Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Some discussions to note: Some topics have been discussed at length on this talk page. Please consult the archives before attempting to:

• Argue that Category:Anti-Semitic people should be added to this page.
• Argue that Category:Holocaust denial should be removed from this page.
• Discuss translation issues or, more specifically, the alleged "wiped off the map" quote.

• 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

Neutrality compromised

The information regarding President Ahmadinejad's recent letter to Americans has clearly been presented in a way that reflects the author's personal opinion. I would like to suggest an edition of this particular information, or else a re-entry.

68.103.160.85 05:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Dr. Caffrey

It's very difficult to summarize the whole letter, which touches on many issues, in one nice little paragraph. I think I did this. There were many more things that I had originally written, but I ultimately decided that it was just too long for an encyclopedia entry. If people want that level of detail, they can click on the letter and read it themselves, right?

Anyways, I'm including my first draft text here, in case anyone is interested. This is the stuff that I wrote, but didn't include in the article. Vir4030 17:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

About Palestine, he argues "that the US administration has persistently provided blind and blanket support to" Israel, even while Israel "has driven millions of the inhabitants of Palestine out of their homes." About Iraq, claims that "hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, maimed or displaced," that "terrorism in Iraq has grown exponentially," and that "nothing has been done to rebuild the ruins, to restore the infrastructure or to alleviate poverty." He says that he considers it extremely unlikely that the American People "consent to the billions of dollars of annual expenditure from your treasury for this military misadventure." Ahmadinejad also criticizes the "illegal and immoral behavior" of the US administration, not only throughout the world in Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib, but also inside the United States. He states that "civil liberties in the United States are being increasingly curtailed" under the pretext of "the war on terror." He claims that "private phones are tapped, subjects are arbitrarily arrested, sometimes beaten in the streets, or even shot to death." Ultimately, he concludes that "the American people are not satisfied with this behavior and they showed their discontent in the recent elections." He recommends that "in a demonstration of respect for the American people and for humanity, the right of Palestinians to live in their own homeland should be recognized." He also suggests that it would "be more beneficial to bring the US officers and soldiers home, and to spend the astronomical US military expenditures in Iraq for the welfare and prosperity of the American people." He also had a message to the Democrats who won the 2006 mid-term elections: "The United States has had many administrations; some who have left a positive legacy, and others that are neither remembered fondly by the American people nor by other nations. Now that you control an important branch in the US Government, you will also be held to account by the people and by history."

Why do we need to cite four different references for the summary of the letter? Can't we just cite the text of the letter itself? Vir4030 17:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ufwuct, I sincerely apologize for not including an edit summary for my wholesale revision of the bit about the letter under US-Iran Relations. I should have. I also made that edit while I was not logged into my account, so it showed up under my IP address. That was a mistake also. I obviously described it above here in the talk page, but you wouldn't know that just from the revision history, especially with not being logged in for the edit, but signing my talk page comments appropriately.

My problem with the way it is now is that, as pointed out by the editor above, it can appear biased because of the parts of the letter that are described in the article. I feel that the best way to handle this is to not go into any specific parts of the letter in the article. This way, people can just read the letter for themselves if they want to see each point that Ahmadinejad made.

You wrote some good stuff, though, in the main article when you replaced my summary. I'm going to make the edits to your text, keeping these pieces, but removing the parts specifically discussing the letter. As you can see above, I tried to write something that would treat each section of the letter fairly, but it became way too long for an article about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I will leave an edit summary this time, pointing to this section of the talk page. I hope that you consider my edits to be fair. Thanks! Vir4030 19:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I also left in the comment about "In the letter, he also claims that Iran condemns all terrorism, though many consider Iran to be the world's leading state supporter of terrorism." It's relevant to the US-Iran relations section, and is well-sourced. I did remove the MSNBC citation, because it's an article about the letter, and we've already cited the letter. I also apologize again for my relative newbieness and not being more clear in the edit summary. Vir4030 19:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Good catch

I don't speak Persian, so I won't label it vandalism, but this was a good catch. Without any translation, Persian sources shouldn't count as sources on en.wikipedia.org. Thanks. Ufwuct 04:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was a good catch. The only comment I want to make is that there seem to be a lot of Persian sources which discuss Ahmadinejad's internal policies. I'm not sure there are many of these that are in English. I have been trying to clean this up, but it's difficult when you don't speak Persian. I have been very actively trying to recruit a Persian-speaking editor to verify these sources, and until then we have the {{citecheck}} tag in place that Avi requested. So hopefully we can resolve these issues shortly.

