Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Ahmadinedjad on Facebook?

Footnote #3 cites an alleged Ahmadinedjad profile on Facebook as source. Is there such a thing as an official Ahmadinedjad account on Facebook? -- Curious from Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.113.141.20 (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Extreme vandalism

The moderators are thinking of protecting this page.

it is one of the most vandlised pages on wikipedia.

Please stop the vandlism. you will be banned from using wikipedias editing application —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.223.124 (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I second that motion, untill most of the heat from the election is blown over, I've had to fix much vandalism.--Mrlego9 (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

vandalism is the least of this page's problems. it's totally unilateral and fails to list any real hardcore facts or does so with only poor citations. it tends to come off as having been written by a zionist or anti-iran/anti-islam group as can be seen by all the bias.Tatumstevens2 (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

tatumstevens2: I'm pretty sure there's some conspiracy behind the vandailsm, and that Mahmoud is in fact a truly peace-loving president and that he's beloved thorough the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamejudd (talk • contribs) 13:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the subject of the article is "beloved" or not, the issue is whether the article is factual and referenced, or whether falls off the track of encyclopedia-hood into the area of opinion. See Adolf Hitler for reference. By the way, I only suggest Adolf Hitler's article because you make the point that Ahmadinejad is hated worldwide, which reminds me of Hitler. I am sure you will see the difference between POV and NPOV there. :-) Peace and prosperity.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 13:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism/Holocaust denial section

This section is a classic case of WP:UNDUE amd WP:COATRACK. This topic does NOT deserve the amount of material it currently has and it should be under another section such as "International criticism" or "Relations with Israel". Factsontheground (talk) 08:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

As these topics are what MA is primarily known for in the West, I think the amount of coverage we have is good. There could be more, but it might start to make the article too bulky. Also, your removal of the single most (in)famous statement MA has made from the lead damages the article significantly. IronDuke 15:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a generalized approach to its topics, not a "What is the Western world thinking about topic X" approach.  Cs32en  11:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia has a generalized approach to its topics..." I don't know what that means, really. Wikipedia has an approach that consults reliable sources, which agree--massively--on this. Western? Some... but that's a built-in feature of an English language Wikipedia. IronDuke 02:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

There's absolutely no doubt that information in the leading paragraphs have given undue weight to his "holocaust denials" and ALLEGED call for Israel's destruction. Lakerking04 (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

How is this undue weight? The reason why the vast majority of all the people's in the world (including Iranians themselves) dislike Ahmad is a large part due to his holocaust denial (which is fact, not opinion. He is a denier and denies frequently). This is not about the "Western world", ask all the people who voted for Mousvai what they think.

Suppose that, for example, the Prime Minister of Canada were to be caught repeatedly having sexual relations with the eleven year old son of one of his friends. Would it then be appropriate to spend a gigantic part of his Wikipedia article on this activity? Of course. The Squicks (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The "wiped of the map" passage is fair. But in regard to holocaust denial, the lead section, if anything, is too-generous. The man is a buffoon. Dynablaster (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

MA was misquoted. He himself was quoting the imam who said that the Zionist regime would go the way of time. Someone in the FARS network, perhaps an Israeli operative, hyped his quote of the imam into "he wants to wipe Israel off the map." Get the original translation of MA's quote and read it. By the way MA is highly educated and an a person of high intellect. Referring to the man as a "buffoon" is malicious and IMO borders on libel.

By the way, MA didn't deny the fact of the Nazi holocaust; he denied the accuracy of the historical record.

Also, this entire article reads like a hit piece on Ahmadinejad, and IMO does nothing to enhance Wikipedia's credibility.Stan Battles (talk) 02:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Its amazing how many "red" named editers have commented on this page, all in the same amount of time. Hmmmm....not very subtle.ChillyMD (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I most certainly agree that he did not deny the holoccaust however challenged the accuracy. Unfortnuatelly if you ask a history teacher right now how frustrated they are about their new "allowable" cirriculum, they would agree with this also whether publicly or not. MA or anyone has the right to question historical reports of any kind when so many countries who do not regulate their history or alter their history for the good of their country are invoved. Unfortunatelly also there were no trustworthy monks to smuggle preservation in scrolls out at that time either. I find this article as acurate and factual as it can be plainly written.

Taboooooooooo (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Tabooooooooooo

excess sources in references 15 & 18

does it really take 12 sources for reference 15 to be valid? and 14 for reference 18? can't we just pick two or three good sources and call it good enough?  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 06:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there are too many sources lumped together without any guidance for the reader. It would be better to treat this as a note, not simply a reference footnote, and add some more information. The other - maybe preferable - would be to improve the article Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel and then make a reference to the relevant section of this article. The second alternative looks like a lot of work, though.  Cs32en  12:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

too many non-english sources

there are too many non-english and especially persian-language sources in this article. see WP:NONENG.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 22:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

English sources are preferred, if they are of equal or better quality.  Cs32en  23:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

are there really that many persian-reading editors of the english wikipedia? i have no way at all to tell what these persian sources are saying or what quality sources they are because i don't know the first thing about the persian language. for all i know, they could actually be children's stories about playful kittens.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 10:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't know what these sources are saying either. I assume that there are enough people that are fluent in Persian on Wikipedia to point out deficiencies in the sources. There is both a community of supporters and a community of opponents of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the English-speaking world, and they probably care about Wikipedia's content on him.  Cs32en  11:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Apart from finding separate sources, a rough translation may be obtained from here--69.208.130.182 (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not use automatic translators! I could point to several websites where Google translates just the opposite of what the text says, from German, French, or Japanese, into English.  Cs32en  06:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad or Ahmadi Nejad ?

In western medias, he's always called "Ahmadinejad" whereas Arabs and Persians spell it "Ahmadi Nejad". Could smb tell me more about it?Mitch1981 (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC) That's easy enough: the Persian word "nejad" (with French-spelt -j-, as in "jeu") means 'origin, race, extraction' in English, whereas "ahmadi" is the Persian equivalent of Ahmad's or (son) of Ahmad. It's therefore a matter of preference: Arab and Persian speakers are aware of this analysis and may want to emphasize this by spelling the name as two separate words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.140.137.29 (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

A citation must be required

"also known as the Hitler of Iran, for his antisemithic and dictatorial regime"

A citation must be required for this text. "Hitler" is a strong word and it is used as nickname of Mahmoud. Why? is it common in his country? outside? Who says that?, etc. That questions have to be answered with high-quality citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.148.135 (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It violates BLP and is most likely vandalism. I shall hunt out and remove it if it hasn't gone already. SGGH ^ping! 20:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the way original text appeared by 2009-06-15, I am just pasting a copy without any change:

Ahmadinejad, formerly known as Sharon Saburjian came from a Jewish background. His surname was later changed to Ahmadinejad for economic and political reasons.[27]was the son of a blacksmith, born near Garmsar in the village of Aradan[28] in Talysh family on 28 October 1956.[2] The name, which derives from thread painter, a once common and humble occupation, was changed into Ahmadinejad, meaning 'of the race of Mohammed' or 'of virtuous race', ahmad meaning "virtuous" in Arabic is used as a byname of Muhammad and nejad being the Farsi for "race, lineage". According to his relatives, it was for "a mixture of religious and economic reasons."[29]

The original name shows as "Sharon Saburjian" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.212.15 (talk) 04:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The REAL ORIGINAL NAME was improperly changed

{{editsemiprotected}} The original text as appeared by 14 June 2009 is the following:

Ahmadinejad, formerly known as Sharon Saburjian came from a Jewish background. His surname was later changed to Ahmadinejad for economic and political reasons.[27]was the son of a blacksmith, born near Garmsar in the village of Aradan[28] in Talysh family on 28 October 1956.[2] The name, which derives from thread painter, a once common and humble occupation, was changed into Ahmadinejad, meaning 'of the race of Mohammed' or 'of virtuous race', ahmad meaning "virtuous" in Arabic is used as a byname of Muhammad and nejad being the Farsi for "race, lineage". According to his relatives, it was for "a mixture of religious and economic reasons."[29]

The REAL ORIGINAL NAME has been "Sharon Saburjian" which is improperly changed in the new text.

Not done: The Guardian reference seems valid. Do you have any references that support the information in the text you presented? On the face of it, the text you presented appears invalid; both the name Sharon and the assertion of a Jewish background seem highly unlikely for this individual. Also, you should avoid putting emphasis on "true " or "real" or "suppressed." Phrases like "REAL ORIGINAL NAME" actually have the opposite of the intended effect; they make the reader skeptical and unlikely to accept the remainder of the statement at face value. Celestra (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad revealed to have Jewish past"The Sabourjians traditionally hail from Aradan, Mr Ahmadinejad's birthplace, and the name derives from "weaver of the Sabour", the name for the Jewish Tallit shawl in Persia. The name is even on the list of reserved names for Iranian Jews compiled by Iran's Ministry of the Interior" retrieved oct 3, 2009 from article of same date. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 16:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

THE ABOVE LINK AND AN ASSOCIATED SENTENCE WAS REMOVED FROM THE BACKGROUND... stupidly I think... remember... all Muslims have ancestors that weren't Muslim... Mahmoud may have had a father who was born into a different religion than he was... Just like Barack Obama!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.23.210 (talk) 05:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Many people consider his election in 2009 to be fair too

So why not report that in the article. Parts of this article read like a hand out from the Iranian opposition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderaktion_Krakau —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.23.157.68 (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is alot of articles and persons who claim it was not a fraud, furthermore that the Neda was killed by the west. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.81.109 (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Impact on the article traffic

Have a look at the trafic in june: [1]

--Stone (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Mahomud ahmadi nejad has officially cheated in the election by support of supreme leader and revolutionary guards... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.122.144 (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Talysh?

The article says that he was born in a Talysh family, but there's no source for it. Searching Google shows only Wikipedia and its clones in the first few pages of results.

I am removing per WP:BLP. Feel free to put it back with a reliable source. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, i can find some sources in Russian that say that he is Talysh. Searching for "Ахмадинежад талыш" yields some Russian news sites that say it, but they don't appear 100% reliable to me. The Russian Lenta-pedia, which is more or less reliable for current personalities, doesn't mention his ethnicity. And i can't find anything in English.

Please correct me if i'm wrong. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

A Danger to Wikipedia's Credibility

This entire entry on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a shameless negative political opinion piece. It is supposed to be a biography yet it focusses on a one sided arguement regarding the last Presidential elections in Iran. The entire phraseology is emotive and negative towards the supposed subject of the biography, even in the context of the election itself, contentious, disputed or even merely rumoured incidents or events are stated as facts. There are also a large number of factual errors for instance the use of English translations of Farsi text which are blatantly incorrect. This article should be expunged to prevent the independence or integrity of Wikipedia becoming a laughing stock. Pedrobulado (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC) pedrobulado

You are welcome to point out exactly what it is you mean, or contribue to the article with sourced information. However, your opinion is not important unless you can back it up with sources, and simply because you don't like something doesn't make it incorrect.ChillyMD (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

He means, and correctly so, that this entire article is not encyclopeadic in nature. It is a polemic. See reference 17 and its citation, the citation does not suggest anything about UN sanctions against Iran for nuclear enrichment. This is because Iran is allowed to to enrich uranium under the current rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.8.4 (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the unrelated last line of the above comment regarding someone being an imbecile. Please make meaningful contributions. Mattbondy (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

this article has a very negative bias, I am sorry to any Iranian unfortunate enough to read this article thanks, Jamie

Jamie, please feel free to jump in and offer your suggestions and changes to move this article away from bias and closer to comprehensive and objective truth.Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What are his most important actions?

