Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Wiped off the map" statement

He's the full statement:

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

You can think of it as two different statements:

• "Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement."
• "I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world."

The first quote does use the phrase "wiped off the map" but is referring to the statement by Khomeini. The second statement is just a prediction that Israel would be eliminated by the Palestinians (not Iran). There's a difference. Have this in mind when editing the section. Aucaman^Talk 18:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Until we have some direct quotes of Khomeini actually saying that Israel should be "wiped off the map", we can only state that Ahmadinejad attributed those beliefs to Khomeini. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There is some dispute over the translation from Farsi to English. Juan Cole, who speaks Farsi, says: [But the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all. The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem.] Iran often protests about mis-translation and twisting of words. That this seemingly agressive statement is actually wrong is plausible. That's not to say there's no hostility to Iran; however neither is this a threat of invasion.

Jayjg, et. al., does this suffice? (emphasis added is my own)http://www.irna.ir/occasion/ertehal/english/saying/

• Jerusalem is the first Kiblah of Muslims and it belongs to them.
• All must know that the superpowers aim in creating Israel does not end in the occupation of Palestine. They plan, Heaven forbid, to extend the fate of Palestine to all Arab countries.
• Do not the authorities of the nation see or know that diplomatic talks with history's criminal and powerful politicians cannot save Lebanon, Palestine or Quds and the number of crimes and oppressions increases daily.
• We are on the side of the oppressed which-ever pole they may be in. Palestinians are oppressed by the Israelites, therefore we side with them.
• We fully support our Palestinian brothers and those of southern Lebanon in their fights against the usurper Israel.
• Neither the Iranian Muslim nation, nor any other Muslims and, as a matter of fact, no open-minded individual, will recognize Israel. We shall always support our Arab and Palestinian brothers.
• We must all rise, destroy Israel and replace it with the heroic Palestinian nation.
• The Quds Day which is coincidental with the Night of Destiny (=Lailatul Qadr=a night in the month of Ramazan in which the Quran is said to have been revealed to the Prophet (SAW)), must be revived among the Muslims and be the starting point of their awakening and awareness.
• Muslims of the world should regard the Quds Day as All-Muslims Day or the oppressed People's Day.
• It is the intonation of Allah-o-Akbar, the cry of our nation, that disappointed the Shah in Iran and the usurpers in Palestine. Essentially, it is the duty of all Muslims to liberate the Quds and remove this nucleus of evil from Islamic lands.
• The issue of Quds is not a private or personal issue. It is not the exclusive problem of one country nor a present-day problem of all Muslims. Rather, it is a phenomenon concerning the monotheists and faithful people of all ages-past, present and future.
• Quds belongs to the Muslims and must be returned to them.
• The Quds Day is the Day of Islam.
• The Quds Day is a day in which the destinies of the oppressed nations must to determined.
• The Quds Day is a universal day. It is not an exclusive day for Quds itself. It is a day for the oppressed to rise and stand up against the arrogant.
• The Quds Day is a day in which Islam is to be revived.
• 'Re Quds Day is Islam's Live Day!
• The Quds Day which fall on the last days of the God's Great Month(Ramazan) is a proper day on which all Muslims be freed from the bondage of the Big Satan (=or Great Devil= the U.S.A) and other superpowers and join the Infinite Might of God.

THE QUDS OCCUPATIONIST REGIME (ISRAEL)

• I regard supporting the plan for independence of Israel and its recognition a tragedy for the Muslims and an explosion for the Islamic governments.
• The usurper state of Israel with the aims it has pose great danger to Islam and the Islamic states.
• Brothers and sisters must know that America and Israel are enemies to the fundamentals of Islam.
• The foolish idea of greater Israel makes them commit any crime.
• Let brotherly Arab nations and the Palestinian and Lebanese brothers know that all their miseries are caused by America and Israel.
• Regarding Israel, certainly we shall not help an illegitimate, usurper government which is trespassing the rights of the Muslims and is an enemy of Islam.
• Islam and the Muslims and all international standards regard Israel as a usurper and aggressor and we do not approve the least negligence in terminating its aggressions.
• I have often said and you have heard me say that Israel will not settle for these agreements for it regards the Arab domination over territories from the Nile to the Euphrates as usurpation.
• Israel must be eradicated from the page of history.
• It is incumbent on every Muslim to arm himself against Israel.
• Those who support Israel must realize they are nurturing a pit viper up their sleeves.
• Do not support Israel, this enemy of Islam and Arabs for this listless viper will have no mercy on you, young or old if it gets within your reach.
• It is necessary that all freedom-loving peoples of the world unite with the Muslims and together condemn the inhuman aggressions of Israel.
• Iran has been and is the diehard enemy of Israel.
• We shall reject Israel and shall have no relations with it for it is a usurper state and is our enemy.
• I announce to all Islamic states and Muslims of the world, wherever they are, that the dear Shiite nation hates Israel and its agents and is disgusted with and hates the states that compromise with Israel.
• We shall not have relations with Israel as it is a usurper state and is warring against Muslims.
• We shall oppose Israel for it has usurped the rights of Arab peoples.
• Israel is warring against Muslims, and usurps the lands of our brothers, we shall not give it any oil.
• Israel is rejected by us, we shall never give it oil nor ever recognize it.
• The criminal hands of the world arrogant states will not be severed off the Islamic lands unless Muslim nations and oppressed peoples rise against them and their offsprings especially Israel.
• Israel is a usurper and must leave Palestine soon and the way to it is that Palestinian brothers uproot this core of corruption and colonialization from the region so that peace may return to the area.
• It is a duty of the proud nation of Iran to harness the interests of America and Israel in Iran and invade them.
• It is necessary for oil producing Islamic countries to use the oil and other things available to them as weapons against Israel and the colonisers.
• It is incumbent on all Muslims especially Muslim countries to do away with this core of corruption any way possible.
• This degenerative tumour that has, with backing of major powers, been planted in the heart of Islamic states and whose roots daily threaten the Islamic lands must be removed with help and effort of Islamic states and the great nations of Islam.

