Talk:Akbar Rafsanjanī

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Commment[edit]

Technically Rafsanjani is not an Ayatollah. His official clerical title is that of 'Hojjat al-Islam,' which is a lower rank than Ayatollah. I believe his family owns the Khoshgovar beverage company (which is licensed by Coca-Cola), among many other large factories and businesses. The article may wish to state that he is one of the wealthiest men in the world, and theoretically has more power than the so-called 'Supreme Leader' Khamanei. He is also probably one of the most hated men in Iran. A very sinister character.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.138.106.98 (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if you could refrain from adding personal opinions to a public encycolopedia. --prashidi 02:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Akbar or Ali Akbar? That's the question![edit]

His legal name in Akbar Hashemi Bahremani not Ali Akbar. I saw his birth certification in the Shargh Newspaper and I will publish that pic here soon. Please don't change his name. --Sina 12:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it is still important to mention that he was widely (and wrongly) called Ali-Akbar! For example see the title for the news of his death on NY times: [1]

In the page about the Iran Contra, there is a mention of a nephew of Rafsanjani called "Ali Hashemi Bahramani"... to me it seems that it is not his nephew, but he himself (and the long name has helped the confusion). MikeEcho (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I learned that there was in fact a 25 yo nephew named Ali Hashemi Bahramani that appearanly played a role in Iran-Contra affair.MikeEcho (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His legal name in Persian is Akbar, but he is often known by the nickname Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (Persian: علی‌اکبر هاشمی رفسنجانی, romanized: Ali-Akbar Hāshemi Rafsanjāni, pronounced [(ʔ)æˈliː ækʰˈbæɾ(e) hɒːʃeˈmiː(je) ɾæfsænd͡ʒɒːˈniː]).
According to the talk page on the Persian version of this article, he explained this in an interview, wherein he stated that despite most often being known by the nickname Ali Akbar, his legal name is simply Akbar. Unfortunately, I do not have access to this interview at this time. Samiollah1357 (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Ex-President of Iran, Dies at 82". nytimes.com. 2017-01-08. Retrieved 2017-01-26.

"Akbar" and Hojjat ol-Islam[edit]

IRNA gives today his name as Akbar and his title as Hojjat ol-Islam. I do not think we can get much more authorative here [1] I think any further changes need to be accompanied by evidence rather than being simply blind reverts. Further, someone deleted the whole paragraph about the 2000 elections. I doubt that the information is in any way under dispute.

Refdoc 16:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Political Stance[edit]

The article does not address exactly what the political positions of Rafsanjani are. It is stated that he is "consevative," but what does this mean in the context of Iranian politics? -- Prophet121 1 July 2005 15:42 (UTC)

Zionist lies and more lies[edit]

OK, so I am using the link that you yourself put in the article to "support" your Zionist lies. According to this site that you put in the article, (which is, by the way, too obviously a biased site) it says:

Hashemi Rafsanjani, head of an influential government council and president of Iran from 1989 to 1997, gave a speech on Dec. 14, 2001, that has been interpreted widely as both a signal that Iran wants nuclear weapons and a threat to use them against Israel. Describing the establishment of the Jewish state as the worst event in history.

But the follwoing which is not "interpreted widely" and rather is a direct quote from him appears just a few lines below the above "wide interpretation" and reads:

"because of religious and moral beliefs and commitments that the Koran has created for us, we cannot and will not pursue such weapons that destroy humanity."

You and HKT are obviously trying to "help" promote the zionist lies about Iran's nuclear programme. What you people do not realize is that this overall strategy has actually helped both the Islamic regime as well as Iran's national unity tremendously, more than you can even imagine. You may win a few cheap media battles like this in the short term, but with this strategy, you are only helping your perceived enemy with more unity. As an Iranian, I can tell to all you Zionists and your Shabbath Goy Bush: Thank you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.16.105.173 (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What has been "interpreted widely" is that Iran shares his sentiments. He is quoted directly as calling for nuking Israel. And your "just a few lines below trick" was actually a quote from three years later (!), when he recanted in the face of the coming election. (P.S. Please sign your posts. You can do this by entering ~~~~ after your post. Thanks). HKT 15:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just like Ahmadinejad called for nuking Israel? You really need to study News for yourself and not look on sites such as the one mentioned above and you have got to stop watching Fox News and/or Al-Jazeera.

