Talk:16th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

International relations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Iran Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

There is a table of the leaders who may participate in the event. However some of them like the President of Indonesia have declared they can not come or say nothing. So I think we should add another column to clarify who will come certainly and who send another envoy.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actual participant numbers do not tally 50 on the page... NAM members and observers only number 41. Also North Korea was listed twice as a member and guest. The lead statement of participants among NAM is incorrect or the list is unfinished. You cannot count guests and multinational organs as NAM states. Doyna Yar (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone do an actual attendance map for contrast with the NAM member map? Doyna Yar (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problem doing that, if someone can get a reliable reference with a list. Googling it didn't work for me. --

1234 04:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the quick reply. Since it's a bit blurry, how about just go with the list on the page for a start and we could call it a 'work in progress' or confirmed attendance map and kinda flow with it. The way I see it, it's a NAM relevancy comparison as well as the diplomatic undertow to the perception of the Iranian nuclear program. Doyna Yar (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to check - keep the list as it is, and simply change NAM attendees that we know for sure? Sounds good, I'd still need refs though, if I get a few minutes I'll do some research on it. --

1234 04:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Sounds like a start to me. I've got no problems editing jpg maps at home but have no idea where to start here on wiki. Doyna Yar (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just as I think about it, how does attendance to this summit compare historically to other NAM events, i.e. is there a diplomatically suppressed turnout or is this the norm? Just throwing that one out there. Doyna Yar (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the perspective of the person answering. Iran boasted at the conference that the attendance shows they're not isolated, while many Western regimes note that many countries have sent low-level representatives instead of the normal ones. But Wikipedia is not a soapbox or forum though, so I don't think a lengthy discussion should be needed here about that. --

1234 04:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Honestly I have no idea what that answer would be. It's just a personal curiosity rather than an agenda. The numbers are what they are and any conclusion should be derived by the reader and history. Doyna Yar (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The table is largely unsourced/incomplete at the moment, it would then be OR to put a map of unsourced gurestsLihaas (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree with the map part, at first I thought it was just referring to changing the table to the actual delegates, which I support if such a ref can be found. I don't even know what such a map would look like. --

1234 05:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Well so much for that. It a shame after a day into it there's no source of attendance. Is anyone really gonna update it a month from now. I guess I'm out for now and I'll leave it to you who are closer to the topic. Doyna Yar (talk) 05:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative would be to search the foreign ministry's website of every country that is attending and see if they mention it... Although that would be very very time consuming. --

1234 06:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Do we need the countries whose delegation is lower than foreign minister in the table?--Seyyed(t-c) 05:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, is Saudi Arabia a member of this organization? I don't think so. SA representative is now among member states. It should be corrected and put among invited countries like Russia. The article is very good, thanks for contributions. Cheers, Egeymi (talk) 06:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to do it, but is there a reference with a full list of NAM members or a reference that says Saudi Arabia isn't part of NAM? --

1234 06:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

See here, I believe they are. --

1234 06:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, Activism. It is the first info that I have learned today. Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Please add a section for the Security of the summit like G-20 summits. I will be help you. Thanks! Tabarez (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any references that would be of use? I'd be more than happy to add info if you can give me some refs. --

1234 16:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

There are many refrences in the Persian sites like Ahmadi Moghadam and Radan's statesmans and so police's rule. I will be search too. Tabarez (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is some information under "Organisation" section. --Seyyed(t-c) 03:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One can add more with refs OLDly but it seems

Resolved

Lihaas (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] i spent hours during the day reformatting such an oddity in last 24 hours. now again? --96.232.126.27 (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

to use WP:ReflinksLihaas (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"In the first day of the summit 110 foreign delegations arrived Tehran. According to Ramin Mehmanparast, spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iran,of the Non-Aligned Movement's 120 member and 17 observer states, 50 states will participate with high level delegation. Delegation leaders include 27 presidents, two kings and emirs, seven prime ministers, nine vice presidents, two parliamentary speakers and five special envoys."

