Talk:Controversies of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Dr.Saami?

 * Would someone please start something about his role in assasination of Dr. Saami?--Sina 20:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we should refrain from adding further allegations unless there is a somewhat accurate connection that can be established. Sources should be used for this matter. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 20:31, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * His role? I've heard a few accusing Rafsanjani of the same assasination. I think it's a more he did she did fingerpointing now, than anything with conclusive evidence. ~User_talk:m87

Allegations: 1979 Hostage Taker?
The image Claimed-to-be-ahmadinejad.jpg is not correct. The person indicated is clearly not Ahmadinejad. I have changed it for a montage including the same photo indicating the individual to the far right. Included are several other photos taken at the same time. That person appears almost certainly to be Ahmadinejad. --Packmanus 1 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)


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


 * I like to make a few points about this. First, I think all major news agencies (AP, AFP, Reuters, and BBC) circulated that photo with encircled bearded man as Ahmadinejad, and not just Iran Focus.  Regarding what Packmanus suggests, I don't think the person he is focusing on is Ahmadinejad at all.  [[Image:Ahmadinejad-khatami.jpg|right]]That guy is even taller and bigger than the one next to the hostage.  Ahmadinejad is a short and small man.  Their size is not even close.  Perhaps this picture would clarify this point more.  Here is the picture of Ahmadinejad next to Khatami.  Notice that Khatami by no means is a tall or big man, he is quite average.


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Since you are only directing your sarcasm at my second point, I take it that you concede points 1, 3, and 4. Anyway, since the 5 ft. 8 inch 0 millimeter Khatami could not possibly have been standing on a step, and as you magically can see feet that aren't pictured in the photo, let's talk about the other picture.
 * Firstly, allow me to apologize. In my haste skimming your long post (no, I don't savor and try to drag on arguments; I also have other things to do), I missed that you wrote: "(including one American)." My fault. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
 * Now, in short: How could you definitively know the respective heights of the three (yes, three again) people pictured in the foreground of that photo? On the basis of this "evidence," you're going to dismiss everything as the product of some vast and sinister conspiratorial smear campaign?! Again, this one very important reason for No original research.
 * If you bother to respond, please sign your post. You can do so by entering 4 tildes ( ~ ). Thanks, HKT 5 July 2005 01:20 (UTC) (P.S. Who's "guilty as charged"?)
 * Off the point, but maybe someone has an idea. IF the allegation was true, what I do not understand, is why he would deny it?  If I understand properly it would make him a hero to many.  What am I missing?  --Tony Hecht 00:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If the allegations are true, the reason would likely be that the US government (and perhaps some European governments) might place/push for immediate sanctions on Iran if Ahmadinejad admitted heavy involvement in the embassy takeover. The US would almost certainly demand more serious UN action to prevent Iran from pursuing a nuclear program. It would be politically difficult for the US to continue talks with Iran if the allegations were verified, and it's likely that the US would push for new elections barring Ahmadinejad from candidacy. Ahmadinejad is already considered a hero by many Iranians, and it would be a steep price to pay to become a greater hero. HKT talk 01:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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


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


 * How is anything settled if inside of that article it sais, and i quote, "The officials cautioned that the analysis is not final." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.156.63.212 (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Contributor Jeremygbyrne reverted my edit to the grammatically incorrect media, which is plural. You can't have "a media." It's a medium, singular. I recommend that Jeremy not be so quick on the draw to revert. It just pisses people off. Schnaz 05:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The edit was not reverted because is was incorrect (it wasn't; of course Schnazola's change is entirely correct English); the edit was reverted because we do not edit other people's remarks on talk pages (unless they violate wikipedia policy, and then only cautiously). &#0151; JEREMY 05:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Allegations
Hello HKT. You have included the following in the "allegations" sections: "Ahmadinejad, his political supporters, and even a number of his political opponents in Iran, have denied all or some of these allegations." -- The problem I have with that is that it gives the general reader the impression that some people have only partially denied the allegations. I don't think any of the Iranians (whether supportive or against Ahmadinejad) have implied that some of the allegations may be true. While you are right that some of those who have denied some of the allegations were not in a position to authoritatively reject *ALL* of the allegations, still, the way that part of the article is currently written, gives the general reader the impression that some of the allegations are being accepted. Can we work on improving that a little? Mansour 6 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see what you're saying. How about: "...have taken part in denying these allegations." Would that be clearer? Thanks for pointing this out, HKT 6 July 2005 14:57 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


 * The U.S. only uses their weapons for love. You have nothing to worry about.


 * Yes be worried about a country that abides by nuclear weapon UN guidelines and not by one that doesn't because they supposedly haven't created one yet. And also just disregards UN mandate completely.