I think the article needs to discuss properly his policies as Iran's president, not just the controversies surrounding elections etc. Please see the leading page of other world leaders.

For example Bill Clinton, Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown each have an opening discussion in about 300 words highlighting important aspects of the administration.

What is the most important relevant information about Ahmadinejad (important decisions he has made and his main impact on Iran) that should lead the article in this way? I would appreciate help in making a list of what most important decisions should be highlighted in an appropriate number of words.EdH (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The article has now been flagged by User:Snigbrook that "the introduction of this article may need to be rewritten". I agree with this. Here are some notes on the Wikipedia standard for lead sections followed by my comments about the lead section content for this article.

In this case, the lead section should have three or four paragraphs: "Introductions to biographical articles commonly double as summaries, listing the best-known achievements of the subject. Because some readers will read only the opening of an article, the most vital information should be included." Introductory_text "should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." In biographies "notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm... Well-publicized recent events affecting an article subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most notable: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each. When an article subject dies, the lead does not need to be radically reworked."

Taking this as a guide, I suggest (apart from the existing info box) the following four paragraphs, of which 2, 3 & 4 reflect the structure of the article:

<Paragraph 1>

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Persian: محمود احمدی نژاد, Mahmūd Ahmadinezhād ; born 28 October 1956) is the sixth and current President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the main political leader of the Alliance of Builders of Islamic Iran. The presidency is not the highest constitutional office in Iran. The Supreme Leader has ultimate control over foreign policy, the armed forces, and the nuclear policy of the Iranian state.

<Paragraph 2>

Synopsis of article information covering
1 Background, campaigns and election to presidency
   * 1.1 Administrative and academic careers
   * 1.3 Early political career
   * 1.4 Mayor of Tehran
   * 2.1 2005 campaign 
   * 2.2 2005 election
   * 2.3 2005 cabinet appointments
   * 2.4 2006 Councils and Assembly of Experts election
   * 2.5 2009 presidential election
   * 2.6 2009 Iranian election protests
   * 2.7 2009 cabinet appointments

<Paragraph 3>

Synopsis of article information covering
3 Domestic issues
   * 3.1 Economic policy
   * 3.3 Housing
   * 3.2 Family planning and population policy
   * 3.4 Human rights
   * 3.5 Universities
   * 4.1 Accusations of corruption
   * 4.4 Criticisms from other political parties
   * 4.8 2009 alleged complicity in conviction for "earthquake saferoom"
   * 4.6 Ali Kordan's fabricated doctoral degree and moral charges

<Paragraph 4>

Synopsis of article information covering
4 Controversial statements & relationships
   * 4.5 Ahmadinejad–Haddad Adel conflict over Iranian constitution
   * 4.7 Ahmadinejad–parliament conflict
   * 3.6 Nuclear program
   * 4.3 Statements on the United Nations and football stadiums
   * 4.2 Criticisms of statements and social issues
5 Foreign relations
   * 5.1 Relations with the United States
   * 5.2 Relations with Israel
6 Allegations of Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism
   * 6.1 Controversies
   * 6.2 Response to allegations
   * 5.3 Relations with Russia
   * 5.4 Relations with Venezuela
   * 5.5 Regional relations

Note: There was in 2007 a mediation exercise about controversial aspects of the introduction to this article.

Please, does anybody have any comments about this suggestion? EdH (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of any comments I have continued with the activities outlined above and updated the page with the initial and domestic policy sections of the outline above. I have written a precise summary of the corresponding sections of the article, with the relevant references linked in the lead-in section also. I have not yet had time to address the internationally-focused part of the lead-in with its previously controversial material about Israel. Please share any comments here.EdH (talk) 09:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Controversies are just as relevant to someones history as is their accomplishments. I am sure if you look up a serial killer you will still find his academic record and his crimes. Not to say that MA's page is riddled with crime its just not lacking his actual history at all no matter what balance it takesTaboooooooooo (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I left the controversial parts untouched.EdH (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

How to reduce article length

The article is currently too long. How can we restructure to reduce size without sacrificing useful content?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the 1979 Hostage Crisis

According to the article Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the 1979 Hostage Crisis, a CIA investigation determined "with relative certainty" that he was not involved in the hostage crisis and another U.S. official said of the report that there was "no evidence" that he was among the captors. I would like to propose reducing the amount of attention paid to this in the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad page to one sentence with a link to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the 1979 Hostage Crisis. Does anybody have strong opinions about this? EdH (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I implemented this suggestion.EdH (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Reduction in number of sources

This is discussed above in section excess sources in references 15 & 18.

2009 Iranian election protests

This section contains a reference to a main article and some links tagged "See also". We should either rely only on the main article, or have a block of text here. The links point to important, relevant, and highly emotive subjects, but they are completely unexplained. We could include here a brief synopsis of the main article, but it may be more effective to delete the links here and rely on the main article as a nexus for the discussion of the protests. Comments? EdH (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I implemented this suggestion.EdH (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Economic policy

MA's management of the Iranian economy, unemployment, etc is hugely important. Currently we have two large and rather unappealing blocks of text whose information is a year old. Is there a short list of important, and possibly more recent, facts that we should mention under this heading? EdH (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Relations with the United States

This section is one of the longest. Now that the activities of the Bush administration are no longer current, would it be acceptable to summarize the minutiae more briefly here? Could we rely on the main article for the full historical details of the posturing that has taken place over the years? EdH (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your evaluation. Thank you. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Mass deletion and reversion

There was a mass deletion of about a quarter of the entire article. Nobody has explained any reason for this so I put it back. If there is a reason for deleting this much material it should be discussed here first. EdH (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Tel. #

What is his phone number? 77.127.161.181 (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Intro

This has got to be one of the longest (and most unbalanced) intros anywhere on Wikipedia. There needs to be a more concise introduction. Just because the guy is hated does not mean there should be five long-winded paragraphs criticizing him in the lead. Someone with expertise in the area please fix this. Colipon+(T) 21:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely though I'm totally unqualified to make such an edit. Were I to, I would aggressively remove a lot of the lead in to this article as it's clearly negatively biased. I think this article needs to be looked at ASAP due to the controversy it could cause. ^Alex J _Fox (Talk) (Contribs) 23:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and remove this chunk of the intro, which I will place here for discussion:

Ahmadinejad fired the government's economic experts and shunned economists' advice. Despite record oil revenues, his budget deficit was also a record. Inflation, unemployment and housing costssoared. He rationed gasoline, subsidised essential commodity prices and limited interest rates. Parliament rejected his plan to help young people get jobs, afford marriage, and buy their own homes with money from oil revenues, but he ordered that it be implemented anyway. Women's rights activists were persecuted after getting Parliament to water down a "Family Protection Bill" before its enactment. The Ahmadinejad government did not tolerate peaceful protests, gatherings or dissent at universities, and it purged many academics in a "second cultural revolution". Human rights organizations reported worsening treatment and torture of government detainees. Ahmadinejad had attacked private "plunderers" and "corrupt officials," but many of his close associates took positions for which they were not obviously qualified, and the Sepah (IRGC), received "billion dollar no-bid contracts". Ahmadinejad co-authored a book whose other authors were convicted of plagiarism in it, and his interior minister was impeached

after his fake doctoral degree and an old conviction became known.

With Khamenei supporting Ahmadinejad's reelection, the 2009 presidential election campaign drew unprecedented public interest and robust debate. Of the votes counted, over 62% were for Ahmadinejad. As of August 2009, his reelection remained in dispute, its legitimacy widely questioned in Iran and internationally. Large, initially peaceful protests were met with violence but continued for some time. Ahmadinejad called the election "completely free" and the outcome "a great victory" for Iran. However, his choice as first vice president was quickly forced to resign. He was sworn in for a second term on 5 August 2009.

Ahmadinejad has been a critic of the United States and Israel, and backs strengthening Iran's relations with Russia, Venezuela, Syria, and the Arab states of the Persian Gulf. During his term, Iran has also been one of the largest aid donors to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

Ahmadinejad has stated repeatedly that Iran's nuclear program is for peaceful electricity generation, not nuclear weapons development. Under his leadership, Iran has rejected U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for it to end nuclear enrichment. Ahmadinejad called Western sanctions over Iran's nuclear enrichment "illegal" and said Iran will continue to abide by I.A.E.A. monitoring of its nuclear program, though Iran has not done so.

Ahmadinejad is widely known for anti-US and Israel comments for which he is often widely criticized. According to a speech translation disputed by the Iranian government, Ahmadinejad has called for the dissolution of the state of Israel. He also calls for free elections in the region. He believes that the Palestinians need a stronger voice in the region's future.

In one of Ahmadinejad's most controversial statements, according to the initial Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting translation, he called for the "occupying regime" to be "wiped off the map," though that translation and interpretation is disputed. He has also been condemned for describing the Holocaust as a myth, which has led to accusations of anti-semitism; the interpretation of this quote is also disputed. In response to these criticisms, Ahmadinejad said “No, I am not against Jews, I respect them very much.” Ahmadinejad also clarified, "I'm not saying that the Holocaust didn't happen at all. This is not the judgment that I'm passing here."

If there are any grievances or disputes arising from this new intro please discuss it here. The intro in its former revision is simply unacceptable and does in no way conform to WP:LEAD. Colipon+(T) 17:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Part of what catapulted Ahmadinejad into the public spotlight was his "wiped off of the map" quote and the subsequent world-wide discussion. That should remain in the lead. -- Avi (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but as a whole, this is just a personal quote and its widely disputed anyhow. It is sufficiently explained in the body of the article. There is no need to highlight these "controversies" in a salad of criticism in the lead. Colipon+(T)

Actually, we went to formal mediation over this, and, IIRC, the result was to leave it mentioned in the lead. -- Avi (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, please remeber that NPOV does not mean that there can be no criticism, but that the criticism has to be in proportion with what is found in media outside wikipedia AND that it has to be very well sourced in the case of living people. That was the case here, and this instance very well may be the best known item about Ahmadinejad outside of Iran; which is why it belongs in the lead. -- Avi (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay. I was not aware of this mediation so I must apologize. I just wanted to clean up the article because the way it looked was an embarrasment to WP. Feel free to restore it! As for criticism, I am not against it, but WP:LEAD specifies the length of an intro. I feel three paragraphs is sufficient and the criticisms can be dealt with in the article body. Colipon+(T) 17:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem; the mediation actually made mainstream press :). I have restored just the few sentences about that quote; it adds very little to the length of the lead. I agree that specifics about who opposed him this election and the like belong in the text. -- Avi (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The leading paragraph is awful. I'd like to compare the space devoted to his domestic criticism and influence and the space devoted to his foreign policy in the paragraph:

• Domestic:

He has been criticized domestically for his economic lapses and disregard for human rights. His election to a second term in 2009 was widely disputed.

