Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Name

His correct name is Mahmoud, not mahmurderer. I understood the joke, but this kidding jeopardizes wikipedia's credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcelo.ottoni (talk • contribs) 14:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad's pornstar dad and misinformation / mis-sourcing

About the claim that Ahmadinejad's dad was a porn star, i checked the source and nowhere is that mentioned. It is clear those who have produced or edited passages of this article must have had some negative bias on the subject considering relevant details of his life that were omitted.

M.A. and Israel

Concerning the controversy about Ahmadinejad's alledged call for the destruction of Israel, instead of citing several vague statements from 'experts', couldn't the article give an actual litteral translation of his statement in Persian? Word for word, what he said is I think something like "As the Imam (i.e. Khomeini) said, this regime occupying Jersalem is bound to vanish of the page of time"; which is quite different from calling to genocide and war as has been eagerly claimed by the media and the Western presidents... In his speech he was talking about his hope for a regime change in Israel, an independent democratic Palestinian state and 'lasting peace' in the Middle East, I'm not particularly a fan of Ahmadinejad but for the sake of correctness what he said was not quite the 'wiping Israel off the face of the Earth' or the 'driving the Jews into the sea' non-sense that's been propagated. The media just picked up a few mistranslated words so as to make him sound super evil and increase the anti-Iran paranoia that's suddenly taken the West...

I think his comments have been literally translated. I disagree with your assessments of the situation. He was calling for wiping Israel of the map. The Press got it right. I hope this article continues to get it right by stating what he said. 96.248.7.243 (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Media outlets have a habit of creating controversy to sell increase interest and consumption. Everyone should agree that providing a full quote would only help the article.--99.130.163.56 (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Early biography

"With the start of the Iraq war in 1980, Ahmadinejad rushed to the western fronts to fight against the enemy and voluntarily joined the special forces of the Islamic Revolution's Guards Corps (IRGC) in 1986. He served in the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps intelligence and security apparatus. Little reliable biographical information has become avaliable about Ahmadinejad during these years.

"Ahmadinejad was reportedly a senior officer in the Special Brigade of the Revolutionary Guards stationed at Ramazan Garrison near Kermanshah in western Iran. This was the headquarters of the Revolutionary Guards' "Extra-territorial Operations," for mounting attacks beyond Iran's borders. Reports suggested that his work in the Revolutionary Guards was related to suppression of dissidents in Iran and abroad. Sources associated him with atrocities in the notorious Evin prison in Tehran and alleged he personally participated in covert operations around the Iraqi city of Kirkuk.

"With the formation of the elite Qods (Jerusalem; literally 'Holy') Force of the IRGC, Ahmadinejad became one of its senior commanders. It was reported that he directed assassinations in the Middle East and Europe, including the assassination of Iranian Kurdish leader Abdorrahman Qassemlou, who was shot dead by senior officers of the Revolutionary Guards in a Vienna flat in July 1989. According to Revolutionary Guard sources, Ahmadinejad was a key planner of the attack. He was also reported to have been involved in planning an attempt on the life of Salman Rushdie."

The above information comes from a site which is used and quoted elsewhere in the article, so has evidently been judged to meet the necessary standards. So why is this important information missing? Incidentally, although I know personal information doesn't meet Wiki standards, I would add that I have spoken to Iranians who lost relatives at Evin Prison in the early 1980s and who were convinced that Ahmedinejad had personally carried out the murders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.45.16 (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

English

does anyone here know if ahmadenijad speaks english? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.246.48 (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on what I've seen on TV, he does speak some English, but I wouldn't say fluently. Prothonotar (talk) 06:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

what the? this article isn't locked?

Perspective

Even if we assume that reactions to comments about the Holocaust and Israel are relevant. It does seem silly to give them a place of importance in the article. We then continue to spend a lot of time on the "Western" governments opinion of Ahmadinejad - who cares what they think. Also most sections about his policies seems little more than a criticism of his stance on an issue. Ignoring what I hope are signs of vandalism, the article reads more like "our" impression of someone rather than a factual biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakdogg (talk • contribs) 20:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. The bias here is horrible.

If Iranian media conveniently translates the words of half the world's leaders' statements as genocidal references, will you dedicate an introductory sentence on each of their Wikipedia articles saying,

"He/She is famous for calling to "wipe humans off the map", although translations vary"?

He made a political statement about Zionism - understood as occupation, terrorism of state, ethnic cleansing, etc. - would vanish from the pages of times.

---

I must agree. Only one side of the argument is presented by saying "he has reportedly called for Israel to be wiped off the map, but translations vary". Firstly, you are presenting one translation more favourably than the others, but discounting the other translations by briefly mentioning them. Secondly, Arvaham has excluded Arash Norouzi's article, even though he is internationally renowned. It is quite clear, looking at it today(certainly from a Persian speaker's perspective, that Ahmadinejad did not call for Israel to be wiped off the map). I am a professional interpreter and translator(Persian to English and vice versa), and the translation of that quote is rather uncontroversial, if one reads the original transcript of the speech in Persian.

It appears that some people are allowing their personal grudges to affect the accuracy of an encyclopaedic entry, which is regrettable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.234.33 (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

---

In fact, I have a proposition: Let's settle this once and for all. Everyone here who can read Persian here should download the original transcript of the speech and translate it. Anyone who can read Persian will undoubtedly agree that the 'wiped off the map' quote is a mistranslation. This way, we can all agree to amend this article appropriately, and state that the original quote was an error in translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.234.33 (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

---

in opening paragraph... "He has also been condemned for describing the Holocaust as a myth,[15][17] which has led to accusations of anti-semitism; the interpretation of this quote is also disputed.[18] In response to these criticisms, Ahmadinejad said “No, I am not against Jews, I respect them very much.”[19] ". I checked the source [18], which is a cnn article, and it at no point discusses the translation of the quote being disputed. it simply states that he called the holocost a myth. so i'm removing the citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.245.11 (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Troublesome trend at Wikijudaica

Why are editors permitted to state things like "Ahmadinejad was politically active as a student during the 1979 Iran hostage crisis" and then immediately follow this factual averment with "citation needed"? Isn't this tantsmount to Ahmadinejad stating, "The Holocaust never happened.[citation needed]"? This is not research but the lack thereof and should be deleted forthwith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.230.34 (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that the citation was not directed at the phrase, but the fact that Ahmadinejad said it. As in "John said "monkeys are cool" "citation need", which asks did he say it and would be different than "monkeys are cool" which is an opinion and original data and should be deleted. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *^{Get to the bunker}* 22:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Storytellershrink I think his point was that there was no source supporting that statement... I think we are all capable of understanding the point he was trying to get across, without being too materialistic about the grammar. -.- That's because he didn't make the same mistake on the second quotation . --µWiki Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 23:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No surprises. The whole article is totally biased in stating the Western propagandistic version of Ahmadinejad before than anything objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.104.111.49 (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of the name Ahmadinejad

