Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 1

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


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


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


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

What about theocratic nationalist? Or authortarian theocratic nationalist.

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

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

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

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


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

Defining Fascism ist not so easy. The word is indeed thrown around alot in order to discredit others. Historically, Fascism is not always primarily racist. Wasn't Mussolini a Fascist? And Franco? And then of course there's Hitler, who propagated the "wiping out" of other nations and peoples. From that, I would define Ahmadinejhad's politics as having at least some fascist underpinnings. I find it odd that a Persian State is so concerned about a dispute between Arab nations and a Jewish State. Apparently, the Iranian State is using that conflict for other purposes... Whyerd 09:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The Iranian State maintains its state of belligerency with Israel because it is deemed to be in its national interest to do so. Their proxy militias in Lebanon (Hezbollah) and their allies in the West Bank and Gaza gives them regional clout, and it appeals to hard-liners in 'moderate' Arab and Muslim countries. Expatkiwi 02:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

He may have fascist underpinnings, which is certainly debateable, given the how loosely a classification the term "fascist" actually is. Calling him a hardliner I wouldn't think would require that much debate. He's unwavering on many issues and please excuse the literal use of the term, but he takes a hard line on many controversial fronts that he sees fundemental to Iran's basic rights as a country. Given his attitude towards the Western world and his political and social upbringing, I think we can definitely classify him as one of Iran's hard liners.

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


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


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


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


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


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

What about theocratic nationalist? Or authortarian theocratic nationalist.


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

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

Re this statement above, "...I really believe that Ahmadinezhad considers himself an Islamist...." Isn't it widely believed that President Ahmadinejad is a member of the Hojjatieh Society? He makes numerous mentions of the reappearance of the Mahdi. I'm surprised that the extensive article of Mr. Ahmadinejad makes no mention of Hojjatieh. --Schnazola 16:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * (1.) The Iran article does not contain the info that is mentioned by the statement in question. Neither does Council of Guardians, to which the info directly pertains. (2.) While the author probably intended to bring negative info about Ahmadinejad, his info only contained factual material. The author brought no personal opinion, and the only POV issue may be the prominent placement of the info. The author drew no conclusions about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the election.
 * Practically speaking, I hope we can (at least) agree to the following resolution: (1.) Add the info to the Council of Guardians wiki. (2.) The two points mentioned in the author's statement can be split up in that wiki to appear less POV. (3.) Add any relevant counterpoints to the Guardians wiki (if any). (4.) Add a sentence to this article (probably to the Biography section) stating that all candidates must be screened by the Council of Guardians (with a link to that wiki). This way, readers can find details on Wikipedia if they so desire. HKT 28 June 2005 21:40 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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

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


 * There is no "whitewashing". It is a matter of relevancy. If you must add this "info" that you claim then add it to the "Iranian presidential elections" article. It is not needed in info about a particular candidate. All that is needed here is the margin that he was elected by. Btw, make sure you source your claim that "1000 were disqualified" in that article if you choose to add this. Thanks. --Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 21:43 (UTC)
 * If some 1000 of 1007 were exculded from running by the Ayatollah is "irrelevant", then why is vote total or voter turnout included? Shouldn't those values be included under the election page? The GW Bush biography page sees fit to mention the 2000 election dispute. Otherwise the page purports the perception to readers that Ahmadinejad was elected via a similar process as many other western nations.
 * Actually the article you cited from the Washington Times states that "1000 candidates were allowed to run in the election". Needing to say that that is different from western nations shows personal opinion. Even despite that, that information should be put in the "Iranian presidential elections" article and not one about a specific candidate. Thanks.--Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 22:34 (UTC)
 * Do you know any country thet allows 1007 names on the ballet for the top post? They all have some method of excluding candidates. The Iran method is unique to Iran's theocracy, but it doesn't neccessarily follow that the election was illegitimate. I gather that the candidates represented a wide range of views. The question is, were any major candidates excluded? The number is not so important. Mirror Vax 30 June 2005 22:50 (UTC)
 * No Anonymous, the article says " Iran's hard-line Islamic rulers, who have long and close ties to the incoming president, barred all but a handful of the 1,000 candidates who sought to run in the election." Mirror Vax, I didn't say it was necessarily illegimate. That is not for lowly me to decide. However, a brief mention that the Ayotollah's council eliminates some 99% of candidates is worth of a line and a referral to the main election page.Barneygumble 30 June 2005 23:20 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