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


 * I think the new Iranian president is wonderful too. I like his smile. He will return Iran to it's true Islamic Revolutionary roots. He will dispose of the atheist communists who are springing up and twisting the minds of some people and return them to the teachings of Allah and his Holy Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).Revolucion, I am also not concerned with Iran getting nuclear weapons either. Who will they threaten? Only Israel, so what do they matter? Saduj al-Dahij 22:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * not the "I'm a scary but completely fake Muslim fundamentalist" number again 'jihad al-judas', please. It's quite pathetic. 81.63.58.220 19:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The heading of this section is preposterously long. Clearly, it's not a title at all but a full-blown position statement. Earlier, I truncated it to sensible length, a change that was reverted within minutes by user Jeremygbyrne. If my edit was inadequate, I'm open to something else, as long as it's not what was there and is there now, which is just plain stupid. But if JGB wishes to get into a revert war with me, I am more than happy to oblige. Schnaz 04:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The heading of this section is in fact a question from an editor, and altering it in any way misrepresents that editor. You may believe the heading is preposterously long, but that is not sufficient reason to edit another editor's remarks on a talk page, where formatting is only functionally relevant. That you would claim to be happy about the potential for edit warring distresses me. &#0151; JEREMY 05:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

CIA Investigation Solves '79 Hostage Connection Dispute
As originally requested by President Bush on June 26th, the goverment had investigated whether or not Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was one of the captors of the 52 U.S. diplomats who were held hostage in Iran from 11/4/1979 to 1/20/1981--the hostage-taking was supposedly in response to Iranian unrest over the 1953 U.S. coup that toppled the democratically elected Prime Minister & rose the Shah to power & was also until being released thirty-three minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn-in as President. Well, the CIA has officially concluded their investigation & discovered that there was "no evidence" that Mr. Ahmadinejad was invovled in any way to the 1979 hostage-taking. Ahmadinjead & his political allies concede that the newly sworn-in president was part of the students who tookover the U.S. embassy & was a devout supporter of the Ayatollah Khomeini, yet they & the currently pro-American once-anti-US leader of the captors told Iranian & U.S. media that President Ahmadinejad was not one of his fellow captors.
 * As far as I know, the CIA has not "officially concluded" anything. Some CIA officials, speaking on anonymity and in an unofficial capacity, stated that they are relatively certain that Ahmadinejad wasn't involved in the actual capture of hostages. The CIA has not yet made any official statements, and the leaks that have gotten out only speak in terms of direct involvement in the hostage capturing. P.S. Please sign your IP signature after your posts. You can do so by typing ~ after your posts. If you wish, you can also log in as a user. Thank you. HKT talk 22:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Member of the Hojjatieh Society
Ahmadinejad is believed to be a member of the Hojjatieh Society. Inasmuch as he has made in his speeches numerous references to the Mahdi, I suspect that it is a reasonable to think that he is a member, although Ahmadinejad, himself, has never admitted publicly that he is. -- Schnazola 16:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is reasonable to put it in as long as its just a rumor. If there is a verifiable source that a rumor exists that he is a member of this society, even then my feeling is against putting the fact that there is a rumor into a biographical encyclopedia article. TopRank 21:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless he, himself, admits that he is, in fact, a member of Hojjatieh, then it's merely conjecture (a word I prefer to rumor) to say that he is. But if it's widely believed that he is a member, then I think it's fair game to say exactly that in the article: "It's widely believed that Ahmadinejad is a member of Hojjatieh." Certainly, it can be safely said that he believes in the tenets of Hojjatieh; his speeches make that perfectly clear.  --Schnaz


 * I think he is a member of the secret heitajjoh society. That secret society believes in Engineering and running for political office.  It also believes in sleeping with dead children.  First what evidence is there that this secret society even exists?  Second, what evidence is there that this society believes what I say it believes?  Third what evidence is there that Ahmadinejad is a member of this society?  Can I assert it is widely believed?  Widely believed by whom?  That's why we should tie the assertion to a verifiable name, preferably an expert.  Based on the fact that Ahmadinejad is an engineer who ran for political office is it reasonable to assume he is a member? No. There has to be a verifiable source even to say there is a rumor or that it is widely believed, otherwise it should not go in an encyclopedia. TopRank 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If there were a source giving credence to the claim, I would say it could be inserted so long as it was clear that it were not fact and had merely been speculated by some people ('some have speculated that Ahmadinejad is a member of [society] because of [this, this, and that]). I think we've got to take into account the context of this; this is something that you would probably never be able to prove since it's basically an underground organization (or at least it sounds that way from what I read), so it's not like he's going to come out in the open about it if it is the case. --Jakob Huneycutt 22:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * His numerous eschatological references and invocations of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi, as well as his nihilistic pursuit of nuclear weapons, clearly indicate that he is, at the very least, sympathetic with Hojjatieh, if not an active member of it. It simply makes no sense to omit mention of this in a comprehensive article about Ahmadinejad.   --Schnazola 16:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

When this topic was being discussed for inclusion in the main Ahmadinejad article, it made sense, perhaps, not to incorporate it. Incorporating here, though, makes perfect sense inasmuch as his alleged involvement in Hojjatieh is nothing if not controversial. The Asia Times Online has an article from September of 2005 that talks to his (and three cabinet members') close ties to the secret, eccentric society. As soon as I have a chance, I will gin up a paragraph or two and include it. -- Schnazola 16:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes, endnotes, and other references
I noticed that many (all?) of the numbered endnote/footnote links lead nowhere or, more accurately, right back to the Controversies page, itself. I suspect this is because the source text was copied and pasted from the original Ahmadinejad article, and the links are now broken.