Is is true that the name Ahmadinejad meand "I'm a dinner jacket" in Farsi? If so, the article should take note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.177.77 (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Found two conflicting sources that briefly mention his name [1] and [2]. Neither of them really said anything like that.. --68.253.50.187 (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This was suggested by comedian Harry Shearer in a comedy skit and is not the meaning in Farsi - Qualiall 64.8.68.116 (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well since I'm an Iranian, it sounds roughly like this when transleted. Ahmad is equivalent to the word Ahmed (so ignore that part of the name). the -i- is used to turn a word into an adjective or a possesive (like ahmed of ahmed to ahmed-ish). Nejad means to save something Ahmed is to save, Ahmedish Saving, ok you can make money jokes out of that. lol

--µWiki Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 19:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The previous reply is totally wrong. First of all Ahmad or Ahmed is a common name in Muslim countries which can be translated to "Praised" or someone which is "Praised by God." It is also one of many names for Allah which has been mentioned in Quran. "Nejad" in Persian means "ascended from." Basically it is used as the "son" in "Johnson" in European languages. "Ahmadinejad" therefore is like "Ahmadison" or "descended from Ahmad." In Iran in the 1930s when having a last name became mandatory by the government, people created last names from the first name of their fathers. So the son of Ahmad became "Ahmadinejad." I would suggest disregarding the previous reply as the author is clearly not familiar with the Persian language and has mistaken the word "Nejat" (to save) with "Nejad" (to descend from). Takinson (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad doesn't deny the holocaust

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is asked by MSNBC anchor Brian Williams to clarify his statements about the Holocaust. (September 2006) Check it on youtube.

He's not denying the holocaust if you listen to him closely. He's just saying why there is too much "favouritism" towards the jews and why it is "THE" holocaust, whilst there were many other genocides on different people around that time. Also, why is the history of the Armenian massacre and the killing of the Russian Communists ignored even though it was happening at the same time =/?

So the next time someone uses the term "the holocaust" clarify their statement by saying, "Which holocaust? The armenian massacre, the Russian Communist slaughter, the Cambodian Massacre, the Darfur Conflict, Nazi Facist Slaughterers, or just our human instinct of killing people for the sake of superiority, dictatorship, or just plain war; of which has been going on since the beginning of human tribal wars."

Please remove the vague statements which support Ahmadinejad's anti-semitism because the whole reason Iran became an Islamic Rule was because of the Shah's antisemitic (well more like stereotypic) statements.

--µWiki Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 19:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC) This is untrue! Ahmedinejad has said, "They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred," on Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting. He says that the fact that Jews were massacred (the same thing as the holocaust) is a myth. This is plain and clear. The Holocaust is the term referring to the 11 million people of various ethnicities (including Jews) that the Nazis killed. IT IS THE NAME OF A HISTORIC EVENT! Other genocides are reffered to under different terms/names. Hence: "The Darfur Conflict" and "The Armenian Genocide" and "The Cambodian Genocide" and various others. Also, "antisemetic" is the same thing as prejudical and stereotypic and racist, only it is specifically aimed at Jews. The Holocaust victims were not only Jews, but five million other non-Jews. The death toll of 11 million makes THE HOLOCAUST the largest genocide. There is also a Hebrew name for The Holocaust: Shoah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmachlis (talk • contribs) 20:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Length

It appears Ahmadinejad has caused many people to become emotional; emotional to the point that they are going to load this page with every detail about the man that is controversial. At this point, this article has surpassed the length of articles on virtually every President. The articles on Hitler and Mao Zedong are even shorter than this. I didn't realize Ahmadinejad was more noteworthy than two of the biggest mass murderers of the 20th century. Some of this non-notable stuff/whining needs to be trimmed out. The human rights issue in Iran, for example, was already an issue before Ahmadinejad came to power. The only major shift in Human Rights since Ahmadinejad has come to power is that Freedom of the Press and Hijab have been constricted more (as if they were "free" before). Moreover, there is already an article for Human rights in Islamic Republic of Iran. Every single statement Ahmadinejad makes does not deserve mention in an encyclopedia article. We already have plenty of criticisms. The merger is not necessary, since he is already very controversial (his controversies are notable and numerous enough to have their own article). This article is bloated beyond belief, especially for a President that has yet to face his reelection and has virtually no control over public policy. -Rosywounds (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, I intend to add some more regional foreign policy information, particularly since many of them have taken a shift since Ahmadinejad has taken office (particularly with Arab states). -Rosywounds (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Israel sentiment and Holocaust denial

Should they be merged? If they aren't going to be merged, then one of them is going to be overhauled, because currently they are repetitive on some of their information (e.g. the "Holocaust denial conference" is mentioned twice, once in each section). I am also contemplating the removal of the Columbia University visit. It's not very notable, and it's given more elaboration than Iran-Russia relations are (in a foreign policy section!), which is ludicrous. -Rosywounds (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think editors must consider this full CBS '60 Minutes' interview before sticking to 'wiped off the map' statement: http://www.teeth.com.pk/blog/2008/09/17/60-minutes-edited-ahmadinejad#more-3061 --yh (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note though, this article is heavily fear based. If you look at the opening statements, the way they bait the reader is very clear. For instance the first sentence: " When Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks out candidly — as is his habit — he scares a lot of people." In that alone we can see heavy bias and also assumptions that in no way represent anything but opinion. The phrase "as is his habit" is obviously meant in a derogatory fashion as the rest of the sentence will support. Speaking candidly is something everyone does, and in saying he has a habit of it doesn't make him any different than say, President Obama. What is implied though, is that he does it in some dangerous or troubling way, which is really an embarrassingly shortsighted observation, and in direct context to this interview, completely absurd. To further the bias, he finishes the statement with "he scares a lot of people" which is clearly opinion and more fear mongering. Chris Wallace later goes on to use such blatant tactics as simply putting words into Ahmadinejad's mouth. Ex. Ahmadinejad - "I think that the Israeli government is a fabricated government." Wallace - "Fabricated" following the Holocaust, which he's said may also have been fabricated." Do you see what he does here? He relates something totally unmentioned and off topic, something obviously used to bait emotions. The truth of that subject lies within Ahmadinejad's many statements about Israel, Jews, and more specifically the "Zionist" Jews. He has said many times that he has absolutely no hatred for the Jewish people, it's the Zionists and in turn the Israeli government that they control, that he despises. Whether he's right or wrong about Zionists is not what I'm trying to argue here, so don't go there please; I'm simply attempting to represent the facts without implicitly making the man sound good or evil. The fact that anyone is arguing that he is trying to literally "wipe Israel off the map" is just incredibly ignorant and silly. Iran has no history of starting war with, or attacking Israel, and has made clear that they will not, mostly because it is against their religion. But aside from that, the context of the statement is clear. Please folks, please do as much research as you can. Thanks.

