Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 2

message: It's a fair point that we don't have any statements from Khomeini, so I'm just going to put in the original quote and let the readers decide whatever they want. It's not going to look pretty, but it's better than these endless arguments. AucamanTalk 02:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're one step away from just reproducing the entire article.  It is possible to refrain from claiming Khomeini said it without asserting that it originated with Ahmadinejad.  This is assuming we're talking about the same thing. TopRank 02:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry I am not convinced. This expression shows his character and belongs here. Continued attempts to whitewash MA are duly noted. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Shows his character" - I don't think it is necessary to "show his character" in a summary and it is not clear if to "show his character" means to summarize what he said or if it means to persuade the reader to accept your pre-determined judgement of his character.  I'm not sure anything more is needed than the first sentence that he made statements antagonistic to Israel.  The "wiped off" is prominent enough that maybe it should be added.  I think the "disgraceful blot" just isn't important enough, given that the summary already mentions antagonistic statements, to be inserted in a summary, though it does belong in the main subarticle. TopRank 18:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aucaman, the sentence reads just fine, the article doesn't imply it's part of the same sentence as the "wipe off the map" phrase, it would make no difference even if it did, and you've been attempting to excise the phrase from all versions of the article, regardless of the way it "reads". In fact, you've been attempting to remove most mention of this issue from the article, and to whitewash what little remains.  The "disgraceful blot/stain" statement is clearly noteworthy; it gets almost 15,000 Google hits, for one thing, and 150 hits from Google news sources.  In fact, in the New York Times article linked to, I believe it is the only phrase from the speech that is repeated.  If the New York Times thinks it is even more newsworthy than the "wiped off the map" statement, then clearly it is notable. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the reason I have to repeat correcting your edits is because (a) they're not accurate; (b) they're not neutral. For one thing, I have no clue where you get your information. This is not the main article. The main article is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. This is supposed to be a summary of the stuff in that article - the ones that are relevant and notable enough to be put in this section. At first you didn't even know that he was referring to Khomeini's statment, but that eventually settled in. Now you want to include the phrase "disgraceful blot". Where exactly are you getting this quote? The subarticle that we're supposed to be summarizing? Well I suggest you read the subarticle again. It's simply not there. I'm going to take it out. You're more than welcome to replace it with the correct phrase once you read the subarticle again (you've done that before, right?) I still think the phrase is taken out of context and that it's not notable enough to be put there, but I can't come up with a better wording, so I'm going to let you keep it. AucamanTalk 05:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the problem here was that you kept insisting that Khomeini said Israel must be "wiped off the map".  Once you were straightened out on that, things proceeded pretty well. And if something that belongs in the sub-article is not there, then I suggest you go add it next time; I've made the case for it's inclusion here, and you haven't refuted that. However, in this case, it's been in sub-article all along; the lengthy quote at the beginning has always included the phrase. Jayjg (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No my point was that you have been adding information from places other than the subarticle. Like I said, the phrase "disgraceful blot" does NOT appear there. We have "disgraceful stain" there. I'm going to fix it for you and let you keep it. And no, I wasn't a literalist at first. It all started when people started taking everything MA has said literally. I'm just keeping it consistent. I have no problem with summarizing or interpretation, but when you put things in quotes, you have quote the person correctly. AucamanTalk 00:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While that particular source translated him as saying "disgraceful stain", the vast majority of sources translated it as "disgraceful blot", by a factor of about 100 to 1.  "Disgraceful blot" is at least as accurate a quotation as "disgraceful stain"; probably moreso. Jayjg (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we've agreed to go with this particular translation. You can't just pick and choose different phrases from different translations and somehow put them together in a sentence. This is also supposed to be summary of the subarticle (how many times have I emphasized that?), so everything here must already be in the subarticle. In any case, I think we're both more or less happy with the way things appear now. Sorry if I gave you a hard time. AucamanTalk 04:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a separate article that contains the phrase and context and if you want you can add two or three more paragraphs about the phrase "disgraceful blot" there.  That is the point of there being separate articles.  If "disgraceful blot" must appear in the summary there is no reason the entire sentence in which it appears should not also appear in the summary along with the context in which it was said. TopRank 03:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the overview, and enough context is given. The whitewashing needs to end, really. Jayjg (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Mr. Cole's interpretation is not the same as many other equally notable experts. Blainetologist 19:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which "experts" would those be? Nazila Fathi of the NYT's Tehran bureau, perhaps? The "expert" in this case is the translator who produces the interpretation most useful to those who want to portray Iran as a danger to the West. — JEREMY 00:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: What the foreign minister said after the fact for damage control is mostly irrelevant, except for laughs. Jayjg (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise?