 * Larryfooter, making judgements about whether it is a real election is a POV. HOWEVER, excluding the inclusion of facts about the election process, in order to make them appear more legitimate in the eyes of the majority of westerners is a POV as well. Some other users contend that this information doesn't belong on the page of the biography of Ahamdejad. However, by that rationaltion than vote totals and voter turnout percentage of the election should be moved to the election page as well. Also, the contreversy over the 2000 US election should be removed from the GW Bush page. Hiding information by moving it other pages is a POV as well. If the election is legitimate, then the critique of election process will withstand any criticism on its own.
 * People should be given the facts and arguements of both sides and be left make up their own minds of whether it is legitimate election. Something like "Some western critics decry the credibility of the election as about 1000 of 1007 candidates were diqualified by the Ayatollah's committee. However, Iranian supporters contend that just because their election process doesn't mirror a western process, doesn't make it any less legitimate." Barneygumble 1 July 2005 13:20 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * It is ridiculous not to include information on the disqualifications as Ahmadinejad's election was highly controversial and widely regarded as undemocratic (inlcuding by Iranians in Iran). The disqualifications are quite obviously used to control the result of the election process - this is why many reformists have found themselves banned, including for example former President Khatami's brother - hardly someone who could be deemed to be a crank who lacked qualifications to hold public office. People like Mansour should realise that the history of US support for the Shah's dictatorship and the popularity of the Revolution in 1979 are IRRELEVANT to Ahmadinejad's democratic legitimacy. It is a fact that whether Ahmadinejad is democratically legitimate is something that is seriously doubted both in and out of Iran due to the disqualification of candidates, reports of fraud and low voter turnout. If article on Ahmadinejad doesn't include these points it will imply he is a wholly legitimate elected politician and will thus be deceptive. --FA

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


 * Hmmnnn .... excuse me sir, may I casually point out to you that the the word "populist" in reference to Ahmadinejad appears on the link that you yourself put in the article earlier today in your highly impressive attempts to smear the guy?  I suggest that you do a search for the word "populist" on that article, and you may also want to click on its link, which will take you to another article from the same source by the title of "Guardian of the revolution with a populist feel for the working class".  Then, feel free to write a formal protest to the editor of that newpaper for their negligence and lack of journalistic responsibility and threaten to sue them for having caused you appear slightly less than enviable in the English Wikipedia.  Mansour 1 July 2005 12:58 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! Barneygumble 1 July 2005 13:24 (UTC)

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


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


 * "...but you go ahead and do a revert anyway and call this 'revert campaign'."
 * Please look at the history, and the existence of a revert campaign over the past couple days will become quite clear.
 * "That aside, I left the note for the person who had reverted the article, but you responded on his/her behalf by saying "fine, let's discuss it".  I find this also rather strange."
 * I don't even understand what you're trying to say. What are you referring to?
 * "Finally, I don't see mentioning Pilz is Jewish to be controversial at all. Iran's official response to this still unsubstantiated allegation has been that it is part of a Zionist media smear campaign.  Therefore, how could you say that the fact the Pilz is Jewish is irrelevant?  I see it as quite relevant.  I also don't see why mentioning a Jewish person is Jewish should be viewed as controversial even in normal course of events and contexts."
 * It seems that you haven't even read my above post. Read it, please. (Speaking of bizarre....) HKT 20:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Why is Pilz singled out regarding his ethnicity? No one else's ethnicity (including that of the article's subject) appears to need any mention... -- M P er el ( talk 01:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

RJSampson 01:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


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


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


 * Hi Mansour,

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

God bless

RJSampson 21:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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


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

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


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


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

Protection
The page has been under attack from various IPs, mainly changing the picture and deleting the paragraph on "Platform". It can probably be removed fairly soon with reprotection if these elements return. JFW | T@lk  16:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Damn son of a bitch terrorists. Unsigned sarcastic profanity by . HKT talk 22:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It's now been protected for a week. Maybe it's time to unprotect. Rd232 15:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

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


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


 * I think the following picture is much more appropriate: ~Johnny

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

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


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


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


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


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

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


 * Isn't there a small Jewish minority in Iran? Even if there's not, I've seen statements that seem to go against what you are saying.  Most of these conservative hardliners aren't anti-Jewish, supposedly, but rather anti-Zionist.  They believe Jews should oppose Zionism.  I've seen articles on the Iran state news agency's website that have seemingly, been supportive of statements by Jewish figures that are critical of Israel and/or Zionism. --Jakob Huneycutt 00:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Jakob is right. The Jewish community in Iran and non-zionist movements within current Israel are generally not opposed by Iran. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 00:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't remember the details, but I recall finding in personal research earlier this year that Iranian Jews fare better than Jews in some other Arabic-Islamist nations, but that's not saying much.


