Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 1

; Archives
	Archive 1 (May—July); Archive 2 (July—September); Archive 3 (September—November); Archive 4 (November—present);

This is an archive of past discussions for the mediation of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This mediation has been closed — if you wish to start a new discussion, please do so on the article talk page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. As this mediation has been closed, subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Greetings and choices

Greetings!

I would like to thank you all for agreeing to Mediation. Taking that first step by agreeing to work together to solve a dispute is a major step in the process, as it shows a commitment to finding a solution desirable by all. As a first measure, I would like us to decide a venue for mediation. After I list each method, I'll give a few benefits and issues with using each one.

Public Mediation via this talk page

Benefits of this would be a central place where we can all keep a close eye on, and are familiar with.
Issues with this are that it allows scrutiny by uninvolved parties, who sometimes try to interject their opinions.

Private Mediation via the MedComWiki

Benefit of this is that the mediation would be private and confidential, on the Mediation Committee's private wiki hosted offsite.
Issue with this is requiring users to register with our offsite service, and having to remember to check that site, in addition to Wikipedia.

Mediation via IRC

Benefit of this is that we can quickly discuss issues, rather than waiting for replies from people.
Scheduling times is difficult, and sometimes the instant nature causes people to speak more harshly.

I'm perfectly willing to go with any of the methods, provided this group has consensus on what to do. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation medium preference

I would prefer public mediation via this talk page. IRC is not accessible by everyone, and I do not think that there are personal issues that require privacy in this case. -- Avi 15:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose IRC, the other two options are completely OK with me, but somehow I prefer Private mediation. --Pejman47 18:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Ok with all modes. Lixy 17:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
storngly prefer public mediation. This would be the most accessable for me.--Sefringle 08:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Public please - I don't see any reason to use the others in this case. The Behnam 20:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly prefer public mediation via this talk page. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we move on?

This seems to be taking a while to start. Should we simply move on to the next issue?--Sefringle^Talk 05:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing

I apologize for the delay in getting started. The next thing I would like for you all to do is, in about 100-200 words, explain how you feel about the overall issue, what you'd like to see us accomplish, and perhaps a suggestion for a compromise that you think would satisfy all parties. Thanks. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerash77

Whereas Ahmadinejad has responded to the "wipe israel off the map" issue many times,
Whereas He rejected annihilation of israel by force, as the phrase implies[1], and has fully clarified the issue every time,
Whereas it is obvious that per WP:NPOV the response from President Ahmadinejad must be included in its entirety, against this defamation attempt by jayjg, right where the allegations occurs, ie: the lead.
To resolve this NPOV problem, the following must be added to the lead:

In response to "wipe Israel off the map" issue, he has replied by stating: "Our position toward the Palestinian question is clear: we say that a nation has been displaced from its own land. Palestinian people are killed in their own lands, by those who are not original inhabitants, and they have come from far areas of the world and have occupied those homes. Our suggestion is that the 5 million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government. This is a democratic and popular way." [2]

it must be noted that jayjg claim that "Ahmadinejad's response is "WP:UNDUE", since this contradicts the view of the media", is a pitiful attempt at censorship and a diversion attempt, not worthy of any kind of time wasting.

--Gerash 77 06:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avraham

"Wiped off of the map" is the most common translation (see article for around 20-some odd examples, including by the professional Farsi translators of the New York Times).
MA himself was confronted on this translation, most notably in the 60 minutes interview, where he did not deny, rebut, or in any way address the veracity of the translation.
Discussion of the translation belongs in the article ABOUT the phrase and its translation; this article is about MA himself, and as such, requires the most notable things about the man. The statement is undoubtedly one of the items that thrust this man into the spotlight, but the defence, apologies, and other discussions about the phrase belong in the phrase article. The most common, most accepted, most supported, least-reliant on original research, version of the statement is the one that belongs in the lead; sans any apologies and rationalizations. -- Avi 18:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sefringle

Almost all the sources say Ahmadinejad wanted Israel "wiped off the map." That is the most common translation, and that is what is most commonly heard on the news as Ahmadinejad's views.
His quote to time magazine is just politics. It isn't his true belief; he is dealing with an American audience, and like most politicians, tries to make their image look better through lies. This quote should not be reflected in the article as if it is his true belief. It should be mentioned as a claim, and not emphasized too greatly; doing so is saying the other POV’s are invalid.
The news sources which say Ahmadinejad either wants Israel "wiped off the map" or that he is an antisemite are reliable sources. They should be emphasized more than the sources which say the contrary because this is the most common view, and this is what the majority of the secondary sources say. Most of the other views are primary sources at best, and are not necessarily a good reflection of Ahmadinejad’s views.--Sefringle^Talk 01:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tewfik

