Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 3

message: ====Current text====
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 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.
====Discussion====
*Is the discussion about term of office and possible future runs for office lead-worthy? I do not think so. -- Avi 18:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First paragraph

message: *Is the discussion about term of office and possible future runs for office lead-worthy? I do not think so. -- Avi 18:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I attempted to collect a list of the major issues above and assemble them here for easy access. Others could add or modify to these bullets, and once we have a non-redundant list we could come up with a new proposed text. Discussion could also take place underneath each of the bullets. --Nosfartu 02:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for this summary. I invite responses to the assertions above. Daniel 13:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major issues

message: I tried to change some of this to meet some concerns on the talk page, which I see are echoed here, but there is resistance for reasons I do not understand.  Regardless, see here and here for my attempts. — Omegatron 00:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of editors have tried to resolve it in the article and have become confused. Better to move on and discuss improvements here though. --Nosfartu 01:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: ====Current text====
During his presidency, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a gas rationing plan to reduce the country's fuel consumption, dissolved the Management and Planning Organisation of Iran and cut the interest rate for private and public banking facilities.
====Discussion====
Personally, I do not believe this belongs in the lead; it is a more minor point which belongs in the section about his governance. -- Avi 15:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's appropriate for an article about a head of state rather than an article about a personality cult, and I think some of the information has relevance to Iran in the long term; however, the information in the paragraph doesn't seem completely important and the placement of the paragraph doesn't matter to me. I'm alright if it is moved. --Nosfartu 04:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We should have something in the lead about who he actually is and what he's done with his career, and not limit it to just controversy surrounding him.  If these are the most notable things he's done in office, they should be mentioned in the lead.  They seem to lack context as currently worded though. — Omegatron 00:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third paragraph

message: Personally, I do not believe this belongs in the lead; it is a more minor point which belongs in the section about his governance. -- Avi 15:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's appropriate for an article about a head of state rather than an article about a personality cult, and I think some of the information has relevance to Iran in the long term; however, the information in the paragraph doesn't seem completely important and the placement of the paragraph doesn't matter to me. I'm alright if it is moved. --Nosfartu 04:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We should have something in the lead about who he actually is and what he's done with his career, and not limit it to just controversy surrounding him.  If these are the most notable things he's done in office, they should be mentioned in the lead.  They seem to lack context as currently worded though. — Omegatron 00:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: At this point, it would make sense for us to try and distill some consensus-based direction out of the above discussions. Currently, I think there is one thing we all agree on. Please feel free to add. -- Avi 16:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I am coming into this discussion late I will just say that I don't entirely agree with this opinion as I have previously mentioned above. --Mcorazao 18:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, go ahead and do this, cheers, .--Pejman47 14:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: why should the translation dispute even be mentioned in the lead? Yahel Guhan 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To mention this particular translation without mentioning that there is not scholarly consensus on what he was trying to say is inherently biased. Either the statement should be left out or the lack of consensus has to be stated. -Mcorazao 20:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolutions agreed upon 

message: Sorry about starting a new section, but I did not know where else to put this. Firstly, I wanted to thank all those involved so far in this process for the substantive discourse that has been rather free of vitriol and rancor. Hopefully, we all have a better appreciation for the various positions and policy/guideline interpretations that are at the core of this difficult, but important, article. I hope that people who were involved over the past two years, but have been somewhat quiet now, will join in. On that topic, my point with this section was to note that due to the upcoming holidays, I will not be able to post Thur, Fri, and of course Saturday, and may not have much time tomorrow either. My silence is not meant to agree or disagree with any posts or comments made, and I will hopefully return sometime next week to continue to partake in the discussion. Wikipedia often measures its decisions in hours, not days, due to the global reach of the Internet and the availability of editors at all times. I appreciate your understanding and look forward to participating in bringing this article to the best compromise and consensus we can. Thank you. -- Avi 14:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mediation is a slow process (as I'm sure some people have noted), so your absence for three days will not matter too much - you won't miss any groundbreaking resolutions, I suspect, because proposals usually take more than a week to be proposed, discussed and then agreed on by everyone involved. Cheers, Daniel 00:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-article-specific comments 

message: It appears that the current mediation is farther from completion than I had thought. In that case, perhaps we can consider unlocking the article, subject to the agreement that edits should not be made to the areas under mediation, and should be reverted if done so. I am just worried that if the article gets re-opened, any hope of stability will be shot, setting this process back even farther. Thoughts? -- Avi 18:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think both are outside the scope of the mediation process.. the article should be unlocked by uninvolved administrators and all editors should try to edit by consensus. That's just my opinion though.. --Nosfartu 04:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is. I would hope that all parties realise the fragility of proceedings here, and resist revert-warring. Daniel 08:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlocking the article?