• Foreign policy and opinion of westerners:

He is an outspoken critic of the United States foreign policy and of Israel. He is also an advocate of the Iran nuclear program. Time magazine named him among its 100 most influential people in the world for the year 2006.[15] In one of Ahmadinejad's most controversial statements, according to the initial Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting translation, he called for the "occupying regime" to be "wiped off the map,"[16] though that translation and interpretation is disputed.[17][18] He has also been condemned for describing the Holocaust as a myth,[17][19] which has led to accusations of anti-semitism; the interpretation of this quote is also disputed.[20] In response to these criticisms, Ahmadinejad said “No, I am not against Jews, I respect them very much.”[21] Ahmadinejad also clarified, "I'm not saying that the Holocaust didn't happen at all. This is not the judgment that I'm passing here."[22]

The paragraph is not balanced and is POV. Foreign policy is extensively covered (nearly 140 words) while his domestic influence is not (14 words). This is also funny because the second line of the section says that his word is not important when it comes to foreign policy, military issues and nuclear issues!!! and supreme leader is the one who makes ultimate decisions.

There are also too much emphasis on his academic position and the weakness of president in Iranian political structure. Simply compare his page to that of German president Horst Köhler. President of Iran is much more influential in Iranian system than Gemran president in German system.

Ahmadinejad's PhD degree is questionable, let alone his professorship at the University. Sinooher (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see the current version. I did not remove any information. However I restored some information so that his controversial domestic policy and foreign policy are given a balanced wight. Sinooher (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The current revision is still too long. Look at Barack Obama's article. That is an acceptable form of introduction. This is not. I've tried shortening some parts of it but it's just so hard to navigate thru all these references and back-and-forth claims. Just because he is controversial doesn't mean we need to highlight all the controversies all in one go in the lead. Colipon+(Talk) 00:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Made more changes to intro. Honestly, please leave the claims and counterclaims in the body of the article as much as possible. I also feel that sentences without a given context should be taken out of the lead completely. The lead section is not a forum of discussion on the man and whether or not he is of good character, whether or not his policies are right or wrong. We have articles that discuss these issues, so leave them where they belong. Colipon+(Talk) 00:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

look, it's pretty obvious that the zionists are trying hard to assassinate Ahmadinejad's character. But can we at least use decent pictures of the man? that pic that was used on today's (aug 6 09) front page feature is very telling of the extreme bias. the pic on the article page is pretty decent though. peace :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.67.224 (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well said. ^Izzedine 02:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The "wiped off the map" falsum

Ahmedinejad never said that Israel should be wiped off the map. It is a thourougly obliterated falsum that cannot anymore be attributed to translation problems. I defy wikipedia admins to come up with serious sources and serious translators (no, not former bush administration employees or US reactionary scholars, but serious scholars from around the world). It should not be needed to point out this fact as the falsum is so blatantly obvious that it defies belief. It leads me to question the intelligence and the group of people setting themselves up as authorities here on wikipedia. For starters I can give you ten different sources, but I will begin with only a couple until we get som seriousness into this article. And no, the current "some people say" attribution to the fraudulent quote, as in "some translators say", is not even accepted by wikipedia rules and guidelines. Please remove it and let it stay removed, or have a paragraph that is devoted to showing how the western media have deliberately misled people around the world. Nunamiut (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

---

"Across the world, a dangerous rumor has spread that could have catastrophic implications. According to legend, Iran’s President has threatened to destroy Israel, or, to quote the misquote, “Israel must be wiped off the map”. Contrary to popular belief, this statement was never made, as the following article will prove.

• BACKGROUND:

On Tuesday, October 26th, 2005 at the Ministry of Interior conference hall in Tehran, newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a speech at a program, reportedly attended by thousands, titled “The World Without Zionism”. Large posters surrounding him displayed this title prominently in English, obviously for the benefit of the international press. Below the poster’s title was a slick graphic depicting an hour glass containing planet Earth at its top. Two small round orbs representing the United States and Israel are shown falling through the hour glass’ narrow neck and crashing to the bottom.

Before we get to the infamous remark, it’s important to note that the “quote” in question was itself a quote— they are the words of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution. Although he quoted Khomeini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual words belong to Khomeini and not Ahmadinejad. Thus, Ahmadinejad has essentially been credited (or blamed) for a quote that is not only unoriginal, but represents a viewpoint already in place well before he ever took office.

• THE ACTUAL QUOTE:

So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi:

 ”Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.”

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word “Regime“, pronounced just like the English word with an extra “eh” sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase ”rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” (regime occupying Jerusalem).

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want “wiped from the map”? The answer is: nothing. That’s because the word “map” was never used. The Persian word for map, “nagsheh“, is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase “wipe out” ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran’s President threatened to “wipe Israel off the map”, despite never having uttered the words “map”, “wipe out” or even “Israel”.

• THE PROOF:

The full quote translated directly to English:

    “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”.

Word by word translation:

   Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) 
   az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

In the first and third examples, Ahmadinejad prefaces their mention with Khomeini’s own words foretelling that individual regime’s demise. He concludes by referring to Khomeini’s unfulfilled wish: “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise”. This is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime change, not war.

   THE ORIGIN:

One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising.

The inflammatory “wiped off the map” quote was first disseminated not by Iran’s enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran’s official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran’s Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy.

Amid heated wrangling over Iran’s nuclear program, and months of continuous, unfounded accusations against Iran in an attempt to rally support for preemptive strikes against the country, the imperialists had just been handed the perfect raison d’être to invade. To the war hawks, it was a gift from the skies.

It should be noted that in other references to the conference, the IRNA’s translation changed. For instance, ”map” was replaced with ”earth”. In some articles it was “The Qods occupier regime should be eliminated from the surface of earth”, or the similar ”The Qods occupying regime must be eliminated from the surface of earth”. The inconsistency of the IRNA’s translation should be evidence enough of the unreliability of the source, particularly when transcribing their news from Farsi into the English language.

• THE REACTION:

The mistranslated ”wiped off the map” quote attributed to Iran’s President has been spread worldwide, repeated thousands of times in international media, and prompted the denouncements of numerous world leaders. Virtually every major and minor media outlet has published or broadcast this false statement to the masses.
Big news agencies such as The Associated Press and Reuters refer to the misquote, literally, on an almost daily basis.

One must be forgiven for wondering why big news outlets like the BBC and AP have found it opportune to rely entirely on one the second hand recounting of the speech by or two unknown Iranian IRNA employees and not asking their own Farsi experts to check if their sources and the unknown amateurish journalists in Irans IRNA were not misaken. Anone knows that there are substantial and large Iranian and Farsi speaking communities in both the UK and the US. That these are not always favourable to the Ahmedinejad regime should not be an excuse for either the BBC or the AP to employ or utilise dishonest reporting or interpretation. Neither should Wikipedia be excused for committing the same errors when evidence to the contrary is blatantly obvious and more than abundantly available. More than just a little honesty people. It will give you greater rewards than you realise. Nunamiut (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Nunamiut for bringing this evidence to our attention. I promise you I will do my best to include any or all of it that you can find reliable sources (WP:RS) for. Anarchangel (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wiped off map cont'd

Can someone please link me to this noticeboard or whoever sanctioned that the "wiped off the map" line be incorporated into the lede... I would like to see what rationale was used and whether or not there was actually consensus on this issue. Colipon+(Talk) 23:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

See Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Dynablaster (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I read the discussion on this issue, but I will still, respectfully, raise a challenge to the way the current lede is structured. The lede, as it stands, does not seem to be following the WP:LEAD guidelines (which is exemplified by the Barack Obama introduction).

Firstly, five paragraphs is much too long. Like I said before, a lot of the comparatively minor issues belong in the article body. I would argue it is possible to shorten the current lede down to half its size.

Secondly, the "wiped off map" statement, if it can be shortened, should be shortened, as much as possible. This is, after all, only one single statement, plus it is disputed. It attracts POV-warring like it's no one's business. It's only notability is given from the wildfire media attention that it generated. It is certainly not the only time he has made inflammatory remarks and he has only been 'heavily criticized' for this in the West. This line gained almost no coverage in say, Korea, Ghana, or Mongolia.

Third, his 2009 election disputes, while major, do not warrant that much space. We can say the election was disputed and there was an uproar, but overall this suffers from Recentism. Moreover, it is irrelevant to specify the names of the leaders that criticized the man. That belongs in the article body, not in the lede. Colipon+(Talk) 02:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to re-write the lede in a sandbox and paste the new version here for acceptance. Dynablaster (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

New Lede

Please discuss what I have written below per discussion above for the new lede: Colipon+(Talk) 17:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Persian: محمود احمدی نژاد, Mahmūd Ahmadinezhād ; born 28 October 1956) is the sixth and current President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the main political leader of the Alliance of Builders of Islamic Iran, a coalition of conservative political groups in the country.

An engineer and professor from a poor background, Ahmadinejad joined the Office for Strengthening Unity after the Islamic Revolution. Appointed a provincial governor, he was removed after the election of President Mohammad Khatami and returned to teaching. Tehran's council appointed him mayor in 2003. He took a religious hard-line, reversing reforms of previous moderate mayors. His 2005 presidential campaign, supported by the Alliance of Builders of Islamic Iran, and garnered 62% of the runoff election votes, becoming President on 3 August 2005.

Ahmadinejad is a controversial figure both within and outside of Iran. He has been criticized domestically for his economic lapses and disregard for human rights. He launched a gas rationing plan in 2007 to reduce the country's fuel consumption. He also instituted cuts in the interest rates charged by private and public banking facilities. He is also an advocate of the Iran nuclear program, which he says is for electricity generation. His election to a second term in 2009 was widely disputed and caused significant uproar both domestically and abroad. The legitimacy of his presidency has been questioned by major opposition parties, traditional clerical circles and several influential Iranian politicians. The election was also scrutinized by international bodies and governments of various Western countries.

Ahmadinejad is an outspoken critic of United States foreign policy and Israel. He does not regard the state of Israel as legitimate or representative of the region's population. He advocates for "free elections" in the region, and believes Palestinians need a stronger voice in the region's future. His comment calling for the "occupying regime" to be "wiped off the map," caused significant controversy, its translation and interpretation still widely disputed. He has also been criticized for describing the Holocaust as a myth, which has led to accusations of anti-Semitism. Ahmadinejad has rejected accusations of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, saying that he "respected Jews" and that he was not "passing judgment" on the Holocaust. __________________________________________________________________________________________

This whole section is to long and shouldnt be a paragraph of its own in an introductory section, it goes on and on about something small and irrelevant. Also Aytholla is spelled incorrectly. And for the record, ALL HIS TRANSLATIONS INTO ENGLISH TRANSLATE AS "wiped off the map"...This is WHAT HE WANTED IT TO BE TRANSLATED INTO. (((How do you know that? -ik)))

"One of his alleged and misattributed statements that recieved the most controversy due to what in effect became media falsification was one in which although completely refuted, he, according to some translations, was misattributed as calleing for the "occupying regime" to be "wiped off the map," it has since been claimed that interpretations of this statement could vary widely,but accurate translations show time and again that he was quoting an already established iranian political viewpoint, through quoting the former ayatholla, the deceased Ayatollah Kohmeini. The actual quote translations is now established to have been “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”, he further in his next sentence held that the political solution to middle east conflicts was democracy and a truly democratic israel.[27][28] He has also been condemned for describing the Holocaust as a myth,[27][29] which has led to accusations of anti-Semitism.[30] Ahmadinejad has denied accusations of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, saying that he "respected Jews" and that he was not "passing judgment" on the Holocaust. [31][32]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.105.24 (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I will now boldly implement this change. If you are against this change please discuss. Colipon+(Talk) 04:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

While it is relevant that he made post-speech remarks about the statement, that does not change the fact that it was translated as such by the official translators and started a media firestorm. The text above is, unfortunately, completely NPOV and an example of post-event apologetics. We went through detailed mediation on this, and the compromise reached, as well as wikipedia's core principles and guidelines, require us to bring the translation as initially disseminated and then Ahmadinejad's post-remark explanations, as we do now. -- Avi (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust is a "lie" not just a "myth"

Myth should be changed to lie.