About Ahmadinejad, he never called for Israel to get wiped off the map. No such idiom ("wiped off the map") exists in Persian (Farsi) . An Iranian official said: "How do you wipe a country off the map?" obviously backing up the fact that in Persian, there is no such idiom.

Also, what Ahmadinejad REALLY said was: "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem must [vanish from] the page of time".

I think that this is a case of some idiot pulling an Ahmad-lie on Rafsanjani. Armyrifle 19:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote about nukes[edit]

a couple of points.

  1. Rafsanjani's words, interpreted literally, do not seem to mean what HKT says they mean. The words quoted are "If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world." Now, this clearly isn't showing friendly thoughts to Israel, but it's also not saying "Iran should get nuclear weapons, and then nuke Israel." As far as I can gather, Rafsanjani is saying that if the Islamic world gets nuclear weapons, it should use the threat of nuking Israel as a way to get what it wants from the imperialists. Later on, he says, "Therefore, in the future, the interests of colonialism and imperialism dictate whether Israel will survive or not." I think this suggests that what he's really threatening is nuclear blackmail, not actually nuking Israel. It could be interpreted that he wants to nuke Israel, but that's not what he's precisely saying.
  2. More importantly, putting this one quote into the article, with no context on Rafsanjani's broader political views at all - this statement is literally the only one in the entire article about his actual views - is just completely POV. If the article were to be expanded to deal more broadly with Rafsanjani's political outlook, it would be completely fine to discuss this speech there (although not in a way that just repeats right wing news outlets' interpretation of his words). But as the article stands, it is completely unbalanced to just have one paragraph about one particularly inflammatory speech, without discussing at all the much more complicated issue of Rafsanjani's political position. john k 17:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, how balanced is it to mention this speech, but not Rafsanjani's remarks a few months earlier where he condemned the 9/11 attacks? Or the fact that he was seen as the middle of the road candidate in the recent Iranian elections, and ultimately was reluctantly supported by the reformists in the run-off? john k 17:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The quote has been interpreted that way in a number of sources, including articles in major newspapers. In addition, it seems to me that articles on Israeli politicians are regularly inundated with unflattering and out of context quotes of theirs (e.g. Ehud Barak), so this seems to be the standard. If it's added under the "Quotes" section will you be o.k. with it? Jayjg (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes for Ehud Barak are equally stupid, and I've just removed them. Their presence is no defense for similar stupidity here. In terms of interpretation - again, the fact that something has been interpreted a particular way does not mean that we have the right to state that that interpretation is fact. Out of context quotations should generally be avoided. Until this article has a decent discussion of Rafsanjani's political views as a whole, there shouldn't be any mention of particular quotes. john k 18:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world." I've actually seen this translated as "...whereas it will merely damage the Islamic world." It seems to me that the most obvious interpretation of his statements is that he was actually suggesting nuking Israel. However, another interpretation is possible, the relevant section should be readded with that interpretation included. This story's extensive coverage (as well as the quote's sabre-rattling nature by any interpretation) makes it extremely notable, but I have no problem with the inclusion of an alternative interpretation of his statements. P.S. Arafat also condemned the 9/11 attacks in English and praised them in Arabic. Condemning those attacks was politically critical for nearly everyone. HKT 18:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are taking it out of context. He says "then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because" the quote you make. He is saying that getting nuclear weapons will change the balance of power in the middle east because the west will have to take this fact into account. He is not