Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 23

Approval rating

What's his apporval rating?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Avi, the article lead needs to be altered. --He has been condemned internationally[9] for "calling for Israel to be 'wiped off the map,'"[9][10][11] and describing the Holocaust as a "myth",[9][12] leading to accusations of antisemitism.-- This should be changed to ...internationlly for statements interpreted as "calling...

If you will not allow the addition of another valid cited interpretation in the lead and insist on having this statement in the lead, then you must allow for the clarification that it is an interpretation. Otherwise you are insisting on a biased statement and essentially an attempt at character assassination. The only other option is to leave this out of the article lead and let it be addressed later in the article. I apologize for the various earlier edits. They were not as articulated as what I'm offering now. Please respond. Happyone1 20:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a disagreement here whether to include the quotes of this person about Isreal in lead or not and if yes, should it be accompanied with some sentences from sources saying that the state of Jews living in Iran has not changed after the presidency of Ahmadinejad and all of the rhetorics are just somehow "political"--Pejman47 21:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

plus the Christian science monitor and CBS that you can find in recent edits please see this links [1][2] [3] [4] [5] and then consider the reasonings of Jayjg, me and others regarding this issue in the talk page archive: Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 15 and in above sections. Then please give your comments!--Pejman47 21:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed many, many, many times. Please see Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10, Archive 11, Archive 12, Archive 13, and Archive 14 where this was discussed. This may well be what he is best known and most notable for in the West (English Wikipedia) and the constant attempts to remove this from the lead seem to be merely to try and rehabilitate this man's image. Whether we like it or not, he is known for these statements, he has been internationally, and near universally condemned for these statements, and this is one of the key elements that makes him notable in the US. Whitewashing is a violation of WP:POV just as much as smearing is. The article has iron-clad, watertight sources for his statements; they should remain. -- Avi 22:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Then why smear him by the alleged mistranslation?

