Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 11

message: He has been condemned internationally
internationally: Of, relating to, or involving two or more nations
Iran and Syria consider Israel a terrorist state, Israel is known internationally as a terrorist state.--Gerash77 20:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The solution is to provide a count of the number of nations that condemned the statement.  The Behnam 22:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Would something like "condemned by the Western world" be more agreeable to you, Gerash?  You seem to have missed this definition, "throughout the world", at the bottom of your dictionary.com results and instead picked one that supported your argument about semantics.  It seems obvious from the context that in this case "internationally" means "throughout the world" or at least "throughout the Western world" and not just two or more countries. Littleman TAMU 22:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On that particular comment, it was more than the Western world condemning, if I am not mistaken.  The Behnam 22:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also believe that is the case.  I was being a bit facetious with the "Western world" parts since Gerash's "trust in the western media has been shattered". Littleman TAMU 22:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: rooz isn't the source of most of the article's statements.  It's the source of eight statements.  None of which seem to introduce any sort of bias and seem neutrally worded to me.  Several of of the statements are backed up by what most would consider neutral sources.  Littleman TAMU 22:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Regardless of what western media who are known to use hyperbolic words say, "internationally" is a biased word, for it implies the whole world, which is not the case here.--Gerash77 23:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the term you boys and girls are looking for is "most of the international community" Yas121 13:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  weasel word 

message: Looking over the conflict here it seems like this tag is because Gerash77 claims that "internationally" is a weasel word. To tell you the truth, however, I think this material about one particular issue -- the holocaust conference -- does not belong in the intro. There's plenty to complain about with re:MA, and this focus on a PR stunt (the holocaust conference) seems a bit overblown. I'm removing the tag and that bit in the intro. Sdedeo (tips) 00:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you should have read a bit more; the "weasel word" complaint is about a different section entirely, and there is a consensus now on the current intro, which includes all the notable information about Ahmadinejad in a neutral way. This agreement has been hammered out among many individuals over painful weeks. If you want to change the intro, please get consensus first. Jayjg (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: weasel word?

message: Compare the current strong POV with my suggestions
#An exception to this pattern of suppression  --> 	However, a contradiction to these statements 
#among their complaints the fact that there had been a crackdown on dissent --> among their complaints that there had been a crackdown on dissent 
#Ahmadinejad has appointed and promoted officials directly involved in torture and murder of dissidents, including the prosecutor responsible for the death of journalist Zahra Kazemi --> Some say that Ahmadinejad has appointed and promoted officials directly involved in torture and murder of dissidents, including the prosecutor responsible for the death of journalist Zahra Kazemi
#Despite the government's hostility toward NGOs --> Although some critics say that government is hostile toward NGOs
#see: 
Also, a removal of all poorly sourced from rooz is necessary.--Gerash77 03:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi G77 -- I've partially reverted your latest edit. Please be more careful when removing content. I don't know who roos is, but you should see if things they say can be substantiated by other sources instead of "instantly removing" them. Sdedeo (tips) 05:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find anything about those murderous appointments at canada.com citation. The problem is we have 1000 critics who write the article and one or two such as myself who try to neutralize things!--Gerash77 06:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: It doesn't make any sense to state the end of his term like that.  Perhaps if you can site and say "expected" in parentheses or something like that the information will become acceptable.  No verifiable source knows if he will indeed last to that day.  Also, what is the exact protocol against the "easter egg" link?  The Behnam 23:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Term of Office & more

message: did a quick search on this page. the word "Atom" is not in the article. Zeq 08:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, neither is "pineapple" :-) Yas121 14:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Right. You might wanna try "nuclear" instead. Lixy 11:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atom ? 