Mr. Ahmadinejad said confrontation with Israel was a “national and religious duty” and that the Holocaust was “a lie” used as a pretext for the country’s creation in 1948. Although he has called the Holocaust a “myth” in the past, provoking angry reactions in the West, he does not appear to have used the word “lie” in connection with it before. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/world/middleeast/19iran.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

--BoogaLouie (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

All of these statements, placed so prominently on the lede, are bound to invite POV pushing from both sides. If we want to add this specific reference, it would probably be best to do it in the article body. Colipon+(Talk) 23:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Jewish background

I think he's jewsh but his not anti-semist and anti-jewsh. It's a trick that jewsh people had been use from old timen. they bring a jewsh between people and he accept their believes and after that he will be more muslim than muslim. Yes, it's jewsh plan. Ahmadinejad don't destroy Israeal, be sure, he wants to destroy Iran and Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.225.237.25 (talk) 09:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I normally don't respond on talk pages... but I hope this antisemite will crawl back to wherever he came from. Needless to say, such comments have no place on Wikipedia (or elsewhere). PluniAlmoni (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Several British newspapers have claimed that Ahmadinejad has identifiable Jewish roots, and that his antisemitism may only be a veiled attempt to cover these up. He was apparently born with the name Saburjian, a Jewish name meaning cloth weaver. [2][3][4][5] ADM (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Even the sources are unsure about this. "May have Jewish roots" =/= Jewish. Most of the sources state openly that this is only a rumor/unsubstantiated claim. PluniAlmoni (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the sources are sure, it is clear from his own documents. It is not Sabaghian as the article now states and uses Kasra Naji as a source even though Naji provides zero documentation, it is Saborjian, which is a 100% Jewish name in Iran, Turkey and even in Armenia. There is no doubt at all that.18:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6256173/Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-revealed-to-have-Jewish-past.html

“ A photograph of the Iranian president holding up his identity card during elections in March 2008 clearly shows his family has Jewish roots. ”

They don't sound unsure. Josh Keen (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The linked article has a photo of Ahmadinejad holding up his identity card. The article states:

“ A close-up of the document reveals he was previously known as Sabourjian – a Jewish name meaning cloth weaver. The short note scrawled on the card suggests his family changed its name to Ahmadinejad when they converted to embrace Islam after his birth. The Sabourjians traditionally hail from Aradan, Mr Ahmadinejad's birthplace, and the name derives from "weaver of the Sabour", the name for the Jewish Tallit shawl in Persia. The name is even on the list of reserved names for Iranian Jews compiled by Iran's Ministry of the Interior. ”

This is not just a rumour, The Telegraph has now gone on record with the photo saying he has Jewish roots and that his family only converted to Islam after his birth. This would mean he is actually ethnically Jewish, right? Josh Keen (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. The man is Iranian, by which I mean that he is known not only in the UK, or Iran, but internationally. So it seems that a lone paper reporting on this, based on one scant hint is not valid enough. By the way, most people will let you know when they're Jewish. Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't add ethniciy entry here-it's not required for this specific article. As for the religion entry in the photobox- there are no hard evidence that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was born Jewish besides for his previous surname which may indicate, at max, that one of his paternal anscetors was Jewish.--Gilisa (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course the fact that he was born Jewish needs to be there and most likely it will have to go in the lede paragraph since he is the one of the, if not the, most well known and powerful antisemites, and the article itself has a huge proportion dedicated to his views on Jews and Israel.

He is not just of Jewish descent or partial Jewish descent, he is apparently born Jewish and 100% Jewish descentCarwon (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

His former family name on his ID is a proof that he is from a Jewish descent. This is a fact and a very solid evidence. I cannot imagine a more solid evidence than this. It is very normal that people try to hide their background if that brings them much trouble. He could not reach to such a political position if he did not hide his background. No information about his mother is released. Therefore we can not say whether his mother has a Jewish background or not. But it may very well be that she has a similar background too. Sinooher (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Name on an ID is not proof, it's an indicator. More solid evidence is if he would say: "I am Jewish, I believe in the tenets of the Jewish faith and I do my best to follow them." As far as his changing his name and background. This is an interesting hypothesis, though I have known many Iranian Jews who never changed their names and backgrounds, nor their faith. Just to remind you, we're talking about Iran, not Nazi Germany. Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sinooher, I understand well where your agruments came from: you fail to imagine harder evidence than an ID name. So, it's realy not your fault, and my responsbility is to make you familiar with other, much stronger, kind of evidence: First, if he was circumcised at age of 8 days, then it would be a strong indication along with the ID name, that he might born Jewish and converted to Islam at age of 4 years. Of course, this is not the case. If you could name his ancestors and prove that they were registered as Jewish much before this very doubtful publication then it could serve as hard evidence. For now, all we name is that the previous surname of him is one common among Jews. We can't tell why he had this kind of surname, maybe a "mistake" of one of his ancestors, maybe one of them was Jewish and was forced to convert to Islam (as Jews in Mashhad were) few generations before (for instance, about 30% of non Jewish Spanish people are descendants of Anusim, but you can't even remotely consider 99% of them as Jewish). You about his mother that "But it may very well be that she has a similar background too". Well, it isn't, surname is passing from father to son in Iran (as well as in almost in every other place) and his father old surname can't tell nothing about his mother origin. Assuming that she was born muslim is the default we have and it also make strong sense. You actually suggest fringe theory that was formed by his regime opponents in Iran (seem like both sides are Anti Semitic).--Gilisa (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

For now my impression of this is that it's not much more than British-flavoured tabloid speculation. Until this information is verifiable and significantly adds to the quality of the article, I would advise against slapping a paragraph of this into wikispace. Colipon+(Talk) 22:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph is a broadsheet newspaper, not a tabloid. It is a legitimate trusted source and states the man's background is "clearly" Jewish. Currently, the only criticism of this is from wikipedia editors doing original research. The Enlightened (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well we definitely don't need to add the Persian Jews cat, but a mention of the article should be made. It's definitely sensational and the fact of the allegation is making waves in other media. -- Y not? 01:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

According to this Jerusalem Post article, the story has been around for a while, was picked up in Bahrain and led to a temporary newspaper closure there in June and was a factor in the presidential campaign. Who knows whether it's true, but it might be worth a mention.John Z (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It really irks me when major newspapers report something that's been on Wikipedia for ages (his birthname) and treat it like it's brand new, earth-shattering news. As for the issue itself, see this tidbit: "Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is of Jewish descent, the Daily Telegraph reports, based on the fact that his family name was previously "Sabourjian – a Jewish name meaning cloth weaver." Not so, says Iranian-born Israeli Middle East analyst Meir Javedanfar: "As someone who wrote his biography, I can tell you that this claim is inaccurate and would be happy to go on the record to say so. Saborjiyan are people who paint carpet threads. Also, in Iran many Muslims and Jews share the same surname."" All Hallow's (talk) 02:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I just checked out the Daily Telegraph. Can confirm it is headline news. Full ref is as follows:

McElroy, Damien; Vahdat, Ahmad (2009-10-03). "Oops...man who promised to wipe Israel off the reveals his Jewish credentials". The Daily Telegraph. p. 3. Retrieved 2009-10-04.

Also appeared with this front-page story:

McElroy, Damien (2009-10-03). "Iran's leader shows his Jewish roots". The Daily Telegraph. pp. 1, 3. Retrieved 2009-10-04.

Ottre 02:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The second reference says nothing about Ahmadinejad's background. The first has already been discussed above (see also my post, the one right before yours). All Hallow's (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Just pointing out it was presented as "brand new, earth-shattering news". Very interesting choice of title. Ottre 21:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Which Jew in other Wiki articles stated "I am Jewish, I believe in the tenets of the Jewish faith and I do my best to follow them", as mentioned by Abie the Fish Peddler? Oh my God this is very silly. The news is indicating that he WAS Jew and converted. It didn't say he is a Jew today.--119.73.1.90 (talk) 07:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm against any metioning of these bluffs or at the least taken out of proportion fact in the article body. But I know that this kind of objection wouldn't last long in front of the will of other users to include this imaginagion exciting anecdote. However, there are some clear borders that should not be passed based on the information came from the tabloids: Including Ahmadinejad in the Persian Jews category is realy, realy bad idea. Adding entry section to his photobox is not only unnecessary, but may seem as provocative. As for his religion, there is no reliable source that support the ridiculous assertions he was converted from Judaism to Islam at age four. We can take these "sources" to evaluation in WP:RSN and to see how "good" they are for such far-reaching allegations. Anyway, if mentioning this anecdote in the article -then the most appropriate paragraph is certianly not any one of the opening ones, certianly not his lead or "early life" paragraph-at most it can be mentioned in the "controversies" section-and as we have encyclopedic standards, we should also well include comprehensive gist of real experts opinions on these allegations. --Gilisa (talk) 07:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It obviously belongs in the same opening graph as the discussion of his views on Israel and Judaism. You keep using the term "Tablod" for a broadsheet newspaper that is not at all a tabloid and quite respected -- and the source of many wikipedia references! Carwon (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The only piece of information that the Telegraph article gives out as a fact is that his surname was originally "Sabourjian" - something long established on Wikipedia. Otherwise, the article states that this name "suggests" that his family converted to Islam from Judaism - an oddly presumptive bit of speculation, but speculation nontheless. This exact same story was run in other places as far back as January (see this or this). As I mentioned before, Middle East analyst Meir Javedanfar, who wrote a biography of Ahmadinejad, disputed that he was Jewish (or even that the name was Jewish), here. All Hallow's (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Meir Javedanfar has zero credentials in Ethnography or anything related. The fact that he disputes the name is Jewish shows he doesn't know what he is talkign about or is spinning.Carwon (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

All Hallow's, Thank you for the source, I use it in the article to give readers better scales for the daily telegrapu assertions relability. --Gilisa (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence from the lead for now pending consensus here on the talk page. Yes, the Telegraph is a reputable source, but the information as it was presented was WP:UNDUE. I have no objection to a mention later in the article, providing we present both sides of the argument. I note that the BBC has not picked up on the story as far as I can tell (nothing in their frequently-updated Middle East section, let alone front page) - and if there is an article lurking there, it is not easy to find. Same with France24 and CNN and their Middle East sections and front pages. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Google "Sabourjian" - it *only* comes-up in association with this story. Now, there are thousands of Persian Jews in Israel and the West. One would expect some "Sabourjians" on sites like facebook. But nothing, nada, zilch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.56.157 (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if you do find something on BBC or CNN then it would probably be the same story and arguments all over again. I realy don't see how any of these news companies would yield new inforamtion that imply Ahmadinejad is of Jewish origin besides his (doubtful) previous surname.--Gilisa (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No news on the Times or Associated Press either. My point is that they aren't picking up on it, hence giving no credence to the claims. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's nonsense.

