Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 10

message: I have added another news story about women's rights to the section.  Any improvement to my addition, which is about conservative anger at lack of strictness over hijab enforcement, is welcome.  However, the section strikes me as a bit disorganized.  I think it may be improved if the individual events are separated into paragraphs.  Does this seem a good idea?  If so, I am willing to divide the events for easier reading.  The Behnam 02:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Women's Rights

message: There are alot of  here. I took out two of them but then saw there's a bunch of others. Do people want the translations? I can personally vouch that all the Persian (Farsi) sources say what is listed in the article, so if someone else can also attest to this, would that be enough? I just don't think all this tags is necessary because the sources are reliable and say what is in the article. Khodavand 04:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Translations are welcome; as I do not know Persian, I am left wondering what these sources say.  Would using a vouch system accord with policy? Are there translations available?  The Behnam 04:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the sites have translations available. I am not sure about the policy, I'm curious about that myself. The problem is if we have to translate every non-English source to include that information in the article, it will take a very very long time because we would need more than one person to verify that that the sources say what is being written. So either way it comes down to a matter of the honor system in a way. Of course it would be easier not to use non-English sources but then we limit our choices. Khodavand 06:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Awesome - I have been trying to find someone to verify those links for quite some time.  Another editor added those  tags because he couldn't understand the Farsi.  If you can verify that the cite is correct, then remove them.  And Thanks! Vir4030 19:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent.  There are seven of them left on the page, just remove the  tag as you verify them.  I left you a message on your talk page some time ago asking for help.  It's much appreciated!  (I really wish that I read Persian, but I'm up to my ears in Japanese at the moment -- one language at a time.) Vir4030 05:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifications

message: Hello,
I can't edit the page, since its simi-protected. I want to change:
On August 29, 2006, he invited George W. Bush to an open televised debate on his plan to have a peaceful nuclear program in place. The invitation was promptly rejected by the White House.[citation needed]
to
In Mid 2006,  President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad invited  President George W.Bush to a debate at the  United Nation  General Assembly which was to take place on the 19th of September 2006. The debate was to be about  Iran's right to enrich uranium. The invitation was promptly rejected by the a White House spokesman Tony Snow who said "There's not going to be a steel-cage grudge match between the President and Ahmadinejad."
Since I have a american and iranian source.
CNN report: http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/situation.room/blog/2006/09/no-steel-cage-grudge-match-between.html and Iran Focus: http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8535
Unfortunately, There is no date, to when the invitation was sent. 
Can somebody edit the articale please. They can change the above edit as they see fit. 
Thank You,
Internet Nerd 15:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Televised Debate 

message: I personally believed that having the numerous alternate spellings, as well as the IPA spelling and Farsi-script text was just too much for a parenthetical statement in a sentence, so I decided it'd be best if the information could be expressed as a footnote. Any thoughts? ★MESSEDROCKER★ 17:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence footnote 

message: This section is flawed.  I had to remove the unnecessary comparison to the Taliban, since this isn't an article about the Taliban or "cultural terrorism."  The section appears to be either OR or a case of undue weight on a special interest source.  Also, it doesn't appear to be about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  The Behnam 20:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's about his cabinet's policy toward cultural heritage. May be it was not balanced properly. I agree. I just made a preliminary draft for others like you to come and contribute. The ideology behind the destruction is similar to the Taliban's one as indicated in the source. I personally do not care about mentioning or not mentioning Taliban. So if you prefer the latter, I agree with you. Sina Kardar 21:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's good to have if it is about him.  I think the problem may be that the source itself wasn't particularly balanced.  Perhaps less vehement ones can be used.  Considering that this is a biography of a living person, the accusations of a few special interest sites probably shouldn't be given such weight.  I think it is fair to simply title it "Sivand Dam", since that is essentially what it is about, and include the basic information; i.e. that his energy minister announced the flooding, and that some said that this threatens Pasargadae.  This would also be inline with the neutral titles given to the other subsections.  It is not right to characterize Ahmadinejad based upon commentary by a few strong POV sites regarding an occurrence that he does not appear to be directly involved in.  In sum, mention the dam and the conflict regarding the threat to Pasargad, but don't include the random commentary from special interest websites as fact.  Hence, the section will present facts, and people can decide for themselves if that constitutes "cultural terrorism."  The current presentation, because of titling and mention/comparison to Taliban, seeks to be more argumentative than informative.  Thanks, I will make appropriate changes to seek neutrality.  The Behnam 04:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The more I look at this section, the less relevant it becomes.  It is not about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; it is about a member of his cabinet announcing that the dam, which has been planned for at least a decade, it going to be flooded.  The section shouldn't be here unless Ahmadinejad himself has commented on the matter in some significant way.  It seems, especially considering the wording and content of this section when it was first made, that the section was made more in campaign against Ahmadinejad than for fair, encyclopedic coverage.  The Behnam 18:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural Terrorism / Sivand Dam