Also, the numbering system is inconsistent, some using superscripts and others not. I'm not a big fan of superscripts because they disturb the line spacing and make articles appear sloppy. Further, there is no Notes section in which the code has been placed, so there is no home for the footnotes. I tried adding that tag myself but had no luck. -- Schnaz 21:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Eschatology
Reference for quotation. -Objectivist-C 23:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Added another insanity quote. Also, info on allegations that MA was involved in terrorism. IronDuke 02:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeremygbyrne, please do not remove this section without discussion again. -Objectivist-C 03:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I found this site, but I don't know if it's legit. Comments appreciated. http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_W06_Smick.pdf IronDuke 03:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I added it as a counter theory. -Objectivist-C 03:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Claims of insanity in elected officials (particularly at a presidential level) require a great deal more than the offhand opinins of an ex-CIA officer. I have changed the section to "Eschatology", which is what this is really about.  JEREMY 11:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * But there are a number of sources here, not just Baer. I can see, in theory, that there may be rational arguments for removing the section entirely (although no one has made them yet) but calling the section "eschatology" is not the way to go. It is not descriptive of what is in the section. IronDuke 15:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm satisfied with the new name. -Objectivist-C 17:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Eschatology is precisely what the section is about: his odd behaviour (including the alleged conversation quoted at length in the section) relates closely to his Mahdavist beliefs. I have now linked that to the article for context. &#0151; JEREMY 01:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This section has been added since I added the preceding section on MA's involvement in Hojjatieh -- which is an eschatological sub-sect of Shi'a Islam, something I failed to mention explicitly in the Hojjatieh section. Someone (moi?) should add wording to that effect, which would make the transition to this section better. Better still, perhaps someone can integrate the Hojjatieh and Eschatology sections. I'm thinking that the Eschatology section should be subsumed by the Hojjatieh section. -- Schnaz 18:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * His Hojjatieh affiliation is speculative, while his Mahdawist beliefs are worn on his sleeve. I'd prefer to merge both into a "Religious beliefs" section or similar &mdash; although that title doesn't indicate "Controversy". (Also, the Hojjatieh article could do with some work.) &#0151; JEREMY 04:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Combining the Hojjatieh and Eschatology sections is a good idea. Merging both into a Religious Beliefs section, as you propose, is fine. -- Schnaz 16:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

To be fair to Baer, I think his remarks are taken ever so slightly out of context in this page. If you read the Seymour Hersh article Baer is talking about what Iran looks like from the point of view of Israel: [The Iranians] "are capable of making a bomb, hiding it, and launching it at Israel. They’re apocalyptic Shiites. If you’re sitting in Tel Aviv and you believe they’ve got nukes and missiles—you’ve got to take them out. These guys are nuts, and there’s no reason to back off." It's not entirely clear to me whether Baer is actually stating his own views in the last critical sentence or whether he's talking as thoiugh he was an Israeli.

Reference cleanup
This article desperately needs its references cleaned up (which I've just done for the main article). If this results in edit conflicts during the next half hour or so, please accept my apology.  JEREMY 12:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. I managed to salvage some of the broken refs from an old version of the main article, but some have been lost and are now tagged with ). &#0151; JEREMY 12:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hassan Abbasi
Ahmadinejad's chief strategic counselor is Hassan Abbasi. --HResearcher 16:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahmadinejad does not set Iran's strategic policy. Why does he need a chief strategic advisor?  What exactly is a chief strategic advisor?  Please supply support for the claim that this guy has this role.  TopRank 22:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I googled Abbasi and "strategic counselor" and got five results from anti-Iranian blogs. Nothing that meets wikipedia standards as a reputable source.  Unless we get a reputable source that connects Abbasi and Ahmadinejad, I will remove him from this biographical article on Ahmadinejad. TopRank 22:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Citation coming soon. --HResearcher 02:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello TopRank, you say Ahmadinejad does not set Iran's strategic policy. Who does? --HResearcher 02:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"... For example, Hassan Abbasi, who has reportedly been the principal foreign policy voice in President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's administration and an influential Revolutionary Guard intelligence theoretician,..." - FrontPageMagazine.com Is that also an anti-iranian blog? --HResearcher 02:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. &#0151; JEREMY 03:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is what? --HResearcher 03:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * An "anti-iranian blog". (What other question would I be answering?) &#0151; JEREMY 03:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you say so, but It doesn't say "anti-iranian." --HResearcher 03:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal referenced for new claim. --HResearcher 03:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad employed terrorism
"Another terror outfit dedicated to this recruitment drive is the “Headquarters for Commemoration of Martyrs of Global Islamic Movement”, established in 1982. It grabbed the headlines in spring of 2004 when it was introduced as an NGO in charge of recruiting “suicide volunteers” to combat “World arrogance.” As Tehran’s Mayor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took this organization under his wings and facilitated its activities by placing the capital's resources at its disposal." - US Alliance for Democratic Iran Is this also an anti-iranian blog in your opinion? --HResearcher 02:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that one's an umbrella organistion for political groups (including the terrorist MEK) dedicated to the overthrow of the Iranian government. &#0151; JEREMY 03:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Iran Focus news outlet
An editor described Iran Focus as "one of numerous web outlets of the MKO terrorist group." I added a tag to this claim initially, but after some research have decided remove the claim as entirely wrong. Ahmadinejad's involvement with OSU has been confirmed by al-Jazeera. RonCram 15:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I did find a Times Online news story that identified Iran Focus as "a London-based Iranian news agency opposed to the President-elect." I think this description if much more accurate, although I am not sure it is necessary.RonCram 23:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is a WP:POV Fork
The first sentence is also not true representation of thfacts:

"On June 29, 2005, shortly after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won the Iranian presidential election, several major western news outlets publicized various allegations against him. "

This create the impression that his views as holocaust denial and destruction of Israel are an invention of " western news outlets  - which is of course not true: the man has used Iranin TV to preech for all those really bad tatste ideas.

