Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 1

message: There seems to be a very minor disagreement on whether he is "conservative hardliner" or a "fascist". Although I personally consider him a "conservative hardliner", I would like to get opinions of why he might be considered "fascist". Opinions are appreciated. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 20:53, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
:There has been people calling him and his supporters "fascist", yes, I've read these. But taking a look at Fascism#Definition, no he is not nationalist or racist and does not support corporatism, but many people believe that he will implement a totalitarian regime  (he has mentioned that a civil worker must believe in Islamic management or should be sacked), will limit political, social, and personal freedoms, and will implement modern propaganda techniques and heavy censorship. As for loyalty to a single leader, yes, he is supporting nation-wide loyalty to the Supreme Leader. He is also believed to be fundamentalist. roozbeh 21:23, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
::Hmmm. Yes I agree, by definition that does not make him fascist. People usually have different POV and what they believe will happen. So although some people think he will involve some of the tenets of fascism, I don't think that has been proven yet, so he shouldn't be called fascist. Thanks for your response. --Anonymous editor 21:29, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
:: Bush emphasizes the importance of maintaining Christian values in his speeches all the time; in some other speeches he directly refers to Christianity. Many seem to think that he is "involved some of the tenets of fascism"... I don't see any refrences to fascism in his article. *looks again* "many people believe that he will implement a totalitarian regime  (he has mentioned that a civil worker must believe in Islamic management or should be sacked)" Ain't that a heavily biased point a view, now? (noting the interesting word-choices that you have made...) ~User_talk:m87
What about theocratic nationalist?  Or authortarian theocratic nationalist.
It appears that Ahmadinejhad has all the attributes of fascism.  The Islamic Fundamentalists have divided the Iranian people into two groups and they are called:
A.	Khodi (insiders)
B.	Gheir-e Khodi (outsiders)
The first groups of people are the ones who are loyal to the principles of Islamic Fundamentalism which is dictated by the Supreme Leader Ali Khamaneii and can be trusted by the Fundamentalists.  The second group is the ones who can not be trusted by the Hard Liners and should be and would be discriminated against them.  The Fundamentalist believe the second group is considered the fifth columnist for the US the great Satan.
Ahmadinejhad represents the Islamic Fundamentalist or also called the hard liners.  So, he believes in discriminating against the (Gheir-e Khodi) or the outsiders group of people in Iran.  Islamic Republic is a tyrannical system.  As a result it has no respect to the rights of minorities and those who are considered (Gheir-e Khodi) or outsiders.
So  possesses most of the characteristics of a Fascist and he would behave mostly like a fascist.  Ahmadinejhad is a cross breed between Stalin and Hitler.  He has some of the characteristics of each one of Hitler and Stalin.  He believes in Stalin’s Economic style of Communism and the Racists view of Hitler.  Ahmadinejhad’s Racism may not be based the race, but it is based on insiders verses outsiders.
The division of society based on (Khodi and Geir-e Khodi) is equally racist as dividing the society based on the Race.
:I don't think fascism necessarily has anything to do with racism. It just so happened that Hitler was a fascist and a racist. Therefore the fact that Ahmadinejad is not racist is somewhat irrelevant to the argument that he is not a fascist. Osprey39 05:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservative hardliner or fascist 

message: I seriously believe that Islamism should be added. This is not a hint toward religion, but toward the point that he believes Islam is not a religious only, but a global solution for government, etc. Please read the Islamism article. roozbeh 21:40, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
:The problem is the fact that it is a widely controversial term which can have many different meanings for different people especially here in the west. This might give the wrong impression of who he really is. I think we should keep the conservative hardliner label for him and let the viewer decide whether he truly is of "Islamist" principles or not.--Anonymous editor 22:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
::After reading lots of what is said on his campaign website, I really believe that Ahmadinezhad considers himself an Islamist and that this is not POB. I also don't agree that "Islamism" is a controversial term. Please check the Islamism article to see that there is no mention of controvesy in usage or meaning there. Also, check Wikipedia:Words to avoid to see that Islamist is not listed there. I consider not mentioning his self-described Islamism non-NPOV. If you think Islamism is not descriptive, add explanations instead of removing good descriptions. roozbeh 02:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
:::Yo, hold on a second, man. There is no need for the POV tag. If this is so much a concern to you then I will insert that little phrase into the article. I didn't think that you were so much concerned about my slight rewording in order to avoid controversy. But if you are that concerned then no problem, I will insert that accordingly. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 02:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
::::Thanks. I removed conservative again, because of his critism of "conservatism practiced by current civil servants" on his campaign website. roozbeh 02:39, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
::::: Lay off the "isms" A lot of leaders believe religion is the "global solution for government" or at least that can be inferred from their speeches and unless your going to take the same appproach with everybody else-- (which reflects your non_NPOV) please lay off the ism. Islamism... such an ambiguous (read:Newspeak) term for Wiki to be using, don't you think? ~User_talk:m87
What about theocratic nationalist?  Or authortarian theocratic nationalist.
:::::: That's right. Believing that Islam is a global solution, fit for governance of the people, is not straying from Islam. Islam is a way of life, that covers every aspect of life - culture, politics, education, faith in God, science, art and more. Ahmadinejad isn't an Islamist. He is a Muslim.
Islamism is a political ideology based on religion of Islam has always existed.  Islam is both a religion and it also consists its own version of political ideology and on top of that it is basically a way of life.  That is why Islam does not respect the Separation of Mosque and State.  So Islamism is an inseparable part of religion itself and these two are tightly coupled.  That is why Islamism is so controversial and has generated so much tension in the international community.
Re this statement above, "...I really believe that Ahmadinezhad considers himself an Islamist...."  Isn't it widely believed that President Ahmadinejad is a member of the Hojjatieh Society?  He makes numerous mentions of the reappearance of the Mahdi.  I'm surprised that the extensive article of Mr. Ahmadinejad makes no mention of Hojjatieh. --Schnazola 16:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamism and minor neutrality dispute 

