Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Untitled

  • I don't know the actual names of the ministers. But for sure these can't be the correct names. In Persian, "Jendeh" means "whore", "Koon" means "ass", "Nages" means "dirty" and "cos" means "pussy". 70.112.45.60 11:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Mazda
    • Nevermind. I checked the reference, and edited the names. 70.112.45.60 11:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Mazda

WP: BLP for Liftarn

"Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion and without regard to the three-revert rule."

Ahmadinejad's repeated anti-semitic statements are HIGHLY sourced. I'm not going to get into childish semantic arguments of someone making multiple anti-semitic statements and their being an anti-semitic person. This has been covered in the talk pages. Your inability to understand the verifiable sources and ensuing logical arguments is fortunately not contigent about the accuracy of those sources and logical conclusions. Neither does the classification qualify as original research, as notable secondary sources have already published such claims. --FairNBalanced 18:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The statements are poorly sourced and the translations dubious, but then the statements are not what is in dispute but the fact whether he is an anti-Semite or not. So far we only have one source saying he is an anti-Semite and that source is not reliable (it's from an op-ed piece). So, unledd some reliable, verifiable source is presented the controversial cats will be removed as per WP:BLP. // Liftarn
Having researched the question or referring to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as an "anti-Semite" I can only find one notable individual using that particular term and that is Ehud Olmert. As a source Mr. Olmert does not qualify as neutral. User:Irishpunktom swapped out the previously missing Category:Anti-Semitism for Category:Anti-Semitic people. This swap struck me as particularly correct in light of the fact that there is no disputing that the term "anti-semitism" has been widely used in reference to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad while the instances of the term "anti-Semite" are rather sparse. Netscott 19:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Of all the material on this page, I see references to the Government of Israel, I see references to "Zionists"... I see nothing of his that criticizes "Semites" or pan-Jewish peoples on an individual or group level. Unless speaking against a political ideology or a particular Government somehow now qualifies as a statement against ALL individuals, then I don't see how this is in anyway appropriate. On top of that, labeling someone with a such a charged term is almost always going to reflect the POV of the labeler. It is also not helpful to label the arguments of others with whom you disagree as "Childish." Let's keep this professional!! Sarastro777 21:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

To "keep this professional", it helps to check the facts first. See Anti-Semitism#Etymology and usage and note that Lesbians are not necessarily those who inhabit Lesbos island. Finally, we are here to report what the reputable sources said, not to engage in WP:OR. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It also helps to not be belligerant. Your original research comment makes no sense and is entirely unrelated to the discussion above. Second your analogy does not in any way further a contention that criticism of a particular Government or political ideology constitutes hatred against an ethnicity or religion. However any discussion of lesbians is always entertaining :-) Sarastro777 05:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am glad my page passed the inspection, hope you liked it. If you maintain that anti-Semitism is something that "criticizes "Semites", you need to do some learning. MA is a Holocaust denier, and for that he was widely condemned. To be an antisemite, "a statement against ALL individuals" (Jews) is not required. Again, see the definition. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The Holocaust was a historical event related to World War II. How does him questioning (or denying it) show that he hates Jews... ANY Jews? You seem to be assuming a malicious conspiratorial motive. Using that frame of logic there should be equal emphasis on him being anti-Catholic, anti-Gypsy, anti-Freemason, anti-Homosexual, and anti-Slavic as these were also groups that died in the holocaust. None of his denials has brought these labels from THOSE groups. He does not seem softspoken, if he is an Anti-semite why is there nothing from him proclaiming the evil of the Jews or him sharing info about his hatred for them? Sarastro777 15:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The fallacy of your argument Sarastro, is that Ahmadinejad is not calling for the persecution and extermination of the freemasons, catholics or gypsies (he does however fully support punitive amputation, as well as capital punishment for gays, so we may want to include the (underground) iranian homosexual community in the lists of his targets). While i might agree in a very limited way that questionning the timeline and specifics of the holocaust is not neccessarily anti-semitic when it is does done with the intent to further academic research and arrive at a more complete understanding of the event in question, but you have to put it in context. Holocaust denial in furtherence of a personal agenda or political goal is entirely anti-semitic. Ahmadinejad is not concerning with correcting what he believes is a historical inaccuracy. Rather, he uses the fiery rhetorick of anti-semitism to fuel hatred of Israel and Judaism in general, especially throughout the arab world. He generally does this when he needs to drum up some support for a political initiave. It is a historical fact that arab peoples will happily put aside their differences and histilities when it comes to a common hatred of Israel, which makes Israel bashing the perfect tool for quelling domestic unrest in any arab country. For example, how many palestinians were slaughtered by Jordan? Why dont we ask the residents of what used to be Hama what they think of Syria's Hafez Asad and son? My point is we never hear Arabs complain about their barbaric treatment by other arabs or other arab states, only by Israel (i will also point out here that Israeli Arabs enjoy full citizenship, representation in the Knesset (israeli parliament) and on the Supreme Court. Isreal is perhaps the only country in the middle east where an Arab can actually win a court case against his government). In any case i'm getting sidetracked... In short, Ahmadinejad is not some noble civil servant trying to correct historical inaccuracies regarding the holocaust. He is a radical Islamist who firmly believes in pan-arabian islamic theocracy...a truly terrifying concept for any who understand its implications. When he invokes holocaust denial along these lines, common sense dictates that it can only be seen in furtherance of an anti-semitic position. And if that wasn't enough to prove to you that he is an anti-semite committed to Israel's destruction, just read some of the quotes from his speeches.

"Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks."

Calling for politicide (isreal being wiped off the map)can he do it is a big question mark?,politician always big mouth. and calling the jewish state a "disgraceful stain on the islamic world", not to mention the myriad of threats of a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Israel and/or America, are the manifestations of highly anti-semetic ideas and policies. Furthermore, Ahmadinejad does everything he can to stall or completely neutralize any sort of peace process between israel and the palestinians which only goes to support the argument that he is an enemy of the jews, of peace, and by extension, the palestinians (even though he routinely sends them, along with various other terrorist groups aimed at israel complete destruction, illegal weapon shipments). I could go on at length with detailed arguments regarding why Ahmadinejad is unquestionably anti-semitic, anti-peace and anti-stability, but simply listening to the man talk and analyzing his goals leads any rational human being to this conclusion. The world would be a better place without him. Iran would be more socially progressive without him, the middle east would be more stable without him, Israel and the Palestinians would be closer to a peaceful resolution without him, HAMAS, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah (all designated terrorist organizations by the US state department, Israel and any person with half a brain) would not be nearly as well armed as they are without him... Proponents of peace and basic human rights would not shed any tears if Ahmadinejad were to drop dead this minute. Is my characterization of Ahmadinejad reasonably fair, based on his public statements, positions and elected platform, or am i just "assuming a malicious conspiratorial motive"? (see Sarastro's comment above if that joke went over your head) Signed: AlexiKobayashi


AlexoKobayashi, if you want to go talking about pre emptive striking, start looking at israel and american and complain about them. Seriously, what kind of a hypocrite do you have to be to even mention that without looking at those perpatrating other inhumane crimes? I dont see you going on about George Bush or Ehud Olmert and their idiotic pre emptive strikes. And ahmedinejad has always been willing to talk about peace. Wasnt he the one who wanted to help resolve the current lebanon-israel issue? And maybe if israel wasnt armed upto its teeth (thanks to america) we would have more balance in the middle east dont you think? Every sentence ou write is complete hypocrisy. Start looking in your own back yard before going and pointing fingers at others.

