Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 9

message: The text currently seems to imply that Ahmadinejad has a veto on the UNSC;  As best as I can tell, he does not.
Can someone either correct the text or otherwise enlighten me?
update-- you know, I just checked the text again, and it flatly doesn't make sense.  It refers to "the same interview," although no interview has been mentioned in that section.  HELP!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.199.29.178 (talk • contribs).
: It looks like this got mangled on November 4th by 70.28.116.167.  I restored the affected text to the 5 Nov 2006 00:13 edition of the page.  Thanks for pointing this out! Vir4030 23:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahmadinejad and UNSC Veto 

message: Since Iran supports Hezbollah and other terrorist groups, and Amhdinejad has denied supporting terrorism, why is this omitted?Decato 21:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because conclusive evidence is lacking. MeteorMaker 08:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you bring reliable and verifiable sources, there should be no problem. -- Avi 15:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, only a handful of countries consider Hezbollah as a terrorist group and unsurprisingly it's the usual suspects (US, UK, Netherlands, Australia). Anyone even remotely connected to Lebanon knows that Hezbollah is a grassroot organization whom the Lebanese elite (the quality people in the words of a famous Maronite) in concert with the media tries to demonize. So, I'll object to the fallacy/bias of your statement.  Lixy 11:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Does Iran consider the United States to be a sponsor of terrorism? - Francis Tyers · 15:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Freely admiting my own bias, I think there is a major difference between the U.S and Iran.  Iran isa despotic theocracy where women and other religions do not have equal rights.  The U.S is one of greatest democracies in the history of the world.71.233.211.201 19:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing wrong with having your opinions.  However, please note that this talk page is only for the discussion of ways in which to improve this article and to resolve disputes regarding article content, not to espouse opinions regarding the subject of the article or other items. --Strothra 19:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: On the paper, I'd totally agree with you. However, the essence of the US system could be summarized by "live and let die". This immobility of the American people (who are too busy making a buck) to act and change the way the government is spending THEIR money is why the "greatest democracy" is going down the drain. Lixy 11:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I was just responding to user f-m-t comment which seems to put moral equivilency between Iran and the U.S.Decato 21:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Go an add terrorist support to George Bush's page. --Halaqah 19:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a Bush page and looking at the terrorist orginizations listed on the wikipedia page, The U.S does not support any of them.  Why is it so hard to call someone a terrorist supporter on this site? Decato 23:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes because the Def of terrorim is a POV, so to call someone a supporter of terrorism is a POV. Since most people in the World see america as a terrorist government. DONT THE USA SUPPORT THE IRA? KKK is another terrorist organization in America, why cant Ethiopia or Ghana invade America to clense America of this terror threat? the debate is about world view and in the eyes of most the Bush Administration is a terrorist system which has destroyed more lives than all of those listed as being terrorist--Halaqah 23:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: flag and anthem dont make u clean of the def of terrorism u know. --Halaqah 23:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The US does not support the IRA.  In fact, it has worked for many decades to disarm the IRA.  Remember, the US and the UK have had a close and cordial relationship for many many years.  Support for the IRA would damage that. Also, that accusation is off-topic; please restrict comments to those which pertain to the content of the article. --Strothra 23:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   No mention of terrorism support 

message: I cleaned up a lot of citations on the page.  If someone could help with the Cabinet section, that would be great.  Also, we still need someone to verify the Farsi links -- I've had no luck finding anyone.  If anyone has any Farsi-reading friends they could recruit, that would be fantastic. Vir4030 18:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we please use Persian as oppose to Farsi? It's like saying I speak Francoise instead of French. Anyway, I have added some info and cleaned his Intelligence Minister. Will try to do the same for the rest of them. user:Takinson 7:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Is it just me or is there no categories here? Khodavand 04:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps is is you, because I see pleanty of categories in the article  -- Avi 13:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: No, but calling for it to be "wiped off the map" certainly is. 
Phil Murray
72.16.201.2 18:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but unless I'm mistaken Holocaust denial is a recognized form of antisemitism.  19:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticizing the State of Israel is NOT Anti-Semitism 

message: "I love the jews."  -- Mahmoud Ahmadenijad
There is a clear seperation here.... not only is the "Zionist regime" not exclusive to only Jews (that would be racist apartheid), but not ALL Jews live in "Israel", support "Israel", or even have anything to do with it. Sarastro777 17:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a great deal of "racist apartheid" going on in Israel. When more than two thirds of Israeli Jews claim they won't live in the same building as an Arab, there's no other word to describe it than blatant racism. It is getting institutionalized now with the nomination of Leiberman as minister of strategic threats. Lixy 16:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Zionist Regime" as not representative of all Jews 

