Talk:Ahmadinejad sends letter to George W. Bush

Breaking
I think so as this is indeed the first real contact the two leaders have had. Jason Safoutin 13:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's about a day old, certainly not breaking any more. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the breakingtag warm ;) When or if the letter is recived things may happen. international 19:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It still takes the Earth a day to turn, so it's breaking with the day somewhere.

If the story is breaking and featured as the top story on the main page, shouldn't it also be published? Correct me if I'm wrong. Karen 02:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This report ought to remain breaking as this is the contents of the letter have yet to be released. We then should extend the article to include what the letter's details are. Booksworm 10:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

getting the content of the letter?
Given the sort of speculative comment added in the first paragraph of the swissinfo article, "it was unclear whether its contents offered any practical solution to a stand-off over Tehran's nuclear programme.", it would be good for wikinews if Bush spokespeople confirmed delivery of the letter and then either Iranian sources (or US sources) published the actual contents of the letter - as promised by the Iranian spokeperson. People in US and Iran want to know what their elected leaders are up to, as do other people around the world...

The swissinfo article has a comment by Ali Ansari which could be interesting to add, though IMHO the most important is the content itself rather than analysts' comments about it. There are 7.5 million internet users in Iran, so it would be pretty absurd for there to be claims that this letter and future letters cannot be successfully transmitted between the two presidents... Arguing that the dog ate it or the horse got ambushed would sound rather unconvincing IMHO. Boud 15:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

NOT an open letter
C'mon people, at least read your source articles enough to get the headlines right. This is explicitly NOT an open letter, and thus the content is NOT available.
 * 'Elham declined to reveal more, stressing "it is not an open letter." Asked whether the letter could lead to direct U.S.-Iranian negotiations, he replied: "For the time being, it's just a letter."'

--136.159.71.113 18:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You can help edit! Please, fix our mistakes!  We're only human :) --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the "breaking news" aspect - the earlier BBC report, timestamped 9:25 GMT May 8, said that Elham said that the contents would be published once Bush received it. The updated BBC report, 14:52 GMT May 8, says that Elham says the contents will be published "at the right time". And as user 136.etc says above, the ABC(US) cites Elham saying that the letter is "not an open letter". i don't know if i'll fix this now, but i'll at least fix the error of someone getting confused about the timestamp... it's a timestamp on the BBC report, not what BBC claims was a timestamp on the letter. Boud 23:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Where in the hell is the letter's english translation?
We should be able to find it. I'm sick and tired of having to settle for western spin and summaries for important events. The letter has been published in Iran and in India is this "the document, which is 16 pages long in Persian and contains 18 pages of English translation" so obviously the damn letter is available in english. Let's find the damn thing for our readers. Neutralizer 13:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep cool and help us look for it - i've cut/pasted bits that have been quoted into Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter to George W. Bush (8 May 2006). Some ideas other than internet: ring up Reuters or AP sources who say they have access to the source. Boud 14:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

We have the "damn" source. Click on the wikisource link. Boud 15:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * YES:)) Great work Boud ! Thanks so much; that's just fantastic. Finally I'll get to read it and make up my own mind about what it says and means. Neutralizer 19:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Very interesting reading; very hard to find anywhere other than right here except in segments 67.71.123.246 01:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The full text of the letter in English can be found here Braincandle 07:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Republic News Agency
There is something wrong wirh their page, only part 6 and 7 seems to be available. No need to use it as source untill they fix it. international 11:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Next news link does not work. What is wrong with the wikisource letter? Jason Safoutin 11:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * the link on Islamic Republic News Agency is a mess but the link is among sources as the quotation on 'update' is from there. Wikisource have the English translation provided by Iran international 12:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The "update" you added, should not be added. If there is "new developments" which as its wrtttien, is what it suggests, they need to be put into a new article. I still cannot get the link to work for the IANA, Jason Safoutin 12:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not a significant new development, its a statement from Ahmadinejad. I can reformulat it in the text. international 12:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Full text of President Ahmadinejad's letter to George Bush. Islamic Republic News Agency (Iran). It is in 7 parts. Links for "Next news" or "Previous news" work on most of the pages, but not consistently, and some links skip parts. All 7 parts were linked from the right column of some pages at one time. But not now. So to save time here are direct links to all the parts:

--Timeshifter 13:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Part 1: http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/0605094639235358.htm
 * Part 2: http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/0605104600001017.htm
 * Part 3: http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/0605108605002457.htm
 * Part 4: http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/0605108396003932.htm
 * Part 5: http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/0605108913005529.htm
 * Part 6: http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/0605106249011048.htm
 * Part 7: http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/0605101827012003.htm

date bump?
The added quote is from May 9...the article is at May 8...bump date? Jason Safoutin 12:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * done. Neutralizer 12:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Bush hasn't read it; what kind of incompetence are we dealing with?
Isn't it the duty of a Commander in Chief to read a letter from the leader of the country that Commander is so concerned about? This is the most pointed evidence I've seen yet to support those who say Bush is a psychiatrically disturbed and fragile person.

"White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said Bush had been briefed on the letter"

If you were the President, wouldn't you want to read the letter yourself?

Is Bush so controlled he is not allowed to read the letter or so into self censorship he refuses to do so? We all know he said he does not read newspapers; but is it possible he also does not read letters from other heads of state? If so, we may be under the control of a leader who will go down in history as being certifiably insane on a par with Nero or Caligula. Maybe he is also doing something to keep the rest of America from reading it; it's really odd that so few (I can find only 1 with a pdf link)US papers have published the full text when it's available elsewhere; especially since they can't claim it's "private" while CNN reporters are waving the text around while giving their inaccurate "summaries" on it; and how can it be private when Bush refuses to read it (hopefully he refuses as opposed to the alternative...his handlers are keeping "upsetting news" away from his eyes).? Neutralizer 12:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A considered response, if there is to be one, takes time. -Edbrown05 13:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed; but the point is; over a day after it arrived he had not read it? Neutralizer 14:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * He may have been waiting for a translation at the time. We really do not know. ~Linuxerist L / T 01:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the last time I'm going to tell you, Neutralizer, so listen up:

--MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the last time I'm going to tell you, MrMiscellaneous,so listen up: 
 * Advising you of WN:NOT, specifically "Wikinews is not a soapbox, chatroom, or discussion forum.", does not give you the right to allege any bias. You have been warned time and time again of your violations of policy.  In addition, you again violated WN:BP by editing another signed comment by me.  If you continue to violate policy, your notifications will become more frequent.  Stop violating site policy.  If you continue to do so, you will be blocked.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Advising MrM of WN:NOT, specifically "Wikinews is not a soapbox, chatroom, or discussion forum.", does not give you the right to allege any bias. You have been warned time and time again of your violations of policy.If you continue to violate policy, your notifications will become more frequent.  Stop violating site policy.  If you continue to do so, you will be blocked. Neutralizer 02:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralizer, I am now referring you to WN:E. Please read over it. Jason Safoutin 02:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Censorship of the letter in the USA ?
The full text of the letter is widely available on non-USA media sites like the Financial Times; but very hard to find in USA major media. Seems like self-imposed or U.S. government imposed censorship to me (it happens all the time under the guise of "national security"). USA saying it's spreading freedom is like Iran saying it's spreading religious tolerance; at least I think so. Neutralizer 11:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)