 * They believe Jews should oppose Zionism. Of course they do. Hitler believed the Japanese should help him in the war, too; that doesn't mean he didn't hate Asians. You're assuming that the "lesser included charge" precludes the "greater charge". I don't think that's a safe assumption--although I don't know enough detail about the Iranian stance on Jews to firmly assert myself to the contrary. I just want to say that you can't assume that an opposition to Zionism precludes an opposition to Judaism. 71.136.52.38 20:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Likewise, an opposition to Zionism does not equal an opposition to Judaism. --Irishpunktom\talk 20:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I was going to say. :) Iran doesn't oppose Judaism, just the Zionist state. Iran has overall been tolerant of Jews, just not zionism. I don't share your analogy about Hitler with this situation either. Obviously if Iran opposes the zionist state, then it would encourage others to also oppose; just like Israel opposes Iran, so it encourages others to oppose.-- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * By now, AM is condemned even by the unreformed UN and by almost the entire world. Are you saying he is more pro-Palestinian than Palestinians themselves? Are you saying that he has some genuine grudges against Zionism? BTW, Israel and Iran had good relations until 1979.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 10:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Everyone had good relations with Iran till 1979, cept most of the people of Iran. What Mr Ahmadinejad said is not new, what is new is Western Reaction to it, because, and this is now known, The UK and US are itching to bomb, or attack in some way, Iran. And any excuse will do.--Irishpunktom\talk 10:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not so convinced that USA+UK are too eager to open another can of worms in the region. If they get swamped down in Iran, Iraq will seem like a walk in the park in springtime. Bush will have a Vietnam-sized anti-war movement at his hands once US casualties reach the 10'000s, and will likely be sent back to Texas tarred and feathered. Baad 13:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Fascism

 * Critics, including some independent ones, have mentioned that while there are some similarities between the actions and rising of supporters of Ahmadinejad with those of fascism, the movement differs because it is neither nationalistic nor racist and lacks corporatism.

Note that racism is not part of the definition of fascism; the original Fascism, the Italian one, was not notably racist at first, and to the extent that it contained undercurrents of anti-Semitism, surely that applies equally to the support for Dr. Ahmadinejad. I'm not saying his movement is (technically) fascist, just that the mere absence of acknowleged racism in its ideology is not really relevant to the question. --Trovatore 19:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Image
I've re-added the image since I think it at least helps to show images alleged/disputed - though without the circling/montage/etc. I tried to NPOV-word the caption, but feel free to improve it. Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 20:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected
Article protected for a while against vandalism. &asymp; jossi fresco &asymp; t • @ 00:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for the Upheaval around Ahmadinejad
What was actually causing the upheaval, the suggestions for moving Israel or the "Holocaust Denial"?!

Ahmadinejad, Mahmoud in Anti-Semitic category
User:MITSO has deleted this Category Category:Anti-Semitic people claiming A.M. is not Anti-Semitic. Obviously, A.M. is Anti-Semitic, please keep an eye on this issue. Cordially Battlefield 11:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * He's never claimed to hate Jews and has never made any remarks disparaging of Jews in general that I am aware of. All the supposedly "anti-Semitic" remarks seem exclusively aimed at Zionists and/or Israel.  --Jakob Huneycutt 21:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * So when he says Israel should be made a wasteland that means he loves Jews ? Obviously Anti-Semitic anyone else agree with me ?? Battlefield 22:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sorce for him calling for "Israel (to) be made a wasteland"--Irishpunktom\talk 22:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The citation is still on your User Talk Page go read it Battlefield 23:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Would you consider a person calling to wipe Iran (the country of the Iranian people) off of the face of the planet an anti-Iranian (against the Iranian people)? Why doesn't the same logic applies to the country of the Jewish people? &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 01:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Because there are Jews in Iran and other Middle Eastern nations and Ahmadinejad has never said anything negative concerning them and seems to have no real problem with them. I am unable to find any negative comments he has made towards Jews in general. His beef is with Israel and Zionism, not Judaism.  Moreover, your example is a bit fallacious.  Someone who wanted to destroy Iran may very well be characterized as anti-Iranian, just as someone who wants to destroy Israel may very well be characterized as anti-Israel (but not necessarily anti-Semitic). Unless you can find something that substantiates a broader dislike of Jews, then your belief that he is "anti-Semitic" is merely your own POV.  --Jakob Huneycutt 06:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * After Dachau, overt persecution of all Jews is out of style. To be qualified as an antisemite, one doesn't need to openly hate all the Jews, only the right ones - for example those aligned with the US, or those able to defend themselves with an army, etc. For example, the USSR almost never published anything negative about all the Jews. Instead, they "exposed" the Doctors' plot, fought rootless cosmopolitans, and established the Anti-Zionist committee of the Soviet public (cleverly enlisting many notable Soviet Jews to avoid accusations of antisemitism) to lead their official policy of "anti-Zionism" which was at times undistinguishable from antisemitism (I can support this opinion with sources if needed).
 * The Land of Israel and today the state of Israel constitute an important part of Jewish identity. Being anti-Israel is not anti-Semitic when one constructively criticizes it. To single out the Jewsih state for destruction is antisemitism. (and again, this conclusion can be easily sourced). &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 11:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In your opinion. Ahmadinejad has expressed a desire to end Zionism; he has never expressed any hostilities towards Jews, in general.  Until you can show that he has, you can not show that he is anti-Semitic.  Anti-Zionism does not equal Anti-Semitism.  You are basically arguing that all anti-Zionists are anti-Semitic - which is a bit non-sensical.  I'm not saying that it isn't possible that Ahmadinejad *secretly* harbors anti-Jewish feelings, but he's never expressed them publicly if he does. --Jakob Huneycutt 14:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are not the same. One can constructively criticize Israel; and one can also call for Israel to stop being a legally ethnically Jewish state without hating Jews.  If there is a list of anti-Zionists, MA should clearly be on that list.  There is certainly nothing in this article that suggests MA hates Jews. It is no more anti-Semitism to oppose Israel as a Jewish state than it is anti-White racism to oppose Alabama as a White state. Until there are verifiable sources that show that MA has expressed hostility towards Jews in general, the tag should be removed. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.112.248.103 (talk &bull; contribs).