specifically saying that a nuclear attack should definitely be made - just that the threat of such an attack will change the calculus in terms of western support for Israel. Obviously, he's not ruling out such an attack either, but I don't think he's specifically calling for it. john k 20:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't have a complete transcript of his speech. Could you provide me with a link to one? It would be quite edifying. (I don't at all mind finding that he didn't call for nuking Israel; on the contrary, I'd much rather have nobody wanting to nuke it!) Thank you. HKT 20:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's a transcription by the BBC available on Lexis-Nexis, but I assume you probably don't get Lexis-Nexis. I could email a copy of the article to you, if you'd like. Personally, I think it's fairly clear that the speech isn't saying "The Islamic world needs to get a nuclear bomb so it can immediately nuke Israel." It's fairly clear, I think, that Rafsanjani is thinking in terms of the political effects of the existence of a Muslim nuclear bomb on the west (presumably, Pakistan doesn't count as Muslim in this context). I think it's equally obvious that Rafsanjani is also saying that the State of Israel should be destroyed, but I don't think it's at all clear that he means that this should be done by a nuclear attack - rather, the emphasis seems to be that the Arab world needs to do whatever it can to get the west to abandon Israel, so that it will be able to be defeated and a Palestinian state established in its place (and, presumably, the Jews of Israel driven forth into exile in Europe and America). The threat of nuclear attack, Rafsanjani seems to be saying, given the inherent assymmatricality of the threat, might be enough to accomplish this. I don't know that he's ruling out an actual nuclear attack, but I don't see that he's particularly calling for it. john k 20:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your assessment seems likely in light of your transcription. I really would appreciate if you could e-mail it to me. Thank you very much. HKT 20:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've received no e-mail from you. Your BBC source can not be used or considered valid if it cannot be linked, and I have no way of further assessing Rafsanjani's quote without additional sources. I believe that someone else readded the info, and, without your source, I must support his edit. HKT 20:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - this page got lost on my watchlist, and I forgot to check it. I'll find the article again and email it to you. john k 05:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I got your e-mail. Thanks, HKT 02:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see how the Barak deletion stands; I suspect the quotes will be reverted back in soon enough. As well, that was the tip of the iceberg; similar things can be found either in the Anti-Arabism article or in Wikiquotes for David Ben-Gurion and Ariel Sharon among others (they used to be in the articles until they were moved to Wikiquotes). Jayjg (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care about WikiQuotes - the point of that is to include quotations. The Barak quotes would be perfectly appropriate in his wikiquotes article, as would be the Rafsanjani one, or whatever. The Anti-Arabism article is pretty bad, but that's a problem beyond just the quotes. At any rate, once again, if we had a full discussion of Rafsanjani's political views in that article, a balanced discussion of this speech would definitely be in order. But as it stands now, any discussion of that one incident, out of his entire political career, is going to unbalance the article by making it seem as though this is the most important part of it. As to the 9/11 quote, I think the way Rafsanjani discussed the issue was sufficiently anti-American (most of his discussion was warnings to Americans about retaliating too hard, and complaining about an American double standard) that it is hard to say that this was just some sort of mushy statement for American consumption. john k 20:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can I also note: A New York Times article from May 2005 about Rafsanjani is nowhere near as reliable a source as a New York Times article from November 2001 about the original speech. I don't see as a news article referring briefly to something that happened four years ago is a terribly authoritative source. john k 17:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2001 quote (again)[edit]