• Where have we been given iron-clad, watertight sources before? Does Iraq's 'weapons of mass destruction' ring a bell? How about Saddam's 'quest for yellow cake' from Africa? What about Condoleezza Rice's suggestion that the 'smoking gun' may come in the form of a 'mushroom cloud?' And C.I.A. director Tenet’s statement, "it was a slam dunk," with respect to the reasons to attack Iraq. Despite repeated assertions of the above by the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the entire American mass media, all of the above assertions were discredited, and the U.S. intelligence community knew the assertions to be false. We took the word of the Iraqi National Congress, a group funded by the U.S., whose goal was the overthrow of Saddam, as the impartial truth. When Saddam's son-in-law told members of the U.S. intelligence community that Saddam had destroyed all of the weapons of mass destruction that he once had in his possession, that information was successfully suppressed, while other, less important comments, were given wide (and misleading by omission) circulation. Paul O'Neill, who served as Secretary of the Treasury, recalls that the invasion of Iraq was discussed in Bush's very first cabinet meeting in 2001, not as to "if," but as to "how." Public revelations of the Downing Street memo of 2002 concerning the attack on Iraq showed "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Might the same thing be happening with respect to Iran?
• In 2003, the United States committed the worst crime in international law, the pre-emptive attack on a sovereign nation which was no threat to the U.S., and justified the attack with lies, half-truths, and misrepresentations. Is the exact same thing happening with respect to Iran, in preparation of another U.S. pre-emptive attack, against a sovereign nation which is not a threat the U.S.?
• The contention that many "iron-clad, watertight sources" are cited does not make a statement true. Neither does the fact that this issue has been discussed in great depth. Many people have strong feelings on this topic, nevertheless, both sides of the controversy MUST be presented in an impartial fashion, less Wiki be seen guilty of a violation of its own WP:POV policy.
• During the lead up to the first Gulf War, a similar pretext was used for the U.S. attack on Iraq. Many allegedly "iron-clad, watertight sources" in the American mass media reported that charge that "Iraqi soldiers took the incubators from the hospital in Kuwait and left the babies on the floor to die." The first George Bush repeated this charge over and over again, citing the fact that the story had appeared in the media. It may have appeared in every American news outlet, including the New York Times, but it was false. It was a lie. The woman who testified that she saw this happening was the daughter of the U.S. ambassador from Kuwait, and she had been in the U.S. at the time she claimed to be in Kuwait. Yet this lie was repeated so often that a majority of Americans believed it to be true, and as a result, they supported the attack on Iraq during the first Gulf war.
• Deep in this Wiki article, we find that an top Iranian official disputes the translation, but there is no indication of this in the lead, which gives the impression that even Iran agrees with the alleged mistranslation, for the many Wiki users who will only read the lead of this article.
• I attempted to add an opinion of an academic American expert on Iran with knowledge of the Persian language, Farsi, who says that there is no idiom in the Persian language for the phrase 'wiped off the map,' and the true translation is "the regime in Jerusalem will vanish from the pages of time." (That is, it will collapse of its own accord like the Soviet Union.)Yet this was deleted. However, there is no shortage of references as to the alleged mistranslation.
• Both sides of the controversy are not being given with equal weight. Instead, great weight is given to the alleged mistranslation that Iran wants to destroy the nation of Israel and kill all of its Jewish citizens. Perhaps the Bush administration wants Iran "wiped off the face of the map," or at least reduced to anarchy as is the current situation in Iraq. And maybe "the intelligence and facts [are] being fixed around the policy," again.
• We saw that the New York Times does not have clean hands with regard to stories it has published about war and peace in the Middle East. Many stories which led up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq which often appeared on its front page by Judith Miller, often sourced to unnamed, high level U.S. government officials, would later be discredited, resulting in an apology from the New York Times editors. If the same group which got us into the mess in Iraq wants us to attack Iran, and they are using the same technique as before, that is, using the New York Times and the American mass media to repeat this alleged mistranslation, shouldn't it at least be pointed out that this is disputed in the lead? Blindjustice 23:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding extraneous, unrelated except at most tangentially, data trying to mitigate his statements is classic POV whitewashing as well, and does not belong in the lead. The statements added in the past were not only POV, but WP:OR as well, IIRC. -- Avi 23:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC) If valid sources can be cited, a simple statement balancing the views of interpretation regarding his supposed statement "Wipe Israel off the map" should be allowed in the lead part of the article. This is not whitewashing. To categorically rule out other valid interpretations is horrible and diminishes the integrity of Wiki and those editing it. If other interpretations are not allowed in the lead, then the one that so many Americans identify with should be moved to another part of the article where it can be balanced against valid contrary evidence. Insisting otherwise smacks of unilateral arrogance. Other sources are "ironclad" as well. --happyone1

This is an article on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The number and status of Jews in Iran do not belong in the article and surely not in the intro. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because the same untruth is told over and over again does that make it truth? MA statement was to wipe the Israeli REGIME off of the map and NOT the country of Israel. And his statement is really no different than an American president calling for "regime change" in Iran or Iraq. Nakedtruth 18:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Ahmadinejad has been accused of antisemitism, so it is very relevant to include such information.--Kirby♥time 23:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It's not that the information shouldn't be included. It's that it should be ACCURATELY included! The ACCURATE quote is "The zionist REGIME in Israel should be wiped off the map." That is the same as Bush or Clinton saying the "Baathist REGIME" in Iraq should be taken down". Nobody accused either of those men as being "anti Iraqi".

See WP:LEAD. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, the status of Jews in Iran is irrelevant to whether or not Ahmadinejad is an antisemite. More importantly, has anyone notable made the argument that Ahmadinejad is not an antisemite because the Iranian government gave some money to a Jewish hospital, or the various other original research arguments invented by User:Pejman47? I'm not sure why he persists in this, he knows OR is not allowed on Wikipedia, and has been told that about this specific argument by many different editors. You should know better too. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the source? The CSM is a highly respected and notable organization.--Kirby♥time 05:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Referring to the status of Jews in Iran is clearly OR and an attempt at apologia. No, it shouldn't be included. <<-armon->> 01:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime, there is whole lot of info that does not belong in this article. When the info is irrelevant, no matter how reputable its source is. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

some of the sources, e.g. CBS, clearly discussed "the state of jews" in Iran in relation to his "anti-Isreal" remarks; so, it is not OR. --Pejman47 06:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you reread the title of this article. As noted, MA's comments have caused a lot of reaction and therefore are notable. The "the state of Jews" (please note capital J, also you consistently misspell Israel - I hope unintentionally) in Iran does not belong here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

of course the misspleings are unintentional. anyway, nobody questioned the notability of that quote, but of course there is objections about its representation. And you also please read the article again, you will find it that the author has intentionally saw a relationship with that quote and the state of Jews (OK capital) in iran. it is not OR. please help to make this article natural. and yesterday I made a post in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies to bring fresh voices here. But I don't see any yet. sigh!--Pejman47 20:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

