Talk:Controversies of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

message: The image Claimed-to-be-ahmadinejad.jpg is not correct. The person indicated is clearly not Ahmadinejad. I have changed it for a montage including the same photo indicating the individual to the far right. Included are several other photos taken at the same time. That person appears almost certainly to be Ahmadinejad. --Packmanus 1 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)
:You do seem to be right, and you are right that the news agencies (particularly Iran Focus, but it's being circulated everywhere now) haven't brought a clear basis for circling who they did. However, you should be aware that changing the article as you did is technically a violation of the Wikipedia:No original research policy. If you could contact any reputable media outlet and have them agree to you about the photo (and then publish/broadcast accordingly), you could change the photo back. By the way, I indicated on the photo summary that the claim made through the photo was made by Iran Focus (while otherwise people would mistakenly think that the hostages themselves had identified the fellow circled in red). HKT 1 July 2005 21:29 (UTC)
::I like to make a few points about this.  First, I think all major news agencies (AP, AFP, Reuters, and BBC) circulated that photo with encircled bearded man as Ahmadinejad, and not just Iran Focus.  Regarding what Packmanus suggests, I don't think the person he is focusing on is Ahmadinejad at all.  That guy is even taller and bigger than the one next to the hostage.  Ahmadinejad is a short and small man.  Their size is not even close.  Perhaps this picture would clarify this point more.  Here is the picture of Ahmadinejad next to Khatami.  Notice that Khatami by no means is a tall or big man, he is quite average.
::Also, the group of students who called themselves "Students of the Imam's Path" who were involved in taking the hostages, were over 300 students.  Many (perhaps most) of them today are among reformers and staunch opponents of the hard-liners like Ahmadinejad.  It would be really hard to imagine that not one of them would come out and say hey, Ahamadinjead was involved too. (Unsigned bit by user ).
:::Ok. (1.) All these news orgs. that you mention copied the picture and red circling from Iran Focus. (This is of minor relevence anyway). (2.) What specifically is Mohammad Khatami's "quite average" size? (If I'm not mistaken, the average human adult male is 5 ft., 8 inches). (3.) How do you know how tall the hostage is? How do you know how tall the man next to him is, for that matter? Please bring sources for these assertions. (4.) Instead of showing everyone a picture, why don't you do something more scientific and find a reliable source for Ahmadinejad's height? (5.) If I'm not mistaken, many of Ahmadinejad's "staunch opponents", like Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, understand that they must support him now in the face of foreign pressure. (6.) Do you honestly think that all "300 students" remember each other? --HKT 3 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)
::I am not going to spend my time collecting data such as the exact height of people in the news for Wikipedia. All I know is that I see these people in Iranian news, TV, press conferences, etc. all the time, and Ahmadinejad's stature and build is unmistakably small by Iranian standards, and Khatami is average. So the picture above is a good way to get an idea of Ahmadinejad's size.  How do I know the exact height of the people in the picture?  Well, obviously I don't, but there are 5 or 6 people in the picture and none of them seems to be even close in height and build to Ahmadinejad and probability and common sense tells me that it is very highly unlikely that in a picture with five or six people in it (including one American) all of them be of Ahmadinejad's height.  Besides, that is not the only picture of those individuals available, there are other pictures with other people around them, too. As for your enquoted "staunch oppenents like Rajsanjani", I have a feeling that you know by staunch oppenents of Ahmadinejad I didn't mean people like Rafsanjani, but I think you just want to be argumentative, and for that, be my guest.  Do I honestly think all 300 students remember each other? Certainly a good number of them would know if Ahmadinejad was among them or not.  You don't have any problems relying on the memory of 70-year-old American hostages after 25 years, and they didn't personally know these people or get to see them all the time, why would you have a problem relying on the memory of Iranians who are in their 40's and early 50's who used to be part of the same party or political process even before the US embassy raid (and probably for a long time after that)?  They were not just 300 hundred university students, they were a group of students who were part of a certain ideological process at that time, comparable to marxist students.  Many of them were MKO partisans, but not all of them.  But they were all "on the same side" at the time, and certainly many of them had a very good idea about who is who. (Unsigned bit by user ).
:::First of all, would you be so kind as to sign your posts? This makes discussion much clearer and we know who is speaking with whom. (You can sign your name by following your posts with 4 tildes. By the way, it would be even easier if you just signed on as a user. It only takes a few seconds, and you don't have to provide any personal information).
