Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 23

Contradiction

On the side bar, it states that he assumed office on August 3rd. In the main body, however, it claims he assumed office on August 6th. Which was it? Hinate01 (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Myth!?

he never called the holocaust a myth he simply questioned the extent of it and why palestinians who were not responsible for it should have lost their land - all the accusations of him calling it a myth should be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by RexRTR54 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I quote (under article Holocaust_denial#Iranian_President_Ahmadinejad) "They have fabricated a legend under the name Massacre of the Jews..."

Note the word - 'Legend'. So basically, he did call it a myth.

Do your research. Ecth (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous

It is crazy that the U.S. government accuses and wants to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the United Nations Charter because of his mild criticism of Israel when most of the politicians are completely ignoring the genocide in darfur! cleary money is more important for some than life and freedom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adfefjhi3 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Columbia university

Would someone please create a section on the event at the columbia university? You should have heard his lies and nonsense. Contralya 20:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

--denying the existence of homosexuals within iranian borders is quite rediculous, but asking americans to consider iran's international position as if they were themselves in it isnt rediculous...asking iran why they would support armed groups attacking america is unbearably absurd, especially when posed by people who consider themselves educated...if china overthrew the united states government and imposed a brutal monarchy rife with secret police for 25 years wouldnt you hold a grudge? and if they armed mexico with conventional and chemical weapons and supported a full scale invasion of the united states would you be upset? and if they later invaded mexico outright, against international law and the will of the entire international community and then started talking about you the same way they talked about mexico right before they blew it to smithereens wouldnt you be really really scared? and maybe start to support groups that are trying to push china out of the region entirely???-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.219.196 (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC) I can't help but question your patriotism. It's a sad, sad world indeed when folks want to twist the truth to sympathize with a lunatic like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.245.247 (talk) 08:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a transcript available somewhere that anybody knows of yet?

--Mcorazao 21:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a collection of his video clips all on one page: http://people.bu.edu/persians/archive/907/ahmadinejad-at-columbia/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.22.203 (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[1]. Just search Google News. There's a bunch of other stuff with him on 60 Minutes, and more. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Lost in translation... his comments regarding homosexuality were slightly sarcastic, which the translator could not catch on to. Furthermore, he is referring to the widespread culture of homosexuality - not the fact that there are some homosexuals there or not. freethymind 12:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if it's sarcasm, that's a pretty flippant response to the allegations that they execute homosexuals. But then maybe he was just being honest, after all if you kill every homosexual person in your country you really wouldn't have any more, would you? -- Atamasama 21:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This I will admit is true. However, the man is remarkably moderate in a country that all but coined the Neo-Con buzzword "Islamofacist." I commend the amazing job this current administration has done in slandering his name. I can't say that I know his intentions, but I deduce from the evidence presented before me that the man is trying to make reforms. Nothing drastic, but certainly things that are pragmatic. Even then, Khameini has shot him down on a number of occassions and repealed his reforms, especially concerning women's rights. I'm also not saying that the Iranian nuclear program wasn't started with the intention of building a nuclear weapon, but that was a decade and a half ago. The Ahmadinejad administration has acknowledged oil usage as the chief economic problem facing Iran and, given that Iran has quite a bit of coastline, nuclear facilities would be a good way to offset the oil required for energy purposes. There are alternate forms of energy, yes, but those are even less efficient.

Again, I'm not saying that I'm an expert, but through a quick Game Theory analysis of the situation of Iran's economy, there is a legitimate chance that war or embargo will come from this. My grudge isn't with President Ahmadinejad, its with Khameini and the Assembly of Experts. --Montag Alyosha 18:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they could add how Bollinger, the president of Columbia University said he invited Ahmadinejad because he (Bollinger) strongly favors free speech, yet he refused to allow Mr. Gilchrist of the Minutemen Project, and in a separate incident, refused to allow ROTC recruiters on the campus, both on grounds that they weren't appropriate for the University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.173.82.81 (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not relevant to this article. — Omegatron 23:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Could someone add something about how Bollinger's prefacing remarks fall in line with the logical fallacy known as Poisoning the well? It's a classic example.

Here are the video clips: http://people.bu.edu/persians/archive/907/ahmadinejad-at-columbia/ Please add to the main page.

Pronounciation

Somebody please upload an audio file demonstration the proper pronunciation of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's name!

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.243.44 (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC) 