 * Exactly, he may criticize Israel, but it does not have to mean he is anti-Semetic. Agree with Jakob and 69.112.248.103 that anti-Zionism and anti-Semetism are notthe same. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 17:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * First you set a strawman and then you debunk it with success. The only problem is, I didn't say or imply that anti-Zionism always equals anti-Semitism. Please recognize the difference between "criticizes" and "calls to destroy". As a test, imagine that your neighbor talks about your family. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 00:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I forgot. Did he say "destroy" or did he call for a "regime" to be "removed from the map"?  Do you say or imply that calling for a Jewish "regime" to be "removed from the map" always equals anti-Semitism?  Because if so, you are wrong again. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.112.248.103 (talk &bull; contribs).


 * It's only a "strawman" if you didn't actually say or imply it. You have implied it, have you not?  You keep repeating that Ahmadinejad's criticisms of Israel equate to anti-semitism and that 'everyone can see it clearly' or whatever nonsense.  Since nothing he has said is directed at Jews in general, logically speaking, your only argument here must be that anti-Zionism equates to anti-Semitism.  There's not really anything about Ahmadinejad's criticisms that relate to all Jews, and indeed, there is a substantial number of Jews living in Iran that he rather clearly has not targeted either in words or actions.  --Jakob Huneycutt 11:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * MA used a euphemism, transparent to everyone but toddlers and whitewashers. Practically the entire world community, including even the unreformed UN and the unreformed PNA, understood what he said. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 03:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What is there that he said or did according to a verifiable source that you hold "always equals anti-Semitism"? If there is nothing, isn't this discussion over? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.112.248.103 (talk &bull; contribs).


 * Calling for destruction of the Jewish state is antisemitism. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 05:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Incorrect, calling for the destruction of the Jewish people is antisemitism. At one time the majority of Muslims lived in a Caliphate. The Caliphate was erased from Maps, but the Muslim people remained. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Does this mean it is possible to be anti-Zionist and not advocate the Jewish regime to be removed from the map, or does it mean, contrary to your earlier assertion that it was a straw man that you never implied, that being anti-Zionist does in fact always equal being anti-Semitic? Anyway, this subtopic can go back and forth until it is longer than the rest of the discussion. I suggest that we leave it here for now, but delete the whole thing and leave a summary of both sides seven days from now on January 6, 2006. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.112.248.103 (talk &bull; contribs).