I hate it when people start calling other antisemitic just because they have critisized israelies or a jew. Get over it. The nation of israel is not safe from critisicm and they are very much so losing support around the world for their inhumane actions and blatant ignorance. They bring up the holocaust and the word 'anti-semitic' whenever critisicsm is laid against them. They are not perfect infact are very much so in the wrong. Maybe if they listened and were willing to talk rather than drop bombs on innocent people to communicate they wouldnt have so many enemies. Signed:NotSoIgnorant

Get your facts straight NotSoIgnorant (in fact you are VERY ignorant). "Wasn't he the one who wanted to help resolve the current lebanon-israel issue?" That was your comment. You neglect to mention that his idea of resolving it, based on his speech at the 2006 Islamic conference in Malaysia was to solve the crisis by destroying Israel, but for the time being he was okay with a ceasefire. BUT, not a ceasefire which invovles a foreign stabilization force. He wants lebanon to secure its own borders, which is great, except that lebanon has not complied with UN resolution 1559 which excplicitly directed them to take control of their borders and disarm hezbollah. They didn't do it because they claim they couldn't. Ahamdinejad seems to still think this is the only solution even though even the lebanese say its impossible. No other nation on the planet would be asked to pay for a neighbouring country's domestic insufficency with the lives of its own citizens...no other nation except israel. Futhermore, failling to mention every human rights violation on the planet in my comment does not undermine the human rights violations i DID mention. Besides, this talk page is about Ahmadinejad... not Bush or Olmert, for whom your POV is clear as day. This is not a talk page for ranting about your own uneducated and overly simplistic political viewpoints... As far your claim that i believe anti-semetism equals criticizing israel, try reading and UNDERSTANDING my comment again. At no point do i equate the two. In fact, i drew a distinction between Holocaust study which is not anti-semetic and holocaust study that is. Personally i think i made my case very well for the distinction, and for which side Ahmadinejad is clearly on. I went on to say that criticism of Israel, like any other country is fairgame and is a neccessary component of any democracy (Muslim/Persian countrie(s) wouldn't know since they have no true democracies and no free press). However, disproportionate criticism of israel IS anti-semetic, or at a bare minimum it is not based in any normal conception of reality. Is there really any question of whether or not Ahmadinejad is anti semitic? I think its pretty clear that he is based on his comments, the aim those comments try to achieve and his policies (supporting terrorists as long as they hate Israel). By the way, these Israelis who "dont listen and just drop bombs", were not the ones who struck first, they retaliated. They were not the ones who walked out of peace negotiations with the palestinians without making a counteroffer. They WERE the ones who did not respond to consistent provocation by Hezbollah on their northern border for 6 years (which in hindsight, was a major mistake). Oh and by the way, had Israel not been "armed to the teeth by america", Israel would have been destroyed by its neighbours in wars of genocidal aggression in 48, 56-57, 67 and 73. The fact that Israel is well armed is the only reason it still exists... Today as i amend this comment, Hezbollah just rejected the ceasefire propsed by the UN. So far they have A)crossed a UN recognized border and attacked Israel, B) Fired over 2500 rockets at Israel, targeting civilians, C)Hidden amongst the civilian populations of lebanon ensuring that civilians will take the brunt of the counterattack, and D) rejected the ceasefire that every lebanese civilian is desperately waiting for. Sane humans know exactly where the blame for this entire war lies...and yet again it lies on the doorstep of psychotic terrorist islamic fundamentalists (gee, can't say i'm shocked) who are actively supported by Syria and Iran. You comments are about as intelligent as the French foreign minister calling Iran a "Stabilizing force in the region". (he has since amended what he said, realizing how rediculous it was) Get your facts and middle-eastern history straight before you make unbalanced, inaccurate and moronic criticisms of Israel while clarifying your support for terrorists, tyrants, and those theocrats in blatant violation of international law (Iranian Nukes anyone?)....."NotSoIgnorant", you'd made me laugh if i werent so confident that there are plenty of other people who are just as ignorant and opinionated! Signed: AlexiKobayashi

Krauthammer Gone

I don't even know how this crept in here. First if we look at the NPOV entry, he violates at least 4 of the enumerated items in the BIAS section. Second, the piece being sourced is an Op/Ed (OPINION)... why do we care about the opinion of (one) biased man? He is not a qualified expert in Political Science or anything else germane to a biography of the President of Iran. He was a former Psychiatrist. The quotation amounted to nothing more than name calling, which also violates the recommendation:

Let the facts speak for themselves
Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:
You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over.

The quotes of Mahmoud speak for themselves, as is the approach advocated above. Sarastro777 19:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Re Krauthammer's being a psychiatrist and not a qualified expert in political commentary: He won a Pulitzer Prize for political commentary. He's as qualified as anyone -- no, more so -- to offer his opinion on world politics, including Iran's. But it's still opinion, so perhaps his statements have no business here. We're supposed to be contributing to a factual article about MA, not engaging in a political debate like on some political discussion forum. --Schnaz 05:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

When people support their proposals for amending wikipedia articles with unverifiable information, "spin" or out and out lies, we have a responsability to correct them in order to stimulate positive and ENLIGHTENED debate. I don't engage an argument based on lies and half-truths, i correct them so that intelligent debate can continue amongst reasonable, intelligent people. Wikipedia should do the same. Some political/historical debate will be neccessary to iron out exactly what constitues a fair and balanced article on a particular subject. When a man (Ahmadinejad) is clearly anti-semetic based on any intelligeable interpretation of the word, we can label him as such. Would you suggest that Wikipedia no longer label Dr. Werner Von Braun as a rocket scientist? Rather let the fact that he built rockets speak for itself? It isn't biased to call a spade a spade. Signed: AlexiKobayashi

It was added in response to suggestions that the section needed specific quotes on Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitism, and as someone pointed out he is a nationally syndicated, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Washington Post. I think his presence is desirable but not absolutely necessary. --Mantanmoreland 12:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue is: Was the info published ? see WP:RS. Zeq 12:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The "info" is the opinion of one man, an affirmed Zionist with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science. This would be akin to quoting Dr. Laura in an academic article on schizophrenia or psychiatric illness. Just because she has an opinion on the matter does not make it informed or correct, or unbiased. The Pulitzer Prize he won was for commentary, not for any academic accomplishment or having particularly studied anything in the area of Middle East Culture, Politics, World Relations... it's just for giving his opinion as a 'conservative' or 'semite' on various political matters. Commentary in the form of "Op/Ed" pieces are not rigorous enough to meet any kind of sensible intellectual or academic standard. Did anyone else notice the dubious wording in his biographies regarding his studies at Oxford? No mention of completing ANY graduate studies .. i.e. he dropped out of the political science program. LOL. More fluff and no substance! Let's quote people that can at least 'make the grade' and use some sort of facts. Sarastro777 16:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
From the little piece you linked.. did you read it?
"Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field" Sarastro777 16:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
That quote from WP:RS is absurdly irrelevant. The "avowed Zionist" Krauthammer is not being quoted as an authority on the speed of light or the composition of the atom, but as a noted political commentator who directly called Ahmadinejad an anti-Semite. It was requested by editors who noted the absence of such quotes despite the inclusion of this person in the anti-Semitic people category. Krauthammer is amply qualified under WP:RS to opine on the subject of Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitism, and it is nonsense to suggest that he is not qualified to be quoted in Wikipedia. --Mantanmoreland 18:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think his opinion can be included, but an op-ed piece is not a reliable source regarding the question if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an anti-semite or not. However, we have a reliable source that Charles Krauthammer thinks he is. ANd as it says in WP:RS "Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?". // Liftarn

Juan Cole is quoted copiously in this article and his bias is well-known, and I don't see anyone objecting to his being quoted. The same can be said for every other source quoted in this article, which range from obscure pro-Iranian websites to the Iranian govenment and its news agency. This is not an article about an academic subject. It is an article about the world's most controversial head of state. If one were to remove sources with "bias," one would have to remove every single source in this article and there would be no article.--Mantanmoreland 19:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Krauthammer is hardly more biased than Cole, or the Iranian foreign ministry. Jayjg (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but neither Krauthammer's nor Cole's views should be taken as absolute truth and it should be stated that it's their oppinion, especially since they are entierly opposite each other. // Liftarn

I am sorry if there is an impression that only critical items are being eliminated. That would certainly not help to further the objectivity of the article.