:::Now, to get down to business: (1.) It is against Wikipedia policy to base articles on personal opinion or belief (even if you think it is obvious). See Wikipedia:No original research. Quotes like: "All I know is that I see...," "...unmistakably small...," etc., won't do any good on Wikipedia. I already explained this to User:Packmanus. (2.) One reason for this policy is that what some people might think is "probability and common sense," may not actually be so probable or sensible. For example, you wrote: "...[B]ut there are 5 or 6 people in the picture and none of them seems to be even close in height and build to Ahmadinejad...." First of all, I count three faces in the picture, along with small segments of two other jacket sleeves. More importantly, there is an interesting principle about graphical perspective that is taught in art classes: The farther away something appears in a picture, the higher it is likely to appear. One of the two men pictured in the photo (aside from Ahmadinejad) is in the background. While his background position may account for his appearance above Ahmadinejad, he may also be, simply, tall! I also wonder, since I can't see the feet of any of the pictured men, whether Mohammad Khatami is standing on higher ground. In general, the perspective in the picture is not so clear. Anyway, you still haven't told me the height of either man, and it doesn't seem that you intend to. (3.) You wrote: "You don't have any problems relying on the memory of 70-year-old American hostages after 25 years, and they didn't personally know these people or get to see them all the time, why would you have a problem relying on the memory of Iranians who are in their 40's and early 50's..." Who said I am relying on anyone?! I support including allegations in this article, all the while calling them "allegations". I also support including denials by those "Iranians who are in their 40's and early 50's" (I added those denials to the article, by the way). I maintain that, for purposes of this article, we should not discriminate against any relevant party; apparently, you support such discrimination. (4.) Of the 300 hostage-takers, you speculate that "[c]ertainly a good number of them would know if Ahmadinejad was among them or not." I am at a loss interpreting your statement. What's "a good number?" 20? 80? Let's use the number 50, shall we? Now, what percent of student activists do you think remained activists for 25 years? 10%? 5%? (I'm really going out on a limb with the speculation, but you give me no choice, and I'm trying to give conservative estimates). This gives us 2-5 activists who may remember Ahmadinejad and his purported involvement in the 1979 embassy raid. Now how many of those do you think like the USA? If you'd ask me to speculate (which I normally try to avoid), I'd say that if there were even 20-50 such political opponents of Ahmadinejad, most likely all of them would deny his involvement for the sake of standing up to America. You've compared them to "marxist[s]." Do marxists usually like western capitalist democracies? No. And they are no different than Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in this regard. HKT 4 July 2005 02:04 (UTC)
::I thought it would be clear which picture I meant when I said "common sense tells me that it is very highly unlikely that in a picture with five or six people in it (including one American) all of them be of Ahmadinejad's height."  Apparently I was wrong. You are right, Khatami is probably standing on a podium (plus, he is probably also wearing high heel shoes). Anyway, I see that you have plenty of time and you are clearly in a mood for arguing; but I am not interested in that and I can simply say: guilty as charged; you win. (Unsigned bit by user . Again, please sign posts).
:::Since you are only directing your sarcasm at my second point, I take it that you concede points 1, 3, and 4. Anyway, since the 5 ft. 8 inch 0 millimeter Khatami could not possibly have been standing on a step, and as you magically can see feet that aren't pictured in the photo, let's talk about the other picture. 
:::Firstly, allow me to apologize. In my haste skimming your long post (no, I don't savor and try to drag on arguments; I also have other things to do), I missed that you wrote: "(including one American)." My fault. Sorry for the misunderstanding. 
:::Now, in short: How could you definitively know the respective heights of the three (yes, three again) people pictured in the foreground of that photo? On the basis of this "evidence," you're going to dismiss everything as the product of some vast and sinister conspiratorial smear campaign?! Again, this one very important reason for Wikipedia:No original research. 
:::If you bother to respond, please sign your post. You can do so by entering 4 tildes (~~~~). Thanks, HKT 5 July 2005 01:20 (UTC) (P.S. Who's "guilty as charged"?)
::Off the point, but maybe someone has an idea.  IF the allegation was true, what I do not understand, is why he would deny it?  If I understand properly it would make him a hero to many.  What am I missing?  --Tony Hecht 00:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If the allegations are true, the reason would likely be that the US government (and perhaps some European governments) might place/push for immediate sanctions on Iran if Ahmadinejad admitted heavy involvement in the embassy takeover. The US would almost certainly demand more serious UN action to prevent Iran from pursuing a nuclear program. It would be politically difficult for the US to continue talks with Iran if the allegations were verified, and it's likely that the US would push for new elections barring Ahmadinejad from candidacy. Ahmadinejad is already considered a hero by many Iranians, and it would be a steep price to pay to become a greater hero. HKT talk 01:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Nothing is settled. See my comments below, where a charge similar to your's is presented. HKT talk 21:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: How is anything settled if inside of that article it sais, and i quote, "The officials cautioned that the analysis is not final." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.156.63.212 (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Allegations: 1979 Hostage Taker?

