Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Dr.Saami?

• Would someone please start something about his role in assasination of Dr. Saami?--Sina 20:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we should refrain from adding further allegations unless there is a somewhat accurate connection that can be established. Sources should be used for this matter. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 20:31, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

His role? I've heard a few accusing Rafsanjani of the same assasination. I think it's a more he did she did fingerpointing now, than anything with conclusive evidence. ~User_talk:m87

Conservative hardliner or fascist

There seems to be a very minor disagreement on whether he is "conservative hardliner" or a "fascist". Although I personally consider him a "conservative hardliner", I would like to get opinions of why he might be considered "fascist". Opinions are appreciated. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 20:53, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

There has been people calling him and his supporters "fascist", yes, I've read these. But taking a look at Fascism#Definition, no he is not nationalist or racist and does not support corporatism, but many people believe that he will implement a totalitarian regime (he has mentioned that a civil worker must believe in Islamic management or should be sacked), will limit political, social, and personal freedoms, and will implement modern propaganda techniques and heavy censorship. As for loyalty to a single leader, yes, he is supporting nation-wide loyalty to the Supreme Leader. He is also believed to be fundamentalist. roozbeh 21:23, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. Yes I agree, by definition that does not make him fascist. People usually have different POV and what they believe will happen. So although some people think he will involve some of the tenets of fascism, I don't think that has been proven yet, so he shouldn't be called fascist. Thanks for your response. --Anonymous editor 21:29, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Bush emphasizes the importance of maintaining Christian values in his speeches all the time; in some other speeches he directly refers to Christianity. Many seem to think that he is "involved some of the tenets of fascism"... I don't see any refrences to fascism in his article. *looks again* "many people believe that he will implement a totalitarian regime (he has mentioned that a civil worker must believe in Islamic management or should be sacked)" Ain't that a heavily biased point a view, now? (noting the interesting word-choices that you have made...) ~User_talk:m87

What about theocratic nationalist? Or authortarian theocratic nationalist.

It appears that Ahmadinejhad has all the attributes of fascism. The Islamic Fundamentalists have divided the Iranian people into two groups and they are called: A. Khodi (insiders) B. Gheir-e Khodi (outsiders) The first groups of people are the ones who are loyal to the principles of Islamic Fundamentalism which is dictated by the Supreme Leader Ali Khamaneii and can be trusted by the Fundamentalists. The second group is the ones who can not be trusted by the Hard Liners and should be and would be discriminated against them. The Fundamentalist believe the second group is considered the fifth columnist for the US the great Satan.

Ahmadinejhad represents the Islamic Fundamentalist or also called the hard liners. So, he believes in discriminating against the (Gheir-e Khodi) or the outsiders group of people in Iran. Islamic Republic is a tyrannical system. As a result it has no respect to the rights of minorities and those who are considered (Gheir-e Khodi) or outsiders.

So Ahmadinejhad possesses most of the characteristics of a Fascist and he would behave mostly like a fascist. Ahmadinejhad is a cross breed between Stalin and Hitler. He has some of the characteristics of each one of Hitler and Stalin. He believes in Stalin’s Economic style of Communism and the Racists view of Hitler. Ahmadinejhad’s Racism may not be based the race, but it is based on insiders verses outsiders.

The division of society based on (Khodi and Geir-e Khodi) is equally racist as dividing the society based on the Race.

I don't think fascism necessarily has anything to do with racism. It just so happened that Hitler was a fascist and a racist. Therefore the fact that Ahmadinejad is not racist is somewhat irrelevant to the argument that he is not a fascist. Osprey39 05:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Islamism and minor neutrality dispute

I seriously believe that Islamism should be added. This is not a hint toward religion, but toward the point that he believes Islam is not a religious only, but a global solution for government, etc. Please read the Islamism article. roozbeh 21:40, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

The problem is the fact that it is a widely controversial term which can have many different meanings for different people especially here in the west. This might give the wrong impression of who he really is. I think we should keep the conservative hardliner label for him and let the viewer decide whether he truly is of "Islamist" principles or not.--Anonymous editor 22:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

After reading lots of what is said on his campaign website, I really believe that Ahmadinezhad considers himself an Islamist and that this is not POB. I also don't agree that "Islamism" is a controversial term. Please check the Islamism article to see that there is no mention of controvesy in usage or meaning there. Also, check Wikipedia:Words to avoid to see that Islamist is not listed there. I consider not mentioning his self-described Islamism non-NPOV. If you think Islamism is not descriptive, add explanations instead of removing good descriptions. roozbeh 02:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yo, hold on a second, man. There is no need for the POV tag. If this is so much a concern to you then I will insert that little phrase into the article. I didn't think that you were so much concerned about my slight rewording in order to avoid controversy. But if you are that concerned then no problem, I will insert that accordingly. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 02:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed conservative again, because of his critism of "conservatism practiced by current civil servants" on his campaign website. roozbeh 02:39, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Lay off the "isms" A lot of leaders believe religion is the "global solution for government" or at least that can be inferred from their speeches and unless your going to take the same appproach with everybody else-- (which reflects your non_NPOV) please lay off the ism. Islamism... such an ambiguous (read:Newspeak) term for Wiki to be using, don't you think? ~User_talk:m87

What about theocratic nationalist? Or authortarian theocratic nationalist.

That's right. Believing that Islam is a global solution, fit for governance of the people, is not straying from Islam. Islam is a way of life, that covers every aspect of life - culture, politics, education, faith in God, science, art and more. Ahmadinejad isn't an Islamist. He is a Muslim.

Islamism is a political ideology based on religion of Islam has always existed. Islam is both a religion and it also consists its own version of political ideology and on top of that it is basically a way of life. That is why Islam does not respect the Separation of Mosque and State. So Islamism is an inseparable part of religion itself and these two are tightly coupled. That is why Islamism is so controversial and has generated so much tension in the international community.

Zpelling

Maybe Ahmadinejad would be better. -SV|t 07:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with SV. Please note that all the major news agencies and news websites use the form "Ahmadinejad." Just check the Google results: Ahmadinejad (202,000), Ahmadinezhad (584) -DamonM 25 Jun 2005

Ahmadinejad is right... the "J" does not take a zh sound. It's J.. like jar, joke ~User_talk:m87

Moved. --Wikimol 16:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now if only someone would take the task of making sure his name is Ahmadinejad everywhere on Wikipedia... Dralwik 17:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the name in most important links (cca 30). The image is locked, userpages IMO doesn't matter. The rest should be checked using fulltext - you're welcome to help with that :-) --Wikimol 18:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Critiques of Ahmadinejad

Hey there- I reworded parts of the critiques paragraph of this article, but I'm not sure exactly what the writer of this paragraph intended to explain. I was going to contact them, but the history of this article is too long to find the member who wrote it! If anyone else could look into fixing/adding that paragraph to make it more readable, that would be great! Thanks! — Aurora (Say hi!)[[]] 18:11, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Critiques paragraph??? Do you mean criticism. If you do I will check it out. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 18:12, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquote

What happend to his article at Wikiquoke?

