Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Lead section

Should we not mention in the lead section after nuclear prog that He claims that Iran is not interested in developing a nuclear weapon and that he says Iran has an "inalienable right" to produce nuclear fuel[1]? Thanks Yas121 01:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I back that up! Not everybody's familiar with the NPT. I'm afraid however that you'll have a hard time mitigating the nuclear issue in the lead. That would go against the by-now-obvious goal of some POV warriors around here to demonize Ahmadinejad and Iran altogether. Lixy 11:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, by no means am I saying we should write that MA is NOT trying to develop nuclear arms, but that MA and Iran claim they are not. We included the opinion of the accusers so we should include those of the accused. After all, most of these people were accusing, not so long ago, P Hussain of having WMDs. Yas121 13:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I also think a at least a short sentence is necessary in the lead about NPT and claim of that Iran is has a peaceful nuclear program.

and other important issue that was not covered in the article is he is at most the "Number 2" according the constitution of Iran. see President of Iran, I think it is necessary to indicate that in the lead. --Pejman47 00:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that it should discuss the "peacefulness" of the nuclear program. Maybe its peaceful. Maybe its not. Either way can be disputed. But it is a nuclear program. That is not disputed. And without the adjective, it is neutral. I say avoid the disputes and keep things neutral. Asforbeing number 2 in Iran... That's probably not exactly the right way to put it, but it would not be a bad thing to mention that as President he is the highest elected official in the country but still has less total power than the Supreme Leader. --Blue Tie 01:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree with your first point, because you seem to think there is also no point including the following statement "...although he states that he respects Jews and is not antisemitic" NPT, as far as I can tell, means that we don't take sides. We represent the views of both sides. In other words we can't just say a and b accuse C of being antisemitic and not mention that C says he's not and that he respects the Jews. Similarly we have to mention that MA/Iran are accused of developing a Nuclear programe for military purposes and we CAN NOT leave out that they calim it is actually a civil Nuclear program intended only as a source of fuel and that Iran has an "inalienable right" to produce nuclear fuel[2]. Yas121 14:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

So can we go ahead and add something like this...."...and has refused to stop the nuclear program of Iran against the wishes of the United Nations which he says is for peaceful purposes[3] and that Iran has an "inalienable right" to produce nuclear fuel[4] Thanks Yas121 14:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi I just added, in the lead, the little claim by MH that it's (nuk prog) for peacful purposes only (with ref of course)....dont think there's any need to elaborate further with "Iran has an inalienable right to Nuclear fuel" etc. Cheers Yas121 16:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think your statement is pretty much useless in the lead. Mahmoud's views don't matter. His credibility is almost inexistent after the (mis?)interpretation of his "wipe off Israel" speech. The fact that Iran has the right to have nuclear reactors should be reported in the lead to balance the UN condemnation bit. When Bush starts saying things likes Iran's role in supplying Iraqis with weapons (and gives new sensational names to century-old weapons), such details suddenly become serious matter. [5] Lixy 22:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well then, what do you suggest? Yas121 03:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud's credibility has absolutely nothing to do with the information at hand. To be NPOV, you simply state what we know. Iran admits to having a nuclear program, it is against the wishes of the UN, the UN suspects he is developing weapons, he claims it is for peaceful purposes, done. The article is not the place to try to change someone's mind based on your opinion. If you want to go that route, Bush said before 2003 that Iraq had stashes of WMD, >2000 dead soldiers later, we haven't found anything. So the "fact" was wrong. Bush isn't any more credible than Ahmadinejad, we have to stay middle of the road. Wikidan829 19:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

President Ahmadinejad never said he wanted "Israel wipred off the map" as the below link reveals. The website includes the NY times translation based on the ISNA as well as an independent translation. The President actually said "This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history." Iran is not a military threat. Iran is not a nuclear power.

