Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

arbitration

I'm sorry to say it, but I'm pretty sure this is the only option left. This discussion has been so repetitive it's unbelievable. The mediation cabal has all but ceased, and the mediation of this talk page has failed. The RFC also did not work. I can see no other way to reslve the issue other than ArbCom. What does everyone else think? --LifeEnemy 21:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a pretty useless process. Mostly Admins listing Hebrew as a language, or displaying Israeli symbols on their user pages will respond they have no problem with the biased edits. Worst-case they ban you for suggesting the article needed comment or some type of oversight. Sarastro777 09:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

. So much for WP:AGF. -- Avi 13:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

the funniest is when the POV pusher Markovich actually blames others for imaginary POV with bad faith and breaking WP:NPOV, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:BLP, Wikipedia:Categorization of people, Wikipedia:Consensus, and Wikipedia:Categorization, which he broke all. Amoruso 13:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh, I guess you take every opportunity to make up false accusations just because you don't agree with me. Did you even notice that this topic is about arbitration before you started with your ill-considered behavior? Markovich292 16:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can't see the connection between your bad faith behaviour and what Avi said, it's your problem. Amoruso 18:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If you didn't notice, Avi responded to Sarastro777's comments; you are just trying to find an excuse to take your jabs at me. If you can't stay on topic, you could, at the very least, keep your behavior civil and not make bogus accusations of others breaking policy. Markovich292 21:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, shut up. You're just being rude now. It's completely uncalled for.

Please, let's just stop all this bickering. --LifeEnemy 22:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't tell other users to shut up. It was very called for. Markovich has been attacking me constantly. He drove Thuran X away and he's trying the same tactics on other users simply to enforce his POV . Amoruso 19:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You haven't responded to polite requests to cease incivil behavior. I'm afraid my response was warranted. Your above comments are filled with so much bad faith that it makes me uneasy. Without any provocation in this section, you have made a personal attack against Markovich, and then accuse him of attacking you constantly. You have become very disruptive to this conversation, please, take a step back and cool off. --LifeEnemy 23:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

<sigh> . It is obvious you're attempting to make this something that it isn't because you agree with Markovich on the content. That's dishonest. It's sad really. Tell others to shut up and talk about incivility with them. Amoruso 23:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "make this something it's not", could you clarify? Also, I dislike that you are accusing me of bad faith. I never said that I was a perfect person, but you have been incivil, especially in the comment I was responding to. If you noticed, I also asked everyone to stop bickering right afterward. All I want is for this discussion to continue in an amicable manner. --LifeEnemy 00:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

A compromise seems to be somewhat close now, arbitration is most likely not needed. Awesome. --LifeEnemy 01:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wipe the slate clean

Let's just forget our opinions on the subject and move on. Just discuss ways to make this article better, not your personal feelings on the subject. I've read some of the material discussed on this talk page and it's horrendous and rather immature. Again, stop the opinions and discuss the facts. Sr13 04:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, when I brought up the issue of categorization a month ago, the facts are exactly what it was about for me. I fully expected that if wikipedia policy supported the categorization, editors would explain why and show the facts to prove me wrong. Since then though, the debate has made it clear to many editors that adding the category at this time is POV and not supported by policy. Myself and other "pro-policy" people had tried many times to ellicit facts rather than opinions, but as you see (presuming you read the whole debate), we basically never got anything but opinions. Thats why the other side won't just "stop the opinions"; their entire argument is based on them.

It would be nice to have this article unlocked and wipe the slate clean, but at least one of the "pro-categorization" editors shows no intention of respecting policy if that were to happen. I think that is the biggest reason why this is still going on, and why at least one person supports arbitration. Markovich292 06:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting document found

I found this article about Iran trying to initiate a rapprochment with Israel, recognizing its existence in a proposal to the United States in 2003. The report claims that Iran's peace proposal with Israel was not accepted by the United States. I think this is some important piece of information that needs to be used in these articles. But I dont know where and in what article we could fit this in best. Anybody have any ideas? Please do use the article as reference anywhere you see fit.

The article:

"Iran offered 'to make peace with Israel'" by Gareth Porter. Asia Times, May 2006. Link: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE26Ak01.html

Thanks.--Zereshk 22:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe this is a fine article. --LifeEnemy 07:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Disputes Resolved?

I believe that the arguments have ceased and in the near future, if anyone wishes to request unprotection, go right ahead. Wait one to two weeks to check if anyone else pops up that has a dispute. Sr13 05:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that MA saying he's not anti-semetic and possibly the article above (about Iran proposing peace with Israel) pretty much put the nail in the coffin on the category. --LifeEnemy 07:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I am hopeful that the arguments have ceased, and I suppose unprotection is what is best for the article at this point. My only fear is that no matter what the circumstances are when it is unprotected, the category in question will be added without regard for the discussion that has gone on here. Below I have included a section of the debate that stands unresolved, so maybe this will help reach an end ASAP. Markovich292 23:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Even if this article does go unprotected, someone else could open up another dispute based on opinion and this could start a new chain of disputes. People have to realize that this is not a talk page where you can debate opinions. You have to discuss what's been placed on the article, not your personal POV. Sr13 01:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

you're going around in pathetic circles again. What you see as anti semite is your opinion, this is a term made which is open to discussion. You still did not say what is anti semite in your opinion or explained why we should care what your definition of the term is. When the world community has a consencus over a term like this, then that's how it is determined. This is with every issue in the world. Amoruso 08:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
You fail to accept that MA has done or said nothing anti-semitic by the wikipedia definition. "People saying so" doesn't count. Any source you cite is a)opinion or b)MA saying something that you think makes him anti semitic, but fails to prove "prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group." This is going in circles because I keep telling you that and you keep finding reasons to ignore it. Markovich292 08:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

ha, now you're citing wikipedia ? (not that it helps you, in fact it refutes you). but anyway, wikipedia also says : "Holocaust denial is generally considered an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory." like I said - discussion over. Amoruso 09:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Two points: 1) "generally considered" (not always), 2) he did not deny the Holocaust // Liftarn

1) lol 2) rotfl but "Holocaust is a zionist myth that didn't exist" is indeed not denying it. Amoruso 09:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Another reason that this is going in circles...we went over this before. Liftarn is right, "Generally cosidered" means that there are enough people, such as yourself, to conclude it is a widespread sentiment but is not necessarily true. In other words, not all holocaust deniers are anti-semites. Oh, and I find it funny that you say wikipedia refutes me, but don't even say why. Do enlighten me... Markovich292 09:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

the best compromise is what I suggested far earlier and that's adding the "Anti Semitism" category as opposed to the "Anti Semitic People" category. This tells the user that anti-semitism is being discussed in the article. If some people think that MA has allegdly denied this then that is addressed in the article. This solution has worked for other articles where the status of the anti semitism of the person was disputed. This solution is OK with me, though with other users who stand firm that MA is anti-semitic (like Thuran X, Avi and Mantanmoreland ) it doesn't. Still , I think it's a good compromise. No doubt, a certain user will attack me again with his bad faith comments and condescending disruptive behaviour like he does all the time, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a good compromise. Amoruso 08:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, even with a concensus that this is not an acceptable solution, you still think that your "compromise" is the best idea? Markovich292 17:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about ? Or is this another lie like your false allegations against me based on your disruptive behaviour ? Amoruso 18:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If you don't "undertand" though it's not a difficult issue to grasp, I'm proposing this as a compromise. Which I think is best. Perhaps other users also in the camp that advocated (the truth) that MA is anti-semitic will agree as well. Some of them were ambivalent about it, and maybe some on the camps that think he isn't anti-semitic (those that really honestly think that, not you...) will also agree to the compromise. And for once, reply only with something productive please.Amoruso 18:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I would call my question above productive, afterall it got an answer: "Which I think is best..." I have established that you still think your "compromize" is "best" even though only you seem to support it. I even got an incivil comment to boot that just happens to show your bad attitude toward me: "those that really honestly think that, not you..."

"This solution is OK with [you], though with other users who stand firm that MA is anti-semitic (like Thuran X, Avi and Mantanmoreland ) it [isn't]." I don't think anything more is needed to be a "productive" reply considering that quote from your own statement backs me up. Markovich292 21:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you really need to cool down since you are making statements like that regrading a perfectly legitimate post. Markovich292 21:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing was legitimate about it. I'm proposing a "compromise" which obviously I think is "best" which is the reason I'm proposing it. The proposal needs to be raised so people can think about it and see if they're convinced about it. Like I wrote, I believe most if not all will be convinced about it, except for certain POV pushers. I believe the users I indicated (Thuran X, Avi and Mantanmoreland) will all accept this as a temporary solution actually, and others will too. It's the nature of the compromise, and what I wrote meant to show that they still believe MA is anti-semitic (like me) and therefore no decision was made a compromise like the one I proposed is badly needed. The fear of these users is that a compromise will help endorse the lie that MA is not anti-semitic and weaken the stand. But it's the nature of a compromise to have some middleground, which is what I also thought was legitimate with "new anti-semitic people" and you attacked me about it using bad faith earlier. The best indeed is simply to leave the "anti-semitism" category which is already used in situations like this. Amoruso 19:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing legitimate about asking if you think your compromise is the best idea even knowing that nobody else supported it when you mentioned it before...now I've heard everything. Anyway, the "best indeed" here is not for you to propose a "compromise" that just so happens to be almost exactly the same as your original argument. (Proposal for mutually acceptable compromise can be seen below). Markovich292 22:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"...the lie that MA is not anti-semitic..." Can you please stop pushing your POV as fact?? I'm not against discussing this, but when you make sweeping statements like that it makes it terribly hard to work with you. --LifeEnemy 23:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

that's something very awkard to say . Obviously this is my opinion here which I believe is a fact. No problem with saying that. Markovich said the opposite many times in much a similar way. Actually looking at it, it wasn't even my opinion but the opinion of those which I cited. I'm sorry they don't think the same way as you ! geez. Amoruso 23:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You're twisting my words to discredit me, which I don't appreciate. You weren't even citing anyone, you were making a statement about your own opinions. Also, I don't think I've seen similar statement before on this page. --LifeEnemy 00:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not twisting anythign and you're aware of that. I made a statement about the opinion of the other users. Their statements believing that it's whitewashing not to say MA is anti-semitic etc is all over the page. Amoruso 00:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