Revert it back if it has been blanked.--AI 30 June 2005 21:24 (UTC)

Disputed election procedures quote

Since he won, the circumstances of his election are relevant to his article. Other election details are presented in the article. Maybe it should be moved from the intro, though. HKT 28 June 2005 05:00 (UTC)

(The disputed quote follows:)

"Ahmadinejad was elected President of Iran on June 24, 2005 in the second round of the 2005 presidential election, in which only Muslim men approved by the Council of Guardians were allowed to run. The Council of Guardians controls the electoral infrastructure and has not allowed any independent observers or vote counts."

Here are the phrases (above). I believe the reason that the bolded info is irrelevant there is because it does not really add to anything about that canditate. The criteria for how someone is elected should be added to an article that outlines how the elections are performed within that country, not on the canditates or president-elect's page. That's like giving a complete detail about how elections are conducted in the USA on Al Gore's page! I think you understand. Thanks. --Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 05:48 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree with with you, but, vis-a-vis Iranian elections, people are typically unaware of procedure that's radically different than what they are used to in English-speaking countries. People are likely to assume that his election was typically democratic. I see your point, and I think that mention of this election detail should be placed less prominently in the article (in the Biography section perhaps?). HKT 28 June 2005 05:58 (UTC)

See we can't really assume who is reading the article, as wikipedia is an international encyclopedia so it is up to one's own desire whether they want to learn more about how candidates are chosen. Every country has a different method (some slightly more than others), but I mantain that should not be mentioned on a person's page, but rather on one about the electional criteria or the "elections in country X". Also whether a country has performed democratically or not is personal opinion and should be avoided for neutrality. Thanks.--Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 06:00 (UTC)

(1.) English wikipedia is primarily in existence for people from English-speaking countries. I think that providing information about something that most people probably wouldn't have any prompt to look up is worthwhile. (2.) Does such an article about Iranian election protocol already exists? Is such protocol mentioned anywhere on English Wikipedia? (3.) I used "typically democratic" loosely to refer to election-types that most English-speakers are accustomed to, and they are not used to such restrictions. (Strictly speaking, though, Democracy has a definition and is not a matter of opinion). Thank you. HKT 28 June 2005 06:19 (UTC)

HTK, strictly speaking though, regardless of various "democracy definitions" and who or who doesn't view the encyclopedia, this does not need to be mentioned on a candidate/president-elect's page. Surely you agree that the appropriate mention (if any) would be on an article about elections in that country? Thanks. --Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 06:24 (UTC)

It certainly should be mentioned somewhere. I continue to think that it should also be mentioned, hinted to, or at least linked to in this article. If readers would have no indication that such information exists, than I would consider the article incomplete and lacking context. P.S. I'm still wondering if the info exists anywhere on English Wikipedia. Do you know if it does? HKT 28 June 2005 06:32 (UTC)

No I don't know if it does exist but I am sure it probably does. I don't believe that this article needs to hint nor mention that as in many cases that would be considered POV and irrelevant for the article content. Thanks for your message. --Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 06:35 (UTC)

Call me thick, but why would it "be considered POV and irrelevant for the article content?" HKT 28 June 2005 06:45 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a link, but I do not agree that hinting the personal opinion that the elections are "undemocratic" is acceptable to the article. Thanks. --Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 06:45 (UTC)

While the statement is trying to highlight negatives about the election process, it doesn't mention "democracy" at all, nor does it bring personal opinions. Even considering the negativity, I think the statement brings appropriate context, as I stated above. Perhaps you could add a countering statement, if you think that would make it more NPOV. (Don't worry: If I think it's inappropriate, I'll just revert!) :) HKT 28 June 2005 07:10 (UTC)

You don't have to look very hard to find information on Iran's political system. It's a prominent part of the main Iran article. The problem with throwing in a couple negative statements like that is that in this climate of heavy anti-Iran propaganda, it reads like an endorsement of the U.S. position that the election was illegitimate (a position which says more about the state of U.S.-Iran relations than it does about the elections). Mirror Vax 28 June 2005 07:42 (UTC)

(1.) The Iran article does not contain the info that is mentioned by the statement in question. Neither does Council of Guardians, to which the info directly pertains. (2.) While the author probably intended to bring negative info about Ahmadinejad, his info only contained factual material. The author brought no personal opinion, and the only POV issue may be the prominent placement of the info. The author drew no conclusions about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the election.

Practically speaking, I hope we can (at least) agree to the following resolution: (1.) Add the info to the Council of Guardians wiki. (2.) The two points mentioned in the author's statement can be split up in that wiki to appear less POV. (3.) Add any relevant counterpoints to the Guardians wiki (if any). (4.) Add a sentence to this article (probably to the Biography section) stating that all candidates must be screened by the Council of Guardians (with a link to that wiki). This way, readers can find details on Wikipedia if they so desire. HKT 28 June 2005 21:40 (UTC)

I agree that it should be put in the relevant article, however it does NOT need to be mentioned on this one, but it may be linked. Also be aware that appending this info may result in further attempts by editors to indicate the same type of "election clarifications" in articles about other countries (e.g. Israel, USA). So if you do add the info into the appropriate article make sure it is as neutral as possible. Thank you. --Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 21:49 (UTC)

There no way to expect people to find this relevant info unless there's some sort of mention in this article. I don't think that simply stating that the Council screens candidates is so negative, and I don't think that it's too detailed for this article. I would actually appreciate "election clarifications" (such as I just mentioned) in whatever articles that they may be relevant and helpful to readers. P.S. I always try to follow WP:NPOV and make accurate edits, though I suppose it's up to others to decide how often I'm successful. Thanks for the reminder, though! HKT 28 June 2005 22:21 (UTC)

"There no way to expect people to find this relevant info unless there's some sort of mention in this article." HKT, I was talking about adding this info to the guardian's council article with saying something along the lines of "Another of the Guardian's council's responsibilities is to .....". Also, yes, I sincerely hope that everyone tries to follow WP:NPOV and that their edits also reflect this. Thanks. --Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 22:27 (UTC)

Wow, 15 colons! Anyway, feel free to change the Guardians article (and this one), as you see most appropriate. I'll take a look at the changes at some point in the near future (I hope). Thank you, HKT 28 June 2005 22:37 (UTC)

*Laughing*. Yeah 17 colons now! Yes, I am glad this issue is resolved. In the near future, I may try to append that brief info into the Guardians article. Thanks. --Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 22:41 (UTC)

Okay so back to no colons. How exactly does whitewashing the "election" provide a NPOV? The article provides percentage of victory in the runoff, initial percentage, and voter turnout, yet mentioning the fact that some 1000 of 1007 candidates were pre-disqualified is somehow a POV. The idea of a democracy in the English speaking world is vastly different than one where 1000 of 1007 candidates are disqualified for their political beliefs. Not clarifying this creates a POV of that the election is as legitimate as say one in Australia. Barneygumble 30 June 2005 21:37 (UTC)

There is no "whitewashing". It is a matter of relevancy. If you must add this "info" that you claim then add it to the "Iranian presidential elections" article. It is not needed in info about a particular candidate. All that is needed here is the margin that he was elected by. Btw, make sure you source your claim that "1000 were disqualified" in that article if you choose to add this. Thanks. --Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 21:43 (UTC)

If some 1000 of 1007 were exculded from running by the Ayatollah is "irrelevant", then why is vote total or voter turnout included? Shouldn't those values be included under the election page? The GW Bush biography page sees fit to mention the 2000 election dispute. Otherwise the page purports the perception to readers that Ahmadinejad was elected via a similar process as many other western nations.