There seem to be a lot of people who pronounce the name with hard "ch" sounds ("Machmoud Achmadinejad") and an equal number of people who don't. Any idea why this is? Jeff Silvers 05:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The hard h people think the name is Arabic. which is not. Ahmadinejad is not an Arabic name. The soft h pronunciation is hence correct.--Zereshk 13:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The name "Ahmad" is considered an Arabic name —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freethymind (talk • contribs) 16:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Assuming we can find a source for this, that might be a good (albeit minor) detail to include in the article. Jeff Silvers 14:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What source?? Ahmadinejad is a Persian name, pronounced as Ah-madi-nejad. Simple. Not "Ach-madi-nejad". It is not our problem if you don't understand Persian names and proper pronunciation. Khorshid 15:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I know. I meant a source indicating that it's frequently pronounced with the hard "ch" sound. No need to be snippy, especially if you don't know what I'm saying. Jeff Silvers 01:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So, whoever IS permitted to edit this article, can we get that pronunciation link set up? It looks like a user has already sent in an OGG of the Persian pronunciation... Khorshid, thank you; (with all due sympathy to Jeff Silvers), I do understand how frustrating it can be to see a name or word consistently mispronounced, and I know how this can make one quick on the trigger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.243.44 (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok the name Ahmad is used widely throughout the world, mainly for Muslims. The name Ahmadinejad is Persian. However, they are both supposed to be pronounced with the soft "h" and no "ch" or "kh" sound. Many non-native speakers say "Ahmad" as "Akhmed" or "Achmed", a mispronunciation of the name whether in an Arabic or Persian context.Tamer 14:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The Columbia U incident

I think it should be expanded and mentioned. Iran is now condemning Columbia University's treatment of him: [2] and 7 top Iranian universities have challenged Bolinger with an explanation to his remarks by asking him 10 questions:

1. Why is the US media so adamant on spending hours everyday attacking our president, yet they have such a hard time allowing him to come there and defend himself against levelled accusations?
2. Now that youre in the habit of giving your opinions to everyone, please explain also why did your govt topple our elected govt in 1953?
3. Why did your govt support Saddam against our country even when he was using chemical weapons against us?
4. Why does the US govt oppose our solution of a referendum in all of Palestine as a solution to the mid-east crisis?
5. Why has your govt not yet captured Bin Laden, in spite of having the most sophisticated intelligence of the world? How do you explain the trade ties between Bush and the Bin Laden family? Why does he oppose further investigations into 9-11?
6. Why do you support the terrorist Mujahedin Khalq (MEK) organization when it openly admits to killing Iranian civilians?
7. Why did the US invade Iraq? Where are those weapons of mass destruction? How do you justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis because of your invasion?
8. Why are the most despicable dictatorships in the Middle-East also close allies of your govt?
9. Why does your govt oppose the proposal to make the ME a nuke free zone, including Israel?
10. Why does the US govt seem so unhappy with any improvement Iran makes with the IAEA?

The Persian text of the letter can be found here. I think this whole incident would be worth a mention.--Zereshk 14:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing two summary additions from the lead section until the event is documented in the main body:

• He also has stated his opinions that there is freedom of speech in Iran, that it does not hold politicial prisioners, that women are well-treated, and that there are no homosexuals in Iran.
• On September 24, 2007 Ahmadinejad was invited by the Columbia University to deliver a lecture. The President's speech avoided incendiary comments about Israel but questioned Isreal's position in Palestine. [3], [[4]]

smb 00:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

http://people.bu.edu/persians/archive/907/ahmadinejad-at-columbia/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.22.203 (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A Word on Neutrality

The neutrality, or not, of a Wikipedia topic seems to be much vaunted as a core tenet of what comprises a proper encyclopedia article. Just bear in mind that saying something unpleasant or derogatory about---in this case Mahmoud Ahmadinejad---does not in itself violate such a principle, in my opinion. This is so, of course, provided that any such comments are demonstrably factual. Do not feel inhibited in calling 'a spade a spade' if doing so is factually accurate and pertinent to the subject at hand. Unpleasant facts concerning Mr. Ahmadinejad may even be endemic to an article about him. 71.59.74.194WikiPaul —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agreed. Of course, to call it "neutrality," the same principle must apply to the converse. To quote Wonko the Sane, "A scientist must also be like a child. If he sees a thing, he must say that he sees it, whether its what he was expecting to see, or not. Otherwise, he'll only see what he was expecting."

But my friends, apart from a few absolute truths, even truth is not agreed-upon by everyone. People still view events and people through their lens, so the bias, pro or anti, will remain forever present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabouz1 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture?

I remember seeing a pic of him on wiki earlier, multiple actually, wtf happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.7.203 (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please correct quote re homosexuals

He did not say there were "no homosexuals in Iran." He said, ""In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. We don’t have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I do not know who has told you that we have it." These two quotes have different meanings, and regardless, you should use the actual quote since it's available. Please fix this. Here is a citation to the exact quote. [5] --Marksspite133 01:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from the above article, which seems to show that the Wikipedia quote misstates the meaning of what Ahmadinejad said:

Iran has between 15,000 and 20,000 transsexuals, according to official statistics, although unofficial estimates put the figure at up to 150,000. Iran carries out more gender change operations than any country in the world besides Thailand. Sex changes have been legal since the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, spiritual leader of the 1979 Islamic revolution, passed a fatwa authorising them nearly 25 years ago. Whereas homosexuality is considered a sin, transsexuality is categorised as an illness subject to cure. While the government seeks to keep its approval quiet, state support has increased since Mr Ahmadinejad took office in 2005. His government has begun providing grants of £2,250 for operations and further funding for hormone therapy. It is also proposing loans of up to £2,750 to allow those undergoing surgery to start their own businesses. --Marksspite133 01:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Using the exact quote sounds fine, since there is no dispute over the translation. The Behnam 03:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Source can be used

