Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

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

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details. The citation is in: "[no url Mystery surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]", Kompas (Indonesia), July 13, 2005.

WikiProject Echo has identified Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Hebrew language Wikipedia.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

	Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
B	Rated as B-Class.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance.
	After rating the article, briefly explain your ratings.

• 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

Contents 1 [sic] tag 2 ٍٔٔٔRequest for help 3 Neutrality 4 Sivand Dam and destruction of Iranian heritage 5 Original research regarding accusations of antisemitism 6 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 7 Speech translation question 8 Any info on exact ethnicity? 9 Isreal is Poison 10 BBC explain why Ahmadinejad does not ware a tie 11 BIAS

[edit] [sic] tag

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

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)

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)

[edit] ٍٔٔٔRequest for help

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)

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)

why is ther no mention of ahmadinejads involvment in the taking of hostages a few dacades ago?

Because it was a scam perpetrated by IranFocus and predictibly relayed by a Western media eager to demonize Iran. Sadly, some people didn't even bother to to cross check the legitimacy of the claim. Note that the MKO is very likely behind Iran Focus. Lixy 20:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned under "Early political career" and here. The accusation is notable, but we can't present it as fact. <<-armon->> 00:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that what is presented is balanced and verifiable. It does not say he was involved for sure, but it indicates that there are fair reasons to suspect it -- and that some do suspect it. --Blue Tie 02:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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) :

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

For those folks who think the translation is wrong, what is the correct translation into English and how is it substantially different in meaning? Are these translation errors attested to with verifiable and reliable sources?--Blue Tie 13:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a right-wing nut, far from it. Some see me as appallingly left-wing, as I do have/have had socialist sympathies. I recognize this is not a simple conflict. It goes back decades, and there's no easy answer. Yet even I am taken aback by certain aspects of Ahmedinejad's view of Israel. "Israel must be wiped off the map and, God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism."-That's what he said on October 28th, 2005, according to AL JAZEERA. You know, that Arabic news network whose offices were hit by U.S. missiles, and who, in a leaked memo it was discovered Bush, a blatant sympathizer of Israel, planned to bomb.64.231.189.197 19:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sivand Dam and destruction of Iranian heritage

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)

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)

[edit] Original research regarding accusations of antisemitism

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

This is the second article. Please quote what it says about him giving donations. Then explain where these articles argue that Ahamdinejad is not antisemitic. Where they make that argument, not you. You have invented the argument, not these articles. Regarding your statement "I have done my 3rr today, take care till romorrow", I would remind you that the WP:3RR policy states

"The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence".^[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system."

Jayjg ^(talk) 20:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I know all the things about blocking policies in WP. That statement means that I don't have any Meatpuppet or Sockpuppet and must leave this article till tomorrow! I brought sources that I think support my POV and I am ready to discuss it talk pages, I don't think that it is OR. And in above another users that I have not heard his name till now, supported my view. Your usual threatening behavior is what is clearly unhelpful and disruptive. --Pejman47 20:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You only have to "leave this article till tomorrow" if you intend to revert again at the first opportunity, which you obviously intend to do. Is that your intent? Does either article say that Ahmadinejad is not antisemitic, or advance that argument? Does the second article even mention any donation to the hospital? Please answer these questions. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Responding to post @ WP:ANI: Pejman47, the WP:3RR rule is there so that editors engage in discussions rather than editwar and not a bump in the road that you navigate by slowing down. In addition, I see also worrisome tendency of engaging on original research that seems to be an attempt to advocate a certain viewpoint in violation of WP:NOT. See this as a friendly warning, continuing in this manner will only result in temporarily losing your editing privileges. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If anybody with Natural point of view reads this talk page and the main articles history will clearly find that when you think that your POV is in danger, despite discussing the sources or article you will quickly try to find some ways to threaten and block that users. [5] I think this article has {{POV}} tag since 6 months ago! If you can satisfy me and other users that the above text is POV or OR, I will definitely accept that. (now, I will leave message on that uses talk page, to continue the this discussion) and when I feel that your concerns about Original research is just an "excuse" for pushing your POV, I will definitely try to revert it when ever I can. Welcome to Wikipedia Jayjg!--Pejman47 20:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Pejman47, is it possible that you have something to do with the POV tag being there? [6] Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There was a consensus to put that tag till a consensus (see the talk page archive). Some one, last week without discussing it in the talk page deleted that and I reinserted it; and if you see above of this section, you can find putting the tag has consensus. And after this [7] I tried to put other side POVs and get rid of it as soon as possible, but it seems impossible! --Pejman47 21:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you insist there must be a "consensus", and then refuse to reach one, therefore insist the tag must stay. It's an old trick. And, again, you must attribute "the other side POV", you can't make it up yourself. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Revert once more and you will earn yourself a 24 hrs block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