Okay, so as to prevent constant edit warring over this, I thought I'd present conditions under which I'd find mention of this quote acceptable.

1) It needs to be given some kind of contextualizing statement to start it off. It can't just be "during a sermon in 2001, Rafsanjani said." It needs to be more along the lines of "Rafsanjani has a history of making statements that..." or something along those lines. Otherwise it sticks out rather absurdly given the general lack of depth of the article

2) The gloss on his statements needs to be NPOV. It's fine to say that it was interpreted in the west as being a threat to use nuclear weapons against Israel if Iran got them. It's not fine to say that this is what Rafsanjani said, because that is not what he said. He was speaking hypothetically, and a little bit ambiguously. I think that he was really discussing how nuclear weapons would alter the balance of power in the Middle East, and how this would give the Islamic World leverage to help them destroy Israel, rather than actually saying that Tel Aviv should be immediately nuked. If an American politician during the Cold War had said something to the effect that the Soviets wouldn't dare launch an invasion of western Europe because they knew that the United States could utterly destroy them with nuclear weapons if they did so, would that count as a threat to nuke the Soviet Union? We need to be careful that we're saying. I think this is especially true because of the present-day implications of this statement. Of course, right now we are worried that Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons. A hysterical reading of Rafsanjani's statement is particularly significant in this context. We should be really cautious about interpreting a statement like this, and if we can't do it right, we shouldn't mention it at all. john k 15:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heraclius, you completely changed the meaning of that quote by inserting [having]. Words in square brackets can be used in quotes only where no meaning is changed. We're quoting the NYT, and that is exactly what the NYT says, and it counts as a reputable source for Wikipedia. Are you saying they got it wrong? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:34, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not a member. So I guess you'll have to find another source.Heraclius 17:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We're quoting the NYT and citing it. We don't need a link to it, but if you want to read the article, it takes seconds to register and it's free. Would you prefer to quote from some other source? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
The NYT article is not free - it is in their archives, and thus unavailable unless you pay for it. As to the quote, it seems to me that as it stands, it is unclear that we are quoting the Times - it might alternatively be a direct quote by Rafsanjani. As to the NYT, it seems unnecessary to quote it when a translated transcription of Rafsanjani's speech itself is available on Lexis-Nexis. I have quoted the relevant part of it on Jayjg's talk page. At any rate, SV, could you please read my comments above and tell me what you think? As I said above, I have no problem with saying that western media largely interpreted the speech as being a threat to nuke Israel, if indeed they did do that. I think looking at the speech itself, it doesn't seem at all obvious that this is what he was saying, and we should not rely on what the NYT says about a statement that is readily available to be read in full. john k 17:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, the NYT article doesn't have to be paid for. I'm not a paying subscriber and I was able to access it, and anyway there's no requirement to provide links: a citation is enough (though a link is better, of course). The reason I picked on the NYT is that it's a mainstream, reputable source and this quote is being disputed, so we have to stick to that type of source. But if you have an equally reputable one, by all means replace it.

Regarding your point about the speech and the context: I haven't read the whole speech, but I'll do it now. As for providing a political context, I agree it's important, but I'd say it should be attributed throughout to others - i.e. this is what the NYT said he said, this is what X said he said, and this is the context in which Y interpreted it - so that we're not presenting any interpretation as the correct one. You wrote above that we have to be careful what we say, and you're right, but then so does Rafsanjani, and so does the New York Times. Give me a few minutes to read the whole speech first and I'll post back. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:36, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

There's a BBC Monitoring Service translation here, which should be reliable. [2]
It says:

If one day ... Of course, that is very important. If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality. Of course, you can see that the Americans have kept their eyes peeled and they are carefully looking for even the slightest hint that technological advances are being made by an independent Islamic country. If an independent Islamic country is thinking about acquiring other kinds of weaponry, then they will do their utmost to prevent it from acquiring them. Well, that is something that almost the entire world is discussing right now.

We could use this instead of the NYT. It's hard to be sure what he means. I don't see this as a direct threat to attack Israel, but he's definitely not ruling it out either. My understanding of his reference to the Islamic world is: although the bomb would destroy Israel, it would only damage neighboring countries, and therefore there's nothing irrational (self-destructive) about considering it. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
John and Heraclius, look at it now and see what you think. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:40, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, your interpretation of it here seems to be similar to mine - not a direct threat to attack, but not ruling it out. I do think that it's significant that he's talking in terms of western calculations - that is, that if Muslims get the bomb, the west will have to change the way it deals with the middle east because of the asymmetricality he brings up. At any rate, I still don't like the way it's referred to in the article. We can't just plop the quote down - including some context is really important here. We should make some effort to a) paraphrase the quote in some manner; and b) explain why it's significant enough to be included in the article, how it fits in with Rafsanjani's larger role, or whatever. As to wikipedia's responsibility to be cautious, as opposed to that of the NYT and Rafsanjani's, well, sure, but none of us has any control over what the NYT and Rafsanjani say, while we do have control over what wikipedia says about it. john k 20:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The point he seems to be making about the West in the rest of the speech is that at some point he hopes the West will regard the cost of protecting Israel as too high, and that the cost will escalate, certainly in terms of tension, if Iran or any Arab country acquires nuclear weapons.
I've moved the quote to its own section, so that it's not stuck in the middle of two unrelated paragraphs. I agree that it would be good to provide context, though I'd caution against paraphrasing the quote. I'd suggest letting it speak for itself, and then perhaps trying to find some newspaper articles about the speech, and whether it was regarded as important, and if so, why. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Haha, you people have got to stop watching Larry King show. Here is the complete translation of what he said:”” You know what? I just changed my mind. Whatever you say. Democracy wins!