message: I was asked to explain my edit here. Here are some reasons:
*The "disgraceful blot" phrase is not as notable as the "wipe off the map" phrase. Compare good hits of 300,000 to 20,000. Remember, this is supposed to be a summary. If something is not necessary to say, it should be kept in the subarticle. 
*It's not chronogically accurate. 
*It's not part of the same sentence as the "wipe of the map" comment. The reader might think they are part of the same sentence. I've already said this before.
*The sentence didn't read smoothly.
AucamanTalk 08:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I am not convinced. This expression shows his character and belongs here. Continued attempts to whitewash MA are duly noted. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Shows his character" - I don't think it is necessary to "show his character" in a summary and it is not clear if to "show his character" means to summarize what he said or if it means to persuade the reader to accept your pre-determined judgement of his character.  I'm not sure anything more is needed than the first sentence that he made statements antagonistic to Israel.  The "wiped off" is prominent enough that maybe it should be added.  I think the "disgraceful blot" just isn't important enough, given that the summary already mentions antagonistic statements, to be inserted in a summary, though it does belong in the main subarticle. TopRank 18:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aucaman, the sentence reads just fine, the article doesn't imply it's part of the same sentence as the "wipe off the map" phrase, it would make no difference even if it did, and you've been attempting to excise the phrase from all versions of the article, regardless of the way it "reads". In fact, you've been attempting to remove most mention of this issue from the article, and to whitewash what little remains.  The "disgraceful blot/stain" statement is clearly noteworthy; it gets almost 15,000 Google hits, for one thing, and 150 hits from Google news sources.  In fact, in the New York Times article linked to, I believe it is the only phrase from the speech that is repeated.  If the New York Times thinks it is even more newsworthy than the "wiped off the map" statement, then clearly it is notable. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the reason I have to repeat correcting your edits is because (a) they're not accurate; (b) they're not neutral. For one thing, I have no clue where you get your information. This is not the main article. The main article is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. This is supposed to be a summary of the stuff in that article - the ones that are relevant and notable enough to be put in this section. At first you didn't even know that he was referring to Khomeini's statment, but that eventually settled in. Now you want to include the phrase "disgraceful blot". Where exactly are you getting this quote? The subarticle that we're supposed to be summarizing? Well I suggest you read the subarticle again. It's simply not there. I'm going to take it out. You're more than welcome to replace it with the correct phrase once you read the subarticle again (you've done that before, right?) I still think the phrase is taken out of context and that it's not notable enough to be put there, but I can't come up with a better wording, so I'm going to let you keep it. AucamanTalk 05:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the problem here was that you kept insisting that Khomeini said Israel must be "wiped off the map".  Once you were straightened out on that, things proceeded pretty well. And if something that belongs in the sub-article is not there, then I suggest you go add it next time; I've made the case for it's inclusion here, and you haven't refuted that. However, in this case, it's been in sub-article all along; the lengthy quote at the beginning has always included the phrase. Jayjg (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No my point was that you have been adding information from places other than the subarticle. Like I said, the phrase "disgraceful blot" does NOT appear there. We have "disgraceful stain" there. I'm going to fix it for you and let you keep it. And no, I wasn't a literalist at first. It all started when people started taking everything MA has said literally. I'm just keeping it consistent. I have no problem with summarizing or interpretation, but when you put things in quotes, you have quote the person correctly. AucamanTalk 00:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While that particular source translated him as saying "disgraceful stain", the vast majority of sources translated it as "disgraceful blot", by a factor of about 100 to 1.  "Disgraceful blot" is at least as accurate a quotation as "disgraceful stain"; probably moreso. Jayjg (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we've agreed to go with this particular translation. You can't just pick and choose different phrases from different translations and somehow put them together in a sentence. This is also supposed to be summary of the subarticle (how many times have I emphasized that?), so everything here must already be in the subarticle. In any case, I think we're both more or less happy with the way things appear now. Sorry if I gave you a hard time. AucamanTalk 04:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a separate article that contains the phrase and context and if you want you can add two or three more paragraphs about the phrase "disgraceful blot" there.  That is the point of there being separate articles.  If "disgraceful blot" must appear in the summary there is no reason the entire sentence in which it appears should not also appear in the summary along with the context in which it was said. TopRank 03:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the overview, and enough context is given. The whitewashing needs to end, really. Jayjg (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Mr. Cole's interpretation is not the same as many other equally notable experts. Blainetologist 19:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which "experts" would those be? Nazila Fathi of the NYT's Tehran bureau, perhaps? The "expert" in this case is the translator who produces the interpretation most useful to those who want to portray Iran as a danger to the West. — JEREMY 00:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: What the foreign minister said after the fact for damage control is mostly irrelevant, except for laughs. Jayjg (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Disgraceful blot"