 * Under no circumstances should this discussion be deleted, let it remain as a testament to the stupidity of the vocal few and so Wikipedians know who the morons and anti-Semites are at the Wiki. Battlefield 10:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, let it stay so everyone can see that "Battlefield" refers to people he disagrees with as "stupid", "Morons" and "anti-semites".--Irishpunktom\talk 10:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see a strong parallel between Jewish and Muslim history. OTOH, the history of anti-Semitism clealy shows that the Jews can not rely on others to protect them. "Whatever theoretical contortions one may indulge in, the State of Israel is a Jewish state. Whoever wants to defame or destroy it, openly or through policies that entail such destruction, in in effect practicing the Jew-hatred of yesteryear, whatever their self-proclaimed intentions." ( The Old-New Anti-Semitism by Robert Wistrich in Those Who Forget the Past: The Question of Anti-Semitism by Ron Rosenbaum (Editor) ISBN 0812972031. Random House Trade Paperbacks. 2004. p.81. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 11:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * So in other words, you're equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, despite the fact that just a while ago, you said it was a "straw man" when others ascribed that position to you, correct? --Jakob Huneycutt 12:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, just a while ago, he said the "straw man" had been successfully debunked. TopRank 13:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)TopRank


 * Anti-Americanism doesn't necessarily imply an intention to destroy the USA (e.g. one may disagree with/protest against certain policies, etc.). Just as with any other country, it is perfectly OK to criticise Israel's policies - as a matter of fact, Israeli newspapers are known for their sharp criticism of govt policies - similar to their counterparts in other democracies. Are you able to distinguish mere criticism from flat call to destroy?
 * Israel is an important part of the Jewish identity and to call for its destruction is antisemitism. You are entitled to your own POV and may disagree with this designation, but you cannot deny that this view is legitimate and notable outside Iran. As editors here, our POVs do not matter, we should strive to reflect authoritative views in neutral way. While namecalling and WP:PA are wrong, denial and whitewash on this page are duly noted.
 * Commonly accepted definitions of antisemitism do not include the requirement to target all the Jews in the world. I referred above to some of the Soviet campaigns illustrating this point and can provide many more. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 23:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You still haven't substantiated your argument. You merely make other examples that have no relevance.  "Anti-Americanism" does not imply an intention to destroy the USA just as "Anti-Israel" does not imply an intention to destroy Israel.  However, an intention to "destroy Israel" (in a literal sense) would not imply an intention to destroy (in a literal sense) all Jews; and regardless, Ahmadinejad has expressed that his desire is not to "kill" all Israelis, but rather to end the existance of the state of Israel.  Just as supporting an end to the existance of the "United States of America" would not necessarily mean that one would support killing all Americans; supporting an end to the Zionist state (Israel) does not mean one supports killing all Israelis.  You're merely running around in circles on your argument.  --Jakob Huneycutt 23:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Who said anything about "killing all Israelis"? Please reread my response. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 00:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * So your argument is that supporting peaceful regime change in Israel is anti-Semitism, correct? I'm not sure how your argument would even begin to make sense if you are not implying that Ahmadinejad wishes to exterminate or forceably relocate the Jews in Israel.  How would simply desiring to leave the Israeli Jews there under a non-Zionist state be anti-Semitic?  --Jakob Huneycutt 08:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I concede that Ahmadinejad opposes the existence of Israel as a Jewish state on land formerly occupied by Palestinians and has said so. It is not that he accepts its existence and criticizes it.  He opposes it outright, though he says he wouldn't oppose it if it was not on land occupied by Muslims.  This really comes down to your assertion that opposing the existence of Israel as a Jewish state where it is, by itself, is necesarily anti-Semitism.  Worse it is your assertion that it is NPOV for wikipedia to assert that because MA does not accept Israel as a specifically Jewish state on land occupied by Palestinians he is an anti-semite.  It is not even true, much less is it a conclusion wikipedia should impose on its readers. TopRank 01:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is anti-Semitic. Jayjg (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * To label Ahmadinejad as an anti-Semite, does the the charge of Holocaust denial and Anti-Semitism need to be confirmed or attributed to someone or some organization outside Wikipedia? And if not, can I nominate Henry Ford, Mahmoud Abbas, Jesse Jackson, Billy Graham and Richard M. Nixon to the Anti-Semite category. Thanks! --68.211.197.252 06:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * See Holocaust denial. Jayjg (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So what does it take to earn admission to the category of anti-Semite? Condemnation by "Government officials"? Doesn't Jesse Jackson qualify? --68.211.197.252 06:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Did Jackson deny the Holocaust? Was he condemned internationally for his Holocaust Denial statements? Jayjg (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * From the article: "Jackson was reported making remarks in which he referred to Jews as "hymies" and to New York City as "Hymietown," " Sounds anti-semitic to me. What about Abbas, he denied the Holocaust in his book. He should be in this anti-Semite category, no? --68.211.197.252 06:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No argument has been made here that Ahmadinejad has displayed hostility towards Jews for being Jews, or anti-Semitism by any reasonable definition, nor have I seen evidence that there is a consensus in the field that Ahmadinejad is anti-Semitic. It is also not clear, based on anything available in this article, that his position on the Holocaust is denial, or that it is necessarily motivated by anti-Semitism. TopRank 12:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is unbelievable. If you cannot recognize bigotry for what it is, you are pathetic. It is a fact, not an opinion that Ahmadinejad is an anti-Semite. To deny the Holocaust is anti-Semitism. To call for the destruction of Israel is anti-Semitism. This is absolutely outrageous. Despicable. Shame on those of you here who defen Ahmadinejad. Theshibboleth 00:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Can I add a hearty me-too? This is ridiculous. The man wants, in his own words, to wipe out a country largely consisting of Jewish people. If he'd, say, intended to wipe out Ireland, I can't see anyone trying to pretend he wasn't anti-Irish. --Paul Moloney 19:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * By "wipe out" he means fundamentally change the structure of the state, so that there is no longer a specifically Jewish state in Palestine. The way Mandela wiped Apartheid South Africa "off of the map".  Some, such as Humus Sapiens and Battlefield consider that anti-Semitic but there is no consensus that wanting Israel not to be a specifically Jewish state is necessarily anti-semitism.  Humus Sapiens earlier in this discussion admitted that it is not necessarily anti-semitism, but changed his mind. TopRank 00:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't change my mind. TopRank, you are not authorized to use my name for your dogmatism. There are many scholarly opinions, but at least you should have acknowledged that there are many of those who does consider MA an antisemite, and his call to "wipe out" the Jewish state and his Holocaust denial a case of antisemitism.