I think that, while the actual words "wipe from map" aren't in this list, the sentiment is obvious -- Avi 17:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand why you did this. Is there anything wrong with what we had? Why did you put "wiped off the map" in quotes? Who exactly are you quoting? Ahmadinejad has never directly said Israel should be wiped off the map. Aucaman^Talk 05:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

In his speech Ahmadinejad used the phrase "wiped off the map"; I don't see any statement from Khomeini saying the same thing. If you want to say the Ahmadinejad agreed with Khomeini that Israel should be destroyed that's fine with me, but the "wiped off the map" stuff appears to be unique to Ahmadinejad. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Come on. Ahmadinejad said he was supporting something said earlier by Khomeini. Do you have verifiable evidence that he lied when he said that? Ahmadinejad was speaking Farsi to an audience of people familiar enough with Khomeini that Khomeini was not even named, just referred to as the dear Imam. What do you propose was Ahmadinejad's motivation to lie about what the dear Imam said? If we are unable to produce the exact quotation in English, translated into the same idiom, - even though Khomeini may well have never spoken English - do you think that proves Khomeini didn't say it in Farsi? Ahmadinejad himself, speaking to an audience of Khomeini's supporters and followers, qualifies as an expert on the sayings of Khomeini. Can you produce a comparable expert who says Khomeini did not say it? TopRank 01:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia includes verifiable information; we know that he attributed it to Khomeini. We don't try to decide who was telling the truth about what. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

He agreed with a statement he attributed to Khomeini. Even if it is not true that Khomeini said it - and there is no controversy on that point anywhere - it is still true that he was agreeing with a statement he attributed to Khomeini. He could have but did not put the statement into his own voice. For that reason the previous wording was more accurate than this wording. TopRank 02:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If Kohmeini didn't actually say it, then he could hardly have "agreed" to it, could he? Either he agreed with Khomeini's sentiments that Israel should be destroyed, or he attributed the idea that Israel should be "wiped off the map" to Khomeini - you can't have it both ways. The current wording is entirely accurate and neutral - Ahmedinejad said it, and attributed it to Khomeini. Can you explain what is inaccurate about that? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad could have, but chose not to put "wiped off the map" into his own voice. To present it in Ahmadinejad's voice is to rewrite Ahmadinejad's speech for your purposes. According the MA, the voice that said "wiped off the map" was Khomeini's. Are you asserting that Khomeini didn't say it? Even if not, he put it in Khomeini's voice. Of course, if you are asserting Khomeini didn't say it I'd love to see how you support that assertion. TopRank 02:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It is completely irrelevant whether or not Khomeini really said Israel ought to be "wiped off the map". What is relevant is that Ahmadinejad agrees with the sentiment. So AT MOST we'll have to change to something like "Ahmadinejad agreed with the statement he attributed to Khomeini that Israel should be wiped off the map." Remember, this article is about Ahmadinejad & it is (surely?) very important information about the man that he would say (or support or quote with agreement) something like "wiped off the map". Mikkerpikker ... 01:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, in the past the article said that he wanted Israel to be destroyed, but editors here insisted that we couldn't say that, because he only said that it should be "wiped off the map". Now you're saying the opposite. Which is it to be? Do we quote him exactly, and say he attributed it to Khomeini, or do we simply point out the obvious, that they both insisted Israel be destroyed? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually like the way you've dealt with it... I'm agreeing with you (I should try to be clearer, I know! hey, it's 4 in the morning here...) Mikkerpikker ... 02:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Curiously, the Bible has almost the very lines which the President of Iran used with reference to "Wiping Israel off the Map". It is Psalm 83. I am sure the President of Iran is not a believer of the Bible, nor probably has an interest in the Bible, but it is a curious coincidence that what the Iranian President is proposing had been written many thousands of years ago by Asaph, a prophet, probably under the great King David of Israel. Here is the full text: GlenninBerlin