Stepped down willingly[edit]

The article says that R. is "the first president of Iran who has stepped down willingly".

I don't think that's very accurate. As far as I know, he couldn't run for a third consevutive turn and so was legally bound to step down. He only willingly obeyed the law.

Furthermore, I think his predecessor Khamenei also stepped down willingly - at least as willingly as R. Or was Khamenai obliged to accept his appointment to Supreme Leader?

Str1977 15:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Context[edit]

Can anyone put any more context into the intro to that quote? The section is titled "relations with the west." I don't see how we can pretend that this topic is discussed by putting in, practically without any context at all, a single quote from a single speech, with no explanation. john k 23:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John, feel free to change the header, or move it back if you prefer. My aim in moving it to its own section was simply that it didn't seem to fit well in the other sections, and I wasn't sure what to call it. Nuclear threat seemed too provocative. If I have time over the next week or so, I might be able to add a few sentences of context, but I can't promise. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Rafsanjani I presume[edit]

What is the source that Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has a PhD in Sociology from Berkeley? I checked the Sociology Department home page, where PhD Alumni are listed, and his name does not show. [3]

Neither does the UC Berkeley library catalog have a thesis written by him (since PhD thesis are supposed to be there) [4]

Also did he ever live in the US?

--132.77.4.129 11:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sections on policies needs to be expanded[edit]

This article clearly lacks coverage of Rafsanjani's economic policies, science policies and foreign policy. --Mitso Bel20:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

I would like you to see this and write it in the page cause my english is very pour:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/25/AR2006102501231.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.82.88.94 (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling for his arrest[edit]

I think there should be a mention of his wanted arrest by the Argentine government for the AMIA Bombing. Check [5] and [6]. Gadig 23:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

some day, it would be useful to start an article on Jewish-Argentine Mutual Association as it was the target according to this article [7]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.24.112.56 (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It already exists. Check Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina. Gadig 15:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It should be a mention of his wanted arrest bye de Argentine government.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.117.204.152 (talk) Revision as of 17:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

censorship of Argentine prosecutor's religion[edit]

First of all, how dare you give yourself the authority to decide what is and isn't relevant on Wikipedia. You are nothing more than someone with enough free time to spend hours a day censoring articles. You do not have the authority you gave yourself.

Second, in case you have been in a cave, there is currently a global dispute between Iranians and Jewish people. The prosecutor's religion could have very likely played a role in his discretionary decision. Even if it didn't play a role, there is no need to censor that information. I don't want to waste my time disputing this with you further. Please call a responsible Wikipedia moderator. --75.17.183.177 08:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More copy and paste games.
Further information: Talk:Hezbollah and Talk:AMIA Bombing
This may come as a surprise to people familiar with my work on Wikipedia, but I support the publishing of Alberto Nisman's religion. It is cited and I have no reason to challenge the reliability of the source or accuracy of the statement. On the other hand, to ensure NPOV, if we include information about one of the prosecuter's religion, we must include information about all of the prosecuters' religions. The entire statement from "The Jewish Week" that 75.17.183.177 refers to reads: "Nisman, who is Jewish, and [Marcelo Martinez] Burgos, who isn’t, oversee a staff of some 45 people ...."[17] If we do not include the religion of Burgos and the fact that 45 people work for them (and let's be honest, most of those people are probably Roman Catholic), we would be distoring the truth slightly implying that only a Jew would come to the conclusion that Hezbollah is responsible for the AMIA bombing, or, in the words of 75.17.183.177, that "a Jewish person in authority might use his discretionary power to target Muslims and Iranians."
P.S. Mr. 75.17.183.177, am I correct in assuming that you believe in a tangible link between Hezbollah and "Iranians?" :) --GHcool 08:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:AMIA_Bombing"
I'm only talking on the Hezbollah page on this topic, from now on. --75.17.183.177 09:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also suggested confining this discussion to Talk:Hezbollah. As I said, Wikipedia is not The Jewish Week to tell its readers at every stop who is Jewish and who is not. Beit Or 09:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made the following entry in Wikipedia's request for unprotection page [8].