CSM is saying that the state of the Jews is being used as a response to the antisemitism allegations, it is highly relevant. Read the source.--Kirby♥time 12:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As other editors pointed out, for a biographical article, MA's exorbitant remarks and corresponding worldwide reactions are notable, but the status and the number of Iranian Jews are not. That CSM article (or rather, a more scholarly reliable source) probably belongs in the article Persian Jews. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the two sources are the same source, a story by Scott Peterson for the Christian Science Monitor. Second, this one story does not at all discuss whether or not Ahmadinejad's statements were antisemitic; rather, it notes Ahmadinejad's rhetoric, and Ahmadinejad himself is mentioned only peripherally. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

but in that article, clearly the author linked those with each other. and why I am still don't see any new name here. It seems that Request for comment doesn't work --Pejman47 23:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the author did not "link with each other"; there is nothing in the article that claims to be about whether or not Ahmadinejad is antisemitic. As for the RfC, it worked well enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

for me it is very clear: he intentionally linked them with eachother, and of course Request for Comment failed, do you see any new name in above?--Pejman47 23:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it is this: if you are going to claim that Wiki is an unbiased and objective source of information, then you must make sure that readers are offered as much information as possible to allow them to draw their own conclusions, rather than have other people's opinions forced down their throats. In making continuous references to MA's holocaust denial and anti-Israeli speeches, you offer only one side of the story. To then mention the number of Jews living in Iran, though it may not be immediately relevant to MA as a person, allows the reader to make up their own mind about just how anti-semitic MA really is. Also, there is a clear difference, in my opinion, between being anti-Israel and anti-Jewish (as in Jewish as a race or religion). I think it is important to make that distinction in the article, whether or not some people believe that there is no separation of the two. [User: Quibbler321} 22:01, 11 June 2007

One of the claims in the text is the citation below. I think there would need to be some other valid sources for this statement: "In 1976, he took Iran's national university entrance exams (konkoor) to gain admission into Iran's top universities. His test score ranked him 132nd among over 400,000 participants that year,[13]" I find it remarkable that the source is Ahmadinejad's own blog!? I believe either it should say so explicitely - that the source is Ahmadinejad's own blog - or the comment should be deleted. Unless, of course, it can be verified from multiple crediable sources. The claim is spectacular, thus the proof should be strong [User: Shatz} 18:37, 9 July 2007

Comment I disagree with including any such quotes in the leading paragraph:

• 1. This guy is the President of Iran before anything else. His performance as presidnet of Iran and from Iranian viewpoint is more important than anyhing else. See for example George Bush page. Obviously George Bush have been criticized by many politicians all over the world. However only national criticism was mentioned in the leading paragraph. Also none of Bush's comments as calling other states as Rouge or Axis of evil was mentioned in the leading paragraph.
• 2. His statements about Israel was at most a rhetoric with NO practical effect. So they are not notable enough to be in the leading paragraph. For instance his policy for Gas rationing has affected everyday life of 70 milion Iranians. Obviously Gas rationing is more important that those empty rhetorics.
• 3. The leading paragraph as it is now, does not have a single sentence on his domestic policies!!!!!! I am sorry but he is Iran's president before anything else.
• 4. An issue like anti-semitism is irrelevant as he simply rejected that. Does he take any initiative against the jews in Iran? The answer is no. So some thing that does not exist, is not notable!
• 5. Ahmadinejad's initiatives to decrease interest rates (banking system), resolving the Managment and Planing Organization of Iran must be mentioned in the leading paragraph. These issues are REAL issues. Rhetoric s are not much notable as long as they are not realized.
• 6. The leading paragraph has to cover Ahmadinejad's main domestic initiatives and possibly some national criticism. International criticism must be deleted from the leading paragraph as per George W. Bush, Tony Blair and Ehud Olmert pages etc.
• 7. In foreign policy, the most important event in his time was direct negotiation of Iran and US after 3 decades of no diplomatic contact.