Two points have been challenged, whether the translation is correct, and whether it belongs. All of the mainstream translations concur on the version we've used. Additionally, the statement was notably made by him, and including a "response" by some other government official saying something that Ahmadinejad hasn't is just an argument, and does not belong in that section. Tewfik^Talk 20:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lixy

The most pressing concern is the slander-ish lead that misleads the reader into believing there has been tacit condoning of the "wipe Israel off the map" mistranslation. For the sake of NPOV, the Iranian government's reply to the accusations should be included. I also think the wording of the Holocaust being a "myth" is misleading as well. Special care should be taken to present that Mahmoud's questioning the allegedly bloated figures, not refuting the existence of the "final solution". A few users go as far as claim knowledge of what's going on inside Mahmoud's head to justify the POV lead. I believe the Wiki should hold higher standards, and not simply echo the sensationalist presentation of the "wipe off the map" speech. The purpose here is to compile a neutral source of knowledge, not sell papers by catchy slogans or scandalous cover pages. Lixy 20:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hornplease

I had two concerns about the lead.

The first was the reference to accusations of antisemitism. This is more pressing as far as I am concerned; I feel that a accusation which, while serious, is insufficiently central, has been given play in the lead. I consider it a violation of OR and UNDUE that accusations of antisemitism are not cited as other than marginal to his notability; they are not, thus, essential to 'briefly describe' the actual controversy around his widely-reported comments, which centred on the geopolitical threat to Israel and the stability of the Mideast.
The second was about the comments themselves. If a clarification has been made, and a New York Times article has indicated that the phrase was probably incorrect, then the phrase need not be used; if it is used, it should be hedged about with several modifiers. This is not done. We are not in the business of blind repetition; we are in the business of verifiable accuracy.
A desirable outcome is one in which,first, civility is restored and, second, a respect is shown for scholarly work and a worldwide perspective. I understand these are all wikipedia guidelines. Hornplease 21:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg

Regardless of whether or not what Ahmadinejad said should be translated exactly as "wiped off the map" (and his defenders have tried to make much of what are essentially minor differences in translation), the fact is that Ahmadinejad is infamous for saying that Israel should be "wiped off the map". That is what he is known for saying, regardless of whether or not he actually said exactly that or something slightly different. It's still news; here's a Reuters newsfeed from yesterday that repeats it: [3] Moreover, this is not some Western conspiracy, as Gerash77 in particular has been stating or claiming; for example, here's an article where the government run, official Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting news agency uses that exact phrase. In order to conform with NPOV, the actual phrase "wiped off the map" in the lead is linked to an article which discusses the various translation "issues"; but keep in mind, this "controversy" is not news; very few reliable sources have reported about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Behnam

While I do not support having the article 'take a side' on the translation issue, I believe that it is important to represent both sides. As such the incident itself (including the high frequency of the questionable translation) should be reported as well as various government responses and commentary by non-government parties. This includes not only Ahmadinejad's response but also that of the Iranian government. It should be clear to the reader that the translation itself has been disputed.

However, I don't support adding information about 'donations to Jewish hospitals' to the lead or to the antisemitism section unless RS have specifically cited that donation as a counterpoint to the case to describe Ahmadinejad as antisemitic. To do so seems OR-ish. The Behnam 23:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aminz

I think the article should present both the views of Ahmadinejad being anti-Semite and his own disapproval of the charge. I do think that Ahmadi nejad's denial should be condemned but I disagree that the denial automatically makes him an anti-Semite. Ahmadi nejad's motif for the denial of holocaust is completely political. It becomes incomprehensible outside the context of Arab-Israel conflict. The background against which Ahmadi nejad is coming is different from those of anti-Semitic Europeans who deny holocaust. Gawdat Bahgat, Director of Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, comments that: "The fiery calls to destroy Israel are meant to mobilize domestic and regional constituencies." Gawdat Bahgat makes it quite clear that Iran has no plan to attack Israel whatsoever. In fact, he says that according to most analysts, a military conflict between Iran and Israel is improbable. --Aminz 04:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To complete my comment: To say whether someone is anti-semite or not depends on the definition one is using; it is independent of the fact that Ahmadinejad said that thing. It seems like confusing the name of two crimes with each other. --Aminz 23:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BozMo