Zeq 14:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Zeq, Ahmadinejad has said some terrible things and he has not denied them or clarified them. I think it is safe to say these statements do represent his viewpoint.  However, Ahmadinejad has denied certain allegations including his involvement in the hostage crisis. I think the evidence is clear that he was involved - even though people originally pointed to the wrong man in the picture. However, as long as he has denied involvement in the hostage crisis, the article needs to note that he has denied it.  However, you can certainly collect a series of quotes by Ahmadinejad, post them in wikiquote and then link to wikiquote from this article and the main article. RonCram 00:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Banning of entertainment
I would like to see added what kind of entertainment besides music is being banned in Iran by Ahmadinejad with citations.

Alleged anitsemitism
I recently heard a radio interview (on either NPR or the BBC, iirc) with an Israeli official who claimed that MA had referred to Jews as "sons of donkeys and pigs". This shocked me, and I assumed it must have been a new thing. Google doesn't know anything about it. Does anyone else?  JEREMY 16:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, its coming from an Israeli official, not exactly the most reliable source. I've never heard this. --Jonmedeiros 23:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Akoura 01:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Akoura 01:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Akoura-(Lebanon)Akoura 01:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC) I am not writing this to defend Ahmadinejad's position in any way. BUT Whatever Ahmadinejad did say was NOT anitsemetic. This misuse of the race is enfuriating. Everyone in the Arab world INCLUDING Saphardic and Some Azkenazi Jews are semitic or are mixed with it. Its not a race issue and the Jews being one of the smallest of the semitic groups cannot clame the entire RACE. Ontop of that, I think that there is a difference between being against the government of Israel and Israeli people. There is an even greater difference between Israelis, and Judaism as a faith and ethnicity represented in its many groups throughout the world. So to be against Israel on the national level does not mean that you are calling for the eradication of Judaism and especially NOT making antisemetic remarks. The many Jewish communities throughout the Middle East are not being systematically attacked even though their neighbors might hate Israel, and wished it would go away. Not saying whether I think it should or shouldn't. Simply saying what the problem isn't can sometimes help solving the problem. I don't see this as a race issue and I find that those who do see it as one are not from the region, because I will tell you, we all look the same. You can switch up the babies at birth and if no one knew then no one would have guessed. So if we collectively stopped calling this a race issue, then it won't be; because its NOT, based on any science.

Old "Summary" Text on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
This text appeared on the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the section called "Holocaust denial and allegations of anti-Semitism". This section now links to this page, Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. We will be replacing this text on MA's page with a summary in accordance with the summary style guideline, but not all of this information is repeated on Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. So, I put this here so that an active editor from this page can look through it and add whatever is appropriate to the article.

Happy editing! Vir4030 15:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the last paragraph fit very well into the anti-Semitism section, so I just added it. The rest of this needs to be merged into the Holocaust Denial section. Vir4030 15:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad repeatedly made controversial statements questioning the Holocaust, and criticized European laws against Holocaust denial. These statements were condemned by many governments, by United Nations Security Council and Secretary General Kofi Annan, and led to accusations of anti-Semitism.

According to numerous media reports, he stated that "they have invented a myth that Jews were massacred". In an interview with Der Spiegel, he was asked, "Are you still saying that the Holocaust is just 'a myth'?" Ahmadinejad responded, "I will only accept something as truth if I am actually convinced of it." In the same interview, he later stated, "We oppose every type of crime against any people. But we want to know whether this crime actually took place or not. [...] If it did not occur, then the Jews have to go back to where they came from".

In reaction to Ahmadinejad's comments on the Holocaust, the United States Senate passed a unanimous resolution condemning his "harmful, destructive, and anti-Semitic statements." and "hate and animosity toward all Jewish people of the world."

The UN Security Council issued a statement on Dec. 9, 2005, condemning his statements denying the Holocaust as well as his statements on Israel. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, in response to reporters' questions on Ahmadinejad in August 2006, said through a spokesman that Annan "considers anyone who would try to deny the truth of the Holocaust or make false claims about it to be a bigot."

Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said that the Holocaust was a "historic fact," while criticizing what he claimed was a connection between the Holocaust and "the persecution of the Palestinian people".

The translation of his statements on the Holocaust have been disputed by the Iranian government. The government-controlled IRNA news agency has stated that Ahmadinejad said, "some have created a myth on holocaust and hold it even higher than the very belief in religion and prophets.". The Iranian government further responded through a spokesman who charged that "the Western media empire is trying to portrait [ sic ] Iran as an anti-Semitic country. [...] If you believe in the Holocaust [...] let other people express their ideas too and then try to convince them by your justifications.".

In January 2006, Iran announced a conference to examine what it described as "scientific evidence" for the Holocaust. An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman said that "For over half a century, those who seek to prove the Holocaust have used every podium to defend their position. Now they should listen to others." The conference received widespread condemnation. British Prime Minister Tony Blair called the conference as "shocking, ridiculous, and stupid." Iran reacted by inviting Blair to the conference.

In addition Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated that “Jews are respected by everyone, by all human beings.…some people think if they accuse me of being anti-Jew they can solve the problem. No, I am not anti-Jew.…I respect them very much.…We love everyone in the world - Jews, Christians, Muslims, non-Muslims, non-Jews, non-Christians".