message: From news wire: Iran president says Israel's days are numbered 
"Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out," he added. 
comment by reader: You continue to report that "Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map"" even though many Mideast experts have stated that the interpretation of what Ahmadinejad actually said was that the "Zionist regime will not last." In other words, rather than calling for ethnic cleansing, as your news stories imply, Iranian officials are calling for regime change--a common enough phrase these days. Are your reporters and editors deliberately misinforming the public? Jan 
Reuters editor: We actually had access to this speech, and heard the president's words verbatim from our own TV footage. We stand behind our translation. In this case, he used the word "mahv," which in Farsi means "wiped off" (signed by Reuters editor)
see: http://today.reuters.com/news/GBUStories.aspx
Zeq 09:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they stood by their translation then this is the way it must have been reported: "Just as the Soviet Union was wiped off the map and today does not exist, so will the Israel soon be wiped off the map". This is why my trust in the western media has been shattered.--Gerash77 09:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That is merely an op-ed piece by a single person trying to make a point. The fact that much of his article is based upon a translation from Juan Cole (whom he refers to as indefatigable) should give some indication as to his pov. He also pretends to be part of a near-consensus, when in fact the opposite is true and all but a few people, who advocate an incorrect translation in an attempt to support their political goals, agree that Reuters' translation was in fact correct.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He presents a pretty compelling case - do you have some links to actual counterarguments? Haukur 23:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reuters confirm translation about "wipe israel off the map" 

message: This page has been semi-protected for a long time.  I don't really have an objection to it, but I just wanted to get a feel for what the current consensus is on this.  Personally, I enjoy that we aren't subject to random vandalization in the article, but I also wonder how much legitimate contributions are not happening because of it.  According to the semi-protection policy, this is not usually a pre-emptive measure, but Jimbo has suggested that it could be used specifically in cases such as this: .
So I guess the real question is, do you guys want to try turning it off and see how much vandalism we get?  We can always re-add it if there's a problem.  I have no problem keeping it, and I have no problem removing it.  I just feel like I don't know if it's necessary.
Thoughts? Vir4030 15:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Give it a shot, I say. If after a few days we've just had too much, then put it back. Right now there is a big NYT article on MA, and I wonder if new folks who are drawn to the article are being turned away at "edit this page." (Personally I disagree with Jimbo and his assesment of the "consensus.") Sdedeo (tips) 07:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that anonymous users should be advised to direct their proposals to the talk page.  If they really have a legitimate contribution, and aren't lazy, they'll be willing to direct it to the talk page.  The proposed edit can be discussed and then simply incorporated into the article by an established user.  The Behnam 08:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: I think it's time for another archive of the Talk page.  There hasn't been any comments in quite some time, so I think it's appropriate.  I've never done it before, and don't want to mess it up.  Would anyone care to take care of this?  (archive this comment, too) Vir4030 15:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you should archive the Sivand Dam talk yet though; I am still trying to make the section appropriate for this biography.  The Behnam 18:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But as for the issues that are no longer under discussion, they should be archived.  Just make sure that a "general consensus" bulletin is placed on top of this talk page afterwards so that we don't have a flood of "Anti-Semitic People" category adds and removes.  People have trouble abiding by that decision as it is, and archiving the relevant talk page may furtheraggravate the problem.  Nevertheless, this talk page is very lengthy, so the archive is overall a good idea.  The Behnam 08:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason I didn't see the "general consensus" bulletin is already here.  Anyway, make sure it stays.  The Behnam 08:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk Archive 