message: The statement: 
Since Iranian revolution, no Iranian reporters have been allowed to enter US or take part in a press conference of US president. IRIB reporters have only been allowed to cover UN events and could only travel in 17 mile radius of New York. Several Iranian reporters criticised President Ahmadinejad on his support for CNN 
is pure POV in its current form because (a) the aim seems to be to contrast the (presumably tolerant) treatment of the American media in Iran with the (presumably vile) treatment of the Iranian media in the States; (b) there is no context for why the Iranian media is treated in this way and (c) the content is irrelevant in the context of a Ahmadinejad article & leaves an impression of gratuitous America bashing. It ought to be removed or moved to an article about Iranian reporters in America... Mikkerpikker ... 20:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: America bashing? How do you figure? At any rate I believe the inclusion is warranted since it elaborates on why the (state-employeed) Iranian reporters in question criticized Ahmadinejad. It might need a bit of a rewording to illustrate context. A separate article with more details (while keeping this bit here) is a good idea as well, since it would also help educate the reader as to the differences amongst the various Iranian media outlets - the state-run media (which has total domination over television and radio and is directly under the control of the Supreme Leader) and independent media (limited to newspapers which are constantly harassed and shutdown by the authorities). SouthernComfort 21:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Since the Iranian Revolution, no Iranian reporters have been allowed to enter the United States  or take part in a press conference of the US President. This sentence, however, is rather disingenuous. SouthernComfort 21:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is in the context the statement amounts to gratuitous America bashing because it seems to imply that whilst Ahmadinejad (the good, the wise) allows CNN to operate in Iran despite its mistake, the Americans (the evil, the silly) don't even allow Iranian reporters into the wider US. I'm not saying this isn't true, all I'm saying that there is a clear implicature here of censure. Moreover, the statement is uncited and hence fails WP:V. (quoteth: "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories and claims in articles must only be included if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed."). Can we find a source for this info?? If not I'm removing it... Mikkerpikker ... 21:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Alright, that seems fine... there then just needs to be context provided in the Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad page. Mikkerpikker ... 22:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now gone ahead and moved the section... Mikkerpikker ... 02:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iranian reporters in the US

message: I'm not sure it is relevant to a biographical article on Ahmadinejad, it is in the section about Ahmadinejad's support for the program but I do not see a direct relationship between them. TopRank 20:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove Chirac's statement on preemptive nuclear use

message: I didn't know where it is appropriate to mention this, but the intentional misspelling Ahmaghinejad is a pun. (Do a google search, comes up with 10 pages of results.)Ahmagh (or Ahmaq) is Farsi for idiot. PhatJew 19:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is as appropriate as it could be. AucamanTalk 21:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I tried this link # http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/international/middleeast/15tehran.html and got the Nytimes asking me for 3.95. Could whoever added it quote the source directly or remove it? Thanks. IronDuke 03:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing the link, although I wish someone could find the quote and put it back (assuming it's made by someone notable). IronDuke 16:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a google search and it looks like the NY Times article is the only one cotaining these exact words, so I'm changing the wording of the paragraph using information from the subarticle. AucamanTalk 21:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It makes me angry that this person's changes were not immediately reverted.  How much information in wikipedia is supported by information in books or information that is for any number of reasons not one click away from a free source?  The fact that you have to either pay, go to a library or in this case spend a few more minutes digging up a non-paywall version of a link does not make a source unverifiable or merit the information supported by that source being removed.  This was handled terribly. If it was a new link it would be less outrageous but a link in by far the most contentious section of the article would certainly have been removed if it had not said what the article claims it says.  Even if now only a preview is available. TopRank 05:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Did I remove the wrong link? Perhaps I'm confused. And I also don't see any changes in wording, just a reversion minus the link. Aucaman, can you shed some light? IronDuke 03:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you kidding?  You remove a quotation because a link is behind a paywall?  I can't believe this is being taken seriously.  A paywall makes a link unverifiable?  It was placed there when the link was free and many people with various viewpoints did not challenge it then.  This is breathtaking.  Anyway at the bottom of this page the link is present, but even if it hadn't been, the fact that it is behind a paywall does not merit taking the quotation out of the article.  This is insane.  http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/3938/2/ I am very disappointed that this nonsense was even dignified with a response.  TopRank 04:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say again: does anyone have a specific source that they can actually cite (with a quote from a real, notable person) indicating that MA's remarks were misquoted? If so, please insert it (it will improve the article). Otherwise, I'll remove the sentence in question. IronDuke 05:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: TopRank, for your consideration:  Be civil, Verifiability, Mutual respect, No personal attacks. IronDuke 05:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: As I look again, I see that the NYtimes article supports that MA says he was misquoted, but not the earlier statement, "Ahmadinejad's supporters claim that various remarks have been mistranslated, misinterpreted and exaggerated in the interest of harming the nation of Iran." This seems to link to an article about Chechens. Is there support for that statement, and in any case, can it be rewritten to say who these supporters are and what exactly they said? IronDuke 05:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Support for that any many more similar statements is ALL OVER the Iranian media, including the ones who are not in line with Ahmadinejad from a political or ideological point of view.  Playing the retarded trick of "bring me a verifiable quote" for every sentence that you don't like or don't want, and even when a quote is provided, deleting it for lame excuses makes you look like, god forbid, a Jew.  Are you a dirty Jew by any chance?  69.105.39.132 16:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 69.105: Please provide a couple of links to similar statements.  If they are in Persian, please provide translations of the relevant sections.  Either put them here in the discussion or into the subarticle and change the summary in the main article.  The more verifiable quotes wikipedia provides the better, and they do not necessarily have to be in English. Also "dirty Jew" wasn't necessary. TopRank 04:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 69.105.39.132, please don't be a dick. Mikker ... 17:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the link to that article.  You just showed everybody how stupid you are, because that article, right at the beginning says this:  "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself" --  ha ha you are a stupid dick!  :)  69.105.39.132 17:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but if you would only read on it says ""Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself, so don't bandy the criticism about lightly". I.e. calling someone a dick lightly is a dick move, however, calling someone a dick for asking rhetorically "Are you a dirty Jew by any chance?" is entirely appropriate. Please also peruse WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Thanks, Mikker ... 17:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I still don't see support for the sentence in question (other than droll speculation about my religious beliefs and hygiene), so I am taking it out for now. IronDuke 01:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement about smear Iran's image is sourced in the subarticle.  The previous statement was a fair summary of the subarticle, which is what a summary such as this is supposed to be, but the language now more directly reflects the language sourced from the BBC in the subarticle. TopRank 05:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pay for link? 

message: Fundamentalist Jews Christian and Muslims take heed: Information wants to be free!  Long live the enlightenment!  No more Dark Ages!
:Amen!! AucamanTalk 00:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fuck you, I got a message from Allah and he says he is going to reduce Iran to a cinder before they can do permanent damage to planet Earth. I dreamt of Iran burning to the ground by the hand of their mentally retarded president who is a hypocrit who allows prostitution and drug traffic to run rampant in Iran. The U.S. is not Iran´s biggest threat, it's nuclear weapons and Iran's own government. I'm palestinian by the way, assholes.
You sound like a common American.--CAN T 20:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whether u r mossad or iranian intel, KNOCK OFF THE VANDALISM! 