If I may propose... an anti-semite using the definition used here, must hate all jews or find them innately evil (as defined in anti-semite).. in essence a "gratuiotous jew hater" for lack of a better term. An approach that would not rely on opinions of people would be to list A.M. saying something like "Jews are evil", "I hate jews", "Jews must die"..... much like Hitler did. Someone could quote copious amounts of material from Mein Kampf, without us having to take the opinion of some commentator saying he is anti-semite.

If A.M. is such a rabid anti-semite there should be tons of primary source material that we can use. This to me seems like a much more academic way of approaching the problem. I realize people were complaining about no quotes, but I think they wanted to see why people like Krauthammer or the Christian were calling him an Anti-Semite, not to merely hear their specific name-calling. If we can't find anything along those lines then perhaps our notions are due to spin or we need to simply await better material. JMHO Sarastro777 22:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

What you are arguing we should do is original research, discerning for ourselves whether or not Ahmadinejad is an anti-Semite, based on our analysis of his statements. What Wikipedia policy insists on is quite different; specifically that we quote what reliable sources say regarding whether or not he is an anti-Semite. Jayjg (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No you misunderstood me. I am saying to use what is known as a "primary source" .. there's no research to do so to speak, as you will quote exactly from that source and not use yourself (as in original research) as the source. What this allows is for the reader to be presented with the facts, rather than someone's conclusion from those facts. What we have are secondary or third sources with the reader having no idea why the people being quoted are saying "anti-semite." It should be fairly straightforward to find better (for our purposes) material to quote of him actively being an anti-semite (assuming he is one) rather than someone just calling him one without the reader understanding why because only an unsubstantiated opinion has been referenced. This is not a new idea. It's actually standard..especially for biographies.

e.g. To convey Lincoln's ideas on slavery, one could quote the Emancipation Proclamation (a primary source). This would be preferable and more rigorous to randomly quoting someone that was awarded a "Guardian of the Confederacy award" that works for a newspaper opinion column saying "Lincoln is an abolitionist." Original research would be a third option where you went and interviewed the descendants of people that worked for Lincoln as to whether or not they recollected any stories about his viewpoints. You then cited yourself and these interviews you conducted in a Wikipedia article about slavery. Sarastro777 23:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg is correct.--Mantanmoreland 03:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't avoid the issue of using good verifiable information/sources (not opinion) by claiming doing so is original research. Nobody is advocating launching a study of A.M. I think it is disingenuous for anyone to pursue this in response to what I have suggested. Sarastro777 05:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Bob Edgar / Anti-Semite section

I have removed the Bob Edgar comment. The issue isn't Bob Edgar's bias. The issue is that he is peripherally connected to the whole situation. He is simply not relevant in this case. Why not put up a comment by Olmert or the Simon Wiesenthal Center or Elie Wiesel? They are far more qualified to address the issue of anti-semitism. Putting up quotes by people with little connection to the matter just because they are pithy is probably a violation of NPOV. Pbasu 00:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


As above, the section is introduced as saying M.A. is "widely criticized." This is established. Bob Edgar has a religious AND political bias. Why are we listing the name calling opinion of this one person? (again not particularly qualified to comment). This type of thing needs to be stopped. The approach as advocated by policy is to list the quotations and PERHAPS give some analysis of them by notable individuals (preferably without known bias). Not just put a smorgasboard of name calling without any context. Sarastro777 20:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Every single person quoted in this article has some kind of bias. Let's stop selectively attacking and questioning the credentials of people who are critical of Ahmadinejad, as was done above with Krauthammer. --Mantanmoreland 18:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course. The Iranian government's quotes are the result of a very biased position of trying to do "damage control" for multiple ongoing anti-semitic statements by ahmadinejad. Perhaps an appropriate place for the Krauthammer bit would be to add a fourth link to the end of the sentence "Identification of Ahmadinejad with antisemitism has come from a variety of sources. [16][17][18]" --FairNBalanced 18:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

In Academia there are different types of references for different situations. If someone is giving an unqualified opinion, "The Earth is Flat" then we are relying solely on credentials to establish the credibility of the statement. This is when it is most important the person be highly qualified and completely without bias. If you believe as part of your religion that a certain nation will be essential in fulfilling a prophecy, then that probably does not meet that standard. Or say you are awarded a "Guardian" award by a country that is the mortal enemy of Iran, then that probably also does not meet that standard.

Another scenario would be where person <x> presents "The earth is flat because you can see the curvature of the horizon" or the "Earth is flat because .." or A.M. is an anti-semite because he said "All jews are evil" then that does not require the credentials of person <x> to be especially credible other than we can believe he/she is not distorting the facts that are being relayed. It appears that line has been blurred here in the past, and it was accepted that people with serious bias issues were simply allowed to be quoted with their own viewpoints. I propose a way to move away from this and be more rigorous above. Namely if he is anti-semitic, then we need to document why he is anti-semitic, and not just accept other people calling him so as proof that he is (or is not). Sarastro777 22:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not the place for original research. WP:NOR. --Mantanmoreland 03:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't avoid the issue of using good verifiable information/sources (not opinion) by claiming doing so is original research. Nobody is advocating launching a study of A.M. I think it is disingenuous for anyone to pursue this in response to what I have suggested. Sarastro777 05:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The "issue" is that one pretext after another is being advanced to remove content unfavorable to Ahmadinejad. When one issue is exhausted, another is raised. Last week it was that there "weren't quotes on his anti-Semitism." Today it is that there are quotes. Next week it will be something else, all aimed at skewing the POV of this article.--Mantanmoreland 12:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

First, the accusations of skewing are in violation of Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, namely that one assumes good faith on behalf of the other editors.

It seems this is the chain of events, I have assembled since working on the article:

1) It was decided to call the President of Iran "anti-Semite" and put a section on it
2) No sources exemplifying him being an anti-semite were ever found or used in the section
3) Instead there were placed random out of context opinions of biased individuals calling him "anti-Semite" or it being used as a perjorative by newspaper writers.