Thanks. Sina Kardar 15:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

source

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3406564,00.html Zeq 16:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

To be added when article is unprotected. That's not really a janitorial action, so I'm not going to do it now, asn I'm involved in the RfM. If another uninvolved admin feels it appropriate to add, then that is their decision . We should collect needed edits for entry when the page is unprotected. -- Avi 16:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo! first page

currently the link of this news can be found on the first page of yahoo, I am quoting some parts of it for showing what really a neutral article about a living person my be:

In October 2005, Ahmadinejad caused international outrage when he said in a speech that Israel's "Zionist regime should be wiped off the map." Ahmadinejad's supporters have argued that his words were mistranslated and should have been translated from Farsi to English as saying Israel would "vanish from the pages of time," implying it would vanish on its own rather be destroyed.

In an interview with U.S.-based ABC television earlier this year, Ahmadinejad, who also has called the Holocaust a "myth," compared Israel to the Soviet Union, saying, "What happened to the former Soviet Union? It disappeared, disappeared from the face of the Earth. Was it because of war? No. It was through the decision of the people."

I hope you get what I am implying. We will discuss it more on Mediation Committee. --Pejman47 19:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

yeah. I understand what he is saying. He realizes he cannot destroy Israel, as he is not powerful enough, so he hopes it will self destruct.--Sefringle 20:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't post it here to know other users political interpretations, WP is not a place for it. Just note the "tone, words and sentences" that are used for describing him for trying to have a neutral and professional article. --Pejman47 20:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean praiseful. Not neutral, praiseful.--Sefringle 22:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

no, It is just what you label anything from anysources that you don't like its tone or words. --Pejman47 23:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's great. That's really great. That is what should be put in the article, if not the lead, about MA. I don't see what the problem is? It presents the facts, and nothing but the facts; to say that it is praiseful is simply to recognize that the facts do not shine all that terrible a light on MA after all. You cannot make the man say what he hasn't said, however much you might want to. That is what he has said and done, as simple as that. It gives a good indication of the issue, and I would be happy if that was how it was included in the actual article. Quibbler321 13:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Religious tolerance

{{editprotected}}

In June 2007, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was criticized by some Iranian parlimanet members over his remark about Christianity and Judaism. According to Aftab News Agency, President Ahmadinejad stated: "In the world, there are deviations from the right path: Christianity and Judaism. Dollars have been devoted to the propagation of these deviations. There are also false claims that these [religions] will save mankind. But Islam is the only religion that save mankind." Some members of Iranian parliament criticized these remarks as being fuels to religious war.

Please an admin add this to national criticism section. Thanks. Sina Kardar 17:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is the subject of mediation. It would be inappropriate for admins to edit it before the mediation concludes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I am not sure my proposal has anything to do with the ongoing discussion though. This is a National issue not an International one. Sina Kardar 21:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

New economic move

{{editprotected}} Please an administrator addthe following information to the economic policy section:

In July 2007, the Management and Planning Organisation of Iran was dissolved after a direct order of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The organization was a 60 years old, scientific planning body that had a supervisory role in addition to its responsibility to allocate the national budget. Although the MPO was a state body whose head was appointed by the president, it was relatively independent organisation.

President Ahmadinejad, however, established a new budget planning body directly under his control, a move that may give him a freer hand to implement populist policies blamed for driving up prices.

Economist Fariborz Raiis-Dana said that the decision dealt the coup de grace to the structure of the national management organization. Iranian MP Esmaeil Gramimoqaddam said that the president's directive is illegal and the parliament opposes his decision. "The president is not authorized to order an alteration or merger of an organization. This is the parliament's job," he added.