message: The response that statements have been misunderstood or misinterpreted apply to both that "wiped off the map" statement and the statements about the historicity of the Holocaust, which is clear from the sub article.  Also the Jan 14 press conference is available in Persian and someone translated the portion relevant to the historicity of the Holocaust which is in the subarticle.  This is consistent with wikipedia's translation policy.  The Persian version of the press conference ran in IRNA, one of Iran's most authoritative news sources.  Also wikipedia summaries of other wikipedia articles do not need citations for every statement in the summary, provided the summarized article is properly sourced, as the subarticle is.
There absolutely have been responses by Iranians supportive of Ahmadinejad to the controversy over Ahmadinejad's statements about the Holocaust.  If you prefer, the summary can be four paragraphs - one about "wiped off", with a response and the other about Holocaust with a response.  As it is, the two responses are consolidated which saves space. TopRank 13:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, breaking it up into sections on "Antagonism towards Israel" and "Holocaust denial" would be a good idea.  While Ahmadinejad may wish to conflate these ideas, they are quite separate concepts, and the fact that Iran now plans a "Holocaust conference" indicates that this topic deserves its own discussion. Jayjg (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  And once we separate Holocaust denial from Antagonism towards Israel, Holocaust denial should be moved out of the foreign policies sections into the controversies section. TopRank 01:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: We have to note though that the fact that "Ahmadinejad may wish to conflate these ideas" is important in a biographical article about Ahmadinejad.  I can't find any place where Ahmadinejad has mentioned the Holocaust except in the context that it does not justify a Jewish state being established in the Middle East, victimizing Palestinians.  On one hand, his position on the Holocaust in itself it is not a foreign policy position once it is separated from antagonism towards Israel - so for that reason I'd favor putting it into its own section under controversies.  On the other hand, these two specific controversies may well bring most of this article's readers, in which case there is an argument for keeping them in the same section.  For me it's a toss-up but I'd lean towards keeping them together. TopRank 05:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I proposed breaking up the section and moving the Holocaust-related stuff into the controversies section, but people didn't like it. What has changed now? Most of the section looks the same to me. Also, the section reads pretty neutral and accurate the way it stands right now, so I'm not sure what's the reason for all these discussions. AucamanTalk 17:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean "what has changed now"?  Israel and Holocaust denial are separate topics, they should each be dealt with in a separate section. Jayjg (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Logical order" of Iranian responses to criticisms 

message: What are the topics on the nationwide university entrance exams of Iran and how difficult is it?  Does it, for instance, cover plane geometry or does it go as far as linear algebra — if the test has a mathematics section?  
--66.81.193.174 07:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  University Entrance Exam of Iran 

message: I don't know how to pronounce his name, and I think many people have that problem. Sijo Ripa 15:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job :-) Sijo Ripa 00:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voice clip for his name?

message: It seems a bit odd to so prominently feature a photo of Hugo Chávez in this article on Ahmadinejad.  Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but it gives the impression of an insidious attempt to establish a sort of "guilt by association" of the (comparatively) benign Chávez.  A minor point perhaps, but even putting aside that interpretation, it does seem that Chávez is featured more prominently in this article than is warranted. Swittters 00:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Chavez and Ahmadinejad have only two things in common: 1) a serious stake in OPEC; and, 2) and a certain disdain for "American imperialism".  This picture should be replaced, and soon. --(Mingus ah um 18:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought the picture documented a meeting between two heads of state. If readers are getting the impression that it's somehow evidence of a developing Islamo-Leftist axis (which I suppose it could be seen to imply), it should be removed as a WP:NPOV vio. — JEREMY 03:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hugo Chávez?

message: I have noticed the refs in this article have become confused, and have begun a clean-up. This will be a work in progress for half an hour or so.  JEREMY 10:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Complete now; several quotes appear uncited now, and there are many spare cites which need to be matched up with the relevant text. But at least now the numbers actually match! — JEREMY 10:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference cleanup required

message: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not right-wing at all. To the contrary, he is a left-wing nationalist - he supports nationalisation of industry, redistribution of wealth and land, the free provision of various services, the welfare state etc. The left-right scale is politico-economic - just because he is a nationalist and and "Islamist", that doesn't make him right-wing. Tanzeel 17:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I always remember it. Ideological/cultural: conservative = right, progressive = left; economy: liberal = right, socialist = left. So in fact he's a right-wing (islamist, nationalist) and left-wing (social services, redistribution, etc) politician. I think it's pointless to include the word right-wing or left-wing. We should be specific about his ideas and policies. Sijo Ripa 22:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right-wing populism 