His 15 Minutes Are Up
This putz is toast. He'll be killed by the most powerful weapon in human history....the voting booth. I feel bad for the Irainian people. The Islamic Council thwarted the previous 'reformers', and that caused MA to be a viable alternative for the voting public. Hopefully, they (the Iranians) will have learned a valued lesson about the true cause of their hardships....the Islamic Council. Those Islamic clerics are nothing more than modern-day politicos and capitalists, who dress themselves in the clothing of 15th-century barbarians....while all the time, they are only interested in holding power to themselves. Hopefully, the Irainian middle class (what remains of it) will assert itself and out-vote the ignorant peasants who cling to their allah-superstition and thier cult-of-victimhood. It is those uneducated masses who have allowed the evil Islamic council to remain in power. No matter how it eventually works out, one thing is certain....this putz is toast. I expect that the final Wiki-entry on Mahmoud Ahmadirtbag will be that he ended up as a shoe-salesman somewhere in a strip mall in the suburbs of Tehran and that one day an revenge-seeking Iranian walked into the store and gave him a 9-mm frontal lobotomy.

Amen! He and his beloved Koran! Lol Motherland73 (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

He was stationed here in Pensacola in late '70's. He bragged how he would become president of Iran. Everyone thought that was funny. He was most times seen with Koran, reading it. Motherland73 (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

violations of wp:living
removed wp:aww (such as MKO terrorist group -> MKO militant group)

removed undercited accusations by a known MKO network lacking wp:notability:

Early student activism
According to Iran Focus, soon after attending Elm-o Sanaat University in 1975 to study engineering, Ahmadinejad was caught up in the Islamic revolution of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Ahmadinejad founded the Islamic Student Association at his university. By 1979, he became a representative of Office for Strengthening of Unity Between Universities and Theological Seminaries, later known as OSU. The OSU was organized by Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, one of Khomeini's top advisors. Members of the OSU central council, including Ahmadinejad, Ibrahim Asgharzadeh, Mohsen (Mahmoud) Mirdamadi, Mohsen Kadivar, Mohsen Aghajari, and Abbas Abdi, were regularly received by Khomeini himself. The OSU leadership played a key role in the crackdown on dissident university professors and students during the Islamic Cultural Revolution of 1980. Many professors and students who did not support Khomeini were arrested and executed.

removed ridiculous uncited allegations and false: Hojjatieh.

Membership in Hojjatieh Society
Ahmadinejad is believed by many to belong, or to have once belonged, to the anti-Bahai and anti-Sunni clandestine society known as Hojjatieh. An Islamic society to which Ahmadinejad belonged when he attended Alm-u Sanat University was, according to an article that appeared in the Asia Times Online, an extreme, traditional, and fundamentalist group that maintained close links with Hojjatieh. Three members of Ahmadinejad's cabinet are said to have Hojjatieh backgrounds, including Hojatoleslam Gholam Hossein Mohseni-Ejehyi, the intelligence chief who graduated from the Haghani theological school, founded by Hojjatieh. Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi, a Shi'ite cleric closley associated with the school, issued a fatwa urging two million members of the bassij Islamic militia to vote for Ahmadinejad in the 2005 presidential elections.

United:
Ahmadinejad was also implicated in the assassination in Austria of Abdul-Rahman Ghassemlou. Ahmadinejad was apparently instumental in smuggling the weapons used for the assassination. --Gerash77 02:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional studies of photos have identified a second man as Ahmadinejad. The second man is dressed in a sport jacket and turtleneck more suitable to a leader. - Twp weblog provided as reference, contrary to wp:cite--Gerash77 03:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Rename suggestion
I think the current title needs renaming because 1) the term controversy is a Word to Avoid and 2) because 'surrounding' is unclear and has negative implications. The implication is that, if someone is 'surrounded' by something, it is essential to their nature. For example, I might state "Monica Lewinskiy was involved in a controvery but Bill Clinton is surrounded by controversy." Both words are WP:POV unless qualified by the phrase "according to (fill in the blank)". Antonrojo 01:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No. This article needs to be completely removed from Wikipedia, and redirect to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  The content of this "article" should be moved into separate, neutral articles like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Holocaust, Iranian presidential election, 2005, and so on.
 * We don't create articles that are just dumping grounds for any unrelated topics that happen to be "controversial". See Summary style for the correct way to divide up a long article. — Omegatron 23:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The title is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. As a section title it is POV too, and always considered bad style, but as a title? C'mon. I have added POV-title tag.Haberstr (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

CIA investigation into hostage taking: Ahmadinejad most likely wasn't involved.
I've add a bunch of information from the official CIA investigation into whether Ahmadinejad was involved in the hostage taking. The report is old, from August 2005, thus I am surprised it wasn't already included in the article. The results of the investigation was that there was no evidence that Ahmadinejad was involved. The edits I made with regards to this issue are these two.