So far people have cited an Iranian biigrapher of Ahmadinejad to refute the claim of Jewish ancestry. While Israeli papers have picked up the story and appear to support it. Can we find more objective sources on this story? If he has a Jewish last name, it is worth investigating. Especially since he is such a hardline anti-semite. Worth investigating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Israeli media cited the Daily Telegraph, without adding any further commentary or evidence. Indeed, it's very yellow story and the media in Israel was always good in loving Israel enemies, so it's enthusiastic about this story as well. However, it can't add any further support to this shaky fabrications. There is no source to support Jewish origin to Ahmadinejad, we only know that his former surname might been Saborijuan and that also Jewish people in Iran have it (hence, it's not "pure" Iranian and it appear in the list of Jewish names, Iranian authorities also obsessively document Jewish people addresses in Iran today) but even if it was, then we have no more than circumstantial evidence.--Gilisa (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know what the Israeli media did. And my point is so far we have been presented with biased sources on both sides. But his Iranian biographer is just as biased as the Israeli media is. The point is, there is photo evidence suggesting a Jewish background. It is worthy of investigation and it is highly relevent because he is a holocaust denier and critical of the Jews. Names are important. If we discovered that Pat Robertson's real name was Rosenburg, it would important enough to investigate and discuss on his wiki page. That is the point. It seems to me, both sides of the debate here are too quick to draw the conclusion they want, rather than investigate and determine the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Since when did it become Wikipedia's job to draw conclusions and "investigate and determine the truth"? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Since when we should change the entire article, to avoid responsibility on such political subject based on doubtful allegations? Since when we are obligated to take arguments as they are, without asking their validity and the logical base behind them? Since when a publication on a tabloid have automatic reliability and credibility that could only be equaled to scientific journal? Wikipedia isn't perfect, I will be the first to point it out, but it's much better than what you aptitude offer us.--Gilisa (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Valid approach, except that it's more Tait + Hassan references + photo together suggesting a name, which in turn might possibly suggest Jewish background, rather than photo to Jewish background alone. Boud (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Tait and Hassan references are from 2005 and 2007 respectively and already back then claimed that Ahmadinejad's initial family name was, in a latin transliteration, Saborjhian. The only new thing that the low-resolution Telegraph photo claims is that there is now "h" (since between "o" and "ou" is a question of transliteration style), as well as anonymous experts regarding the allegedly exclusive use of Saborjhian/Sabourjian by people who identify themselves as Jewish. The English language wikipedia, which i'm sure most of us are familiar with, gives us Sabour in Pakistan, when we drop the suffix -jian. So does that mean that Ahmadinejad is of Jewish-Pakistani origin?

i also find the Telegraph's photo unconvincing - if you have the correct fonts installed, look up the Persian wikipedia entry for the Ahmadinejad article fa:محمود_احمدی‌نژاد and you'll see what Sabourjian looks like: " سبورجیان " - now look for it in a blow-up of the photo - just try to match the shapes. The first word (from the right) on the third line from the top does look consistent with this. But it's at the limits of legibility. How can we tell it's now not Sourjian from this photo? Only the prior information from Tait and Hassan help for the first few letters. In any case, "name on an ID" is exaggerated - all we have is a blurred name on an apparently Adobe-Ducky edited photograph published by a British tabloid newspaper regarding the name being "on an ID", and the latin transliteration is a choice of The Telegraph, not something "on" the ID. Boud (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC) typo corrected Boud (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

24.147.110.167, how did you conclude that the Israeli (well known ) professor is biased aside of his citizenship?--Gilisa (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the new "Supreme Court of Wikipedia": Please rise. The high court judges here at Wikipedia have concluded that "reliable and verifiable sources" are of secondary importance. What matters in this case is the interpretation of these sources by our editors. Hence, the following comments from the judges will henceforth outweigh the mainstream press and disregard "reliable sources":

Even the sources are unsure . . . The man is Iranian, by which I mean . . . a lone paper . . . based on one scant hint is not valid enough . . . By the way, most people will let you know when they're Jewish. . . ethnicity not required for this specific article. . . no hard evidence . . . very solid evidence. . . I cannot imagine more solid evidence . . . Name on an ID is not proof . . . More solid evidence is if he would say: "I am Jewish, I believe in the tenets, I do my best" . . . hypothesis. . . I have known many Iranian Jews. . . harder evidence than an ID name. . . stronger kind of evidence - if he was circumcised at age of 8 days . . . If you could name his ancestors and prove that they were Jewish . . . very doubtful publication . . . serve as hard evidence . . . We can't tell . . . may be a 'mistake' of one of his ancestors . . . maybe one of them was Jewish and forced to convert . . . suggest fringe theory . . . my impression . . . British-flavored tabloid speculation . . . Until this information is verifiable and significantly adds to the quality of the article . . . slapping a paragraph . . . against any mentioning of these bluffs . . . exciting anecdote . . . came from tabloids . . . provacative . . . ridiculous assertions . . . far-reaching allegations . . . certainly not his lead or early life . . . should also include comprehensive gist of real experts opinions on these allegations . . . oddly presumtive . . . mention later in the article, providing we present both sides of the argument.

The Court is now adjourned. A very sad day for Wikipedia's credibility, IMHO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comment surely didn't contribute nothing for the matter, you just spilled your bitterness and contempt on both sides, taking words far out of the context they were written in. It's realu uncivil comment, you took it too far.--Gilisa (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I just saw on TV American orientalist who said that not only that the surname can't serve as an indication, but that's not even a Jewish name and probably not even the surname he had(the one was claimed to be Jewish)...--Gilisa (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There are better sources of relevant background than television: [6]. This issue could have major global ramifications - it is not for us to judge it. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The only "global ramification" I can see is that it seeks to prove that we are all in the end of the same origin, and that no one should be a hater. This is a viewpoint I personally share and hope to promote, yet the means is also important. We can't manipulate the facts and jump to conclusions. The truth will come regardless of whether we rush it or not.Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I put my last comment under yours by mistake, it's belnoged to the discussion above, where there are two factions: One who support original research (waving that it was published in not else than the Royal Academy of the Daily Telegraph for Exact Science and Deep Investigations) and one who object it. I belong to the last.--Gilisa (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

To argue that the one who call to annihilate Israel is Jewish himself, based on such weak evidence (a surname that he probably didn't even have) can't fit with the values of any decent organization.--Gilisa (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You do not understand Wikipedia. Please read WP:Verifiability and WP:TRUTH. Note The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It is verifiable that The Telegraph has said Ahmadinejad was born into a Jewish family. Your belief that it isn't true is irrelevant - you are not a reliable source and your personal beliefs should have no weight in the article. Josh Keen (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr Josh Keen I understand wikipedia very well, but I'm not sure that you are. There is a difference between small reference and between entering the Daily Telegraph fringe yellow theory in the early life paragraph, in one of the first lines. There is a difference between small refernce at the end of the page opr in the "contreversy" section to strongly implying that indeed he is Jewish and leaving little space, if any, to counter arguments. There is a difference between small refernce and between adding ethnicity entry which directly stated that he's Jewish. There is a difference between citing low quality source as the "Daily Telegraph" is than to wrote in the religion section that he convert from Judaism at the age of four years. Give me a break and avoid bold text as well please.--Gilisa (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

More wikicensorship then? This is all over the media except here which is why Wikipedia is such a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27yardsofdentalfloss (talk • contribs) 23:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Telegraph is not a tabloid (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3409185.stm quoted in its Wikipedia article); therefore, why isn't this 'controversy' mentioned at all in the article, in a balanced way? For example, after the following sentences in 'Background':
"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was born near Garmsar in the village of Aradan, the fourth of seven children of an ironworker, grocer, barber and blacksmith who changed his name from Saborjhian when the family moved to Tehran.[25][26] However, Kasra Naji who wrote one of the most important biographies of Ahmadinejad available in the English language, contradicts this claim and adds that the name was actually 'Sabaghian' which means 'dye-masters' in Persian.[27]..."
...it could be written in as: 'It has been reported in a British newspaper that the name Sabourjian is 'on the list of reserved names for Iranian Jews compiled by Iran's Ministry of the Interior...' (FN Ref for Telegraph/Radio Free Europe...etc)'??? Pob1984 (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Not bad, Pob1984. But I'm curious why "the rest of the mainstream media", hasn't mentioned it. I have checked with the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Ha'aretz, and Al Jazeera. None mention it. It has been mentioned only by the Telegraph's single unreferenced article and multiplied by scores of reactionary blogs. The whole thing comes across as a hasty, misguided attempt to solve a disagreement between the nations of Iran and Israel. Is the fate of Wikipedia to become a tabloid?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post has expanded a bit on this. As for giving credence to biographer Kasra Naji, who, according to a review of the only book he ever published, "takes us inside the shadowy council chambers of Tehran, and shows us the plots, passions, and personalities . . ."[7], all one can say is, "hello?" An honest look inside Iran from their free press? Sure- sure. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: The Table of Contents to his book does not cover his early life: Ahmadinejad for President 57; Apocalypse Now 91; Irans Nuclear Quest 111; Ahmadinejad vs the World 139; USIran Relations 185; Iran in Turmoil 207; Friends in High Places 257; Notes 273; Index 289. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Abie, I concede that this 'information' certainly falls in the realm of the political, in a highly charged arena no doubt, as evidenced by the following from the London Times' website
"+ Worrying news arrives that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has admitted to being Jewish and intends to wipe himself off the face of the earth as soon as humanly possible, perhaps with the help of nuclear weapons. It has been revealed that Ahmadinejad’s father changed his name from Saburjian shortly after the wiry little thug was born, perhaps anticipating that it might prove a problem for him later in life. Saburjian is a Jewish name and means “weaver of the Tallit shawl”, as opposed to Ahmadinejad, which in Farsi means “enricher of the cheap Congolese uranium”." (From a political commentator at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rod_liddle/article6860186.ece.)
This issue was also mentioned in The Guardian back in April (at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/22/ahmadinejad-holocaust-racism):
"Furthermore, owing to Ahmadinejad's Holocaust remarks, many more people in Iran who had never heard of this tragedy now know the name and the fact that Jews were murdered in the second world war. So successful has Ahmadinejad been in giving publicity to this issue that some people from the right, who are usually aligned with him, have become infuriated and have turned against him. Dr Mehdi Khazali, son of the powerful and messianic Ayatollah Khazali went as far as stating that Ahmadinejad came from a Jewish family, and this is why he continued to give publicity to the issue. In his blog, Khazali said that much like many prominent Shia Bazaari traders who were originally Jews, Ahmadinejad's original surname "Saborjian", which means thread painters in Farsi, had Jewish origins."
I have a feeling that this story will gather momentum. Perhaps we should wait? However, how long can this article deny the existence of an increasingly prominent issue (cf. as opposed to fact)? Pob1984 (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Am not sure why there is so much fear, self-doubt and self-censorship. Seems like we're all waiting for someone to deny the claim, so we can bury the story way down in the long article under a section called "Disputes." The only question is what are we afraid of? There are already plenty of details to make this a separate section in his bio.

• • Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was born a Jew and converted to Islam, Britain's Daily Telegraph reported on Saturday. . .
  • Every family that converts into a different religion takes a new identity by condemning their old faith... By making anti-Israeli statements he is trying to shed any suspicions about his Jewish connections," Ali Nourizadeh, the head of the Centre for Arab and Iranian Studies in London, was quoted as saying. . .
  • On July 3, The Jerusalem Post reported that an Iranian blogger who claimed Ahmadinejad has Jewish roots was being detained by the authorities after he was arrested along with 150 university students . . .
  • Bahrain's oldest newspaper, Akhbar al-Khaleej, was briefly shut down by the governing authorities in June after it published an article recycling the claim. . .
  • Khazali wrote on his Web site earlier this year that the president was of partially Jewish origin, asserting that Ahmadinejad had changed his family name from Sabourjian, and calling for the origins of the Sabourjian family in the town of Aradan to be investigated.

Hey, we're Wikipedia, not "Weak-ipedia." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly Wikiwatcher1, and as this is indeed wikipedia we have to also be able to give the right proportions for suce very dopubtful assertions. That's mean that the main source for Ahmadinejad's alleged "Jewishness" are tabloids and that most experts rejects these arguments. So, it should be mentioned? Yes, at the controversies section together with counter arguments of experts, in short and with refernce to the political background of these assertions. Not in the lead, not in the first paragraph, not in the ethnicity entry, not in Persian Jews category and no refernce for imaginary out of the blue theory of "his" convertion to Islam at the age of four in the infobox. Can you accept this or that you want us to stay with weak-ipedia?--Gilisa (talk) 08:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keeping calling The Daily Telegraph a tabloid? It is not a tabloid. As Pob1984 pointed out The Daily Telegraph is one of the UK's most respected newspapers. When they make a big statement like Ahmadinejad being born Jewish, you can be sure that they have checked the evidence thoroughly - they do have a reputation to uphold. Josh Keen (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Gelisa, you keep asserting that all experts who spoke on this issue have refuted the rumor. That simply isn't the case. A biographer with well known bias refuted it, and a middle east expert in London supported it. Those are the only experts I have heard from. I get the feeling from your posts that you are not being objective here. You keep attacking legitimate sources as tabloids, and shouting down people who simply want wikipedia to take a more open, and less political approach. This isn't about being pro-Iran, Anti-Iran or anything like that. It is about a significant development in the man's biography. There is enough evidence at this point to pursue it. We have linguistic evidence, not yet refuted by real experts on Farsi or Iranian history, a news story from a major paper, and the fact that other news outlets haven't rebutted the claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll for inclusion

(current last sentence in lead: "Nevertheless, his comments, such as the one Reuters quoted him as saying on September 18, 2009, that using the Holocaust as a "pretext for the foundation of the Zionist regime is a lie," continue to come across as abrasive and even threatening to Israel and Israel's allies." This final sentence, plus many more in just the lead, indicates that current news stories are used in this bio. Hence, something similar to the sentence below, with sample cites to support it, could/should easily be added. More details could be added to the body.

"According to various news reports during 2009, including Britain's Daily Telegraph, Ahmadinejad was "born a Jew and converted to Islam."

• "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad revealed to have Jewish past" Daily Telegraph
• "Ahmadinejad's 'Jewish Family' " Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
• "A humble beginning helped to form Iran's new hard man" Guardian
• "Charge: Ahmadinejad Rants to Hide His Jewish Roots" Israel National News, Jan 28, 2009

Add or Wait But before we vote, let's all keep in mind these words from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "While a straw poll is not a substitute for discussion it can be a tool for probing opinions especially outside of article content discussions, so that one knows who to talk with to obtain a negotiated consensus."--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 06:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Add: --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Add: --DannyBoy7783 (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Add as a disputed claim; Edkollin (talk) 03:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Add: At least mention Sabourjian means "weaver of the Sabour", the name for the Jewish Tallit shawl in Persia 68.223.108.75 (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

But we don't even know if that's what the name means (and for sure not "weaver of the Talit" at max "waver of the cloths") and moreover not even sure at all that this is the name in his ID.--Gilisa (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait: The Telegraph did not state that he was born Jewish and converted to Islam as a proven fact. Rather, they used the word "suggests" (as in, "short note scrawled on the card suggests his family changed its name to Ahmadinejad when they converted to embrace Islam after his birth"). As WP:V states, Exceptional claims require exceptional sources (i.e. "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons"). To state that the world's most famous (living) Holocaust denier was born Jewish is a fairly exceptional claim (not to mention that he's also probably one of the world's most famous living Muslims, for better or worse). However, I certainly don't object to his birth name being in the article. That's certainly been established as fact by now. All Hallow's (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Add: ADM (talk) 06:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait: actually I think the choices should be 'add' or 'exclude'. and my vote is for excluding. It's not like we're waiting around for something to be built out of nothing. there are plenty of articles to work on. a semantic matter, I know, but still it's how I think.--Salimi (talk) 06:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: why not just write "The Daily Telegraph says X; other notable sources say W, Y and Z." Isn't that how we do things around here? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No it's not. Becuase if you try to claim that Newton was Jewish based on the daily telegraph (not that it's very plausible that it will publish such thing) there is no slightest chance that it would be entered into the article. At max you will have it at the end of the article as a fringe theory (and justifiably so). Few years ago, British or Australian well known television channel launched a TV series, based on the hallucinations of one Serbian professor, that show the "great" "contributions" of Mileva Maric (Einstein's first wife) to the theory of relativity. It was much more detailed than the assertions for M.A jewishness and yet it have no place in the article about Einstein, infact, it was removed. More, we don't have here a real fight between two or more sides, we have the daily telegraph which just published "M.A first surname been told to us to come of Jewish origin, therefore M.A is jewish" and on the other side we have sources, including academic ones, which tell us "nonesense, the name is not even Jewish" and detailed exactly the origin of M.A using the best data available.--Gilisa (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to cite all of these "sources, including academic ones, which tell us 'nonesense, the name is not even Jewish' and detailed exactly the origin of M.A using the best data available"? All I've seen so far is a comment from Ahmadinejad's official biographer, who is neither independent or free to write as he wishes. Again, you seem to be claiming that the Daily Telegraph is known for unreliability and publishing crazy fringe theories. This is not the case. Perhaps you are confusing it with the Daily Mail? Josh Keen (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Objecting the poll: wikipedia standards for reliable sources can't be concluded or changed based on a talk page poll. The poll don't let us or to anyone else the ability to override wikipedia rules. Moreover, it used here as a way do get fast bypass of the disagreement, without showing good will and intend to discuss this issue.--Gilisa (talk) 07:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the discussion has gotten so huge that it's hard to tell if there's a consensus. But we're not a jury deciding whether he's Jewish or not. It's simply whether there is a consensus to add a summary of the news stories and facts that have already been published, not whether we like or agree with the news sources. BTW, it won't be me who adds anything. I've never worked on this article so wouldn't contribute anything like this to start. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher1 You preaching for "higher" standards on wikipedia, writing on the behalf of representing the opinions of all users. Of course, you took this just principle and you use it in the wrong way. Any elboration on this matter from my side would weak my argument as it's clear. But anyway, once most people support the idea of flat universe, because this is what they could see and what they was told by non experts. You approach exclude the authority of experts or non biased analysis. Had courts convict or exonerat people based on what the "daily telegraph" wrote, you would live back in the 15 AC. As I always wrote, I have no problem with adding refernce to the daily telegraph assertions, but the daily telegraph assertions are not adequate source for the infobox, the open paragraph or in any other of the main paragraphes and it can't be presented with only one side view on that matter or disconnect to the political background. I supprot inclusion only in the controversies section.

P.S. there is huge difference between The Sunday Times investigation on Israel's nuclear program and the one it had shortly before on Hitler diaries. There, both investigations were incomparably more serious than the yellow scoop of the daily telegraph and yet one of the storied was happend to be a bluff. --Gilisa (talk) 09:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Add: Pob1984 (talk) But not as Ahmadinejad was "born a Jew and converted to Islam." Correct me if I'm wrong, but this phrase is not in the Telegraph article, and is thus falsely attributed: what the Telegraph says is that he could have been born a Jew by attributing Jewish status to the family name that he was born with. Its a subtle difference, but an important one I think (and characteristic of the fact that the Telegraph is a respected news source and not a Tabloid) whether or not Ahmadinejad was "born a Jew and converted to Islam" is merely suggested ["The short note scrawled on the card suggests"]. My vote is therefore with Jalapenos do exist's approach, with a mind to All Hallow's Occam's-razor-approach. Pob1984 (talk) 09:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC) (-and so why not include the information in the background section that discusses his original family name, as I previously suggested? Pob1984 (talk) 09:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC))Wait Looks like this is becoming a controversy, with the Telegraph and Guardian taking different sides: as the story develops, we can then argue whether it is notable enough to include here! Pob1984 (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The daily telegraph is not always that respected, this is only a scoop it jumped on. Other media sources didn't refer to this assertion (CNN and BBC). Many of the D.T publication have yellow flavour.--Gilisa (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, in this regard, surely it is as respected as a newspaper can be? Insofar as any established/highbrow paper can be respected since all and any media is fallible, including the BBC and CNN (the latter of which I wouldnt IMO put up a pedestal above one of the broadsheets). I cited above a source from the BBC about the Telegraph's standing - why are you so keen to discredit it as a source? If it has a 'flavour': it would be blue for C/conservative! - but that doesn't stand to discredit its reporting, but rather the POV of its commentary. (It also gained respect as a valuable source this summer over the MP expenses scandal) Pob1984 (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Pob1984, since according to Halakha (Jewish law), he would be considered fully Jewish anyways, regardless of his family's conversion, because both his parents were ethnically Jewish, especially his mother. So, due to his mother's halakhic recognition as Jew, this would make him a Jew also, in the quasi-official sense of Jewish ethno-cultural belonging. ADM (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The daily telegraph is not an authority on historical studies or physics, just on reporting news. It can tell that one Iranian blogger was detained after wroting that Ahmadinejad is Jewish(something that would have probably happend to him in any case he would wrote the same thing on any prominent Irnaian official), but it took the commentry too free on the authority of itself and with totaly one sided presentation. As for you ADM, it's nice to see that we now also have Halakhatic expert here, but it have nothing to do with Ahmadinejad the one evidence for his father possibile Jewish background is doubtful and totaly rejected by all experts who spoke out on that matter. As for his mother we have absolutly no indication to tell she is Jewish, it's not different than to tell that you or just anyone pass on the street is Jewish. Mere unbased, maybe biased, guess.--Gilisa (talk) 10:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In any case, there is a fairly recent press article from The Guardian that attempts to refute The Telegraph's allegations, so there is maybe a point into what user:Gilisa and others are saying. Until there is a greater consensus among Wikipedians, as well as among journalists and experts, I would not be very supportive of including such public assertions. Also, I have the impression that certain Jews in Israel and elsewhere feel uncomfortable with these allegations, because it gives antisemites a new reason for criticizing them, with the notion that they are needlessly picking on one of their own. [8] ADM (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

From the aformentioned Guardian article http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jul/02/iran.roberttait, it is quoted that:
"He had an interest in and talent for the Qur'an as a very small child," said a cousin, Maasoumeh Saborjhian, 60, to whom he remains close."
Note the cousin's surname... why is he commending M.A. on his youthful command of scripture? It would seem that possessing the Saborjhian surname is inconclusive of current religious status. Surely the most that can be resonably said, therefore, is that it indicates jewish origin rather than status. Pob1984 (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Pob1984, I suggest you read the link [9] ADM post here. It's much more updated and unlike the one you provided it simply analyse the real weight of M.A surname. I don't think that the Daily Telegraph publication give us the authority to make original research, but what happning here at present.--Gilisa (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait. Colipon+(Talk) 12:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Add: Aitch naught (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC) It is not insignificant that the man who is the greatest threat to world Jewry today has probable Jewish decent. Many persecutors of Jews have had possible Jewish family links, including Reinhard Heydrich who may have had Jewish decent, Hermann Göring who had a Jewish godfather. Hitler was aware of suspicion that he had a Jewish great grandfather. Since Ahmadinejad is the self-appointed leader of world antagonism toward the only Jewish state, and the historical examples of anti-Semites with Jewish connections, the information is not irrelevant.