Actually the article you cited from the Washington Times states that "1000 candidates were allowed to run in the election". Needing to say that that is different from western nations shows personal opinion. Even despite that, that information should be put in the "Iranian presidential elections" article and not one about a specific candidate. Thanks.--Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 22:34 (UTC)

Do you know any country thet allows 1007 names on the ballet for the top post? They all have some method of excluding candidates. The Iran method is unique to Iran's theocracy, but it doesn't neccessarily follow that the election was illegitimate. I gather that the candidates represented a wide range of views. The question is, were any major candidates excluded? The number is not so important. Mirror Vax 30 June 2005 22:50 (UTC)

No Anonymous, the article says " Iran's hard-line Islamic rulers, who have long and close ties to the incoming president, barred all but a handful of the 1,000 candidates who sought to run in the election." Mirror Vax, I didn't say it was necessarily illegimate. That is not for lowly me to decide. However, a brief mention that the Ayotollah's council eliminates some 99% of candidates is worth of a line and a referral to the main election page.Barneygumble 30 June 2005 23:20 (UTC)

Among those disqualified candidate that our bleeding heart "defenders of democracy" friends are losing sleep for, were an 18-year-old guy with Che Gueverra T-shirt and his own ideas of the future for Iran and a 19-year-old girl whose "solution" for Iran was to advance the American Rap and Hip-Hop music. The utter hypocricy of some people is entertaining. The same people support the tyrannical regime that was installed in Iran by CIA covert operation after destroying a perfectly legal and legitimate democracy in iran in 1953.

There were some odd examples, but many of the REAL reformers were banned. They disqualified Mostafa Moein, the main reformist candidate. The banned list includes more than 80 sitting members of the Majlis (their parliment), all of them reformers. Two women activists, Fatima Haqiqatjou and Elaheh Koulaee were also disqualified. Barneygumble 30 June 2005 23:33 (UTC)

They were not banned, they were disqualified (although Moein was reinstated later). Which democracy in the world does not have some means of filtering out the myriad of hopefuls to come up with a reasonable and practical subset of them so that a meaningful and practical election can take place? When was the last time in USA there were more than 3 runners for the office? Every country has its own social and political dynamics and values and criteria. Iran's democracy is not perfect, but neither is any other democracy. Iran's democracy is slowly but surely progressing, and all the hypocritical "concerns" of the West (actually, mainly just USA+Israel) has to do with the fact that they want control over Iran, which they do not have. Mansour 30 June 2005 23:43 (UTC)

Oh right, they were "disqualified"... for what, having an opinion contrary to that of the grand mullahs? The US has many other candidates for president. Here is a much more complete list. I count at least 12. [1] There are obviously only 2 prominent parties, but people aren't banned from running. The US even lets the "World Workers Party" run, which is the communist party. Iran does not have a democracy and stop trying to whitewash their election to make it seem legitimate.Barneygumble 1 July 2005 03:36 (UTC)

So USA had 12 names on the ballot, and Iran had 7. Do you think you can ever forgive the Iranians for not having modeled their entire existence 100% after the American society? I mean these idiots still don't even have a McDonald's store in their country, can you believe that?!! Mansour 1 July 2005 13:02 (UTC)

"election" is soooo the wrong word ... i can't believe that some people actually buy it :( larryfooter

This is not a place to debate the legitimacy of the elections in any case and the article is about a specific canditate who ran in the elections (and won). I can tell you one thing way less that a 1000 people actually get to run for elections here in the US. Anyways, whether or not the elections were legitimate is your own point of view. Please take debates to other forums. Thank you. -Anonymous editor July 1, 2005 12:49 (UTC)

Larryfooter, making judgements about whether it is a real election is a POV. HOWEVER, excluding the inclusion of facts about the election process, in order to make them appear more legitimate in the eyes of the majority of westerners is a POV as well. Some other users contend that this information doesn't belong on the page of the biography of Ahamdejad. However, by that rationaltion than vote totals and voter turnout percentage of the election should be moved to the election page as well. Also, the contreversy over the 2000 US election should be removed from the GW Bush page. Hiding information by moving it other pages is a POV as well. If the election is legitimate, then the critique of election process will withstand any criticism on its own.

People should be given the facts and arguements of both sides and be left make up their own minds of whether it is legitimate election. Something like "Some western critics decry the credibility of the election as about 1000 of 1007 candidates were diqualified by the Ayatollah's committee. However, Iranian supporters contend that just because their election process doesn't mirror a western process, doesn't make it any less legitimate." Barneygumble 1 July 2005 13:20 (UTC)

Barneygumble: Look up election: "An election is a decision making process whereby people vote for preferred political candidates or parties to act as representatives in government." The Iranian people do not have any candidates who act as representatives in government - it has mullahs who dictate laws and rules to the people - hence they are dictators, not represntatives ... that is not a POV - it is a fact. Sorry to disappoint :)

And who said anything about "excluding the inclusion of facts about the election process, in order to make them appear more legitimate in the eyes of the majority of westerners" ??? I was merely commenting on (mis)use of slanted language (calling what happened in Iran last month an election) ... such misuse of language is a POV of the worst kind ... it's misleading ... like calling Bin Ladin a revolutionary or calling the foreign terrorists in Iraq "insurgents" or "freedom fighters" ... it is not representative of the truth ... and there aren't two sides to the truth ... there is self determination and there is tyrrnay ... there is democracy and there is dictatorship ... and when you use language that implies that what happened in Iran last month had the remotest possibility of being an election rather than a *selection*, well ... it demeans the democratic process and undermines the aspirations of the Iranian people (and all other people in the world who are subjected to tyrrany from dictatorial regimes) for freedom and peace - and that i must admit is a POV :) larryfooter 9 July 2005

larryfooter: Please take the time to learn the history and context of the present Iranian government. It is not a "dictatorial regime". They have their own system of checks and balances, including on their supreme leader. The majority of Iranians do support their government and nation, as evidenced by the voter turn out -- the revolution itself was a POPULAR revolution, unlike the dictatorial regime imposed by the Americans, complete with roaming death squads and so on (SAVAK). It appears that "self-determination" is in your mind equated with tyranny, while "externally imposed determination" is freedom. This is perverse. --GE

Date Confusion

The article states that "In 1980, Ahmadinejad was the head representative of IUST to the student gatherings [......] which led to the Iran hostage crisis". But the hostage crisis began in November 1979, so this date cannot be correct, unless the editor means to say that Ahmadinejad only met with this group after the hostages had already been seized. In any case, it needs to be cleared up. --Blainster 28 June 2005 18:03 (UTC)

A Populist ?