Why this is a bad idea:
Opinons do not prove facts... even when in newspapers..
e.g. "United States is the Great Satan."
e.g. "Die Juden sind unser Unglück!" ("The Jews are our misfortune!") -- Der Sturmer
e.g. "Richard Jewell is a terrorist."
e.g. "..the acceptance of homosexuality could result in hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, terrorist bombings and "possibly a meteor." -- Pat Robertson

Requiring ethical and factual (preferably primary source) source material for an encylopedic/biographic entry is not a burden, but a privilege. It is (only) through this process we insure vial POV propaganda such as above does not happen. Although it may seem like following good editing technique is causing bias, I hope you can see the true motive is in fact to prevent/remove it. Sarastro777 23:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again you ignore that use of primary sources is not permitted by WP:NOR unless published in a verifiable secondary source. I am tired of repeating myself on that subject and another editor made that same point to you as well.
"...it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly." (WP:NOR}
As for the assumption of good faith -- that is not absolute, and the burden is on editors to demonstrate good faith. I am not seeing good faith demonstrated here. One after another, edits have eroded, downplayed and eliminated criticism of Ahmadinejad, threby skewing the POV of this article. I do not have to assume good faith in the face of a succession of POV-pushing edits.
Use of personally attacking edit summaries, such as "Discussion has avoided crux of matter and is has now seen introduction of red herring distractions," in explaining yet another POV-pushing removal of the Edgar quote, is yet another indication of bad faith.
As for the Edgar quote -- we've gone over it endlessly. You are attempting to set forth here an unreasonably high standard as a pretext to yet again eliminate criticism of Ahmadinejad, just as you are advocating inappropriate use of primary sources that would make it almost impossible for this article to report on the anti-Semitism of this world leader. --Mantanmoreland 23:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Now I see why you are so upset. You don't know what the term "primary source" means. I strongly suggest you re-examine the piece you are quoting. You are confusing creating a primary source with quoting one. Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. (WP:NOR} It looks silly when we are not even familiar with the basic terms under discussion here. Especially when it is the basis for false accusations against other editors.

All these guidelines ("the unreasonably high standard")... THEY ARE NOT MINE. All can be found in: Neutral_point_of_view,Guidelines_for_controversial_articles, Source

The phrasing in your responses makes it clear you assume he is an anti-semite. If he is, then document it. That's not me skewing things. In fact if the argument is that someone should be able to call a leader "anti-semite" with no facts, then in fact that would be where the POV and bias lay. The burden is on YOU to prove he is anti-semite. You must meet the standards of Wikipedia:Verifiability as well. Don't blame everyone else that does not share in your POV for not giving you a pass on this. None of this is personal. If it makes you rest any better, I personally think the guy is a dolt.. but that doesn't mean I can just write that in his biography.

Sarastro777 00:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

At this moment his anti-Semitism is amply sourced and documented in accordance with Wikipedia standards. If you continue to remove supporting quotes and citations it will not be as amply sourced and documented. If you want a complete and nonbiased article, stop POV pushing by removing perfectly acceptable quotes on flimsy pretexts.--Mantanmoreland 00:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's useless to mince words. It's apparent that you are unwilling or unable to comprehend my point. For sake of balance, I will be contributing counter "opinions." Anticipating hearing whining about skewing articles, I remind you that these are your ground rules as sticking just to unadulterated facts is apparently intolerable. Sarastro777 03:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sarastro777, you seem to scor the net to find confirmation to your POV. See WP:RS and check the title of this article. BTW, the opinion of Iranian minister was old news refuted by MA himself. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for insulting my integrity, might I add perhaps you have POV that is threatened by this information. I see no evidence that MA refuted this. If your claim is true, cite your source and place it after the quotation I added. Accusing me of things is not helping the article :-) As to its credibility it is from Radio Free Europe, carrying a Reuters feed. By deleting this, you violated Wikipedia policy. There is not a problem with the credibility of the source. Upon inspection of your user page, it appears quite inappropriate to accuse me of bias. I ask that you leave your own background and political bias out of this story. Sarastro777 05:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that Mantanmoreland, who seems to have come to this article from Category:Anti-Semitic people specifically to ensure that category was applied to MA, truly and honestly believes MA is an antisemite, ie. that he actually hates Jews, and wishes them harm, and because Mantanmoreland holds these strong beliefs, he is acting in good faith when he persists in attaching his category to the article. In contrast, other editors honestly believe that it is far from obvious that MA is an antisemite, and feel that POV article tagging is counter to both the spirit and the letter of wikipedia. As such, we appear to have a situation where good people of honest intent disagree, and which we therefore need to work through calmly and carefully on the talk page as opposed to in the edit summaries, and beginning, I would suggest, with Sarastro777's new material. &#0151; JEREMY 05:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Sarastro777: first, there is no need to duplicate the content of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel and Iran-Israel relations. Second, here is MA on RFERL further clarifying his genocidal ideas: Iranian Leader Says Israel 'Cannot Exist' April 24, 2006. Finally, MA is a Holocaust denier, and that makes him an antisemite. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, and I am really shocked by the amount of blatant POV-pushing in this article, which ranges from removal of perfectly acceptable sources and quotes to blatant bias and editorializing. For example, I just edited out a passage, which one editor insisted upon retaining, that decried the "lack of freedom of speech in Europen countries." I have edited this to read in a neutral fashion, but let us see how long it takes before it is reverted. You (Humus) just removed yet another example of that. This POV pushing really must stop.--Mantanmoreland 12:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Humus sapiens seems to have accidentally reverted the following material in his "RV whitewash." edit:

In May 2006, major media outlets throughout the world carried a fabricated story which painted Iran and its Government as being anti-semitic. The story which originated in Canada claimed that Jewish residents of Iran would be forced to wear yellow stars, reminescent of Nazi Germany. The lie sparked a major international incident, drawing criticism from George Bush and a letter from the Simon Wiesenthal Center to the Secretary General of the United Nations. The story's origins were eventually tied to a newspaper, The National Post famously owned by a prominent Jewish resident of Canada, Israel Asper, who was described as having views in regard to Zionism coinciding with Israel's right-wing Likud party. The paper was later sold to a company run by Leonard Asper, and other children of Dr. I. Asper.[1][2][3]

Rather than re-adding it immediately, I think we should discuss it here first. We also need to discuss Humus' contention that "MA is a Holocaust denier, and that makes him an antisemite."

MA is a populist whose actual views are hard to discern through the political rhetoric. There is no doubt he is ideologically opposed to Israel (because Khomeini was), and he seems to believe the holocaust is a kind of secular religion for Israel and that by attacking it he can weaken Israel politically. He may be an antisemite too, but that's neither obvious from the available evidence, nor have I seen convincing argument that it would be encyclopaedic in this circumstance, even if demonstrated. I am, however, quite willing to be convinced otherwise. &#0151; JEREMY 13:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

First, the badge story was important because it was used as a reason to call MA an anti-semite. It was shown to be a lie and directly related to a section on M.A. and "anti-semitism" (thought admittedly not favorably for those advancing the name-calling. I suspect this was why it was completely reverted under the comment 'whitewash').

Secondly as I state above in first section, there are several logical problems with linking holocaust denial to anti-semite. First the holocaust was a historical event. There are many examples of why people could deny this without having any hatred for the jews whatsoever. It appears A.M. does this because he wants to relocate Israel to Europe, so the Palestinians can move back to Palestine from their refugee camps. Also, I point out the other groups that died in equal total number to the jews: poles, catholics, freemasons, gays. It would be silly and I don't see anyone labeling him "anti-Freemason" for denying the holocaust. The same logic pattern dictates it is equally silly to label him anti-semite based on this one aea of discussion. An anti-semite is someone like David Duke who writes a book specifically about the evils of the jews. An anti-semite is a Joseph Goebbels or Hitler that claims jews are evil. An anti-semite MAY be .. but is not proven to be someone questioning events of history, by that questioning alone. Sarastro777 15:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You forgot the numbers of those who suffered of appendicitis and traffic accidents. At this point you are whitewashing a Holocaust denier and demonstrating your ignorance (I am trying to WP:AGF). As I said elsewhere, if you don't want to learn basic facts, it is your choice - I am not going to educate you. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Correction: "a possible Holocaust denier". He seems to dubt it, not outright deny it. In dubious cases, and especially when dealing with living persons, it is probably better to err on the side of caution. // Liftarn 07:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


