Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anonymous editor (talk | contribs) at 06:47, 28 June 2005 (→Disputed election procedures quote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

How Long?

Until we invade Iran? I'm no conspiracy theorist, but after 9-11 I did get the wacky idea that W might invade Iraq around election time? I'm crazy, I know, I mean Ira... oh yeah so as I was saying, anyone want to take bets...?

1) how long until we start calling him the new sadam?

2) how long until we ask the UN to send inspectors?

3) how long until we tell the inspectors to get out? ignore the UN?

4) finally, how long until we announce a formal invasion?

5) oh one more, how long until will this one last? '06 election? or '08? or longer?

--Myself 20:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dr.Saami?

• Would someone please start something about his role in assasination of Dr. Saami?--Sina 20:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we should refrain from adding further allegations unless there is a somewhat accurate connection that can be established. Sources should be used for this matter. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 20:31, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

His role? I've heard a few accusing Rafsanjani of the same assasination. I think it's a more he did she did fingerpointing now, than anything with conclusive evidence. ~User_talk:m87

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#Definition, 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

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 Misplaced Pages: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

Zpelling

Maybe Ahmadinejad would be better. -SV|t 07:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with SV. Please note that all the major news agencies and news websites use the form "Ahmadinejad." Just check the Google results: Ahmadinejad (202,000), Ahmadinezhad (584) -DamonM 25 Jun 2005

Ahmadinejad is right... the "J" does not take a zh sound. It's J.. like jar, joke ~User_talk:m87

Moved. --Wikimol 16:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now if only someone would take the task of making sure his name is Ahmadinejad everywhere on Misplaced Pages... Dralwik 17:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the name in most important links (cca 30). The image is locked, userpages IMO doesn't matter. The rest should be checked using fulltext - you're welcome to help with that :-) --Wikimol 18:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Critiques of Ahmadinejad

Hey there- I reworded parts of the critiques paragraph of this article, but I'm not sure exactly what the writer of this paragraph intended to explain. I was going to contact them, but the history of this article is too long to find the member who wrote it! If anyone else could look into fixing/adding that paragraph to make it more readable, that would be great! Thanks! — Aurora (Say hi!)] 18:11, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Critiques paragraph??? Do you mean criticism. If you do I will check it out. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 18:12, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquote

What happend to his article at Wikiquoke?

Disputed election procedures quote

(The below is copied from a user talk discussion. --HKT 28 June 2005 06:45 (UTC))

About the Ahmadinejad article, the reason that 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 me 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)

Hi, thanks for the message. 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 Misplaced Pages? (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 Misplaced Pages. 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 inappropriate 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 inappropriate 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 unacceptable to the article. Thanks. --Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 06:45 (UTC)