But you're making it seem like I dislike people for not agreeing with me, which is not true, and that is twisting someone's word. I only disagree with people (anyone) who state their opinion as a fact, which I've run into more than once. Things like "(this band) is just bad, that's all there is to it" and "I don't like your music, so you're a shitty band". I guess you could call it a "pet peeve" if you wanted to. And, just to clarify, the wording of your comments did not imply citing the opinions of others. You share those opinions anyway, don't you? --LifeEnemy 01:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't try to make it seem like you dislike people for not agreeing with you or discredit you. Sorry if you got that idea. Simply I meant to say that what I said was the opinion of those I referred to. Amoruso 05:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's ok. I apologize if I was more hostile than necessary. --LifeEnemy 05:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, do you realize that you're just inciting more bad feeling when you make comments like "a certain user will attack me again..." "...another lie like your false allegations against me..." and "...that advocated (the truth) that MA is anti-semitic..."? You're either being uncivil, or pushing you POV as truth again. Please, stop being so uncivil. I'm not trying to single you out, either.

On anther note, could provide a few links to pages with the anti-semetism category that are of people? I'd like to see if your compromise would fit, rather than just deciding on it without any background info. --LifeEnemy 22:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And as for you LifeEnemy, it is bad faith behavior to act all "neutral" when in fact you're supporting Markovich's opinion, and you have made no comment regarding his comments (for example he has made the comment earlier of the nature : "a certain user seems intent on disrupting/not respecting..." [1] ) nor made any "warnings" in his user page, so please do not make any statements like that, they don't sound honest. Not to mention you actually seemed to endorse his blatant lie concerning "Here are just some of the policies that he has violated already, or is trying to violate by adding the category: WP:NPOV, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:BLP, Wikipedia:Libel, Wikipedia:Categorization of people, Wikipedia:Consensus, and Wikipedia:Categorization." Amoruso 19:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I am greatly offended. You have no right to accuse me of bad faith. I am trying to be objective, which is something that is desparately needed in this discussion. It's true I didn't respond to that comment, and I haven't responded to all of your comments either. I speak to you because recently you have been making many attacks against other users and have been increasily hostile, and you comments have been more offensive or direct than most. Not to mention Markovich's comment was much less insulting in nature.

I have been acting "neutral" in that I want you AND everyone else to stop the personal attacks and childish behavior. I have asked that countless times and everyone seems intent on ignoring me and acting immature. I have never tried to act as though I didn't have an opinion. Rather, I have been trying to get everyone to calm down so we can continue this discussion in a mature fashion. If you want to accuse me of bad faith for that, fine. But you're acting in the worst of bad faith by doing so.

As for Markovich's accusations, I don't agree with all of them, but you have obviously violated CIVIL and NPA. Many other people have also, so I'm not singling you out, but it still doesn't make it right. As for the others related to adding the cat, you shouldn't be angry about those. Those are the subject of this discussion, and obviously each side thinks the other will violate those policies. Although he could have brought it up in a friendlier way, it's nothing to get upset about. Don't be so sensitive. --LifeEnemy 23:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You're greatly offended but you tell me not to be sensitive ? You took Markovich's opinion which is the reason you DID single me out by addressing your possts to me and not to him. Anyway, you were guilty of incivility too just before. but since I have no desire to keep this going.... whatever. 00:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

'm offened because you're accusing me of bad faith (serious accusation), but I'm telling you not to be offended by the point of the discussion, which is subject to interpretation (very minor point in the scheme of things). Did you even read why I responded to you and not him? Do you agree or disagree with my assesment? AND, why didn't you address any of the positive points of my comment? Did you just pick out the bad parts? Please, I'm trying to push this conversation back towards civility and relevence to the article, but I can only do so much on my own, I need you to try as well. --LifeEnemy 00:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

So it's ok for you to be offended and not me ? I missed the part where you adequately explained why you turned to me and not to Markovich. His comment were just as recent and just (actually more, seeing that my weren't really) as insulting. Anyway, I'm willing to move on which is what I was willing to to do all along. You'd notice it is Markovich's behaviour to keep this up all the time. Before me, he did the same against Thuran X who couldn't take it any longer. Amoruso 00:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You accuse me of bad faith, obviously I should be offended. You would be to. Let me clarify my earlier statement: You shouldn't be sensitive about Markovich accusing you of breaking those policies. All but CIVIL and NPA (which you have broken) are, as I said, the substance of this discussion and they are subject to interpretation, meaning it's only natural he would think that you would break those if you add the category (I would agree on that point). Those particular accusations are hardly against you anway, they're against adding the cat.

Markovich's comment that you cited did not seem that insulting, which is why I didn't address it. I only told you to shut up because the comments I read seemed very negative, and I had asked you before to be more mindful of what you said.

~~One last thing. I would like to clarify something. Please tell me, do you think that you have been incivil at all in this conversation?~~ --LifeEnemy 01:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I also would have liked to have had clarification on that. I guess he is extending his philosophy of ignoring anything that he pleases, even though that in itself is widely considered incivil. Markovich292 23:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I was trying not to ignite personal debates again. LifeEnemy made this question before he said that we're on the right track after I complied by his requests of civility and acts of good faith measures, see below [2]. Obviously you would have responded in this usual way to anything I would have written, and even now, after the situation is seemingly over [3], it's obvious what you're trying to do. Let's avoid that.Amoruso 01:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I assure you I gave serious thought to what I was going to say and it was not to incite hostility; the goal was to stimulate a response to LifeEnemy's question and to remind you that ignoring people is not acceptable (you have done that in the past, and if you are really going to "turn over a new leaf" that is something you need to remember). You should also remember not to make a response laden with ill-considered accusations. You said "it's obvious what you're trying to do" which is quite a negative remark. Ironically, then you say "let's avoid that," presumably talking about personal comments (which to me is somewhat insincere since you made a personal comment right before saying that). I avoided saying "you were intentionally avoiding the question for obvious reasons," so in the future you could just remember to avoid saying things like that as well (I know, I added it now, but that was after you said what you did, and still only to give you an example).

I sincerely thought LifeEnemy still would have wanted an answer, but now that he crossed it out, I will posit the question myself. Will you please just give a serious answer now instead of posting diffs that, to you, negate the need to answer? Markovich292 05:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hopeless, see below. Amoruso 06:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, Markovich, there's no need to incite anything any longer. we've all come to an understanding on this issue, I believe. --LifeEnemy 04:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just trying to get an answer, and maybe prove the point that he should be changing his ways from "ignore" to "politely answer". If Amoruso would just have answered your question, that would not have been necessary. It wouldn't have caused any problems or "ignite[d] personal debates again," so his reason to aviod answering it was poor IMO. Really, he should have answered it in the first place, because otherwise it just comes off as incivil. Markovich292 05:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The question came before we decided to go on a new track without personal accusations. I considered that Answering it would spark a new war of words and accusations which will derail the discussion from the topic. LifeEnemy seems to agree. Because of your nature to comment on everything, you would have without doubt made your criticizm to my comment which will have continued forever, much like now. I know realise that discussing with you is hopeless, you intend to turn discussion pages into your private infinite war of words and accusations even when it has nothing to do with the article. LifeEnemy (who agreed with you on the original issue) asked you to stop, but you didn't. I will ignore you from now on and with final note to you, I sincerely hope you cease your provocative behaviour like this in the future and that you won't turn content disputes to endless sticky baseless accusations like you were doing all the time. Incidentally, your last paragraph addressed to me, with the overly excessive parentheses, is frankly disturbing. G'day. Amoruso 06:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I see how it is. I respond to your personal remarks, and I am automatically the one who is turning "pages into my private infinite war of words and accusations." Even in my response to LifeEnemy I just explained things how they are; you came back with personal accusations. Now do you see why LifeEnemy originally asked that question, and why I still am curious to hear the answer?

I hate to say it, but everything is not resolved. We have only a temporary solution as you said, so since we will both have a presence on this page in the near future, it would be good of you to actually not ignore other editors and answer legitimate questions. Whatever you do (answer or ignore) keep in mind that I have already said that answering wouldn't automatically incite hostility, as long as you keep personal accusations out of it and keep it civil. Markovich292 19:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Per Avi's statement, I officially request a response on my talk page. Markovich292 21:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Come on, guys, we don't need anymore of this. I think it's safe to assume Amoruso knows he was incivil in the past, as have many of us. The important thing is how this conversation continues, not how it was in the past. --LifeEnemy 00:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

As for your question, indeed there are many people who are in this category. Kevin B. MacDonald, Arash Miresmaili (iranian), Joseph Massad, and others , see here : [4]. This solution is best simply because it is appropriate in the category even if MA denys it and allegdly explains the difference between anti semitism and what he believes (which he didn't AFAIK but that's what some people claimed) - it deals with the issue and explores this issue. It is NPOV and so it's the best compromise, as a temporary solution atlesat to unlock the article. As you can see through the category, this doesn't blame MA in anything, and could even suggest he's a fighter against anti-semitism which is what people here suggested that he "loves Jews", per some other articles. It says that the issue of anti-semitism is relevant for the article, nothing more. Amoruso 19:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It is quite unnecessary to add this article to Category:Anti-Semitism because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel is already listed. That is a dedicated article that goes further into the allegations of anti-semitism. Compare this situation to Israel and human rights issues. Israel is not listed under Category:Human rights to 'tell the user that [human rights violations are] being discussed in the article,' but the main article, Human rights in Israel is listed under Category:Human rights by country.