Thanks in advance. Sangak ^Talk 10:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is the subject of content mediation, and until that is finished it wouldn't be appropriate for admins to edit it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for the leading paragraph

Please comment to improve it:

---

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (born October 28, 1956) is the 6th and current president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. He became president on 6 August 2005 after winning the 2005 presidential election. Ahmadinejad's current term will end in August, 2009, but he will be eligible to run for one more term in office in 2009 presidential elections. Before becoming president, he was the Mayor of Tehran. He is the highest directly elected official in the country, but, according to article 113 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Iran, he has less total power than the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is the commander in chief of the armed forces of Iran and has the final word in all aspects of foreign and domestic policies.

Ahmadinejad is an outspoken critic of the Bush Administration, Zionism and Israel and supports strengthened relations between Iran and Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and Persian Gulf states. During his presidency, Iran and US had the most high-profile contact in almost 30 years. Iran and US froze diplomatic relations in 1980 and had no direct diplomatic contact until May 2007.

He has refused to stop the nuclear program of Iran, regardless of the demands of the UN Security Council, declaring that the Iranian nuclear enrichment program is for peaceful purposes only. Ahmadienjad’s government launched a Gas rationing plan to reduce country's fuel consumption, resolved 60-years-old Management and Planning Organisation of Iran and decreased the interest rate for private and public banking facilities.

---

Sina Kardar 16:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, obviously not, since it's a whitewash that is vastly inferior to the current lead. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The Economist quote

"[Iran's] president, the Holocaust-questioning Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is widely reported to have threatened to "wipe Israel off the map". But in fact he may never have uttered those precise words, and there is both ambiguity and calculation behind the bluster. Look closer and Mr Ahmadinejad is vague about whether he means that Iran should destroy Israel or just that he hopes for Israel's disappearance." - The Economist, July 21st 2007, page 11.

Just happened upon this and thought I'd share. Haukur 17:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Belongs in the article on the quote. As the Economist said, he was "widely" reported to have said it; it is arguable his most notable (and notorious) statement in English-language press, and was one of the primary catalysts to making him as (in)famous {take your pick} as he is today. It's weight in regards to his notability far, far exceeds any discussion as to what he said./meant/thought/imagined/uttered/etc. Which is why in THIS article the statement belongs in the lead and the controversy belongs in the article itself (and its own article). -- Avi 14:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If the Economist feels obliged to follow "wipe Israel off the map" with a note on the ambiguity then we should too. The lead is far from being overly long as it is and if something needs to go then the marginally on-topic note on the Supreme Leader would be my choice. Haukur 15:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your disagreement . Leads in wiki articles have higher standards than the rest of the article; see WP:LEAD. We have the detailed section about the statement to discuss more details about the statement, including its controvery and post-hoc apologetics that surround it. -- Avi 16:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the article. The current lead just does not have a good summary of the section which is largely about this quote. The translation is disputed and Iran's foreign minister said his boss had been misunderstood. Everyone agrees about this but there's no indication of it in the lead. That's just not neutral. The ambiguity of the statement can't be dismissed anymore as some nutty theory found only on leftist blogs. It's prominent in the Economist's treatment of Ahmadinejad and it should be prominent in ours. If we can find the room for "No, I am not anti-Jew, I respect them very much" we can also find room to allude to the ambiguity. Haukur 17:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

