Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 18

message: What's his apporval rating?
-G  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Approval rating

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Yahoo! first page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Religious tolerance

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: New economic move

message: 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)
replies: text: Um, obviously not, since it's a whitewash that is vastly inferior to the current lead. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for the leading paragraph

message: "[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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Economist quote 

message: :::"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)
thread_title:  CIA Bias 

message: * Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ethnic Azerbaijani? 203.218.21.241 15:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnicity of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Outsider observations on intro 

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

message: The word myth (in the intro) should be wikilinked to Mythology#Myths as depictions of historical events and not Holocaust denial.  E.g., 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: I've disabled the editprotected request while discussion continues and consensus builds. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Somebody linked myth to just "myth". I suppose that's fine. - Merzbow 18:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Testtest03 19:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  neo-con bias