How can Ahmadinejad be called a populist? Wikipedia's own pages defines it as "a political philosophy or rhetorical style that holds that the common person is oppressed by the "elite" in society, and that the instruments of the State need to be grasped from this self-serving elite." If Ahmadinejad is a hardliner, who essentially agrees with and advances the rule of the grand mullahs, how exactly is he trying to serve the common person, wrestling the control of the government from the mullahs? Barneygumble 1 July 2005 12:38 (UTC)

Hmmnnn .... excuse me sir, may I casually point out to you that the the word "populist" in reference to Ahmadinejad appears on the link that you yourself put in the article earlier today [2] in your highly impressive attempts to smear the guy? I suggest that you do a search for the word "populist" on that article, and you may also want to click on its link, which will take you to another article from the same source by the title of "Guardian of the revolution with a populist feel for the working class". [3] Then, feel free to write a formal protest to the editor of that newpaper for their negligence and lack of journalistic responsibility and threaten to sue them for having caused you appear slightly less than enviable in the English Wikipedia. Mansour 1 July 2005 12:58 (UTC)

Fair enough! Barneygumble 1 July 2005 13:24 (UTC)

Allegations: 1979 Hostage Taker?

The image Claimed-to-be-ahmadinejad.jpg is not correct. The person indicated is clearly not Ahmadinejad. I have changed it for a montage including the same photo indicating the individual to the far right. Included are several other photos taken at the same time. That person appears almost certainly to be Ahmadinejad. --Packmanus 1 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)

You do seem to be right, and you are right that the news agencies (particularly Iran Focus, but it's being circulated everywhere now) haven't brought a clear basis for circling who they did. However, you should be aware that changing the article as you did is technically a violation of the Wikipedia:No original research policy. If you could contact any reputable media outlet and have them agree to you about the photo (and then publish/broadcast accordingly), you could change the photo back. By the way, I indicated on the photo summary that the claim made through the photo was made by Iran Focus (while otherwise people would mistakenly think that the hostages themselves had identified the fellow circled in red). HKT 1 July 2005 21:29 (UTC)

I like to make a few points about this. First, I think all major news agencies (AP, AFP, Reuters, and BBC) circulated that photo with encircled bearded man as Ahmadinejad, and not just Iran Focus. Regarding what Packmanus suggests, I don't think the person he is focusing on is Ahmadinejad at all.

File:Ahmadinejad-khatami.jpg

That guy is even taller and bigger than the one next to the hostage. Ahmadinejad is a short and small man. Their size is not even close. Perhaps this picture would clarify this point more. Here is the picture of Ahmadinejad next to Khatami. Notice that Khatami by no means is a tall or big man, he is quite average.

Also, the group of students who called themselves "Students of the Imam's Path" who were involved in taking the hostages, were over 300 students. Many (perhaps most) of them today are among reformers and staunch opponents of the hard-liners like Ahmadinejad. It would be really hard to imagine that not one of them would come out and say hey, Ahamadinjead was involved too. (Unsigned bit by user 69.233.169.62 (talk · contribs)).

Ok. (1.) All these news orgs. that you mention copied the picture and red circling from Iran Focus. (This is of minor relevence anyway). (2.) What specifically is Mohammad Khatami's "quite average" size? (If I'm not mistaken, the average human adult male is 5 ft., 8 inches). (3.) How do you know how tall the hostage is? How do you know how tall the man next to him is, for that matter? Please bring sources for these assertions. (4.) Instead of showing everyone a picture, why don't you do something more scientific and find a reliable source for Ahmadinejad's height? (5.) If I'm not mistaken, many of Ahmadinejad's "staunch opponents", like Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, understand that they must support him now in the face of foreign pressure. (6.) Do you honestly think that all "300 students" remember each other? --HKT 3 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)

I am not going to spend my time collecting data such as the exact height of people in the news for Wikipedia. All I know is that I see these people in Iranian news, TV, press conferences, etc. all the time, and Ahmadinejad's stature and build is unmistakably small by Iranian standards, and Khatami is average. So the picture above is a good way to get an idea of Ahmadinejad's size. How do I know the exact height of the people in the picture? Well, obviously I don't, but there are 5 or 6 people in the picture and none of them seems to be even close in height and build to Ahmadinejad and probability and common sense tells me that it is very highly unlikely that in a picture with five or six people in it (including one American) all of them be of Ahmadinejad's height. Besides, that is not the only picture of those individuals available, there are other pictures with other people around them, too. As for your enquoted "staunch oppenents like Rajsanjani", I have a feeling that you know by staunch oppenents of Ahmadinejad I didn't mean people like Rafsanjani, but I think you just want to be argumentative, and for that, be my guest. Do I honestly think all 300 students remember each other? Certainly a good number of them would know if Ahmadinejad was among them or not. You don't have any problems relying on the memory of 70-year-old American hostages after 25 years, and they didn't personally know these people or get to see them all the time, why would you have a problem relying on the memory of Iranians who are in their 40's and early 50's who used to be part of the same party or political process even before the US embassy raid (and probably for a long time after that)? They were not just 300 hundred university students, they were a group of students who were part of a certain ideological process at that time, comparable to marxist students. Many of them were MKO partisans, but not all of them. But they were all "on the same side" at the time, and certainly many of them had a very good idea about who is who. (Unsigned bit by user 69.233.169.62 (talk · contribs)).

First of all, would you be so kind as to sign your posts? This makes discussion much clearer and we know who is speaking with whom. (You can sign your name by following your posts with 4 tildes. By the way, it would be even easier if you just signed on as a user. It only takes a few seconds, and you don't have to provide any personal information).