the first meaning of "I have done my 3rr today, take care till tomorrow!" is that I will clearly not! frankly I didn't like that warning!--Pejman47 21:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A warning is not about liking or not liking. Pursue dispute resolution and remember that if an article has a POV tag for four months, you are certainly partially responsible for it. Pursue dispute resolution and do not editwar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Do you think it would be POV to change all references to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Mahmoud "the crazy meglomaniac" Ahmadinejad? Jamie 11:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Possibly.... SGGH 12:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. As far as I know, he doesn't qualify for any of the labels you're willing to attribute to him. He's better educated than most heads of state. He also live modestly which rules out the "megalo" part. Smile, your sailors are back home. Now, to get the rest out of there... Lixy 13:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Education and living style are not correlated with megalomania, so those are not arguments against the edits. A better argument is that it is original research and unverifiable. --Blue Tie 13:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

And POV. And defamatory. This guy made this post elsewhere too, and I think Kirbytime was right in calling it trolling. I will remove this section. The Behnam 06:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speech translation question

Does anyone know where I can get a full translation of Ahmadinejad's speech on 4th April? LeBofSportif 14:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Any info on exact ethnicity?

Is he persian, kurdish, or azeri? or any combination of those? Manic Hispanic 03:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Isreal is Poison

Concerning this [8], it seems to be an OR association of a supposed Arabic word for poison with the misspelling in that statement. Without a source making that association the inclusion of the translation is OR and is not appropriate for the article. Just wanted to get the opinions of the other regular editors here. The Behnam 06:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know Arabic, but no one's posted a link even from a "non-credible" source that shows this isn't OR and the misspelling explanation is more likely to me so I'd assume it's OR unless there's a source.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 07:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you checkout this source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8fa9yKQeTY she describe the use of the term "Israel Isreal" in arab society. The source is Brigitte_Gabriel an ABC journalist. full length http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev092706a.cfm and click on "view event" Zeq 07:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have observed this discussion for a while without comment. I want to make one now.

Zeq appears to be making false statements -- repeatedly. First, the statement that was included in the article "Israel means poison" (in Arabic). Aside from having no relevance to the article, so far there has been absolutely no evidence forthcoming for this statement. When asked for some sort of valid reliable source, none was presented. Others, using dictionaries and going both ways from Arabic to English and from English to Arabic, have been unable to find any such relationship. Finally, Zeq presents a video and claims that the person in it discusses this term. Having watched the Youtube video, never once does she discuss this. Israel is mentioned only once and then in comparison with Jordon in terms of how many people have been killed in conflicts.

It appears to me that Zeq is engaging in a creative form of disruption or vandalism. I recommend that until an actual verifiable, reliable source is provided, that this edit be rejected. I also recommend that not much further time be spent on the issue unless Zeq brings actual, realistic evidence and not links to non-evidence. It is a waste of time and I do not understand why this editor is behaving in this disruptive way. --Blue Tie 14:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie: Chill out. If indeed we can not find a source for this than the edit should be rejected. I suggest that you listen to the link I provided and to this link: http://www.americancongressfortruth.org/videos.asp click on the top video link "interview" In this video she describe her childhood in Lebanon and in it she explain the trem "Israel Isreal" - please listen to both until you find it and we will talk at that point. This is my only edit to this article so your claim about "disruptive" is unfounded and even if you disagree with my statement on what base did you say that I did something "repatiavly" no one can do an edit repeatdly when he edit only once so:.... please appologize. Zeq 15:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

and here is an Iraqi who used the same and called Israel poison - this is in english: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20040424/israel_poison_040423?s_name=&no_ads=

This is a common use across the arab world and youtr attempts to deny it seesm to be a problem. Maybe I should edit this article more often. Zeq 15:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems you are promising to disrupt the article. I've already had an extensive discussion with you about this and you pretended not to realize that I was calling the inclusion OR, not the translation. It doesn't help that nobody can verify the translation. So please, stop trying to put your own conclusions into the article. Thanks. The Behnam 16:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• First of all the translation is verifaibale. have you listen to the video at http://www.americancongressfortruth.org/videos.asp click on the top video link "interview" In this video she describe her childhood in Lebanon and in it she explain the term "Israel Isreal"

As for your accusation: Not at all - I have not disrupted nor I have any intentions. Don't put words in my mouth which I did not say. I only edited this article once and already I am accused in "repeated disruption" - what kind of nonsense is that ? where is the "repeated " part ? (only made one edit).