message: User:ThuranX believes the content block he has been attempting to remove from this page is vandalism. I dispute this, and direct all readers to the history of the section:
*User:24.16.208.91 reverted page-blanking vandalism by User:141.117.77.22 on the main article 23 February
*User:24.16.208.91 immediately posted the initial commentary, critical of the vandalism he'd just reverted, in this edit
*The initial commentary was immediately supported by User:Aucaman
*Much more recently, on 12 April, User:168.243.222.20 added an abusive commentary. (Note that this user might be termed "a vandal", based on his limited and confrontational edit history.)
*User:Can Kırığı responded to this a fortnight later.
None of this exchange, except the third response, could be characterised as vandalism in any sense. If you like, you may wish to censor the third comment, perhaps as follows:
:Fuck you, I got a message from Allah and he says he is going to reduce Iran to a cinder before they can do permanent damage to planet Earth. I dreamt of Iran burning to the ground by the hand of their mentally retarded president who is a hypocrit who allows prostitution and drug traffic to run rampant in Iran. The U.S. is not Iran´s biggest threat, it's nuclear weapons and Iran's own government. I'm palestinian by the way, assholes.
This would remove the personal attacks made against the editors in question.  JEREMY 04:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current dispute over talk-page "vandalism"

message: Iranian state news is confirming that the letter was a Da'wa (linking the english version but trust me the word Da'wa is used on their arabic version).
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0605110155191821.htm
can someone please add this confirmation to the section on the letter? Blainetologist 22:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: can someone add the following to the section on the letter? "Iranian news says President Ahmadinejad confirmed that the letter was intended as a Da'wa letter in a press conference." 
Thank you Blainetologist 16:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Responding to the helpme. Although you are reasonably new, you should be able to edit the article yourself (or if not, within a day or so). Anyway, I'd rather let someone with some knowledge of the article make any changes - just be patient.--Commander Keane 18:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Letter to Bush

message: Ahmadinejad resembles Nagheenanajar (last name of a character in Office Space (movie) when I've heard it pronounced.  DyslexicEditor 12:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahmadinejad that name  

message: He signed the letter as محمود احمدی نژاد, that is, with a space inside of his surname. However, the official translation into English gives his name as Mahmood Ahmadi-Nejad, the Spanish as Mahmud Ahmadi Nejad, Russian Махмуд Ахмадинежад and French Mahmoud AHMADINEJAD. The Arabic wikipedia gives his surname with space (أحمدي نجاد) but indicates that the farsi name is without space, only with ligature break (this is also the version given in Farsi wikipedia - محمود احمدی‌نژاد), which would roughly correspond to hyphen in western typography. Could someone with more knowledge in Farsi typography bring some light into the issue? Is this just a difference between transcription and transliteration? Anyway, I think redirects from hyphenated and joined version of his surname are justified. rado 08:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: It seems fairly well established that Ahmadinejad was one of the five student leaders who planned and directed the takeover of the US embassy in 1979.  Published sources show pictures of him as well hostages remembering him and his fellow student leaders who now have leading positions in Iran.  The hostage taking is not believed by most people in Iran to have been a mistake and Ahmadinejad has denied taking part, but his denial does not change the facts. I am wondering why the article does not discuss his role in the historical event and link to several of these sources.  
Does the article anywhere mention the fact he is wanted for murder in two Germany and Austria?   I do not remember seeing it.  I would certainly like to have a better source for such a claim.  On the other hand, I do not see how wikipedia can ignore it if it is true.RonCram 14:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find now that the page has a link to his "controversies."  In my opinion, this is not displayed early enough or prominently enough in the article. RonCram 14:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It is just a propaganda. First of all involvement in the hostage crisis is a source of pride in Iran especially for people like Ahmadinejad and revolutionaries. All of the leaders of hostage takers clearly said that Ahmadinejad was not involved in this story. However they clearly say that they themselves were the leaders and are proud of it. Ahmadinejad would never hide his involvement in this story if he were involved. Those pictures are not related to Ahmadinejad. And what some of US hostages have mentioned are just lies. Is this surprising ??!! They say lie because it is in favor of them. Very simple ! This is western culture. Make propaganda and distribute lies if it is in your favor. --Mitso Bel20:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an un-encyclopedic comment, which I resent personally. You can dismiss the sources because they are not proper sources, but stating that: "They say lie because it is in favor of them" = Western Culture, is not constructive. If you have verifiable sources for you claims, go to Western_culture. If not, please refrain from such unconstructive comments, and instead focus your efforts on making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Iafrate 06:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ahmadinejad as 1979 Iranian hostage taker