There has been an endless edit war between pro-Israeli censors and other users regarding disclosure of the fact that an Argentine prosecutor, who filed charges against various Muslims for a 12 year old event, is Jewish. I think this is relevant information because it may indicate that the prosecutor's discretionary decision was motivated by his religion. As anyone knows, the world is currently embroiled in a war between Muslims and Jews. Knowing the religious affiliation of a person can be very important to understanding why he did what he did. Unfortunately, a group of pro-Israel censors (their affiliation is clear from their edit history) refuses to allows the publication of the fact that the prosecutor is Jewish, even though it is well cited [2]. First they claimed it was irrelevant. They gave themselves, and not the readers, the authority to decide what is and isn't relevant. Then they claimed that he wasn't the prosecutor and was only working as part of a team. A quick google search of Alberto Nisman [3] reveals that he is the lead prosecutor. He runs the team and he is the sole prosecutor listed in all of the mainstream articles. Then they claimed that Jewish week isn't a respectable news source. They had the nerve to attack the reporter's (Larry Luxner) journalism! Then one of the pro-Israeli censors accused me of racism and banned my IP, simply for daring to suggest that a Jewish person's religion might have something to do with the discretionary decisions he makes towards Muslims! Their actions have now reached the height of intellectual dishonesty. Rather than disclose the information and let readers decide if it's relevant, they want to hide it, and deny the readers the ability to think for themselves. Please correct the articles under "hezbollah", "AMIA bombing" and "Rafsanjani" to add four simple words disclosing the fact that the lead prosecutor is Jewish. Please keep wikipedia as an objective source of information, and not a tool controlled by a mob of pro-Israel censors.." Although pro-Israeli censors seemingly dominate wikipedia (I seriously wonder if some of them are paid), they do not dominate the world and Wikipedia will be less relevant if it only presents facts they like. Alternatively, please set up an Alberto Nisman article and provide a biography of his life and accomplishments, and like every other biography article, disclose his religion. Your prompt and fair attention to this matter is appreciated. Footnote - The pro-Israeli censors are listed below. Their affiliation is clear from their edit history and user pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Isarig http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Humus_sapiens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GHcool http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amoruso http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg --75.5.1.216 18:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn ... It looks like 75.5.1.216's request was declined, but let's get the order of events clear:
  1. 75.17.183.177 accused well-meaning Wikipedias of censorship.
  2. Those Wikipedians challenged the relevance of Nisman's religion to the article on Hezbollah.
  3. 75.17.183.177 argued that Nisman's religion may have swayed him to "target Muslims and Iranians" because "there is currently a global dispute between Iranians and Jewish people."
  4. I, GHcool, offered a fair, NPOV compromise to the problem: we should inform the public on Nisman's religion if and only if we include the religious affiliations of the other prosecuters as well.
  5. 75.17.183.177 argued that Nisman was the lead prosecuter and implied that therefore his religion is more important to the article than all of the other prosecuters' religions.
  6. SlimVirgin, a neutral Wikipedian, agreed with Beit Or other like minds that Nisman's religion is irrelevent to the article on Hezbollah. She suggested that 75.17.183.177 find a "reliable source who discusses it and argues that it's relevant (but even then we'd have to be careful)."
  7. 75.17.183.177 misunderstood (intentionally or unintentionally) SlimVirgin's suggestion to mean that his source that told Nisman's religion, "The Jewish Week," was an unreliable source.
  8. 75.17.183.177 filed a complaint with the folks at the Wikipedia unprotection page.
  9. That complaint was rejected. Long live NPOV.