<ref>{{cite news |url=http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdVphwtHPpy9Q9tjjJ_nrCbbPG3g |title=Ahmadinejad Questions 9/11, Holocaust |publisher=[[Associated Press]] |date=[[2007-09-24]]}}</ref>

I took this out because it wasn't supporting its claim (which already had a ref anyway), but we may consider using this to cover some of the Iranian response. The Behnam 03:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Note about forum posts

Since the recent hype and hysteria surrounding Ahmadinejad's media appearance, I've noticed a lot of forum-ish posts here. I'm going to remove these soon, since they clutter the talk page and aren't supposed to be here anyway. The Behnam 18:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

most of them are indeed "forum posts", but isn't it better to archive them?--Pejman47 19:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, at least not with the most blatantly forum-ish ones, because we don't archive every day. The forum-ish posts will sit there provoking more responses from talk page readers. The Behnam 19:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, you made a point, remove the foolish ones.

by the way an English question: should I say "made a point" or "had a point"?, after answering this question you may delete this forum-like question, too. :)--Pejman47 19:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, "you have a point" (not "had") seems best in this situation. The Behnam 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If you wanted to use something like "made", you could say "you make a good point". For some reason, it doesn't sound right without the "good." The Behnam 19:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks for explanation.--Pejman47 19:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon request

Certain users are discriminately editing and/or deleting content without reason, namely The Behnam The Behnam whose bias is evident upon analysis of profile deletion/editing history. Criticising contributions that you dislike as "forum-ish" does not justify stealing discussion. The page is unfortunately taking on the appearance of privately controlled space through constant censorship by the aforementioned user. THIS IS A PUBLIC DOMAIN SPACE. Action by administrators is called for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.36.11.17 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 27 September 2007

This is not a "public domain space" and this page exists for no other reason than to discuss changes to the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad article. Removing general comments that treat this page as a forum is standard practice, and as an administrator, I can assure you that no administrative action is required. This is not censorship and this page is not for general discussion related to Ahmadinejad. - auburnpilot talk 20:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. Besides, some of the comments I removed were from opposing ends of the issue, so it is amusing that I am described as "biased." The Behnam 00:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The administrator who has tried to express himself in the previous post should read a definition of "public domain" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.36.11.17 (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

transcripts:allegedly quotes ("Wipe off the map", Holocaust a myth")

Well, I think I found the original transcripts which might proof that he didnt denie the holocaust etc. I'm from germany so reding it would be hard for me, I can read a bit persian, but this might work sb else out. Here is the page where you will find the links. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NOR20070120&articleId=4527 beforehand I have to tell you: one transc. is in persian language, one is written in englsih. I hope this will help you. By the way, In the german wiki- article it is already said that the quotes (wiped off the map etc) are wrong... --Englishazadipedia ....Well I dont know if ahmadinejad is wrong quoted or not but I'd say the truht will triumph at wikipedia...

We aren't supposed to interpret the primary sources ourselves, especially with something as controversial as this quote. The Behnam 23:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is just one primary source in Farsi (It is about the speech where he allegedly states that Israel should be wiped off the map. There is an addidtional explanation in the ARTICLE. Every several word of the so often quoted "statement" is translanted in "Farsi with ourletters", and every word is exactely translated in english --> The original statement (see also my link): Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from). --(Then he said): This statement is very wise (As well as the "quotation" of him by western media) "Israel must be wiped off the map" /"wipe Israel off the face of the earth" Theres a second primary source in English that is also usefull. (Another speech of Ahmadinejad) What do you want to interpret there? I see this article does not pay attention to the statement about holocaust. From another German aricle I get, that he didnt states that the holocuast is a myth. To everybody who is knowledgeable about German: http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb5/frieden/themen/Medien/iran.html (Article from the Universtiy of Kassel about both citations) I will ask them to give me their primary sources --Englishazadipedia 20:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that the quote was misinterpreted by the United States press. What he basically said was that he hopes the regime in Israel will collapse. Check the Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for confirmation. Quinn 15:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

globelize template

Prehaps somebody can explain why this template is on this page? Yahel Guhan 06:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, and I don't see an explanation anywhere here, so I'll remove it for now. Someone can make the case if they want, but seriously, I think there are already enough warning tags on the top to fit just about any grievance. The Behnam 06:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel, 'wipe off the map'

The article Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel states that the translation to what the President said was not a call for Israel to be "wiped off the map," and that the comment pertained to the Israeli regime. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.129.219 (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

He LITERALLY meant for Israel to be off the map. As in, the borders shouldn't be there! The people live, it's that that the state of Israel shouldn't exist.