The CNN report on the CIA's investigation is online here: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/12/cia.iranpresident/index.html

Again, I think it is shocking that this reputable information wasn't covered in this article. --Lucretius 22:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Bush comment
I searched on Google for the statement, "He is guilty of interrogating our American hostages," attributed to President Bush in the introduction. Google returned only 11 results, all citing the original Wikipedia statement. If anyone knows of a source that can corroborate this statement, they should add a citation; otherwise, it seems the statement should be deleted.TrippingTroubadour 00:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It clear that it should be removed. I'll do that now.  --Lucretius 18:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Bush did the same to Iraqis by stripping their clothes off etc... Is it right to use the presidents as a scapegoat to represent their respective nations' political and militaristic agenda? If not then clarify their statements by giving a more detailed description of what happened that lead up to the interrogation. now that I think of it, Bush called Iran's rule as "evil" which intimidated me because I never knew Bush is as blunt as that. and stop trusting Google for everything lol. -- µWiki   Talk / Contributions  (YouWiki) 19:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Original transcripts
Well, I think I found the original transcripts which might proof that he didnt denie the holocaust etc. I'm from germany so reading it would be hard for me, I can read a bit persian, but this might work sb else out. Here is the page where you will find the links. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NOR20070120&articleId=4527 beforehand I have to tell you: one transc. is in persian language, one is written in englsih. I hope this will help you. By the way, In the german wiki- article it is already said that the quotes (wiped off the map etc) are wrong... I have already send my find to: Please redirect comments that have to do with Israel to Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. Well I dont know if ahmadinejad is wrong quoted or not but I'd say the truht will triumph at wikipedia (-: Englishazadipedia

Judaism WikiProject?
It sounds a little intimidating that there's a banner saying this article is part of the wikiproject judaism. Ahmadinejad doesn't hate jews if that's the point you're trying to get at. (Evidence is on Ahmadinejad article talk page) -- µWiki   Talk / Contributions  (YouWiki) 19:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fringe theories and unsubstantiated allegations
They do not deserve a place in this article. The hostage taker conspiracy, for one, has no verifiable support whatsoever. Moreover, the majority the hostages themselves have already disagreed with the theory, even after seeing the pictures. -Rosywounds (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Normally I would agree but I think that it bears mentioning becuase it is better to explain what it is and say that it is widly considered non sense than to ignore it and leave people wondering.

Thoughts?

CaptinJohn (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose it could be included, but it should not be treated necessarily as fact, since it is mostly unsubstatiated (although a well known accusation). In comparison, Ahmadinejad's comments on Israel and the Holocaust are much more more legitimate controversies that surround him. -Rosywounds (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust denial should not be merged into Israel article
I am somewhat amazed that the section on Ahmadinejad's activities suggesting Holocaust denial are completely merged into the Israeli article. This creates the impression that Holocaust denial, at least as it relates to Ahmadinejad, is only controversial in Israel, which is obviously not the case. This section should have its own, independent text. Niremetal (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. — eon, 21:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

He never denied the holocaust. The closest statement was interpeted as "expressing doubt". There is a significant difference. Eyalmc (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Holocaust denial vs questioning
The links and quotes provided clearly spell Denial


 * Although we don't accept this claim [of the holocaust], if we suppose it is true

This sentence shows that its a denial of the holocaust, not simply questioning a fact about it but questioning the entire event and that it has happened in the manner or to the extent historically recognized. that falls under the category of holocaust denial as it is described in wikipedia. changing the section name back to denial of the holocaust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aonana (talk • contribs) 14:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That can be interpreted as skepticism - not denial. Eyalmc (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

He has been accused of flat-out denial, not skepticism, and that is the controversy; personal interpretations notwithstanding. -- Avi (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * that's not accurate here - he's being accused in "questioning" the holocaust - not denying it. Eyalmc (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Any wiki is ipso facto not a reliable source because it is open to constant editing. -- Avi (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * how about this ? Eyalmc (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * that is a great link eyalmc. "expressing doubt" is how the article composer interpreted the things AM said. since we have the actual quotes we can decide for ourselves if this is denial. I say it is. I say that "express doubt" is obvisouly a white-washing of nothing other then plain denial. and i have AM quotes to support my position. many other links  called the decleration "denial". any reason we should take this article composers description of what AM said and not the others?  Aonana (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well firstly, it's a blog, a personal site, as it says: "This Site is owned by a group of freedom fighters from different countries in support of Ahmed Rami's global struggle." Secondly, it is not even remotely neutral, as they themselves claim: "World Jewish Zionism, today, constitutes the last racist ideology still surviving and the Zionist's state of Israel, the last outpost of "Apartheid" in the World. Israel constitutes by its mere existence a complete defiance to all international laws, rules and principles, and the open racism manifested in the Jewish State is a violation of all ethics and morals known to Man." Eyalmc, you can most certainly find opinions of all shapes and sizes on the internet, but you seem to be in dire need of a review of WP:NPOV and WP:V, since the sources you want to add to wikipedia are completely unacceptable. Shall we start adding things from the Jewish Internet Defense Force and accept them as fact too, like their claim that Mohammed was a pedophile? I would say certainly not and I would hope you would agree. This is why we have very strict standards for accepted sources and separating opinion from fact. -- Avi (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you fail to notice that is was a Reuters news item? Just in case, look here. It was also featured on CNN, but was removed. Luckily it was widely quoted all over the internetEyalmc (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So can we please stop using this quote as a proof for being a holocaust denier? Eyalmc (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am really puzzled eyal. the quotes are in plain site. there are many sites calling this denial. sure there are many that call this questioning, doubting, challenging, skepticism. the fact remains he said the things. can we relate to what he actualy said and not ONLY to how it was described by reporters? i claim that what he said falls under the definition of holocaust denial. even if it is described somewhere else as doubt. that reporter is not sharing on wiki, did not publish on wiki, and if he wanted to publish on wiki his description would be contested. as we are doing now. ok? having a source that supports yoru view on things is good. we have sources sayign otherwise. can we continue to talk about wether the quotes are denial or not and stop talking about the various descriptions around the world. im sure ill find someone somewere describing them as "courageous". should that also be the standard? Aonana (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * maybe you shouldn't be so puzzled. this was simply a response to avi's claim Eyalmc (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am puzzled at this "So can we please stop using this quote as a proof for being a holocaust denier". why should we stop using the quotes as poof of holocaust denial? just because the reuters editor chose "casting doubt" to describe them? reuters is a credible source but the opinion of the editor of the reuters article can be discussed and not simply copy-pasted. if you want to add to the reuters wikipedia article a section about word chosing in reuters you would be correct. here we discuss MA and what he reportedly said. Aonana (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Eyal, you're giving me a list of blogs. We know blogs can misrepresent stories. But more importantly, even if the Reuters story is absolutely correct, there are just as many, if not more, sources that indicate that he flat out denied it, and that the "doubt" is once again post-event spin. I understand you have a personal preference to one version of the history, but wikipedia cannot. -- Avi (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to question your NPOV. I've checked every single source that is currently on the article for this quote - every single source that interpret MA words, interprets it as "Questioning" or "Expressing doubt". Not a single source conclude that this is a holocaust denial. I wonder, where did you get the idea that this quote is widely interpreted as a holocaust denial? Eyalmc (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And since this is seemingly the only valid quote that claimed to indicates his holocaust denial, i think it's quite an important point to insist on. Eyalmc (talk)