Refrences:[2] [3]

Please write your viewpoints or objections here?Seyyed(t-c) 05:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. "of the Non-Aligned Movement's 120 member and 17 observer states, 50 states will participate", your quoting a demonstrable observation I added last evening... he did not say that specifically. To simply say 50 states will attend under the NAM banner means nothing unless you have a grasp of it's membership. It was my, as of then, factual comparison. Someone else then moved the 'According..." fragment ahead of what I wrote thus including it. My simple interest is that the attendant numbers reflect a fair (and un-inflated) breakdown of attendance. As I posted before- The numbers are what they are and any conclusion should be derived by the reader and history. Doyna Yar (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand according the two sources there are about 110 delegations (of about 140 invitees) which about 50 one of them are high level including presidents, vice presidents, kings, especial envoys and foreign ministers. Do you agree with this conclusion?--Seyyed(t-c) 06:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before I don't dispute that and as the event goes on and more information is available I concede there are quite a few more NAM attendees than it first looked which is a fairly positive sign for the organization. To me things read different at the time, like a deficit of scope/commitment of NAM. I guess I jumped the gun as it were; after the event was occurring and there was nothing numerically solid, I'll remember that. Doyna Yar (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per this, the controversy IS the reaction of non-members because the prerogative (As in any summits) is for the members/host to make invitations and thus there is no controversy, but that from outsideLihaas (talk) 05:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean we should change the "Controversy" or the sub-title? --Seyyed(t-c) 05:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy is centered around the attendance of a UN official, causing certain reactions. If we'd list the organizations that were protesting the attendance too, the title would take up multiple lines... --

1234 06:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I meant the subsection. The attendance of the UN is not controversial , its standard procedure as in being invited ot any event (its not controversial to have, say, the Iranian prez in the us for the UNGA). The aspect that makes it controversial is their adverse reaction to it. Unless there is a controversy from someone who is a part of NAME, then that could be controversy...the usa/israel are not even present. their ords are mere reactions that have zer bearing. If it was the UN or something and they were scheduled but bocotted then that would mean something.Lihaas (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Details available hereLihaas (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it does not cover the issues which have been discussed.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its the official agenda...Lihaas (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "In late August, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad invited Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh to the summit, despite Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas' attendance being contingent on Abbas serving as the sole representative of the Palestinians at the summit."(The Jerusalem Post. 25 August)

• "Mehmanparast also announced that Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad and acting Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas plan to attend the summit. " (Tehran Times. 25 August)

At present, the story has written in a way as if, Iran has invited Hamas and then rejected. However, if you pay attention to the new there may be another hypothesis. Israel might make the story to ignite conflict between Palestinians. In the same time there may two invitations has sent by Iran, one to Abbas as the representative of Palestinian territories and the other to Haniyah as especial guest. However, we should clarify the issue.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit made it more vauge, so i everted that. But we can discuss some changes. Perhaps dontmentions Amahmud and replace that with Menhmanparast.? Second part of the sentence is fine, i thinkLihaas (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand Iran has invited Abbas as the official representative of the Palestine and Haniyeh as especial guest. Recently, I found this news which has been published two days ago and says Haniyeh appropriated Ahmadinejad and declared he would not attend at the summit to lessen the conflicts and divides between Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haniyeh's reaction should be added thenLihaas (talk) 10:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added it.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see the point in a gallery here. All the names are wikilinked and their pictures are viewable there. Were just clogging this up.Lihaas (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Only gallery I'd support is one of the actual summit, which I doubt we'd be able to get a lot of noncopyrighted images. --

1234 02:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

 Done removaedLihaas (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of such issues about NAM role in the resources. Should we add them to this article and where should be add them?