But yes. I plan to edit more - You should Assume Good Faith (that is a policy your recent edit violated) and don't describe an edit that have not yet took place as "disruption" - you and other are all violating AGF and need to appologize. Zeq 16:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I will assume you are referring to Blue Tie as I do not recall saying "repeated," though you still need to realize that your inclusion is inappropriate. The Behnam 17:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "It seems you are promising to disrupt the article" - this is a violation of WP:AGF. Please appologize. Zeq 17:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. You have stood by your OR inclusion and also said 'maybe I should edit this article more often.' As you haven't renounced your disruptive inclusion this strongly suggests you plan to make similar edits in the future. It was back when I tried over and over again to explain to you why your edit was inappropriate that I was assuming AGF, but you've spoiled it now. Sorry. The Behnam 17:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me but was it so disruptive? He introduced it once and it's been removed... I don't see it having been restored... sure perhaps it could have been a bit sneaky but I think AGF is warranted here. (→Netscott) 17:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm overreacting. It is just that about 10 hours ago I tried explaining it to him over and over on his talk page, in a bunch of different ways, and he just kept somehow 'missing' the point and pretending that I was only calling the translation OR, when I emphasized that it was the association that I was calling OR. The Behnam 17:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still looking, but I did find this article from The Newyorker that may be related somehow. It says “In one of the translations, he talks about Uncle Sam. In Arabic, Uncle Sam is 'Amm Sam'— it rhymes, you see. The Arabic word samm means poison, and an uncle, in Arabic, is supposed to be someone you can trust.” Maybe completely off topic anyway. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

When I tried to verify the "Isreal" translation, I did get 'samm' as a return for poison, even in the Persian dictionary. But I guess it really isn't relevant here, though interesting. The Behnam 18:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Behnam: You may be right and I confused Sam with Is-Real. Sam (prounced SUM or some but a shoort U) is poison. Isreal is one of the "nicknames" for the devil in Arabic (Shitan is the main word that would apear in a dictionary). You really need to get anArabic speaker (even better than me) to explain it to you. Just like the saying in Arabic "first comes saturday and next comes Sunday" - this seems like a simple sentence but every Arabic speaker know it means: "First we will be done with the jews and than we will go after the chrstians" Zeq 18:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, but let's just stay away from including it here unless we know that was the usage they intended. We cool? The Behnam 18:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK given one condition: Please listen to the interview with her and decide for yourself what she asan arabic speaker sais about israel Isreal. share your observation with us on talk page and you will decide if to include it in article. I will not add it. Zeq 18:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I will listen in a bit (after listening to Jurassic Park as I am), but as that interview doesn't appear to be about the specific poster in the article I don't see it supporting the inclusion without being OR. In fact, I am questioning the value of that image to the article as we could choose something actually involving Ahmadinejad, rather than just his picture on a sign. I remember that image being added awhile back as a WP:POINT violation so that does not help either. The Behnam 18:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The interview is only a ref to the translation. Zeq 18:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so in that case it wouldn't support inclusion anyway. I'll take a look just out of interest then. The Behnam 18:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, don't feel like dealing with the video; a transcript would be better. Anyway, Lixy said something below that you should probably address. The Behnam 19:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me please weight in on this a native Arabic speaker. "Isreal" means squat in Arabic. It's not even close to any word. Of course, Israel in itself is a "nickname" for the devil. I'm not sure about the etymology of that, but am confident that it predates the Israeli state. Zeq, since you're not fluent in Arabic, it'd be nice of you to take such issues on the talk page first. Feel free to contact me about anything related to the Arabic language. Lixy 19:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• OK. so it is not poison by 'Isreal' in arabic is a nick name for the devil. Zeq 15:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

He he. This dialogue is funny. Zeq is like Iran defending its civilian nuclear enegy program, and The Behnam is like the US, immediately assuming that Zeq has the worst of intentions, based on no good evidence. LeBofSportif 09:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The irony of such an analogy is a wonder to behold. Not to mention the inaccuracy. Tarc 02:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BBC explain why Ahmadinejad does not ware a tie

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6528881.stm Zeq 16:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ahminagad? (→Netscott) 17:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BIAS

though Ahmadinejad has stated that he is "not anti-Jew," and that he "respect[s] them very much."[12]

That sounds like some Boratesque satire of Ahmadinejad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.79.139.124 (talk • contribs).

Do you have a specific recommendation? The Behnam 20:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have!, There is some satire in "anti-jew", there is only one word word for that concept in persian and if he is accused of anti-semetisim ,it is better to change it to "He sated that he is not anti-semetic"; I don't think, It will change anything, but at least the tone of the lead became a little more natural. --Pejman47 15:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean. Anyway, I'll let some others comment before changing anything. The Behnam 15:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)