He has said that Israel needs to be wiped off the face of the map, that hte holocaust is a myth, and he leads a country that has had the destruction of Israel as a national goal for quite some time. While I know that these don't "prove" that he is an anti-semite, I think this argument is just people attempting to be obnoxious.
Intrinsic to Holocaust denial is the accusation of a vast and effective conspiracy involving millions upon millions of European Jews. Even if someone does not specifically say anything negative about Jews, that accusation is fundamental to the very fabric of Holocaust denial, because aside from a tens-of-millions-strong mass hallucination/delusion, there is no other explanation but an intentional, organized conspiracy of falsehood.
Follow me in a hypothetical: Imagine that there is a European academician who writes a book claiming that the terrorist attacks of September 11th never occurred. Not the sort of conspiracy theory you usually hear, regarding who did what and when, but rather claiming that the attacks themselves never happened.
Would you call this academic anti-American? If you would, why? If you wouldn't, why not? --Kuronekoyama 04:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if it is, I think it might be better to say "He is widely regarded as an anti-semite." Which may sound to you like "wiggle words" or whatever, but I think it is a higly relevant statement, seeing as this wide regard shapes international opinions. MikeNM 17:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


This is rediculous. What is this infatuation with calling him an "anti-semite?" The whole point of these articles is to provide facts, not to call people names (even if they deserve it). Take a look at the article on David Duke. At no point is he explicitly called an anti-semite or a racist, but his biography makes it clear that he is one. Why can't we do the same here? It seems to me that anyone and everyone could accurately infer MA's position after reading his comments about the Holocaust and Israel. I wouldn't have a problem even if he were introduced as the "Iranian president who has invited controversy with his repeated calls for wiping out Israel and for referring to the 'myth' of the Holocaust." Where, then, is the need to explicitly label him? A simple question... does Britannica call him an antisemite? 146.115.113.69 02:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I am very happy that the person above addressed peoples "infatuation with calling him an 'anti-semite.'" I completely agree that wikipedia is a place for facts, not for using flagrant descriptors of people. I disagree with the call to make this article slanted against him in order to imply that he is an anti-semite, however. This is both improper and based on all data, inaccurate.
Nothing that Ahmadinejad has said is inherantly anti-semitic, nor do his views of the holocaust make him anti-semetic. Stating that "MA is a Holocaust denier, and that makes him an antisemite" is absurd; it is like saying that as a horror movie fan, I condone violence. The two ideas are not interconnected in either case, and should not be treated as such.
No matter how much he states that Israel should not exist, he should not automatically be labeled anti-semitic either. If you actually read his quotes rather than rely on POV laden interpretations in this talk section, you would realize that his objection to the state of Israel is not racially motivated and therefore, not evident of anti-semetism. I of course do not condone what he says, but you can't go and call him names just because you disagree with him. Markovich292 08:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Unacceptable vandalism

I see now it had nothing to do with skewing the article.

I have posted a quotation (primary source) of the foreign minister of Iran reiterating the meaning of the "wipe Israel off the map." This was referenced essentially from Reuters. It was deleted by Humus sapien because he said it was an unreliable source. I added it back, and now it was deleted because it was "whitewash." This is unacceptable and now is obviously suppression of any facts that may go against the POV 'anti-semite' smear campaign against this man.

Secondly Mantamoreland has again deleted a triply sourced doucment that shows the comment was interpreted by most other outlets as advocating the overthrow of the regime and not a call for the death of all the residents. Again this is triply sourced and factuality is completely established. Deleting this because you don't like it is completely an egregious violation. I am shocked to see this behavior from someone who was just said previously...

...I agree, and I am really shocked by the amount of blatant POV-pushing in this article, which ranges from removal of perfectly acceptable sources and quotes to blatant bias and editorializing.

There is no question this material is valid, even moreso than the opinion of a Church leader because it comes from multiple sources, and directly from those directly involved in the original subject matter. You may be risking the deletion of your accounts. A warning. 68.6.254.16 15:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"Anti-semetic smear campaign against this man [Ahmadinejad]". I think this comment speaks for itself. You're only smearing someone if you are hurling baseless accusations at them. Informed and referenced notions, ideas, and positions are known as "responsable journalism" or "broadcasting". There IS a distinction. Do you take issue with lack of inclusion of what you and your sources (whoever they may be) say was the more complete translation, bceause that in itself is editorializing. Why not just write, "the accuracy of this translation is disputed amongst experts in the field", followed by your sources. This however would also be misleading because what Ahmadinejad was doing in that specific speech was directly quoting Khameini (of that there is no doubt), and there is no dispute i've ever heard of regarding what Khameini meant by "wipe Israel off the map". If you're going to quote someone, reasonable people can expect that you mean what they meant. Signed: AlexiKobayashi


Anonymous editor: Please desist from making false accusations of "vandalism," personal attacks and threats ("a warning"). Vandalism has a specific meaning in Wikipedia and none of the edits on this page from either side, including the blatant POV pushing to which I referred, meet that criteria. See WP:Vandalism.
My edit consisted of changing a few biased words ("lack of freedom of speech" which I changed to "laws"), so this personal attack was directed at the wrong editor. However, that paragraph was properly deleted by the editor who made the deletion. The recent reversion of my edits and the other editor's is yet another example of the POV edits that have plagued this article. The personal attacks further indicate the bad faith involved here.
You use the word "I" so I am assuming that the anonymous editor is the author of the recent reversion. Please go back, log in, and sign your post. --Mantanmoreland 15:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverting verifiable material under the auspices of it being "whitewash" or "reversing POV" (when it is simply a quotation) IS VANDALISM. At the point I restored, it appeared your minor edit was gone and the entire quotation had been removed. I don't have a problem with changing "freedom of speech" though that is certainly accurate and describes the concept as it relates to Western Liberal Democracies and will be recognized as such anyway. Sarastro777 15:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you have still not withdrawn an accusation of "vandalism" against me even though I pointed out that the deletion was by someone else. Putting that aside, an accusation of vandalism is serious business, and I would suggest rethinking your position on that.
Again, Sarastro777, if the anonymous post was by you, as apparently it was, please sign it using your user ID.--Mantanmoreland 15:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You've deleted the same piece multiple times. "Blanking" is considered a form of vandalism. Whomoever made the change.. which appears to either be you or Humus Sapien did so removing a vast amount of verifiable content that was primarily quotations directly from the individuals involved. These cannot be considered POV by any stretch of the imagination... simply words of those involved in the matter. "Whitewash" does not justifying blanking paragraphs of well-sourced and objective contribution. Although "Administrator" is obviously not a paid position, one with such a title should certainly understand they will be held to a higher standard and know better than others how egregious that behavior is. Sarastro777 15:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There has been no "blanking." Secondly, I am not an adminstrator. If you are going to throw around wild accusations of vandalism, be sure to direct your remarks to the right editor.--Mantanmoreland 15:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Quoting your entry from Humus Sapiens' talk page:

"I see that I recently received a kind of backhanded but unjustified praise -- in the form of an attack for "vandalism" -- for your recent, excellent edits to Mohammed Ahmadinejad. See the Talk page, bottom.--Mantanmoreland 15:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)"