Merger

While I am fairly ambivalent towards the issue of the merger (which appears to have been rejected), there are still some issues regarding it. Most notably, if we are going to have an entirely different article dedicated to controversies, then it seems only natural that we should move all of Ahmadinejad's statements regarding the Holocaust and Israel to that article. As of right now, it appears those that were opposed to the merger are trying to have their cake and eat it too (keep controversies here, while doing a deliberate POV fork in order to include more controversies elsewhere). IMO, after looking at the state of the controversies article, we would be better off including the information here and integrating it, which I think is possible. We've already dedicated a portion of the lead and two entire sections to controversies here; why not include the rest? IMO, it's POV to break it and leave half of it here. Plenty of FA articles (e.g. Islam) have controversy articles, and ALL of their controversies are moved to the controversy section. Why should this article be a special exception? -Rosywounds (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad, has once more threatened Israel, declaring that the "filthy" Jewish state's days are numbered and that it will collapse.

[3] Zeq (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Some section should be dedicated to MA's statements on Israel, but it would be impossible to document them all; the important thing would be summarize the notable and represenative ones. This is just a general suggestion, and I'd leave it to other editors to decide what this means for specific quotes.. --68.23.10.26 (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

We have an article on Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This article only gives a brief overview in the last section. Moreover, quote farms are not allowed on Wikipedia, since they come across as a synthesis of original research. -Rosywounds (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

We also have Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel, which concerns itself with the differing (mis)quotation(s) and interpretations. smb (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Saying that something will collapse is a prediction, not a threat. It would seem that some forces are eager to find threats everywhere! NonZionist (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the term America's president in this context

"He was also elected to office as America's president in 1932, but was never mentioned for foreign purposes."

What does this mean or is this a serious typo? Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 17:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It was simply vandalism; this page is frequently vandalized. Check the edit history, and you can detect these changes (and revert them) on your own. -Rosywounds (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sad that some people feel this type of vandalism is necessary. Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 18:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

IPA

how is his name pronounced in IPA? 155.69.5.234 (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The first footnote gives the pronunciation, although I am still curious as to why the pronunciation given uses Arabic phonology rather than Persian. BassoProfundo (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

link removed

I removed the link to Aradan since it goes to a completely unrelated article on J.R.R. Tolkien's mythos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.40.111 (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

POV Introductory Paragraph

"He has obsessively called for and predicted the destruction of the state of Israel. He has spoken of 'wiping it from the map'. He has in the course of this used abusive Nazi- like anti-Semitic language. At the arrival of President Bush in Israel for its sixtieth anniversary on May 14, 2008 he again said that Israel was already dissolving , and would be destroyed. He is presently the only world leader who openly calls for the destruction of an existing member U.N.state. And for this has been condemned by the leaders of all the major Western states. ", CNN. Accessed 24-04-2007.</ref>[11 and for free elections in the region. .[12][13] y.[14][15][16][17][18] He has also been condemned for describing the Holocaust as a myth,[14][19] which has also led to his widespread condemnation . His denial of the Holocaust has put him in the category of the kind of totalitarian leader who would wholly rewrite the history of the world should his dream of Islamic world- conquest be realized.

• "Iran team face mass protest", The Guardian, Accessed 11-06-2007.
• "Eurovision may ban Israeli entry due to lyrics on nuclear war", Haaretz, Accessed 03-02-2007.
• "Iran's Rhetoric on Holocaust Anger German Muslims", Deutsche Welle, Accessed 18-02-2007.
• Stephens, Bret. "Anti-Anti-Semitism defended", The New Republic, Accessed 12-02-2007.
• "We won't be fooled again". The News Leader. 15-02-2007.
• Namazi, Ghassem. "We should be sorry". Iranian.com. Accessed 01-02-2006..
• Sayyed, Tashbih. The Bane Of Jihad. Muslim World Today. Accessed 26-01-2007.
• Ivins, Molly. "Ivins: Wow! Some real diplomacy!", CNN, Accessed 08-06-2006.
• "Iran: Nuclear talks still possible". CNN. Accessed 05-02-2006.
• Smith-Spark, Laura. "Racism fears dog World Cup build-up". BBC News. Accessed 26-05-2006.
• "Annan condemns Holocaust denial". BBC News. Accessed 27-01-2006.
• "He was defeated by the even more hard-line and anti-Semitic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...". Joel C. Rosenberg. Epicenter: Why the Current Rumblings in the Middle East Will Change Your Future, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2006, p. 109, ISBN 1414311354
• "Israel Wants West to Deal More Urgently With Iran" The New York Times. Accessed 28-03-2008.
• "NCC Condemns Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust Statement", National Council of Churches, Accessed 16-12-2005.

</ref> In response to these criticisms, Ahmadinejad said “.”[20][21]"

Pronunciation

The IPA given for the pronunciation of his name doesn't appear to match the audio sample at all; particularly, the use of [æ] for what appears to be plain [a] is surprising, though perhaps my ears just aren't very good? -Chinju (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it is for sure [æ] as that is the sound for Persian's "short a". Azalea pomp (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

æ is the a as in bat or hat as an average American would pronounce those words. That is not the sound in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's name. 199.117.69.8 (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead section needs work

We need something with more substance than:

Ahmadinejad is a critic of the George W. Bush Administration and supports strengthened relations with Russia, Venezuela, Syria, and the Persian Gulf states.[8][9][10] He has said Iran's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and has refused to end enrichment despite United Nations Security Council resolutions.[11] ... He believes that the Palestinians need a stronger voice in the region's future

Everyone in the Iranian government is "a critic of the George W. Bush Administration" and says "Iran's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes." Not one person in the Muslim world doesn't agree "that the Palestinians need a stronger voice in the region's future"

The lead is supposed to be a summary and not a place for tutorial on Iran's constitution. This part should be shortened:

the country's unique constitution gives more political power to Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, [5] who is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of Iran and has the final word in all aspects of foreign and domestic policies.[5][6][7]

--BoogaLouie (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The wording with respect to Palestinian/Israel was agree on through mediation, so this section, at least, is not in need of a 'clean up'. If you start with the other stuff first then there shouldn't be any problem. ~ smb 21:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I know it is often hard to get agreement among editors in wikipedia but I can't agree the paragraph below is not in need of cleanup:

He has called for the dissolution of the state of Israel and its government, which he does not regard as legitimate or representative of the population,[13][14] and for free elections in the region. He believes that the Palestinians need a stronger voice in the region's future.[15][16] One of his most controversial statements was one in which, according to some translations, he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," but interpretations of this statement vary widely.[17][18][19][20][21] He has also been condemned for describing the Holocaust as a myth,[17][22] which has led to accusations of anti-semitism.[23] In response to these criticisms, Ahmadinejad said “No, I am not anti-Jew, I respect them very much.”[24]

He has called for the dissolution of the state of Israel and according to some translations, he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," but interpretations of this statement vary widely, refer to the same statement by him. They should be together.

As it stands the lead is a combination of bland, un-newsworthy statements by him such as "the Palestinians need a stronger voice in the region's future" --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

PS, why was Ahmadinejad is known for his outspoken statements. cut out? Who is his right mind disagrees with that? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"I know it is often hard to get agreement among editors in wikipedia but I can't agree the paragraph below is not in need of cleanup..." In actuality, agreement was reached. This is why we have the wording you see now. Nothing about it needs 'cleaning up'. The paragraph describes a political position held by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and one widely publicised remark pertaining to that position. Reliable sources are provided for each. It's really of no concern that you personally find his political views 'bland' and 'un-newsworthy'. You simply haven't provided a compelling reason to break apart this paragraph.

"PS, why was 'Ahmadinejad is known for his outspoken statements' cut out?" Because your revision butchered the entire paragraph. [4] ~ smb 23:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions:

Can an article lead be worked on, and argued about, and mediated, and still be poorly written and not very informative?

Is it not the purpuse of wikipeida to provide useful information to viewers? For example the lead article on George W. Bush might include statements such as: "George Bush supports liberty and world peace. He vigorously opposes terrorism." They may be true - at least you fill find statements by him supporting those statements - but do they belong in the lead of an encyclopedic article? If they are 'un-newsworthy', because almost everybody is for liberty and world peace and against terrorism, do they belong in an introduction to that issue or person? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Should not two interpretations of Ahmadinejad statements:

He has called for the dissolution of the state of Israel and according to some translations, he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," but interpretations of this statement vary widely,

be in the same sentence or two adjacent sentences? They need not be slanted any differently than they are now.

Do you object to the sentence 'Ahmadinejad is known for his outspoken statements' at the beginning of the paragraph? If so why? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The George Bush example doesn't work so well here because nobody doubts for a moment that Ahmadinejad truly wants the dissolution of the State of Israel. It's a noncontroversial description of a firmly established position, so I'm a little unsure why you would seek to contest it. You also appear to be conflating i) a political position with ii) a widely publicised remark pertaining to that position, as explained above. I see no benefit in isolating either of these two lines, particularly as both are well written, and doing so would only introduce ambiguity. On these two points at least, you have failed to show that the section is 'poorly written' and 'uninformative'. ~ smb 17:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Bland, uninformitive statements ala "George Bush supports liberty and world peace. He vigorously opposes terrorism" that I'm contesting are:

"Ahmadinejad is a critic of the George W. Bush Administration". So is 99% of the earth's population.

"He has said Iran's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes". This is the public position of the Iranian government and everyone in it.

"He .... does not regard [Israel] as legitimate or representative of the population". Even pro-American governments in the Muslim world agree to that statement.

"He believes that the Palestinians need a stronger voice in the region's future". Who would disagree with this except Israel hardliners?

"Ahmadinejad is a critic of the George W. Bush Administration". So is 99% of the earth's population. Yes, but this page isn't about Joe Public, it's about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"He .... does not regard [Israel] as legitimate or representative of the population". Even pro-American governments in the Muslim world agree to that statement. So you say. And even if that were true, so what? This isn't page isn't pro-American governments in the Muslim world who may or may not agree with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"He believes that the Palestinians need a stronger voice in the region's future". Who would disagree with this except Israel hardliners? Nor is this a questionnaire. And it's not Debatewise. It's a BLP on Wikipedia. ~ smb 19:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

BoogaLouie, please don't change the lead without a clear consensus. The current lead appears to be the result of a mediation.--CreazySuit (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reminder. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC) (CreazySuit has taken strong objection to edits I made to 1953 Iranian coup d'état and Mohammed Mosaddeq and is now stalking me, or as he might put it monitoring me. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Please AGF, I am not monitoring you, everyone knows that Iranian politics and modern history is my area of interest. I already have all these pages on my watchlist.--CreazySuit (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as I was about to say, please be careful, because some editors keep pages on their watchlist that they've rarely or never edited before. In dispute, it's easy to suspect another editor of bad faith when that might not be the case at all. ~ smb 17:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any edits by you, CreazySuit, of this article in about the last 2500 edits. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, I didn't need your permission to add articles to my watchlist, I have over 1000 Iran-related pages on my watchlist, that's pretty much every page dealing with modern Iranian history and affairs, some of which I have never edited, so the next time we cross each other's path on another page, please AGF and remember that my areas of interest are very similar to yours. --CreazySuit (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)--CreazySuit (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any edits by you, CreazySuit, of this article in about the last 2500 edits. I have edited this page countless times. What is your point? ~ smb 19:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Does anyone object to changing the sentence: Prior to becoming president, Ahmadinejad served as mayor of Tehran. to

Prior to becoming president, Ahmadinejad served in the Revolutionary Guard and as mayor of Tehran.

Does anyone object to adding the sentence Ahmadinejad is known for his outspoken statements. before the sentence: "He has called for the dissolution of the state of Israel and its government." --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

In regard to the last proposal, it's already implicit but I won't object of you want to make it explicit. We should of course wait to hear what other editors have to say. ~ smb 17:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I added the bit about Revolutionary Guards. But as others have pointed out, his statement about Israel and was apparently the subject of a mediation, and the current wording is the result of that mediation. So that part of the lead shouldn't be changed to avoid further edit-wars and disruptions, and to preserve the current consensus/compromise version. --CreazySuit (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Revisions

The lead section now includes the sentences

Before becoming president, he was the mayor of Tehran.

and

Prior to becoming president, Ahmadinejad served as mayor of Tehran,a governor of Kurdistan, Ardabil, and served in the Iran-Iraq War, as a member of Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution.

a bit repetitious. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

The current lead, although not perfect, is result of a long "painful" mediation. Please, review the discussion of previous mediation before any attempt for changing the lead. Unfortunately, the other guys at the previous mediation and I don't have time for repeating the same reasoning again and again and again. Pejman47 (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I delete this redundant sentence from the lead:

Before becoming president, he was the mayor of Tehran,

or would that violate the painful mediation? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Do Not Change Pronunciation without an Academic Source

Do not change the pronunciation without an academic source to back your claim. Azalea pomp (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

On the statement regarding non-existence of homosexuals in Iran

Sometimes ago I left a note concerning the above-mentioned aspect on the talk page of Iran, which I should like to invite the interested to read and perhaps incorporate some aspects of in the biography of President Ahmadinejad. The pertinent link is here: [5]. For clarity, my note starts with "This is an opportunity for me to mention a matter ...". Kind regards, --BF 03:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't believe the bias in this article..

Honestly the whole page is filled with hate, as to mock the muslim community, there are images of protesters, at least 1/2 the article is loaded with random bullshit about "human rights" records which have been exaggerated by the media AND by American supremacists. I gotta say I'm not even muslim (I'm christian) and I can see the blatant racism in this article. Good job Wikipedia - no wonder this dud of a website is blocked in most universities around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.220.253 (talk • contribs)

evidence? --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that well-reasoned argument sure made me want to better the article. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is clearly written by people opposing Ahmadinejad. The prejudice involved is just huge. The article starts off by calling him a "fool". Now either I hate him or not, but from a literary point of view an article needs to be objective. You start the article by calling him a fool. START? NO PROOFS? One can only go to this extreme when people unanimously agree with a fact; believe me more than half of people won't agree with you on this one. You know why Ahmadinejad is like this? Because he has seen what is poverty. He is from among the people. Contrary to nearly every leader that is or has been in this world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngnewton (talk • contribs) 11:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have never written anything here before because most of the articles have been balanced. But, this article is so whacked out that it should be entirely scrapped and started all over again by a person who has some perspective. The article is so unspeakably biased that I had to check to be certain that I wasn't reading an article from Conservapedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaaaaatgirl (talk • contribs) 13:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

External peer review by Gary Sick

In the Washington Post, by Gary Sick: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/05/AR2008080502171.html - unsigned

Gary Sick, an expert on Iran, says this Wikipedia article is "the best Ahmadinejad primer around". - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/05/AR2008080502171.html Congrats guys. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This might be the revision he reviewed. Mr. Sick's opinion about the article is as follows:

"Disjointed" is his nutshell review of Wikipedia's Ahmadinejad performance. There's too much on-the-one-hand-then-the-other strained objectivity. Sick says the "wiped off the map" quote was handled well, but not enough attention is given to the political fallout. In addition, the article understates how much Ahmadinejad has beefed up the role of president and implies that his odds of getting reelected are slimmer than might actually be the case.

Still, it's the best Ahmadinejad primer around, says Sick, who then makes a confession: He's a frequent Wikipedia user. "For all its faults, it's a really important addition to the world of political analysis and research. It answers my question 9 out of 10 times, and tells me what I want to know about rather obscure bits and pieces of information I can't find elsewhere."

Wikipedia doesn't nail Ahmadinejad, says Sick, but that's because the president and his country are in such flux. "Nobody has the final answers on this guy."

- Face 08:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "cordial Turkey" :
  • [http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKL2693425220070926 "Turkey's Botas says Iran is important gas partner."] [[Reuters]]. Accessed 26-01-2008.
  • .
• "mock" :
  • [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8JGVFKO0&show_article=1 "Iran, Syria Praise Hezbollah, Mock US."] Associated Press. Accessed 26-01-2008.
  • .
• "azeri" :
  • [http://www.spokesman.gov.ir/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=460&Itemid=58 "Ahmadinejad meets Azeri FM."] Fars. Accessed 26-01-2008
  • .
• "Venezuela strategy" :
  • .
  • Prada, Leandro. [http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200709/INT20070928b.html "Ahmadinejad Visits Anti-US Allies in Latin America."] CNS News. Accessed 26-01-2008.
• "Iran and Egypt" :
  • [http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2007/12/iran_anxious_to.php "Iran anxious to reopen embassy in Cairo."] Accessed 26-01-2008.
  • .
• "Iran-Pak-Afgh" :
  • [http://www.irna.com/en/news/view/line-22/0612212936010042.htm "Iran-Pakistan- Afghanistan friendly ties to ensure regional security."] IRNA. Accessed 26-01-2008.
  • .
• "Revolution" :
  • Abdel-Mageed, Dina [http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1175008835987&pagename=Zone-English-Muslim_Affairs%2FMAELayout#9 "Has the Revolution Affected Iran's Relations With Its Neighbors?"] Accessed 26-01-2008.
  • .

DumZiBoT (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. -Colfer2 (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad and the U.N.

Why is there no mention here of Ahmadinejad's frequent visits to the U.N.? Is this an oversight or an attempt to cover up Iranian diplomatic efforts?

Ahmadinejad is hoping to visit again on 2008-09-23, and the U.S. is once again playing games with the visa:

The United States has not yet issued a visa for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to attend the United Nations General Assembly later this month in New York, Fars news agency reported Saturday. Despite a timely application for the visas, no visas have yet been issued for the president and any of the Iranian delegation members, Fars said. Ahmadinejad is scheduled to address the General Assembly on September 23.
-- "US has not issued visa Ahmadinejad for UN meeting yet", World Bulletin, 2008-09-14

-- NonZionist (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I retract the initial comment. My hasty initial impression was mistaken. The article is not as biased as I feared it would be. Still, I would like to see the substance of Ahmadinejad's remarks at the U.N. addressed. -- NonZionist (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Foreign relations with Israel

why is there no short subsection on Israel? There is a spinoff article on Israel but no summary of it in the main article. There are subsections on Relations with United States, Venezeula, Russia but not Israel. There should be something on his earlier statements besides what is in the lead, as well as this wierd new development http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/29/iran.israel.ahmadinejad --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

His view has been popular referendums for awhile. I guess each side thinks the election would turn out differently.--76.214.115.168 (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Palestine and controversial comments in the lead section

The paragraph in the lead was achieved as a result of a long mediation, so it may be best to consult on a consensus here before trying to rewrite it too much and setting off a new conflict. The summarization has seemed constructive, however.

For those wishing to comment, the proposed change to the lead reads:

During his presidency, Ahmadinejad made a whole series of controversial and cryptic speeches and remarks on Palestine, Israel and the Holocaust.

I think that the changes are constructive but that they lack the depth to be stable, as multiple editors from either side may feel that certain issues have been 'glossed over'.--76.214.115.168 (talk) 11:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello sir or madam 76.214.115.168, thank you for bringing to my attention, that a long mediation has taken place concerning the lead section. I think, however, a lead section should be short, and cite one or two sentences at most on each major topic. At present, the lead contains some seven lines, five sentences, on the ‘Ahmadinejad – Israel controversies’. Understandably, considering the upheaval Ahmadinejads remarks on these matters have caused and still cause, but much too long for an introductory section. So I propose to summarize this matter in the lead section as: ‘During his presidency, Ahmadinejad made a long series of controversial and cryptic speeches and remarks on Palestine, Israel and the Holocaust, causing much protest and confusion in the Western world and Israel.’ This in stead of the mentioned change , proposed earlier (by me). Thereby we incite the wiki reader to go to the section below (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad#Controversial remarks on Palestine, Israel and Holocaust), for an overview of that topic in some thirteen lines. I've already moved all essential information and links from these seven lines in the lead section to the lower section, so nothing gets lost or deleted. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC) - - --Corriebertus (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Due to your comments, I could see the need to summarize as you've suggested. I'd give others a short amount of time to comment, and if no one objects after a few days to a week then I think I'd go for it..--76.214.115.168 (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead is perfectly fine as it is. It explains accurately his position and mentions briefly the disputed remarks. Owing to controversy, this is one area we need not be stingy. If you have serious concerns about the length of the section, I propose you make changes elsewhere. Dynablaster (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