Al Jazeera reported that NAM's decreasing relevance since the end of the

Probably "overview" --

1234 02:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Definately should be added. Either as per ACTIVISM or a new section dealing with reactions and subsection for mediaLihaas (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where should we put this part:

In addition, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon criticized Iran, pointing out "serious concerns on the human rights bauses adn violation" in Iran, and urged Iran to cooperate with the United Nations to improve human rights in Iran. Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani, who sat next to Ki-moon, frowned at the remarks.^[1][2]

I think you made a mistake about Ban Ki Mon's expressions. Yesterday was the ministerial meeting and Ban did not participate in it. What has been reported relates to the side event. Today, he may speak in the summit.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reference doesn't give indication about that. The passage that I put in doesn't mention a ministerial meeting either. It's just statement that the Secretary General made at the actual summit itself. --

1234 02:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, the reference is not clear about that. The main Summit where he will speak there, has not start yet.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When Ban Ki-Moon made his comments, the summit had already begun. It wasn't at a side event, like a private meeting, which I appropriately placed in side event. --

1234 02:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

He spoke during a press conference with Larijani, because the leader's summit has not started yet. He will speak there today.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK so it was at the summit, regardless of whether he got a chance to speak yet... --

1234 02:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Apparently, we have not the same meaning when we say "At the summit". I think just his speech at the summit can be named "at the summit". May be we can move it to the talk page. Then another editors judge about it.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Persian ref, I'm fine with keeping it on side events now. --

-) I am happy that you know Persian well.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate. --

1234 03:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Althought not totally convinced by the reliability of the ref, I'd add... I'd rather that others comment on it. --

1234 06:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The summit is today and tomorrow, the events of the previous four days were the customaty build ups to summits that occur in other places too (BRICS for example)/. That is sourced on hthe pageLihaas (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia NPOV policy the article should cover the different viewpoint about each issue and should be balanced while report something. herefor if we report Ban's view and removes Khamenei's one clearly against wikipedia policy. We are not here to judge about the claims and remove those we think they are wrong.

At two separate meetings with Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, spokesman Martin Nesirky said that United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon called for a stop to their threats against Israel, and said that "their verbal attacks on Israel were offensive, inflammatory, and unacceptable." Ban also said that Iran needed to take "concrete steps to address the concerns of the International Atomic Energy Agency and prove to the world its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes." He further urged Iran to use its influence to help end the Syrian Civil War.[5] Human rights was also discussed.

If you honestly think that it's NPOV to write that America supplies Israel with nuclear weapons, then this section is ridiculous. --

1234 06:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, you're using an Iranian unreliable reference that believes that America gave Israel nuclear weapons as the reference - it's clearly not reliable, and shouldn't be in. Ban Ki-Moon's criticism is reliably referenced, we don't need to include conspiracy theories that are

1234 06:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

First, It is not important what I think. We can say Khamenei claims it. Second, there are the other sources like this [7] and this is another a report of the meeting. I you can not claim the source is unreliable easily just because they are Iranian. --Seyyed(t-c) 07:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khamenei has stressed on this issue in his inauguration speech:

" The U.S. and its Western allies have armed the usurper Zionist regime with nuclear weapons and created a major threat for this sensitive region." He even added some points to what had been told to Ban" The Zionist regime, which has carried out assassinations and caused conflicts and crimes for decades by waging disastrous wars, killing people, occupying Arab territories and organizing state terror in the region and in the world, labels the Palestinian people as “terrorists”..." [Supreme Leader’s Inaugural Speech at the 16th Non-Aligned Summit http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1668] (source Khamenei's official website) What should we do now?--Seyyed(t-c) 07:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the issue? If its that the usa supplied nuclear weapons , then no RS would assert that. If its the opinion of a notable person then thats different and should be written with due caveat. Although I would bear in mind tha this could be synthesis in the same way as the iranian nuclear programme stuff was removed as irrelevant to the summit page. If Khameni made those allegeations at this summit, then i think we can add that as said by him. Let the reader decide the worthyiness of the statement.Lihaas (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the fact that both of them repeated the issues in the summit opening, I agree to add them with quotations. --Seyyed(t-c) 12:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summit's speeches