 * There cannot be any comparison between democratic Israel and apartheid SA. Note that MA's apologists here were trying to deny earlier his Holocaust denial, until ML himslef made it impossible to deny.
 * The "land formerly occupied by Palestinians" discussion does not really belong here, but as long as you repeat propaganda, expect to be challenged: what is that land: Tel-Aviv, built by the Jews on sand dunes in 1909? Or Jerusalem, a site of the Jewish Temples since 10 century BCE, the anicent Jewish capital and the holiest city of Judaism that regained its Jewish majority in 1844? Or perhaps Hebron, where Jewish patriarchs were buried, where David was anointed a king and where Jewish community existed for millennia? If there was a Palestinian state somewhere in that land, please let us know all the details you know: Palestinian kings, queens, coins... ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "By "wipe out" he means fundamentally change the structure of the state, so that there is no longer a specifically Jewish state in Palestine." What is your reference for this strange usage of the term "wipe out"? Are you reading Mahmoud's mind, or are you privy to other information? --Paul Moloney 21:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * He didn't actually use the term "wipe out" as he does not speak colloquial English. His words were interpreted into English by the New York Times as remove the regime from the map. In the speech he says the struggle will be over when Palestinians vote. His own words, in the speech and afterwards, as presented in the article, are completely clear that voting is how he wants the occupying regime to be wiped off the map. Some, for example Humus Sapiens and Battlefield, hold the position that wanting the Palestinians to have the right to vote away Israel's status as a Jewish state is necessarily anti-semitism. I do not believe that is a supportable NPOV position. Do you have an argument that it is? TopRank 23:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the piece in question is at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/30iran.html?ex=1138165200&en=040089efa2169470&ei=5070, and the translator was Nazila Fathi; the original piece, I believe, can be found at http://www.isna.ir/Main/. Hopefully someone who reads Farsi can perhaps add some details. I read the transcript and personally do not think your innocuous take on his words is clear. --Paul Moloney 12:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. So you've read the transcript. In the transcript he says the issue will be over then all Palestinians vote and return to their homes - which of course could not happen after nuclear explosions.  Afterwards he says he was clear, let the Palestinians vote.  I'd say that is two pieces of evidence that he was talking about letting Palestinians vote Israel out of its "Jewish state" status.  Where is your first piece of evidence that he was talking about any kind of genocidal attack on Jews?  Now if two pieces in favor and zero against does not personally make you think it is clear that he was talking about voting, it might be that you just don't want to believe it for reasons that have nothing to do with Ahmadinejad. TopRank 23:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 17% or so of Israel's population are Arabs, they vote and are granted the same rights as other citizens of Israel. But MA doesn't talk about them. The Palestinians in the territories controlled by the PNA are not the citizens of Israel, so there is no way for them to "vote Israel out of its "Jewish state" status." In general, it's not up to Iranian ayatollahs/mullahs/presidents or their sympathizers/defenders/whitewashers on Internet to mingle in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. Given the lack of democracy, separation of powers, checks & balances, respect to human rights in the Muslim world, the calls such as that "let them vote" look pathetic. To single out the Jewish state (a potential shelter for Jews seeking refuge, see History of anti-Semitism, New anti-Semitism) for destruction, can constitute antisemitism. This is not about your or mine personal views. You are yet to agree that this scholarly opinion exists. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There are some people who consider MA antisemitic. For wikipedia to put him into the category antisemitic people, the requirement is not that there are some people who consider him so, but that there is a scholarly consensus and I have not seen an indication of that.  There are some people, such as yourself, who hold that wanting to allow all of the people under Israel's control or who are refugees from what is now Israel to vote on Israel's government is automatically antisemitism by itself.  There are arguments, but there is no consensus that you are right so wikipedia cannot present your argument as if it is a fact. TopRank 02:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Again I have to ask you to stop [mis]representing me. Finally we have an agreement that other opinions exist. The proper question is: who should be listed in that category.
 * Now to what seems to be your favorite topic. FYI, the State of Israel was established according to the 1947 UN Partition Plan in the area where the Jews constituted a majority in a small part of the Jewish National Homeland. It's funny to even mention Palestinian vote today, because the Palestinians under the PNA control are voting right now, on Jan. 25, 2006. Why would non-citizens vote in Israel? Does MA (or you) require the same from any other country? E.g. do the Germans vote in Poland or Koenigsberg, even though some of their ancestors lived there? You insist it is not antisemitism. Please explain what it is.
 * The Palestinians say they want their own state, the Israeli and most other world leaders agreed with its establishment, so let's stop pretending that MA is more pro-Palestinian than the Palestinians themselves. Perhaps it's his deep concern for the fate of the Palestinian refugees? Is it any deeper than Palestinian refugees? You insist it is not antisemitism. Please explain what it is. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If you can show a consensus that advocating a one state solution to the Palestinian conflict is necessarily anti-semitic, then MA's advocacy of a one state solution merits his being put into the anti-semitic category. I do not think you can demonstrate that there is a consensus on that. You can make an argument, and I don't feel like arguing back though I could.  But you have to demonstrate a consensus already exists in the field. TopRank 15:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

