↓

Skip to table of contents

↓

This is not a forum for general discussion of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Any such messages will be deleted or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page.

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page. This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated B-Class) BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WPBiographybiography articles Biography portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as Mid-priority). WikiProject Iran (Rated C-Class, High-importance) IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles Iran portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Accessibility: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = <yes/no> | b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = <yes/no> | b3 <!--Structure --> = <yes/no> | b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = <yes/no> | b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> | b6 <!--Accessibility --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Politics (Rated B-Class, Mid-importance) PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject PoliticsPolitics articles Politics portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been reviewed by Gary Sick on August 10, 2008. Comments: He commented on the article somewhere before August 10, 2008 (perhaps this revision). See here for his review. For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page.

	Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 12, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news column on August 5, 2009.

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in: "Mystery surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad". Kompas (Indonesia). July 13, 2005.  (details)

Please redirect comments that have to do with Israel to Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel Please redirect comments that have to do with controversial issues to Talk:Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

---

Archives

07/19/05 - 03/13/06 02/02/06 - 06/10/06 08/06/06 - 08/27/06 08/28/06 - 09/04/06 09/03/06 - 09/12/06 09/20/06 - 10/01/06 09/29/06 - 10/24/06 10/22/06 - 12/01/06 12/01/06 - 12/26/06 12/25/06 - 02/04/07 02/05/07 - 02/28/07 02/11/07 - 03/06/07 03/07/07 - 03/10/07 03/14/07 - 03/20/07 03/19/07 - 04/09/07 04/19/07 - 05/20/07 04/25/07 - 07/11/07 04/29/07 - 09/24/07 09/24/07 - 12/10/2007 11/09/07 - 06/17/2009 05/26/09 - 12/11/2009 Click here for new archive

Contents 1 Holocaust denial 2 Intro discussion 3 No early life? 4 Photo 5 missing IPA stress 6 photo with rabbis, photo with anti-zionism poster, both or none? 7 Relevant quotes from Ahmadinejad's official website regarding "wiped off the map" 8 Columbia image

[edit] Holocaust denial

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

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

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

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

[edit] Intro discussion

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

• Ahmadinejad is an outspoken critic of United States foreign policy, Israel, and European powers.^[1]

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

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

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

• He has also been criticized for describing the Holocaust as a myth^[2][3] and making statements influenced by classic anti-Semitic ideas,^[4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] No early life?

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

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

[edit] Photo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] missing IPA stress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some examples of accetpable fair-use:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a speech on June 3rd 2008, the official website for the Iranian President quotes Ahmadinejad as saying "the Zionist Regime of Israel faces a deadend and will under God's grace be wiped off the map." and "the Zionist Regime that is a usurper and illegitimate regime and a cancerous tumor should be wiped off the map."^[5]

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

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

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

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

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

• The full paragraph from the transcript should be used:

“

In response to the question whether Ahmadinejad believed in need for elimination of Israel from the world map, he said, "Yes, I say criminal acts committed by states, occupation, state sponsored terrorism, daily massacre of women, children and elderly folks, and long term occupation of another nation's land, need to be ended at any rate." Ahmadinejad added, "We say such moves need to be ended; now if the only way to end them is to wipe Israel, well let it be wiped. We say committing crimes need to be ended." The PBS reporter asked, "Would you reply similarly if your country would be threatened of being wipe off the world map?" Ahmadinejad said, "They have done so many times. As recently as this week an Israeli official proposed that Ahmadinejad should be assassinated, or kidnapped. Is that not a cause for concern and is that not state sponsored terrorism? The era for double standards is over and the same standards need to observed for all.

”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Columbia image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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