message: Very surprised that we don't have a "human rights" section here for MA. The Tehran government is a pretty bad offender and MA's statements about, and approaches towards, human rights need to be detailed. Right now we have a small section discussing his tolerance of a demonstration during a lecture of his, but plenty of dissidents are imprisioned, tortured and disappeared under his regime. Really I'm ready to put an "NPOV" tag on the article, but won't until I have a chance to edit rather boldly to broaden the WP discussion beyond this one event. Sdedeo (tips) 07:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this is because there is nothing particularly special about his government's policies on human rights relative to other IRI governments.  Aside from his tolerance of that demonstration, nothing has been particularly special about his approach.  Of course, if you think there is something worthwhile to add, feel free to do so; just make sure that it is actually about Ahmadinejad and not just about Human Rights in Iran.  The Behnam 07:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe a "however" statement mentioning that human rights in Iran has remained an issue of concern under Ahmadinejad's government can be added.  The student part gets mention here not only because they directly criticized Ahmadinejad, but also because of his reaction to it, which was unique.  If it isn't mentioning in the other article, it probably should be, but it received very Ahmadinejad-related coverage so it oughtn't be removed unless some other reason can be brought forth.  Overall, I don't think that the article gives him a very "tolerant" look, considering the stuff about university purges, etc., but if you feel that that particular section is too nice on him, feel free to mention something along the lines of the "however" statement.  Other editors here will make necessary improvements to the addition anyway, so its worth an edit.  Try adding it and we'll see if it improves the section.  The Behnam 07:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's just that the usual practices aren't really "his" so to speak, and he hasn't received much special attention for the usual practices.  The deviation is from the "usual" practices in IRI, making that particular incident unique.  Of course, the primary reason for inclusion is the fact that the entire incident received a lot of attention, and Ahmadinejad was directly involved.  I don't think it would be appropriate to include a little subset of the HR in Iran here, since those issues in Iran aren't particular to Ahmadinejad aside from what has already been mentioned; aka the purges, etc.  Again, I suggest a small "disclaimer"-like statement to remind the reader that human rights has remained an issue even under his government.  Also, you could link to the main article on the topic or the student protest.  In sum, there should be no drastic change here; just add a little something to prevent misleading readers into thinking that Ahmadinejad is some sort of "tolerance freak."  I'm having trouble seeing what exactly you are aiming for, so add it and then I can better express my opinion.  The Behnam 08:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Most of your change looks good.  The standalone comparison between Ahmadinejad and Khatami, while sourced, may be contested in other sources.  Suppression and newspaper closures came with Khatami too, so I'm not sure if only Human Rights Watch should be used.  Also, now that the section exists, anything else rights-related(aka Women's rights) should be moved there, and then the section will be divided into subsections.  Good job overall.  The Behnam 19:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No problem.  I'm not sure how Sina Kardar's edits affect the situation.  Now there are multiple mentions of the student protest, one for national criticism and another for the human rights aspect of the reaction.  I have some schoolwork to do, but I'll think about it and if I can devise a solution, I'll bring it here.  It may just require manipulation of sections and subsections.  The Behnam 21:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: human rights

message: I think we don't lose anything by being specific in the lead. His statements can easily be alluded to with more specificity, otherwise we not only violate WP:LEAD, but make the lead a whole lot less clear. IronDuke 01:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Compromise 

message: I want to comment on my rationale for removing the quote from the IRNA. The problem is that we don't have the original text of what Ahmadinejad said, what we have is an edited and truncated version that came to us via an unreliable source. (You'll note that the ellipses in the ICH piece are exactly the same as those in our article, which means we either got it from ICH or both of us got it from someone else). There has been a lot of debate over whether Ahmadinejad's comments in the past have been misinterpreted, mistranslated or otherwise altered to push a POV. (See for example the controversy over whether Ahmadinejad said Israel should be wiped off the map). Given this history, I think its a very bad idea to use an edited quote especially when the point of the quote is vague, as this one is. GabrielF 20:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can get the quote straight from the horse's mouth here:  Haukur 20:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you figure out what any of it means, or how it would be relevant? It appears to be written in some sort of political propaganda-speak that looks like English, but doesn't really have any meaning when examined more closely. What is it saying? Jayjg (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This summary isn't entirely coherent, which has probably mostly to do with lack of English skill on behalf of those summarizing Ahmadinejad's speeches on his website. The intention is fairly clearly to express general sympathy for the Palestinian cause while decrying the propaganda value the Israeli cause has got out of the Holocaust, stopping just short of explicitly denying that the Holocaust took place. Some fairly generic snipes at the West too. Something like that. But we may be able to find a clearer summary of Ahmadinejad's views. Haukur 22:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just summarizing a speech where he expressed his views on Palestine, Holocaust, Zionist & colonial culture, etc.  I'm not sure what is so confusing about that.  The fact that it states a bunch of his conclusions rather than his arguments is probably why it doesn't seem very valuable.  It should be considered relevant to his views about Palestine, Holocaust, Zionist & colonial culture, etc.  The "political propaganda-speak" reveals the political nature of the speech.  I hope that makes sense.  The Behnam 00:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Behnam, are you surprised a politician makes a speech with a political nature? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 10:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  :), All of his speech have elements of PR, and It is natural for a politician like all around the world. For example, didn't you have get the meaning of "wipe of the map" and "holocaust conference", it is: "we can be very dangerous. so, It's better for your to don't bother us!" But this interpretations have no place in here, but we must give all of his quotes even if they contradict itself. The interpretation of them is task of reader. --Pejman47 11:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pejman, that's exactly the point. Ahmadinejad contradicts himself. He says one thing to Iran, and another thing to the west. And that's why it makes no sense to believe anything he says. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 11:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that quote as offering any value at all. It is an incoherent rant.--Mantanmoreland 17:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of quote from IRNA via International Clearing House