-G

Just to correct a common misperception, Ahmadinejad never said any such thing. This was a result of a politically-oriented mistranslation (well, such things have happened in other cases with the Iranian government and by the same types of ideologues). Here is a refutation of this particular piece of war propaganda. It should be included in the article, as it is unfortunately well-known, but it mentioned that it is debunked war propaganda. Especially considering that many are trying to use this politically-motivated mistranslation to lie the United States into another war, it is critical that this misinformation not be spread. Life, Liberty, Property 08:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the Iranian version of his speach and he actually said that "Israil (Israil) nabayad (cannot) rooyeh (on the) naghsheh (map) basheh (be)" which roughly translates "Israel should not be on the map". He probably is saying this because he doesn't want Jews occupying half of their former holy land (islamic land to be accurate) ; HE DOESNT WANT TO OBLITERATE THE JEWS YOU VANDALS because its pretty stupid to border them. It's perhaps offending the muslims despite the fact that they are repulsive against the jews because of the Holy Sites that only islamic people can enter. The Iranian nation doesn't hate the jews btw if that's what most of you think. There are synagogues in Iran which Muslims accept because Judaism is just a brother religion of Allah (God, jews say allah for god too!!!) but Christians are seemed as blasphemies because a human cannot be God since God doesn't take form in existence (according to the holy books). If that offends the Christians, then why did the Americans kill the Mormons 100 years ago? Coincidence? Pppl will do anything to preserve their beliefs and degrade others'.

--• Storkian • 01:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please tell us where this version of his speech is, because as far as I've researched, he said

"Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from)." Here is a Persian version of his speech from his website. [6] Do you have any other versions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabouz1 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud most certainly does intend to wipe Israel off the map. It's ridiculous that you would try to find loopholes to try to say otherwise. How many times have we heard the phrase "Death to America! Death to Israel!"? It's practically the Iranian motto now. Secondly, Allah is not the Jewish word for God. "Yawweh", "Adonai", and "Jehoveh" are the names they use...because the original name is considered too holy to say. And please expound on Christians killing Mormons. I'm a historian, and I don't recall such a thing ever taking place. Terrorism must be defeated...both in the physical realm and in the philosophical realm...such is the case here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.245.247 (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

To "expound on Christians killing Mormons" see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_War. They killed AND expelled the Mormons.

funny, you're a "historian" and you didn't know that. In regards to the Prez's comments, if the words can be twisted from one language to the next it should be pointed out, and was in this article until recently. It's a running trend that Americans call their enemies "cruel and petty dictators" when most were democratically elected (see; Putin, Chavez and Ahmidenjad) and too further twist their words to fit the meaning wanted most by the people (who apparently just want another war) is just absurd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.118.94.165 (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

--- Whether one does or does not support Ahmedinejad, it is thoroughly unacceptable to include misinformation in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Ahmedinejad did NOT call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'. He is so often misquoted (intentionally, I fear) that people are given compltely the wrong impression about him. We like to do that to our enemies here in the west. Ahmedinejad has frequently called for the end of the Israeli regime , but he does not call for the death of its people. Anyone who says he does is misinformed or lying . Ahmedinejad simply voices the opinion held by the majority of the people in the region, which is that the state of Israel is completely unjust and their reign of oppression must be stopped. This does not involve massacring the people of Israel; simply returning Palestine to its people. It is because the west will do nothing to oppose Israel (no, much of the west supports it even!) that it is up to countries like Iran to champion this 'fight for freedom'. I personally disagree with Iran's theocratic system, but to slander about Ahmedinejad just because he opposes us is childish, and it is inexcusable for such nonsense to be present in an 'encylopedia'. Wikipedia's credibility has already been ruined; why must we seek to damage it further? This must be fixed at once. (Sources have already been posted by Storkian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.243.194 (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the 'wiped Israel off the map' quote, as it appears to be totally wrong. If anyone wants to revert, can they give a good, accurate version of the Farsi (in Farsi), along with a good, accurate translation, along with notes as to why they translate it so.Cooke (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah - I see it's been protected. Can anyone explain why this quotation (which appears to have no valid source) has stayed? It adds to WP's ropey reputation. Cooke (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a useful NYT article on the issue at

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?ex=1307678400&en=efa2bd266224e880&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Cooke (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Dear Avarham, according to mediator (daniel), being under mediation doens't make the case for blindly reverting it to the previous outdated version of several months ago. The text you reverted was result of a contribution of several users with no previous history on editing this page, (they probably discovered this page after the media fuss at Columbia University). With some exceptions most of them have a Natural POV on this matter.

So, If you have any objections to the updated text, it is totally OK, and it is what Wikipedia is. Please list your objections one by one to the every change that you think is in conflict with WP policies; and give your reseons about them. Most of them will probably reverted to the previous version but "no blind revert" just for the merit of mediaion case. --Pejman47 14:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Ahamdinijead himself was condemned; not merely his comments. There are plenty of edits supporting that.
2. Having post-remark apologetics made after MA's statements in the lead is one of the very issues, if not the primary issue, that is under mediation, and should not be added until mediation has run its course.