OK. I think we can add the both sides allegations against each other: First, This is most compete version of Khamenei's inaugural speech[8] other than his own website[ http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1668] and Tehran Times[9]. The other sources cover some part of it such as Haaretz[ http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/in-iran-meet-un-chief-denounces-threats-to-destroy-israel-holocaust-denial-1.461714?localLinksEnabled=false], daily star [10], the Jacarta Globe [11], the voice of Russia [12], etc : I summarize it as below:

• Inaugurating the 16th summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), Iran's
  Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, emphasizing on the Iran's motto “Nuclear energy for all and nuclear weapons for none” told "The Islamic Republic of Iran condemns use of nuclear and chemical weapons and the like as an unforgivable sin, and we have raised the slogan of a "Middle East Free from Nuclear Weapons" and we are committed to it," and blamed western nuclear power " for seeking to monopolies" nuclear fuel. He described the UN Security Council as "an irrational, unjust and utterly undemocratic structure, and this is an overt dictatorship," and attacking on the US for misusing the UN told The US and its allies protect the interests of the West in the name of "human rights"; they interfere militarily in other countries in the name of "democracy"; they target defenseless people in villages and cities with their bombs and weapons in the name of "combating terrorism". and condemned them for what he described as equipping "the usurper Zionist regime with nuclear weapons and posed a big threat to this sensitive region." He also attacked "Zionist regime, which has carried out assassinations and caused conflicts and crimes for decades by waging disastrous wars, killing people, occupying Arab territories and organizing state terror in the region and in the world, labels the Palestinian people as 'terrorists,' the people who have stood up to fight for their rights." Finally proposed to "improve the 'political productivity' of the Non-Aligned Movement in global governance." and asked for "a historic document aimed to bring about a change in this [NAM] governance and to provide for its administrative tools," He added "We can plan for effective economic cooperation and define paradigms for cultural relationships among ourselves. Undoubtedly, establishing an active and motivated secretariat for this organization will be a great and significant help in achieving these goals" .--Seyyed(t-c) 13:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• On the other hand the UN secretary General, Ban Ki Mon, without naming Iran denounced Iran's position towards Israel in his opening speech and criticized “racist” attacks against Israel and said it’s “utterly wrong” to deny the country’s right to exist. “I strongly reject threats by any member states to destroy another, or outrageous attempts to deny historical facts such as the Holocaust.” He added “Claiming that another UN member state, Israel, does not have the right to exist, describing it in racist terms, is not only utterly wrong but undermines the principles we have all pledged to uphold.” [13][14]--Seyyed(t-c) 13:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we add "what he called racist attacks" to this quotation. BBC according to its 'neutrality' policy always use this term here and there. For example: "has called for urgent international military intervention to stop what he called the "barbaric genocide" being committed by government forces in his country." [15] Then the quotation would be like this:

On the other hand the UN secretary General, Ban Ki Mon, without mentioning Iran denounced Iran's position towards Israel in his opening speech and criticized what he called the 'racist' attacks against Israel and said it’s “utterly wrong” to deny the country’s right to exist. “I strongly reject threats by any member states to destroy another, or outrageous attempts to deny historical facts such as the Holocaust.” He added “Claiming that another UN member state, Israel, does not have the right to exist, describing it in racist terms, is not only utterly wrong but undermines the principles we have all pledged to uphold.” (Mortezazzz (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Also we need to add immediately that "but Iranian authorities strongly denied these charges by mentioning the fact they differentiate between Zionism as an ideology and Judaism as a religion. And they are not against Judaism." Just to show that we are not biased.(Mortezazzz (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

As long as all statements are attributed, the content should be considered neutral.Bless sins (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't use government websites. We should use only reliable media outlets to report on the speech. Otherwise, it'll be too long, and it's always better to use reliable media outlet references. That's the case for Ban ki-Moon's speech. --