New articles
The article is getting too long, so based on Wikipedia rules some parts of the article have to be moved to new articles. I'm moving the section entitled "Opposition and allegations" to a new article entitled Allegations against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I'm also moving the subsection entitled "Antagonism towards Israel" to a new article titled Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. Let me know what you think. AucamanTalk 17:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Very good Aucaman. I said that should be done many times. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 17:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like a better name would be Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Also
This talk page needs to be archived. As soon as Ahmadinejad makes a new statement, some of you come and add it to the article. But no one bothers to improve the article's readability in any way. Makes me wonder whether you're Wikipedians or political activists. Irresponsibility is the new epidemic in Wikipedia. AucamanTalk 17:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Update
Pages moved successfully. I'm also moving the comments that have to do with the allegations or Israel to their corresponding pages. In the future, direct your comments regarding the allegations and Israel to the corresponding pages. Thanks. AucamanTalk 18:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Done!

How much text in link to Israel?
At the end of the day, Ahmadinejad is best known in the west for his antagonism of Israel and for some of the allegations in the other sub page. I don't think its good aesthetically for one section to dwarf the rest of the article, but now the article looks unbalanced in the other direction because some of the most important things about Ahmadinejad (from a western perspective at least) are only covered in a couple of sentences with a link to another article. The section on Ahmadinejad's antagonism of Israel in this article should be something more like a two paragraph summary of the contents of the sub article. GabrielF 21:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Once we go there, then there arise issues of making sure the summary is fair, adding every single speech he makes that appears in western media, describing what he said neutrally, I think as is often done, a link to the entire article and one or two sentences gives the reader enough. What is there now would need more language to make it neutral if it stays. TopRank 05:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with TopRank. As the section stands right now, there are lots of unnecessary details, explanations, and over-analyzing. AucamanTalk 08:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"Widely" interpreted as genocide
There is a citation in which one person interprets Ahmadinejad's speech as a call for genocide. That does not support the claim that it was "widely interpreted" as such. There clearly is no consensus that it was a call for genocide. Juan Cole, a mideast expert who speaks farsi:
 * He quoted Ayatollah Khomeini as saying that the "Occupation Regime" (i.e. Israel) "must vanish." ... His statements were morally outrageous and historically ignorant, but he did not actually call for mass murder (Ariel Sharon made the "occupation regime" in Gaza "vanish" last summer) or for the expulsion of the Israeli Jews to Europe.