Neither of those two edits should be made until mediation has run its course. -- Avi 19:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

1. 1. it is your opinion and you are a Wikipedia user not a well-known political commenter that his opinion should be reflected in the page.
   2. ?!! read again: " being under mediation doens't make the case for blindly reverting it to the previous outdated version of several months ago."--Pejman47 20:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again; it is not my opinion that the man has been condemned, it is brought time and time again in the long list of sources that this article contains. Please read them. Secondly, the version pre-apologetics is not "outdated", and the revert is not "blind". Rather, the very fact of whether apologetics NOT voiced by the man, and per the 60 minutes article, not even intimated, but the original statement upheld, is the very point of contention here. The main point under mediation is how much "whitewashing" or "explanation" (depending on how one views other people's apologies) is allowed in the lead. Adding in said aplogetics while that very fact is under discussion is directly against the spirit and letter of what is being mediated. -- Avi 20:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop reverting material from reliable and verifiable sources. It has nothing to do with documenting an opinion, it has to do with recording what sources say. Finding 50 sources that find the same thing doesn't mean anything except that you were looking for 50 sources to say the same thing. It's fine to cite them, but it doesn't end the discussion or stop other sources from being cited. Also please stop reverting with "this is under mediation", as it isn't a blank excuse to revert. If you have a specific problem, try to list it. --68.72.46.34 00:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The specific issues are listed above as well as on the mediation page for this article. Please respect the process and do not make substantial edits whose applicability and allowability are at the focus of the mediation that is current. -- Avi 01:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The edits are meant to resolve conflicts and are allowed under the mediation process.. continuously reverting to the exact seem version seems counterproductive.. Editing the material isn't disallowed and the edits are supported by verifiable reliable sources, so I don't see what the problem is.. --68.72.46.34 02:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll also note you inadvertently added a typo back in to the article, while I inadvertently edited an emoticon back in. Instead of either one of us reverting to a specific version of the article, we should try to improve the article that we have.. --68.72.46.34 03:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding in the post-remark apologetics by others, which includes claims of mistranslation, is exactly the point under mediation. In any event, I've e-mailed Daniel, asking for guidance on the situation. -- Avi 03:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't make sense to allow continued warring over that section while we are under mediation to prevent edit warring. Unfortunately we can't just lock down that section alone, so we ironically have to edit war to keep it at its mediation state. The Behnam 03:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Although myself or the Committee I am a part of has absolutely no way to stop people edit-warring on an article being mediated, it is generally preferable if it doesn't happen, and I have seen RfM's closed because the parties merely edit-warred and didn't partake in discussion at the mediation page (these cases generally get referred to RfAr). I would appreciate it if parties could comment on the two proposals currently floating around on the RfM page, rather than devoting their efforts into edit-warring. The other option is to close the RfM, which is obviously not desirable. If any party does not wish for the mediation to continue, they can withdraw and the RfM will be closed (and possibly referred to the Arbitration Committee for binding resolutions). Daniel 04:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I haven't evaluated the history fully (to do so would lead to a breach in neutrality and independance), so my comments were generally. My comments were not intended to scorn or lecture, but rather to inform, and my apologies if anyone interpreted it in the wrong way due to ambiguous language. Cheers, Daniel 04:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation has been ongoing for months. Mediation does not apply a moratorium to editing during this time. Please change to a neutral wording that mentions the dispute about translation, and when mediation has completed, they can update it if something needs to be changed. — Omegatron 17:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

And content disputes have been ongoing for years. So if some extra time is needed to work out a neutral version than parties can agree to, so be it. Wikipedia will be here for decades and more, we hope. Sometimes, a little patience is required. -- Avi 18:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

To help speed along the mediation process, it might be helpful if everyone commented over on the mediation page. The sooner people start agreeing over there, the sooner the article can get unlocked. --Nosfartu 23:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So if one person stonewalls and refuses to agree, the disputed parts of the article remain untouchable for years? — Omegatron 23:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No, but returning to the situation where there is Perpetual check-type edit revrting is unacceptable. Having been party to the wide-scale and deep disagreements on this article for about two years now, I can assure you that this mediation, under Daniel, has an excellent chance of finally reaching an acceptable compromise; whereas demanding that one person's perception of "neutral" be enforced undoubtedly does not. Please join us in the mediation process and accept that "slow and steady" will have the best chance of resulting in a permanent solution. The article is not going anywhere, and is rather "loudly" tagged as having issues; I do not think you have to worry about anything getting "lost". -- Avi 13:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been around the article as long, so it's hard for me to tell. I don't think the article should be locked solely because it is in mediation, but it does needs to be locked if there are countless back and forth reversions. I think the tags on the page, the current mediation, and finally the page protection show that the current version of the article isn't perfect. I agree that the mediation process is slow, but I think it would come to a consensus much faster if more editors were involved and responding.. --Nosfartu 13:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

When the "slow and steady" mediation reaches an agreement, the article can be changed accordingly. In the meantime, we need to state this sentence in a neutral manner. Ignoring the controversy is not neutral. — Omegatron 05:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not being ignored; it is handled in the text. What happens in the lead is what is under discussion on the mediation page. If you feel you can add to the discussion, please do so there. The page has a link at the top of this talk page. Thank you. -- Avi 05:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It is ignored in the intro.

In the intro, you're saying "Mahmoud is widely criticized for eating babies", while neglecting to mention that it was later proved that he never actually ate babies. I see no explanation for this behavior other than a deliberate attempt to bias the article to make him sound worse than he really is. Are you biased in this manner?