Please read [ this http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/05/mahmoud-ahmadinejad-jewish-family] before. You may change your mind, the assertions of Jewish origin for M.A seem more like a real bad taste canard, based on the detention of one Iranian blogger who refer to the Iranian president as Jewish (and as in Iran it's considerd as severe insultment it's enough to get anyone who will name any Iranian official into prison, whether there is basis for the allegations or not). Many Jewish people are offended by the allegetions of Jewish origin to M.A -mostly because it have avsolutly no evidental basis. So, I ask from you to consider again your vote.--Gilisa (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Comment is Free' section of The Guardian web site is not the news section, it is instead a blog for writers and contributors to Guardian articles. From Comment is free: about us : We carry the main comment articles and editorials from both newspapers and also host a collective group web-only blog. Compare the Comment is Free article you linked to with this one from the news section. Comment is Free articles are commentary on news, not the news, and they do not go through the editorial process that news articles in The Guardian do. I'm not saying that it couldn't be used as a source, but it should be made clear that the article only represents the opinion of Meir Javedanfar because (unlike articles from the news section of the web site) it is essentially a blog post with no editorial control. Josh Keen (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia should report this if it turns out to be supported, and I don't think that much harm will come from writing the truth. Until that is known, I support Y_Not's position, since the issue is pretty important to who M.A. is. I'm not sure why this is so hard to verify one way or the other. There must be data on Iranian names somewhere, so proper statistics can be done to see whether the Telegraph report had any credibility. Obviously, M.A. is a Muslim and there is very little that is Jewish about him. However, if we ignore information about this despotic and violent man we will have a distorted picture of the situation and be hampered when dealing with him. 128.118.147.47 (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Add a modified version - we should not report that he may be jewish - we should report that a report was made. You know... -- Y not? 13:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph is not a tabloid. It has appeared in The Jerusalem Post, CBS, and other news outlets. The claim has been refuted by sources like the Guardian. The point isn't that we should jump on the bandwagon and repeat the rumor as true. But it is a controversy at this point, and worthy of mention. Definitely worth looking into. It appears in multiple sources, and has generated a firestorm. It is also worth mentioning that this was an active rumor in Iran long before it hit the telegraph. Wikipedia shouldn't insert it as an article of truth, but it should report the existence of the rumor and the controversy surrounding it. I consider myself a pretty liberal person, with no real gripe with Iran or Islam. Just read some of my anti-glen beck posts. But I have to say, wikipedia is being way too political in this instance. Not saying wikipedia tilts left or right. But it seems like the posters and editors handling subjects are also the ones most biased about that subject (again, see the Glen Beck page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What may be very political is to take most probably baseless argument and to present it as note worthy or worse, as close to be true/ true (I revert few editors that insert to the infobox ethnic entry =Jewish and etc) , where it was refuted by all experts that spoke out on the issue. If you want to add it, then it shouldn't be more than an anecdote at the end of the page.--Gilisa (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue, don't forget, is not just about today's news, it's also about the little-known history of the Middle East. My hunch is that most people will have no problem considering this story, proven true or not, as a useful excuse to open a window into history: for example, [10] or [11] --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher1, I get hard time to undestand the logic behind your argument. You suggest us to buy the cow for a glass of milk. I don't see how including false argument, or to give unproportional significance to very doubtful assertions serve anything or this subject. --Gilisa (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

How can you possibly state such blatant OR and say this story is a "false argument," with "doubtful assertions?" I do not believe in censoring a news story from legitimate sources, especially when it's supported with evidence. If you see this as an "argument," so be it. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gilisa. In other words, the issue is not "also about the little-known history of the Middle East", that issue belongs on the History of the Middle East page. This page is also not "about 'today's news'", it's 'about' understanding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, not changing who he is, not persuading that he fits into any manageable mold which we would benefit by, but understanding and presenting him as he is.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone besides me and a few others noticed that this massive, 127Kb so-called "biography," does not even cover his early life? Anything that contributes to "understanding and presenting him as he is," as you say, should not avoid looking at his background before he became Iran's president. This article, btw, is not a bio. It's mostly a compilation of political news stories, IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher1, if you want his biography to be more detaild you are welcome to add valid facts, that you can source with undoubtful references. If you have rumers that wer published, put them at the end of the article with appropriate/equal stage for counter arguments. More, even I assume good faith but your presistense to force on an article your own view is realy bothering.--Gilisa (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If we're talking about early life details, we could add his father's name and occupation, and the fact that his mother is a Sayyida. All this established in that recent article by his biographer - [12] All Hallow's (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Or this source, with more than name, rank, and serial number: [13] --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Meir Javedanfar wrote a book about Iran and Ahmadinejad. This does not make him an official biographer. The Comment is Free section of The Guardian web site is a collective blog for writers and contributors to the paper. It is not the news section. The articles in Comment is Free do not undergo any editorial control; the articles are just opinion pieces posted on a collective blog. Josh Keen (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I love All Hallow's's changes! Nice balance!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? All Hallows added the text:

“ His father, Ahmad, was an ironworker, grocer, barber, blacksmith, and religious Shi'a who taught the Qur'an.[25] His mother was a Seyyede, an honorific title given to those believed to be direct descendants of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. ”

This text is not balance or compromise - the text is deliberately arranged to stress that Ahmadinejad's parents were Muslims, with absolutely no mention being made of the conversion from Judaism, and the Guardian blog article (Ahmadinejad has no Jewish roots) is cited three times, and the Daily Telegraph news article (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad revealed to have Jewish past) is not cited at all. How does this represent balance? Josh Keen (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you were serious! What a Brilliant Idea - Barnstar Awarded for an perfectly balanced solution to a long and agonizing debate on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's article. Some people might say that was a little... premature? Josh Keen (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Josh, you seem to be assuming that the family was Jewish. This is not a given. You seem to have decided that because the Daily Telegraph printed it it must be true. But the reality is that just like biographies, newspapers also err. I suggest you refer to the old rumor that Ahmadinejad's involvement with the 1979 U.S. embassy takeover.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to wonder this, since people were so giddy-up over Ahmadinejad's original last name - what was his real first name? Had he been born Jewish, he would not have been born with the name "Mahmoud". BTW, the information on his parents (their names and his father's Shi'a faith) was also included in this 2007 book - partially viewable online at Amazon - and it does not seem to have been contested since its publishing - or contradicted by any other full-length book biographies of the man. All Hallow's (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Josh Keen, this discussion is indeed draged to be one of wikipedia lamest edit wars, or wait, actually there are many lame edit wars on this kind of issues specifically. It start when a batch of users or one user try to include or exclude from the article incorrect/correct data (respectively) from reasons that are not always neutral. In this we have the lame demand to paint M.A as Jewish, no less, maybe it's premature as you see it to refuse to this demand. As I see it this demand is not only highly misleading and falsified, but also have extensive political implications.--Gilisa (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's another refutation - according to this, there is no list of "Iranian Jewish surnames" at Iran's Ministry of the Interior. It also notes that Persian Jews lived mostly in large cities, not in small towns like the one Ahmadinejad is from. All Hallow's (talk) 09:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

All Hallow's, good work! As time pass it's happen to be more and more a fraud that started when one Iranian blogger tried to undermine the legitimacy of M.A as Iran president and from there it trickled to the Daily Telegraph and to the entire Western world.--Gilisa (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: MI6 Confirms Jewish roots: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=112001
68.223.108.75 (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I was wondering when somebody would bring up Farah's article. Joseph Farah is a known birther and conspiracy theorist. If MI6 actually made this claim, that could be notable. The problem is, no legitimate news source mentions MI6. Only Farah does, and if we take his word on this one, we may also have to change Barack Obama's birthplace. All Hallow's (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

wnd.com worldnetdaily.com pajamasmedia.com etc. really are rubbish. They should never be used as reliable sources for Wikipedia. Unfortunately some people think they are and then they get cited as a reference. Josh Keen (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Add it This is in the Telegraph. The language can reflect some uncertainty, but it's sourced and it must go in. Abductive (reasoning) 04:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you be kind enough to save people the search and link to it? Because I've searched and I haven't found anything.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 04:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Are we still talking about the Daily Telegraph article from Friday? Just about the only part of it that hasn't been refuted as incorrect somewhere by now is that his birth name was "Sabourjian" (and no wonder, because that's the only part that's actually true). All Hallow's (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Add: Lets get to the bottom of this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.61.204 (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a clear consensus for adding the facts in a balanced manner. Not doing so or unreasonably deleting well-formed additions would be potential censorship that would no doubt get reverted. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher, this straw poll was (mostly) taken before Monday, before numberous refutations of the Daily Telegraph's article began popping up in news sources. Subsequently, this story more or less died and there have been few recent (i.e. today) reports on it in any legitimate sources. The point is that the poll does not reflect recent developments that alter this whole issue. All Hallow's (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't Add: The source this time is an independent intelligence website [14] this kind of websites are wonky. For instance, Israeli Debka.com is pretty much of a similar concept, but much older and it's well-known all over the world and only in the UK, and seem to be less nonsensical than this one. There is no approval to this story in the general media and it seem like another fairy tale. The MI6 wasn't involve in this story before and no reason to believe that now it does.--Gilisa (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't add. The argument is cheesy to begin with (based on the name, I'm a crowned village mayor...), and the fact itself, even if true, is unremarkable beyond the "gotcha" factor. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think the fact is unremarkable if true? If Hitler were born into a Jewish family, then wouldn't most people expect that to be mentioned in his Wikipedia article somewhere? Given that a lot of people, including the U.S. Senate, think that Mahmoud is anti-Semitic, it seems to be relevant? Josh Keen (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't add. Here is a suggestion for an alternative: --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Add: His ancestry has come up before, especially during this year's election. He supposedly had a commentator jailed for discussing it. If he didn't have something to hide, he could easily clarify his ancestry. This is quite an important point. --74.107.97.3 (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

74.107.97.3, your argument is simply not a valid one. I won't even call it "original research" as in this case I would be too gentle, it actually have nothing with common sense.--Gilisa (talk) 08:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Add mention both sides, as BoogaLouie suggests. --GRuban (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Add. I agree with Josh Keen. The Telegraph meets the test of WP:Verifiability and WP:TRUTH. Most of the objections are WP:OR, trying to evaluate the credibility of the claim. WP:NPOV requires us to give both verifiable arguments and let the reader decide. And it belongs in the body of the text, not a footnote. --Nbauman (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't add. The Daily Telegraph article starts with a spurious meaning of 'Sabourjian' and then draws also sorts of conclusions from it. The article doesn't even name its 'expert' - he could be a bloke in a pub for all we know. Anyway, I'm just interested in the Sabourjian name for etymological reasons so I can't be bothered getting into an edit war. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
PS - did you guys know that this material is going unchallenged on the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel page?