(http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm) 74.68.56.71 12:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the way that is used in the lead section of the article and almost everywhere else leans more towards POV than NPOV. The English quotation that is widely used in the media is always presented first, and then almost always more than one paragraph later the real fact that the English translation is inaccurate is presented. In the case of the lead section, the issue of inaccurate translation is not used at all. I suggest that instead of saying "He has been condemned for calling for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'" that it says "He has been condemned for making certain statements regarding the state of Israel". This way, that highly disputable English quote (he didn't even use English in his statement) is avoided in the lead section. hnassif

We've been over this ad nauseam and the argumentum ad nauseam some people use still doesn't make your and their assertion true. Everyone quibbles over the exact translation, but ignores the fact that minor translation issues do not change Ahmadinejad's meaning. He meant, and I haven't seen anyone deny, that the country of Israel should cease to exist. Regardless of whether you think he meant that Israel should be bombed into oblivion or its government dissolved and the territory assimilated into neighboring Arab states or something else, it's still a radical statement. The leader of a sovereign state was saying that another sovereign state doesn't have a right to exist. That's the meaning that comes across in the English translation. Changing the translation does not change the meaning and also ignores the reliable sources that reported a translation that conveys the meaning of the original phrase. If you think Ahmadinejad meant something different, come back with reliable sources that back you up and we'll take a look. Otherwise you're quibbling over minutiae trying to find a POV where there is none. Littleman TAMU 22:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point, which is not regarding the reliability of sources or which translation is more correct, but regarding the organization of the article and how it leans more towards NPOV than POV. I confined my comment to the lead section and said that for the lead section, a more suitable choice of words would be to say "He has been condemned for making certain statements regarding the state of Israel", and you can call them radical if you want. The point is, one side of the dispute is not presented in the lead section while the other is neglected. Both are presented equally later in the article. This my friend, is what makes the current version lean more towards POV than NPOV. If others here don't mind, I would like to go ahead and make this change.hnassif

Though my comments centered on sourcing, they go to the heart of POV. If the translation that most news sources used conveys the meaning of Ahmadinejad's words, then they introduce no POV. They merely repeat what he said. By watering down the lead and removing the actual statement you actually introduce what some would call a pro-Ahmadinejad POV. This is because there is no reason to remove the statement. Like it or not, Ahmadinejad said it and this is an article about him. The media reported an accurate (meaning-wise if not word-for-word) translation in its context and including it no more introduces POV than quoting anyone else in context would introduce POV. --Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 19:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "accuracy" in the media, accurate translation of what a person said is a prerequisite for accurate deduction of what that person meant. Clearly in this case, the translation which is widely repeated in the media conveys a meaning that is directly challenged by another translation whose proponents claims is more accurate and conveys a more accurate and focussed meaning, and this issue is something that the same Wikipedia article talks about in later sections. In that debate, there is a POV associated with each side, and the important thing is to make sure the Wikipedia article doesn't adopt the POV of one and not the other. Choosing one translation and not the other in the lead section of the article, where the entire debate doesn't have to be mentioned anyway, is the object of this discussion where I argue that the POV of one side is clearly favored over the other. You can't just say "He meant it that way and this particular version of the translation better conveys that meaning" without demonstrating how you were able to deduce what the man's real meaning was without relying on that statement and translation that is itself the object of this same disscussion. Hnassif 20:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Regarding "accuracy" in the media, accurate translation of what a person said is a prerequisite for accurate deduction of what that person meant."

Take a look at the controversy. It doesn't matter what you think the exact translation is. Even the Iranian government's translation according to Bronner refers to wiping Israel away. Take any combination of possible translations of those words and the meaning is still that Ahmadinejad thinks Israel as a sovereign state (call it the evil Zionist regime, manifestation of Satan if you like) should not exist. If you read my earlier statements you'll see that this is the crux of my argument. People will take that meaning in different ways, but it's still what he said (well he quoted Khomeini and agreed with it).