http://www.juancole.com/2005/12/middle-east-and-america-in-2005-how.html Given that the entire text of the speech is available, as well as later clarifications if any are needed, as well as the opinion of at least one Western expert - the idea that the speech as a call for genocide is false in its face. It is weasel-wording at its worse to knowingly take a false claim and declare it "widely interpreted". If we must use the language "widely" I suggest the more accurate "widely but falsely interpreted as genocide". Otherwise if we must include the word genocide in this summary, even though the word "genocide" does not appear in the article itself, all we can support is a claim that "some" interpreted the speech that way. TopRank 00:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd also add that the fact that this is being debated here is an argument for a very simple and neutral pointer to the article itself. The subarticle "Ahmadinejad and Israel" is the perfect place to discuss and make an editorial decision about how "widely" Ahmadinejad's speech about Israel was rightly or wrongly interpreted as genocide. TopRank 00:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've made some changes to the section to give it some NPOV. Any new informations or additions should be added to the subarticle. We can then summarize the contents if they seem appropriate for the article at hand. AucamanTalk 02:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I added that statement because the interpretation that Ahmadinejad was threatening genocide is what makes the quote notable. Middle Eastern leaders call for Israel's destruction all the time, what makes Ahmadinejad's remark important is that his nation is developing weapons capable of allowing his regime to carry out that threat. That's what's new about the statement, before everyone could safely ignore Khomeini or whoever because they didn't pose an existential threat to Israel, now they do.
 * As for whether the interpretation is fair - how else would you wipe a nation off the map except by genocide? I've heard the translation quoted in the article far more frequently than Juan Cole's translation, and I don't really trust Cole anyway. I think he tends to see things as he wishes they were not as they are.
 * As for whether it was widely interpreted that way, if it wasn't widely interpreted as such, Juan Cole wouldn't have bothered to refute it. However, here's a link to a statement by a bunch of NGO's calling it an incitement to genocide, here's the Boston Globe saying its genocide: , in addition, the PM of Canada, and Israel, and that's just what turned up at the top of a google search. GabrielF 03:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Other than genocide, you can remove a regime from a map by allowing the Palestinians, including the refugees and those in occupied territories to vote - which is specifically the way Ahmadinejad said to do so in his speech. You can also remove a regime by ordering it out - the way Sharon removed the occupying regime from Gaza last summer. In the first 30 results in google for "wiped off the map" and "ahmadinejad" zero, not one, of the resulting pages also included the term "genocide" only a small minority interprets the statement that way.
 * Anyway I'm going to add more language to make the currently four paragraphs more neutral. I'd still prefer one or two sentences that link to the subarticle where it is possible to get much more details about all of the statements if a reader is interested. TopRank 15:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Plea for one paragraph summary of Ahmadinejad and Israel
Maybe here in the discussion page, we can come up with language we all agree on and then move it to the main page with the understanding that we will not add to it lightly. There are two subjects about Ahmadinejad that get their own sub-pages: overall "controversy" and the specific controversies involving Israel. I think from that fact, a reader can get an idea of the importance of Ahmadinejad and Israel even if there is only a short summary. I do not think there are any readers who want or need to know more than two sentences of information on this subject who would be unwilling to click the link provided to a more detailed article.

I offer the following. I do not think anything more than this is necessary given the existence of a much more detailed article one click away.

 Ahmadinejad has made several statements expressing hostility towards Israel and its leadership and questioning the historicity of the holocaust. These statements have been widely condemned.  TopRank 16:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is good enough. "These statements have been widely condemned" seems a little vague and not that informative. I think the 3 paragraph summary we have now is long enough to give some sort of neutral and detailed information, but short enough to be a summary. I suggest leaving the section the way it is and focusing on the subarticle or other parts of the Ahmadinejad article. Both articles require some serious cleanup. I don't see why everyone's focused on this section; that's the main reason why I moved it to a seperate article. AucamanTalk 19:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a common practice in WP for main article to contain a summary of its subarticles, a paragraph or two long. What is the problem with the current text, other than being full of unsubstantiated apologia? ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you were addressing me or not, but I'm actually in favor of keep the section the way it is right now. Everyone else seems to want to change it. AucamanTalk 01:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Family?
Does anyone have any names of other family members of Ahmadinejad? Anyone knows the name of his wife, perhaps? 82.80.154.91 22:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Missing archive material
Much old discussion material from last summer has mysteriously disappeared and is absent from this archive. Much of this material sheds an interesting light on the editing dynamics in play at the time. One can find this material by looking through old versions of this article's main talk page (found under the 'history' tab on top of this article's main talk page). HKT 23:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

May I remind you that GW Bush talks with god? And that Israel has threatened to attack Iran since the Islamic Revolution in 1979?

Assessment comment
Substituted at 19:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)