Surely he's made more damning, less disputed statements about Israel that could be included. — Omegatron 14:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There is good information available that properly reflects Ahmadinejad's views - see here. There are much, much more threatening things been said by Sharon and Bush - do we see their bios full of them (or even containing any reference to them)? No, of course not! PR^talk 13:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Free elections

In the Columbia U. speech as in other speeches Ahmadinejad called for "free elections" in Palestine. This, in fact, was one of his main points. I am curious why this information is omitted. Granted one can question his true intentions but, genuine or not, the key points of his statements should not be whitewashed, IMHO.

--Mcorazao 04:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I dislike the phrase 'whitewash', but I raised the same point over on the mediation page. I think it's weird how many of the new editors coming to the page think some of the same things. The mediation is virtually dead right now, but you should still check it out.. --Nosfartu 13:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Did he call for free elections in Iran, too? 6SJ7 18:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, many Western academics and news groups (BBC, PBS, ..) have been willing to call them free elections when it is a reformist winning. Of course it isn't ideal if candidates can be disqualified from running and if decisions rest with the so-called "Supreme Leader", but then again it isn't very ideal to overthrow a democracy and install a friendly leader, to ignore a democratically elected government when you disagree with it, or to work with dictators when they'll do what you want. Either way, we're just supposed to give a represenative view of what he has said and what has made him controversial, the reader should come to the conclusion on their own. --69.210.14.42 21:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There were free elections in Palestine AND Iran and Hamas and Ahmadinejad won them respectively. Of course, in America elections are only free and fair if the party you want to win won. (See USA 2000 Election) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.118.94.165 (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a point regarding this discussion that you are trying to make or are you just blowing off steam? --Mcorazao 22:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

there have been free elections in both Palestine and Iran, so why he called for them is irrelevant. now the response of the international community to these election results are what need to be questioned (if they do in fact, love democracy more than anything) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.148.209 (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the anon serious? Iran has "free elections" in the sense that they are allowed to pick a President out of a group of preselected candidates, most of whom are corrupt. Thousands of candidates are rejected from running every single time. President Khatami almost wasn't allow to run, despite the fact that his religious credentials rival that of all of the wannabe-Arab Clerics (who have been on a campaign to destroy Persian culture and language for decades) that control Iran.

Regardless, this article is already becoming too long and is turning into a petty rant rather than a biography. If we were to include every outrageous statement by this man, then we may as well write a book on him instead. The fact of the matter is, Ahmadinejad holds very little executive power within his own country, he doesn't have the authority over the Iranian military or the Revolutionary Guards (therefore he is not even directly responsible for violence in Iraq, despite the fact that corporate media has tried to pretend that he is, because he has become a household name unlike Khameini), and, in the grand scheme of things, he's just not even that important. It's likely that this clown will lose his reelection in 2009 and we'll never hear about him again.. The USA has done a good job to equate this lowlife with Hitler, but he's hardly on that level, even if he wished he was. Why are we giving such a massive article for this guy? He isn't politically important enough to even have an article this large. He's just a loudmouth that gets press, like Paris Hilton. This article is basically almost as long as George Bush's, and George Bush is the president of a global superpower. -MadarB 05:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Contrast of columbia's behaviour

I have a link[7] which criticises Columbias treatment of Mr. Ahmadinejad with that of the the president of Turkmenistan. When the page is unprotected I intend to add it to the appropriate section if there are no realistic objections. Damburger 10:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Religious Beliefs

I think there should be a section on his religious beliefs with regard to the return of the 12th Imam and Mahdi. Also, mention of a dream he had where there would be total armageddon within three years to bring the return of the Muslim savior.

If you have proper documentation for the dream, go for it. As for his religious views, we just need to mention what he is, then people can find what THAT entails. We cannot go to every person and put their entire beliefs and tenets, but rather mention it so that people who are interested can find out what the beliefs entail.

Desire to visit to Ground Zero

I think there should be a section talking about his repeated desire to visit ground zero. He has discussed the issue in the Iranian news media Slarson 21:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Good source for quotes by him on Israel

http://timesonline.typepad.com/faith/2007/10/1-we-dont-shy-a.html Zeq 04:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

ugh

I can't believe you guys are arguing so much over whether he thinks Israel and Jews should be destroyed or not. His public statements on the matter are fairly clear when you look at them as a whole, and all this attempted syllable counting and so forth to prove a specific POV is rather silly.

I just wanted to add my two cents because there is no way I will get involved with working on this trainwreck of an article. However, I do plan to sit back and enjoy the show because the conflagration on the talk page, in the archives, and the collateral damage elsewhere are all quite entertaining.

In summary,

Jtrainor 09:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article needs work. But your comments are curious. The whole point of the discussion is that "his public statements" are NOT clear. The common interpretations given by much the U.S. government and some of the "Western media" do not seem to jibe well with what is reported by other reliable sources (indeed the same sources often seem to give conflicting accounts). Moreover, as I mentioned above many of his most important statements seem to be ignored in interpreting what he is saying. So far I have not seen any reliable report which definitively establishes that he has advocated genocide or even that he has specifically advocated removing the Jews from the Middle East (i.e. to the extent that any reports have said this there are equally reliable reports, often from the same source, which contradict this). What is clear is that he wants the Israeli state dissolved in favor of a government that he feels would be more representative of the population. But that is very different (whether it is "right" or "wrong" is also a separate matter).