But it's not true that based on "any possible combination of translations" Ahmadinejad thinks Israel as a sovereign state should not exist, because all the statements that were mentioned in "the controversy" except for the disputed talk about Ahmadinejad's prediction that Israel will meet the same fate that other failed nations met due to various events. He drew an analogy to the Soviet Union and to Saddam's regime. These statements do not constitute a portrayal of the person's belief that the state doesn't have the right to exist. Furthermore, the same wiki article regarding the controversy quotes Iran's own foreign minister disputing the claims saying that Ahmadinejad was talking about the Israeli regime and he directly pointed to the phrase "wiped off the map" as a misinterpretation of Ahmadinejad's words. Also, Ahmadinejad himself didn't use Khomeini's exact words in Persian. He actually misquoted Khomeini.Hnassif 22:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Mottaki said they don't legally recognize Israel. I don't see how that's different from saying it doesn't have a right to exist, it's semantics, the meaning is the same. He also questioned how to remove a country from the map implying that it can't be done. That's spin if I ever heard it. A country can cease to exist and be removed from the map for various reasons including war and revolution (peaceful and violent). Just look at Eastern Europe. Mottaki was feigning innocence and trying to deflect from the fact that he and Ahmadinejad and a lot of the Muslim world want Arabs to rule the land currently known as Israel because most of the West doesn't agree with that idea.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 00:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, go back and read Mottaki's words. I believe he said twice that the reference was to the regime and not the country. He said "He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime". Talking about the regime is very different from talking about the country as a whole. So, really the entire idea that they deny Israel, as a country, the right to exist is still the subject of dispute and I'm not here with the goal of settling that dispute, but I am here to make sure that just as the article acknowledges the existance of this dispute in the later sections of it, that it doesn't favor one side of it over the other in the beginning. Hnassif 05:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well apparently we're taking regime to mean different things. You seem to be taking regime to mean something like the Bush administration. I see it, I believe correctly, as something like a British monarchy. Khomeini died in 1989 so there's no way he was referring to Olmert's administration/regime. "Regime" here refers to Israel in its current form (the sovereign state founded in 1948). He disagrees with a "Zionist regime" or Zionist leadership of Israel. Whatever you take that to mean, he disagrees with the idea of Israel as it exists and has existed since 1948. Not only that, but he openly hoped or called for Israel to no longer exist as it has since 1948. I see this whole translation disagreement as quibbling over minutiae simply because Ahmadinejad made a controversial statement and some people want to downplay the controversy. Just think of how the Arab world would react if Bush came out and said "this Islamic regime occupying Tehran must [vanish from] the page of time" or similar statement worded in your choice of translations of Ahmadinejad's words. That said, I have no problem with something like "He has made controversial statements about Israel's existence" or make the link go to section 6.3 in the article. I'm ready to be rid of this argument and I think my suggestion is more neutral.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 19:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

{remainder on main page}

Wikilink edits

I don't underestand why Jayig is removing the link from: "widely reported" Is there a WP:COI at work here to remove the government POV? Please explain yourself.--Gerash77 11:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I received numerous emails warning me of the presence of a "very well organized cabal" that "own articles" in which they push their POVs. The people who wrote the mails saw their accounts suspended for allegedly trying to make articles NPOV. These are very serious accusations and, at first I dismissed them as merely conspiracy theories. After a while, I began to recognize a certain pattern and started believing that some contributors are indeed professional POV pushers (i.e: getting paid to edit certain entries). I am not accusing anyone in particular, and for all I know, Jayig could be a well intentioned fellow. Just a heads up. Lixy 11:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a heads-up for you: WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL. They're all policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, WP:AGF is guideline, but that's not the point. The Behnam 01:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If you felt in any way offended by my post, rest assured that it was not my intention. You have accused me on numerous occasions of being an "apologist" in the past, and others even threw "anti-semitic" at me in the past for no other apparent reason than being critical of Israel's policies; So much for WP:AGF!