Now, to get down to business: (1.) It is against Wikipedia policy to base articles on personal opinion or belief (even if you think it is obvious). See Wikipedia:No original research. Quotes like: "All I know is that I see...," "...unmistakably small...," etc., won't do any good on Wikipedia. I already explained this to User:Packmanus. (2.) One reason for this policy is that what some people might think is "probability and common sense," may not actually be so probable or sensible. For example, you wrote: "...[B]ut there are 5 or 6 people in the picture and none of them seems to be even close in height and build to Ahmadinejad...." First of all, I count three faces in the picture, along with small segments of two other jacket sleeves. More importantly, there is an interesting principle about graphical perspective that is taught in art classes: The farther away something appears in a picture, the higher it is likely to appear. One of the two men pictured in the photo (aside from Ahmadinejad) is in the background. While his background position may account for his appearance above Ahmadinejad, he may also be, simply, tall! I also wonder, since I can't see the feet of any of the pictured men, whether Mohammad Khatami is standing on higher ground. In general, the perspective in the picture is not so clear. Anyway, you still haven't told me the height of either man, and it doesn't seem that you intend to. (3.) You wrote: "You don't have any problems relying on the memory of 70-year-old American hostages after 25 years, and they didn't personally know these people or get to see them all the time, why would you have a problem relying on the memory of Iranians who are in their 40's and early 50's..." Who said I am relying on anyone?! I support including allegations in this article, all the while calling them "allegations". I also support including denials by those "Iranians who are in their 40's and early 50's" (I added those denials to the article, by the way). I maintain that, for purposes of this article, we should not discriminate against any relevant party; apparently, you support such discrimination. (4.) Of the 300 hostage-takers, you speculate that "[c]ertainly a good number of them would know if Ahmadinejad was among them or not." I am at a loss interpreting your statement. What's "a good number?" 20? 80? Let's use the number 50, shall we? Now, what percent of student activists do you think remained activists for 25 years? 10%? 5%? (I'm really going out on a limb with the speculation, but you give me no choice, and I'm trying to give conservative estimates). This gives us 2-5 activists who may remember Ahmadinejad and his purported involvement in the 1979 embassy raid. Now how many of those do you think like the USA? If you'd ask me to speculate (which I normally try to avoid), I'd say that if there were even 20-50 such political opponents of Ahmadinejad, most likely all of them would deny his involvement for the sake of standing up to America. You've compared them to "marxist[s]." Do marxists usually like western capitalist democracies? No. And they are no different than Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in this regard. HKT 4 July 2005 02:04 (UTC)

I thought it would be clear which picture I meant when I said "common sense tells me that it is very highly unlikely that in a picture with five or six people in it (including one American) all of them be of Ahmadinejad's height." Apparently I was wrong. You are right, Khatami is probably standing on a podium (plus, he is probably also wearing high heel shoes). Anyway, I see that you have plenty of time and you are clearly in a mood for arguing; but I am not interested in that and I can simply say: guilty as charged; you win. (Unsigned bit by user 69.233.169.62 (talk · contribs). Again, please sign posts).

Since you are only directing your sarcasm at my second point, I take it that you concede points 1, 3, and 4. Anyway, since the 5 ft. 8 inch 0 millimeter Khatami could not possibly have been standing on a step, and as you magically can see feet that aren't pictured in the photo, let's talk about the other picture.

Firstly, allow me to apologize. In my haste skimming your long post (no, I don't savor and try to drag on arguments; I also have other things to do), I missed that you wrote: "(including one American)." My fault. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Now, in short: How could you definitively know the respective heights of the three (yes, three again) people pictured in the foreground of that photo? On the basis of this "evidence," you're going to dismiss everything as the product of some vast and sinister conspiratorial smear campaign?! Again, this one very important reason for Wikipedia:No original research.

If you bother to respond, please sign your post. You can do so by entering 4 tildes (~~~~). Thanks, HKT 5 July 2005 01:20 (UTC) (P.S. Who's "guilty as charged"?)

Off the point, but maybe someone has an idea. IF the allegation was true, what I do not understand, is why he would deny it? If I understand properly it would make him a hero to many. What am I missing? --Tony Hecht 00:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

If the allegations are true, the reason would likely be that the US government (and perhaps some European governments) might place/push for immediate sanctions on Iran if Ahmadinejad admitted heavy involvement in the embassy takeover. The US would almost certainly demand more serious UN action to prevent Iran from pursuing a nuclear program. It would be politically difficult for the US to continue talks with Iran if the allegations were verified, and it's likely that the US would push for new elections barring Ahmadinejad from candidacy. Ahmadinejad is already considered a hero by many Iranians, and it would be a steep price to pay to become a greater hero. HKT ^talk 01:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Sources: CIA finds Iranian president likely not hostage-taker Analysis not final, officials say Friday, August 12, 2005 Posted: 1826 GMT (0226 HKT) http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/08/12/cia.iranpresident/index.html

Well, that settles it then. --Joodoo 02:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Nothing is settled. See my comments below, where a charge similar to your's is presented. HKT ^talk 21:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a propaganda media

I don´t understand why suspicions of any kind are allowed to be part of someones description in Wikipedia. It is more than clear, especially in the case of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that right at this time the chapter "Allegations" is some kind of propaganda war on Wikipedia. So, reminding the sentence "someone is not guilty until his debt is proven", I think suspicions should not to be allowed in Wikipedia articles about persons, because they try to shift readerships view about the person to some unproven opinions. Persons should be described with facts and with a neutral point of view. This is clearly not given at this time to the article about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

It is importand that Wikipedia is not used as an political instrument. This case shows, that Wikipedia is some importand source of information for the public today, and that some suspects try to use this free editable source to push the publics view to some direction they want. If this is allowed to be continued by Wikipedia administration, Wikipedia will lose her reputation as a worth to be reading information source.

Wikipedia articles of people who are in the news focus with unproven suspicions should be locked for editing until some time when there are again facts to say. Wikipedia administration should think about some reasonable timespan for article locking. It is like with the stocks: if things are getting uncontrollable, stocks administrations disallow trading for some time. I think this is the only way Wikipedia can protect its information quality without changing informations published by editors. 80.140.156.5 (talk · contribs)).

If you'll notice, many people with opposing points of view are editing this article. These allegations are notable, partly because of the intense media coverage. Whether or not you take Ahmadinejad's side in calling all this a "smear campaign," both sides of this discussion are appropriate for Wikipedia and both sides are aired here. Mentioning that the allegations are allegations is completely different from writing that Ahmadinejad is guilty (which the article doesn't claim). By the way, if you have any suggestions about Wikipedia policy, please present them at the Wikipedia:Village pump. Thank you, HKT 5 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)

"Appropriate for Wikipedia"? I take that as you thinking that it is perfectly appropriate for Wikipedia to be like a tabloid :) I WILL be taking this up at the village pump. IMHO, Wikipedia policy should direct contributors to diffuse controversy, refactor accusations/allegations/etc and eventually remove any mention of controversy unless the particular controversy is highly relevant to the subject material of an article. I have added a dispute tag to the section "Alleged involvement in the 1979 Hostage Crisis". Until tabloidal section of the article is removed or toned down, any removal of the dispute tag will be reverted as it is very clear that many people (including non-wikipedians) are in dispute over the facts concerning this. --AI 22:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

No, that's simply not how Wikipedia works. We report any sides of the issue that have significant discussion elsewhere (e.g. media, history books, etc.). We report alleged negative facts about George W. Bush in great detail, so I don't see why Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should be treated any differently. --Delirium 22:56, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