message: Wikipedia does not go about predicting the end of Ahmadinejad's term. Instead, the template wisely accommodates terms that have not yet come to an end. Look at the George W. Bush article for comparison, and please stop using the templates incorrectly. Jayjg (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a crystal ball 

message: This article keeps popping on my watchlist over this wikilink. Could the two sides of this issue just add a (see also) next to that quote? That particular section of Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel appears to be well researched and cited and merits some sort of an inclusion for NPOV next to the quote, particularly with it given such prominence in the lead like that. Thanks.  12:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It was being discussed under #Jayig edits. I will try that, hopefully it will be accepted by Jayig and others.--Gerash77 13:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good and NPOV to me Yas121 13:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Erased from the pages of history" vs. "wiped off of the face of the map"

message: I re-added the MEMRI video, but I think a more appropriate video should be used instead.  The MEMRI video has a large chunk of footage that isn't about Ahmadinejad, just some people chanting the usual 'marg bar amrika' chant.  It isn't even a very good video until Ahmadinejad shows up, the footage is weird during the chant.  The video was added by now-banned user Patchouli, who had a tendency to add very POV-pushing links or otherwise non-neutral presentation.  I'm going to look for a better video of that speech, so if you find one, or think that the video is unnecessary (considering the other links and coverage we have already), please explain here.  The Behnam 19:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead chanter says “Before a speech by Mr. Ahmadinijead…” That is pretty clear. -- Avi 04:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They do that chant before a lot of things.  The problem I had with the wording is that it associated the two more strongly than is realistic, considering they do that before everything.  I felt that the original wording Patchouli tried to insinuate that he is retaining the nuclear program to second the 'marg bar amrika' idea, but that kind of insinuation cannot be made here.  In any case, I think the new wording not only prevents insinuation, but also provides a better summary of the video, considering that the chant comes before the speech.  Why would the speech be mentioned first? This is more chronologically correct in addition to being more neutral and less OR; I think this is better, do you not?  The Behnam 06:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, I see you made it to "before."  That seems fine; I just don't want any insinuation.  Avraham, do you think that a better video should be used? The chanting isn't actually Ahmadinejad, and the footage during that chant part is really weird.  I think Patchouli had unencyclopedic reasons for choosing that video, especially considering the description that he used.  It is difficult as it is to prevent smearing on this page while at the same time not tipping it too much to Iran's side, and this kind of questionable addition doesn't help at all.  I think a better video should be used once found.  There are a lot of videos of Ahmadinejad, so maybe there will be a subtitled version of this speech without the unnecessary and off-topic chant part.  The Behnam 06:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Playing devil's advocate, this video does give a sense of context to Iranian political feeling regarding America, and it was at the same event at which MA spoke. I'm not 100% sure that this would be smearing, I mean, it was aired publicly, and somehow, I doubt anything gets aired in Iran without some sort of approval, but I could be 100% wrong. Either way, I don't see this as a blatant smear attrmpt, but I personally am not wedded to it either. Perhaps in a perfect world this video may be better placed on Politics and Government of Iran if a better one is found for this article. Remember, whitewashing is the same level problem as smearing; they are mirror images of each other, unfortunately :( Thanks for the discussion! -- Avi 14:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, yes, it is definitely difficult to keep a balance on this page.  I think it will stay for now, and if I find that particular speech by itself, I will replace the link, and perhaps move it to the politics page.  It is safe to say that the airing was approved, but I don't see any reason to have a video w/ chanting on Mahmoud's page unless he was chanting himself or something like that.  It definitely wasn't clear cut smearing, but knowing Patchouli I was much more suspicious.  Thanks to you as well for discussion; it is much better than communication through revert summaries!  The Behnam 16:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The MEMRI video 

message: Netscott, why isn't the speech reliable? It is a minor one but it is Ahmadinejad who is saying that. --Aminz 03:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aminz, it's a primary source... Ahmadinejad himself. Kindly find a reliable secondary source about it. Also such massive quotes are inappropriate for entry into the article. That is what Wikiquote is for.  03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youtube 

message: Not this article - editing is disabled without explanation. Perhaps because the "wipe Israel off the map" quote is a total ZIONIST LIE.
:Actually, it is more because of random idiots replacing his facts with utter nonsense.  It is semi-protected to stave off these vandals.  I encourage you to get a user name if you want to edit, or you can post constructive comments & suggestions here for us to consider.  Thanks. The Behnam 01:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone can edit WP ???