I answered Gerash77's question by relating the personal emails story because they refered specifically to you and to a couple of other editors. I merely reported that fact. That wasn't my personal opinion. On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence confirming that the internet is full of professional lobbyists making up fake blogs, false reviews and the like. It is extremely naive to assume that the Wiki with all the momentum it gained could escape this tendency. Lixy 19:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore it should be noted that "wipe off the map was" widely reported "in the English media". Since most others refused from mistranslating the statement.--Gerash77 11:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to avoid Easter egg links, and the claim that it was widely reported "in the English media" is original research without a source, and is anyway contradicted by the worldwide furor about his words. They leaders of all the world's nations weren't reading just the English media. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think an exception to the Easter Egg should be made in an effort to prevent this dispute. Obviously, some people are worried by misinformation or false portrayal or something like that, and so want readers to be easily directed to the in-depth explanation. But yes, it was more than the English media, from what I can tell, so it shouldn't say just 'the English media' unless this claim can be substantiated with a reliable source. The Behnam 01:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There's hardly a point in making any concessions, because the people reverting continually do so regardless of policy or common sense, and fill the intro with even more garbage anyway. This is a reasonable enough "line in the sand" position, unless you can get commitment from the other editors here to actually defend a consensus position, rather than editing this article solely for the purpose of defending Ahmadinejad. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a heads-up for you: WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL. Two are policies, one is a guideline. The first for characterizing others as acting without common sense, the second for accusing others of editing "solely for the purpose of defending Ahmadinejad," and the third for characterizing other edits as "garbage." What exactly is the consensus here? Are you referring to some guideline against easter eggs, or against this specific easter egg? Are you removing this easter egg link because you feel it 'defends' Ahmadinejad? The Behnam 01:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are examples of what I am talking about:[6] [7] [8]. It has been going on for months now, and I've accurately characterized it. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the characterization definitely applies to the Sarastro edit, but not really for the others. Don't be mistaken; I'm not saying they're good edits, but I don't think they are enough to go against AGF. For unknown reasons, people keep adding his term end; it is obviously a poor addition but I don't see what is bad faith about it. The move from the lead to the next section also seems poor judgment, but hardly "apologetic." I understand that there have been some problems, divided along the lines of: Ahmadinejad "apologists" versus "ZioAttackers." But you have thrown around the "apologist" condemnation too liberally. So please try to give AGF another chance. The Behnam 02:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with jayjg. There is a constant battle over the intro in particular and the article in general over usually trivial things. A section is normally fine as is and then someone adds a little change, a reword or, in this case, an Easter egg link, and it blows up. Littleman TAMU 20:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Jayig, you are a magnificent POV pusher. You do want to include the so-called "wipe Israel off the map" claim, but no matter how I wanted to include the governments POV, you have managed to erase it. The government POV and dispute about translation must be included either by Easter Egg or adding another sentence. Choose one of the methods, but don't reject both! Also, the sources given are in English, and hence "Widely reported" in the "English media" should remain.--Gerash77 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't throw accusations around, it doesn't help this situation a bit. I think the best compromise is to keep the Easter Egg; another sentence may be going too far. I hope Jayjg is also open to compromise, despite Gerash losing his temper with him. Oh, and we shouldn't include "in the English media" because that makes it seem like it is exclusively in the English media, but it is easy to find it in other languages. Like something I think I saw somewhere "Some philosophers are men", "All men are mortal", "Some philosophers are mortal". This somehow implies that some philosophers which are not mortal, which is probably not true. I don't know if that was a good example, but anyway, we shouldn't say "in the English media." The Behnam 23:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Jayig is still removing the easter egg, and despite most of us here agree that it should be included, he removes it calling it "per talk". seriously "a magnificent POV pusher" is not an accusation!--Gerash77 02:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I questioned him about that on his talk page but he hasn't responded. It's hard to believe, he wasn't sneaky at all! The Behnam 02:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

They haven't provided any real backup for eliminating the EE. Beit Or removed it, saying "correction." What was he correcting? Seriously, come on! The Behnam 02:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this sort of things is giving rise to "conspiracy theories" Lixy was talking about! Anyway, I try to add a non-EE wikilink, I'll see how it goes.--Gerash77 13:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's obvious if someone else removes the link that "most of us here" don't agree with you. You can't just have a discussion on the talk page over a couple days with people who agree with you and assume you have a consensus. I don't have time to watch this page every day. It's more like once every 1-2 weeks. You shouldn't have to wait that long, but waiting a day and getting no response from opposition doesn't mean everyone agrees with you. Littleman TAMU 20:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If you insist on linking to the controversy about the World without Zionism speech, then you need to link to the entire section, not just a preferred sub-section. Also, if you insist on linking there, then you certainly no longer need the "widely reported as" phrase, since that was put in specifically as a sop to people who insisted "but we have to show the entire controversy". Either we deprecate "wiped off the map" using the link, or using the "widely reported" phrase; both is too much. Note that none of the actual sources on this subject feel a need to use wishy-washed phrases about this, they have no trouble describing it simply as calling for Israel to be wiped off the map; then again, they also feel no need to make excuses for Ahmadinejad. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The consensus is that the dispute about translation be included. Your continuous reverts, despite general agreement here that it should be included, is not only POV pushing, but borderline vandalism.--Gerash77 15:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