message: I don't see why this is here.  Isn't the Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad article the correct location for these sort of assertions? The Behnam 19:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that having a separate page for these kinds of allegations is a bad idea.  For one thing, when I first read the article, I did not even realize there was a separate page for controversies.  This link is buried at the bottom of the page in the heading about Zionism.  Furthermore, all of the other pages of prominent political figures I have read on wikipedia have at least some mention of their controversies on the main page.  See the article on George W. Bush for an example of this.  If we follow this kind of reasoning to extreme, we will end up with a expurgated version and unexpurgated version of every biography.  Esbullin 13:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have provided the link in the Hostage Crisis section.  The Behnam 02:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the controversies can be mentioned together in brief.  I feel that this section is out of place, even if it is to stay in the article.  It should go on the bottom near the Zionism-related section; perhaps they can share the controversies link.  Hence, the controversies would be the main article, but an introduction can be provided here.  Besides, the current writing in the section doesn't properly introduce the hostage controversy.  The Behnam 02:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The 2nd Section is about alleged involvement with Hostage Crisis

message: I noticed a very POV link in the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad box at the bottom of the page.  There are several links, such as Missive to George Bush and Israel.  The objectionable link is entitled Kingpin and links to Ali Khamenei.  I believe this to be a blatant POV, casting Ali Khamenei as a crime boss and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a member of a criminal gang.  This may be the opinion of some, but it is hardly encyclopedic.  The Behnam 22:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: KINGPIN

message: So... any of u guys see the article lately? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.239.202.2 (talk) 03:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SOMEONE NUKED THE ARTICLE!!

message: Ahmadinejad is a very controversial figure, he's been in the news lately, and it's obviously drawing vandals. For example, User:82.82.168.199 (aka htlrlovr666) recently redirected this page to God... inexcusable, on every level. Who knows what they'll think of next. Just protect it so this crap can't happen. -Scharb 23:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs to be protected 

message: Per the tag on the article, I have done some expansion of the lead into the article, summarising more of the controversies surrounding Ahmadinejad. The biggest thing that's in the article that seems to me to be missing in the lead is a summary of Ahmadinejad's domestic policy, so that might be a direction to go to get the lead up to standard. Heimstern Läufer 05:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re:The lead 

message: Wikipedia articles shouldn't have little quote farms at the bottom. Random quotes go in Wikiquote, the project specifically set up for that. Jayjg (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote farm 

message: I removed the POV tag from the top.  If you put it back in, please state why so we can correct the offending text. Vir4030 20:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Tag 