We... I disagree with the way Wikipedia works in this regard and I am notable. :D You are supportive of a fundamental problem with Wikipedia. You are entitled to be remembered this way if that's what you like, I won't stop you. --AI 23:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. When the mainstream western media treats something as a big story, and the US government launches an investigation, the issues becomes notable and worthy of treatment in Wikipedia. HKT ^talk 22:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Has the US government launched an investigation into these claims about Ahmadinejad and his involvement in the 1979 hostage crisis? To hell with mainstream media. Anyone with enough money can become "mainstream media." Anyway, I would be happy to nominate you as a sysop of any future Wikitabloid. :D --AI 23:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The credibility of the mainstream western media and the US government is irrelevant to the issue's notability. Even granting your apparent claim that Washington Post, Reuters, and AP are all "tabloids", this article isn't taking sides or generating theories. This article is presenting an account of major geo-political interaction. Unilaterally tagging that account as lacking in "factual accuracy", and taking sides by calling the media coverage a "smear campaign", is quite tabloidesque. More importantly, it violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and Wikipedia:Consensus. HKT ^talk 01:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Allegations

Hello HKT. You have included the following in the "allegations" sections: "Ahmadinejad, his political supporters, and even a number of his political opponents in Iran, have denied all or some of these allegations." -- The problem I have with that is that it gives the general reader the impression that some people have only partially denied the allegations. I don't think any of the Iranians (whether supportive or against Ahmadinejad) have implied that some of the allegations may be true. While you are right that some of those who have denied some of the allegations were not in a position to authoritatively reject *ALL* of the allegations, still, the way that part of the article is currently written, gives the general reader the impression that some of the allegations are being accepted. Can we work on improving that a little? Mansour 6 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you're saying. How about: "...have taken part in denying these allegations." Would that be clearer? Thanks for pointing this out, HKT 6 July 2005 14:57 (UTC)

I would say a simple "[they] have denied the allegations." is better, on the account of "[they] have taken part in denying these allegations" is saying the same thing but with extra verbage, and that particular extra verbage also can convey "collaboration in hiding facts" ("taken part") to the mind of the reader. I think it is pretty obvious by now that the allegations are all part of a smear campaing and Wikipedia should not contribute to it. In my opinion, the smear campaign has actually worked out to the benefit of the Iranian regime, because most reasonable and intelligent people in the world feel cheated when they see such media dishonesty and they naturally side with the victim in such cases. Mansour 7 July 2005 06:36 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with your concerns about possible interpretation, but go ahead; your phrasing doesn't really bother me. As far as your smear campaign thoughts (I probably don't even have to remind you of this, but at least as a general reminder to editors of this article...): Watch out for WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. A word to the wise.... HKT 7 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)

I agree with Mansour and I am doubtful of your self-proclaimed wisdom. --AI 22:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Self-proclaimed wisdom? "A word to the wise [is sufficient]" means that my brief reminder about Wikipedia's policies would be sufficient for wise editors. In the above case, it ended up not being sufficient. HKT ^talk 01:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Of revert campaigns...

Mansour, you have expressed a desire to see rationales discussed on the talk page. Ok, here's an edit summary that I wrote (early on) about repeatedly listing Pilz as a Jew: "You're right that it's relevant info, since Iran bases its denials on this. However, this info is already mentioned a few sentences later and readding it here would be redundant." I hope this is sufficient. However, it should really be unnecessary for me to post anything on the talk page, give that that is the prerogative of the one who inserts a controversial edit. Don't you think? HKT 18:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, first, I find it rather strange (to put it midly) that you agree to discuss it in the TALK page (since I asked to let's discuss it first please) but you go ahead and do a revert anyway and call this "revert campaign". That aside, I left the note for the person who had reverted the article, but you responded on his/her behalf by saying "fine, let's discuss it". I find this also rather strange. Finally, I don't see mentioning Pilz is Jewish to be controversial at all. Iran's official response to this still unsubstantiated allegation has been that it is part of a Zionist media smear campaign. Therefore, how could you say that the fact the Pilz is Jewish is irrelevant? I see it as quite relevant. I also don't see why mentioning a Jewish person is Jewish should be viewed as controversial even in normal course of events and contexts. Really bizarre. Mansour 18:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

"...but you go ahead and do a revert anyway and call this 'revert campaign'."

Please look at the history, and the existence of a revert campaign over the past couple days will become quite clear.

"That aside, I left the note for the person who had reverted the article, but you responded on his/her behalf by saying "fine, let's discuss it". I find this also rather strange."

I don't even understand what you're trying to say. What are you referring to?

"Finally, I don't see mentioning Pilz is Jewish to be controversial at all. Iran's official response to this still unsubstantiated allegation has been that it is part of a Zionist media smear campaign. Therefore, how could you say that the fact the Pilz is Jewish is irrelevant? I see it as quite relevant. I also don't see why mentioning a Jewish person is Jewish should be viewed as controversial even in normal course of events and contexts."

It seems that you haven't even read my above post. Read it, please. (Speaking of bizarre....) HKT 20:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Why is Pilz singled out regarding his ethnicity? No one else's ethnicity (including that of the article's subject) appears to need any mention... --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Though no one cares, I'd like to add my thoughts to this discussion, in the hope that an eventual multitude of opinions may help resolve this conflict. I speak as someone who is not Jewish, but who has a Jewish family (who, I might add, reject Zionism and deplore what they believe to be Israel's disproportionate agression against the Palestinians). My family always taught that it's never offensive to label someone Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, etc. unless the term is being used derisively. Muslims should be proud to be Muslims as Jews should be proud to be Jews. Because Israel and Palestine are engaged in a conflict of historic proportions, I think it makes sense to identify Jewish sources, Christian sources, and Muslim sources -- if simply to provide prospective to the reader. Those who are anti-Islamic, anti-Semitic (or anti-any benevolent religion) are blatant fools and as such should not be welcome to edit here. But I don't believe it's worth this edit war just to try and be politically correct about an extremely complicated situation in the middle east. I believe MPerel has a good point about the fact that it seems like Pilz is singled out to some extent. Why don't those who know identify the ethnicities of all the parties mentioned as well? It can only help the readers. If you have such knowledge, please share it. To me, this is a fascinating article that's very important for people wanting to better understand the recent elections in Iran, and I think we shouldn't ruin the learning experience with fighting over small things. This is simply a humble opinion I'd like to add, and I hope others will add theirs as well.

PS -- I also wanted to say that if your motivation for adding Jewish references is anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism, you should not make such modifications. It's unfortunate, but there are a very few proudly anti-semitic people contributing to this article who have no business doing so on Wikipedia, a secular site.