I find the issue of inclusion extremely finely balanced, and I am struggling to get off the fence. This position should therefore be taken as considered but weak. Clearly, NPOV does not mean we include non-notable replies with equal prominence to any accusation (e.g. a convicted serial killer protestations of innocence would not make the lead section on him, but might make the article). On the other hand this guy is the principal in an important sovereign government and therefore his own position/retraction etc does carry serious notability regardless of the inches of coverage in the US press. I am sure there are plenty of serious Iranian national newspapers (versus NYT which is a local rag, tho perhaps a reliable one) giving thousands more inches of comment on him that the western ones do (which isn't necessarily relevant to check facts but it is to the question of what is notable about him), and I am left wondering how the story ran in other major language groups. It does read a bit like the intro on a TV chat show, as though it is all about condensing US press coverage. For this reason I think we should include the form of denial/retraction and leave people to draw their own conclusions. As with Cherie Blair's "That's a lie" remark I think readers can draw their own conclusions about denials and official restatements and whether this comment has been withdrawn or denied in some way is an important issue: it would be a different situation if he kept repeating it in public. On the accusations of anti-semitism etc. My view here is similar: I think that we shouldn't be drawn as an encyclopaedia into giving inches on Wikipedia per inch of US press coverage when you are dealing with someone of this stature and inherent notability. --BozMo talk 06:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this means I support the proposal of Gerash77 on wording (even though I think his logic is wrong: undue would win over npov as an argument, but notability when talking about the national leader (ish) of an important state isn't about US news inches: his reply is inherently notable because of his position (which is arguable in lots of different ways). --BozMo talk 12:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sina Kardar

My concerns about the first paragraph are as follows:

1. This guy is the President of Iran before anything else. His performance as presidnet of Iran and from Iranian viewpoint is more important than anyhing else. See for example George Bush page. Obviously George Bush have been criticized by many people all over the world. However only national criticism was mentioned in the leading paragraph. Also none of Bush's comments as calling other states as Rouge or Axis of evil was mentioned in the leading paragraph.
2. His statements about Israel was at most a rhetoric with NO practical effect. So they are not notable enough to be in the leading paragraph. For instance his policy for Gas rationing has affected everyday life of 70 milion Iranians. Obviously Gas rationing is more important that those rhetorics.
3. An issue like anti-semitism is irrelevant as he has simply rejected that. Does he take any initiative against the jews in Iran? The answer is no. So some thing that does not exist, is not notable! Even for Adolf Hitler who was a head of state and killed 6 milion Jews, the word "antisemitism" is not used at the leading paragraph.
4. The leading paragraph as it is now, does not have a single sentence on his domestic policies!! I am afraid but he is Iran's president before anything else. Ahmadinejad's initiatives to decrease interest rates (banking system), resolving the Managment and Planing Organization of Iran must be mentioned in the leading paragraph. These issues are REAL issues. Rhetoric s are not much notable as long as they are not realized.
5. The leading paragraph has to cover Ahmadinejad's main domestic initiatives and possibly some national criticism. International criticism must be deleted from the leading paragraph as per George W. Bush, Tony Blair and Ehud Olmert pages etc.
6. In foreign policy, the most important event in his time was direct negotiation of Iran and US after 3 decades of no diplomatic contact. Another important event was a resolution that has pased in Security Council against Iran.

My proposal for the lead is as follows:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (born October 28, 1956) is the 6th and current president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. He became president on 6 August 2005 after winning the 2005 presidential election. Ahmadinejad's current term will end in August, 2009, but he will be eligible to run for one more term in office in 2009 presidential elections. Before becoming president, he was the Mayor of Tehran. He is the highest directly elected official in the country, but, according to article 113 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Iran, he has less total power than the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is the commander in chief of the armed forces of Iran and has the final word in all aspects of foreign and domestic policies.

Ahmadinejad is an outspoken critic of the Bush Administration, Zionism and Israel and supports strengthened relations between Iran and Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and Persian Gulf states. During his presidency, Iran and US had the most high-profile contact in almost 30 years. Iran and US froze diplomatic relations in 1980 and had no direct diplomatic contact until May 2007.

He has refused to stop the nuclear program of Iran, regardless of the demands of the UN Security Council, declaring that the Iranian nuclear enrichment program is legal and for peaceful purposes only. Ahmadienjad’s government launched a Gas rationing plan to reduce country's fuel consumption, resolved 60-years-old Management and Planning Organisation of Iran and decreased the interest rate for private and public banking facilities.

Sina Kardar 16:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.