Also, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability, there is no restriction to not use foreign-language sources. It does clearly state that they should not be used when English-language sources are available. If there is a policy that says blanketly we should not use Persian sources, please post a link. Vir4030 19:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad and UNSC Veto

The text currently seems to imply that Ahmadinejad has a veto on the UNSC; As best as I can tell, he does not.

Can someone either correct the text or otherwise enlighten me?

update-- you know, I just checked the text again, and it flatly doesn't make sense. It refers to "the same interview," although no interview has been mentioned in that section. HELP!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.199.29.178 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

It looks like this got mangled on November 4th by 70.28.116.167. I restored the affected text to the 5 Nov 2006 00:13 edition of the page. Thanks for pointing this out! Vir4030 23:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No mention of terrorism support

Since Iran supports Hezbollah and other terrorist groups, and Amhdinejad has denied supporting terrorism, why is this omitted?Decato 21:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably because conclusive evidence is lacking. MeteorMaker 08:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I can quote any number of sources: NY Times,Fox News, BBC etc. Any objections if I put this in the article?Decato 10:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If you bring reliable and verifiable sources, there should be no problem. -- Avi 15:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is mentioned in the article under United States-Iran relations: "In the letter, he also claims that Iran condemns all terrorism, though many in the United States consider Iran to be the world's leading state supporter of terrorism." Then there are three cites. This is the section talking about the letter he sent last week to the American People where he denied supporting terrorism. It looks like these same three sources are also cited in the Iran article where it says: "Today Iran is regarded by the US to be the world's leading state supporter of terrorism." There is also a rather large article on United States-Iran relations where this information is presented. I'm not sure it's appropriate to have a whole section on the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad page about Iran's support of terrorism, but I think it would fit on either of the other two pages. Vir4030 15:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Does Iran consider the United States to be a sponsor of terrorism? - Francis Tyers · 15:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Freely admiting my own bias, I think there is a major difference between the U.S and Iran. Iran isa despotic theocracy where women and other religions do not have equal rights. The U.S is one of greatest democracies in the history of the world.71.233.211.201 19:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with having your opinions. However, please note that this talk page is only for the discussion of ways in which to improve this article and to resolve disputes regarding article content, not to espouse opinions regarding the subject of the article or other items. --Strothra 19:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I was just responding to user f-m-t comment which seems to put moral equivilency between Iran and the U.S.Decato 21:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Go an add terrorist support to George Bush's page. --Halaqah 19:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a Bush page and looking at the terrorist orginizations listed on the wikipedia page, The U.S does not support any of them. Why is it so hard to call someone a terrorist supporter on this site? Decato 23:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes because the Def of terrorim is a POV, so to call someone a supporter of terrorism is a POV. Since most people in the World see america as a terrorist government. DONT THE USA SUPPORT THE IRA? KKK is another terrorist organization in America, why cant Ethiopia or Ghana invade America to clense America of this terror threat? the debate is about world view and in the eyes of most the Bush Administration is a terrorist system which has destroyed more lives than all of those listed as being terrorist--Halaqah 23:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

flag and anthem dont make u clean of the def of terrorism u know. --Halaqah 23:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The US does not support the IRA. In fact, it has worked for many decades to disarm the IRA. Remember, the US and the UK have had a close and cordial relationship for many many years. Support for the IRA would damage that. Also, that accusation is off-topic; please restrict comments to those which pertain to the content of the article. --Strothra 23:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

so why are you breaking your own rule? Yeah what they do on the surface is one thing, dont be so simplistic in observing global politics. read history of Palestine and see what the British Did. So No one, absolutly no one (no one) in the USA supports the IRA, i'll take your word for it.--Halaqah 23:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The question when I started this thread was Iran's President support of terrorists groups. Not Britain, not U.S. Most of the world that have access to unbiased news sources may criticize the U.S but no rational personal can say they support terroirsm. As Iran has said Israel should be wiped off the map they do.71.233.211.201 01:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

listen can the convo now, okay this is wikipedia add something constructive and move on. didnt the us wipe vietnam off the face of the earth, didnt they wipe iraq off the face of the earth? didnt the wipe Japan off the face of the Earth? So what if he wants to do that with Israel, they are enemies. I am sure Israel would love to "wipe them out 2"--gee wiz. Why is it such a big deal? or cant u say anything bad against good old israel? the issue is about balance, world view and POV, what you think is an opinion "no rational person", go and read the def of terrorism and then go and c what most of the non-align newspapers are saying. again this is wikipedia and it rep a world view not an american view of the world. how many times did John Pilger say the US supported/s IRA terrorism. "no rational person" U must be God speaking.--Halaqah 02:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"More terrorists are given training and sanctuary in the United States than anywhere on earth. They include mass murderers, torturers, former and future tyrants and assorted international criminals. This is virtually unknown to the American public, thanks to the freest media on earth."[4]-John Pilger