message: Hello HKT.  You have included the following in the "allegations" sections: "Ahmadinejad, his political supporters, and even a number of his political opponents in Iran, have denied all or some of these allegations." --  The problem I have with that is that it gives the general reader the impression that some people have only partially denied the allegations.  I don't think any of the Iranians (whether supportive or against Ahmadinejad) have implied that some of the allegations may be true. While you are right that some of those who have denied some of the allegations were not in a position to authoritatively reject *ALL* of the allegations, still, the way that part of the article is currently written, gives the general reader the impression that some of the allegations are being accepted.  Can we work on improving that a little?  Mansour 6 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)
:Ok, I see what you're saying. How about: "...have taken part in denying these allegations." Would that be clearer? Thanks for pointing this out, HKT 6 July 2005 14:57 (UTC)
::I would say a simple "[they] have denied the allegations." is better, on the account of "[they] have taken part in denying these allegations" is saying the same thing but with extra verbage, and that particular extra verbage also can convey "collaboration in hiding facts" ("taken part") to the mind of the reader.  I think it is pretty obvious by now that the allegations are all part of a smear campaing and Wikipedia should not contribute to it.  In my opinion, the smear campaign has actually worked out to the benefit of the Iranian regime, because most reasonable and intelligent people in the world feel cheated when they see such media dishonesty and they naturally side with the victim in such cases.  Mansour 7 July 2005 06:36 (UTC)
:::I don't quite agree with your concerns about possible interpretation, but go ahead; your phrasing doesn't really bother me. As far as your smear campaign thoughts (I probably don't even have to remind you of this, but at least as a general reminder to editors of this article...): Watch out for WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. A word to the wise.... HKT 7 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)
::::I agree with Mansour and I am doubtful of your self-proclaimed wisdom. --AI 22:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-proclaimed wisdom? "A word to the wise [is sufficient]" means that my brief reminder about Wikipedia's policies would be sufficient for wise editors. In the above case, it ended up not being sufficient. HKT talk 01:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Allegations

message: As originally requested by President Bush on June 26th, the goverment had investigated whether or not Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was one of the captors of the 52 U.S. diplomats who were held hostage in Iran from 11/4/1979 to 1/20/1981--the hostage-taking was supposedly in response to Iranian unrest over the 1953 U.S. coup that toppled the democratically elected Prime Minister & rose the Shah to power & was also  until being released thirty-three minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn-in as President. Well, the CIA has officially concluded their investigation & discovered that there was "no evidence" that Mr. Ahmadinejad was invovled in any way to the 1979 hostage-taking. Ahmadinjead & his political allies concede that the newly sworn-in president was part of the students who tookover the U.S. embassy & was a devout supporter of the Ayatollah Khomeini, yet they & the currently pro-American once-anti-US leader of the captors told Iranian & U.S. media that President Ahmadinejad was not one of his fellow captors.
:As far as I know, the CIA has not "officially concluded" anything. Some CIA officials, speaking on anonymity and in an unofficial capacity, stated that they are relatively certain that Ahmadinejad wasn't involved in the actual capture of hostages. The CIA has not yet made any official statements, and the leaks that have gotten out only speak in terms of direct involvement in the hostage capturing. P.S. Please sign your IP signature after your posts. You can do so by typing ~~~~ after your posts. If you wish, you can also log in as a user. Thank you. HKT talk 22:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA Investigation Solves '79 Hostage Connection Dispute 