Jewish background, suggestion for short subsection

`During 2009, a number of sources, including Britain's Daily Telegraph, reported that Ahmadinejad was "born a Jew and converted to Islam," Ahmadinejad's family's earlier surname - Sabourjian – was "a Jewish name meaning cloth weaver," and that this "suggests his family changed its name to Ahmadinejad when they converted to embrace Islam after his birth."`

• "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad revealed to have Jewish past" Daily Telegraph
• http://www.rferl.org/content/Were_Ahmadinejads_Ancestors_Jews_/1375318.html "Ahmadinejad's 'Jewish Family' "] Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
• "A humble beginning helped to form Iran's new hard man" Guardian
• "Charge: Ahmadinejad Rants to Hide His Jewish Roots" Israel National News, Jan 28, 2009

`However, following the release of this story, other sources, including Britain's Guardian, reported that this was untrue, and that the name Sabourjian has "absolutely nothing to do with Jews," but "derives from thread painter – sabor in Farsi – a once common and humble occupation in the carpet industry in Semnan province," where his family came from.`

• Ahmadinejad has no Jewish roots by Meir Javedanfar, Guardian, 5 October 2009
• 'Jewish' Ahmadinejad is a Fraud by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz, Israel National News, 5 October 2009 --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It was really just the Daily Telegraph that reported this - not a "number of sources" - although several papers repeated what the Telegraph said, quoting the Telegraph. Considering how much we could write about various aspects of Ahmadinejad's life and persona, I don't know that we need a section based off a single newspaper article that has by now been proven pretty much false. All Hallow's (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Is a short section needed? Here's what Israeli National News (which argues the story is rubish) says: After that mainstream publication printed the rumor, it has been printed and reprinted in online media as a near-certain fact. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no "proof" that the article is false. What we have so far:

• An article published by the Daily Telegraph, one of the UK's most respected papers, that says Mahmoud was born Jewish
• An opinion piece by Meir Javedanfar published in the Guardian that says it ain't so
• An article published by Israel National News says it ain't so. Israel National News is, according to the Wikipedia article, "an Israeli media network identifying with Religious Zionism" that "is seen as the voice of the Israeli settlement movement." Does that sound like a reliable source?

Josh Keen (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Above, "born a Jew and converted to Islam," is in quotation marks: run a search for it on the Telegraph article - I can't seem to find it. I think this proposal might be claiming more than what the Telegraph reported. Otherwise I'd have no objection to a balanced portrayal of this controversy. Pob1984 (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just found it in the Jerusalem Post. But the statement alone, even if cited, sounds like a rumor with no basis. However, the following quotes are cited repeatedly in articles and seem to be the source of the story that started in January, which moves the topic out of the "rumor" category:

"Mahdi Khazali – the son of a leading supporter of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – as having written in a blog that the president has Jewish roots. So reports the Hebrew-language Omedia website and Radio Free Europe. Khazali, son of Ayatollah Abu Al-Kassam Khazali, says that Ahmadinejad changed his Jewish name on his ID card in order to hide his roots. Khazali the son says that the president hides his Jewish roots by attacking Israel and the Jews, and by expressing strong Muslim religious beliefs."source --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If true, he would not be the first, and this source would clearly prove at least that much: Book source --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed the blatant personal opinion (OR) in "Background?" To compound the edit's faults, it relies on a blog entry to refute a British newspaper.

There have been some claims in the media that Sabourjian is a common Jewish name in Iran indicating Jewish ancestry, but better informed sources suggest that this is incorrect. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a bit of an edit war going on regarding this subject, I think some people are not following NPOV in their editing of this issue in the main article. Gilisa, the daily telegraph is not a tabloid, and using that as an excuse to revert edits as you have done is unprofessional and counter productive to the aims of having a neutral source of information for people to read on this topic. If you edit the article use NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.77.192 (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Coming here from WP:BLPN: It is less relevant whether a piece in a quality paper (Telegraph/Guardian) is comment or news, than what explicit sources it brings to bear. The Telegraph declines to name the key sources (if you read it carefully, the only named person from Iran is responding on the basis that the claim is true - he's not the source). The Guardian piece relies on several reliable sources to refute the claim. It should be treated as incorrect and of minor relevance, and I've moved it to a footnote accordingly. Rd232 ^talk 09:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The source the Telegraph uses is their own photographic evidence - a high resolution blown up photo of Ahmadinejad holding his open identity card. No source has challenged the authenticity of the photo. Josh Keen (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

...but the photo does not say that he is Jewish - and neither does the ID card. That is an interpretation that requires expert skill or a blooming imagination and strong disregard for journalistic integrity. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if by "expert skill" you mean "can read the language", then yes, I guess it does. So either the Daily Telegraph had a Persian speaker interpret the blown up photo, or they are lying and are part of a conspiracy to commit fraud. Given their reputation, and the fact that no other source has claimed that the photograph is a hoax, surely Wikipedia must assume the former? It doesn't seem that far-fetched that a major newspaper would be able to get a Persian reader to look at a blown up photo from one of their photographers and tell them what the text says. The alternative conclusion - that the Daily Telegraph is engaging in some kind of fraud as part of a Jewish conspiracy to undermine Ahmadinejad (as claimed by the Tehran Times) - seems less likely. Josh Keen (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong dichotomy. There are many less dramatic explanations - from an honest mistake to a cheap dig to wishful thinking. ANd obviously the interpretation is not unambiguous, otherwise the Telegraph would not write that it "suggests" that the family converted. At least two reliable sources think the interpretation is ludicrous. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the Telegraph are aware of the large implications of what they have claimed. If they are wrong about this, it will damage their reputation greatly. So, it is unlikely to just be "a cheap dig to wishful thinking" - that's the kind of rubbish you get with tabloids, not with the Telegraph. They have checked the evidence, and proclaimed with the weight of their reputation that Ahmadinejad has a Jewish background. So the possibilities are somewhat reduced - either they have seriously messed up and their reputation will be damaged, or they are attempting fraud. Josh Keen (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What is written in his ID is absolutly meaning less for the article. There is a mentioning of his previous surname there, so what? Do you know what it means or where it comes from? And if one journalist would tell that E=MC^5, would you take it for granted as well? Besides, the Iranians are not that stupid to include Jewish surname, even if one was applicable for MA, on their president ID. --Gilisa (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Gilisa, I see where your misunderstanding is now - you think that the ID card only shows a previous surname. In fact, this is not the case. The Daily Telegraph article says that there is a short note scrawled on the card stating that his family changed its name to Ahmadinejad when they converted to embrace Islam after his birth. So, it is not just about the previous name, but also about the hand written note on the ID card stating that the name was changed to Ahmadinejad when they converted to embrace Islam after his birth. As for stupidity, well it was probably just a mistake - if he didn't have a new ID card issued, then it is quite possible that he would still be in possession of his lifelong ID card, which would indeed record any change in name. Josh Keen (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, not even the Daily Telegraph says that that note states anything. It says the note "suggests" something. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, no other source has stated that the Telegraph is wrong about the note. And "suggests" could mean either "implies" or "indicates" in this case - it is open to interpretation whether it means the note says "this did happen", and the Telegraph interpret that as "suggests", or whether the note says "this probably happened". Josh Keen (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's get to the point: this is all about one stupid claim that for some reason, probably yellow one, well known newspaper has bring to print. I realy think that the all discussion about this is needless.--Gilisa (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Gilisa, could you clarify something for me? Do you consider the Telegraph a WP:RS, as a "mainstream news organization," under News Organizations or not? --Nbauman (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not consider it as a reliable source for granted. Usually it's, but it depend on the kind of publication. For this specific matter it seem like the Daily Telegraph did bad work. It's also in significant contradiction with other sources.--Gilisa (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think he's jewsh but his not anti-semist and anti-jewsh. It's a trick that jewsh people had been use from old timen. they bring a jewsh between people and he accept their believes and after that he will be more muslim than muslim. Yes, it's jewsh plan. Ahmadinejad don't destroy Israeal, be sure, he wants to destroy Iran and Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.225.237.25 (talk) 09:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That's one of the smartest things I ever heard. Very original, can be compared only to Theory of relativity in terms of geniusity. Now it's all clear: Ahmadinejad is not only Jewish, but he's also a Mossad agent, and not only a Mossad agent, but also having Israeli citizenship, not only that, but he also lived in Israel until age of 7 yo. Not only that, but he's also fluent in Hebrew and belong to the most radical right wing praty in Israel. There are rumers that he also was an F-15 pilot in the IAF and that he's deeply involved in the plan to attack Iran. Else, If you tried to hint that we better describe him as a Jew, so his power in Iran would decline-it's a nice idea, but it won't work nor does wikipedia is a political tool by definition--Gilisa (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources discussion

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Open_source_intelligence_websites_as_reliable_sources_-_WorldNetDaily
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_the_Daily_Telegraph
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_the_Guardian_Comment_is_Free_commentary_and_collaborative_blog —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Keen (talk • contribs) 15:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget one of the most reliable sources of all: Tehran Times, whose mystery expert says,

"These reports are undoubtedly published in line with Israeli interests, said the media analyst, who was speaking on conditions of anonymity. In light of the Goldstone report, such reports are obviously designed to divert world attention from Israeli crimes against Palestinians and the use of weapons of mass destruction. . ."

What do you think, Abie, is it just an Israeli red herring? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Gelisa, whould you stop it already. What other sources? Just the guardian and an Iranian Biographer. Other sources have supported the claim, and we know it has been made before within Iran. It is worthy of discussion, whether concluded to be true or not. You are exhibniting the worst kind of bias here. Linguists have agreed the name indicates possible Jewish roots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Main image

In my opinion this image, perhaps with the black bit at the bottom cropped out is far more suitable for the main picture of Ahmadinejad. Currently the main picture, where he is holding some guys hand, seems to be quite ridiculous and comic (indirectly alluding to homosexuality). Thoughts? - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

He is beautiful as he is, why do you want to replace the image?--Gilisa (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly not an ideal portrait, but it is currently the best photo available on Wikimedia Commons. As for cropping the bottom out, I have no problem with the photo as it is. The bottom half of the photo shows his famous loose fitting attire, which I think hints at his philosophy, or projected philosophy, of being more about substance than about image. And as for the hand holding, holding hands and kissing and embracing between men is much more common in Iran than it is in some other parts of the world, and doesn't allude to sexual intercourse or eroticism in my mind. Rather, it is a sign of friendship and solidarity, ideas I think that are very much an image the man tries to project. Even with this said, I'd like to see more choices of photos on Commons. Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing Info ?

There is minimum info about his personal life and also his childhood. Somebody please expand.--yousaf465 04:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Background

In he background section established members! combined a letter does not related to links! such as sentence that his father .. or mother.. or family name.. redirected to some links that is opposite! Its important the sentences must have the same information that appeared in several True news links. its not done yet! when many news readers know the truth about that person now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.31.187.19 (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Response from RSN

The Telegraph, the Guardian, and Radio Free Europe (with attribution) are all RS. Remember, even if this all turns out to be nonsense, it's still notable, and how it was reported belongs in the biography. Please see responses at WP:RSN, particularly WP:RSN#Troubles with the Ahmadinejad biography. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, not notable and plaed no seeable significant role in his biography. BTW, the Daily Telegraph is reliable source mostly for new that are directly related with UK or when the information was specifically delivered by its agents or by authoritative source and none is valid for this case.--Gilisa (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23