cordial relationship? UK and US or G Bush and T Blair? American been killing British troops and they dont even go to trial, cordial?--Halaqah 02:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I cleaned up a lot of citations on the page. If someone could help with the Cabinet section, that would be great. Also, we still need someone to verify the Farsi links -- I've had no luck finding anyone. If anyone has any Farsi-reading friends they could recruit, that would be fantastic. Vir4030 18:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Is it just me or is there no categories here? Khodavand 04:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps is is you, because I see pleanty of categories in the article -- Avi 13:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic people

Despite the fact that I generally disagree with its existence, with David Duke invited to speak at a conference in Iran questioning the Holocaust I'm beginning to think that the usage of Category:Anti-Semitic people on this article might indeed be warranted. (→Netscott) 04:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that counters this thinking is the fact that Rabbis from Neturei Karta were also in attendance at this conference. (→Netscott) 05:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And the fact that he doesn't hate Jews or want to see them exterminated. Thats another thing that might have a bearing on the inclusion. - Francis Tyers · 08:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Francis Tyers, in your point of view does a person denying the holocaust not qualify as antisemitic? (→Netscott) 08:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There's an article about this convention now: International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust. (→Netscott) 09:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad is not anti-semitic, he is anti-Zionist. There is a huge difference between being against Israel and being against Jews. There are plenty of Orthodox and Hassidic Jews who hate Israel and Zionism. Infact, Ahmadinejad met alot of them in New York, they wished him luck. There is a huge confusion going on, with people attempting to slam anyone speaking out against Zionism, as "anti-semites". I don't think Ahmadinejad belongs in the anti-semite section simply because he speaks out against Zionism. He never said he wanted Israel wiped off the map either, theres no words in Farsi to say that. He said he wanted Israel 'removed from the pages of history', and not in terms of war which is proven in this section Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. Haramzadi 09:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Haramzadi, in your point of view does a person denying the holocaust not qualify as antisemitic? (→Netscott) 09:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Netscott -- Denying the holocaust can be anti-Semitic, and it may not be anti-Semitic. The two are linked, but not necessarily causative. For example, I can imagine someone who accepts the holocaust and is anti-Semitic, and someone who denies the holocaust and is not anti-Semitic. Going from the available evidence, I think that Ahmadinejad is not anti-Semitic, I have no opinion one way or another on the holocaust denial issue. - Francis Tyers · 10:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Francis Tyers, not even Neturei Karta is denying the holocaust... their contention is that the history of it is being abused in its use as a political tool. (→Netscott) 10:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean you've never heard some fascist anti-Semitic asshole say something like "The problem with the Nazi's is that they didn't finish the job?" — accepting the Holocaust, yet lamenting that more Jews didn't die? - Francis Tyers · 10:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually you're clouding the discussion. I'm specifically talking about the act of denying the Holocaust (I think even going so far as to question the veracity of it even occurring) as being antisemitic. (→Netscott) 10:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It isn't anti-Semitic any more than it is anti-Roma, anti-Communist, anti-Homosexual, anti-Serb, Polonophobic, anti-Socialist, etc. One might say that it is anti-Human, do we have a category for Anti-Human people? I'm sure he dislikes homosexuals much more than he dislikes Jews, after all, hasn't he ordered homosexuals to be killed? Not so for Jews. Do we have a Category for "anti-Homosexual people"? No. You cannot conflate with such certain ease, anti-Semitism & Holocaust denial. - Francis Tyers · 10:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting) That argument may be a little disingenuous, Francis, as most people denying the Holocaust do so in spec ific reference to the Jews. -- Avi 12:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Avi -- there are indeed anti-Semites, and there are indeed people who are really upset about Israel, and sometimes those circles do indeed overlap. But to say that holocaust denial, in and of itself, is inherently anti-Semitic (and not, for instance, anti-gay or anti-Roma), seems deeply problematic to me. Holocaust denial is certainly bullshit, of course, and it is doubtless a tool of anti-Semites. But an encyclopedia does not have the right, I think, to ascribe particular motives to intellectual lapses or even mass delusions.