You should not be proud or happy to see the deletion of legitimate work. This is a shameful thing, and your praise of these actions is also shameful. Obviously your outrage was somewhat feigned as you seem to be quite happy with what has taken place. Sarastro777 16:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I was advising user Humus Sapien of your wild "vandalism" accusations, which you misdirected toward me and for which you have yet to withdraw or to apologize. Yes, I thought that user's contributions were excellent. Removal of biased, unjustified, POV-pushing edits from Wiki is always cause to be pleased. I was being flip because the accusation is absurd.
Please cool down and please re-read WP:Vandalism. Your comments, such as that so-and-so is an administrator and "ought to know better" or whatever border on personal attacks and don't help your case. While I believe this may simply be a case of your not being all that familiar with Wikipedia, repeating such remarks is just not helpful, particularly after you have been asked to stop. --Mantanmoreland 16:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Sarastro777 wrote "You should not be proud or happy to see the deletion of legitimate work." - imagine what would happen if people only add. Welcome to WP where deletion of irrelevant or inaccurate information is a part of the editing process. In this case,
  1. Cease personal attacks now.
  2. The badge story doesn't belong here - see the article's title.
  3. You are misconstruing what is Holocaust denial or antisemitism - you'll have to do some learning by yourself - sorry I don't have time to educate you. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The word is 'legitimate' which the additions you deleted clearly were. You have put forth the claim that the badge piece is irrelevant or inaccurate. You need to support this claim. Your word is not fact around here. If you believe this, the correct way to handle the situation would have been to edit with appropriate citation, not delete on a whim. This section is on "Anti-Semitism" and here we have a fabricated piece trying to show M.A. and his gov't in that light. It's beyond argument this is relevant, and as to the accuracy.. the offending newspaper issued a retraction. I don't think I have yet seen valid justification for your having repeatedly removed it. Doing so is clearly vandalism as this is useful information supported by the verifiability requirement. If this continues, I intend to begin warning steps for vandalism as you have offered no evidence to show this is anything but malicious.

As to the whether questioning the holocaust equates with antisemitism, this is a matter still open to discussion. Again, I note more people are on record in contention with your viewpoint than with. You have also not offered a substantative rebuttal to the points we have raised, other than declaring the matter closed and myself in need of learning. This is not acceptable discourse. Sarastro777 20:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The badge story is neither about Ahmadinejad, nor about anti-Semitism; it has nothing to do in this article. Holocaust denial does constitute anti-Semitism; if you doubt, feel free to discuss the matter with the experts in this field. Pecher Talk 20:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sarastro777, you have to put Ahmadinejad's holocaust denial into context. This is not an attempt to review in good faith what is taken as historical fact regarding the holocaust. Ahmadinejad invokes holocaust denial in furtherance of inciting hatred and bolstering domestic support, or at least curtailing domestic unrest. That is unquestionably anti-semitic based on any intelligent definition of anti-semitism. Take into consideration that these are exactly the techniques that Hitler would have made use of in order to rouse or quell the german people, had the holocaust occured before his time and not by his own hand. I'm starting to wonder how a clearly educated person such as yourself can interpret holocaust denial in this context as anything other than anti-semitism. Signed: AlexiKobayashi

Good diplomacy skills, Pecher. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Forcing all jews to wear yellow stars is not about anti-semitism? and a lie that Iran is the one to do it does not pertain to the President of Iran? (when the media and people on here used it to justify calling him anti-semite?) This is absurd. I strongly protest that you keep reverting info about the fabricated news story about Iran (guess who the President is) forcing all jews to wear yellow stars. Reverts are not even to be used except for in vandalism. Correcting vandalism is an exception Hummus to 3RR, but thanks for threatening me on my talk page. Please report whatever you think you should to 'authorities.' I am sure they would be surprised to see the antics taking place. Also Pecher removed the vandalism warning template. That is also against the rules.

Your viewpoint on holocaust denial == anti-semitism is not shared by the majority of people that have contributed on this discussion board. I realize you think you are smart, but this does not mean the rest of us are necessarily wrong, stupid, ignorant, or uninformed of your "experts" because we don't see things as you do. The metaphor in your rebuttal makes no sense. I fail to see the connection between appendicits and how holocaust denial means that somebody hates jews. If this is some kind of joke about the victims of the holocaust, I don't find it funny. Sarastro777 22:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to note that in addition, you also misunderstand what vandalism is. We are all equal here, so please stop your personal attacks and learn some basics. Thank you. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
He may be right in saying that the accepted view of holocaust denial=anti-Semitism is not accepted by the majority of people who have contributed to what he inaccurately (but tellingly) describes as "this discussion board." Ditto for the incessant attempts to chip away at criticism of Ahmadinejad.
This is a textbook example of the situation described in WP:Consensus: But Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith. With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that one is editing according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of one's activities.
Additionally, At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is POV, inaccurate, or libelous. This is not a consensus. Again, I think this is something that needs to be kept in mind. --Mantanmoreland 15:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"..the incessant attempts to chip away at criticism of Ahmadinejad" -- One could make the observation that you have a very strong opinion that M.A. is an anti-semite. Anything that even nearly shows him in a different light is described as “chipping away, POV, whitewash”, which is more a reflection of your own bias than that of other editors adding verifiable information. Sarastro777 22:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the third or possibly fourth or more time that I and other editors have had to say it, but I repeat: stop your personal attacks.--Mantanmoreland 23:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You made a statement that I had a motive in my editing, and I provided some constructive feedback. There have been no personal attacks coming from me. By any stretch the most one could say is I have made criticism of the revert behavior of 2 editors, but nothing attacking them personally. Please learn the difference before making such a strong accusation (especially when it falsely portrays the idea as an established pattern). Sarastro777 03:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of Media Fabrication “Star of David” News Story

In the anti-Semite section is all sorts of questionable source material documenting OPINION… from out of context name-calling from a Church Leader to a passive voice unattributed perjorative from a sports article.

On the other hand this story represents fact -- a fabrication that was circulated in the media which by definition (tagging yellow stars to Jews) represents an example of anti-Semitism entirely fictitious and later proven false and retracted by the source. Without question this encouraged world opinion that M.A. is an anti-Semite. My efforts to include this information have been thwarted by at least two Administrators, and I think we now need a valid explanation for why it is acceptable to suppress this information. Saying it “whitewashes an anti-Semite” is an opinion and merely representative of bias on behalf of others that M.A. is an anti-Semite. For those that have forgotten, the goal is to objectively include data as if we have not formed our own ideas on the subject. Sarastro777 22:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Genuine objectivity can only exist in theory, not in practice. Everyone censores, Sarastro, even you. Thus the goal is to maintain a good faith attempt to be as objective as possible throughout one's writing, and not push a POV disproportionately. I see no problem with labelling M.A. an anti-semite, because he is under any intelligeable definition of the word. I dont know why you're so frightened of labelling, when it is well documented and backed up. Based on what you have written all through this talk page, i can assume that your biggest issue of contention is a disagreement over what constitutes "anti-semitism". Personally i think that when M.A's comments are put into context, they are clearly identified as anti-semitism, and not a good-faith effort to examine the accepted history of the holocaust. To paraphrase shakespeare: a rose called by any other name would smell just as sweet. You can call M.A whatever you like, but the fact remains that he is anti-semitic. Signed: AlexiKobayashi

  1. You are yet to learn the difference between fact and opinion.
  2. The yellow badge story is irrelevant to the subject of this article and is covered elsewhere. If you insist that it is relevant, please show MA's role in it. "this encouraged world opinion that M.A. is an anti-Semite" is WP:OR. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you are quoting the OR article yet again, even though OR has not been mentioned -- I assume you understand that we both realize that is not allowed and I have not advocated it. The term entered the dialogue in a response by JayG responding to Mantamoreland because Mantamoreland did not understand what a primary source was. Eventually after quoting the article to me several times, I showed him (Mantamoreland) where it stated primary sources are preferable fodder for source material. Despite him quoting the WP:OR link to me several times, he apparently had not read it or overlooked that particular area.