 * I understand that credible sources in wikipedia are such not for the opinions of their editors but for their ability to bring evidence and quotes that we can trust. submitting the opinions of the editors and reporters as part of the quotes is hardly best practice. that is a way-in for every blog on face of the net to come in. how is one opinion better then the other? if a politician read the article and then said it is courageous, why should we ommit his opinion? as long as the quotes reportedly made by MA fit the wikipedia description of what holocaust denial is they should be trated as such. I do not want the politics of world media, credible as it be, dictate the titles of articles at wikipedia. interpretations change over time. quotes dont. lets stick to the quotes. if you want to start an article or section entitled "response to holocaust denial" then thats the place to mention the way it is described by various people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aonana (talk • contribs) 19:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems like the arguments are being constantly changed - i was clearly told that i should not use my own interpretation (personal interpretations notwithstanding.), so i brought the most credible interpretations from the media - all interpreted it as questioning and not denying (which is a very significant difference). quoting from the policy: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." can we please agree on changing the article? Avi, i would like to get your response to this, if you don't mind providing it. thanks Eyalmc (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Aonana, clearly your suggestion is inconsistent with the very explicit wikipedia policies. I'm going to change the article accordingly. If there is any additional objection, please raise it. Eyalmc (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK i'll go along with your idea and see where it goes. Do you have an inerpretation saying it is NOT holocaust denial? holocaust denial certainly is inclusive of questioning, casting doubt, being skeptic. Are you sure the interpretations you bring are inclusive and that they are complete and without fault or missing anything? i say, if interpretations are what we need, then one interpretation that calls this denial is all we need as all other interpretations are included in the denial interpretation. SO : holocaust denial it is.

links that describe various quotes by MA as holocasut denial or claiming the holocasut is a lie

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/21/ahmadinejad-holocaust-den_n_293083.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/world/middleeast/19iran.html?_r=1&hp http://theweek.com/article/index/100604/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejads_Holocaust_denial http://www.foxnews.com/world/2009/09/21/ahmadinejad-proud-holocaust-denial/

i dont post the blogs, the forums, and other pretend media sources. just quotes and interpretations. Aonana (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * sorry - the quote in question does not appear in any of those links. All interpretations to that quote was "questioning" not "denial" in the sources provided for that quote. I'm starting to look up additional sources to the famous "myth" claim. as you know, myth does NOT mean a "lie", but even that quote is probably erroneous - i'll post any valid sources i find here.Eyalmc (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

eyalmc, Since i found a link where MA self describes his past claims as holocasut denial you should change your course. I am sure the presidents self interpretaion of his words and their meanings is more then enough to see all his past remarks within the context of denial. please concentrate on the link to the statement from 2009 as it is now a conrnersotne for any interpretation of MA statements about the holocaust. thanks. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32950027/

Aonana (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Can you classify a quote as a holocaust denial
Can you classify a quote as a holocaust denial, even though it is not interpreted as such in the sources? Eyalmc (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