And the dispute about the translation has indeed been included in my latest edits, as noted in my comment. Please do not comment without knowledge of the edits involved. As for your other comments, please review WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:VANDAL. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I just hope you won't remove your own EE in a few days, giving "quote him exactly, remove perma-tag, remove Easter egg links" in your edit summaries. keeping my fingers crossed--Gerash77 17:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way can we exchange you with Avraham, he was much better.--Gerash77 17:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright! More personal attacks from Gerash. As far as POV goes, you might want to reflect on your motivations for your edits about the translation issue especially given Ethan Bronner's research. Regardless of whether the English-speaking media got the translation perfect, Ahmadinejad was calling for the dissolution/destruction/whatever of the country of Israel. He wants Israel as a country to no longer exist. "Wiped off the map" conveys this sentiment just fine. Even the Iranian government's response doesn't dispute the meaning behind the sentiment, they just quibble over Zionism v. Israeli people and "map" v. "pages of time". Littleman TAMU 20:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't know what consensus or "general agreement" you're referring to, but there isn't one. See my comment above where you complain about jayjg remove the EE link. Littleman TAMU 20:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me illuminate you on the "consensus". If you went around the archives of the talk page, you'd see that for months now, lots of people have complained about the "wipe off the map" being POV and that the way it was presented in the media was sensationalistic. All of them agreed that Mahmoud's intended meaning had to be included. If nothing else, at least mitigate the lead section. The few people that oppose the introduction of alternative traductions are always the usual suspects calling others names like apologetics or whisy-washy and threatening them of suspending their accounts. Lixy 20:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been following this article since July 2006 which is apparently longer than you have so I don't need your sarcastic "illumination". I am perfectly aware of the "wipe" controversy. With some of the blatant pro-Ahmadinejad POV pushing that has been attempted, I'm not surprised that some people react that way. That doesn't make it right, and I don't think anyone should name call, but I've seen a lot of it started against the same people you're accusing. Just look at the way Gerash started this section. If that's not picking a fight and name-calling I don't know what is. These people you accuse have a long, varied history of editing based on policy unlike some of their accusers. WP:NPA WP:CIVIL--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 22:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The same, specious, argument could be made on a factor analysis of those trying to push the "wipe off" phrase mitigation, Lixy . The facts are that MA is notable in the Western World (ENGLISH Wikipedia, anyone?) PRECISELY because of how he phrased his sentiments (which translations includes Al-Jazeera, IIRC). This is not the MA apologist article, this is to describe WHY this man is notable in the world, and the phrase is sourced beyond any shred of any doubt. Sometimes verified are uncomfortable to editors; that is a shame, but no excuse for breaking wiki policy. Also, I'd request that in the future you restrict your comments to content and not editors, as that is a form of personal attack that the community finds disruptive and does not allow here in the Wiki project. Thank you. -- Avi 20:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is completely absurd to remove "wiped off the map" from the page. Right or wrong, these days it seems impossible for news articles to talk about Ahmadinejad without mentioning that phrase! However, there is no good reason to remove the link to the translation information, and if that appeases people who are worried that, without the link, the lead is POV, then there is no harm done in including the link. The Behnam 20:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Basij ties?

Hello, I'd like to see some information about Mr. Ahmadinejad's alleged special ties to the Basij militias and about his role during his initial Basij membership in the 1980s. There have been numerous mentions of this connnection in newspapers, but I've yet to see any in-depth information. Thanks! -- 85.179.165.16 20:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Fallacious claims of WP:COI

For those editors that are attempting to bypass 3RR on the basis of spurious claims of WP:COI against some editors, please read the guideline at WP:COI#Conflict_of_interest_in_point_of_view_disputes that says clearly:

Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it. The existence of conflicts of interest does not mean that assume good faith is forgotten. Quite the opposite. Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor.

Any editor attempting to disrupt the editing process with spurious claims of COI, will be considered disruptive themselves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that editors have tried their best to assume good faith with regards to Jayig, although unfortunately, his reversions of good edits of many editors who have tried to neutralize the article would sometimes make it very hard to do so.--Gerash77 22:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Regrettably, what makes it incredibly hard for editors to stay within WP:AGF, is the fact that he has stated his intentions to block all those editors, including what he calls "good editors", who criticize his reversions, and amazingly he is "Just letting everyone know" of his intention of violations of his administrative duties.--Gerash77 23:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Discuss the article and not the subject; Discuss the edit and not the editor That will save you all a lot of aggravation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove tags