message: I noticed that many (all?) of the numbered endnote/footnote links lead nowhere or, more accurately, right back to the Controversies page, itself.  I suspect this is because the source text was copied and pasted from the original Ahmadinejad article, and the links are now broken.
Also, the numbering system is inconsistent, some using superscripts and others not.  I'm not a big fan of superscripts because they disturb the line spacing and make articles appear sloppy.  Further, there is no Notes section in which the code    has been placed, so there is no home for the footnotes.  I tried adding that tag myself but had no luck.  -- Schnaz 21:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes, endnotes, and other references 

message: Reference for quotation. -Objectivist-C 23:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added another insanity quote. Also, info on allegations that MA was involved in terrorism. IronDuke 02:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I added it as a counter theory. -Objectivist-C 03:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: But there are a number of sources here, not just Baer. I can see, in theory, that there may be rational arguments for removing the section entirely (although no one has made them yet) but calling the section "eschatology" is not the way to go. It is not descriptive of what is in the section. IronDuke 15:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm satisfied with the new name. -Objectivist-C 17:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Eschatology is precisely what the section is about: his odd behaviour (including the alleged conversation quoted at length in the section) relates closely to his Mahdavist beliefs. I have now linked that to the article for context. — JEREMY 01:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: His Hojjatieh affiliation is speculative, while his Mahdawist beliefs are worn on his sleeve. I'd prefer to merge both into a "Religious beliefs" section or similar — although that title doesn't indicate "Controversy". (Also, the Hojjatieh article could do with some work.) — JEREMY 04:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Combining the Hojjatieh and Eschatology sections is a good idea.  Merging both into a Religious Beliefs section, as you propose, is fine. -- Schnaz 16:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eschatology 

message: This article desperately needs its references cleaned up (which I've just done for the main article). If this results in edit conflicts during the next half hour or so, please accept my apology.  JEREMY 12:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I managed to salvage some of the broken refs from an old version of the main article, but some have been lost and are now tagged with ). — JEREMY 12:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference cleanup

message: Ahmadinejad's chief strategic counselor is Hassan Abbasi. --HResearcher 16:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahmadinejad does not set Iran's strategic policy.  Why does he need a chief strategic advisor?  What exactly is a chief strategic advisor?  Please supply support for the claim that this guy has this role.  TopRank 22:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I googled Abbasi and "strategic counselor" and got five results from anti-Iranian blogs.  Nothing that meets wikipedia standards as a reputable source.  Unless we get a reputable source that connects Abbasi and Ahmadinejad, I will remove him from this biographical article on Ahmadinejad. TopRank 22:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Citation coming soon. --HResearcher 02:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hello TopRank, you say Ahmadinejad does not set Iran's strategic policy. Who does? --HResearcher 02:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is. — JEREMY 03:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is what? --HResearcher 03:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An "anti-iranian blog". (What other question would I be answering?) — JEREMY 03:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you say so, but It doesn't say "anti-iranian." --HResearcher 03:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hassan Abbasi 

message: "Another terror outfit dedicated to this recruitment drive is the “Headquarters for Commemoration of Martyrs of Global Islamic Movement”, established in 1982. It grabbed the headlines in spring of 2004 when it was introduced as an NGO in charge of recruiting “suicide volunteers” to combat “World arrogance.” As Tehran’s Mayor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took this organization under his wings and facilitated its activities by placing the capital's resources at its disposal." - US Alliance for Democratic Iran Is this also an anti-iranian blog in your opinion? --HResearcher 02:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that one's an umbrella organistion for political groups (including the terrorist MEK) dedicated to the overthrow of the Iranian government. — JEREMY 03:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahmadinejad employed terrorism 

message: An editor described Iran Focus as "one of numerous web outlets of the MKO terrorist group."  I added a  tag to this claim initially, but after some research have decided remove the claim as entirely wrong. Ahmadinejad's involvement with OSU has been confirmed by al-Jazeera.  RonCram 15:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did find a Times Online news story that identified Iran Focus as "a London-based Iranian news agency opposed to the President-elect."  I think this description if much more accurate, although I am not sure it is necessary.RonCram 23:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Iran Focus'' news outlet