i belive : yes. we can test quotes to see if they match to wikipedia definition of terms and see if they fit. f.e.: if i see a post by someone making racist remarks i can link it and describe it as racist even if the source does not describe it as racist. as long as my analysis of wether it is racist or not corresponds to wikipedia racism article. Aonana (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant The section has been re-written relying solely on reliable secondary sources. -- Avi (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Denial section completely rewritten
I have completely rewritten the section based on reliable secondary sources; primarily The New York Times. -- Avi (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * still doesn't quality as "denial". myth - is not a falsehood. by definition, myth can be a true story. - so that one is actually irellevant to the section and should be removed. this is not interpretation - this is the definition of the word. using it in the section IS interpretation. also, the "a lie" is incorrect. there are conflicting sources. see here - MA said the "pretext" is a lie - not the holocaust. this source includes the entire speech - from which, it is very clear, as Al Jazeera notes, that the NY times "assumes" that the pretext is the holocaust. Therefore, in this case, NY times, as a source should probably be ignored. I suggest this entire section should reflect the false allegation that were maid against MA. Do you agree? should we RFC? Eyalmc (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Your problem is with the New York Times, the US state department, the British government, etc. Not with wikipedia. We are using reliable secondary sources in the article as we should. You have an issue with those sources' interpretations; fine, by all means, get some free webspace and post to your heart's content. However, you cannot re-interpret facts and statements to fit your worldview on wikipedia; we call that original research here and it is one of our core pillars. If you feel that Nazila Fathi or Robert F. Worth or Tony Blair or Angela Merkel or Philippe Douste-Blazy etc. are "misinterpreting" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, you are free to contact them directly. For the first two, I suggest or. The others need to be contacted through their respective governments. However, further attempts to sidestep wikipedia policies and guidelines in order to implement your own personal vision may be construed as disruptive editing, since this has been clearly explained multiple times. -- Avi (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a simple truism that even the NYTimes, can be wrong sometimes (which obviously results in other media & leaders of the world to quoting it). In such cases we will find a conflicting sources, and, according to wikipedia, should evaluate those. This is exactly the case here. There are conflicting reliable sources (one is based USA - Iran's enemy state, the other is identified with the Arab countries). I think that it is quite obvious that the translation was, as demonstrated by the second source, mis-leading & assumptious, especially since it focused entirely on that quote & included the full speech. I'm only seeking the truth, and i insist not to ignore reliable sources. If there is a story here - it should be the story of false accusation and mis-translation. It's quite apparent for those who read the facts Eyalmc (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, my "destructive editing" somehow made you remove the quote i was so "destructively" objecting & completely re-write the section, basing it on a completely different set of questionable interpretations (which we are discussing now). please remember that before threatening me again Eyalmc (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You had an issue with the quote; I provided a section impeccably sourced that did not rely on any interpretation of the quote inside wikipedia. Wikipedia does not have to be made to conform to what you want, Eyal; it must be made to conform to its policies. Also, do not remove sourced and cited pertinent information that you do not like; it is disruptive, a POV violation, and can cause your editing privileges to be temporarily removed, or even revoked, if you continue to ignore wikipedia's policies in favor of your personal opinions. -- Avi (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you can answer 2 questions: 1. how does "myth" qualify for a holocaust denial section? 2. What would be the proper way to represent in the title that many respectable sources did not view both statements as holocaust denial? Eyalmc (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources have used MA's use of the term "myth" to accuse him of Holocaust denial. As this is the article about Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and as reliable sources have accused him of Holocaust denial, the only POV title is "Holocaust Denial" or any such other declaration. THAT is the controversy surrounding MA, the accusations, subsequent media spin, and then subsequent outright affirmation by MA himself. Simple. -- Avi (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm jsut happy that the 2009 decleration by MA settled the discussion of wether or not he ever denied the holocasut. at least we all agree that his self-testimony to the nature of his previous statements marks him as a holocaust denial, as reported by msnbc. Aonana (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * RFC I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if you call the Holocaust "A myth" and "A lie" then you are denying it. Sol Goldstone (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Eyalmc, you wrote "myth - is not a falsehood. by definition, myth can be a true story." But, no, a myth cannot be a true story, meaning... if you call something a "myth" you have said it did not happen in our "real world." A myth is a story, a falsehood, a parable, a legend, a statement without a basis in fact, a false belief - the synonyms for "myth" are "fable" "legend" - while an antonym is "truth" - "myth has an exactly opoosite meaning of "truth." Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

restoring NPOV tag as this is seriously flawed article
The article fails several of the basic NPOV issues in particularly inappropriate manner for an article about a living person / WP:ATTACK. I have moved the article to the more neutral "Perceptions of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad " and this article should be enhanced to cover all manner in which he was perceived. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is clearly a POV fork. At present it is not even linked from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I suggest that instead of enhancing it, it be evacuated to the main page. I'm willing to compile a suggested mapping of sections in this page to destinations in the main page, if consensus forms for the general notion of a merge. Rhoark (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Controversies of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060519130803/http://english.aljazeera.net:80/NR/exeres/91109A0C-83F4-438F-9CC1-52DF6936CC6B.htm to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/91109A0C-83F4-438F-9CC1-52DF6936CC6B.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051111055904/http://www.aljazeera.com:80/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=8770 to http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=8770
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928032627/http://open.g00ya.com/politics/archives/042283.php to http://open.g00ya.com/politics/archives/042283.php
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070926220536/http://www.aftabnews.ir/vdcgw79akn9zt.html to http://www.aftabnews.ir/vdcgw79akn9zt.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060430024848/http://www.pbs.org:80/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec05/iran_12-9.html to http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec05/iran_12-9.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Controversies of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070103093032/http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=15613 to http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=15613

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad flight training
I believe Ahmadinejad trained on NAS Pensacola. He has been reported that he made a statement : "I am going to be president". Comrades have been known to call him "little Mahmoud". This flight training is due to US selling Iran and several other middle east countries. The had to train here to fly them. This all took place during the late 70's on NAS Pensacola. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosemls (talk • contribs) 19:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Training
This man spent many months in training at NAS Pensacola and San Antonio Texas. I was introduced to him on NAS Pensacola. His nickname was "little Mahmoud". He is very familiar with both Air stations where he and other middle eastern air men trained to fly planes we, the us sold to them in the late 70's. I find this a bit disturbing, that he is so familiar with our bases. I presently live in Pensacola. Motherland73 (talk) 08:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)