He came to world attention by stating, according to the official Iran News Agency translation, that Israel should be "wiped from the map", and for his persistent statements questioning the Holocaust. Those statements, of course, will stay in the lede, regardless of persistent attempts to whitewash it. There are some apologetics about his stance towards Israel that can go. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've also restored the section to its original title and meaning. The section is about his Holocaust denial, and accusations of antisemitism. It is not about the currently non-existent, perhaps one-day created "Palestine", nor about Israel, which is already in the section on Israel. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Jayjg. --David Shankbone 00:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This touchiness is why I believe the current version should be preserved. It took a great deal of work to reach. The thought to summarize is well-placed, but the controversy seems very difficult to convey in such a short amount of space.--76.214.115.168 (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw, for the time being, my support for my own proposal in this little discussion (date 6 October 17:18), and for the proposal in the top of this discussion (date 6 October 11:28). Since the drastic changes (actually, reversal of changes made by me) made 7 October 00:38 by the esteemed editor Jayjg in the sub-section ‘Controversial remarks on Palestine, Israel and Holocaust’ (re-renamed into ‘Holocaust denial and accusations of antisemitism’), I’m not sure what could be an improved summary in the lead section of the article. I still feel, perhaps improvements are possible in the two sub-sections ‘(Foreign) relations with Israel’ and ‘Holocaust denial and accusations of antisemitism’, or in the way the lead section summarizes, and refers to these sections, but I’ll have to reflect on this matter before eventually making a new proposal. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-cleric president

It should be mentioned in the article that Ahmadinejad is the third non-cleric president in the whole Iranian history after Islamic Revolution. Wandering Courier (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the question of the correctness of this fact, which I can’t confirm nor deny, I would like to know the relevance of it, before recommending such a mentioning in the article. I mean: why does it matter? How does someone's being cleric, or his not being cleric, influence his functioning in his job as president of Iran? --Corriebertus (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Because in the Islamic Republic of Iran the religion of Shia Islam has ascendency, and Iran has had its president most being clerics, even the one before Ahmadinejad. He, as an engineer and civil servant, could be elected president without being a cleric, is remarkable. This article has mentioned the fact that he is the first non-cleric president of Iran since a long time. Wandering Courier (talk) 06:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I’ve tried to get into this article that you recommend but I can’t get into it far enough to read the part on being non-cleric. So I’d still like you to explain why it is remarkable, or why it matters. As soon as we know why it matters, we can decide in which section of the article we should place that information. As long as nobody is able to explain why it is remarkable or important, I’ll not recommend mentioning it in the article. --Corriebertus (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Academic achievements

I added Mahmoud's outstanding academic achievements to his title. Why they were not there, I do not know; I can only guess a few of us are a little biased around here. He is a doctor and deserves to be treated as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonnaaaaaaaaassooosos (talk • contribs) 10:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey There! I reverted your edits to Dr. Ahmadinejad's article due to WP:MoS. As far as I know, all notable individuals do not have their qualifications bolded, so I did this to make this article consistant. I'd be happy to discuss a way to make the article more balanced, however. Cheers! \ / (⁂) 11:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust denial?

There´s no quote existing, as far as I can see, in which Ahmadinejad says: “the Holocaust did not occur”. Using the word ‘myth’ in connection to something is by far not the same as denying that thing completely. Today I have not the time to read previous discussions (above) on this same issue. --Corriebertus (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• You're hair-splitting. Holocaust is denying its veracity; it's simply another choice of words. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the problem is that a Holocaust denier wouldn't deny denying the Holocaust.. --69.208.132.88 (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

To the above anon IP. If you believe you have sufficient reliable third party sources to refute all the other statements made by the Iranian president calling the Holocaust "a myth", etc., then try to edit the article accordingly. As it stands now, the category is clearly merited. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad acknowledging that it "seems they are right in their claim" of the Holocaust:

"If the Europeans are telling the truth in their claim that they have killed six million Jews in the Holocaust during the World War II - which seems they are right in their claim because they insist on it and arrest and imprison those who oppose it, why the Palestinian nation should pay for the crime. Why have they come to the very heart of the Islamic world and are committing crimes against the dear Palestine using their bombs, rockets, missiles and sanctions."

--69.208.132.88 (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You're cherry-picking quotes. The article cites other statements made by the Iranian prez where he does quite clearly call the Holocaust a myth, and therefore, has denied the Holocaust. The fact that he then goes on to make contradictory statements doesn't mean the denial never took place -- or will not again, should it suit him. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to tell what exactly is being said because of translational issues, but he appears to be calling the concept of the Holocaust to justify the state of Israel a myth. The best thing to do in these cases is to find multiple reliable sources and report what they say. He clearly seems to be acknowledging some version of the event took place and denying the accusations which are leveled at him, so this should be included..--69.208.132.88 (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• 'He clearly seems to be acknowledging some version of the event took place' in some quotes. He clearly seems to be calling the Holocaust a flat-out myth in others. Why should one set of statements take precedence, other than the fact that they appear to be your preferred set? He has been cited as clearly denying the Holocaust. Why should "translational issues" only negate one set of quotes and not the others? Also, as noted in my Edit summary, your changes to the article appear to be an attempt to bury the lede of the cited CNN piece, which did not place the Holocaust denial as secondary to his purported issues with European Holocaust law. Nice try, though. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither side should take precedent, multiple accounts from reliable sources should be presented to the reader and they should interpret the comments themselves. I'd encourage you to comment on content and not the editor, and to add any quotes which you feel might have been buried..--69.208.132.88 (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouragement. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no contradiction.

• If I say that the creation account in Genesis is a "myth", does that imply that I have denied creation?! Of course not! It simply means that I prefer scientific study to religious dogmas.
• This is obvious, but apparently not here in America. Here, for many, belief has triumphed over science. If a person criticizes our belief, we automatically assume that the person rejects the fact as well, because belief, for us, is our only "information source". We think we know everything, and we make ourselves the judge of the universe, but we are actually quire narrow. We need to get out more! NonZionist (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Shawn: I’m not hair-splitting. Holocaust denial is, like you say, denying the veracity of Holocaust, denying that it took place. This simply has not been said by Ah. That’s all there is to say about it. Therefore, it is urgent to remove statements of Ah. being a holocaust denier. We don’t know what Ah said in Persian language, but we have at least three different English translations. One of them, from CNN : “they have invented a myth that ..”. The word ‘holocaust’ is not in it, Ah may be correct or incorrect about ‘they’ inventing a myth, but he doesn’t deny anything in this sentence, and the CNN report doesn’t give any context at all to this isolated sentence. The second says: “they have created a myth .. that they call the massacre ..”. The word ‘holocaust’ is not in it; Ah may be correct or incorrect about ‘they’ creating a myth, but he doesn’t deny anything in this sentence, and again BBC doesn’t give a context to the isolated sentence; the BBC further seems simply to be lying (‘inventing’) when it writes: “Mr Ahmadinejad said he did not believe six million Jews…” etc. The third: “Ahmadinejad said some have created a myth on holocaust ..”. That is even further away from denying holocaust, it seems even to affirm holocaust. Shawn: Ah doesn’t say “the holocaust is a myth”, so he didn’t ‘call it a myth’. Even if he had called it a myth, that still isn’t equal to denying it. Our article may and must of course mention, that this speech of Ah is considered, and cited, by this and this person, newspaper, etc., as a holocaust denial. I agree with mr/mrs 69.208.132.88 (please register and get a nickname): the article should mention all more or less reliable sources and reports on this speech. Further, the article may mention all reactions from authoritative speakers, including reactions from authoritative people and institutions considering this a holocaust denial. I haven’t had time yet to look over the edits since yesterday evening, but essential is, that we can’t, and shouldn’t, register mr Ahmadinejad in Wikipedia as holocaust denier. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The category doesn't belong without a strong consensus, which I don't see.--69.208.132.88 (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"which seems they are right in their claim because they insist on it and arrest and imprison those who oppose it". This sounds sarcastic because these actions are not proof of being 'right' (quite the opposite). It seems to be an attempt to get a psuedo-Holocaust-accepting (or whatever the opposite of Holocaust-denying is) quote into the world media. He goes on to say "If you have committed the crimes so give a piece of your land somewhere in Europe or America and Canada or Alaska to them to set up their own state there". I don't think many Western politicians would use 'if' at the start of that sentence when making the same point - 08:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daikhatamei (talk • contribs) Ahmadinejad never spoke of a 'myth'. He spoke of creating a false religion out of a holocaust. This is not holocaust denial, nor has Ahmadinejad ever been ambiguous or changed his publicly stated position. It is the same sentiment shared by Raul Hilberg and Norman Finkelstein, and most people outside israel and western Europe. Wikipedia articles shouldn't be comparative studies of Israeli propoganda.99.251.85.219 (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This is my understanding too. Ahmadinejad seems to be saying that our beliefs about the genocide in Europe should be based on historical examination and investigation. Instead, they have become dogmas. In some countries, those who question these dogmas are imprisoned. We are not far from the Middle Ages, when people were punished for the crime of "heresy" -- e.g. "Pope denial".

As many Christians made the "Crucifixion" the morbid focus of their religion, the Anglosphere has made the "Holocaust" the morbid focus of its "modern" ideology. The difference is that the Christians believed in the triumph of love over inhumanity, whereas our own ideology, focused as it is on the ultimate evil of genocide, proclaims the triumph of inhumanity over love. This is the ultimate cynicism, and it is fatal. It leads to a war-addicted death-affirming culture: Where we once believed in the power of example and spiritual maturation, we now believe in the power of the nuclear missile.

Needless to say, the subtle difference between criticizing dogmatism and denying a particular dogma gets lost in translation. NonZionist (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's an article that analyzes various translations of Ahmadinejad's statement, even MEMRI's: Anneliese Fikentscher (2006-04-19). "Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map - Does He Deny The Holocaust?". Translated by Erik Appleby. Kein Krieg!. Retrieved 2009-01-21. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). Nowhere does Ahmadinejad deny that Jews were the victims of genocide in Europe. The context actually suggests the opposite: Ahmadinejad is talking about oppression and condemning the kind of behavior that occurred in Germany!

If your civilization consists of aggression, displacing the oppressed nations, suppressing justice-seeking voices and spreading injustice and poverty for the majority of people on the earth, then we say it out loud that we despise your hollow civilization..

Finally, keep in mind that "Holocaust Denier" and similar epithets are frequently used to smear and discredit critics of Israel. Just as we should question Ahmadinejad and not accept everything he says on faith alone, so too, we should question his critics, many of whom have a strong motive for slandering Iranian politicians. NonZionist (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Next Hitler?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Archived as the issue seems to be resolved. All except one believe its not npov to add that text (and the reference does not support the assertion).

An anonymous editor wants to include this material in the article - speculations about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad being the next Hitler. I reverted his edits twice because I believe its not npov. To avoid any 3RR's I'm not going to revert his edits. A peaceful discussion about this here would be great.--Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 06:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In what way is it not neutral if I say that there is speculation. I never wrote it is a fact, but it is undeniable that there is speculation that his actions could lead to another Holocaust. 129.98.199.118 (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

First, someone has noted the link does not support what you've written. Second, even if the link did state this, this is a fringe opinion. There are thousands of opinions out there: Wikipedia cannot put them all on here. The few we do publish are the most widespread ones and note that they are public perception. --Enzuru 10:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on verifiability, and the source didn't support the assertion. Secondly, the source lacked any attribution (who speculates this?) Finally, and most importantly, a fringe pet theory doesn't belong in a biography of a living person.--75.51.225.179 (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say Bush is 21st Century Hitler. He's murdered over 1,000,000 (that's MILLION) Iraqi's and over 20,000 inoccent Afghanistani civilians. So there is speculation that Ahmadinejad is NOT the "next Hitler". That would be George W. Bush. Compared to the Iranian president Bush is retard, Ahmadinejad is a genius. So what is he gives his opinions at least he doesn't act them out like bush. Also Wikipedia is not a forum (WP:FORUM). We should defamate not his character. Wikipedia is neutral (WP:NEUTRAL). 78.149.56.149 (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The pronunciation is wrong.

Yes. 199.117.69.8 (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I love this guy

This article should not have a west5ern point of view. it shuld be neutral. he has a lot of followers and has influenced a lot of peopel there is proof of this but no mention

"he has been condemned for saying holocaust is a myth"

condemded . really. by who? America

Let me just say, I am American. I am a TRUE American, as in, Native American. The people that write negative things about other people, are NOT always Americans. I know the majority of our country is against the way of life that he represents, however, I have to say the following.

I have a speech he made to the U.N., Recorded on my DVR. I saved it, because every single thing he said, was accurate. As much as people here might not like it, the guy, for the most part, tells the truth. As far as denying the Holocaust, I guess he has a right to believe whatever he wants. But it DID, for a fact happen. For me, the troubling thing, is that the killing of the Jews was NOT the worst crime against Humanity in World War 2. People VERY quickly forget about what went down in Russia. Over 26 MILLION Of their own people were killed. Not only that, but in our current day, no-one has talked at ALL about what went down in Croatia with the Serbians. I have watched video of entire families being forced to dig their own graves, then systematically shot, the oldest son being left alive to bury them, then he is shot. This went down just a few years ago, yet these war criminals walk around free and one of them even got extremely famous in the sport of MMA, in both PRIDE and the UFC. I have never understood why we, as humans, are always supposed to be thinking about the Holocaust? Why is this the most important bad thing that we are always taught about? I mean, it was a horrible thing, but in NO WAY, the worst.