RJSampson 01:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to know if there is an actual source for this statement: Supporters of Ahmadinejad have questioned the credibility of such information, have mentioned that Pilz is a Jew, and have called the media reporting these to be "Zionist media". --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed numerous Iranian media pointed that out right away. That is why I support the idea of including "Jewish" at the beginning of that sub-section of the article. It is not to "single out" Pilz because he is jewish per se, it is because both Iranian media as well as officials from Foreign Ministry have called it a part of the on-going Zionst smear campaign against Iran. Pilz' "early anouncements", had claimed that both final candidates of the Iranian presidency were mentioned in his "extraordinarily reliable Agent D" report. So no matter which candidate won, he would have smeared the winner. He had anticipiated that Rajsanjani wins (like most people expected) so he had initially put the focus more on Rafsanjani. As an Iranian, I also feel this is coordinated. It is indeed hard to explain how the major Western media would be so quick to report all those allegatoins (which so far have turned out to be false) without even a cursory investigation. How could for example, AP, Reuters and AFP all three make the same mistake at the same time? And it wasn't even on just one allegation, it was on multiple. So multiple News Agencies, making multiple mistakes that a pro would hardly ever do, all at the same time? And I have seen a pattern like this for years on numerous other anti-Iran smear reports. Also, you might notice how so many people involved in this very article are Jews or at least their edit history clearly shows their pro-Zionist stance. I don't think that is accidental either, they are voluntary "contributors" to the same smear campaign because they view Islamic Iran as a threat to Zionism. The same people also have an "interest" on the Rafsanjani article and probably many other Iran-related articles. Mansour 19:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mansour,

Your question as to how all three agencies could screw up simulaneously made me smile. You give our Press way too much credit. They truly screw up all the time. Their main goal is to get as many viewers/readedrs/listeners as they can as quickly as possible. And so, if they have a supposed new tip, they will often make it public without much research. It's a real shame, indeed. People accuse American media of having liberal, conservative, and all sorts of other biases. And they do indeed occur in different areas (examples: Foxnews, The New York Times etc. You will find Foxnews being on Israel's side more often than most other networks, and you will find the New York Times on the side of the Palestinians more often than most other networks.) Whatever unique biases any news organization may have, ALL have a the same, collective bias: To make money. Therefore, they sensationalize, modify, and even distort the news, and in order to beat their competitors to the airwaves, will make unwise editorial decisions by releasing material that has not been properly evaluated. This is a problem that is getting progressively worse in America. Most people who neutrally observe the American Press would agree. So really -- it's not at all hard to understand why AP, Reuters, and APR would screw up simultaneously. It happens extremely often here, and unfortunately, Americans have grown used to it. Coverage of the Iranian elections is no exception.

God bless

RJSampson 21:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

PS - I thought I'd let you in on another American secret. The vast, vast majority of Americans have no clue whatsoever what Zionism is, or even the history of Israel and Palestine. If there are indeed "Zionist conspiracies" occuring, you will not find them in AP, Reuters, and APR. RJSampson 21:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi. As I said, I have observed that pattern for a number of years (almost on daily basis) about Iran, because naturally I pay attention to what (and how) Western media report on Iran. I do realize the business and "sensationalization" side of it all and I agree with you on that. But even taking that into account, still there is a clear orchestrated pattern. And again, do you think it is just a coincidence that a bunch of Jews with clear pro-Israel/pro-Zionism edit history, such as HKT and Jayjq (an admin) and others, are focused on Iran-related articles such as this one and are insistent on spreading lies or intentionally misinterpreting things and doing all sorts of evil towards a certain goal? Ask yourself this: can an American TV anchorperson freely criticize Israel or freely speak his or her mind about US-Israeli policy without the fear of losing his or her job? I don't think so, because now we live in a world that your TV and news programmes are viewed all over the world, just like you can view programmes from so many other countries. In case of US politicians, the situation is even worse. I think it is funny to hear Americans claim to be "land of the brave and the free" -- even the American president cannot afford to speak his mind about Israel. The only good news is that more and more Americans are now finally waking up to this scary situation. Mansour 04:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Will the wikipedia contributors be willing to take responsibility for their involvement in perpetuation of totally disputed controversy?

--AI 23:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm hard-pressed to understand what you're trying to communicate. Are you threatening a nuclear attack?! Quite disturbing.... HKT ^talk 01:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand and if it eases anyone mind: I am an American citizen and 100% against nuclear weapons and any use of them at all. I was being sarcastic, but it is a very real and potential threat from countries such as Iran. Anyway, I apologize for disturbing you; I realize I am disrupting things by bringing up these points about sources here and will seek time in the near future to raise these issues in relevant Wikipedia policy/guideline talk pages. Aloha. --AI 08:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The U.S. government has the most nuclear weapons of all, and believe it or not, I as an American citizen, am more concerned about the threat to the world from countries like U.S. than I am about Iran. Revolución 18:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Isfahan's Islamic Superdemocracy puts nothing in brackets. Not U 235.

I think the new Iranian president is wonderful too. I like his smile. He will return Iran to it's true Islamic Revolutionary roots. He will dispose of the atheist communists who are springing up and twisting the minds of some people and return them to the teachings of Allah and his Holy Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).Revolucion, I am also not concerned with Iran getting nuclear weapons either. Who will they threaten? Only Israel, so what do they matter? Saduj al-Dahij 22:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad's photo on the article

The photo Image:Ahmadinejad1.jpg, which appears on this page, is claimed by some people that it's free for redistribution, while it's actually copyrighted by ISNA. (They sometimes additionally claim that all material crated by government of Iran is free for redistribution, which is wrong). Please help keep the other photo, Image:Ahmadinezhad.jpg on this page, since at least we are claiming fair use about it, and not a wrong claim about copyright law. roozbeh 11:20, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

They don't "sometimes additionally claim", they have clearly said their material IS FREE FOR REDISTRIBUTION. The other photo is free for redistribution, is taken during the elections campaing, is a better photo and has the Islamic Iran's emblem in the background. So in every way you look at it, it is a better choice. Besides, if you REALLY are losing so many hours of sleep over this, why can't we claim fair use for this one as well? How would it be different from the fair use claim associated with the other one? -anonymous

Who has said that it's "FREE FOR REDISTRIBUTION"? ISNA? Or the person who probably illegally uploaded it? Actually, can you prove that it's actually an ISNA photo? ISNA photos usually come with a text under the photo, while this one doesn't come with that text. The reason one can't claim fair use about this, is that: 1) There is no proof that this is from ISNA, and: 2) It's probably changed before being uploaded, which violates copyright again. The photo currently on the page has a clear source, and has not been modified. roozbeh 16:01, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Protection

The page has been under attack from various IPs, mainly changing the picture and deleting the paragraph on "Platform". It can probably be removed fairly soon with reprotection if these elements return. JFW | T@lk 16:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Damn son of a bitch terrorists. Unsigned sarcastic profanity by 65.80.231.202 (talk · contribs). HKT ^talk 22:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

It's now been protected for a week. Maybe it's time to unprotect. Rd232 15:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

CIA Investigation Solves '79 Hostage Connection Dispute

As originally requested by President Bush on June 26th, the goverment had investigated whether or not Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was one of the captors of the 52 U.S. diplomats who were held hostage in Iran from 11/4/1979 to 1/20/1981--the hostage-taking was supposedly in response to Iranian unrest over the 1953 U.S. coup that toppled the democratically elected Prime Minister & rose the Shah to power & was also until being released thirty-three minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn-in as President. Well, the CIA has officially concluded their investigation & discovered that there was "no evidence" that Mr. Ahmadinejad was invovled in any way to the 1979 hostage-taking. Ahmadinjead & his political allies concede that the newly sworn-in president was part of the students who tookover the U.S. embassy & was a devout supporter of the Ayatollah Khomeini, yet they & the currently pro-American once-anti-US leader of the captors told Iranian & U.S. media that President Ahmadinejad was not one of his fellow captors.