message: The first sentence is also not true representation of thfacts:
"On June 29, 2005, shortly after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won the Iranian presidential election, several major western news outlets publicized various allegations against him. "
This create the impression that his views as holocaust denial and destruction of Israel are an invention of " western news outlets  - which is of course not true: the man has used Iranin TV to preech for all those really bad tatste ideas.
Zeq 14:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeq, Ahmadinejad has said some terrible things and he has not denied them or clarified them.  I think it is safe to say these statements do represent his viewpoint.  However, Ahmadinejad has denied certain allegations including his involvement in the hostage crisis. I think the evidence is clear that he was involved - even though people originally pointed to the wrong man in the picture. However, as long as he has denied involvement in the hostage crisis, the article needs to note that he has denied it.  However, you can certainly collect a series of quotes by Ahmadinejad, post them in wikiquote and then link to wikiquote from this article and the main article. RonCram 00:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a [[WP:POV Fork]] 

message: I recently heard a radio interview (on either NPR or the BBC, iirc) with an Israeli official who claimed that MA had referred to Jews as "sons of donkeys and pigs". This shocked me, and I assumed it must have been a new thing. Google doesn't know anything about it. Does anyone else?  JEREMY 16:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alleged anitsemitism

message: This text appeared on the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the section called "Holocaust denial and allegations of anti-Semitism".  This section now links to this page, Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  We will be replacing this text on MA's page with a summary in accordance with the summary style guideline, but not all of this information is repeated on Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  So, I put this here so that an active editor from this page can look through it and add whatever is appropriate to the article.
Happy editing!  Vir4030 15:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the last paragraph fit very well into the anti-Semitism section, so I just added it.  The rest of this needs to be merged into the Holocaust Denial section. Vir4030 15:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old "Summary" Text on [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]] 

message: This putz is toast.   He'll be killed by the most powerful weapon in human history....the voting booth.   I feel bad for the Irainian people.  The Islamic Council thwarted the previous 'reformers', and that caused MA to be a viable alternative for the voting public.   Hopefully, they (the Iranians) will have learned a valued lesson about the true cause of their hardships....the Islamic Council.    Those Islamic clerics are nothing more than modern-day politicos and capitalists, who dress themselves in the clothing of 15th-century barbarians....while all the time, they are only interested in holding power to themselves.   Hopefully, the Irainian middle class (what remains of it) will assert itself and out-vote the ignorant peasants who cling to their allah-superstition and thier cult-of-victimhood.  It is those uneducated masses who have allowed the evil Islamic council to remain in power.   No matter how it eventually works out, one thing is certain....this putz is toast.   I expect that the final Wiki-entry on Mahmoud Ahmadirtbag will be that he ended up as a shoe-salesman somewhere in a strip mall in the suburbs of Tehran and that one day an revenge-seeking Iranian walked into the store and gave him a 9-mm frontal lobotomy.
Amen! He and his beloved Koran! Lol Motherland73 (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  His 15 Minutes Are Up 

message: removed wp:aww (such as MKO terrorist group -> MKO militant group)
removed undercited accusations by a known MKO network lacking wp:notability:
===Early student activism===
According to Iran Focus, soon after attending Elm-o Sanaat University in 1975 to study engineering, Ahmadinejad was caught up in the Islamic revolution of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.  Ahmadinejad founded the Islamic Student Association at his university.  By 1979, he became a representative of Office for Strengthening of Unity Between Universities and Theological Seminaries, later known as OSU. The OSU was organized by Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, one of Khomeini's top advisors. Members of the OSU central council, including Ahmadinejad, Ibrahim Asgharzadeh, Mohsen (Mahmoud) Mirdamadi, Mohsen Kadivar, Mohsen Aghajari, and Abbas Abdi, were regularly received by Khomeini himself.  The OSU leadership played a key role in the crackdown on dissident university professors and students during the Islamic Cultural Revolution of 1980.  Many professors and students who did not support Khomeini were arrested and executed.http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2605
removed ridiculous uncited allegations and false: Hojjatieh.
=== Membership in Hojjatieh Society ===
Ahmadinejad is believed by many to belong, or to have once belonged, to the anti-Bahai and anti-Sunni clandestine society known as Hojjatieh. An Islamic society to which Ahmadinejad belonged when he attended Alm-u Sanat University was, according to an article that appeared in the Asia Times Online, an extreme, traditional, and fundamentalist group that maintained close links with Hojjatieh. Three members of Ahmadinejad's cabinet are said to have Hojjatieh backgrounds, including Hojatoleslam Gholam Hossein Mohseni-Ejehyi, the intelligence chief who graduated from the Haghani theological school, founded by Hojjatieh. Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi, a Shi'ite cleric closley associated with the school, issued a fatwa urging two million members of the bassij Islamic militia to vote for Ahmadinejad in the 2005 presidential elections.
===United:===
Ahmadinejad was also implicated in the assassination in Austria of Abdul-Rahman Ghassemlou.  Ahmadinejad was apparently instumental in smuggling the weapons used for the assassination. --Gerash77 02:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  violations of wp:living 