My counter proposal is that we go ahead and add Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Category:Anti-Semitism because that article deals with anti-semitism as much as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel does, and use of the category can truly be said to "tell the user that anti-semitism is being discussed in the article." Markovich292 22:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand your proposal, Amoruso, and it seems to make sense. Markovich brings up a kind of good point about other pages being in the cat, but I can see how the MA article would fit, since there is an extensive "allegations of anti-semetism" section. But, you need to understand why some people will be resistant to this. It's because it seems like a "ploy" to get some anti-semetic category in the article, do you understand what I mean? That, plus your suggestion of "new anti-semetism", which had the same "ploy" feeling, makes it seem like you may have negative intentions rather than good. Personally, I like to assume you're acting in good faith with that compromise, but even I am a little circumspect, and others will be more so. --LifeEnemy 00:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice comment LifeEnemy, thank you. I agree with you. I think you realise that this is a good middleground. Like you accurately pointed out, this article too deals extensively with the issue and therefore its inclusion in other articles isn't enough. Of course I want the anti-semitic category , but placing anti-semitism acheives the main goal of diverting the attention of users to the issues of anti semitism raised here. This is the target of categories to bring people up to speed and knowledge about certain issues. I don't mind (personally) the label of MA himself but I do mind the discussion of anti semitism and not whitewashing any relevant facts pertaining to this issue. That way, one can read all the denials and decide for himself. It's basically like a search engine with the word anti-semitism to see the relevant article being discussed. The reader can make up his own conclusions himself. This sounds good atleast for a temporary status I'm sure. If the issue of anti-semitism is not so extensive in the future, it can be dropped completlely, and if the issue is elevated to MA being a clear anti-semitic like certain users believe so, it can be changed to that in the future. What better solution is that. There is no compromise btw by suggesting to add categories o other articles since we're in the discussion page of the current article. I think we're generally in agreement over this which I see as a very positive step. Good day. Amoruso 00:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if you were more than a little circumspect and didn't assume good faith, you still wouldn't be in violation of the AGF policy (I won't cite the line so this stays free of further tension). All I wanted to say is that you are certainly not close to violating AGF just because of your thoughts on his proposal.

Also, what are your thoughts on my proposal above? The article that I mention is directly linked from the "extensive 'allegations of anti-semetism' section" that you mention. Since that is the main page regarding allegations of anti-semitism and this page just has a a summary, classification on that page is more consistant with wikipedia convention (as mentioned with the Israel reference). Amoruso also gets to add an anti-semitism category to a MA article, so everybody can be happy. Markovich292 01:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think anybody would really disagree with adding that cat to MA's controversy page. The only thing that is a little questionable is adding that tag to a person's page, since it could be mistaken for calling them an anti-semite. That can be fixed with a little addition to the category page, though. --LifeEnemy 01:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think nobody will object for you to add anything you wish in the description of the category page of anti-semitism. If you add it, and Markovich accepts it, I think the category can be safely added to the MA page (because adding it to the controversy page is not suffice IMO per above and below, and the human rights example is not relevant IMO per my explanation below) and thus the article be unlocked. Amoruso 01:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I added some sentences about it. What do you two think? [5] --LifeEnemy 05:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think they're well written. Good job. Amoruso 05:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sweet. Thanks. --LifeEnemy 05:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Human rights are being discussed in almsot all country's articles, just like ecomony, geography and foreign relations. Anti-semitism is not being discussesd in every biography article/president biography articles. Bad example. Amoruso 23:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Umm, most country articles do not have a section on human rights. Those that do most likely have a dedicated "Human rights in..." page (which is where the category is placed, not in the main article). Therefore, good example. Markovich292 23:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Umm no. Most DO have. and those that don't are simply in need for that section to be added. It's exactly like economy and the rest of my examples. Amoruso 23:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now this is exactly the kind of thing that I've been talking about. Both you ~~STOP~~ stop, right now, before you get into another quarrel. Now, both of you give some examples of country articles that support your idea, and do it without being offensive, demeaning, or incivil. Please, just try it. --LifeEnemy 00:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering I have been perfectly civil here, I think it wan inaccurate for you to "yell" STOP at both of us. Anyway, all he has to do is look at all the articles of countries and count up the number that have a human rights section if he still insists that he is right. Markovich292 00:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't really intend that as a "yell", but I know that's what it looks like. I'll change it. It looks like you guys are starting another argument, so I wanted to get my point across. And, not trying to be condescending or anything, but, be honest, no one here has been "perfectly civil". We all have been rude at least once on this page.

I still say you both need to cite examples. If only one person does it, they can skew the results however they want, think of that as incentive to look. You both have to put a little effort in if you want this exchange to anywhere besides childish fighting again. --LifeEnemy 00:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You see LifeEnemy, that's the problem with Markovich. Now he actually claims he was being perfectly civil ~~LOL. ROTFL.~~ There are many countries with the human rights sections, and those that don't simply are in need of expansions. Many also lack foreign relation section, music, culture, cuisine sections and so on. The point is that every country has human rights relevant issues (positive or negative or both), whehther it's already included or pending writing, whether in a seperate article or not, but not every person or president has anti-semitic issues (to either side or in general discussion) but rather a very limited number of people. Therefore the example ~~simply makes no sense~~ is irrelevant IMO. Amoruso 00:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he did say that, but you should understand your comment just now doesn't help the situation. Here's the problem, you assumed his meaning, and then stated that's his "problem", and even added laughing to the end. Why? That can only incite more problems. You saw how I responded, that would have been much better. As it turns out, he meant in this section, which I assume is restricted to this dialogue about country articles. That actually makes his statement correct, since incivility hasn't come into this exchange yet. You should try to avoid making assumptions like that and instead point out errors in a civil manner. Adding "LOL" is just mean, and serves no purpose other than to incite anger and drive this conversation further down. You guys need to make sure that you understand exactly what the other person means, which is much easier when discussed calmly instead of argued.

Also, a slighty better way to describe his example might be "isn't relevant". --LifeEnemy 01:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

As an act of good faith, I politely request that you strike "LOL ROTFL" from your above comment. --LifeEnemy 01:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you, Amoruso. We're getting closer to civil, back-on-track discussion. --LifeEnemy 01:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

My point from the beginning was that even for countries with very hotly debated human rights issues (such as Israel), you still don't see the main page for that nation added to any "human rights" categories or subcategories. You turned that into something totally different and acted like all countries needing a human rights section somehow affects what I said about the addition of categories. I refer you to straw man. Also, it would be appreciated if you admit that you were incorrect that most country's articles do have a human rights section. Markovich292 02:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There are many more countries which their human rights issues are much more "hotly debated". The example is irrelevant because human rights issues appear virtually in every article, whether in a section or in a differnet article or within the article and need to be expanded to sections. It's something common for country articles. You were incorrect in suggesting this as a valid example as I explained. I said and maintain that "Human rights are being discussed in almsot all country's articles" - some of it wasn't codified to sections, some have. Some it's incorporated into other sections like "demographics" or "government".Many countries, just by browsing - Iran, China, Cuba and others have it as sections. France only as an article. Same goes for Cuisine for example - Japan as a section, others as an article and so on. But these issues : foreign relations, culture, economy, geography, tourism and many more are all relevant sections/articles for countries. However, anti-semitism is not a relevant category for ALL presidents/people. Therefore it's important to note it also in the name article and therefore one can't make the analogy you proposed. Amoruso 03:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"Even for countries with very hotly debated human rights issues (such as Israel), you still don't see the main page for that nation added to any "human rights" categories or subcategories." That has absolutely nothing to do with numbers, it has to do with categorization. More specifically, it has to do with the fact that categories are not used on wikipedia just to tell the user that certain things are being discussed in the article like you said before. Don't forget that "Restraint should be used as categories become less effective the more there are on any given article."

You seem to be talking about how many people/countries these categories apply to for no particular reason. The number of articles with a human rights section (or the lack of people that are accused of antisemitism) has nothing to do with how categories are applied. Markovich292 04:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've already explained that I didn't make an error and I explained what I meant , that every article deals with issues like these. My rationale is that it doesn't matter whether it's in a section or not, but they can all be added to sections. Some of them, quite many actually, already have the section. Other are pending further editing of sections into articles. But the issue here is totally different. Your new argument that categories aren't used this way is something else. If we move on to it then, I disagree with that statement. First of all, the antisemitism category already disproves it, as it was used for numerous articles exactly for this reason. This is true to also any other category in wikipedia. The category states an issue is related to the subject without saying exactly whether it's related to the subject in a positive or a negative or a neutral way. This is common of course. Amoruso 05:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there's been a misunderstanding. Allow me to clarify: Markovich, you used human rights sections in country articles as an example where something discussed in the article isn't put into a category, correct? Amoruso pointed out that "human rights" is a standard point that is present in most or all articles on countries, and that it is sometimes in it's own section, it's own article (when big enough), or within other sections. In all cases, it's standard to have human rights dicussed in articles on countries. In contrast, not all president articles discuss anti-semetism, which is why this particular page can fit the anti-semetism category. I hope that clarified things.

Also, Markovich, please remember to assume good faith before you accuse someone of using strawman arguments or using strong words like "...it would be appreciated if you admit that you were incorrect..." I don't think Amoruso was using a strawman, I think you may have simply misunderstood his argument, which also made him seem 'incorrect' to you. By assuming good faith we don't have to worry so much about arguments getting out of hand. --LifeEnemy 05:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

(I posted the above comment before I saw amoruso's statement above it, if that has any bearing.) --LifeEnemy 05:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it's ok, and thanks. I see how it could have been interpreted that I put more weight than meant on the word section (which I didn't use but responded to). Anyway, many countries do have the section. But it's really not relevant. I think Markovich is saying that categories aren't used this way and as an example, Israel/Iran/North Korea/France is not listed in human rights category, but its article human rights in X is. But that's the thing - because you'd expect to find human rights issues on every country, there's a seperate category for it which lists human rights per country. But for Presidents of countries you won't expect to find anti-semitism related issues on every and each president. It's a different issue altogether. If we knew anti-semitism was dealt with many presidents' articles, then it would be a different issue. But this issue is prominent enough in the current article, not in others and not in related more detailed ones. In this specific one. And per wikipedia standards, if it's detailed enough, it can be categorized as well. Amoruso 05:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant "here" as in this specific section. I know that I have not been civil in every single one of my posts unfortunately. If I may add, however, my incivility stems from the extremely hostile attitude of one or two other editors (look just above for an example, at least you responded to me in a civil manner...). I know that is not an excuse, but considering the things that have been said to me I think I handled it much better than many other editors would have. Markovich292 01:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know other way to say this, but citing individual examples will prove nothing about most country's articles. The only way to prove one way or another if most countries have such a section is to make a tally like I mentioned before. I have done such a tally with what is essentially a random sampling of nations, and exactly two of them had a human rights section. In other words, if the sample size were increased to every country on wikipedia, chances are that most of them have do not have a human rights section. Markovich292 03:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The number of articles that have the sections in practice is irrelevant. What's important is can these sections be added or not?. I'm not responsible for the adequate editing of these articles, but it's obviously an existing section on many articles and the fact they have their own articles for so many countries in Human rights per country category proves that sections can be added to all, just like with tourism by country, foreign relations by country, cuisine by country, music by country, culture by country, geography by country and so on. But anti-semitism can't be added for every president like human rights can be added to virtually every country. Amoruso 03:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware that the important issue is not how many articles have the section, but rather "can they be added or not." I posted that information because LifeEnemy asked us both to contribute to resolve the disagreement that was started when you denied that "most country articles do not have a section on human rights." You apparently found the same information I did. In your posts above you don't even acknowledge that, so it seems to me that you can't admit when you have made an error. If you won't do that, I would just prefer that we call it quits on this issue and get back to finding a solution to the categorization issue. Markovich292 05:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've explained this above. Amoruso 05:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I see what Amoruso is saying in this matter about countries and human rights discussions. In the end, though, this question is not really important to this discussion. It seems to me that the last point that needs clearing up is the inclusion of the "Anti-semetism" category. I understand why it possibly should be included, but, Markovich, could you please summarize your argument as to why it should not be included? --LifeEnemy 04:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This (or any) category is supposed to be used to group similar articles together ^[6], not to tell the user that something is being discussed in the article. That erroneous assertation is why Amoruso first mentioned adding the category, which I agree with you in saying that it seems like a "ploy" to add a category with the word "anti-semi[te/tic]" to this article. Since the primary reason for categories to to group similar articles, there is no legitimate purpose to add this article to the proposed category, especially considering that Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is much more similar to the other articles in that category than this one is. In short, based on wikipedia guidelines this category would be more appropriately assigned to the main article, Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

This proposed categorization also seems to violate Wikipedia:Consensus because according to Amoruso himself, nobody agreed to this category but him when he brought it up before. Markovich292 06:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the last assertion is not correct. I brought it up briefly before and it wasn't discussed (mainly because I brought up a proposal of new anti-semitic which was literally confusing to the users). It is my understanding that this solution will be accepted on a broad basis actually with no real objections as a temporary solution. Your rationale about categories is also something I disagree with and think it's false. Of course it's grouping similar articles together: articles that deal/discuss with the issue of anti-semitism. Simply saying it differently doesn't mean it's a different issue altogether because it isn't, you should see that IMO. It is the same thing and it's per wikipedia standards and guidelines. In your link like I said "Categories ... help users find information" LifeEnemy didn't say it was a "ploy" and let's not insinuate that he did. It can't be a ploy because it's already used on many articles in anti semitism category and per LifeEnemy's solution he also added further clarification on anti semitism category page. The solution to put it on "controversies page" is not adequate for many reasons : that article is not notable enough, that article is not complete enough - if you note, there's also an article about Israel, and also about controversies , and in the article both sections deal with anti semitic issues. Anti semitic issues can also be dealt in regard to other sections, the U.S, the nuclear question, and so on. The article as a whole deals with enough anti semitic issues/allegations/refutes/denials that it deserves its own category per wikipedia rules. Also note that whether other agree or not is irrelevant now. The question is why do you object to this seeing that it clearly can't be in any reasonable way misleading / ploy anymore. Not why it's better to put it somewhere else, but why object to it at all (adding the category to some OTHER article is of course no compromise at all. The question is why object to a compromise relating to the relevant page). Amoruso 06:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand your points, Markovich, and normally I would be skeptical of adding this category to this page. However, since other biography pages have made use of this cat, I would agree to placing it here. I don't think it could do much harm, considering that most users probably won't get their anti-semetic-or-not ideas on MA from an ambiguous category, but from the "allegations of anti-semtism" section, which would include accusations, souces, and MA's own statements refuting anti-semetism; letting the users decide for themselves.

As far as this article goes, I think the category is all right. I can see why you might not want it on bio pages, though, and I suggest that bring that issue up on the category page if you feel inclined to do so.

Also, my "ploy" statement was to explain to Amoruso why some people might be resistant to the cat, despite any arguements for it, and to suggest to take that resistance with a grain of salt. --LifeEnemy 17:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I do respect your opinion on adding that category since you have shown no ulterior motives, but it does seem to me that your main reason to think this categorization is ok is because "other biography pages have made use of this cat." I just want to mention that this isn't quite a reliable standard for why we should include this article. Just as an example why we can't justify the addition of a person (MA in this case) to a category because other people are already there, I ask you to look at the article Arash Miresmaili. Amoruso cited this man (and even blatantly pointed out he is Iranian) to convince us why MA can go in Category:Anti-Semitism. That article actually makes no mention of anti-semitism (and only hints at a dislike for the state of Israel), so I imagine you would call that a POV categorization which is eerily similar to this situation.

My proposal is still that the category be added to Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad instead, because that is clearly supported by guidelines and can't be considered a POV edit. As I touched on before, adding the category to that article would better group similar articles together (the primary purpose of categories). It would also mind NPOV concerns regarding categories as we are supposed to do, mind the clutter on the main page, and even honor the prior concensus on the subject.

I know Amoruso has disagreed in the past, but using other articles to settle content disputes is a perfectly logical alternative. As outlined above, this solution is very consistant with wikipedia policies and guidelines, so I am hopeful that this debate can finally come to a mutually acceptable conclusion. Markovich292 03:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I still think that because a number of other articles have made use of it, that it is currently justified under wikipedia policies. And, as I said before, I would recommend you bring up why it shouldn't be included on certain pages on the category page itself. --LifeEnemy 03:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as LifeEnemy, one of the main objectors to classify MA in the Category:Anti-Semitic people supports my compromise proposal to add the category Category:Anti-Semitism as atleast a temporary compromise in order to unnlock the thread, is there anyone else besides Markovich292 who objects to this compromise ? It seems a solution which most users can accept and should be deployed for now in order to unlock the thread which seems to be locked forever. Amoruso 13:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to belatedly toss in a note agreeing with said compromise. --Mantanmoreland 05:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to re-iterate that if a firm consensus can be reached to include Category:Anti-Semitic people or if a firm consensus can be reached to exclude even Category:Anti-Semitism that would be preferable. However, as it stands, I too think that the compromise is better than the perpetual check that this article experienced previously. -- Avi 13:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to sound argumentative, but a concensus does not override standing policy, so a concensus can not be used to justify the inclusion of Ahmadinejad in Category:Anti-Semitic people with the current sources we have.

Anyway, I fully support this finally coming to an end, so a concensus on Category:Anti-Semitism is probably the fastest way to solve this. I propose that we create a new section, outlining the specifics of each option, and just ask people to sign their name under the one that they agree with most. If we leave this poll open for two weeks, that should be enough time for everybody involved to weigh in, and also a good opportunity for the community at large to have their say. Markovich292 19:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. --LifeEnemy 22:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, let’s see

Very well, if y'all think you have a suitable comprimise using Category:Anti-Semitism, I'll unlock the article, but if things get out-of-hand, this will be buttoned down pretty quickly again. -- Avi 19:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not object to you unlocking the article like you did, but you have made a mistake in adding the category right now. Nobody had a chance to respond to either of the two posts just above, so you swooping in and adding a category that is still being debated is highly premature. I will not revert it myself right away (which would probably result in it being locked again), but it would be prudent for you to perform a self-revert. Markovich292 22:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you've acted a little too quickly. I never expected another debate until Markovich292 included an unsolved dispute. People then started responding. I never expected so much change over a short period of time. My suggestion is to lock the article again until disputes have been completely resolved. A "suitable compromise" is not enough to end disputes. There could be retorts and or alternatives to solve the problem. You must wait for a week's time (a month's time if you must) before you consider this change. Sr13 04:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we could leave the category for now, but keep a strict watch on it, as you said. It seems that more people are coming back to this page (besides Markovich, Amoruso and I), so I think we'll be able to get a general opinion on this move pretty soon. --LifeEnemy 03:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I thougth this issue was resolved. He is NOT anti-semitic. Yas121 02:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct, Yas . The compromise is to use category Category:Anti-Semitism and not Category:Anti-Semitic people. This way there is not a direct accusation just yet, but the well-sourced controversy is handled. -- Avi 03:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I just want to remind you that this was put in place only as a temporary solution, it is not a final compromise. Well actually, it is simply a stopgap measure that you put in place when you unlocked the article, without waiting for it to be worked out on the talk page. Because of that, this isn't even a good-faith (not in the wiki sense, but in the general sense) implementation of Amoruso's proposal IMO. Markovich292 04:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; I hope a resolution acceptable to all parties, or at least a suitable consensus, is reached, but if Amoruso and LifeEnemy agreed on this, I think that is a serious start, and worthy of unlocking the article. I am sure that this will be discussed for a while to come. As pointed out earlier, sysops are always accused of reverting to the The Wrong Version :) -- Avi 04:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a truce...the anti-Semitism issue is mostly solved. The retorts and controversial disputes seems to have ceased. Not a final compromise, but we're getting there. Sr13 06:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

US ambassador to Israel also thinks so

Martin Indyk is a one of the most well known pro-Israeli supporters ever in US government.

See for yourself what he has to say abouit MA: [7]. --Zereshk 20:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

He said he's not hitler, not that's he not anti-semitic. In fact, he says he denys the holocaust and wants to destroy the jewish state, but it's still not hitler. btw, he's not at all pro-Israeli... he pushed for Israeli concessions for the Palestinians at the time very heavily. Amoruso 09:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadinajad and Iranian Azarbajian

"There is evidence that he has close ties to the Republic of Azerbajian and he has ties to the Turkish facist group Grey Wolves because he has been seen displaying the Grey Wolves hand sign."

Umm, even if an appropriate source is found that says this, how is it that "hand signs" can be called "evidence" to tie Ahmadinejad to the Grey Wolves? What do people think about removing this section (keep in mind the group that Ahmadinejad allegedly supports was founded by an organization that advocates the creation of a Turkish Empire extending as far as China if I recall correctly), unless something concrete can be found to confirm this? Markovich292 06:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, hand signs can be interesting if used as evidence. Have a look at http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushsatanworship.htm and think a bit about that. ;-) // Liftarn

I was wondering what was up with that section. --LifeEnemy 00:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Israel?

Why is it that in the opening paragraph about Mahmoud, there is a small blurb about him hating Israel? I am not disputing whether he hates Israel or not but it does *not* belong in the opening paragraphs. That's like the opening paragraph of U.S President Andrew Jackson containing his disregard for Native Americans.

Actually its nothing like opening the Jackson article with his disregard for Native Americans. Stop being excusenary. --mitrebox 01:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"it does *not* belong in the opening paragraphs". why not ? it actually does per WP:LEAD and the prominence of it in the article. Amoruso 01:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article."

Just thought I would mention this (from WP:LEAD that you cited). Most of the article deals with his presidency/politics/etc., not with his comments regarding Israel (just as an estimate, the section with his comments devoted to Israel take up only about 10% of the article). Something like 40% of the opening is devoted to this topic, however. I am not saying "it does not belong" like the person above, but it does not follow WP:LEAD as it is. Maybe the best way to fix this is to add content to the other parts of the lead. Markovich292 01:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Mujtaba

--'Khamenei's eldest son Mujtaba was Ahmadinejad's campaign manager during the election, and' -- ghalibaf and karoubi alleged mujtaba to have shifted support from ghalibaf to ahmadinejad a few days before election. who wrote this campaign manager bs?

--'Ahmadinejad was widely perceived at the time of his election to be Khamenei's protégé.'-- this one is just pure bs. i was in iran at the time of election, and no such thing was perceived. let alone "widely".

i changed this accordigly.--Gerash77 01:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Occupying “regime”

Markovich, please explain this to me. According to the current wording, MA has no problems with the presence of the state of Israel in that location, he just wishes to remove its government? I am not sure I understand that. Thanks. -- Avi 05:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. His quote, transliterated, is:

"In režime išqâlgare qods bâyad az safheye ruzgâr mahv šavad."

Which means:

"This regime which illegally occupies Jerusalem must be abolished from the pages of the world."

No mention of the land of Israel. All that is mentioned is the government. I hope that cleared things up. Markovich, please tell me if I am missing anything. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 08:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

So, he would be fine with a completely Jewish government as long as it is not the current knesset makeup? Or, if not, pray tell, what is the state of Israel without a Jewish government? I believe that is semantics. It is the equivalent to saying that "we have no problem with the Vatican, as long as it is not Christian" which is somewhat of a joke, in my opinion, which makes the presence of the word "regime" disingenuous and misleading. Thank you. -- Avi 15:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The way I understand Wikipedia, we should base his statement on what he said, not on what an editor reads into what he said. Editors should not engage in Original Research and interut what he meant by the regime being wiped off the map. He did not say that it shouldn't be a Jewish government, so your comparision with the Vatican as long as it's not Christian is meaningless. Maybe you see the defining characteristic of the Israel regeme as being Jewish, but others may have problems with it that are not based on the ruler's race or relegion, but rather on the policies it enacts. George W. Bush wanted a regime change in Iraq, but that did not mean that he didn't want a secular Iraq, or one without Arabs, simply a change. Sup dudes?[[User:Kitler005]] 19:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, they beat me to it

! They both pretty much summed up why I reinstated that edit though anyway. I'll just add that the quote above is the source of the [mis]translation "wiped off the map." Since that is being passed off as a direct quote in this article, it is just adding insult to injury to botch the context (which is partially fixed with "regime" being added). It changes the entire meaning to leave out "regime," and since that is a word that Ahmadinejad used himself (as stated in many RS) it isn't semantics, it is being accurate. Markovich292 01:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Avi, don't you understand: "This regime which illegally occupies Jerusalem must be abolished from the pages of the world" simply means that MA does not favor the ruling party in Israel and wants the opposition to come to power. So, is he for Likud or Avoda? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Moledet. I'm going to add that he possibly supports the Elon Peace Plan. Amoruso 02:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Markovitch, so I am correct in understanding that you firmly believe that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is all for Jewish leadership of Israel, just that he does not like Ehud Olmert? Well then, at the next Israeli election, are we to expect a congratulatory call to the new prime minister from MA? For I believe that is a logical outcome from what you have just said. If not, then I stand by saying the "regime" is a insertion meant to whitewash the statement. If it is a direct quote is one thing, but the statement in the article is a paraphrase, and the intent is clear that to MA, regime = Jewish Israel. -- Avi 02:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologise if you are certain you know it, but please check a dictionary for the meaning of "regime." You saying it is logical to expect MA to congradulate a new PM of Israel, based on what has been said here, makes it seem you don't fully understand the meaning of the word. Also, how can you say that it is whitewash to use a word when talking about a quote that was said by the quoted person in the first place? Lastly, even though you think that "to MA, regime = Jewish Israel," there is no reason to add that WP:OR to the article. Markovich292 05:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a note: Within Iranian regime's rhetoric: Israel is فلسطین اشغالی = "Occupied Palestine", and the regime of that land is called رژیم اشغالی = "Occupying Regime". To say some place be wiped off the map implies genocide, which I think is incorrect in this case.--Gerash77 00:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Map redux

I've replaced the paraphrase with the quote from the New York Times version of MA's speech. I think that should be acceptable to everyone, for that is what the man said. -- Avi 12:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine that this is worse than saying "regime...wiped off the map" for some people. Just to remind you, someone said before that including this quote at the beginning of the article is "political partisanship unworthy of wikipedia" if I recall correctly. Still others (look above for example) have said that this quote is wrong. Basically, many, many people (and reliable sources alike) have said something to the effect of "the primary source for this translation screwed up, so indeed that is not what the man said." Even more moderate opposition to this is that it should not be in the beginning of the article, and instead placed where it can be properly explained. Also, please see: Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad#Israel? Markovich292 19:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the most widespread translation in the western world, it is reliable and authoratative (new York Times) and may well be his most famous statement in the past five years. That sounds like something that belongs in the lead to me. -- Avi 00:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a good idea to have something so highly contested in the lead paragraph, since it can't be NPOV without at least including the arguments against it, which would make the lead to long. I think marovich's version was pretty good, since MA has made (and been critisized) for more than just that one quote. It also avoids an improper (and possibly partisan) translation. --LifeEnemy 01:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That pretty much sums up what I would have said about this specific issue. I'll just add that Wikipedia is supposed to clear up issues like this, not push/further the persuasions of the west, which is the effect that the current lead has. Markovich292 02:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If The New York Times is no longer considered a reliable source, I am uncertain what remains acceptable. I have brought the citation in the text of the article. -- Avi 04:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No one has disputed the reliability of the NYT. The translation itself has been disputed (also by reliable sources, I believe), and many people feel such a disputed item should not be included in the lead paragraph, but later in the article where the dispute can be properly explained. --LifeEnemy 08:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The Lead Paragraph is Completely Absurd

As an avid reader of Wikipedia, I have never seen such a cruel display of Western bias. Even the founder of the Klu Klux Klan, Wiliam J. Simmons, has a more forgiving lead paragraph than Mr. Ahamadinejad. I am not arguing whether Mr. Ahmadinejad is an anti-semite, he may very well be but that should *not* be the opening paragraph. Mel Gibson in a drunken stupor commented that "Jews are responsible for all wars in the world"; Even Pat Robertson has made controversial remarks about Jews; President Andrew Jackson slaughtered thousands of Native Americans and blatantly defied the Supreme Court of the United States; Bill Clinton had sexual relations with an Intern; What I find interesting is that all of the aforementioned people are Americans and their comments/actions aren't included on their lead Wikipedia page. It's only the "anti-Western" people like Hugo Chavez, Osama Bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that have the most negative lead paragraphs. I guess you can only be an anti-semite if you're American.

This article is mired in a sticky bias that just flat-out reeks. Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia that is devoid - as much as possible - from editorializing. The editors of this article - especially the lead paragraph - should be ashamed. These are the exact type of articles that give Wikipedia the reputation of being unfair, unreliable, and biased.

Winter Light 16:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

""anti-Western" people like Osama..." . You're serious ? Amoruso 02:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, what would you call Osama Bin Laden? Pro-Western? Heh. Winter Light 04:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm asking if you're serious that Osama Bin Laden is simply anti-western and that's why his article is biased like you claim. You'd rather write in the lead that Osama is just a peace loving misunderstood guy fighting against the Big Devil ? or that MA wants to wipe out the Little Devil from the world for just reason ? Amoruso 12:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Instead of saying "The editors of this article - especially the lead paragraph - should be ashamed" (some of us are trying to get rid of this west oriented bias afterall), why don't you offer something constructive for how to improve it? Markovich292 19:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Winter, please be bold.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 11:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Bah!You really want to see a "negative lead paragraph"?? Head over to Hamas....(Where Admins such as Jayjg have taken an oath to Rev/Block anyone who may disagree)... Yes it may read like a damming report written by the Israeli PR machine...but they still call it an encyclopaedic article!!! Yas121 14:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid future violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Today's 'Inspired by God' comment

I just read on BBC that Ahmedinejad claims to be inspired by God, and that Bush is likewise inspired by Satan. Bush similarly claims himself to be inspired by God.

I thought God is of Peace, Love and tranquility, not wars and bullets and bloodshed. If any of these men are really for God, they would not be fighting and would be at peace! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Their whole deal is that they think they are fighting to make peace. Besides, God isn't against killing a few thousand (or million) non-christians; just take a look at the old testament. --LifeEnemy 00:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get that from? There were no Christians at all in the Old Testament. But in the New, Christ tells his followers who wanted to call fire down on non-believers "You don't know what kind of spirit you have." (Lk 9:55) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, either way, my first sentence still stands. This section is unnecesary anyway. --LifeEnemy 01:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Or, if you substitute "people not of his/their religion" for "christians", then it works. --LifeEnemy 03:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that is one of the things that makes Christ's teachings so very different from every religion in the world. Because every religion in the world has something in it, somewhere, that says "It's perfectly okay to screw over 'the others'." (Be it through usury, genocide or whatever). Only Christ's teachings stand out as being different from the others: he specifically taught that it is NOT okay to do this. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I know that's not totally right. But in any case, this is not the place for such a discussion. I shouldn't have brought it up. --LifeEnemy 02:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If you look into the actual teachings, you will see that what I said is absolutely correct. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. Other religions teach peace and non-violence as well. Buddhism, for example. I believe Hinduism and some other religions are also similar in that respect. You sound like one of those ignorant christians (not all) who think that they're better than everyone else. Awareness of other cultures is a good thing to have. --LifeEnemy 02:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I still disagree with what you said that "God isn't against killing a million people". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That's totally all right. We all have opinions. I was probably somewhat out of line in the way I expressed my ideas. My bad. --LifeEnemy 01:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk page time: I dispute the quote of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

First and foremost, a little background.

I noticed today an edit made by the user Avraham [8] (by the way, שלום עליכם). As Markovich clearly states, and as this talk page reveals many people oppose to that quote being in the leading paragraph, due to undue weight. So I decided to revert this edit[9] because it was unsourced and ignored talk page commentary. To my utter surprise, he reverts me within five minutes and claims that I should not remove sourced material.[10] This, as if it was not already enough absurdity, is followed by a message on my talk page which says "Please do not remove cited information from reliable sources, that is considered vandalism. Thank you."[11]. Notice the timing of that message; it was given to me AFTER he added the source. That is to say, that user Avraham falsely accused me of removing sourced material for no reason (vandalism) when in fact I removed the material before it was sourced. I notified Avraham by leaving him a message on his talk page explaining my actions and concerns to him reguarding his accusation of vandalism.[12] I also added that it is irrelevant to me whether or not it is sourced anyways, as I perceived his edit to be a violation of the NPOV policy. So then he responds again on my talkpage explaining to me that he brought the quote as a Wikiquote.[13] However, when you look at the version of the article I reverted, no mention of Wikiquote is there[14]. He also claims that "I do not believe it is a POV issue, as it is one of the most reliable sources that exist, AND the translator is Iranian, I believe. I am sorry you have a personal problem with it, but it is not a wikipedia issue." By stating this, he violated the Wikipedia principle of assuming good faith, by claiming that I have a personal problem with the quote (how would he know?). Also, I had already stated that I didn't care about the source, as I saw it as a violation of NPOV policy. And then Avraham proceeds to state that the translator is Iranian, as if that has any grounds in providing objectivity on the issue. Looking at Nazila Fathi's articles in the NYT, it is clear that she has a biased stance towards Iran [15]. Also, a Google search for her credentials [16] ends up emptyhanded. So I ask, how is she a reliable source for Wikipedia to use as a translator when she is a layman with no credentials for translating foreign languages? So what if she speaks Persian, I do too! What makes her more of a qualified expert in fields she has not studied in? So now let us return back to the article at hand. I decided to revert the article explaining that presenting the NYT translation as Wikipedia's POV is a violation of NPOV policy.[17] Yet, I am reverted by User IronDuke who states "many, many reliable sources use this translation". This is particularly troubling, because he doesn't even bother to add these "many, many reliable sources" to the article. What good is that? And again, this misses my point; that it is not the source I am worried about, but rather the POV in the source being presented as Wikipedia's POV. Not wanting to break the 3 revert rule, I decided to put a tag on that single statement, and promised to explain in the talk page. [18] And here I am. Thank you for taking my concerns into consideration. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 06:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

WaAlaikum usSalam (my apologies for not knowing the Farsi script for it). As mentioned on your talk page, the fact that the translation comes from the NYT was mentioned a number of times on this talk page, it is quoted as such in the article Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel, and in Wikiquote so the provenance of the translation was beyond repute before I clarified it in this article. Secondly, The New York Times is about a reliable source as one has. It is also one of the most widely read English-language papers in the world. It's translation is verifiable, reliable, and without specific points-of-view as one could have. An argument may be made, and has been made, that the Times is actually a left-leaning paper, for that matter. The translation is a fact. That there are those that argue with the translation is also a fact. However, this is still likely the most widely accepted translation of his speech, and that sentence may well be the most talked about sentence he has uttered in the past three years. It is notable and sourced and is well placed in the lead of the article. You may speak Persian fluently, and G-d bless you for it, but you are not The New York Times's official translator. Your opinion of the statement is original research. Ms. Fathi's translation is a published work in an English-language reliable source. The difference is clear. Thank you. -- Avi 06:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, just because those articles and Wikiquote use that translation does not make it an authorative one. That is a logical fallacy known as appeal to the people, because I can just as easily raise the same issues at Wikiquote, as well as the talk page of the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel article. As I already said, so what if it was mentioned elsewhere in the article that the quote was from the NYT? It needs to be referenced immediately after the quote, that is Wikipedia policy for references. And again, I don't care about the reliability of the source, I am worried about the neutrality of presenting that source as fact in the leading paragraph, when clearly there are disagreements on the issue both within the article and on its talk page. Also, I don't care if it is the most widely read English-language paper in the world, that does not make its views any more valid. Nor does it matter if it is a "left-leaning paper", that does not mean it is valid. What is troubling is your claim that "the translation is a fact". Not according to a professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, who says that ""Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse." (please see the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel article for this). He has more credentials than Ms. Fathi, shouldn't we be using him instead for a much better translation? Or even better, how about MEMRI's translation, which is entirely relevant to their purpose, which is to translate Middle East Media? And they translate it as "[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history." Nothing about maps, nothing about wiping. Certainly they are a more credible source than some unacclaimed writer for the New York Times? And again, you state that because it is the most widely version of translation, it is fact. Do I even need to bring up what logical fallacy that is, yet again? And then you claim that I am not the New York Times official translator, as if the official translator is qualified as a translator in the first place. And then you state that my opinion of the statement is original research. Seeing how as I have not yet stated my opinion on the matter, how can you claim it is original research? Do you honestly believe that I have never heard of the Wikipedia concept of No original research, and that I chose to ignore it in editing this article? Please stop assuming bad faith. I thank you for responding, and I look forward to your next response. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 07:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If it is in the article many other times, does it need to be in the lead? Also, since there is such a controversy among sources about the translation, it seems as though we need to represent both sides of the argument (i.e. NPOV), which can't be done in the lead without adding unnecessary length to it. --LifeEnemy 08:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

We went through all this before. There is not "so much controversy" about the translation. There is a little bit, by a few minor people. I well believe that "wiped off the map" is not an idiom in Persian. "Eliminated from the pages of history" is not an idiom in English. That's why it was translated the way it was. Is it the best translation? I dunno. Doesn't matter. It's far and away the most used one. And as for MEMRI being a more reliable source than the NYTimes, all I can say is that you're on the wrong wiki if you truly believe that. This (very minor) dispute is dealt already here. We don't need to use weasel words in the lead. The support for this translation is overwhelming.

Some more sources (out of many):

CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazeera!

IronDuke 19:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is asking to use another translation. Personally, I just don't see the need to have any quote in the lead since it's in the other section, where the controversy is explained. Also, I don't understand what point you were trying to make with the sentence about idioms, could you clarify? Also, I would ask that you please keep possibly inflammatory comments out of edit summaries. Thank you. --LifeEnemy 02:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What's being asked is to give equal weight to two translations, "map" versus "page." But the "map" translation has such overwhelming support in terms of notability and RS, we can use it with only passing mention (elsewhere) of the "page" quote. What I mean by idiom is that some users seem to be getting confused, thinking that a literal translation must be the correct one, and therefore editors who object to giving it equal weight disregard the truth. This is wrong because 1) It doesn't matter if the "page" version is "truer." WP is not about truth. It's about verifiability. Map is far more verifiable, for our purposes. 2) When people translate idioms, they want their non-native speaking audience to understand what's being referred to. If I translate Bush saying in English of (e.g.) the U.S. economy "We need a Hail Mary pass" into Farsi, I'm guessing a literal translation would be meaningless to most Farsi speakers. Some comparable idiom would have to be employed to convey the nuance. That is what has happened, IMO, with "map" versus "page."

The quote should be in the lead because he's famous for saying it, more so than any other single statement.

I'm sorry if you were inflamed by my edit summary. It wasn't meant to have that effect. IronDuke 02:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. You make a good point, although I don't know the specifics. Do you know if MA used a similar farsi idiom in his speech?

Personally I didn't mind the summary, but this talk page seems prone to degrading very quickly, and I hope to avoid the unnecessary conflicts that have plagued this page thus far. Thank you for your civil reply. --LifeEnemy 05:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

IronDuke, what I don't understand is why you think that the most commonly used version of the quote should be the one that Wikipedia uses. Here at Wikipedia, we don't place popular information as fact, we place logical information as fact. So what if that translation is most popular; so what if that translation comes from a verifiable source? That doesn't it make it true. This distinction must be made, and placing the most popular version of the quote in the leading paragraph is not the right thing to do. The astrology article doesn't say that "astrology makes authorative claims" in the first paragraph, because such a statement is controversial amongst knowledgable people. Most people, however, do believe in astrology (sadly enough). But just because astrology is popular does not make it true, nor does it mean that we should present "astrology is a fact" as Wikipedia's stance on the issue. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 04:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirby, maybe you are unaware, but please look at one of the official policies of wikipedia: verifiability, not truth. Thanks. -- Avi 05:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. What I'm saying is that it should not be presented as truth. Please see this, which states that if we are to use the NYT's translation, then we MUST say it is the NYT translation; we cannot use their translation as Wikipedia's point of view. As the article currently stands, it says "Ahmadinejad is a controversial figure, criticised by Western governments for various statements including his agreement with Ruhollah Khomeini regarding Israel by saying “Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement,”". It should instead say that the NYT thinks he said those things. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 05:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a clear citation that references the NYT with a link to the full translated text; why doesn't that absolve your worries? -- Avi 05:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess not. I've added the Al Jazeera, CNN, and MSNBC cites brought above to the text to demonstrate its pervasiveness. -- Avi 06:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Avi, don't start it again. You're completely acting according your strange POV. The article starts with criticisms that are not NPOV. At least they should be in their category. It seems you're labeling a living person with your [WP:OR]. Thanks.

--Hossein.ir 12:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing properly cited and sourced content that you disagree with from articles is POV-pushing and vandalism and will be treated as such. Please discuss articles on the talk page, as LifeEnemy and Kirby and IronDuke and I are doing. Thank you -- Avi 12:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd just add this: 1) Avi's POV is not strange. If you want to criticise him, do so for having too mainstream a POV. 2) Criticisms are never NPOV, by definition. 3) It's not OR at all. The quote has been repeated over and over again, by both Western and Middle-Eastern media outlets. Even Palestinians [19] subscribe to this translation. I respectfully invite you to go back and review WP:OR. IronDuke 22:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. All of you look at the current version, and then look again at the concerns that people have raised on this talk page. And in terms of equal weight in the lead vs. the rest of the article, the situation is now many times worse than before. Just as a refresher from WP:LEAD, let me reiterate that "The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article."Markovich292 23:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The lead needs to be toned down. I think that the holocaust denial and "map" quote can stay, but what we have now is over the top. IronDuke 23:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with toning it down, but the point of the citations is to show that the "map" comment is accurate, widespread, and notable, and should stay. -- Avi 00:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I think we can dispense with the NYT, CBS, MSNBC, Al Jazeera, MEMRI, etc. namedropping. I think with the construction “including the widespread understanding of his agreement…” should be enough to show that there is disagreement and that it is not gospel, but that it is by far the most accepted and widespread translation (Al-Jazeera and Palestinan president Saeb Erekat included) of his statements. I then streamled them into one sentence, with refs in the proper places. What do y'all think? -- Avi 00:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I was going to point out that the lead was getting way too cluttered, but you guys beat me to it. Anway, I think the version that you're reffering to Avi is pretty good. It's a good starting point, at the very least. --LifeEnemy 00:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The lead paragraph is becoming more absurd with each passing day. "including the widespread understanding of his agreement with Ruhollah Khomeini regarding Israel by saying in his UN speech that...". a survey might solve the issue--Gerash77 01:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad does not deny statement

Please see the 60 Minutes transcript that I cited in the text. Ahmadinejad does not deny the statement at all and confirms it by eventually answering "fabricated state" after dancing around the question (in Mike Wallace's words). I beleive this is darn near well what we call proof-positive. -- Avi 22:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered that when "wiped off the map" was translated in the interview, the translator probably did not use a phrase in Farsi that implies totally destroying Israel (not just the government)? Just food for thought. Also, could you explain how him calling Israel a fabricated state confirms that he wants it annihilated? Markovich292 23:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think Ahmadinejad is that naïve to be ignorant of that, especially as it was asked three times? One thing Ahmadinejad is not, is stupid. He is brilliant and crafty, even if his views are, shall we say, extreme. To say he didn't know what he was being asked is almost insulting to him, in my opinion. Secondly, if he did not make that statement, as many wish to claim, this was the perfect opportunity to clarify that he never said anything like that, and to make all the apologies/explanations that many in the media have made saying he was mistranslated, etc. He did not, but explained (after being pressed again and again) that WHY he felt Israel should be wiped off the map was because it is a "fabricated" state. -- Avi 23:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Markovich meant that the translator used a phrase that didn't convey the same meaning as "wiped off the map," not that MA misunderstood. But, in any case, I think it is a bit of a stretch (possibly bordering on original reserach) to take that single statement as proof of MA confirming that he wants Israel "wiped off the map." --LifeEnemy 00:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I was careful not to say "confirm" in the text of the article, it is brought as another reference, but it is powerful enough, in my opinion, to obviate the need for the rebuttals and qualifications in the lead. Those more accurately belong in th esection about the phrase, which I believe was spun off into its own article, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel, which accounts for why there is not so much text in THIS article, although there could be. See Wikipedia:Summary style. -- Avi 01:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess we'll soon see what opinions others have. --LifeEnemy 21:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC):::

Regarding this edit: If all the official translations "refer to wiping Israel away," there is no significance to the fact that Ahmadinejad did not deny this question by Wallace, because it was asked through a translator. As I indicated previously ([20]), Ahmadinejad probably did not hear (from his translator) a phrase that denotes complete destruction (as "wipe off the map" does), so why would he dispute it? Markovich292 02:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

::The quote should be in the lead because he's famous for saying it, more so than any other single statement.::: ::I'm sorry if you were inflamed by my edit summary. It wasn't meant to have that effect. IronDuke 02:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)::

That's absurd. Bill Clinton is the most famous for saying "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman" but you don't see it as his lead paragraph. As I stated in a previous section, this article is so biased that its not even an article - it's an editorial. Winter Light 23:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It's more than a statement, it's the idea behind the statement, which has been interpreted to mean that MA calls for ethnic cleansing or genocide against Israel. Clinton is also famous for "I didn't inhale" and "That depends on what the meaning of 'is' is", so I would disagree that we'd have to have the "that woman" quote in the lead. But I agree, the Clinton lead could be expanded to deal with some of the scandal, if you feel up for it. Let me know if you need a hand. IronDuke 02:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, just saw your original comment. FWIW, I tried to put a small section in the Mel Gibson lead about controversy here. If you want to put it back in, you'd be more than welcome. Also, check out the lead in Ariel Sharon. Though I personally don't think he was responsible for Sabra and Shatila, many disagree. So it stays, properly, in the lead. And Sharon isn't anti-western, is he? If Sharon had as many rabid fans as Gibson does, maybe his lead would be more favorable...IronDuke 15:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

American Enterprise Institute on Bill Mahr

During this past week’s episode of Real-Time with Bill Mahr a woman named Danielle Pletka from the American Enterprise Institute attributed a parapharsed quotation to Ahmadinejad where Ahmadinejad said he wanted to ’destoy the United States’ (in her words). I checked Wikipedia, thinking I might find some reference detailing what this referred to, but there’s nothing here as far as I can see. Does anyone know what she may have been referring to? --Cplot 01:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've heard "destory the whole western world, the civilized world; He wants to take over the planet. etc. It might be concluded from the chanting of "Death to USA".--Gerash77 01:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Unverified Farsi-language citations

Most of the citations in this article are in Farsi, and even if we have some people willing to go on record verifying the citations, this is English wikipedia, and it does strain the credibility of the article to an extent. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Sources in languages other than English. Thank you. -- Avi 05:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Citecheck template

The citecheck template is a specialized template. It applies only to articles that misuse citations, such as quotes taken out of context. When using citecheck, please discuss specific problem citations on talk.

Sometimes editors put citecheck on an article when some other template is really needed, such as when they think an article has POV problems or not enough citations. If that's the case here then please replace citecheck with the appropriate template. Respectfully, Durova 22:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the section immediately above? The issue is that there are very few Farsi-speakers here, and I cannot verify that ANY of those cites support what they purport to. Thus the possibility of misrepresentation/misquoting -- ergo, the template . -- Avi 00:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad edit, NPOV

If you feel that my edit isn't a NPOV, please re-word it so that it is. If the article is going to claim that Ahmadinejad is anti-semitic, him having positive relations with a Jewish group is a particularly relevant fact. Robocracy 15:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

(above moved from my talk page) IronDuke 15:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I see no relevance whatever. Meeting with Jews doesn't make someone a philosemite. Not even "positive relations." And, FWIW, I'm not sure I know of a legitimate Jewish organization that does not shun NK. IronDuke 15:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Your revert didn't say "irrelevant," but POV and leading. Which one is it, or is it both, POV, leading, and irrelevant?

Anyway, I never claimed that meeting with Jews makes Ahmadinejad or anyone a "philosemite," but anti-semites are rather unlikely to meet with, shake hands, hug, and befriend Jews. So, it is relevant. Regarding it being POV, the entire section only contains evidence to support the claim that he is anti-semitic. So, one or two lines about him being friendly with Neturei Karta "despite allegations," is not a POV. I don't claim that the allegations are true or false, but only that it is one example of proof to the contrary. Surely, the article should allow for such? Robocracy 15:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean about relevancy. I was using the word in response to you: "a particularly relevant fact". But yes, it is "POV, leading, and irrelevant." Southern slaveowners shook hands with, hugged, and befriended their slaves. That doesn't mean they weren't racists. "Despite allegations" is a classic, leading phrase. Who says its' "despite?" Perhaps it's "because of" or "in order to divert attention from." You "claim" this example is "proof" to the contrary, but offer no support for this novel thesis. IronDuke 15:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a false analogy: Slave-owners weren't implicitly racist people, so they cannot be equated with those who are. Some slave-owners were racist, some weren't. Some people (like John Locke) opposed slavery, yet still owned slaves. No one who so profoundly hates a particular ethnic or religious group is going to sincerely hold an amicable meeting with them, in a free environment. I agree, that perhaps it's merely a ruse or perhaps it isn't, but the fact of the matter is still relevant and merely mentioning the fact is not a POV. I leave the interpretation up to the reader as to whether his meeting was sincere or not, rather than believing that the information should be removed, because I might personally believe he was insincere, and upon that basis, consider it "irrelevant," in my own, personal views about the matter. "Despite allegations," is simply to signify that it's proof to the contrary, so that the article flows well, not that it's necessarily valid proof. The phrase, "despite allegations," is frequently used in news articles, which are of a NPOV. Robocracy 15:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

They're allowed to use "Despite allegations" because OR is not only allowed for the media, it's encouraged. Not here. And no, my analogy was not at all false. Ever heard the phrase "Some of my best friends are blacks?" It's a classic racist apology. MA doesn't have to want to incinerate every Jew on the planet to make him an antisemite. He just has to want to incinerate a few million of them to qualify. IronDuke 16:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, the category is not Category:Anti-Semitic people but Category:Anti-Semitism; completely different. Please read the last four or so archive pages to see the development of this compromise. Thank you. -- Avi 00:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Neturei Karta

Saying MA kept up good relations with NK is like saying The grand wizard of the KKK keeps up good relations with the group "African Americans for self-reenslavement". Firstly, NK is SO fringe as to drop below the level of "undue weight" and secondly, they are rabid anti-Zionists. If anything, that blurb belongs on Neturei Karta; nowhere else. Thanks. -- Avi 00:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Avi, a good point I ought to have made myself. I could replace the phrase "Despite allegations" of MA's antismetism with "Confirming allegations" in regard to his meeting with NK, given NK's reputation. IronDuke 00:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious: Is there a group named, "African Americans for self-reenslavement"? And could you name any African-American or Jewish group which the KKK is allied with? Otherwise, I fail to see your reasoning. Surely, you don't actually believe that Neturei Karta are anti-semitic as well? Robocracy 00:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think NK is just wacky. They're happy to meet with and praise murderers of Jews. Anti-semitic? Self-hating? You tell me. IronDuke 00:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

To be blunt, what you think and feel about the subject matter is irrelevant and going about editing with that attitude is why the article is in the state that it's in. The point is to write an neutral, objective encyclopedia article, not your own personal essay. It doesn't matter if you think NK aren't "real Jews" or think that they're "bad Jews." It's inconceivable that Mahmoud says to himself, "Oh, these Jews hate Jews too, so they're okay," in the same way that the KKK and the Nation of Islam have never became buddies, even though they both hate Jews. It makes no sense that someone who would want to commit all-out genocide against a particular religious group would keep any positive ties with any of those among that group. So, for example, David Duke may backtrack from anti-semitic rhetoric for good PR, but you'll never see him hug a Jew. Robocracy 00:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

And one more additional comment: The fact that you think Ahmadinejad is relevant to the NK article, but NK isn't relevant to the Ahmadinejad article shows your blatant bias.

However, being a reasonable person, I agree to your compromise, for now. The edit goes back in, beginning with, "confirming allegations," rather than, "despite allegations." Robocracy 01:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I quote from WP:NPOV (emphasis added is my own)

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.
— Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight

NK falls below any accepeted level of relevance, and their addition in any article, outside of Neturei Karta is improper. -- Avi 03:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Postscript--I see no need to mention MA in the NK article either, but at least according to wiki policy, it is acceptable there, as opposed to in this article. - Avi 03:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Except what I'm saying does not even involve reflecting a certain POV, but I'm merely mentioning a relevant fact. Look, it's relatively simple: If any well-known racist figure, tomorrow, suddenly met with a group containing exactly the kinds of people they're supposed to hate, that's obviously relevant to speculation about their racism. Hence, CBS news called Ahmadinejad's meeting shocking, and "like something out of the Twilight Zone." NK may be an extreme minority view, but the assertion that Ahmadinejad may not be anti-semitic is not. Would you mind if I added Ahmadinejad's own response: "I'm not anti-semitic" and "Zionists are not Jews" ? Of course you would mind, because it doesn't reflect your POV that Ahmadinejad is anti-semitic, and any facts which don't support that assertion won't be allowed. The info is perfect to put in the NK article to smear NK, but not relevant to the Ahmadinejad article, eh? Robocracy 11:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said, if the well-known rascist met with people who hated those of their own kind and wished to live in a rascist society where they are oppressed (my phantom "African-Americans for self-reenslavement" example) it would not be so shocking. That is a more proper analogy. Also, it still is not appropriate for this article. To add MA's own quotes about Jews is appropriate in my opinion; this is his article, but to hold up his meeting with NK as proof of anything is inappropriate here. -- Avi 12:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this was never meant to be presented as "proof" of anything, but only as a way to represent both sides of the argument in a section about a dispute. The word "despite" can be construed to mean what IronDuke stated, but it can also be used in the way robocracy did. However, NPOV doesn't even apply here. As robocracy said, this is presented as a fact (that the meeting happened), not as a POV. Also, I disagree with putting "confirming allegations..." at the beginning of that paragraph. First of all, using "confirm" is much more POV than "despite" could even be construed to be. Second, I don't see how MA meeting with NK confirms he is anti-semetic. If it did, wouldn't be be putting the "anti-semetic people" category on the page?

On a related note, that whole section is completely POV. The entire section is about why MA is anti-semetic, and has absolutely nothing to the contrary. That is a way bigger problem than this whole NK thing. I've added a POV-disclaimer-box to that section. --LifeEnemy 03:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

This is not alleged. Read the sources where he says so in black-and-white. This is alos not WP:OR, it is brought from the primary sources as per wiki policy. Putting in alleged for Holocaust denial is a form of POV-pushing vandalism, will be reverted, and does not count towards 3RR per wiki policy. -- Avi 12:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest simply pointing out that it is sourced and not come down so harshly (is a form of POV-pushing vandalism). Remember, assume good faith! --LifeEnemy 03:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You are correct; thanks. -- Avi 03:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Life, what do you believe the NPOV is in that section? -- Avi 03:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The holocaust denial/anti-semetism section? I think NPOV would be representing both sides of the argument fairly. There needs to be mention of MA's own quotes about anti-semetism and coverage of some things he's done that are inconsistent with anti-semetism. Pro-anti-semetic arguments might warrant a little more weight in that section, since it seems to be such a pervasive idea in western media, but I don't have a really good idea of everything that's been happening involving MA. I hope I understood what you were asking. --LifeEnemy 03:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I reiterate that NK and TTJ etc. are not examples that belong there. Now, I believe there was a quotye saying he respects Jews or something like that, that would be a good addition to the section. -- Avi 03:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)