Second, the relevance is obvious, but if we want to be obtuse there are references to Ahmadenijad all throughout the article to which I linked. That is unless of course, you can say with a straight face that M.A. does not comprise part of the "regime?" I really doubt that was the argument you were trying to make, as it wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

So can we now quit suppressing this article even though your personal opinion is it "whitewashes a holocaust denier?" Sarastro777 03:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Translation issue

Is it really neccessary to have this much excessive info on translation in the article? Everyone knows that languages do not translate directly into each other but it's not disputed that at least the idea of his comments were portrayed correctly. --Strothra 16:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Put the comments in context and compare them against the accepted definition of anti-semitism. I mean it. stand up, walk away from the computer and think about it. Gee, what conclusion did we reach? Are M.A's comments a good-faith effort to analyze the genuinly accepted history of the holocaust (which would not be anti-semitic, but rather, what academia refer to as "research") or are they meant to incite hatred? Signed: AlexiKobayashi

When a mis-translation is, or could be, a significant milestone on the road to war, it warrants some discussion. It is unnecessary, though, to discuss the same qoutation twice in the same article, once under Antagonism Against Israel and again under Ahmadinejad and anti-Semitism.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.91.187.9 (talk • contribs) .

I agree with Strothra. It is blown way out of proportion and grossly skews the POV of this piece. --Mantanmoreland 14:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a big deal, as US politicians are using it as a means to gather support for another Iraq. Ahmadinejad said that the regime occupying Jerusalem (which legally does not belong to either Israel or Palestine) should vanish from the pages of time, just as the Shah's regime did. How that translates into "we are making nuclear weapons and are going to bomb Israel and kill all the Jews", I do not know.

Your original research is fascinating, but you can't insert it into an article. Jayjg (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Iranian Jewish commentary

"Non-notable, marginal groups" Jayjg? What, people actually living under this regime are less important than foreigners who oppose it? Sounds a lot like selective antisemitism to me. &#0151; JEREMY 07:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with consistent removal of non-notable material. If you are concerned that this article not downplay Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitism, you should revert the overt POV-pushing which has beset this article and which has precisely that goal.--Mantanmoreland 14:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
What do you call notable ???!! The statements were from Neturei Karta's leader and its spokeman. Would you please let me know why "Luke Harding and Denis Campbell" who were authors of that Guardian article about Iran's footbal team are notable and Neturei Karta's leader and its spokeman are not ???!!! Why do you think Iranian Jewish community is not notable but US senate is notable ??! This is plain POV. --Sinooher15:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm delighted that all of a sudden there is concern about POV-pushing in this article! So I trust I will see reversion of the anonymous edit that changed "Ahmadinejad and anti-Semitism" into "Accusations of anti-Semitism." I'm up against 3RR so I can't do it myself. Go to it, guys.--Mantanmoreland 15:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The new heading is appropriate since the new section shows not everyone, including Jews would agree with the label. Also the football quote has the accusation written in a passive voice and is unattributed. I doubt this would even have made it past a newspaper Editor were it not in the sports section. Sarastro777 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This whole discussion is, as usual, totally surreal. The initial accusation of "selective anti-Semitism" is not only a personal attack on the editor in question but also ridiculous on its face, considering that the removed quotes were justifying Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitism. The comments that were deleted are from a non-notable groups, including one that is on the lunatic fringe of Israeli society. Neither comment belongs in this article. Including them is yet another effort to skew the POV of this article. --Mantanmoreland 16:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that I've overstepped the mark; I withdraw my unwarranted commentary. Given neither of the paragraphs in question actually discusses the opinions of Iranian Jews but instead both present the opinions of a single, very small group, I accept they are not relevant here and have removed them. &#0151; JEREMY 20:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I applaud your show of good faith. Bravo.--Mantanmoreland 20:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)



Organisaton of Sources for Charges of Antisemitism

Removed two dead-end citations[4] [5]. The cited documents do not actually make the charge of anti-Semitism but rather report on issues surrounding the senate resolution (which still needs a good citation) . 83.91.187.9 12:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Translation issue condensed

As suggested by at least two other editors, have condensed the issue of the translation, which rambles on far too long with semantic quibbles over whether Ahmadinejad said "map" or not. Current version gives undue weight to this semantic issue, thus skewing the POV by obscuring the fact, as noted by Bronner, that all Farsi translations refer to "wiping Israel away." --Mantanmoreland 15:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If original Farsi script is provided, we can get confirmation from Iranian wikipedians here, but the focus should be on that he was quoting what Khomeini had said decades earlier --K a s h Talk | email 15:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
No, we absolutely would not be able to get "confirmation" that way. WP:NOR. Whether he is quoting Khomeini or Mary Poppins or Hitler, bottom line is that he advocated "wiping Israel away." The constant POV-pushing aimed at obscuring that fact needs to end.--Mantanmoreland 15:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
You should tone down your rhetoric and not make accusations against others. Please see WP:NPOV. Some of us here are interested simply in the facts, not character assassination. SirDiplomat 19:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
This from a new editor who has just carried out approximately a half dozen POV-pushing edits and reverts, and two inflammatory Talk page posts, in his first -- what is it? -- twenty minutes on Wikipedia?--Mantanmoreland 20:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It is thoroughly established that neither "Isreal" nor "map" appears in the farsi text. Hence I'm replacing the mistranslation and the POV interpretation of it as "the State of Isreal" with the correct translation. 83.91.187.9 18:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add origional research to Wikipedia. See WP:NOR. All claims must be verifiable through reliable cited sources. --Strothra 20:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
As per Strothra. Please review WP:NPOV as well. Most sources used "wiped off the map"; some sources have since contradicted that (although in trivial way). The current text captures that issue exactly, as Wikipedia is supposed to do - it doesn't take sides. Jayjg (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Condensation attempted

I've gone back through this article, which is far too long and rambling, to remove repetition while trying to preserve a neutral POV.

I've cut some of the stuff early in the piece that readss llike it comes from a bio sheet from the Iranian foreign ministry. The segment on the letter to Bush is absurdly skewed, not mentioning that the letter was dismissed by US officials. I tried to replace the reverential tone that had pervaded certain parts of the article with a more neutral tone.

Meanwhile I cut dramatically the section on anti-Semitism, which is absurdly repetitious -- repeating the ramble on the Israeli "translation issue" now succinctly dealt with in the Israel section -- and replaced that section header with a more neutral one on the Holocaust. --Mantanmoreland 17:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Neturei Karta (again)

Neturei Karta is a tiny, radical fringe group - as per WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, it should not be given any weight at all in this article, much less two paragraphs. Please respect policy. Jayjg (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's why cut it down to a single sentence. // Liftarn
Yes, that is why it doesn't belong there at all. Neither does his traffic engineering degree warrant a title of "Dr." which is only used in Ministry of Foreign Affairs handouts.--Mantanmoreland 17:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Translation issue (again)