message: The translation that records that Ahmadinejad denied the holocaust is not a universal one, and should be stated.. which I did.. and cited. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Myth about Myth

message: Personally (and I am saying this only on my self, not anyone else) I feel it will be a waste of time to revert a talk page so it would refelect the flow of conversation.
So if any one actually care to listen you cann just see my comments that were deleted here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMahmoud_Ahmadinejad&diff=55563725&oldid=55561329
As for the edit summary. Well I am not going any where. I think there is a big problem in this article and I intend to fix it. Zeq 15:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you attempt to impose your POV on this article — as you have on a range of other articles — your changes will be reverted; and if you persist, you will be re-referred to arbcom and (I would expect) banned from this article as well. If, instead, you make a good faith attempt to investigate all points of view regarding any new information you wish to add, so as to accurately and fairly represent it, your contributions will be very welcome. I look forward to working with you. — JEREMY 02:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So does this mean you will take back the "Zeq go away" ? Zeq 03:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my particular idiom; I meant simply, "stop this nonsense". — JEREMY 08:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting a talk page. 

message: This article now includes:
"controversial comments he has made about the Holocaust. "
really ? 
is that what he did ?
He denied the holocaust . !!!!!!!  (a criminal offense that some people sit in jail for)
He called for anothet holocaust.
What is so "controversial" about it ?
For some people (including some wikipedia editors) this man is just saying what they only think and fear say outloud (so this is why they try to hide his comments ? - I hope not)
Wikipedia moto is "Be BOLD" 
So be blod and call it is you see it. 
The statements he makes are clear. the only controvesy is:
 is he criminal case or mental case  ???
Zeq 12:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeq, you are simply mistaken. I suggest you read back through this talk page to discover the weight of evidence against your contention. — JEREMY 13:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the talk page but also listen to what the man sais on Iarnian TV. You should also take facts into account when writing an encyclopida Zeq 17:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeq, are you saying you're actually in Iran? If so, what's your Persian/Farsi like? — JEREMY 18:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in the middle east. They translate Iranin TV to Arabic where I am at. Zeq 18:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a lot of controversy about his comments = and even CNN once made a wrong translation of his speeches --K a s h  Talk | email 14:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No hope for wikipedia 

message: Someone keeps ripping out the comment underneath it. The problem with that is that the picture is there as accompaniment for the paragraphs next to it, which highlight the fact that Mahmoud is willing to act on what he believes, even when he is opposed by powerful nations like the US. His stern and unwavering finger is rendered almost useless when the subtitle under the picture is erased, especially when someone puts in the simple text "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad". Of COURSE we know that this is Mamms, but that's not what the picture highlights. Never Cry Wolf 13:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got to be kidding me; you're actually attempting to justify your caption?  Wikipedia is not a place for sophomoric jokes and humor.  Wikipedia attempts to be an encyclopedia.  Your caption was not only POV and unverifiable but it also gave to context or background to the image itself.  It is custom on Wikipedia to make image captions hold background detail about the photograph above it.  Anyone with eyes can see that he has a "stern" look on his face but they do not know the important information relating to the image (ie the who, what, when, where, and why.)  Unfortunately, your summary of the image on the image's page gives us no more information to go on.  --Strothra 16:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  EXCUSE ME? HOW DARE YOU!!! I have contributed a significant amount to both this article and to numerous ones on Wikipedia, and you have the absolute GALL to insult me by calling this caption (which is extremely informative) rude names? The only thing "sophomoric" about this discussion is your unsolicted, and quite frankly, incidendiary attempt to uphold YOUR OWN POV by levelling personal attacks at me. Let it be known that if you keep insulting me, I'm going to make sure that the administrators here are aware of your behavior, that's for sure. I guess that even on Wikipedia, there are people like you who are willing to destroy any semblance of fact in order to attack people that they don't like. It makes me sick, but the only thing I can do is make sure that I revert your horrible personal attacks. Never Cry Wolf 16:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: um...please see WP:CIVIL. Really, that sort of stress leads to things like heart disease and cancer.  Take care of yourself buddy.  Thanks. --Strothra 16:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointy Finger Picture