message: The page has been under attack from various IPs, mainly changing the picture and deleting the paragraph on "Platform". It can probably be removed fairly soon with reprotection if these elements return. JFW | T@lk 16:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now been protected for a week. Maybe it's time to unprotect. Rd232 15:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: Please explain the move of paragraph describing his call for the destruction of Israel away to separate "Allegations" article. Are there any doubts that this was true? If not, then this is not an allegation but rather a fact. Also, obviously the allegations article will get significantly less hits than the main article. This, together with AE's removal of his picture with Hizballah leader, seems like a whitewash attempt to me. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I understand what you mean, but instead of reverting all my efforts to clean up this article, is it possible to just move the allegations to the article. As for "whitewash", please don't speculate. I was one of the first one's who edited this article, created the criticism section and the allegations section. There is no reason to always assume bad faith Humus, although you always do that for some reason. See Wikipedia: Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Civility By the way, I didn't remove Nasrallah's Hezbollah picture, it was still there; infact I moved it up. Look closer. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 10:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No bad faith here, thanks for useful tips. Sorry I missed the picture. The rest of my comment stands: allegation is something unproven, the fact the MA made the statements is proven. Glad it's been fixed to everyone's delight. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  As far as I can tell, it only reverted a few edits and I re-corrected one of them (deleting the "recent news" thing).  I didn't revert to your first edit, mind you; I reverted to the actual edit directly before the allegations were moved.  But I still don't see why we would need a new page for it.  --Jakob Huneycutt 12:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry I am fine with it. I just wanted to clean up the article a little bit so that people don't feel like they are reading a novel. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 17:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitewash? 

message: :Critics, including some independent ones, have mentioned that while there are some similarities between the actions and rising of supporters of Ahmadinejad with those of fascism, the movement differs because it is neither nationalistic nor racist and lacks corporatism.
Note that racism is not part of the definition of fascism; the original Fascism, the Italian one, was not notably racist at first, and to the extent that it contained undercurrents of anti-Semitism, surely that applies equally to the support for Dr. Ahmadinejad. I'm not saying his movement is (technically) fascist, just that the mere absence of acknowleged racism in its ideology is not really relevant to the question. --Trovatore 19:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fascism

message: I've re-added the image since I think it at least helps to show images alleged/disputed - though without the circling/montage/etc.  I tried to NPOV-word the caption, but feel free to improve it.  Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 20:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Article protected for a while against vandalism. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 00:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: This talk page needs to be archived. As soon as Ahmadinejad makes a new statement, some of you come and add it to the article. But no one bothers to improve the article's readability in any way. Makes me wonder whether you're Wikipedians or political activists. Irresponsibility is the new epidemic in Wikipedia. AucamanTalk 17:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Also

message: At the end of the day, Ahmadinejad is best known in the west for his antagonism of Israel and for some of the allegations in the other sub page. I don't think its good aesthetically for one section to dwarf the rest of the article, but now the article looks unbalanced in the other direction because some of the most important things about Ahmadinejad (from a western perspective at least) are only covered in a couple of sentences with a link to another article. The section on Ahmadinejad's antagonism of Israel in this article should be something more like a two paragraph summary of the contents of the sub article. GabrielF 21:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Once we go there, then there arise issues of making sure the summary is fair, adding every single speech he makes that appears in western media, describing what he said neutrally, I think as is often done, a link to the entire article and one or two sentences gives the reader enough. What is there now would need more language to make it neutral if it stays. TopRank 05:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with TopRank. As the section stands right now, there are lots of unnecessary details, explanations, and over-analyzing. AucamanTalk 08:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How much text in link to Israel?

message: Maybe here in the discussion page, we can come up with language we all agree on and then move it to the main page with the understanding that we will not add to it lightly.
There are two subjects about Ahmadinejad that get their own sub-pages: overall "controversy" and the specific controversies involving Israel.  I think from that fact, a reader can get an idea of the importance of Ahmadinejad and Israel even if there is only a short summary.  I do not think there are any readers who want or need to know more than two sentences of information on this subject who would be unwilling to click the link provided to a more detailed article.
I offer the following.  I do not think anything more than this is necessary given the existence of a much more detailed article one click away.
Ahmadinejad has made several statements expressing hostility towards Israel and its leadership and questioning the historicity of the holocaust.  These statements have been widely condemned.
 TopRank 16:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is good enough. "These statements have been widely condemned" seems a little vague and not that informative. I think the 3 paragraph summary we have now is long enough to give some sort of neutral and detailed information, but short enough to be a summary. I suggest leaving the section the way it is and focusing on the subarticle or other parts of the Ahmadinejad article. Both articles require some serious cleanup. I don't see why everyone's focused on this section; that's the main reason why I moved it to a seperate article. AucamanTalk 19:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a common practice in WP for main article to contain a summary of its subarticles, a paragraph or two long. What is the problem with the current text, other than being full of unsubstantiated apologia? ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if you were addressing me or not, but I'm actually in favor of keep the section the way it is right now. Everyone else seems to want to change it. AucamanTalk 01:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plea for one paragraph summary of Ahmadinejad and Israel

message: Does anyone have any names of other family members of Ahmadinejad? Anyone knows the name of his wife, perhaps? 82.80.154.91 22:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family? 

message: Much old discussion material from last summer has mysteriously disappeared and is absent from this archive. Much of this material sheds an interesting light on the editing dynamics in play at the time. One can find this material by looking through old versions of this article's main talk page (found under the 'history' tab on top of this article's main talk page). HKT 23:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing archive material 

message: Substituted at 19:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment