Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Untitled

" I am Muslim From Burma but a kind of without country Men "

Please anyone have in the world listen my without country speak .My speak is i want to ask something

for ours Muslim president ;Why are they sleeping now please weak up (yahodi) destroy ours Muslim in Burma everyday destroy Mus-quick and Arabic school every where in Burma.Burma Muslim are finish some are alive Please save this Muslim oh ours Muslim President please Weak up:

IDF orders to shoot Hizbullah rock-throwers?

I followed the reference listed for that claim (http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2010/09/ahmadinejad-to-throw-stones-at-israel.html) and found that the paraphrasing is incorrect. According to the September 2006 Jerusalem Post article that is quoted in the referenced blog post, "The chief of staff told cabinet ministers that according to the IDF directive, troops were permitted to fire in the air and then at the legs of those hurling rocks in their direction. In addition, in the event that the troops sensed that they were in real danger they were granted permission to shoot to kill." This has been incorrectly paraphrased in the Wikipedia page as "In September 2006, the IDF issued orders to its troops that allow them to shoot to kill Hizbullah stone throwers..."

This needs to be corrected ASAP to better reflect the rules of engagement under which the IDF is operating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilya12345 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Assasination?

Is this article going to mention the possible assasination attempt on this man? Some news outlets have claimed that a hand grenade was thrown towards this man's motor brigade while on his way to make a speech. Iran's government owned media first reported this, but then dismissed the event as an overexcited fan of the president throwing a firecracker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.90.243 (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

I keep trying to shorten the part in the lede about Holocaust denial but people just love constantly adding new things to it to clarify all the details. Can we please keep it short and sweet and just describe the bulk of this information in the article body itself? Nothing justifies so much Holocaust-related material in the lede of an Iranian president who (believe it or not) has done a lot more than insult Israel. Just because this is a very sensitive issue in the West doesn't mean it needs endless discussion in the lede. Colipon+(Talk) 22:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Smart. I did my best to clarify the lede, but I have been bested by your "short and sweet."  :-( --Salimi (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is merely "an insult to Israel"? --Shamir1 (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I fully recognize that Holocaust denial can stir up emotions in many communities around the world, notably among Israelis, Jews in general, Germans, and much of the Western world. But in the greater context of his presidency, is it really justified to put so much emphasis on his rhetoric over what he has achieved as president and his positions on more pertinent domestic and foreign policy issues? No. If you feel like coverage of this issue is inadequate in the lede, you can always just modify the section of the article that talks specifically about his remarks on the Holocaust and Israel. Colipon+(Talk) 23:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Intro discussion

Ahmadinejad took his PhD from Iran University of Science and Technology, located at Tehran, when he was the Mayor of Ardabil Province, located at the north-west of the country.

An editor has repeatedly removed sourced information from the lead. Among them:

• Ahmadinejad is an outspoken critic of United States foreign policy, Israel, and European powers.

Who doubts this? A source is attached to it. During the election protests he has blamed the Voice of America and the BBC.

• ...though its translation and interpretation are sometimes/widely disputed.

Widely? Hardly. The vast majority of news stories do not even mention there is a dispute of translation (and as a Farsi speaker I can't tell you there is not--although per Wikipedia, that is irrelevant). If it were "widely" disputed then Katie Couric would not have worded her question as she did when she recently interviewed him. The correct and accurate term here would be "sometimes."

• He has also been criticized for describing the Holocaust as a myth and making statements influenced by classic anti-Semitic ideas,

The only premise to the accusations of anti-Semitism here is his Holocaust denial. Just recently he suggested a worldwide Jewish conspiracy That is very significant.

And to a charge by Salimi that is "POV". It is not. He has been "accused of it," and that is a fact. I will clarify that.

New material: "Position on the Holocaust?" The Holocaust is not a political issue. Where have you ever read a news story that called it his "position of the Holocaust"? Thats called whitewashing. --Shamir1 (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I would ask you to be bold and edit the parts that you see a problem with. I will stand by the removal of some of this material not because I want to censor information, but because the lead section is much too cluttered, and the Holocaust/Israel section is being given very serious undue weight. Again, if you feel like the material must be included, it's very easy to just insert it in the article body below. Please do not make the lead section a POV battleground for different points and counter-points to be laid out on one single issue. Colipon+(Talk) 23:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have edited such area. I have added "been accused of" and the rest. I do not think it is right for in the lead or in the article to mention an accusation as serious as anti-Semitism without at least mentioning the grounds for it in its briefest terms, which I believe is done here. There is no POV battleground here or at least there should not be. Criticizing Europe (as well as the US and Israel--and this criticism greatly expands foreign policy), and the accusations are all correct, factual, and sourced. A simple Google search for "wiped off the map widely disputed" yields no relevant results I can see. "Sometimes" is already enough. --Shamir1 (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Those are mostly good points. I hope the current revision looks fine? Colipon+(Talk) 01:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the last paragraph of the lede is still weighed down with a heavy slant against the subject and his motivations. "Outspoken critic" of the United States paints the biased picture of Ahmadinejad as a whiner, or a downer, instead of what he consistently portrays himself as, an underdog who along with the other underdogs, the Palestinians, is getting a raw deal from Israel and the United States. I propose we balance the paragraph. Not by presenting him as an underdog, nor by portraying him as a downer, but focusing on his actual words and on the outcomes from those words.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you propose? Can you write out the prose? Colipon+(Talk) 10:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

References

No early life?

Nothing about where was he born, where he grew up, what kind of family and upbringing did he have? Surely those bits of information are just as important as his political career, as they helped shape who he is. When I visited this page a few months ago, there was a section about his background and early life, but it's completely gone. Who removed it and why?

A large section of text was deleted by an IP on Nov-29-09, vandalising the article. I have reinserted the section. Thanks for the heads up.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The listing of his mother's name as "Khanom" seems strange. Khanom is basically the Persian equivalent of "Miss" and perhaps the editor read something referencing her as "Khanom Ahmadinejad" and thought that was her first name. I tried to find info on her but to no avail. Sloangreatwall (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Photo

Do not represent a head of state with an inappropriate photo. Insisting on a photo that has been cropped in an inappropriate way is not acceptable and it is irrelevant whether there is or isn't an ideal alternative available [which there is]. If there isn't a suitable picture available - no picture should be used. I have noticed how Ahmadinejad's better photos all end up being deleted [surely just a coincidence], leaving only a bad selection available. I am not the only editor who has stated that the picture (hand-holding) is inappropriate. ^Izzedine 02:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Your words and actions come across as arrogant. I hope you are trying to be civil and give the benefit of the doubt as to the intentions of me and other editors, as I am trying to be and do. It's not a horrible photo that you chose. I personally liked best the one from a couple of months back, with the white jacket, but apparently it wasn't permitted. As for the "handholding" photo, I don't see what was inappropriate about it. Ahmadinejad is smiling in it, it's a sunny day, there are people around, there is clearly a friend, colleague, or supporter, holding his hand, which in Iran is not as taboo as it is in the northwestern region of the globe. Relatives, friends, and others do it all the time. It can be a sign of non-sexual affection, a sign of solidarity, and sometimes its simply efficient, as it is when two people are trying to cross streets in Tehran amidst a frenzy of speeding cars. I know of this first-hand. Nobody doctored the photo; it was taken of the article's subject at an actual moment, and apparently it was a moment in which he was posing for a photo. Yours on the other hand was taken mid-speech with a non-background, and his demeanor is fierce and dogmatic, which is actually only one aspect of his persona, it's not even his complete foreign policy persona, it's his "I am a man alone against the United States and the UK" face, not an image of the domestic affairs Ahmadinejad which got him elected and re-elected. Your photo seems more biased to me, being exemplary of what we come to expect of Ahmadinejad. Angry yelling pointing finger man, alone in some strange place. Let's not have this article be as one-dimensional as that. It already suffers with enough Northwestern prejudice. So please try to tone down your "do not" warnings, and your use of the word "inappropriate". It doesn't build a friendly editing atmosphere. I agree that neither photo is ideal, but, I ask you, what makes yours more appropriate?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• It would not be appropriate or acceptable to have a photo of Barack Obama or Tony Blair [cropped in a way where they were holding somebody's hand and smiling] as the photo on either of their articles. So it's not acceptable on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's article. If you think people can't see through your motive you better think again. ^Izzedine 16:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about, this idea of my "motive". I am striving to leave my personal politics out, please respect Wikipedia guidelines and not make this a place where we let out our hopes and frustrations over world politics. We're supposed to work towards amassing a wealth of soberly neutral coherent information. But when I ask you what makes your photo more appropriate, you show personal bias by saying "what's not appropriate for one nation's leader is not appropriate for another nation's leader." THAT is bias. Ahmadinejad is not Obama and not Blair. He has many different views and beliefs, a different set of customs, a different language, a beard, no tie, I could go on and on. To understand what I'm talking about, visit Gandhi's page, where you will see a photo of a political/spiritual leader who appears to be naked and his right nipple showing. The choice of this photo was not because of some ulterior motive of disrespect. This is Gandhi's customary look. It's a decent photo for him. (Actually, personally, I think it is a beautiful photo.) So, I hope you are beginning to see that I'm not insisting on the previous photo for any "motive" other than to choose the best photo available to convey the complete entity that is "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" and not one that only shows one negative and heavily propagandized side. What do you think now?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• What does having a different language, or a beard have to do with anything? At least three people have voiced concern about the photos being used here, insistence in the face of that is disruptive. Watch your comments because this - "He has many different views and beliefs, a different set of customs, a different language, a beard, no tie, I could go on and on" is pejorative and rude. ^Izzedine 18:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

What you are perceiving as "pejorative and rude" are facts. Please "be civil", as per Wikipedia standards.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, we have sure talked plenty! What do the rest of you all think? Hand-holding photo, or lecturing frown?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 10:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Columbia photo. I don't think any of the two photos is really inappropriate. Both can be used in the article. For the infobox, a photo that focuses on the subject only (i.e. does not show other people etc.) is better. Otherwise, there is a need to explain the situation that is shown in the photograph. For that reason, I'd be in favor of using the photo showing Ahmadinejad at Columbia University. There might be photos that better capture the characteristics of Ahmadinejad, however, and, in general, I support Abie the Fish Peddler's thoughts about how different photos are suitable for different people, respectively.  Cs32en  01:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your reasons and agree. Hopefully, a better photo will surface in the future, but for now I'm fine with the photo from the Columbia lecture.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This photograph is obviously biased and not in the true spirit of Wikipedia. Here Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is captured in a frame showing teeth talking with hands on a noticeably black background. It would be mature and objective to remove this photograph completely or replace it with one of the many non biased ones available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by This log in bites (talk • contribs) 09:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

missing IPA stress

"Mahmūd Ahmadinezhād [mæhmuːde æhmædiːneʒɒːd]" is tagged as missing stress - to me the voice in the audio file seems to stress the second syllable of Mahmūd and the last syllable of Ahmadinezhād, but then I don't know Persian. Is this what the diacritics on ū and ā mean? Lfh (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

ū and ā in transcribing Arabic, Persian, Ottoman Turkish or other languages with Arabic script mean a "long u" or a "long a".imruz (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I speak Farsi, not normally at a professorial level, but I do think I can handle this question. The name Mahmoud has a stress on both syllables evenly. Now that I think of it, that's a common thing for the language. On the other hand, it's uncommon in the United States, though, I think it's more common in other English-speaking countries. The name "Henry" pronounced in the States would have a stress on both syllables, while I think the pronunciation in England, would stress both. Here in the States, which I consider my home, we tend to abbreviate, contract and slur as much as we can. LOL I think it might have something to do with our still being stuck in pioneer mode. Anyway, as for the family name, "Ahmadinejad", There is a full stress on the first syllable, a half stress on the second, no stress on the third, a half stress on the fourth, and full stress on the fifth. To simplify, the accent scheme is similar to the one used in the sentence "Thomas and I talked." Hope this helps. As for the diacritics: Those are there simply to tell us how the "ou" in Mahmoud is pronounced and how the last "a" in Ahmadinejad is pronounced.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Still, if we follow the example of pages like Ali Khameini, there should be one primary stressed syllable (ˈ) per word. It would require some knowledge of Persian phonology to work out which they are. Lfh (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, in that case I think this would be an improvement: [mʔæh'mud ʔæhmæd'ine'ʒɒːd] --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll leave a comment at Talk:Persian phonology to ask for confirmation on this. Thanks Lfh (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. And thank you for taking care of this.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The IPA pronunciation needs to be checked again! [mʔæhˈmud ʔæhmæd'ine'ʒɒːd]. Stresses are written before consonants, not before vowels. Please make sure of the glottal stop [‎ʔ‎] after the first [m]! : He pronounced it as [mæħˈmuːd ˈæħmædi niˈʒɒːd]. I'm not even sure if the pronouncer is Persian. As far as I know, Persian language does not have the [ħ] sound for ح & instead it is [h]. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The pronouncer doesn't have to be Persian to be able to speak the Persian language (Farsi). As far as the stresses and glottal stops go, I was transferring the style used on Ali Khamenei's article. If that's incorrect, then you're right this IPA pronunciation is incorrect also.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Mahmudmasri: if you speak Farsi and understand the IPA, you are the best person to make the necessary changes. Lfh (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

photo with rabbis, photo with anti-zionism poster, both or none?

An editor has just deleted both photos off the article, citing that doing so "is not detrimental to the readers' understanding of the topic".

I disagree, however, and think that the images are powerful depictions of the most anti-Zionist and most pro-Jewish that Ahmadinejad has been and thus a key insight into his thinking and actions. What do the rest of you think?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk)

I wouldn't consider either photo to be pro Jewish, both are anti-zionist, in that he is meeting with a small sect of anti-zionist Jews for the very reason that they are anti-zionist. Drsmoo (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. But I think even if that is so, it gives even greater cause to add the rabbi photo, since it depicts the lengths he is willing to go to fight Zionism- to make friends with a group of anti-Zionist rabbis.

On a side note, I reinstated a paragraph you had inserted which another editor deleted. Teamwork. Looking forward to hearing what else Drsmoo and others have to say...--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Izzedine. For self-reverting your last edit. :-) Now, what do you think about the whole photo issue?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The image of Ahmadinejad with rabbis can be considered as a fact that even though Ahmadinejad is viewed as anti-zionist but HE IS NOT anti-semite. The image is a very nice depiction that adds value to the article section on alleged Ahmadinejad's anti-semitism attitude. The image should be there in the article.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 15:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

All those pictures are not free, and I've been suitably convinced that none of them add enough more to the article than text alone, so none are allowed. -- Avi (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear, Avraham, which ones are able to be used and which ones aren't? We're talking about two photos: the one with the rabbis and the one of Ahmadinejad at a podium that says "world without zionism". --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

All three, the one with the Rabbis and the two sizes of the poster, are all copyrighted, and there is nothing more significant added to the readers' understanding that could not be added by text describing that MA spoke at that conference and met Yisroel Dovid Weiss and other NK members from the US. Therefore, it fails WP:NFCC#1 and should not be used. -- Avi (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Avi, the image Ahmadinejad and rabbi, might be not free BUT is claimed as a fair-use, since the image is a vivid and evident prove that Ahmadinejat is NOT anti-semite. The image adds a great value to the text. It is undisputable. Besides, the image "passes the test" and fulfills the requirements set in WP:NFCC#1. i.d. ...Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available. There is no free equivalent, if you find one pls share with us. -- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 17:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That's valuable info, Jim, as I'm not familiar with all the policy regarding images. I also think it bears relevance that can't be communicated solely by text, such as those of astronauts on the moon, or Gandhi meeting with Charlie Chaplin. It's an added sense of credulity that is gained by the image, is what I'm trying to say. And a valuable one, considering the curtain of rumors, which separates the Iranian president from much of the rest of the world. Personally, I had no idea until seeing the image on this article that he had met with a rabbi. And it was then that I noticed that I had been harboring a sizeable amount of doubt that he would even be open to such an act.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Abie, this is exactly what I mean! The photo is somewhat "shoking", since nobody would even think that Ahmadinejad meets Jewish rabbi and that he is not anti-semite, in other words he is not racist.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 18:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Jim, when you say "he is not a racist", that's sounding a little like your personal POV. What I think is important to focus on is that which all the reliable sources are saying, and making sure that we reflect them accurately. And to focus less on what our guts say, or what we want to be true. Don't you agree? That way we are open to discovering the facts of the matter, instead of falling into original research. Still, with that said, I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Abie, putting my POV aside, the image still is of important value within the context of the section on allegations of Ahmadinejad's alleged anti-semitism.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 18:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing added by the picture itself that the text "MA welcomed Jewish Rabbis of the Neturei Karta at the World without Zionism Summit" would provide, thus its failure to abide by wiki's fair use policy. -- Avi (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry you disagree, Avi. Because it seems you don't have much appreciation for photography. Or maybe I misunderstand your point. How do you think the image in question differs from the other images in the article or in any article on Wikipedia? What makes this photo less necessary to show than say Ahamdinejad with Putin, or Ahmadinejad standing at a podium at Columbia University? Since practically all things can be described with words, what use is sight, really? In your estimation?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Simple. Those are free-use images, so we can use them without making a fair-use claim. The image in question is not free-use, someone owns the copyright and has NOT licensed it freely, and so a valid free-use claim must be made, and since it adds nothing more than the text, it fails WP:NFCC. Which is the same reason I deleted the images of MA in fromt of the WWZ poster, sinceit was owned by the AP, and it did not add anything meaningful over text -- Avi (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"Free use" and "fair use" images, good. Got it. But at the heart of my question is the desire to know what example you would give of a "fair use" image adding meaning over the text, and to know how this image differs from your example.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Some examples of accetpable fair-use:

• Image of a deceased person for which free-use images can no longer be created
• Iconic images in articles that discuss the image
• Book covers in articles about said books

etc. -- Avi (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the examples, Avi, though I feel they don't exactly meet what we were discussing. On the Wikipedia page, WP:Non-free content criteria, under "Contextual significance", I read: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This is what I believe we've been discussing, and to my understanding, whether the subect of the image is a deceased person or not doesn't seem to bear any relevance to readers' understanding of the topic. Also, can't a book cover be described without its image being shown? Maybe it would help myself and other editors understand if you'd give an example of an "iconic" image. By the way, in case it's not clear, I mean these queries in the honest pursuit of the best state for the article that is possible within WP guidelines and common sense.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

At least one image of a person in the eponymous article has been considered acceptable fair-use on wikipedia for years; part of the bio of an individual is his or her likeness. Similarly, an article on a book may have one image of that book. Here, the article is "MA and Israel". We have plenty of free images of MA, AND, to make matters worse, the image in question has American and Canadian rabbis (Yisroel Dovid Weiss and fellow Neturei Karta offshoot members), so not only is the image unnecessary, it is irrelevant. The image of MA standing in front of the WWZ poster is much more relevant to this article, as it identifies the conference at which MA made the statements that precipitated this article. The Rabbi pic could have been made anywhere for all we know. Nevertheless, we have deleted the iconic image of MA at the podium of the WWZ image because it does not add more to the article than the text does. The image is up for discussion here if you wish to discuss it in particular more: Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_16#File:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_greets_Jewish_rabbis.jpg. -- Avi (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Very cool of you to provide the link to the discussion. So should I even bother discussing it here any longer why I think both images should be included?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like both images to be used too. Unfortunately, wikipedia policies regarding to free/fair use do not allow it, which is why I deleted the two I uploaded and have to opine that the third (Fitzgerald's) be removed as well. This is not a matter of preference, but of policy. -- Avi (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

So, it is worth discussing here as well?? or only on that files for deletion section?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, I do not think it is worth discussing here, as it is a policy matter, not one that relates directly to this article. -- Avi (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Relevant quotes from Ahmadinejad's official website regarding "wiped off the map"

In a speech on June 3rd 2008, the official website for the Iranian President quotes Ahmadinejad as saying "the Zionist Regime of Israel faces a deadend and will under God's grace be wiped off the map." and "the Zionist Regime that is a usurper and illegitimate regime and a cancerous tumor should be wiped off the map."

Dynablaster says that Ahmadinejad's official website is not a reliable source to represent him. I don't see the logic in his reasoning. What are the steps neccesary to include this quote in the article? Drsmoo (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for Dynablaster, but as far as I'm concerned, you seem to be in such a rush to add a handful of data and sources, which are meeting conflict. You might do well to bring the proposed changes here to discuss first, and then add. Otherwise, it starts to raise eyebrows, like you're pushing your own POV instead of paying attention to accuracy and flow.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I checked out the website and it looks pretty reliable, though I know enough Farsi to tell you that the word he used, "roozegar", would be more accurately be translated as "book of days", or "chronicle of time", or some crap like that, and not as "map". However the line Drsmoo proposes to include doesn't claim to be the definitive translation, it only quotes what seems to be the official website's translation. Dynablaster, I'm curious why you said it wasn't a reliable source.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The translation is disputed, so unless this is reflected, I am removing the quote. ^Izzedine 06:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have a problem being civil and discussing for consensus, Izzedine. The issue is to discuss, not to fight. Please give your opinion on whether you think the website Drsmoo came up with is reliable or not...--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 06:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• The full paragraph from the transcript should be used:

“ In response to the question whether Ahmadinejad believed in need for elimination of Israel from the world map, he said, "Yes, I say criminal acts committed by states, occupation, state sponsored terrorism, daily massacre of women, children and elderly folks, and long term occupation of another nation's land, need to be ended at any rate."

Ahmadinejad added, "We say such moves need to be ended; now if the only way to end them is to wipe Israel, well let it be wiped. We say committing crimes need to be ended." The PBS reporter asked, "Would you reply similarly if your country would be threatened of being wipe off the world map?" Ahmadinejad said, "They have done so many times. As recently as this week an Israeli official proposed that Ahmadinejad should be assassinated, or kidnapped. Is that not a cause for concern and is that not state sponsored terrorism? The era for double standards is over and the same standards need to observed for all.

”

That's how we keep things in context. ^Izzedine 07:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

So, then you agree that it's a reliable website. Your main concern is to put it in full context. Okay, so we're still waiting on Dynablaster's take on reliability. But I'm curious what Drsmoo has to say about putting it into full context. As far as I'm concerned, that's fine. I'm all for clarity on controversial matters.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's really his official website, so I cannot say it is reliable. Dynablaster was correct - the placement of it was wrong, and I agree with what he says in this post - [1]. ^Izzedine 07:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's his official website. If your basis for not keeping the quotes in the article is that you don't believe it's real than your basis has no merit, to put it simply. Drsmoo (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can find the same quote on television network PBS, which is a certified reliable source, then the above paragraph can be added without further objection. The problem, it seems, is that PBS translated Ahmadinejad's words differently to how they appear on the English language Iranian website! This has caused problems before, and much controversy ensued, so we need to be careful. Dynablaster (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the website is legitimate because it's coming out of Iran, thus the ".ir" at the end of the address. Everything else matches up as well, like the telephone number area code, the language and the positive spin on text and photography. As far as where the paragraph is placed, did you notice, Izzedine, that I moved it further down in the section from where Dynablaster originally found fault with it? Isn't that better?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 08:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it seems to be an official website, though the absence of an Azeri version is strange. Dynablaster made two important points; can you show the quote is notable in some way? and has the quote been picked up and reproduced be reliable sources? ^Izzedine 11:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The same issue is being discussed on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. State-controlled Iranian websites, alone, are not a reliable sources for anything. We would do well to recall that an English translation on IRIB News is the source of the original controversy. I have no idea if this more recent quote is accurate or inaccurate, but lacking reliable sources it is beside the point. Has the New York Times deemed this statement to be of any significance? BBC Online? CNN? Editors who wish to restore this text need to produce sources that show the quote is notable (preferably ones that affirm its accuracy). Dynablaster (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand. The source of the original controversy is a translation made by government funded sources, so we're looking to sources outside of the government now to clarify and verify. Is that right?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

These two quotes are from different speeches than the "World Without Zionism speech" as they were made in 2008, and from a source that is infinitely more direct than IRIB (which is already direct) as it comes straight from Ahmadinejad's office. Drsmoo (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Iranian state-controlled website (PRESIDENT.IR) is a primary source of questionable nature. We merely need a relibale, secondary source to either (1) reproduce the quote exactly how it appears on the aforementioned website, or (2) a secondary source to comment on its accuracy/inaccuracy. Dynablaster (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The section details conflicting opinions about what the most accurate and "honest" translation is. This discussion produced a secondary controversy over what is the "correct" translation of the quote. The official translation provided by the Iranian government is therefore immediately notable. Drsmoo (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The translation(s) immediately under discussion, may I remind you, refer to two seperate remarks made during the year 2008 (in June and September respectively) and not the 2005 "World Without Zionism" speech. This is not the "official translation" of Ahmadinejad's earlier remarks. Whether the translation is correct or incorrect is of less importance than providing a reliably published secondary source for each quotation. Iranian state-funded news organs are not solely acceptable. I will speculate at this point that not a single published secondary source considered the Iranian English-language translation notable and/or newsworthy -- because I can't find one, can you? 01:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Dynablaster (talk)

Secondary sources aren't needed to "confirm the notability" of the official Iranian presidential website. It is notable in and of itself. In the same way that Whitehouse.Gov is used as a reference on Wikipedia [2] Drsmoo (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid, we need secondary sources since the English translation is under dispute.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 08:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no dispute whatsoever over the translation of Ahmadinejad's 2008 speech calling for Israel to be wiped off the map. And what is the nature of the dispute you're alleging in any case, that the government of Iran is mistranslating itself? This article links to Juancole.com a blog, Juancole.com is in no way shape or form more notable than the government of Iran. The government of Iran's take on it's own statements is immediately notable. Just as one references reports from whitehouse.gov on wiki when called for.

President.ir would be considered a self published source on this page. The source fits all wikipedia guidelines of an acceptable self published source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselvesDrsmoo (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Theocratic news organs are not reliable sources and should always be treated with care. Nor does it help our understanding by conflating two different speeches, unrelated to one another. The best way to proceed is to examine the September 2008 PBS interview and reference Ahmadinejad's remarks accordingly. One glaring problem is that PBS transcribed his words differently to how they appear on the Iranian English-language website. Once a secondary source is added, however, we could include both. Dynablaster (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The speech is from June. It is as notable as a source is possible to be, and fits all wikipedia guidelines of an acceptable self published source. Drsmoo (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The first quotation is from June and the second in September (see above). It is highly doubtful that dubious English-language translations from Iranian state-controlled websites meet the criteria as reliable sources. You can test this argument on the WP:RS noticeboard if you wish. Secondary sources resolve the problem. The speech in June, it appears, was made at the UN Summit on Global Food Security, and there is already something of this incident present in the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel article. As usual, interpreations differ, with Fox News reporting Ahmadinejad as saying the "Zionist regime" is about to die and will "soon be erased from the geographical scene" [3] and Sky News reporting Ahmadinejad calling "Israel a 'fabricated regime' that is doomed to disappear with or without the involvement of Iran." [4] Dynablaster (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to quotations, there is nothing unreliable about a first person source when it is treated as a first person source. Drsmoo (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong, for reasons I have already explained. Primary sources should be used sparingly, and where there is controversy, not at all (even the guideline you cite below makes this point clear). A reliable published secondary source resolves the problem, which I shall add that to the article shortly. Dynablaster (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Included the section as per wikipedia guidelines on self published sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves Drsmoo (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the perfect example of a time when primary sources should be used. Censoring the official Iranian government statement is anti-scholarly. Drsmoo (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an English translation of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remarks. And patently dubious (as was the case before). There is no censorship, just a wish to respect Wikipedia guidelines, coupled with a request for a secondary source. There is certainly no academic merit in your desire to push one point of view. Dynablaster (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No, this is THE OFFICIAL translation by the IRANIAN GOVERNMENT, the section meets all wikipedia guidelines, as you know. To not include the original statement provided by the government of Iran to the world is unacceptable. Drsmoo (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The original statement is in Farsi (not English). So as before, it would be helpful if somebody could add the original to the article. Dynablaster (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think you two have been doing a great job. Seriously. I think you have communicated your perspectives clearly. So, instead of risking repeating yourselves or derailing into a private squabble, how about if we open it up to other editors, so we can make sure we have a consensus? Personally, as much as I find fault with the translation, I think that if that is in fact the legitimate "Official Website of the President of Iran", then I would like us to add a cited quotation from it. The only issue that gives me pause is the fact that I don't know how to verify whether it really is the official website.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's listed as the official Website of the President of Iran here http://www.parstimes.com/gov_iran.html as well as here http://www.robtex.com/dmoz/Regional/Middle_East/Iran/Government/ and also listed as the official website in this Wikipedia article. They also agree that it should be included on the reliable sources noticeboard along with secondary sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Notability.2FReliability_of_Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad.27s_official_website Dynablaster already provided several examples of secondary sources from the speech. Drsmoo (talk) 09:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I finally understand, on my own terms, Dynablaster's reluctance to include the quotes from the "Official Iranian Presidential website". Let me know if I got it: It's that Ahmadinejad said something in Farsi, the translation of which has fallen into a bit of controversy. So, instead of including random people doing their own translations, or even the President's own staff, who are all Iranian Farsi speakers, we should be focusing on people who 1-are trusted masters of both languages, and 2-are trusted to not slant the original meaning. The Presidential staff are not a trusted source in either of these regards. We need like a NY Times, or a Reuters, or a Scholar of Farsi...Some source along those lines. Yes?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The reliable sources noticeboard has already agreed that the quotes should be in the article. Drsmoo (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I don't anything about that noticeboard. I didn't remove it for it not being unreliable, though I understand that aspect. I removed it because it is redundant, mentioned already 2 paragraphs above in the Bronner quote. And, why did you call my edit POV?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The readers of wikipedia deserve to see the original quote, non-involved editors agree. It's important to have the Iranian government translation of an Iranian government quote. Drsmoo (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That is not entirely accurate. There was no agreement for the Iranian source without a secondary source (e.g. Fox News). And it would indeed be good to have the original quote, which is in Farsi, and not English. Wikispan (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That has been gone over already, Dynablaster provided a list of secondary sources, just waiting for him to include them. The official English translation is an original statement by Ahmadinejad and the Iranian government, just as the Persian statement is. If you have a link to the original Farsi statement from June 2, 2008, please include it in addition to the official Iranian government translation. Drsmoo (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not involved on that end. I'm simply noticing that the data in question is not fully sourced (i.e. secondarily) and so it should be removed until it is. :-)--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Secondary source added in addition to primary source as per Reliable sources noticeboard :) 05:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the Reuters source. Nice work.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The section should be a summary of the sub-article Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel (or the relevant section of that article), per WP:SPINOUT. The discussion on the Reliable sources noticeboard did not cover this aspect (as it is, of course, concerned with the reliability of the sources, not the overall structure of the article). In my view, the summary should contain, in addition to information about the speech itself, the information that the interpretation of Ahmadinejads words is controversial. It may be helpful to work on the sub-article Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel before deleting text from this article.  Cs32en  05:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

this should be added. it's not pov if he said that and its not somthing taken out of context. which that really cant be. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

References

Columbia image

This is a free use image which is in the text discussing the event MA attended that precipitated the image. I see absolutely NO reason why this should be removed. -- Avi (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Avi. I see no mention in the text about any protest of Ahmadinejad's Columbia speech. As we already have an image of Ahmadinejad mid-speech, I think it sufficient and move to remove the excessive and POV image of protesters. Otherwise don't you think it would be NPOV to add an image of the audience or gathered body that isn't so blatantly anti? Because I do.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 08:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Being that the speech was specifically notable for the protests of the students and the dean (as quoted in the article “Lee Bollinger used his introduction to excoriate the Iranian leader as everything from a "cruel and petty dictator" to "astonishingly uneducated."”) perhaps we are remiss in not mentioning the reaction that the speech engendered. However, before anything is added to that section, I'd like to hear others chime in. -- Avi (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

But let us not be remiss in the fact that there was applause for Ahmadinejad, as well as boos. Let's not let petty politics influence our knowledge. Yes? The image presents a one-sided view of history. In short, the audience isn't defined by Bollinger. You have only to read up on Nellie McKay's views on Bollinger for that fact.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I watched the speech, I heard very little applause, there were significant boos, you can watch it as well. Drsmoo (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have seen it. And remember as well as you do a mix of reactions. But the point is not so much to set up an clap-o-meter or some such reductionary approval/disapproval apparatus, especially since protesters and sign holders aren't even mentioned in the article. I think that the point is rather to convey that the subject spoke, what he said and what if any outcomes there were as a result. An image of "anti" sign holders is to be expected no matter if it's the president of Iran speaking or James Franco and is grossly POV. I will remove it, with all respect, until consensus is reached.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Abie, please review WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. It does not mean a lobotomized article; it means that the wikipedia article needs to reflect the proportion of existing coverage. In the US, that image best reflects the predominant coverage and response to that speech. Removing it is the POV violation here. -- Avi (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I honestly think the POV move is to leave it in, not because I'm trying to delude myself into thinking his speech was adored by each and every American-I don't think that.- but because it reflects one side and one side alone, the side of the U.S. which doesn't believe in "sitting down with our enemies" as Obama would say. It is a political move to include it, additionally because no protesters are mentioned in the text. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Au contraire. The image is a valid representation of the reaction, the predominant reaction for that matter, to the matter being discussed in the text. Improper whitewashing is just as gross a POV violation as is improper smearing, and politically motivated removals are just as forbidden as politically motivated insertions. The article is enhanced with the free-use image and it should be restored. Bringing in politics (sitting down with our enemies, Obama) violates the neutral spirit of the project. Please review What wikipedia is not, Abie. -- Avi (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, instead of the seesaw game of inserting/deleting the image, I made an edit that I think will show my dedication to NPOV, since my words seem to have the opposite effect. What do you think, Avi? What do you think, everybody else?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Columbia University speech is a marginal item in the bio of Ahmadinejad. What the reader needs to know is that Ahmadinejad spoke there, that the invitation was controversial, and that the university invited him not because it supports his viewpoints, but in the spirit of an open exchange of opinions. The personal viewpoints of the university's president and the criticisms of that viewpoint may be included in that person's article, if anything this is "Domestic U.S. controversies related to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad", not "Relations of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with the United States". As the whole issue is rather marginal, it does not warrant an image to draw attention to it.  Cs32en  09:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Fatwa against Nuclear Weapons

There is an offhand mention of an alleged fatwa issued by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei which declares nuclear weapons incompatible with Iran's goals. The source given makes no mention of the fatwa and is therefore invalid. Also, no such fatwa has been released - only a mention of it in a statement at the 2005 meeting of the IAEA in Vienna.[5] The reference on the article's claim also contains no mention of said fatwa. I propose that the sentence about this fatwa be removed since there's no verifiable evidence it ever existed. --Memarshall (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

ENGINNER OF ATOMS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.177.53.43 (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad lying about having served in Iran-Iraq war

Apparently, Ahmadinejad, on his official website's biography section, implies that he is a war veteran who fought in the Iran-Iraq war, which is a false claim. There is a report about it, albeit in Persian and only reported by one source [6]. I think we could somehow work it into the article, but should it be done now or should it wait until there is further confirmation from other sources?. --Kurdo777 (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a very weak source. I'd ignore it unless several mainstream sources report it as fact (i.e. do not only report the claim). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess we'll have to wait and see if the story has legs, and would be picked up by other mainstream sources. --Kurdo777 (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's BLP sensitive, so we would need multiple reliable sources. Reporting the claim as such would have to be based on reliable sources discussing the claim, e.g. where it originated, how it was picked up etc.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have read various pieces by Dr Mehdi Khaz'ali and listened to various interviews with him, and must say that he comes over as a fantasist. He just says things that some people badly want to hear, and that seems to be the only thing that keeps him afloat in the media. Regarding Mr Ahmadinejad not having served in the War, it is not true, but from a technical point of view Mr Khaz'ali's story may contain some element of truth. The fact is that Mr Ahmadinejad was not fighting as a regular army soldier or officer, but was working party as a military logistic engineer and partly as a military intelligence officer from behind enemy's line. If my memory is not failing, during the War years he spent some time in Kirkuk, Iraq, amongst members of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan or Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iraq --- both groups were fighting alongside Iran against Saddam Hossein. The fact that after the War he, i.e. Mr Ahmadinejad, became the Deputy to Governor-General of Maku and Khoy (West Azarbaijan Province has a sizeable Kurdish population), and later Advisor to Governor-General of Kurdistan, have direct relationship to his War-time experience in Iraqi Kurdistan. Thus, indeed Mr Mohsen Rezai may not have been technically wrong in saying that Mr Ahmadinejad has not been "at the front" (assuming that indeed the alleged statement is due to Mr Rezai), but to say that Mr Ahmadinejad has lied about his War efforts, is just a false and defamatory statement. Let us assume for a moment that Mr Ahmadinejad has lied about his War efforts. Is it at all conceivable that a young man from Tehran would get so early on so high up in the highest administrative offices of Maku, Khoy and Kurdistan, from all places? As I said earlier, Mehdi Khaz'ali is just a fantasist who seems to believe in his own fantasies (there are some videos on YouTube in which he says things that no one in his position could possibly know). --BF 23:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

September 11 denial

According to Arutz-7 Ahmadinejad has officially said that he believes 9/11 was done by the US and Israel. Since there is already some mention of this (in relationship with the united state) would it go in that section or would it go in the section about his relationship with Israel, or some other section? Yakatz (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"September 11 denial", whatever that may mean, has nothing to do with Mr Ahmadinejad! Please care to search on e.g. YouTube (see, let us say, this page) and notice that there are Americans who are propounding conspiracy theories about the September 11 atrocity. Further, I should point out that during his one but last visit to the headquarters of the UN in New York, Mr Ahmadinejad asked to visit the location of Twin Towers (i.e. the Ground Zero), to pay respect to the dead, but the New York authorities declined his request, citing "security reasons" as their reason for declining the request. Be it as it may, to my best knowledge no one has ever denied September 11 happening, however there are some who question the official explanation as to who stood behind the event. It could be that Mr Ahmadinejad has also questioned the official explanation, but there is a world of difference between the denial of the official explanation and the denial of the event itself. Lastly, I should point out that there were also Iranians amongst the dead on September 11. In this connection, you may wish to search for the Iranian feature film The Ziggurat Goddess (about which here), 2004, with Shahab Hosseini in the main role. This film revolves around the life of a young Iranian man who has lost his wife and the only child in the September 11 atrocity, and in fact the film begins with the scenes of the attacks and contains flashbacks of the last telephone conversation that this man has had with his wife and daughter minutes before the first attack in which they were killed. --BF 12:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not avoid the issue. The defintion of "9/11 denial" is commonly known. Why is it not notable that a world leader believes that perhaps the worst terrorist attack in history was actually a conspiracy by governments who are the enemies of the terrorists? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

BoogaLouie: please address your question directly to Mr Ahmadinejad (he has an official website where one can leave comments for him); I am not his speaker. I only pointed out that the word "denial" is utterly misplaced here (I remain to stand by this statement --- either we are using the English language, or we don't, and if we do, we must use English words properly and do not abuse the language), as he has certainly never "denied" the event itself. As for believing in "conspiracy theories", I hope that we have a modicum of liberal instincts and tolerance left in us in order not constantly to inquisite people as to what they believe and what they don't, some modern-day version of witch-hunting practice of the bygone ages. Incidentally, I personally do not know what precisely he may have said about the theories regarding 9/11 (this I made explicit in my earlier remark that "It could be that ..."). --BF 09:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

if this is added it should also be added that it's commonly accepted that he supports al-quida and the taliban. anyone who supports the terrorist would of course want to blame 9/11 on the u.s. to try to make the victims look like the perpatrator. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If he says he believes in a conspiracy, and if nobody can prove an official remark of evidence leading to al-Qaida and the Taliban, then we cannot depict it that he automatically is lying. The talk-message above is completely irrelevant, and should be ignored, as this user perhaps does not know that Wikipedia does not support commenting on Talk pages for a WP Page, as it is clearly conclusionary. Further more, 9/11 was not, by a long shot, the worst terrorist act in history. Maybe this will help us to stay neutral on this page. There has clearly been negotiation of possible Israeli involvement, but no proof. If he has clearly stated believing in Israel and the United States (Referring to the Bush Government perhaps?) Were behind 9/11, but this is supposedly nothing referring to the relationship between the 2 countries. Of course, his relationship to the 2 might be negative, he could have said it for any reason, because he has seen proof, because he accuses the 2 countries from hand, or for any other reason. I think this would require a new section, maybe 'Controversies of 9/11' or such. And there is no proof he supports any terrorist unit, or that he is by any means a 'bad guy' or a 'perpatrator' so the Wikipedia page WILL NOT claim it otherwise. There has been criticism towards him and the nuclear projects he supports, but criticism only owns a small section in this wiki page. Also, 9/11 is not very close to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's presidency and politics, so it should not cover too much space. This is a real person's wikipedia page, not a 9/11 - Relationship to the U.S. - page, even if some fail to stay neutral, maybe a small add of his accusation of Israel and The United States, but not going over the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.255.236 (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality in the article

The tone of this article often comes across as though a fan of Ahmadinejad has gone through it and deleted anything that might hurt his feelings. One example:

Taking questions from Columbia faculty and students who attended his address, Ahmadinejad answered a series of questions, including a query about the treatment of gays in Iran by saying: "We don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don't have that in our country. We don't have this phenomenon; I don't know who's told you we have it." An aide later claimed that he was misrepresented and was actually saying that "compared to American society, we don't have many homosexuals".[174]

Who cares what he said about homosexuals? and why did an aide later claim blah blah blah? The answer is the whole incident was notable because the audience burst out laughing when he said "We don't have homosexuals like in your country." There is no mention of the laughter, only of the excuse of his aide.

Here is the passage from a transcript of his speech:

AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country.

(LAUGHTER)

We don't have that in our country.

(AUDIENCE BOOING)

AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it.

(LAUGHTER)

But, as for women, maybe you think that being a woman is a crime. It's not a crime to be a woman.

I put it to you that the laughter and booing of the audience is noteable and what "aide later claimed" is not. Every politician who has ever been born has had issued a "clarification" after making an embarassing statement. The article is already extremely long and the clarificiation is a waste of space.

This lack of candor should be addressed --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No reply? I've changed the article myself. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Given that what he said could actually be taken to mean what the aide claimed I think the clarification is entirely relevant. It is not wikipedia's place to decide or even present an interpretation of a comment, unless it is citeable and the aides comment is definitely citeable.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahmedinejad reference to Ayatollah Khomeni

Regarding this part in the article:

"In a speech on June 2, 2008, the Iranian presidential website quotes Ahmadinejad as saying

"the Zionist Regime of Israel faces a deadend and will under God's grace be wiped off the map." and "the Zionist Regime that is a usurper and illegitimate regime and a cancerous tumor should be wiped off the map."[125]

"

In the speech he refer to what Ayatollah Khomeni said, I think that should be written out or what do you think?

If Ahmedinejad was indeed quoting Khomeni, it seems reasonable to include that information, if we're using the quote to illustrate Ahmdinejad's views. Do we have any sources other than Ahmedinejad's own web site confirming that these are Khomeni's words and not Ahmedinijad's? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

There are various sources on both side implying that he refered not to Ayatollah sorry, but Ruhollah Khomeini. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Page move

Along the lines of other leaders with large sections such as Foreign policy of Hugo Chavez, Foreign Policy of Evo Morales, and Foreign policy of Rafael Correa I have split this article off into a Foreign policy of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad section because the current length is well over 100k and takes too long to load. As per WP:Article size "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries."Lihaas (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the most well known and seminal controversies around Ahmadinejad. Removing it from this article is ridiculou, and likely a NPOV violation. Perhaps an expanded version is appropriate in the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel, but it must remain mentioned here. We went through formal mediation about this about a year ago, nothing has changed since than, has it? -- Avi (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's probably not a good idea to restore the whole section, for good reasons explained by Lihaas. Perhaps we could keep something about the controversy while splitting off everything else? Wikispan (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is being removed or censored for NPOV. The due links is here, the reasons are given (130+K is far too long). The link to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel is also given along with others on the page. This is line with other long articles. If you feel like adding a longer summary do so, but it is a summary with the link to the "main" page as per all over-long wikipedia articles. See WP:Article size --> anything more than 30k warrants too long.

Furthermore, you removed the link to the page? That would be the reason it is not accessible. As per Wikispan's reasons (and of mine above) i've shortened the page instead of adding 50k+ more. (Even Wikispan's previous edits were reverted, there's no point repeating every thing multiple times to push an agenda) But go ahead and add some more in summary about the controvery, although I've briefly summarized the reasons i can see how someone may feel it is inadequate, though that doesn't warrant adding the WHOLE text here when the requisite page exists.

Probably this is one step to getting features status back, so then you can have more attention to it. Lihaas (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

New World Order

Should there be a word in the article how Ahmadinejad has now outed himself as a part of the New World Order. This means that almost all of this article has to be rewritten in this light. It is now clear that the conflict with the west is only fake, and that they act in concert to impose a tyranical world government. He has probably been build up as a villain in order among other things to descredit the 911 truth movement who fight against the NWO. [[7]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.166.98.6 (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

wikipedia isnt the place for trying to spread unrealistic conpiracy theroys. if the "West" was trying to imposed tyranical rule, he would be freindly with them as he's already done that in iran. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad is referring to the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA). http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8903171502 and he says orders, this is just translating getting people excited over nothing. We, the people who know the truth are in the business of Conspiracy FACT, and fact is, the establishment is conspiring (being complacent to the lying, like most of the mainstream and democrat leadership is) to tar and feather Iran in the world view and lying about Iran's nuclear capability, just like the Bush and Blair administrations conspired to lie to the world and to invade a nation and killed over 1 million civilians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.119.131 (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Scare Quotes in lead

Are the scare quotes in the first paragraph around "Free Elections" really necessary?. This seems to be an NPOV violation. Angustifolium (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

dont know, but maybe it should be added that the comment is ironic as elections in iran seem to traditionally end with the army gunning down protesters for true democracy. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Born Jewish

Does anyone knows if his father coverted from Judaism before is birth or after? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.10.167.61 (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Iranian specialists say that Sabourjian (his original surname) is specifically Jewish, Sabour is the Persian word for the Jewish prayer-shawl.24.108.37.224 (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither piece of info is true - "Sabourjian" is not a Jewish name, and "Sabour" doesn't mean Jewish prayer shawl. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6256173/Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-revealed-to-have-Jewish-past.html 99.22.228.93 (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there any proof for either claim? I mean Sabourjian being a jewish name or not. Abe 92.192.60.32 (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you look at the Telegraph article given above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.228.93 (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Source doesn't cover claim

The article says that Ahmadinejad was a governor to the cities of Maku and Khoy in the eighties. This is covered by a link to globalsecurity.org, but that article doesn't mention Maku or Khoy. 83.80.18.68 (talk) 09:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010 9/11 comments

Reuters: "Iran's Ahmadinejad doubts Sept 11 attack toll" - "Ahmadinejad said the September 11 attacks with hijacked airliners on New York and Washington D.C. had been trumped up as an excuse for the United States to invade Afghanistan and Iraq... there was no evidence that the death toll at New York's World Trade Center, destroyed in the attacks, was as high as reported and said "Zionists" had been tipped off in advance... "They announced that 3,000 people were killed in this incident, but there were no reports that reveal their names. Maybe you saw that, but I did not". There is a published list of September 11 dead from more than 90 countries available online. A total of 2,995 people were killed in the attacks, including 19 hijackers and all passengers and crew aboard four commandeered airliners, according to official U.S. figures". I'll put it in the article as I see fit if there are no comments or suggestions in the following hours. PluniAlmoni (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Put it in the section on his foreign policy, the requisite split off page seems most appropriate.Lihaas (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.35.198.29, 16 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

This is to request for the following section on Ahmadinejad's background to be modified given that the number of applicants or participants were never 400,000 back in 1976. The Wikipedia is suggesting that:

"In 1976, Ahmadinejad took Iran's national university entrance contests. He was ranked 132nd out of 400,000 participants that year."

This information is absolutely manipulated and groundless for the following reasons:

1) The applicants for nationwide university entrance exam could never reach 400,000 back in 1976. This could be investigated and verified by searching the "ministry of science, research and technology".

2) The entrance exam in Iran has 3 fields: Engineering, medical and social sciences. Each applicant is ranked in his/her group. For instance, if you are an applicant the engineering schools, then you are ranked among applicants for engineering program and not the total number of applicants. No need to mention that even the total number of applicants participated in entrance exam back in 1976 never reached to even 1/6 of 400,000!

3) In 1990 that I took the entrance exam, the total number of applicants were 750,000 among which 150,000 were for engineering programs. The statistics shows that almost always 1/5 apply to engineering programs, 2/5 social sciences and 2/5 medicals. This is based on capacities as well and the data could confirm the fact that Iranian universities have considerably higher capacities for medical and social sciences than engineering programs.

4) Even if Ahmadinejad had taken the entrance exam in 1990 with almost double population than his time in 1976, he would have ranked among 150,000 and not 400,000!!!

5) Iranian universities were closed from 1980 to 1983 due to the post-revolution anarchy. The entrance exam and the ranking system started in 1986-1987 and after the universities re-openned. This was the time that the nationwide entrance exam was started as a sample of equity and justice. Prior to the revolution in Iran in 1978, each university has its own entrance exam and no ranking system even existed. Thus claiming a ranking system in 1976, 2 years prior to the revolution, is untrue and groundless.

There are more proofs and evidence suggesting that the content is groundless and untrue manipulated by the current Iran's government to justify Ahmadinejad's preseidency given that Iranian people have respect and tendency towards educated candidates.

173.35.198.29 (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve the accuracy of this article. Your arguments sound very reasonable, but they are not useful for challenging that content. You need a reliable source which refutes the claim. On the other hand, the current source does not make the claim; it merely reports that his weblog makes the claim. That should be made clear in the article. Celestra (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Aonana, 5 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} under the section FOREIGN RELATIONS

near the end of the paragrah, the text reads:

"... he was embroiled in controversy in regards to his alleged Holocaust denial and ..."

there is enough evidence now in wikipedia to suggest this is not an alleged holocaust denial but a clear cut holocaust denial. describing the holocaust as a myth, a lie, a hoax is enough to support the change.

please change to "... he was embroiled in controversy in regards to his denial of the Holocaust and ..."

for further links , please see the article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Al-Alam_interview_8_December_2005

especialy this part "Although we don't accept this claim [of the holocaust], if we suppose it is true" this is clear cut denial

and since weikipedia isnt a reliable source, i hope one of these is

http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/dec/09israel.htm

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2005/12/9/worldupdates/2005-12-09T002021Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-227101-1&sec=worldupdates

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/08/AR2005120801788.html?nav=rss_world

thanks

Aonana (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: Wikipedia isn't a Reliable source, please give me the specific sources from those pages here, and then remove the 'tlf' from the {{tlf|editsemiprotected}} above. --Imagine Wizard (talk • contribs • count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 17:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Done The provided sources seem sufficient for removing 'alleged'. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Aonana, 6 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} the intro to the article reads :

He also been falsely[24] accused in much of the West over a comment he made in against the "Zionist entity" to be "wiped off the map." In the West this was coupled with accusation of describing the Holocaust as a myth[25][26] and of making statements influenced by classic anti-Semitic ideas,[27] which has led to accusations of anti-Semitism,[28] though he has denied these accusations, saying that he "respects Jews very much" and that he was not "passing judgment" on the Holocaust.[21][29][30][31]

this phrasing and the use of the word "falsely" give rise to the idea that the other allegations of holocaust denial and anti-semitism are false. also, false is a needless judgement when the facts of the matter are a click away. also the words "much" are ommitable

i suggest that this sentence will be true to the facts of the matter and invite people to continue and read the appropriate section. also i suggest minor format edits.

i suggest the following : (keep the original links, i am not posting all the links here or this would be unreadable)

He has also been accused in the West over a comment he made in against the "Zionist entity" to be "wiped off the map" or "erased from history" though the exact translation of his words is at dispute[24]. This was coupled with accusation of describing the Holocaust as a myth[25][26] and of making statements influenced by classic anti-Semitic ideas,[27] which has led some to accuse him of anti-Semitism.[28] He has later denied these accusations, saying that he "respects Jews very much" and that he was not "passing judgment" on the Holocaust.[21][29][30][31]

Aonana (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

MA has clearly stated that he does not deny the holocaust. That was the only explicit statement that he made on the matter. Eyalmc (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And this article clearly states that he said that and claimes so. however, since erasing the past is not possible, the claim he made at 2005 is still denial. if you wish to open a section right after the section about holocaust denial that reads "AM States the holocaust did in fact happen" and link sources that support it you are welcome. people say different things at different times and its here that we discuss it and log it. do you really think that this article should change according to the last ever quote of AM regarding the holocaust? if so i think youll find your argument failing. Aonana (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

can you provide a link to the "clear denial" ? Eyalmc (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

please search on this page for "Edit request from Aonana, 5 September 2010". 3 links provided Aonana (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

He said: "Some European countries insist on saying that during World War II, Hitler burned millions of Jews and put them in concentration camps," Ahmadinejad said. "Any historian, commentator or scientist who doubts that is taken to prison or gets condemned. Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true... If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe -- like in Germany, Austria or other countries -- to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it." this is called: "Expressing doubt" & "Questioning" - not "denying" - as it is well described in the news item from wikinews This is especially clear when it follows a remark about the special laws prohibiting to question the holocaust in europe. The definition of holocaust denial (according to wikipedia) is: "Holocaust denial consists of claims that the genocide of Jews during World War II—usually referred to as the Holocaust[1]—did not occur at all, or that it did not happen in the manner or to the extent historically recognized." no "claims" are being made, so it cannot be classified as a holocaust denial, especially given that he specifically addressed that in numerous occasions to clear that he is NOT denying the holocaust. If I say: "I don't accept your claim. You need to show me some proof" - would that be consider denying? Is that suggesting that your claim is false? Portraying him as a holocaust denier is a distortion of the truth Eyalmc (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

as you quoted from wiki ""Holocaust denial consists of claims that ..." . the english word claim easily fits the quote "we don't accept this claim". his claim is, that the claim made by "Some European countries..." is not true. how do I figure that out? because he said "i do not accept that". so yes. if I would say "Sky is blue" and you say "I dont accept your claim". logic dictates you are either accepting "sky is not blue" or "there is a problem with your claim that prohibits me from understading it". holocaust denial is NOT providing an alternative claim but simply stating that certain claims are false (not acceppting them). I suggest we let someone else sort this out. I suspect that unless the word 'claim' is used you would not consider any sentence to be categorized as 'claim'. Aonana (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The statement expresses skepticism - which is quite different than denying. It is possible not to accept a claim due to lack of proof, or due to limitations imposed on the research of that claim. It doesn't mean that the opposite is true (whatever you assume the opposite is). It is not even the subject matter in what he says. When it was the subject matter, on another occasion, MA was very clear that he doesn't deny the holocaust Eyalmc (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You can call it whtever you want. skepticism, questioning. truth is, that he made the statement and that it can logicly be described as claiming the prevoious claim that the holocaust happened as commonly believed it did , is false. he did never ever accept the truth about the holocaust but simply said he does not deny it. im sorry but simply stateing "i dont deny" after clearly denying it is not enough. at least on one occasion, an interview you are familiar with, when confronted with the idea that a genocide of jews happened he circumvated the subject and refrained from calling the holocaust a genocide or even relate to the claim it was a genocide. i can not accept that this counters his original denial. i say again. lets hold and see what older and wiser have to say. i can agree that whatever is agreed upon here in this semi protected article will be the rule for all other articles. Aonana (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of quote, there is another place for that. However it is an encycopaedia and when something newer happens it trumps old charges and hence he has clearly said he isnt denying anything.

If you feel the quote is warranted then take it to wikiquotes.Lihaas (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 23:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Did he say to Wipe off the map the Zionist entity?

He was misquoted by the BBC. More reliable scholar sources prove that. MA was referring to the regime. See here. This is a more reliable source in this case which focuses on this specific statement. There are more sourcesEyalmc (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read the last two to three years worth of archives; we have been over this at least six times, including formal mediation. -- Avi (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I will review the archive and make sure that all credible sources were considered Eyalmc (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I was not able to find in the archives any reference to the "zionist entity" - all of the references that i saw were discussing "occupying Zionist regime" (which is, needless to say, fundamentally different). There are several interpretations available for what he said, but even if we ignore the contradiction. the quote is simply wrong. from the official NY-Times translation he said:

"Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement."

can anyone argue that the the statement in the article ('He also been accused in much of the West over a comment he made in against the "Zionist entity" to be "wiped off the map." ') reflect that accurately ? Again, there are many credible interpretations, for both sides - but exactly because of those different interpretations (some suggest genocidal aspirations), we should accurately reflect the source. The article should reflect that the comment is regarding the "occupying regime" (which is a regime that adopt specific policies) and not Zionist Entity (which is commonly interpreted as the state of Israel and it's inhabitants.) Eyalmc (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional interpretation from the guardian link above: "The fact that he compared his desired option - the elimination of "the regime occupying Jerusalem" - with the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel. As a schoolboy opponent of the Shah in the 1970's he surely did not favour Iran's removal from the page of time. He just wanted the Shah out.". These credible sources cannot simply be pulled out my assEyalmc (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Not knowing exactly what a "zionist entity" was I went to the page. I then entered "zionist regime" and it redirected to "zionist entity"! These clearly have different meanings. The redirect is likely POV pushing and quite possibly it led to the use of entity in the lead being overlooked. The redirect should be deleted and the word regime used in the lead with the correct wikilink.Wayne (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Zionist regime and Zionist entity are one and the same. one cannot exist without the other and if one exists so does the other. by definition and as declared by the zionist congress, a zionist entity and a zionist regime can only exist in the land of zion, palestine/israel and if one doesnt exist how can another? Aonana (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You are interpreting again where credible sources interpret it differently. NPOV please. besides - he was referring to the occupying regime. Do you claim that Israel cannot exist without an occupying regime? regime is defined as "A government, esp. an authoritarian one" in the dictionary. Eyalmc (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I was replying to Wayne. i was dicussing the meaning of the terms zionist regime and zionist entity. sorry for the confsion. Aonana (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

as for the topic discussed, i think eyalmc has provided sufficient resources to show that the translation "wipe israel off the map" is a misquote. we are discussing in english things said in parsi so we have to be extra careful and doubel check any resource claiming to bring a translation. with free online translation services there is no excuse not to go check the origin when available. after reviewing the sources on the matter i believe the translation to something like "wipe zionism from the pages of history" seems to be more credible. Aonana (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect, Aonana. If it was a misquote or not was the subject of years of debate afterwards. The initial quote by the Iranian translator was "wiped off the map" and that is what resulted in the notable outcry from world leaders. In the controversies article we devote a large section to the back-and-forth as to whether MA misspoke, was misquoted, or is backpedaling. In this article, however, we state simply:

He also been accused in much of the West over a comment he made in against the "Zionist entity" to be "wiped off the map." In the West this was coupled with accusation of describing the Holocaust as a myth and of making statements influenced by classic anti-Semitic ideas, which has led to accusations of anti-Semitism, though he has denied these accusations, saying that he "respects Jews very much" and that he was not "passing judgment" on the Holocaust.

which brings the reliably cited accusations and refutations simply; not imposing one reliable sources view over the other, and leave further discussion to the child article per summary style. -- Avi (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Avi, thanks for takign the time to discuss all of this with a new user liek myself, i greatly appreciate it.

can we just add that there is a controversy about the translation and link to it? just so that people who read the article can read through the whole debates. simply putting it in "" doesnt seem enough.

maybe somethign like " this has also resulted in a controversy about the validity of the original translation ..." and then href 'controversy' to the wikipedia article about controversies. all within wikipedia guildlines?.Aonana (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

See Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Foreign_relations, we do link it. And in the lede, we say he has denied these accusations. -- Avi (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

still not clear why "entity" is used and not "occupying regime of Jerusalem" as I believe his own translation uses. Eyalmc (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Because that was the most widespread translation, if I recall correctly, and the way it was most quoted in the English-speaking media, so it is the proper term for English Wikipedia when bringing it in and of itself. Of course, in the Controversies article, the back-and-forth between various groups is brought more fully. -- Avi (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the wiki page says using entity is "a pejorative for the State of Israel". Regime does not carry the same pejorative meaning and means a government not a state (it is clear from any translation that Ahmadinejad meant government) so clearly they can not be interchangable. Secondly, entity is not even close to the most widespread translation and the first time I have ever heard the word entity used for Israel was this article. A search finds 63,000 results for entity being used in a translation of the speech (mostly op-eds and blogs with a few conservative newspapers) and 357,000 results for "Zionist Regime" being used in a translation of the speech (a large number of mainstream media including Haaretz, CNN, Washington Post, NYT and BBC etc). You want to use "wiped of the map" because that was how Ahmadinejad's own people translated it yet you seem to be rejecting the same standard for "Zionist regime". To use entity is very POV.Wayne (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis. The translation to english of MA speech was flawed in much of the english media. However, concerning your question wether the two terms are different, that is another discussion we can carry on at the appropriate wiki talk pages. My personal opinion is that at this time in history, there is no difference between the use of regime and entity when concerning zionism. there was no zionist entity prior to the zionist regime and if the regime in israel will cease to be zionist then israel will cease to be a zionist entity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aonana (talk • contribs) 06:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there can be no Zionist entity without a Zionist regime but a Zionist regime can still exist quite happily if Israel ceases to be a Zionist entity. If they both mean the same as you claim then what is the non perjoritive definition of a Zionist regime so we can link to that.Wayne (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This argument is completely irrelevant and wrong, first, because MA was referring the "occupying Zionist regime". Second, because a regime can change and the entity remains (exactly as MA points out in his comparable example - the Shah regime of iran" Eyalmc (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The translation needs to change, agreed. But saying that the zionist regime and the zionist entity are distinct is wrong. i have many arguments to explain this. lets continue this on the zionist entity page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aonana (talk • contribs) 07:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I propose changing the quote to the original "occupying regime", which was the original, non pejorative, term that was translated by the Iranian agency (where "wipe of the map" was taken from). Eyalmc (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to the page was different from what you suggested. I changed it to your suggestion, since this was the one that had consensus.Lihaas (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

User:LibiBamizrach has not commented here on the subject, yet he has just wikilinked "Zionist regime/occupying regime" etc to Zionist entity. This is extreme POV pushing. I also question his latest edit adding that Ahmadinejad is planning to symbolically throw a stone in the general direction of Israel. Is this actually notable? Perhaps if reported critically by a western source but certainly not by an Israeli source. I'm guessing Bush has given Ahmadinejad the finger more than once but no one would consider adding that to his article.Wayne (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I also notice that the source for throwing the rock has devoted more space to Ahmadinejad discussing Israeli-Palestinian peace talks so I'm baffled as to why User:LibiBamizrach didn't include that in his edit as well considering that is unambiguously more notable than throwing the rock.Wayne (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Despite being reverted by several editors, User:LibiBamizrach has now replaced "occupying regime" with "Zionist entity" three times. He originally wrote "Zionist entity" in the wikilink but now writes "Zionist regime" and lets the disambiguation take the reader to Zionist entity which I find suspect. If he wants to discuss his version he is welcome to do so here and I ask him to not continue this edit warring without doing so.Wayne (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Foreign policy section

This page has 2 split off pages for his foreign policy, hence when splitting the page one must sumarise the info here. I thus left an uncontroversial edit here and moved the controversy to the other pages. (as someone else said above)

Also the lead was bigger than the section on foreign policy so i moved the stuff below to the section (which is not a decent sized 2-3 para section). No content was removed, and nothing controversial was inserted so i i dont think there should bea fight/edit war. but just leaving a note here as its the decent thing to do.Lihaas (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"Wiped off the map" misquote

Enough is enough. The sources that actually examine the issue in detail agree this was a mistranslation. That there are systemic features of the US media that lead certain flimsy claims to be repeated endlessly does not change this. These sources do not bother to examine the issue of mistranslation, they just repeat the claim with no verification. All credible scholars that I've seen agree it's not correct. This situation really gets under my skin. Distortion and shoddy reporting has won out in this article. K. the Surveyor (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Despite fundamentally disagreeing with the Islamic Republic - especially with Ahmadinejad's foreign policy, I think it is extremely important not to misrepresent people. I admire you intellectual honesty. If there were more people like you in this world, we wouldn't have half of the conflicts and wars that we have!

Best of luck to you NuturalObserver (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Links in quotes

Regarding this edit where I removed the following links from within quotes with the edit summary "rm links from within quotes per WP:MOSQUOTE (+1 WP:REPEATLINK))"

• "the occupying regime" should be "wiped off the map,"
• "Occupying Zionist regime" to be "wiped off the map."
• "classic anti-Semitic ideas,"

..and LibiBamizrach's revert, with the edit summary "this rule you show says "avoid as much as possible", not say it's not allowed. in this case it obviously important and add understanding for reader who click link to see what "Zionist regime" refer to".

LibiBamizrach,

• I removed the "occupying regime"=>Zionist regime link per MOSQUOTE which states "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." (my bold). Wikipedia does not care in the slightest what you think was meant by the quotes and which words you think should be mapped to which articles. That is you imposing your interpretation on someone else's words. It is not acceptable in my view. Readers should not have to have your or anyone else's interpretations of what people meant when they said something imposed on them.
• I removed the "wiped off the map" because there is the link to the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel article at the top of that section. I can live with your revert of that because the link does not include your interpretation of meaning. It simply links directly to the pertinent article section that address that translation.
• I removed the "Occupying Zionist regime"=>Zionist regime link for the same reason as above, it's your interpretation plus it is a redundant overlink.
• I removed the link from within the quote "classic anti-Semitic ideas," because is it is immediately followed by a link via anti-Semitism. Both links redirect to antisemitism, you only need one. I removed the one from the quote.

Please let me know your views. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just saw this section after saving my post regarding this in another section, (see here). I had added three wikilinks to two of those quotes (the original wikilinks) which are literal rather than an interpretation. I hope these are ok but I can live without them.Wayne (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts are that you make very weird silly argument. I give up on anti-semitic link, not big deal. People know what that means. Wiped off map link links to exact section, not just main article so it is helpful. And the very weird part of your argument is that I do some interpretation by linking words "Zionist regime" to article "Zionist regime". No interpret here, just know how to read English. LibiBamizrach (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

English may the problem then. You keep linking to "Zionist entity" which has a different meaning to "Zionist regime".Wayne (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it seem you be confused here. Thanks for try to insult me though, I will keep it in mind. I link to Zionist regime, which is very clear for anyone to see in edit history, unlike what you say which is completely untrue. And Zionist entity and Zionist regime do NOT have different meaning at all. Please show WP:RS that say this. LibiBamizrach (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

PS: one with English problem is you, Wayne. No such thing exist "perjorative". LibiBamizrach (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

LibiBamizrach, what is shown in the diff I provided above is that your links were 'Zionist regime|the occupying regime' and 'Zionist regime|Occupying Zionist regime'. 'Zionist regime' is a redirect to 'Zionist entity', so your links were to 'Zionist entity' as Wayne said. As for my "very weird silly argument", there is nothing weird or silly about actions based on WP:MOSQUOTE. Since you can read English, I imagine that you can understand the meaning of "As much as possible" in the sentence, "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." My understanding of that statement is that it means, if it is possible to avoid linking from within quotes, avoid linking from within quotes. This is sensible advice because linking someone's words to a Wiki article can impose a meaning on those words that is not contained in the statement they made and consequently it can mislead readers.

Any link from someone's words to an Wiki article contains an implicit interpretation and assumption that what they said is accurately described by the contents of the article being linked to. Sometimes this is fine, sometimes it isn't. Obviously, if someone says "car", it's probably not a problem. If someone says something more complicated like "Occupying Zionist regime" you could link it to Israel or Zionist entity or Israeli government or who knows, Revisionist Zionism etc etc. Or you could link each individual term individually e.g. "Occupying" to Occupied territory or Israeli-occupied territories, "Zionist" to Zionism or Revisionist Zionism and so on. There are a lot of choices but the point is that they are choices and the choice is an editorial decision made by you based on what you think about the words and the content of the article you are linking to. Different people will look at the same quote and they will link it in different ways. That should already tell you that linking from within quotes is inherently problematic. I would like you to reconsider your views.

What is sad about all this is that when I looked at the refs being used, none of them supported the precise wording used in quotations in this article. The very least we can do is match accurate quotes to the actual sources that support those quotes. In fact, we are obliged to do that by WP:BLP. For example, look at the 3 sources being used to support "the occupying regime" and try to find that phrase. I couldn't find it. I found "Zionist Regime" and other descriptions instead. I imagine that what has happened is that in the POV push and pull that plagues articles like this, the information has been shredded by people, much like yourself, who place advocacy before policy and damage content. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Then please go ahead and practice what you preach. Go back to the version that show what the reference actually quotes. People "much like myself" put in lies? So go ahead and fix it. I am not the one who put in any garbage about occupying regime. If it says Zionist regime it should say so in the quote. LibiBamizrach (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Waiting for you Sean. LibiBamizrach (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing needs to change. It has been strenuously argued that as Ahmadinejad's own website translated the speech as "wiped of the map" that that is the term that should be used here, despite RS's translating it correctly as "eliminated from the pages of history", similarly Ahmadinejad's website also says "the regime occupying Jerusalem". You rejected the RS to support wiped off the map because his own website says that but you then object to using occupying regime because you want to use Zionist regime. To compound this you keep trying to link it to Zionist entity. You cant cherry pick to get the translation to match your POV.Wayne (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

see Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Clarifying_comments_by_Ahmadinejad - clarified he was talking about the government - not the people, and not by military action. Eyalmc (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

876×1.044 vs. 315×318 crop

Can the user علی ویکی explain why he would prefer a 315×318 crop over a higher quality 876×1.044 portrait?--Avala (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Economic Policy discrepancy

The first line of this section looks as if it were either written by a different person than the rest, one whos bias is in the opposite direction. Or the section was written to be intentionally misleading. Either way, the rest of the section is a complete 180 degree shift from the first sentence. The first sentence claims that he was reagenesque for his country (to put it in very easy to understand, comparative terms). And the rest of the section portrays him as a Bush or an Obama. Did he decrease spending and help the economy as the first sentence says, or is his administration guilty of creating the biggest budget deficit in Iranian history as the section goes on to say? I don't have any sources to cite as to which it was, though, to my knowledge i believe its most definitly the second. The first sentence should be removed or the rest of the article edited in any case.

Porojukaha (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Porojukaha

Religion

This article says nothing of Ahmadinejad's religion. Which should be very important since he is from a smaller, less understood sect of Islam. Islam is a very complicated religion and just saying someone is Muslim, or just saying that they belong to the Shi'a sect is hardly detail enough. There are many different Shi'ite sects which have very different beliefs, especially when it comes to the political realm. Lots of his political philosophy probably comes from the specific sect of Shi'a that he is. As far as i know it is one of the few sects of Islam that allows for diversity and has any degree of respect whatsoever for infidels. That being said, there are some other parts of his religious ideology that are fairly disconcerting to an american like me. Opinions and fears aside though. There should be something about his religion. I dont have the permission or time to do it. But I wish someone would. Porojukaha (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Legitimacy of 2009 election.

"His election to a second term in 2009 was widely disputed and caused widespread protests domestically and drew significant international criticism.[17] Major opposition parties,[18] traditional clerical circles[19] and influential Iranian politicians questioned the legitimacy of his presidency."

My point is that the summary of the 2009 election in the Ahmadinejad article strongly implies that his election was illegitimate, because it provides no evidence to the contrary.

It provide a link to the article on the election itself, [8]], but that article states, "No credible evidence published so far indicates that any fraud in fact happened."

It also references a summary of Western Polls taken (for example an ABC News and BBC poll), every one of which supported the outcome of the election of Ahmadinejad.

I think the summary provided in this article should reflect some of this.

--Emeraldflames (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

impeachement proceedings

the parliament has formally begun impeachment proceedings, with 12 MPs signing the requisite petition. There was a threat earlier, but the "Supreme Leader" nixed it. This time, it's different, and it should be added to the articleEricl (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Relations with Supreme Leader

Have added a subsection with the name above. Lots of quotes in it to avoid any misinterpretation on this sensative subject. Does briefly mention the impeachment move. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Christian

In the article stands that he is a Christian?! He is a Shia Muslim, how can such a mistake stand there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.80.208.136 (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Trivial vandalism. Everything "can stand here" until its fixed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Bias in intro

Too much of the intro, specifically the second paragraph, is dedicated to criticism of Ahmadinejad, from this you would think he has no supporters, when as far as can be proven, he is the democratically elected president of the country. Sword of St. Michael (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Zardari Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Zardari Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Children's marriages

I think something might be wrong in the Personal life section where it says his son Alireza is married to a late general's nephew. Or maybe he is in fact gay in which case I think there should probably be a bit more explanation. Dick Laurent (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

anti-communist?

The article categorizes Ahmadinejad as an anti-communist but it does not make any verifiable claim. NorthernThunder (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it would be too difficult to source that. He's been anti-communist since he was a student. I'll see if I can find some. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Imagine a guy, who is allergic to cats, but acts like Kevin Richardson. Or if Elton John would hang around with a dozen of homophobes. Ahmadinejad would be a this type of anti-communist. No, SERIOUSLY. What kind of an anti-communist is he, when most of his non-Iranian friends are communists?-- – – – – · · – · · – · – · – — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.206.10 (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Nutjob?

Is the redirect from "I´m a Nutjob" really necessary? (Don´t know how to fix that myself :-( ) 149.222.1.223 (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, that redirect has now been deleted.  ⊃°HotCrocodile...... + 12:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Grammar Error

In personal life section:

Farahi was a classmate of Ahmadinejad when he studied at the Iran University of Science and Technology.

-->

Farahi was a classmate of Ahmadinejad when they studied at the Iran University of Science and Technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.232.226.30 (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Languages

I'm wondering if more information is available about what languages he speaks. Does he speak English? Arabic? And, since he is from Semnan province, it seems likely that he speakes Semnani, but I don't actually know.Bill (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Errors/Vandalism

I am not sure how to change things on this page, thus I have created this subject so that factual errors or vandalism can be posted so that they can be rectified by someone more knowledgeable than I.

The second sentence of the second paragraph reads, "Mainly because of his mating habits with squid," implying that is the reason he is a controversial figure. While I highly doubt that this is accurate (How in the world would one go about that, anyway? Wait, don't answer that. I don't want to know...), could someone either verify this, or else delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.235.201 (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Description of homosexuals

There is a link asserting he described homosexuals as "thieves" and "ugly". The source [90] quotes this from it's own re-phrasing of what he said. The CNN transcript seems to make it clear he is referring to the perceptions of some people that the behavior itself is what is "ugly", as well as him never describing homosexuals as thieves:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1209/24/pmt.01.html

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Do you really believe that someone is born homosexual?

MORGAN: Yes. I absolutely believe that. Yes, I do.

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): I'm sorry, let me ask you this, do you believe that anyone is given birth through homosexuality? Homosexuality ceases procreation. Who has said that if you like or believe in doing something ugly and others do not accept your behavior, they're denying your freedom?

MORGAN: You are a father -- Mr. President, you are --

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): -- perhaps in a country they wish to legitimize stealing --

MORGAN: You are a father of three children --

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): -- a few percentage of the --

MORGAN: You have two sons and a daughter, what would you do if one of them was gay?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): These things have different ways -- the proper education must be given, proper -- the education must be revamped. The political system must be revamped. And these must be also reforms that are revamped along the way. But if you -- if a group recognizes an ugly behavior or ugly deed as legitimate, you must not expect other countries or other groups to give it the same recognition. This is an imposition of your will, sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.77.41 (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

References

Reference 105 is a broken link.--Ministar Nesigurnosti (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It's safe to say this article is biased against Ahmadinejad

I'm not disputing the actual things that he may have said, Just that the presenting is sloppy and designed to push an agenda.

For example, if we're going to talk gaffes, I see no major section of bushisms in the main article of George W. Bush, nor do I see any mention of This sloppy gaffe by Shimon Peres that ended up having political consequences in Hungary. As long as the primary dissemination of anti-Iranian propaganda is their number one adversary, let's also comment why there is scant mention of the Genocidal and downright racist in the main article for David Ben-Gurion.

Toyko governor Shintaro Ishihara seems to suffer from the same foot-in-mouth disease as Ahmadinejad, but both shouldn't have their articles so tilted towards Western points of view, as there are many more things that they have done that are controversial, but they just don't catch the attention of the international Western press, as they don't sell papers. For example, did you know Ishihara is more controversial in Japan for his taxing schemes on large corporations than his nationalist views?