MA himself made the "I'm not Anti-Jew" statement. There are no post-"wiped" apologetics attributed to him. Au contraire, he all but confirmed it in the Mike Wallace interview. Again, inappropriate for the lead. -- Avi 18:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are concerned about what Ahmadinejad himself has said then why not quote him in the article? Why not use the quote as given by the translation cited as a source for it in the article: "Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement." Apparently the only part of this sentence that you'll allow to be quoted in the lead is the one whose translation is disputed. Haukur 19:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Because the notable thing about the quote is the "wiped off the map" phrase. That's the thing that has gotten all the press attention, not "our dear imam". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That's taking the notability principle over and beyond any commitment to neutrality or even informativeness. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a device for repeating whatever is most prevalent in the Western press. Nor do you insist on this elsewhere as far as I can see. At Palestinian people, which you regularly edit, there is a quote by Golda Meir, the best known parts of which are "no such thing as Palestinians. ... They did not exist." Yet the article gives the full context of the quote rather than just the parts most frequently repeated. And this is a good thing because it makes the use of the quote more informative and neutral. I bet you would not like seeing "the most notable" part of Meir's quote in the lead of that article, with no explanation of the context. Haukur 11:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what "context" do you feel is missing? I don't see what Khomeini has to do with anything, unless you're arguing that Ahmadinejad was echoing his sentiments regarding Israel. <<-armon->> 12:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Even—generously—ignoring the translation issue for the time being, the facts that he said "occupying regime" rather than "Israel" and that two of his ministers have explicitly denied that he wants Israel wiped off the map and say he was misunderstood. That he was quoting Khomeini is also important, certainly. Haukur 12:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be appropriate to mention the ambiguity in our lead just as we mention it in our article. This should be done for balance. It only helps that nowadays the press is starting to mention the problematic aspects of the common translation in its own summaries. Before it was quite unbalanced - they would just mention "wiped off the map" without mentioning any dispute - but recently things have improved. The Economist doing this is particularly meaningful since it is quite a reputable publication. The Behnam 18:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no dispute that the prominent translation is inacurate even memri, which is a press organization that propagandizes for israel translates it as 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.[[6]] juan cole translates it as "This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Can anyone reference any academic giving anything close to the faulty version? can anyone even provide any source with a translation of the entire speech that approaches the faulty version? The only thing that support the mistranslation is a media echo chamber, it's disgracefull that this hasn't been fixed yet.The masoud 02:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

How odd, then, that the official Iranian press used the exact same translation. And whatever the exact translation, it all means the same thing. A tempest in a teapot meant to distract from the real issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayg's right. The "alternative" translations have no real semantic difference in meaning, and, more importantly, the official Iranian press and presidential website used the phrase "wipe off the map". It's therefore silly to argue he was somehow "misquoted". <<-armon->> 12:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The silly thing is talking about what the Iranian press said without giving any source. Surely you will give one, right? And btw no, "we must wipe off Israel from the map" and "Israel will we wipped off the map" isn't the same thing, as much as you would like to. 1 isn't the same than 2, do you understand? Btw, you know not everyone in the world is suscribed to the NYT, right?

So waiting for the source. :)

I would also like to see these sources. Whether someone thinks it's silly to argue that he was misquoted, The Economist and other sources ARE arguing that. It is the function of Wikipedia to report what reliable sources say. To try to leave the fact that some have questioned this interpretation out of the article is puzzling at best and seems to be POV editing.--Gloriamarie 21:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

BBC article

C.I.A. or CIA is editing this article.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.83.129.107 (talk • contribs)

I haven't seen there edit anyone come by it the "Waahh" part. --Vonones 00:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

'Tis one of today's front page BBC stories ... searched for the Wahhhhhh! comment too, but couldn't find it. This is a heavily edited article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully this won't become a "thing" that is repeated. One person has so far. The Behnam 04:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the lame copy-cat gesture. Not funny. Griffin147 22:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The "Wahhhhhh!" by CIA is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad&diff=prev&oldid=31483775

I see; it might be them since there headquarters are in Virgina. --Vonones 20:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The CIA are also editing the Iraq war article. I have added this info to the CIA article but I think it deserves a separate article to itself. Thankfully I live in the UK so I might be able to speak about this issue more freely than USA editors here. Colin4C 19:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Principlist?

There is a word "principlist" in the text of the article just before the 35th reference. I couldn't find it in any dictionary. I think "fundamentalist" is the right word.

Gronlink 20:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Gronlink

• lol Probably one of those idiotic CIA editors. Oh crap I`ve just insulted them. Now they`ll be watching what sites I view and where I go.

Seriously though in regard to those CIA edits, I think we should block the users. Its obvious that their edits will be biased. Exiledone 15:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a somehow a correct translations. Principlist is the translation of "اصول گرا" in which ("اصول" means "values or principles" and "گرا" in here is "ist").

translation of fundamentalist is "بنیاد گرا" in persian.--Pejman47 20:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that "principlist" is not an English word. I had encountered it in some other Iran-related articles, so thanks to Pejman for clearing up that it derives from what appears to be the 'best' translation based upon common sense. Before we can decide upon a better word it would help to know where this is taken from anyway, as I cannot find any statement of the sort in the source for that sentence. The Behnam 04:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

CIA Bias

"Its obvious that their edits will be biased" I doubt it. The CIA seems to be very objective with the World Fact book. Testtest03 19:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

• Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ethnic Azerbaijani? 203.218.21.241 15:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiped off the map (again)

This editor has no firm opinion whether it should remain in the lead or not - both options are fine with me. The controversy must be accurately summarised, in any case. As page Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel demonstrates, the exact translation and meaning of his remarks is disputed. The controversy is notable and well-sourced, so the lead must reflect this. smb 02:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

We are having mediation about that very issue. It is obviously not as clear as you feel it to be. Please respect the wikipedia dispute resolution process and allow the mediation to proceed without interruption. Thank you. -- Avi 03:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

How is the user not respecting the mediation process? Instead of implying that they are interrupting the process, why don't you encourage them to engage in it? I made an edit to the article that I didn't find to be contentious, but I wouldn't have made it had I known the article was under mediation. Your polite but accusatory tone don't seem to help in the calming process.. --68.21.93.136 03:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read the very top of this talk page. Thank you. -- Avi 04:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware you had to read a talk page before making an edit to Wikipedia, but I'll try to keep it in mind for the future.

It seems every time you try to be helpful you also try to come off as intimidating, which I don't think is your intent. I felt like you were biting the newcomer (me), but I'm sure this wasn't your intent. I was simply trying to make an edit in good faith. I realize how contentious this article is to other editors now, so I will try to look over the mediation process and not make edits that others find contentious.

You may wish to look over your edits and find a way to improve your communication so that newcomers like me, or users who have done nothing at all, don't feel slighted. Thank you. --68.21.93.136 13:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the constructive criticism; I will keep in in mind, and welcome to wikipedia -- Avi 14:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

We have to look out for each other. Thanks for pointing out the mediation to me --68.21.93.136 02:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a polite request to join the mediation discussion would be more helpful.--Gloriamarie 21:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also like a link to the mediation proceedings; I don't see them above on the current talk page; perhaps it's in an archive, but it should be placed here for all to see.--Gloriamarie 21:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Here you go. Is it too late to become an involved party? smb 21:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea; if it is, is there a place where I can lend my opinion to the discussion?--Gloriamarie 23:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, just say your piece here. But really, this mediation song and dance has been going on for months with near-zero actual discussion and no progress. We're just as well off discussing the issues on this talk page and we are perfectly entitled to do so. Haukur 23:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The assertion in the lede paragraph that Ahmadinejad has claimed that "Israel should be wiped off the map" is followed by 3 reference links. The first of these, marked (9), also serves as the reference link for the assertion that Ahmadinejad believes the Holocaust to be a Western myth. The link is a BBC article that speaks to Ahmadinejad's opinion of the Holocaust, but which makes no mention of the infamous "wiped off the map" comment. The second link, marked (10), is to a New York Times article that provides an English translation of a speech he delivered in Parsi. This translation renders his comment as "this stain [referring to the suffering of Palestinians]... will be wiped away from the Islamic world." As the controversy surrounding whether Ahmadinejad has made the statement he is alleged to have made centers on whether the formulation "should be wiped off the map" is a faithful translation, this link does not serve to indicate that the quote is an accurate attribution, but rather reinforces the claim that it is not. The third link, marked (11), is a 60 Minutes Ahmadinejad interview conducted by Mike Wallace, in which Wallace asks why Ahmadinejad would say such a thing, and Ahmadinejad refuses to directly respond-- he does not own up to the statement.

In short, this article contains a controversial assertion in its lede paragraph, followed by three reference links, none of which actually reinforce the assertion. Wikipedia is an online reference encyclopedia, with no original research or editorializing. It does not follow that the editorializing of others should be parroted here as fact. Don't succumb to ideological bullying. Brrryan 21:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

In the mean time, I've added other translations direct after the first quote. This sidesteps the original translation entirely while consensus is formed. -Quasipalm 00:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Outsider observations on intro

I have not contributed to this article but had some observations for those who are more actively involved ...

Like some of the other commentators I do think the intro still is both too biased in general and biased toward the U.S. in particular (i.e. lack of World View). In general the intro treats him a little bit like "known villain" which certainly is not a consensus opinion among scholars (e.g. treating the intro to Hilter with a bit of negative bias is arguably appropriate since he is almost universally regarded by scholars in that way but Ahmadinejad is, at most, controversial. The fact that some people compare him to Hitler is does not by itself justify the bias).