For instance: It seems clear that the idiots in Iran are convening a debate club meant to undercut the political and moral reasoning behind the creation of the Israeli nation-state. It seems clear to me, too, that some of them hold a fierce prejudice against any and all Jews. Someone within that band of idiots who specifically expresses hatred for Jews as a people could (and should) certainly be described, individually, as anti-Semitic, if we've got a notable source confirming the statements. But to declare the entire band of idiots (or any other band of idiots gathered for a similar purpose) "Anti-Semitic" by definition seems to me unencyclopedic, because doing so would equate a political position (opposition to Zionism) with a religious prejudice against all Jews, even those Jews who oppose Zionism. I don't believe that's what's going on here. BYT 13:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadnejad's comments at the conference is summarized by Yahoo at [1] - including "Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out." I'd say the category is clearly deserved. Simesa 19:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

So people who wanted to see the Soviet Union fall hated Communists or Russians? - Francis Tyers · 19:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

We've been through this all before. There is consensus that MA is an anti-zionist. There is no consensus that he is anti-semitic, nor is there a consensus that anti-zionism automatically means anti-semitism. The last time we had the discussion, we did get consensus to include the page in the "antisemitism" category, and that is what the page is like now. I doubt that we will get consensus for "Anti-Semitic People" unless MA comes straight out and says "I hate the Jews". The other thing is that this will all be more clear once he's dead and we're able to review his life as a whole. At that point, I think it will be much easier to label him anti-semitic if all of his acts collectively warrant it. In the meantime, we have to follow WP:BOLP, which says that we can't label him an anti-semite unless there's clear-cut evidence, which naturally he's not going to provide, whether he is or not. So it seems like something we're just going to have to live with. Vir4030 19:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree, although the Anti-Semitism category is also inappropriate, it is less inappropriate than the Anti-Semitic people category — I suppose mistakes happen in achieving consensus :) I wholeheartedly agree that, providing he remains notable enough, the situation will become much easier once he is dead. - Francis Tyers · 01:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, the man is a virulent anti-Semite and Jew-hater who would give Hezbollah nukes to wipe every single inhabitant of Israel if he was able to. I've seen people calling G.W. Bush Hitler again and again, and those very same people ignore the horrifying threat that this man poses. Are we back in 1933 when the world didn't give a damn? I'd like to ask all of you what you would say when Ahmadinejad finally is able to make an attempt at pushing all the Jews into the ocean. Would that satisfy any lingering doubts as to whether this zealot is a Jew-hater or not? Let's not try to engage in whitewashing here. It's indefensible. metaspheres 10:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticizing the State of Israel is NOT Anti-Semitism

I think that this is the point of the discussion. In Western thought there is a separation between Religion and State. Yet, Israel itself calls anyone that criticizes their practices as anti-semitic. Now, whatever our POV towards Ahmadinejad is, his arguement is politically motivated towards a STATE, rather than racially towards the good Jewish community.

70.55.238.80 18:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

True, but unless I'm mistaken Holocaust denial is a recognized form of antisemitism. (→Netscott) 19:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wipe Israel off Map (Revisited)

Sorry for bringing this matter up again, but the following may be of interest. Curiously, the Bible has almost the very lines which the President of Iran used with reference to "Wiping Israel off the Map". It is Psalm 83. I am sure the President of Iran is not a believer of the Bible, nor probably has an interest in the Bible, but it is a curious coincidence that what the Iranian President is proposing had been written many thousands of years ago by Asaph, a prophet, probably under the great King David of Israel. Here is the full text: GlenninBerlin

Psalm 83 0: A Song. A Psalm of Asaph. 1: O God, do not keep silence; do not hold thy peace or be still, O God! 2: For lo, thy enemies are in tumult; those who hate thee have raised their heads. 3: They lay crafty plans against thy people; they consult together against thy protected ones. 4: They say, "Come, let us wipe them out as a nation; let the name of Israel be remembered no more!" 5: Yea, they conspire with one accord; against thee they make a covenant -- 6: the tents of Edom and the Ish'maelites, Moab and the Hagrites, 7: Gebal and Ammon and Am'alek, Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre; 8: Assyria also has joined them; they are the strong arm of the children of Lot. [Selah] 9: Do to them as thou didst to Mid'ian, as to Sis'era and Jabin at the river Kishon, 10: who were destroyed at En-dor, who became dung for the ground. 11: Make their nobles like Oreb and Zeeb, all their princes like Zebah and Zalmun'na, 12: who said, "Let us take possession for ourselves of the pastures of God." 13: O my God, make them like whirling dust, like chaff before the wind. 14: As fire consumes the forest, as the flame sets the mountains ablaze, 15: so do thou pursue them with thy tempest and terrify them with thy hurricane! 16: Fill their faces with shame, that they may seek thy name, O LORD. 17: Let them be put to shame and dismayed for ever; let them perish in disgrace. 18: Let them know that thou alone, whose name is the LORD, art the Most High over all the earth.

