]

Jayjg, let me make it clear that I have abolutely no sympathy for Ahmadinejad. I'm just worried about the current escalation between Washington and Teheran and their consequences on innocent civilians. Lixy 14:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

Wikipedia does not go about predicting the end of Ahmadinejad's term. Instead, the template wisely accommodates terms that have not yet come to an end. Look at the George W. Bush article for comparison, and please stop using the templates incorrectly. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Erased from the pages of history" vs. "wiped off of the face of the map"

This article keeps popping on my watchlist over this wikilink. Could the two sides of this issue just add a (see also) next to that quote? That particular section of Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel appears to be well researched and cited and merits some sort of an inclusion for NPOV next to the quote, particularly with it given such prominence in the lead like that. Thanks. (→Netscott) 12:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It was being discussed under #Jayig edits. I will try that, hopefully it will be accepted by Jayig and others.--Gerash77 13:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good and NPOV to me Yas121 13:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The MEMRI video

I re-added the MEMRI video, but I think a more appropriate video should be used instead. The MEMRI video has a large chunk of footage that isn't about Ahmadinejad, just some people chanting the usual 'marg bar amrika' chant. It isn't even a very good video until Ahmadinejad shows up, the footage is weird during the chant. The video was added by now-banned user Patchouli, who had a tendency to add very POV-pushing links or otherwise non-neutral presentation. I'm going to look for a better video of that speech, so if you find one, or think that the video is unnecessary (considering the other links and coverage we have already), please explain here. The Behnam 19:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that the wording of the movie description shouldn't associate things that cannot necessarily be associated. Keeping the description simple should prevent POV until a better video of Ahmadinejad is found (that doesn't have the off-topic chanting). The Behnam 02:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The lead chanter says “Before a speech by Mr. Ahmadinijead…” That is pretty clear. -- Avi 04:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

They do that chant before a lot of things. The problem I had with the wording is that it associated the two more strongly than is realistic, considering they do that before everything. I felt that the original wording Patchouli tried to insinuate that he is retaining the nuclear program to second the 'marg bar amrika' idea, but that kind of insinuation cannot be made here. In any case, I think the new wording not only prevents insinuation, but also provides a better summary of the video, considering that the chant comes before the speech. Why would the speech be mentioned first? This is more chronologically correct in addition to being more neutral and less OR; I think this is better, do you not? The Behnam 06:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see you made it to "before." That seems fine; I just don't want any insinuation. Avraham, do you think that a better video should be used? The chanting isn't actually Ahmadinejad, and the footage during that chant part is really weird. I think Patchouli had unencyclopedic reasons for choosing that video, especially considering the description that he used. It is difficult as it is to prevent smearing on this page while at the same time not tipping it too much to Iran's side, and this kind of questionable addition doesn't help at all. I think a better video should be used once found. There are a lot of videos of Ahmadinejad, so maybe there will be a subtitled version of this speech without the unnecessary and off-topic chant part. The Behnam 06:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate, this video does give a sense of context to Iranian political feeling regarding America, and it was at the same event at which MA spoke. I'm not 100% sure that this would be smearing, I mean, it was aired publicly, and somehow, I doubt anything gets aired in Iran without some sort of approval, but I could be 100% wrong. Either way, I don't see this as a blatant smear attrmpt, but I personally am not wedded to it either. Perhaps in a perfect world this video may be better placed on Politics and Government of Iran if a better one is found for this article. Remember, whitewashing is the same level problem as smearing; they are mirror images of each other, unfortunately :( Thanks for the discussion! -- Avi 14:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, it is definitely difficult to keep a balance on this page. I think it will stay for now, and if I find that particular speech by itself, I will replace the link, and perhaps move it to the politics page. It is safe to say that the airing was approved, but I don't see any reason to have a video w/ chanting on Mahmoud's page unless he was chanting himself or something like that. It definitely wasn't clear cut smearing, but knowing Patchouli I was much more suspicious. Thanks to you as well for discussion; it is much better than communication through revert summaries! The Behnam 16:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Youtube

Netscott, why isn't the speech reliable? It is a minor one but it is Ahmadinejad who is saying that. --Aminz 03:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, it's a primary source... Ahmadinejad himself. Kindly find a reliable secondary source about it. Also such massive quotes are inappropriate for entry into the article. That is what Wikiquote is for. (→Netscott) 03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can edit WP ???

Not this article - editing is disabled without explanation. Perhaps because the "wipe Israel off the map" quote is a total ZIONIST LIE.

Actually, it is more because of random idiots replacing his facts with utter nonsense. It is semi-protected to stave off these vandals. I encourage you to get a user name if you want to edit, or you can post constructive comments & suggestions here for us to consider. Thanks. The Behnam 01:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)