I think what the rest of the world needs to understand, is that not all "Americans" think the same way. Much like how all of you, do not think the same way. MOST Americans do NOT agree with our government. MOST Americans do not support the policies that you hate.
When President Obama was sworn in, they claimed that it was the official end of government sanctioned racism. He claims that he and his people are free. That is nice. However, my people are not free. Native Americans are still imprisoned in "reservations". We are still placed under the rule of government sanctioned racism. Not everything is happy in the USA.
So please understand that not all of us agree with everything you see and hear. We are as powerless as you are, when it comes to trying to make our government change it's ways.
-TheCyndicate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.186.201 (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Admit-the-truth (talk • contribs) 17:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.iranm*nia.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=38802&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs. --WatchingWhales (talk) 19:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Has anybody ever bothered to ask Ahmadinejad whether Jews were victims of a genocide in Europe? No, of course not: We prefer to shoot first and ask questions never. This avoidance of serious inquiry indicates that the "Holocaust Denier" charge is pure slander. If the charge has any basis, then why are we afraid to give Ahmadinejad an opportunity to demonstrate that basis and prove his guilt definitively? Ironically, the slander could lead to a real holocaust: It might enable rabid ideologues to delude themselves into thinking that a nuclear attack on Iran is justified. In the Middle Ages, heresy was punished by burning individuals at a wooden stake; today, we are ready to burn whole countries at a nuclear stake.

Those who demonize Ahmadinejad have lost touch with reality, as Juan Cole demonstrates here:

I was talking to two otherwise well-informed Israeli historians a couple of weeks ago, and they expressed the conviction that Ahmadinejad had threatened to nuke Israel. I was taken aback. First of all, Iran doesn't have a nuke. Second, there is no proof that Iran even has a nuclear weapons program. Third, Ahmadinejad has denied wanting a bomb. Fourth, Ahmadinejad has never threatened any sort of direct Iranian military action against Israel. In other words, that is a pretty dramatic fear for educated persons to feel, on the basis of . . . nothing.

This demonstrates that the Ahmadinejadophobes are not a reliable source for information about Ahmadinejad. US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton and others have, since 2006, been trying to get Ahmadinejad charged with "inciting genocide". According to the 13 Dec 2006 Guardian

Mr Bolton will be joined in tomorrow's launch of the legal action against Mr Ahmadinejad by a Harvard law professor, Alan Dershowitz, and the former Israeli ambassador to the UN, Dore Gold, together with experts from the US, Canada and Israel. A suit will be lodged with the international court of justice at The Hague, which will decide whether to hear the action. The panel said the Iranian president was guilty of inciting genocide "by making numerous threats against the United States, calling for the destruction of Israel and instigating discrimination against Christians and Jews".

Nothing has come of this propaganda effort. NonZionist (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

They did ask him to his face about it. He said "I will only accept something as truth if I am actually convinced of it." and "We don't want to confirm or deny the Holocaust. We oppose every type of crime against any people. But we want to know whether this crime actually took place or not." He is clearly and unequivocally a holocaust denier. When asked to his face, he refused to admit the fact of the holocaust. The Squicks (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Squicks, I think you need to break down your own statements logically, as well as Ahmadinejad's. The quote that you used doesn't even support the claim you make directly after. In the quote you used, he's clearly stating that he neither denies nor confirms his belief in the Holocaust. The safest and most honest way to present his stance is to go based on his comments as a chronological whole, and in that view his stance is that the Holocaust deserves to be studied and considered from all sides. Also, that it should not be used as a tactic in policy or land control, etc. You get what I'm trying to say here? I know my initial sentence looks harsh, but I promise I mean no disrespect, I'm just terrible at wording things. I'm not trying to call YOU illogical, just the structure of the statement. Anyhow, curious to see any response! Peace! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.96.236 (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

he's clearly stating that he neither denies nor confirms his belief in the Holocaust. Yes. He does not believe that the holocaust occured. He is not convinced. And, thus, he is a holocaust denier.

If you told me that the earth is round and I said that "I am not convinced that the earth is round", that would make me- again- a denier of reality. A "denier". The earth is round.

Why are we aruging? You just admitted that he is a denier. The Squicks (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

And Juan Cole's arguement is just "Ahmadinejad says X, Y, Z and I like him, therefore I will blindly take his word for it and I think X, Y, Z must be true." That's just silly, and it's sad that an educated and smart person would believe it. The Squicks (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC) [corrected; Cole does not like him as a person; Cole just finds him believable]

Interestingly, Juan Cole himself sadly admits that Ahmadinejad is a holocaust denier in the article that you linked. Isn't that ironic? The Squicks (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

June 2009 election

If he gets elect in 2009, won't that be his last presidential period? Or can he still run as president after 2013..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.234.37 (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think its maximum 2 x 5 Years... 1 period is 5 years I think. Jørgen88 (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Replacement suggestion

Hello,

In the second paragraph of the first part "Background", I suggest the phrase "entrance exams" be replaced by "entrance competition", so that the french word "concours" can be removed.

Thank you,

O. Morand (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture

• • Could we have a nice picture please? just the choice of the picture on the page shows just how slanted this page is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.67.224 (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Intro

Can we please shorten the intro. Right now it just looks like several parties with vested interests trying to make a case against the other under the subtle cloak of NPOV. Clearly some people hate him, others adore him. It is not Wikipedia's duty to provide the quotes to substantiate his personal beliefs in the introduction. This has got to go. Colipon+(T) 08:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the length of intro! This is what I think would help. I will do a clean up in the intro. section. I will move each sentence or section from Intro to its own section or subsection, for example if a sentence is about his early life, I will move it to that section and so on. Introduction should be very calm and give a brief introduction about the person, not a repeat of what is already in the article. If you disagree please express yourself Disagree: Actually, I remembered that introduction is directly related to the length of an article. This article is very long plus, if you look at the articles of other presidents and prime ministers (PMs), this length of introduction is normal! Look at the following articles as an example or other PMs, Barack Obama, Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy, Vladimir Putin and many other examples. As I mentioned, it is important to look at the length of the paper. This article has the minimum length of introduction and I disagree with cutting anything. I don't think this is the best way of fighting with vandalism. There are always people who dislike the policies of presidents but does it mean that one should go and vandalize an article? certainly not. Does it mean that we should change the article to make it the way they want, of course not. Vandalism is always there. Kind regards--Parvazbato59 (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Jon Voight, one of his advisors?

Is that accurate? Does Voight live in Iran now? --98.182.55.209 (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, to be perfectly honest, whether it was a stupid joke or an attack on Jon Voight, it is inappropriate. Also it has nothing to do with the topic. I'm not quite sure how to write a request for deletion, so I would like to ask for it here. Thank you Blade Omega (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done thanks.--Parvazbato59 (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Name

I've noticed that the Financial Times newspaper seems to consistently spell his name as Ahmedi-Nejad.[6][7] Has anyone seen this use elsewhere, and could any Persian speakers perhaps comment on this usage? I am not familiar with Iranian naming conventions. Thanks Alboran (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)