I think tags should be removed from living poeples bios. It is too risky, also if a certain tag is under heated debate (unlike Hitler--nobody debates that) then the tag should be removed as it is a POV and a violation of his bio. Now i found like 4 tags per his bio all pointing to one issue, 4 tags. tags should be for 100% facts he is a man, he is from Iran, he doesnt mix milk with his tea. etc etc--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic people was removed after months of debate and discussion. Category:Antisemitism and Category:Anti-Zionists is cited beyond reproof or reproach, and removal is tantamount to whitewashing, a gross violattion of WP:NPOV. Please check the voluminous archives on the matter. Thank you. -- Avi 20:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti-s, okay but isnt some of these tags pov and forks of anti-s. tagging is dangerous. tags should b limited as a general policy. the Ann Coulter debate pushed this issue.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 21:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, wikipedia is made of people, and some who discuss on one article do not do so on another. This article has had voluminous discussion, which resulted in the consensus comprimise we have now. I fail to see wheer the violations of wiki policy are here. -- Avi 21:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please show the previous consensus ? and do not call other users who don't like your POV as vandal. they have come with some reasoning and their concern must be answered. And I don't think He is anti-semetic (I think you mean "anti-jew", because Arabs are also Semetic). First he had denied it in all the cases that he was questioned for it; and second There are about 30 thousands Persian Jewliving in Iran (the second rank after Israel in Great mideal east), they didn't see anything more than rhetoric about Israel from him and third no recognized international organization have called him Anti-semetic. --Pejman47 21:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The claim is not that he is antisemitic, but that there is a huge controversy over claims that he is (among other things) antisemitic. There's a whole section, even an article on the subject. It would be rather silly to pretend it didn't exist. As for "anti-Jew", please don't play word games; "antisemitic" means "anti-Jewish". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, you realize that person whom you accused of "word games" might not even be a native speaker of English? There is no reason to be condescending. Also, who is pretending it doesn't exist? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 07:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If you removed the Category:Antisemitism tag you'd be pretending the antisemitism section in the article didn't exist.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 17:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

I will be removing and deleting Image:Burningahmadinejad.JPG for being under a false copyright tag (it is also a non-commercial image). I would suggest to search flickr, or other websites, for photos we can use under a free license. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Insist v. state

Please stop this revert war. Also, have the discussion here and not in your edit summaries.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 18:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. Basically, "insist" (& variants) have been contested as POV because of the perceived connotation of the word. As an English speaker I also believe the word has some connotation, but Jayjg & perhaps others disagree on this point. However, "state" doesn't carry any particular POV, so it seems an appropriate compromise wording. Avraham seemed to imply in his latest edit summaries that paraphrasing as "states" is 'dangerous' & an attempt to fit a purported POV. An actually POV statement would simply describe Ahmadinejad as anti-Jew, as if it is some definite fact. Using "state" to communicate his claim is only neutral. Avraham also stated that "insist" was a direct quote, though it wasn't being used in quotation at the time. More important is that there is no need to quote "insist" to communicate Ahmadinejad's response; I see no reason to use a direct quote aside from trying to force the questionable/editorial wording. Forcing questionable wording is not in the best interests of the article since WP has a neutrality policy, so it is best to use "state" because it definitely has no connotation. The Behnam 19:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the-Behnam--Pejman47 19:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The actual quote is: Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has insisted that he is not an anti-Semite.. The lead is referencing "anti-Jew", which is not a direct quote from the piece either. In that case, I am fine with the paraphrase saying "stated" or "insisted". However, I think that in an article this prone to contention, we stick to actual quotes from sources as directly as possible, and I would prefer the direct formulation used in http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5368458.stm brought above. -- Avi 19:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are open to both, then it is probably best to go with the "state" version, since it appears to be the best common ground between editors here. The Behnam 19:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 19:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree that "insist" implies guilt or anything other than just saying something in reply to or against/over objections to the contrary. However, I don't see anything wrong with "state". "Insist" comes from the summary of the BBC article and there's no reason to "quote" it. Some people have said that because a NPOV source said it, that's reason enough to use it. Everything in the article doesn't have to have be a direct quote from a NPOV source. We're summarizing what has been said in a neutral way. There are more important issues under discussion. If anything this has shown that anything in the lead must be discussed in talk first before any changes are made. That goes for both "sides".--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 19:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Usually a good idea. However, with this article, there has been a tendency to make subtle changes in order to surreptitiously push one pov or another, therefore, when it comes to something that looks like an apologetic or overly antagonistic change to what should be a direct quote is made, I am more likely to revert first and ask questions later to maintain article integrity. This time, after further review, I was incorrect, and I apologize if I offended any of y'all. But that does not mean I will stop watching this article like a hawk for any changes (pro- or con- ) that dilute the integrity of the sources. -- Avi 19:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Great! At least the words get through, even if it's for a little word. :p M87 22:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)