83.91.187.9, the section gives a reasonable chronological sequence of events. He made the speech in October 2005, and it was widely translated as "wiped off the map" etc. There was an international outcry etc. The translation itself wasn't contested until months later. All of this is accurately captured in the article. Please review Wikipedia's content policies, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. We don't try to decide which translation is right here, we just list the controversy itself in a neutral way, as it occured. The current section does so; please stop violating policy. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is rediculous, isn't there something that can be done about an editor who consistently adds the same clear POV to the same article repeatedly and against, what at least seems to be, consensus against his edits? --Strothra 14:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, since he hasn't even commented on the Talk: page in a week, and is now duplicating sections that are already there, it seems the only recourse at this point is to revert him. Jayjg (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, Liftarn, everyone interprets the statements as being antagonistic towards Israel - this is a simple statement of fact. The debate is about whether or not they called for Israel's destruction, not about whether or not they were antagonistic to Israel. Jayjg (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually they were antagonistic towards the Israeli regime, not the country as such. // Liftarn
Hmm, yes, that's what the apologists say; all Ahmadinejad was saying was that he would prefer a different "regime", one in which Muslims were running things under Islamic law, unlike the current "disgraceful blot". Anyway, are you quite done with your WP:POINT edits at this point, or do you have more planned? Jayjg (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not done until the article is NPOV or I run into 3RR whichever comes first (my guess is with the latter). // Liftarn
Sounds like a declaration of an edit war and refusal to discuss and seek consensus. By the way, people can be blocked for disruption even without breaking the 3RR limit. You're looking like a promising candidate for that given your pledge to keep edit warring, POVing, and disrupting the article. Pecher Talk 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Introducing POV terms like "regime of Israel" or "some fringe groups" is just disruptive, as is your edit-warring philosophy. Please stop. Jayjg (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Three words for you: "pot", "kettle", "black". // Liftarn
I don't understand what the last two words have to do with this edit war you've declared... -- Heptor talk 19:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I was hazy about it too. I just assumed it to be a personal attack of some kind on the preceding editor. Perhaps, if it's not a personal attack, Liftarn can clarify.--Mantanmoreland 19:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


"Regime" of Israel is blatantly biased, unencyclopedic language. Inserting that kind of inappropriate terminology is highly disruptive and really should stop. I'd urge Liftarn to rethink his position.--Mantanmoreland 18:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
"government of" then? // Liftarn
No. Current wording "State of Israel" is correct.--Mantanmoreland 19:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Obviously not since he was refering to the leadership of said state. // Liftarn
How did you know? Did he tell you something privately? Pecher Talk 19:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It's obvious for anybody without a strong POV. He was talking about the "occupying regime". And as it has been noted Ariel Sharon made the "occupation regime" in Gaza "vanish". Also the mention of Iran under the Shah, the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq indicates he's refering to the leadership, not the state. I'm perfectly aware that many people want (for various reasons) him to have said he wanted to wipe away the state of Israel, but that's not consistent with the facts. // Liftarn
This is not the way most people citable on this article interpreted his words. Feel free to push your POV on your blog or elsehwere, just spare the Wikipedia from your persistent disruption. Pecher Talk 20:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Get real! It's only your POV that he was refering to the state and not the government. // Liftarn
No, I don't think that is correct. I would additionally suggest to Liftarn that he exercise caution in his edit summaries. More than once, in this and other articles, such as most recently here, he inaccurately characterized one of his POV-pushing edits as "rv vandalism." Please review the relevant polices and exercise more discretion.--Mantanmoreland 20:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Many sources have been given showing he was referring to the regime, the Iranians denied the translations being pushed in the West (this has also been sourced). It's really sad that someone trying to include this information objectively is being attacked for pushing a POV. As has been said it is obviously a case of pot calling kettle black, where many have a POV that he wants to destroy the State of Israel and will see this included at the expense of other conflicting information whether or not it is true. Also FYI it *IS* vandalism to remove this properly sourced information to push your POV. Whether or not you have a Cabal of Admins acting disingenously does not change this plain fact. Sarastro777 18:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The "antagonistic statements"

One POV is that he was refering to the state of Israel, another POV is that he was refering to the government of Israel. All this POV-pushing has to stop and we have to get a NPOV statement. Any suggestions to how it should be written? // Liftarn

Who holds those two POVs? Oh, and if Prime Minister of Israel (or President of the United States) said that the "regime in Tehran" needs to be "wiped from the pages of history", do you think the Iran would consider that statement antagonistic towards Iran, or just towards its government? How about if the American President said that about the "regime in Peking"? Jayjg (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
We have sources for that both POVs exist and both views should be included in the article. // Liftarn
Liftarn, your concept of "neutral POV" included insertion of the phrase "regime of Israel."[1] I don't think that further tortured analysis of this straightforward and, when not made wrong, accurate sentence would serve any purpose.--Mantanmoreland 19:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
If you could just lay of the ad hominem attacks and try to be constructive instead. Regime do have the meaning "the government in power", but you haven't exacly been helpfull in choosing better words. // Liftarn
Inserting "regime" was blatant POV pushing. Period. Since you have no problem with inserting this and other POV-pushing phraseology in this article, I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from expositions on NPOV. That's all. Just spare us that.--Mantanmoreland 14:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It was an honest misstake. Please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. And you still haven't suggested a better choise of words. // Liftarn
Well, I am glad to hear you say that. As for the choice of words, the current one is accurate.--Mantanmoreland 16:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that is just one view, the other view (that also needs to be included) it that he was refering to the leadership of Israel. Now, how do you suggest we should write that? // Liftarn
Well it certainly works to the advantage of the Pro-Israel interest POV to push "destruction of Israel", where the Iranians themselves have emphasized a downfall of the 'regime' (this means leadership). If the Iranians themselves are making the distinctions, then obviously since they are the source of the original story it would seem this would be a notable development. Whether or not it works against your own personal support of Israel is really not the issue, the issue is the notable viewpoint/clarification being given by the source (being attacked apparently which is against NPOV). I agree this needs to at the least include the other translation, so that the article is not pushing a Pro-Israel agenda, or approach the whole incident with more objective wording. Sarastro777 18:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Both translations are already given. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually not. The article says "Ahmadinejad gave a speech that contained as antagonistic statements about the State of Israel." It says nothing about that the statements may have been about the leadership of Israel rater than the state. // Liftarn
Several days ago I asked you for examples of people holding the two POVs (see above), you have yet to provide them. The {{fact}} template is simply disruptive, since the next statement contains the very evidence you are asking for. Please stop disrupting this article. Jayjg (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Dr Benita Ferrero-Waldner thinks he refered to the state[2], but Juan Cole says "he did not actually call for mass murder (Ariel Sharon made the "occupation regime" in Gaza "vanish" last summer)". // Liftarn

What does Juan Cole's claim that Ahmadinejad did not "call for mass murder" have to do with the fact that Ahmadinejad made statements antagonistic to Israel? Cole is arguing against the genocide interpretation; the (The Preceding is incomplete and Unsigned)

Why is it that in editing this article, people feel that it is necessary to attempt to interpret the words of Ahmadinejad. It is often a POV issue when interpreting what was said by somebody else. We all have access to direct quotes by Ahmadinejad that are published by reputable news organizations, so in this case the only sensible thing to do is to place his quotes in the article, not interpret them for yourself and say what you feel like saying. In the absence of direct quotes, it is just fine calling it "antagonistic statements," because this is factual and not based on personal interpretation.

On a related topic, there is nothing about this article that warrants it being marked as having POV problems. There may be people out there that want to paint a biased picture of Ahmadinejad, but that is not what wikipedia is for. As the article stands, the facts are accurate and there are no problems with suppressing controversial aspects of this topic. In keeping with the facts, there is really nothing that can be done with this article to portray Ahmadinejad any more or less favorably and as stated before, that is not the point of a wikipedia article anyway. Markovich292 08:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What languages does he speak?

Hello, Does anyone know which languages Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks? It could be something interesting to add...Evilbu 16:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Persian (aka Farsi) for sure & he might be able to speak Arabic, I don't know. Mikker (...) 14:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ Experts say report of badges for Jews in Iran is untrue,19 May,2006
  2. ^ Paper: Sorry For Iran Badge Story,CBS News,25 May,2006
  3. ^ Iran Badge Story: More Neocon Propaganda,Uruknet,21 May, 2006
  4. ^ The New York Sun: Senate Democrats Soften Iran Resolution
  5. ^ OpinionJournal: Shove It, Ahmadinejad!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad/Archive_3&oldid=1136980476"