Ahmadinejad is the same way. What needs to be done is an attempt at outreach to bring more English-speaking Iranian nationals to help us obtain primary materials and translations, as I don't like the overall oversampling of Western primary sources for nations that have more pressing issues (and controversies) than what interests the readers of newspapers in Brookyln or Los Angeles. Solntsa90 (talk) 10:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The Engrish in the "After presidency" section

It's hilarious. 128.189.118.51 (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Perceptions of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

I believe the editors of this page should be made aware of Perceptions of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad which is not presently linked from here. The editors of these pages should definitely engage in dialogue with one another. I have suggested in at Talk:Perceptions of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that steps be taken to integrate material from there to here, so that the extra page can eventually be deprecated. Rhoark (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It would make more sense to consolidate these two articles. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

His Ancestry?

Iranian nationalists say he is not persian but rather jewish or a sayed. Can anyone find info on his parents and his early life so we can put these claims to rest? Akmal94 (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity

What is the Ethnicity of Ahmadinejad? He looks like Baloch and not like a Persian or an Azeri.--Hans Stolz (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

So what question should I ask my Ahmadinejad look-alike pal, of rural Italian stock, then?Nishidani (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

BLP problem

The text under 'Israel' regarding the statement attributed to Ahmadinejad is, as is known, not what he said, but what he was reported as saying.

What he actually said in Farsi is known from Iranian sources. The Iranian state news, in providing an English translation, gave a version that differs radically from what Ahmadinejad said.

In a BPL article, however much antipathy one may feel for the subject, the rule remains the same

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment

User:Drsmoo removed the earlier version with the edit summary Removing fringe theory, the wire services attribute the statement to Iranian govt translations. Removing POV that presents a non-official translation as the correct one.'

The edit summary is incomprehensibly inaccurate. The effect is to prioritize words not spoken by Ahmadinejad ('wiping Israel off the map'), as given by tabloids and newspapers, over the words he actually spoke, as reported and analysed by two chaired specialists in Iranian language and culture, Juan Cole and Katajun Amirpur. The Western scholarship on the Farsi text's meaning cannot be called a 'fringe theory', and describing the English version in a state propaganda newspaper as more reliable than a scholarly translation confirmed by area experts is weird.

Our article clearly shows that it is not disputed the Admadinejad in his Farsi speech did not use this expression. In my view, one is obliged to provide the man's actual words before entering into the controversy over their translation in the Iranian News Service. For those who cannot access Katajun Amirpur's article, I'll transcribe the words below. She is an Iranian-German authority (and critic) of the present government of Iran. She has a professorial chair in this area. The wire-services are citing the Iranian English, the scholars are citing the Farsi original.

The new quality in Aḥmadīnezhād’s attacks is their increasing shrillness and the regular increase in their volume in response to the Western world’s reaction to his verbal aggression. In the following, I will analyse the statements in question with special regard to the time at which they were made. In October 2005, Aḥmadīnezhād gave a speech at the ‘A World without Zionism’ conference in Tehran which included the following sentence: “This regime that occupies Jerusalem will disappear from the pages of history.” The Iranian news agency IRNA—or in Juan Cole’s opinion a Western wire service52—mistranslated this as: “Israel must be wiped off the map”, which caused considerable consternation. In fact, the Persian counterparts for ‘Israel’, ‘map’, or ‘to wipe off’ do not appear in the speech. Nonetheless, all major news agencies took up the false translation, and IRNA did not release a correction.Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The first thing that's clear is that you misread the edit summary, which is no problem and happens sometimes. What was described as a fringe theory was the claim that the translation was propagated by wire services. This had been attributed in the article to Amirpur's paper, which was behind a paywall. As Nishidani has shown however, Amirpur also correctly described the translation as originating from the Iranian government, with Juan Cole being the one ascribing it to wire services. However, the newspapers themselves also attributed it to the Iranian Government translation. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/27/world/middleeast/irans-new-president-says-israel-must-be-wiped-off-the-map.html?_r=0). The Iranian Government translation, which came first, is what is written first in the article. It is then followed by the competing claims about the translation. Neither translation is given preference in wikipedia's neutral voice, and nothing was removed. There's clearly a dispute over the translation, the Iranian Government, NY Times, and others translate it as wiped off the map, using sense-for-sense translation, while others like Amirpur and Juan Cole use literal translation. As an aside, literal translation is generally considered bad practice, particularly because it's poor at translating idioms, and not frequently done in professional work. (http://www.copypanthers.com/resources/literal-translation/, https://books.google.com/books?id=myLDA0_brhcC&pg=PA858&lpg=PA858&dq) Wikipedia needs to have a neutral voice. Describing the Iranian Government translation, which was backed by the New York Times and others as a "mistranslation" isn't appropriate. What my edit did was to simply place things in the correct order in time. Stating "was translated by Iranian state-run media" and then going immediately into both sides of the dispute. Drsmoo (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani, just for you to notice, Wikipedia is not interested in WP:truth, but verifiability. Mainstream media (including Iran's!) reported Ahmadinejad as saying "Israel should be wiped off the map", as multiple sources say.--Shy Twinkling (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not interested in the truth. Wikipedia obliges us to get the facts straight, and neutral, esp. in regard to living persons. A translation is not the first text. The first text is the Farsi speech as it was diffused through Iranian media, to which both Juan Cole and Katajun Amirpur had access, like any other Iranian or expert. (b) The words are not those of Ahmadinejad, but, as the scholarship shows, a citation from Ayatollah Khomeini.(c) The text, like many news services used, spun this as what Ahmadinejad said.

That specialists in Iranian studies clarified the original, translated it literally, then wrote articles outlining how it got turned into the version that circulates in English, thanks to the curious spin the mistranslation gave to it in Iran's official paper, is all that counts. The order of production of those words assumes primacy in a BLP page: we must state what he said, and then how this was reported by the Iranian English paper, and then the aftermath of scandal.Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

There was no mistranslation, though you're entitled to your opinion. I wish you would take more time to read the actual sources. All three sources relate the comments to Ayatollah Khomeini. The article does go in chronological order, starting with the official translation that made the statement newsworthy, though I wouldn't object to starting with a transliteration of the Farsi. We should also add Christopher Hitchens to the paragraph, who called Cole to task for his comments. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2006/05/the_cole_report.html Drsmoo (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hitchens had no knowledge of Middle Eastern societies, cultures, or languages. Juan Cole knows the topic like the back of his hand, and Hitchens made a fool of himself, as anyone can see who checks out the details of their exchanges. The translation, to repeat, is a distortion of the known language given in the speech. One does not start a BLP section attributing to a person a distortion of his words made by the press, only then to bury the correction down the page. That is POV pushing.Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The official Iranian government translation is neither a mistranslation nor a distortion, no matter how much you claim it to be. There was no "correction" either, only an alternate translation using a misleading technique. And Christopher Hitchens is a reliable source. Drsmoo (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

'The official Iranian government translation is neither a mistranslation nor a distortion.' Two academic specialists on Iran states explicitly state it was a mistranslation. You don't have to believe them, but you should not contradict them so facilely, since as editors our personal beliefs count for nothing, fortunately.Nishidani (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I'ver soiught external advice on the policy issue hereNishidani (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as I included their opinions in the article and placed them in chronological order, I'm not sure why you're saying I'm contradicting anyone? I certainly haven't been calling government and professional translations done with modern and professional techniques "distortions" or "mistranslations". Drsmoo (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

YOu didn't just remove what you consider a fringe theory. You took out the important original words of Ahmadinejad, his ipsissima verba, and the edit summary did not indicate that, but rather suggested, like it or not, that Katajun Aminpur's translation of MA's words was a fringe theory. Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

No, the edit summary was quite clear that it was referring to the bit about wire services. Ahmadinejad's original words were in Farsi Drsmoo (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

This is just my two cents and you can take it with a grain of salt, but it's hard not to suspect that tenured radicals like John Cole prefer literal translation in this case out of a desire to whitewash Ahmadinejad's intent. Beyond the fact that Iran's state-run media is the source for the "wiped off the map" translation—and Ahmadinejad at no point recanted or clarified his remarks despite ample opportunity to do so—he was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini who (correct me if I'm wrong) everyone agrees did call for Israel's destruction.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

So you got a mudslinging source from the director of Campus Watch, which is scandalized by a few comments Juan not John Cole wrote. The point is, MEMRI's translation is the same of Cole's. The word 'recant' expected of Ahmadinejad is absurd. How can anyone 'recant' a quotation remark mistranslated into another language, and attributed to him or her? Every source that contradicts the IRNA translation comes from qualified specialists who nowhere hide their disgust for the political arrangements in Iran, contempt for the dominant political party, so this has nothing to do with 'whitewashing'. By the same 'read-between-the-lines' logic, one could easily claim that all those papers and wiki editors that insist on prioritizing the challenged quotation in English do so to screw or blackwash an incident and a person on behalf of Israel, or the United States. Ahmadinejad is a **** by almost universal consensus. That has nothing to do with the issue.Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070817164633/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/persian/iran/story/2007/07/070710_ka-mpo.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/story/2007/07/070710_ka-mpo.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080817131229/http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2008/080815.html to http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2008/080815.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=200247
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/27/ahmadinejad.reaction/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://entekhab.ir/display/?ID=2648
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2326/stories/20070112001105500.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090626204105/http://persianmirror.com/community/2005/opinion/MahmoudAhmadinejad.cfm to http://persianmirror.com/community/2005/opinion/MahmoudAhmadinejad.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715032350/http://tofoiran.packdeal.com/clips/DrIman/20060906-DrIman-CNN-225.asx to http://tofoiran.packdeal.com/clips/DrIman/20060906-DrIman-CNN-225.asx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://president.ir/ahmadinejad/cronicnews/1384/06/02/index-f.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608214526/http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data%2Fmiddleeast%2F2005%2FAugust%2Fmiddleeast_August739.xml&section=middleeast&col= to http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data%2Fmiddleeast%2F2005%2FAugust%2Fmiddleeast_August739.xml&section=middleeast&col=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120918132444/http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=104018&sectionid=351020101 to http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=104018&sectionid=351020101
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080912183345/http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=175959 to http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=175959
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101019060335/http://www.neyous.com/ to http://www.neyous.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://roozonline.com/01newsstory/016196.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aftabnews.ir/vdcco4q2boqe0.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aftabnews.ir/vdcdnf0yt509o.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://news.gooya.eu/politics/archives/2006/11/055304.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://peyvast.blog.com/1353199/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060422084214/http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/060413/2006041301.html to http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/060413/2006041301.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/CWN/121605iran.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://news.gooya.eu/politics/archives/2007/06/060469.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211131103/http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=84719&sectionid=351020102 to http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=84719&sectionid=351020102
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130314004548/http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/11/17272211-ahmadinejads-scandalous-moment-with-hugo-chavezs-mother?lite to http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/11/17272211-ahmadinejads-scandalous-moment-with-hugo-chavezs-mother?lite
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.president.ir/en/28177
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930180643/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C02%5C22%5Cstory_22-2-2006_pg4_15 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C02%5C22%5Cstory_22-2-2006_pg4_15
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961353570&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)