--GHcool 19:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a statement in the arbitration complaint against your mob. I was not surprised that someone had previously filed a complaint against you. I also thank God that my existence is not so devious that I have to spend my days censoring information. Enjoy your misery as your efforts are largely futile. The real world thinks for themselves. --75.5.2.227 20:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny. I don't see any complaint against me on that page.
P.S. Why do you keep copying and pasting everywhere? Can't you just talk on the Hezbollah page like you said you would?--GHcool 20:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Well, my arbitration request was deleted. User Jayjg (his edit history is replete with pro-Israel wikipedia censorship) deemed the addition of Nisman's religion racist and banned me. Further, user Thatcher131 deemed that since I had been banned, I would not be given an arbitration request. So now it is impossible to even get a hearing on whether this information should be included. This whole affair is really beyond sad and is an indication that pro-Israeli censors are not interested in truth, but are rather interested in imposing their will. Having now dealt with you first hand, I am no longer confused as to why most of the civilized world holds a negative view of Israel and Israelis. May fate continue to justly bring misery to your oppressive lives, and may you waste your weeks futilely attempting to control people's thoughts. I can think of no better prison for you. --75.28.17.156 21:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pursued good foreign relations?[edit]

Considering many of the foreign relations problems that plagued his administration, this section seems strange. He went so far as to attempt to prevent the Azerbaijan from separating from the USSR, which severely strained relations between Iran and Azerbaijan, a legacy which remains today. metaspheres 08:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added citations to the statements made in the article regarding Rafsanjani's foreign relations. A quick search reveals that the two works I cited are also accessible through Google Books if anyone feels a need to check, although I don't know whether those particular pages are available for viewing. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute about Ayatollah[edit]

If I am not mistaken, his title as "Ayatollah" is disputed and recognized by only some marjas, and so is not in widespread acceptance. Can anyone help with sources for this? Khodavand 23:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pronounciation[edit]

can we get an ogg for this? see example at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad Towsonu2003 19:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another terrible article about Iranian figures[edit]

Why is there nothing about his life and career before 1989? Wikipedia articles on Iranian leaders are all horrible. john k (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of Wikipedia articles is to a significant extent related to the willingness of contributors to develop material through writing and research. If you feel that you have knowledge or research that would improve the article, you can assist by incorporating any contributions that you might have into this article. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hashemi Rafsanjani Resigned from Assembly of Experts and Expediency Council?[edit]

Dubai-based news agency Al-Arabiya reported on 13 June 2009 that Rafsanjani resigned from both his position as Chairman of the Assembly of Experts and head of the Expediency Council. The link can be found here: http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/06/13/75853.html I am looking for independent confirmations of this report, but I haven't been able to find any from independent media, Iran PressTV, or Iran IRIB. It probably doesn't help that I can't read Farsi, so I'm looking for help in confirming this report. Obviously I would not make an edit to the article until Al-Arabiya's assertion can be confirmed by at least one other reputable source (in this case, I would certainly say Iran's state news agencies qualify as "reputable") BostonFenian (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is extremely weak.[edit]

It includes a melange of charges and random statements, some of which may be true, but has next to no facts about his background and career. Nothing about his clerical education and practice, or what he did before and during the Islamic Revolution, or his relationship with Khomeini, or how he became a leader of the Revolution (i.e. Chairman of the Majlis), or how he was elected President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrostrom (talk • contribs) 23:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per a previous comment: the quality of Wikipedia articles is to a significant extent related to the willingness of contributors to develop material through writing and research. If you feel that you have knowledge or research that would improve the article, you can assist by incorporating any contributions that you might have into this article. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed?[edit]

I was amused when fact checking to find this article cites the Encyclopedia Britanica site Biography.com (citation #28). However, that link is broken, and the current article url is http://www.biography.com/articles/Hashemi-Rafsanjani-37239. And, further, the article there does not support the statements in sentence. - Amgine (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richest person in Iran[edit]

I think that this claim in the intro section is a violation of BLP. What do you think? (Personaly I think that this is a false claim.)Farhikht (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Position on Assad Regime using Poison Gas[edit]

Media reports (circa 4th Sept. 2013) claim that Rafsanjani affirms that the Assad Government was using poison gas on its own people - though it is unclear whether he is referring to the sarin gas attack in Damascus during late August which killed about 500 people. This is a request for those in the know to address this issue as evidence comes out about his actual position, since such a reported position contradicts the official Iranian Government position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.145.8 (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Economy failure[edit]

During his presidency economy was failing. Why? 2.191.165.207 (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hashemite?[edit]

Is his descent Hashemite or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.144.246.65 (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Akbar_Rafsanjanī&oldid=1194447765"