message: Ahmadinejad was also implicated in the assassination in Austria of Abdul-Rahman Ghassemlou.  Ahmadinejad was apparently instumental in smuggling the weapons used for the assassination. --Gerash77 02:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: United:

message: I've add a bunch of information from the official CIA investigation into whether Ahmadinejad was involved in the hostage taking.  The report is old, from August 2005, thus I am surprised it wasn't already included in the article.  The results of the investigation was that there was no evidence that Ahmadinejad was involved.  The edits I made with regards to this issue are these two.
The CNN report on the CIA's investigation is online here:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/12/cia.iranpresident/index.html
Again, I think it is shocking that this reputable information wasn't covered in this article.  --Lucretius 22:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA investigation into hostage taking: Ahmadinejad most likely wasn't involved. 

message: I searched on Google for the statement, "He is guilty of interrogating our American hostages," attributed to President Bush in the introduction.  Google returned only 11 results, all citing the original Wikipedia statement.  If anyone knows of a source that can corroborate this statement, they should add a citation; otherwise, it seems the statement should be deleted.TrippingTroubadour 00:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It clear that it should be removed.  I'll do that now.  --Lucretius 18:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Bush did the same to Iraqis by stripping their clothes off etc... Is it right to use the presidents as a scapegoat to represent their respective nations' political and militaristic agenda? If not then clarify their statements by giving a more detailed description of what happened that lead up to the interrogation. now that I think of it, Bush called Iran's rule as "evil" which intimidated me because I never knew Bush is as blunt as that. and stop trusting Google for everything lol. --µWiki   Talk / Contributions  (YouWiki) 19:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush comment 

message: It sounds a little intimidating that there's a banner saying this article is part of the wikiproject judaism. Ahmadinejad doesn't hate jews if that's the point you're trying to get at. (Evidence is on Ahmadinejad article talk page) --µWiki   Talk / Contributions  (YouWiki) 19:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judaism WikiProject? 

message: They do not deserve a place in this article. The hostage taker conspiracy, for one, has no verifiable support whatsoever. Moreover, the majority the hostages themselves have already disagreed with the theory, even after seeing the pictures. -Rosywounds (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it could be included, but it should not be treated necessarily as fact, since it is mostly unsubstatiated (although a well known accusation). In comparison, Ahmadinejad's comments on Israel and the Holocaust are much more more legitimate controversies that surround him. -Rosywounds (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe theories and unsubstantiated allegations 

message: I am somewhat amazed that the section on Ahmadinejad's activities suggesting Holocaust denial are completely merged into the Israeli article. This creates the impression that Holocaust denial, at least as it relates to Ahmadinejad, is only controversial in Israel, which is obviously not the case.  This section should have its own, independent text. Niremetal (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. — eon, 21:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust denial should not be merged into Israel article 

message: Can you classify a quote as a holocaust denial, even though it is not interpreted as such in the sources? Eyalmc (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Can you classify a quote as a holocaust denial 

message: I have completely rewritten the section based on reliable secondary sources; primarily The New York Times. -- Avi (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: still doesn't quality as "denial". myth - is not a falsehood. by definition, myth can be a true story. - so that one is actually irellevant to the section and should be removed. this is not interpretation - this is the definition of the word. using it in the section IS interpretation. also, the "a lie" is incorrect. there are conflicting sources. see here - MA said the "pretext" is a lie - not the holocaust. this source includes the entire speech - from which, it is very clear, as Al Jazeera notes, that the NY times "assumes" that the pretext is the holocaust. Therefore, in this case, NY times, as a source should probably be ignored. I suggest this entire section should reflect the false allegation that were maid against MA. Do you agree? should we RFC? Eyalmc (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