As far as I know, the CIA has not "officially concluded" anything. Some CIA officials, speaking on anonymity and in an unofficial capacity, stated that they are relatively certain that Ahmadinejad wasn't involved in the actual capture of hostages. The CIA has not yet made any official statements, and the leaks that have gotten out only speak in terms of direct involvement in the hostage capturing. P.S. Please sign your IP signature after your posts. You can do so by typing ~~~~ after your posts. If you wish, you can also log in as a user. Thank you. HKT ^talk 22:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The biased pictures

In the article, the only pictures used are that of Ahmadinejad with the Venezualan president and of the Hezbollah leader who are both disparaged in the United States. I think in order to be more unbiased and objective, we could include pictures of him with the Iraqi president Talibani and with Kofi annan. Also another current picture that is worthwhile is the one where he is making the speech in the UN summit. These current pictures only insinuate strongly that Ahmadinejad has terrorist links which to this date have not been formaly proven or concluded with any clear evidence. So to be fair, or we delete the current pictures or include more pictures that doesn't insinuate terrorist links.

Well, I guess it does give a negative perspective of Ahmedinejad to political Americans. If you want to add any pictures to the article, go ahead but please follow the Image use policy of wikipedia keeping in mind the copyright information. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Whitewash?

Please explain the move of paragraph describing his call for the destruction of Israel away to separate "Allegations" article. Are there any doubts that this was true? If not, then this is not an allegation but rather a fact. Also, obviously the allegations article will get significantly less hits than the main article. This, together with AE's removal of his picture with Hizballah leader, seems like a whitewash attempt to me. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with Humus. There was nothing POV about the paragraph. It is a verifiable fact that he has called for the destruction of Israel and has been printed by several major news outlets worldwide and he was subsequently condemned by several world leaders. It is not an "allegation" such as the charge that he was one of the hostage takers. Though, I had not realized when I added it that it was placed in the broader allegations category. Perhaps it should have been seperate or perhaps the Allegations section should have been re-titled --Jakob Huneycutt 06:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh I understand what you mean, but instead of reverting all my efforts to clean up this article, is it possible to just move the allegations to the article. As for "whitewash", please don't speculate. I was one of the first one's who edited this article, created the criticism section and the allegations section. There is no reason to always assume bad faith Humus, although you always do that for some reason. See Wikipedia: Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Civility By the way, I didn't remove Nasrallah's Hezbollah picture, it was still there; infact I moved it up. Look closer. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 10:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

No bad faith here, thanks for useful tips. Sorry I missed the picture. The rest of my comment stands: allegation is something unproven, the fact the MA made the statements is proven. Glad it's been fixed to everyone's delight. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it only reverted a few edits and I re-corrected one of them (deleting the "recent news" thing). I didn't revert to your first edit, mind you; I reverted to the actual edit directly before the allegations were moved. But I still don't see why we would need a new page for it. --Jakob Huneycutt 12:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry I am fine with it. I just wanted to clean up the article a little bit so that people don't feel like they are reading a novel. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Allegations Page

The more I look into this issue, the more disturbed I am by the sudden movement of the entire allegations section over to another page. First off, this discussion page includes a warning that this is a controversial topic; hence, that drastic changes to the article shouldn't be made without discussion. Making a radical change like moving half of the entire article to another page, seems to violate Wikipedia policy in such an instance. There's no reason the allegations page needs to be seperate to begin with. We should re-label it "Views and Allegations" or possibly create two seperate categories, perhaps, but it's better to leave it all in one article, rather than this seperate article bit. I'd move it back over immediately since the move violates Wikipedia policy, but we probably do need to decide something about the section. --Jakob Huneycutt 07:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I reverted back to the pre-move state until this is talked about further. I might try to do some clean-up on the article in the meantime. Too many things have been randomly inserted into the 'call for destruction of Israel' section in any case and it needs to be updated to reflect Israel's response and the international community's condemnation. --Jakob Huneycutt 07:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

"Wiped off the map"

Was the recent speech denouncing Israel delivered in Farsi or some other language then English? If so, I'd really love to see some commentary on the translation. The phrase "wiped off the map" has extremely strong connotations of nuclear war in English, but in a very idiomatic way. Other then that particular interpretation of the metaphorical, the remark, as the context is decribed here, does not clearly advocate force against Israel, though it certainly rejects its legitimacy as a State in extremely harsh terms. I don't mean to take a POV here but I just think the media and this article is lacking clarity on the details of the language used. --Brian Z 13:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Given the fact that it was given to students in Tehran, I imagine it would have had to have been delivered in Persian/Farsi. From what I read on the Islamic Republic News Agency's website, most of the quotes the American and British are using are identical to that off IRNA's English version of the story. Though, I couldn't specifically locate the 'wipe off the map' quote on that site. --Jakob Huneycutt 13:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeh, it was in Persian. And he probably said it. And he is just like they say he is: "diplomatically irresponsible". People like him make life for people like me much harder.--Zereshk 19:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It's funny how Israel is so offended by Mahmoud's comments, considering Ariel Sharon requested the U.S. attack Iran "the day after" Baghdad falls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.13.92 (talk • contribs)

Not funny. The diffenence is, no one called for the genocide of the Iranian people and wiping their country off the map. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Reaffirmation - Call for Destruction of Israel

I can't see any reason for the reaffirmation paragraph inserted today (the one that begins "Ahmadinejad reaffirmed his position on 28 October 2005"). It doesn't add anything new to the story since we already knew his position from the previous stories. Hence, it doesn't make much sense to put it in an encyclopedic article. Am I alone in believing it should be deleted? --Jakob Huneycutt 20:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 21:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Non-Racist movement?

"Firstly, the movement is not nationalistic or racist." Who wrote this garbage on this article? Followers of Ahmadinejad are violently anti-Jewish and go further than most [B]NEO-NAZIS[/B] in what they say they want done to Jews.