And how does this specifically relate to improving the article? I'd suggest perusing the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines if you haven't already. (→Netscott) 19:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg & Holocaust Denial Conference

You do not make an attempt to refute the notion that people who read about the conference can decide for themselves if "Holocaust Denial" describes it. While I praise your ability to find no more than 15 references that also describe it as a Holocaust Denial Conference, they are alike, and not necessarily neutral just because they are references. Have you considered that the people who set up the conferences did not describe it as a "Holocaust Denial" conference, and that some attendees are not Holocaust deniers? Some sources also mention this; I suspect that the description as a Holocaust Denial conference may simply be the opinion of those who authored the reports.

In any case, it does reflect a POV to state it as a Holocaust Denial conference in that way. If it is so obvious, people should be able to simply click and read the article about the conference, which I believe is convincing enough, and has an excellent quote-based approach. Again, I see where you are coming from, as the conference had an unbelievable amount of Holocaust Deniers at it. However, it doesn't seem right to have a POV-ish statement here, and it is not necessary anyway, since people can read about hte conference.

Perhaps, a more neutral statement can be be afforded, representing that while the creators of the conference purport it as being neutral, numerous sources have concluded that it was made to promote Holocaust Denial. Or a similar statement. While I am glad that you did better than "let's call a spade a spade", I don't feel you addressed the fundamental issue I had with the wording. Why are you so adamant about using that description here anyway? Let people decide based off of the conference page. The Behnam 19:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Not only is it a fact that it is a Holocaust Denial conference, but numerous reliable sources have described this as a Holocaust Denial conference; I can find many more sources than that, so the statement meets Wikipedia's verifiability and WP:NOR requirements. Not only that, but this is, in fact, the mainstream view of the conference, that it is a Holocaust Denial conference, so the description meets Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy as well. Thus this description meet Wikipedia's 3 main content policies. The fact that some attendees may not be Holocaust Deniers is neither here nor there; the conference itself is about Holocaust Denial, even if some of the attendees might not specifically deny the Holocaust. It certainly isn't being attended by any legitimate historians of the Holocaust, or indeed, of anything else. Readers, of course, can still click on the link and decide for themselves if it's really about Holocaust Denial, so they have lost nothing. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I already acknowledged that you have a lot of similar sources in support of your view. I don't know what you mean by "is neither here nor there"; if you are saying that news sources do not mention the presence of people who do not deny the Holocaust, you are gravely mistaken. Or at least just mistaken. You do not address why this description added, as you acknowledge that people can read the main article anyway. So what purpose does your "denial" description serve? Do they need to know that it is about "Holocaust Denial" before they click? Is this somehow necessary? You fail to give a good reason for this.

Also, while your numerous similar sources all press the same view (a Holocaust Denial conference versus a Holocaust conference), they do not establish that this description is more than just the opinion of those writing, or the opinion of select outsiders. I think that the main article discusses this well and focuses on quotes. The quotes say a lot, and as long as they are not misquotes, can be indisputably tied to their speakers.

While I acknowledge that by amassing a ton of similar stances in various news reports you can establish the "mainstream" by Wikipedia's rules(perhaps a flaw), I hope you realize how the authority of such references compares to direct quotes. Of course, these quotes go on the conference page. But your description just predisposes readers to its POV, however mainstream you may argue it to be, and hence may keep the viewpoint mainstream. There is no guarantee that they will click to go to the main article.

As you acknowledge that people can click to find out anyway, your description is not necessary. While I mostly agree with your description (I believe the conference had a few other purposes as well, not relating to the actual Holocaust), it seems unfair to place such a description here. I hope you will respond to my main points. Thanks! The Behnam 22:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The 2nd Section is about alleged involvement with Hostage Crisis

I don't see why this is here. Isn't the Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad article the correct location for these sort of assertions? The Behnam 19:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

KINGPIN

I noticed a very POV link in the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad box at the bottom of the page. There are several links, such as Missive to George Bush and Israel. The objectionable link is entitled Kingpin and links to Ali Khamenei. I believe this to be a blatant POV, casting Ali Khamenei as a crime boss and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a member of a criminal gang. This may be the opinion of some, but it is hardly encyclopedic. The Behnam 22:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the template from the page until somebody NPOV-izes the template itself. See Template: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if you are interested in helping. The Behnam 01:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

SOMEONE NUKED THE ARTICLE!!

So... any of u guys see the article lately?