text: It is a simple truism that even the NYTimes, can be wrong sometimes (which obviously results in other media & leaders of the world to quoting it). In such cases we will find a conflicting sources, and, according to wikipedia, should evaluate those. This is exactly the case here. There are conflicting reliable sources (one is based USA - Iran's enemy state, the other is identified with the Arab countries). I think that it is quite obvious that the translation was, as demonstrated by the second source, mis-leading & assumptious, especially since it focused entirely on that quote & included the full speech. I'm only seeking the truth, and i insist not to ignore reliable sources. If there is a story here - it should be the story of false accusation and mis-translation. It's quite apparent for those who read the facts Eyalmc (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Additionally, my "destructive editing" somehow made you remove the quote i was so "destructively" objecting & completely re-write the section, basing it on a completely different set of questionable interpretations (which we are discussing now). please remember that before threatening me again Eyalmc (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I would appreciate it if you can answer 2 questions: 1. how does "myth" qualify for a holocaust denial section? 2. What would be the proper way to represent in the title that many respectable sources did not view both statements as holocaust denial? Eyalmc (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources have used MA's use of the term "myth" to accuse him of Holocaust denial. As this is the article about Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and as reliable sources have accused him of Holocaust denial, the only POV title is "Holocaust Denial" or any such other declaration. THAT is the controversy surrounding MA, the accusations, subsequent media spin, and then subsequent outright affirmation by MA himself. Simple. -- Avi (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: RFC I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if you call the Holocaust "A myth" and "A lie" then you are denying it. Sol Goldstone (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Eyalmc, you wrote "myth - is not a falsehood. by definition, myth can be a true story." But, no, a myth cannot be a true story, meaning... if you call something a "myth" you have said it did not happen in our "real world." A myth is a story, a falsehood, a parable, a legend, a statement without a basis in fact, a false belief - the synonyms for "myth" are "fable" "legend" - while an antonym is "truth" - "myth has an exactly opoosite meaning of "truth." Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denial section completely rewritten 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is clearly a POV fork. At present it is not even linked from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I suggest that instead of enhancing it, it be evacuated to the main page. I'm willing to compile a suggested mapping of sections in this page to destinations in the main page, if consensus forms for the general notion of a merge. Rhoark (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: The article fails several of the basic NPOV issues in particularly inappropriate manner for an article about a living person / WP:ATTACK . I have moved the article to the more neutral "Perceptions of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad " and this article should be enhanced to cover all manner in which he was perceived. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is clearly a POV fork. At present it is not even linked from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I suggest that instead of enhancing it, it be evacuated to the main page. I'm willing to compile a suggested mapping of sections in this page to destinations in the main page, if consensus forms for the general notion of a merge. Rhoark (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: restoring NPOV tag as this is seriously  flawed article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Controversies of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060519130803/http://english.aljazeera.net:80/NR/exeres/91109A0C-83F4-438F-9CC1-52DF6936CC6B.htm to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/91109A0C-83F4-438F-9CC1-52DF6936CC6B.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051111055904/http://www.aljazeera.com:80/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=8770 to http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=8770
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928032627/http://open.g00ya.com/politics/archives/042283.php to http://open.g00ya.com/politics/archives/042283.php
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070926220536/http://www.aftabnews.ir/vdcgw79akn9zt.html to http://www.aftabnews.ir/vdcgw79akn9zt.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060430024848/http://www.pbs.org:80/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec05/iran_12-9.html to http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec05/iran_12-9.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Controversies of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070103093032/http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=15613 to http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=15613
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I believe Ahmadinejad trained on NAS Pensacola. He has been reported that he made a statement : "I am going to be president". Comrades have been known to call him "little Mahmoud" . This flight training is due to US selling Iran and several other middle east countries . The had to train here to fly them. This all took place during the late 70's on NAS Pensacola.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosemls (talk • contribs) 19:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahmadinejad flight training 

message: This man spent many months in training at NAS Pensacola and San Antonio Texas. 
I was introduced to him on NAS Pensacola. His nickname was "little Mahmoud". 
He is very familiar with both Air stations where he and other middle eastern air men trained to fly planes we, the us sold to them in the late 70's. 
I find this a bit disturbing , that he is so familiar with our bases.
I presently live in Pensacola. Motherland73 (talk) 08:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Training