Some specifics:

• "Ahmadinejad is an outspoken critic of the George W. Bush Administration" - Although this may be appropriate to bring up in the intro, Bush is not the only leader he has criticized. And the way this is placed in the text implies that U.S. relations are the most important thing to understand about him. That is obviously biased. It is perhaps more appropriate to mention that he has been particularly known for criticizing Western leaders "especially the U.S. President George W. Bush." That phrasing is at least somewhat less U.S.-centric.
• "supports strengthened relations between Iran and ..." - The U.S. is not mentioned in this list when in fact he and his cabinet have called for improved relations with the U.S. as well. Granted there has been more talk about stronger relations with those listed in the near term but that is arguably because Iran already is on better terms with them. The phrasing here seems to be trying to imply something that is unfair, especially in the introduction (i.e. if you want to describe this in more detail later in the article, fine, but be careful about inadvertently biasing the intro).
• Jewish relations - There is an awful lot of discussion about Israel and the Jewish people. Granted he has had some major things to say on these subjects but the intro text makes such a big deal about this without providing much context that it is rather biasing the message. In particular the "wiped off the map" comment without explanation comes off sounding like he advocated nuclear war which is not the context of the statement (some may argue about what he "meant" but the point is that there is no consensus behind the interpretation that this phrasing would seem to imply).
• As a general rule the controversies about an individual, unless there is general consensus that there are fair criticisms that can be made, should be discussed after talking about accomplishments in the intro (if at all) which is the opposite of what was done here.

--Mcorazao 18:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Off-topic: Can we put a lock on this article? The vandalism is getting annoying. Ljpernic 19:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the past 2-3 days, I could agree with that. The ground zero thing is getting a bit of attention in the news right now. I've semi-protected it for a week. -- RG² 22:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

neo-con bias

{{Editprotected}} The word myth (in the intro) should be wikilinked to Mythology#Myths as depictions of historical events and not Holocaust denial. E.g., [[myth|Mythology#Myths as depictions of historical events]]. Calling the holocaust a myth is no more denying it than calling Noah's ark a myth. Something can be true (and hence not denied) and still have a mythology about it. Testtest03 19:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Except that the section you link to not only has almost no sources, its examples are exclusively of ancient historical events. Anyways, your and my opinion on what he meant by "myth" is beside the point. The existing linkage is supported by more than a dozen citations of the opinions of reliable sources. - Merzbow 20:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that I shared my view of what he meant. If he meant to deny the holocaust, and you have a reliable source, wikilink holocaust denial to the holocaust denial article. Linking myth to holocaust denial is snide. Testtest03 20:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Calling the holocaust a myth is no more denying it than calling Noah's ark a myth." But anyways. Again I implore you to read the references, which support the interpretation of "holocaust denial". I.e., ""Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad -- who in October called for Israel to be 'wiped off the map' -- has now questioned the extent of the Holocaust and suggested that the Jewish state be moved to Europe." - Merzbow 22:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've disabled the editprotected request while discussion continues and consensus builds. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Two cents on the original argument: I agree that the term "myth" can be used in different ways. However the question is not how it "could" be interpreted but what Ahmadinejad was actually trying to say. Obviously that is a point of debate but the statement that "Something can be true (and hence not denied) and still have a mythology about it" is a little dangerous. Saying something is a "myth" and saying something has a "mythology about it" are different things. Making the statement that Ahmadinejad called the Holocaust a myth but trying to argue that he was not saying it is unsubstantiated is, at best, confusing and, at worst, dishonest. In such a context linking "myth" to "Holocaust denial" is appropriate. But again, is that actually what he said or is this a mistranslation (i.e. even if he used a word that can be translated as "myth" that doesn't mean the translation of the entire phrase using "myth" is accurate)? I don't know the answer for certain but most sources I have seen say that his intent actually was to deny the Holocaust (which seems to be supported by his other actions). --Mcorazao 15:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Somebody linked myth to just "myth". I suppose that's fine. - Merzbow 18:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Testtest03 19:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)