Biography: Politics and Government B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Template:FAOL

Iran B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14

Could somebody please explain to me how this is encyclopediac?--Sefringle 04:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a standard sort of tag used in writing to indicate that the quote is literally transcribed without corrective edits. It is no more or less encyclopedic than the word "ibid" or the character "#". ==Blue Tie 11:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue is correct. The poster in the picture has the name of the country improperly spelled as "Isreal" instead of "Israel." To ensure the reader knows that the caption is not a typo, but a faithful representation of the photograph, the [sic] is appropriate. -- Avi 13:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a couple of days before I bookmarked this page from Chamsky to use it in this article [1] but now it is expired! can someone help to find the original source? --Pejman47 20:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.countercurrents.org/us-chomsky110307.htm , Use the original url in the url section of {{cite web}} and use this one in the archiveurl tag with March 20 as archive date. -- Avi 03:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who added the neutrality tag, and can we discuss it? --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 16:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is obviously no more discussion on the matter, so I don't see why this can't be removed. It is probably just a leftover. For once we appear to have something of a stable article here. The Behnam 17:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember how I linked to this site but..... "wiped from the map" - this mistranslation is so bad/false/old.. that it truly belongs on wikipedia. This has been debunked so long ago and so completely that I thought only right wing nuts - whoops sorry...159.105.80.141 18:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it may be a mistranslation, it has been heavily used and continues to be heavily used in the media, so we have to represent this prevalence. We've tried our best to not 'side' with that translation despite its popularity. The Behnam 23:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is no doubt that this article is heavily biased (especially the lead) and most of the concerns are not answered yet; so, till we get to a NPOV article, that tag must be there. I am going to change some parts to reflect the neglected truth and other side POV.

I understand that some parts of it is different to some of your POVs, but please be natural and first read the sources carefully. I highly recommend every one before giving comment about the Government of Iran or this person, read the Iran's constitution and Ali Khamenei. --Pejman47 19:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several users here doubted the translation of "wipe of the map", it is correct the meaning is not the same as translated from Persian. I hope you will read this article from Noam Chomsky carefully : (taken from [2], originally from Guardian)--Pejman47 19:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC) :[reply]

"It is also necessary to demonise the leadership. In the west, any wild statement by President Ahmadinejad is circulated in headlines, dubiously translated. But Ahmadinejad has no control over foreign policy, which is in the hands of his superior, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The US media tend to ignore Khamenei's statements, especially if they are conciliatory. It's widely reported when Ahmadinejad says Israel shouldn't exist - but there is silence when Khamenei says that Iran supports the Arab League position on Israel-Palestine, calling for normalisation of relations with Israel if it accepts the international consensus of a two-state settlement."

You don't need to quote sections of the article. If I cared what Chomsky said, I'd read the article. Anyways, we shouldn't rehash the translation issue again. I'm quite tired of it. Let's just put the neutrality tag back in and stop this argument before it starts again.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 21:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if there are lots of sources (some of them academic) that says the translation is not accurate, trying to ignore them and just saying "put a POV tag" is of course POV pushing. The lead of this article is of course biased, if "wipe out of the map" must be in lead section, the concerns about it, must also be there. Please be open minded and read sources. Truth is not always on your behalf. --Pejman47 23:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not rehashing the translation argument with you or anyone else. It's been done to death. The consensus each time is to leave lead as is and have the explanation in the section about the controversy. The reason I say to just put the tag back is since there obviously are people that disagree with the neutrality of the article. It's also obvious that we're not going to please everyone, but the consensus is what stays, and if a neutrality tag keeps people from arguing the same things with the same arguments and sources over and over, then I'd just as soon leave it in, but I'm not sure that's necessarily the best thing to do.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 00:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead about that sentence must be as it is, but don't you agree that it must at least give a link to that secton?--Pejman47 14:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link. "Wiped of the map" goes to the Ahmadinejad and Israel article. There's also an indirect link in the table of contents right below the lead.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 07:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why/How is this related to Ahmadinejad? His name isn't even mentioned in the section, so far as I can tell. If it is relevant, it needs to be rewritten to explain why. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 06:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. Someone just added that as part of a POV smear campaign during some opposition hype about the supposed threat to the ruins nearby. I had mentioned that none of it was actually relevant to Ahmadinejad but for some reason I never got around to removing it. I will now. Thanks for pointing that out. The Behnam 10:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, in yet another attempt to defend Ahmadinejad against accusations of antisemitism, one of his supported has inserted the following original research into the article:

and the are no report on any anti-Semitism towards Persian Jews, and even he donated some money for building a Jewish hospital in Tehran. Even the leaders of Jewish minority of Iran, could criticize him freely for his comments regarding Holocaust. [3][4]

The articles in question do not actually make the argument that Ahmadinejad is antisemitic, and neither of them state that he donated money to a Jewish hospital. And, as a reminder of policy, WP:NOR stats that something cannot be included in an article if:

• It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
• It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source

This insertion obviously does that. Please don't insert it again. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am not his supporters (I don't think that labeling other users as X and then refuting their actions is appropriate!, and Jayjg remember this strategy can also be used against you) Second, you have not even read the sources, "For all his inflammatory rhetoric, Ahmadinejad has been careful not to single out Iran’s Jews, and his office even donated money to Tehran’s Jewish hospital." You see there is a hospital! and that article mentioned it in related to the accusations of the antisemitism. So, there is no new compilation had happened here! The others also clearly relate Ahmadinejad's rhetoric to the state of Persian Jews in Iran. I hope this is considered enough. --Pejman47 19:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah right.--Sefringle 19:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second article mentions nothing about him giving donations, you've misrepresented both articles, and in any event, you are just trying to invent arguments to claim he is not antisemitic. One article says "the recent uptick in antisemitic propaganda in books and the media had stoked fears within the Jewish community in Iran. The regime’s anti-Zionist propaganda has at times provoked antisemitic incidents" and the other says "Iranian Jews talk of repeating patterns of discrimination - the difficulty of securing a government job and anti-Semitism in state media" which you ignore. You need to find other sources that say he is not antisemitic; you can't invent an argument based on your view that there isn't any reported antisemitism against Persian Jews, and his office gave money to a Jewish hospital! Please re-read the sections of WP:NOR mentioned above. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "The second article mentions nothing about him giving donations"? There were some sentences which I gave for them 4 sources. In two of them (one of them from BBC) clearly they mentioned that donation to the hospital in related to the accusations of antisemitism, to showing that he is not what some people want to show. In others they discussed state of Persian Jews in related to rhetorics of Ahmadinejad. I am not inventing anything (this is accusation.) they are facts that show other side POV. I have done my 3rr today, take care till tomorrow!--Pejman47 19:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]