I think, at present, the issue has covered by many reliable sources. The problem is how to summarize and paraphrase the quotations. --Seyyed(t-c) 19:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot who paraphrased it, but I like their version. Should be stable now. --

1234 19:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Very well. I think we should do the same thing for Morsi's and Ahmadinejad's quotations. (Irritation not enough to describe Ban Ki Mon especially during Ahmadinejad's attacks on the UN security council. ) --Seyyed(t-c) 19:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bless sins, please check Morsi's quotation as well.--Seyyed(t-c) 19:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian translations of leader's speeches

THe following is heavily biased:

Iranian state media has been heavily criticized for [allegedly] distorting part of Egyptian President Morsi's speech at the summit.^[2]

On 30 August 2012, during the summit, some Iranian media outlets reported that official Iranian stations were deceiving Iranians by tampering with the Persian translation of Egyptian President Morsi's speech, in order to fit the Iranian government's rhetoric – namely, opposing criticism of the Assad government in Syria, an ally of Iran. Iranian official state television refused to translate part of Morsi's speech which criticized Syria.^[2] One outlet reported that the Iranian interpreter translated part of Morsi's speech which criticized Assad as in fact supporting Assad, saying that "we must support the ruling regime in Syria." In another case, when Morsi denounced the Syrian government as "tyrannical", the Iranian translator quoted Morsi as saying that "there's a crisis in Syria and all of us must support the Syrian ruling system."^[3]

Jahan News and Asiran, which are close to the Iranian regime,^[2] as well as other Iranian outlets, published the tampered speech, and deliberately highlighted parts of Morsi's speech without referring to Morsi's stance on Syria. In other cases, the Iranian translator exchanged the word Syria with Bahrain when discussing countries that have been affected by the Arab Spring,^[2] as well as "Islamic Awakening" instead of "Arab Spring." Iranian media activist Ameed Maqdam Maqdam reported that this falsification could not have happened unless the translator received orders from Iranian higher authorities, aiming to deceive Iranian public opinion.^[4]

In addition, Iranian media confirmed changes to speeches delivered by United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and United Nations General Assembly President Nasser Abdul Aziz regarding the Syrian civil war.^[4]

As a result, Bahrain criticized the Iranian media for distorting Morsi's speech, and for replacing "Syria" with "Bahrain."^[3]

Mind you, Im not saying it shouldnt be there, it just needs rewording. It seems like it was added deliberately for a certain POV as it contains such language that is far from neutral: vague statements and overlink, in disregards to the article as a whole. Ive italicised the dubious bits.Lihaas (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Punditry, and other opinion pieces can be mentioned later on in the article but not in the section on Leaders' Summit. Specifically, "AFP reported that Ban Ki-Moon's attacks on Iran and Morsi's support for the Syrian opposition upset Iran's goal of..." should not be in the section.Bless sins (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFP may not paid enough attention to Ahmadinejad's attacks to the UN Security council which was delivered after those speeches.--Seyyed(t-c) 19:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The AFP reference is a reliable reference, as opposed to some other reference people have inserted (Iranian-government owned references, for one). It is not an opinion piece or the work of a pundit. It is a reliable article. --

That statement is subjective, therefore can't be considered a fact. It's an opinion.Bless sins (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are different judgements in the sources and it does not necessarily relate to the reliability of the sources. For example the Haaretz and Foxnews may judge in different ways. I make a different subsection for it.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made a new section "Reactions" but I it may possible to find a better title. --Seyyed(t-c) 01:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afp may be reliable (which is why we have it here in the first palce), but its still there interpretation, as is Ynet's on Larijani's frown.Lihaas (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The phrases in the section are misleading. This only occurred in one of the channels (

I can't say whether that's true or not - Wikipedia isn't written as that, Wikipedia is written based off of reliable references, many of which are given in the passage and are sufficient. --

1234 03:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]