message: The statement is already discussed in the body of this article, it is a pov and not a nuetral one to add it to the first few lines of his statement. Can we add what the pope said to the first lines of his article-- NO! Worldview and NPOV are what is important, I dont think his statements are that important, most peopel in Africa are not intrested in that, Others are concerned about different things, so it doesnt belong in his intro. If belongs in the critism section. He has done too many things to focus on that it is not notible only as a non-Worldview.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 12:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Watch the news (international news) and see how many times this is bought up. Also see how much of this Talk page is dedicated to this. Looks like another attempt to whitewash MA. What's next? ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There are never-ending attempts to whitewash MA - even contradicting his own stance. Here you are against the consensus: this info has been in the intro for a long time - at least for 5 months: , and probably much longer, I simply didn't bother check further. ←Humus sapiens ну? 13:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure you don't care. Please don't make false analogies. Search in the news will conclusively prove strong correlation between the words Ahmadinejad, Israel and Holocaust. That is what he is famous for, like it or not. Ands again: it is not "I am wanting to add this" but "You are wanting to remove this" against the long-time consensus. ←Humus sapiens ну? 13:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Had it not been for Ahmadinajad's open antisemitism and calls for genocide, he would remain a pretty obscure figure in the West, something like Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Beit Or 14:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HalaTruth is right, this shouldn't be in the lead. It is disturbingly Western-centric. - Francis Tyers · 14:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. I don't see how can Humus_sapiens claim there's a concensus on the matter. It is blatant POV that Wikipedia should not relay the way US mainstream has been doing. Lixy 18:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Francis, it's inappropriate to add "Professor" as a title in the lead. We don't even do that with real professors, or we're not meant to. As for the rest, he is currently known all the over world as the leader of a state who (a) appears to be developing a nuclear capacity and (b) has threatened to wipe another country off the map, which is a worrying juxtaposition, and it's obtuse to pretend otherwise. That is not a "western" view. That is a world view, and it very much belongs in the lead. Look at the lead of George W. Bush: 9/11, invasion of Afghanistan, invasion of Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Hurricane Katrina. But here, Francis thinks we should say "Professor Ahmadinejad, sixth president of Iran, a very nice man, wonderful smile." SlimVirgin (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Opa, sorry there. I should have looked at the talk page. It states on the page that he is a Professor. If this is wrong, it should be removed, if this is right it should be in the lead. A Professor is a Professor (I don't think George is, but he might be I don't know). I think the article on George is way off, it probably shouldn't include the Iraq war in the lead, in fact the whole lead of that article sucks too, so we certainly shouldn't be taking lessons there. You assert that this is a "world view", and yet provide no sources to back this up, how do the other Islamic states see him, how is he received in places like China and India. Let alone Thailand and Sudan. The majority of criticism I've come across (on this talk page) and in general has come from the United States and from Israel, hardly the most impartial of sources... having said that, we do tend to have a dearth of good, impartial, reliable material on political figures, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Regards, Actually, second thoughts, after looking at Richard Feynman and Freeman Dyson, I guess we shouldn't include Professor. - Francis Tyers · 02:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: America and Israel aren't the most impartial sources regarding the potential for unpleasantness when a country is wiped off the map with a nuclear weapon? You're right. What a silly fuss they're making. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as North Korea isn't a particularly impartial source on South Korea, or China on Tibet, or Russia on Poland, or .... well I could go on but you get the point. - Francis Tyers · 11:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we should add 'PhD' after his name though, like on the Noam Chomsky article? - Francis Tyers · 02:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Professor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad PhD? I like it. It's better than all the nonsense about antisemitism and Holocaust denial. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read my post you would have noticed that I said, "I guess we shouldn't include Professor." — as it isn't on other most similar other articles. - Francis Tyers · 11:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV on Israel statement

message: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view this man is alive and the article needs to be neutral not a political POV. The lead is an introduction to him in general, not a place for a discussion on his views on one single country, or two countries. The body of the article is the place for that content not his lead. who is he, when was he born, finish.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 15:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to read WP:LEAD, which instructs editors to include all significant controversies into the intro. Beit Or 15:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: His statements repeatedly caused worldwide stirs from the UN to the EU to CNN to BBC, etc. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: EU is 'Western', BBC is 'Western', CNN is 'Western', No idea about the UN, what exactly did they say? (This might give a basis for dealing with the controversy). - Francis Tyers · 02:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To qualify this "Western perception" is wrong. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  A few more links proving that: Reacting against Iranian leader’s reported Holocaust denial, Annan points to facts (United Nations News), Ahmadinejad draws ire of Saudis, Iranians, West over Israel remarks (Daily Star, Lebanon), Targetted words. The Iranian president's fiery comments on Israel have caused controversy inside and outside Iran (al-Ahram, Egypt), Poland to Bar Iranian Team from Auschwitz.←Humus sapiens ну? 03:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BBC = Western, Voice of America = Western, Al-Ahram = Not western, but potentially non-notable, Daily Star = Western, UN = Possible non-Western and notable. - Francis Tyers · 03:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The UN takes a pretty reasonable minded approach "..reacted against the reported denial of the Holocaust by Iran’s President..", "..was shocked to see the remarks attributed to H.E. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.." -- perhaps we should take a similar approach? - Francis Tyers · 02:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, Shimon's page says nothing about wishing Iran to be "kicked out" of the United Nations. - Francis Tyers · 02:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The UN is regulated by the diplomatic protocol, we are not. We should address the issue in NPOV manner. Qualifying it as "Western perception" is misleading. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Granted we should certainly point out the UN pov as the UN pov, as I have done :) So how about that Shimons? - Francis Tyers · 03:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know who is Shimon, but it is wrong to characterize Iranian, Saudi, Lebanese, Egyptian, Polish and Russian as "Western". ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Peres is quite a famous guy! - Francis Tyers · 03:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Nope. - Francis Tyers · 01:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Middle East Online? Somalia News and Information?  Iran News? The Kenyan Daily Nation? The Middle East Times Pravda? If the Brunei Times reprints a piece from The Guardian on it, is it still "Western"? How about an Iranian living in America and writing in Pravda? Exactly how many English language "non-Western" sources do you actually expect people to be able to find? Jayjg (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bio of a living Person