Certainly I'm not nominating this guy as a saint but I would argue even an article on Adolph Hitler should still treat Hitler fairly. One can debate what his true intentions are but it is unreasonable to indict him based on twisted interpretations of the worst excerpts of his statements. --Mcorazao 16:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! To treat figures unfairly, be they "good" or "bad," is to learn nothing from them. Sadly, learning doesn't frequnetly seem to an objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.64.21 (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The Western governments and media outlets twisted the mans words to make him sound anti-semetic when he was in fact just against a regime that has denied rights and implemented an apartheid system on the (more recently) native inhabitants of the land. when he says "the zionist regime needs to be removed from power" and CNN, the American Government MSNBC, Fox News, etc say "he said 'we need to wipe israel off the map'" something needs to be discussed when the English speaking media say one thing and Farsi and Arabic speaking news sources say another. and who can be more trusted on what he actually said, the people who speak his language and understand his culture, or people who hated him before he made the comment and are looking to start a conflict over a misinterpreted quote —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.148.209 (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off_the_map.22_translation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.148.209 (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not even about his "public statements". It's about one statement in particular. It's translated into English as a call for all Israelis to be killed, when it looks like he actually just meant for the "Israeli regime" to be dissolved (a common sentiment in the Middle East, if I understand correctly). Surely he's said many other things about destroying Israel that could be listed in parallel with this particular statement to clarify his stance. I don't understand why certain editors are unwilling to cooperate on writing this in a neutral way. If people are so biased that they can't edit alongside others, they shouldn't be on Wikipedia. — Omegatron 01:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting we have under "Presidency" the Farsi original statement: "It's possible and we can do it." (می‌شود و می‌توانیم).

But we don't have the Farsi equivalent for "wipe israel off the map", perhaps because he never said it. Note we are not told where or when he said it or who heard him or who translated it into English - to me these would all be requirements for "verifiability" (of course the WP overlords have their own definition of "verifiability" ). 24.64.165.176 (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture at the top

Isn't it somewhat inappropriate for a biography of a President? Simply because the man is virulent doesn't mean we ought to be posting a picture of his screaming with an angry-man-face with an all-black background. It pretty much sets the tone for this article, and that tone is: we hate this man. Which, in all honesty, is probobly true for all of us. That doesn't make it encyclopedic. Does anyone have a picture of him that looks at least somewhat official? The current picture is absolutely ridiculous. -MadarB 05:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

He's not screaming. Agreed that we should prefer a neutral picture, but that picture isn't all that bad in the grand scheme of things. There are worse problems with this article. — Omegatron 01:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Request minor formatting changes

{{editprotected}} The references section is messed up (in my display) by the sisterlinks template protruding from above. Can someone please add {{clear}} to sort this out? Also this edit appears to be nothing more than tidying up the formatting (but was reverted, probably per m:wrong version). Could an uninvolved admin please carry out these minor formatting edits? It would be best to mark them as not being to do with the subject of the ongoing mediation, as otherwise the edits might upset some people. If the mediators of the dispute would prefer to handle such matters, they should place a prominent notice at the top of the talk page and remember that currently the top of the article says "You may use {{editprotected}} on the talk page to ask for an administrator to make an edit for you." Hence this request. Carcharoth 13:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

{{clear}} added. Disputed content-related edits are currently under active discussion at the mediation page linked to above. Please join the mediation if you are interested in helping bring this article to a reasonable consensus. Thank you. -- Avi 14:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

disagree with Merging

I would disagree with the combination of the articles Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and ahmadinejad togeather for one reason. Ahmadinejad may be a nut job but that does not meaning showing only one side of the story. it is only natural in the article controversy surounding ahmadinejad that they would only show the negative sides of his argument. if we were to combine thoes two articles it would sound like propaganda and make him seem more negative witch insults unbias. if we were to merge these two articles we would have to at least show the "positive" things he did in these events persay columbia university. I am also woried about the nutrality of this article perhaps we could let both the critics and suporters of ahmadinejad speak. --Zaharous 01:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)zaharous

A "Controversy" article is exactly what you're saying we shouldn't have: an entire article devoted to only showing one side of the story. This is called a POV fork and is prohibited by our rules about neutrality and objectivity.

We don't segregate several unrelated topics into a single section or article just because they are all "controversial". That's not a logical way to divide up content. All the content about Ahmadinejad and Israel should be in a single Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel article, regardless of whether it is "controversial", negative, or positive. All the content about Ahmadinejad and weapons of mass destruction should be in a single Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and nuclear weapons article, regardless of whether it is "controversial", negative, or positive. This is how we write neutrally and objectively.

See Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_structure, and [8] — Omegatron 03:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right, except of course for Holocaust and Holocaust denial and a few other unwritten exceptions. 24.64.165.176 (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Self Made commentary

{{editprotected}}|please redo this contribution [9], the text doesn't have any source and only seems self made commentary and etc--Pejman47 19:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't appropriate for admins to make significant content changes to protected pages. I believe this page is the subject of mediation; you might want to join that to contribute your opinion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

the mediation is mainly about the lead, there is little disagreement about the rest of the article. That sentence is ridiculous, POV and most importantly UNSOURCED--Pejman47 19:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge disagreement

As long as there is an article about Bush, there should be one on Ahmadinejad. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *^{Get to the bunker}* 04:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. Not that I am Bush's #1 fan but he is the most important leader (at least in theory) of the most powerful nation in the world. Ahmadinejad, by contrast, is a significant but not unique leader of a somewhat important nation. I'm honestly not clear that there is enough importance to the controversies about him to justify an article on that topic alone (i.e. regardless of how "bad" you think he is does it matter that much?). Granted one can make enough out of it to fill an article but one can say that about anything. From an encyclopedic point of view that just seems to me to be making too much out of the opinions of this one world leader (and the fact that he is a current world leader really should not influence the amount of space he gets in Wikipedia).

--Mcorazao 23:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Completely disagree with merger and I find Mcorazao's arguments highly unconsidered and uninformed musing. --David Shankbone 23:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me Mcorazao, but I disagree with you 110%. I dont like either politicians policies, and they each deserve due ground, and saying that Iran is "somewhat" important is utterly ridiclous in my opinon. Iran is very important, both ecomomically and in the war on terror, and you cant possibly deny that. It is not because of their leadership of their respective coutry, but because each deserves to recieve all the time it is due. If there is a subject that is only taken from one perspective, then it is no longer an encyclopedia, but a soapbox. AND, if we take that perspective, then should we delete this as well. Is Venezuela "somewhat" important? Or what about this. Is Chile "somewhat" important? Ahmadinejad is just as important as any of those, and probably in the coming days be more important than bush, but im not a crystal ball. It also seems like hes a touch more important than this. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *^{Get to the bunker}* 22:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• No merge There are just too many controversies to merge the articles. Yahel Guhan 01:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge please. There should be no "Controversy of" or "Criticism of" articles at all, including the one about Bush. This is inherently non-neutral. Segregating all the criticism to one article, regardless of what topic that criticism is about? How is that a good article structure? Leaving criticism out of the main article? How can you think that this is neutral?

The article Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad needs to be split up into neutral articles like Involvement of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 1979 Hostage Crisis and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. Most of the rest can then be merged into this article, where it belongs. Is there no mention of the possible election fraud in this article? Why is there no mention of banning of music or internet in this article? What does the Columbia University section say that isn't already said in this article or can't be moved here? — Omegatron 16:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the biggest chunks of the Controversies article into more appropriate articles. Can we start merging the rest into this one now? — Omegatron 05:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

edit request

{{editprotected}} the word "konkoor" in parentheses describing the the national university entrance exams that Ahmadinejad took in 1976 should be spelled "concours" as it is a French word. Thanks.

This is the sort of change that needs to be discussed and agreed first, since people often get upset when the spelling of a word is changed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done -- Avi 22:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} please add a section about Iran-France relations in the foreign policy section and add this:

In November 2007 President Ahmadinejad sent a letter to President Nicolas Sarkozy following the tensions between the two countries on the disputed nuclear programme in Iran. According to France's Le Monde newspaper, the letter had an "acrimonious" tone and contained "veiled threats". He also called Sarkozy a "young and inexperienced" leader.

Protection

I realize I'm charging into a pretty serious fray here, but is there a reason this article has been left in a protected state for so long? --MBlume 00:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Very difficult mediation in which there was edit warring prior and in some instances, post, the protection. If everyone can agree not to edit the difficult parts (mainly the lead) until mediation is completed, perhaps the protection can be lifted. -- Avi 00:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Because a certain user was trying to WP:OWN the article and prevent others from making edits he didn't like. He managed to abuse policies in order to keep the article in his preferred biased state for two months, but consensus eventually prevailed. — Omegatron 16:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Introduction mediation resolution

{{editprotected}} As per the mediation regarding the controversial 3rd paragraph in the introduction, please replace this with the following.

He has been widely quoted as calling for the dissolution of the state of Israel and its government which he does not regard as legitimate or representative of the population. Like many in the Muslim world he has called for "free elections" in the region giving the Palestinians a stronger voice in the region's future. One of his most criticized statements was one in which, according to some translations, he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," but interpretations of this statement vary widely. He has also been condemned for describing the Holocaust as a myth leading to accusations of antisemitism. In response to these criticisms, Ahmadinejad said “No, I am not anti-Jew, I respect them very much.”

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The page has been unprotected and another user added the information. Cheers, Daniel 11:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Israel being wiped of the map... -.- he must have been blackmailed to say that. For a university student like him, I hardly believe he supports that kind of radicalism. Why is everyone pointing fingers at ahmadinejad? Bush and mahmood just sign things, which can be anything like war inauguarations etc... there are other ppl to blame to have caused the leading to the current one than the presidents themselves. --µWiki Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 23:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)