Psalm 83 0: A Song. A Psalm of Asaph. 1: O God, do not keep silence; do not hold thy peace or be still, O God! 2: For lo, thy enemies are in tumult; those who hate thee have raised their heads. 3: They lay crafty plans against thy people; they consult together against thy protected ones. 4: They say, "Come, let us wipe them out as a nation; let the name of Israel be remembered no more!" 5: Yea, they conspire with one accord; against thee they make a covenant -- 6: the tents of Edom and the Ish'maelites, Moab and the Hagrites, 7: Gebal and Ammon and Am'alek, Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre; 8: Assyria also has joined them; they are the strong arm of the children of Lot. [Selah] 9: Do to them as thou didst to Mid'ian, as to Sis'era and Jabin at the river Kishon, 10: who were destroyed at En-dor, who became dung for the ground. 11: Make their nobles like Oreb and Zeeb, all their princes like Zebah and Zalmun'na, 12: who said, "Let us take possession for ourselves of the pastures of God." 13: O my God, make them like whirling dust, like chaff before the wind. 14: As fire consumes the forest, as the flame sets the mountains ablaze, 15: so do thou pursue them with thy tempest and terrify them with thy hurricane! 16: Fill their faces with shame, that they may seek thy name, O LORD. 17: Let them be put to shame and dismayed for ever; let them perish in disgrace. 18: Let them know that thou alone, whose name is the LORD, art the Most High over all the earth.

Compromise?

It's a fair point that we don't have any statements from Khomeini, so I'm just going to put in the original quote and let the readers decide whatever they want. It's not going to look pretty, but it's better than these endless arguments. Aucaman^Talk 02:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

We're one step away from just reproducing the entire article. It is possible to refrain from claiming Khomeini said it without asserting that it originated with Ahmadinejad. This is assuming we're talking about the same thing. TopRank 02:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"Disgraceful blot"

I was asked to explain my edit here. Here are some reasons:

• The "disgraceful blot" phrase is not as notable as the "wipe off the map" phrase. Compare good hits of 300,000 to 20,000. Remember, this is supposed to be a summary. If something is not necessary to say, it should be kept in the subarticle.
• It's not chronogically accurate.
• It's not part of the same sentence as the "wipe of the map" comment. The reader might think they are part of the same sentence. I've already said this before.
• The sentence didn't read smoothly.

Aucaman^Talk 08:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I am not convinced. This expression shows his character and belongs here. Continued attempts to whitewash MA are duly noted. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"Shows his character" - I don't think it is necessary to "show his character" in a summary and it is not clear if to "show his character" means to summarize what he said or if it means to persuade the reader to accept your pre-determined judgement of his character. I'm not sure anything more is needed than the first sentence that he made statements antagonistic to Israel. The "wiped off" is prominent enough that maybe it should be added. I think the "disgraceful blot" just isn't important enough, given that the summary already mentions antagonistic statements, to be inserted in a summary, though it does belong in the main subarticle. TopRank 18:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman, the sentence reads just fine, the article doesn't imply it's part of the same sentence as the "wipe off the map" phrase, it would make no difference even if it did, and you've been attempting to excise the phrase from all versions of the article, regardless of the way it "reads". In fact, you've been attempting to remove most mention of this issue from the article, and to whitewash what little remains. The "disgraceful blot/stain" statement is clearly noteworthy; it gets almost 15,000 Google hits, for one thing, and 150 hits from Google news sources. In fact, in the New York Times article linked to, I believe it is the only phrase from the speech that is repeated. If the New York Times thinks it is even more newsworthy than the "wiped off the map" statement, then clearly it is notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well the reason I have to repeat correcting your edits is because (a) they're not accurate; (b) they're not neutral. For one thing, I have no clue where you get your information. This is not the main article. The main article is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. This is supposed to be a summary of the stuff in that article - the ones that are relevant and notable enough to be put in this section. At first you didn't even know that he was referring to Khomeini's statment, but that eventually settled in. Now you want to include the phrase "disgraceful blot". Where exactly are you getting this quote? The subarticle that we're supposed to be summarizing? Well I suggest you read the subarticle again. It's simply not there. I'm going to take it out. You're more than welcome to replace it with the correct phrase once you read the subarticle again (you've done that before, right?) I still think the phrase is taken out of context and that it's not notable enough to be put there, but I can't come up with a better wording, so I'm going to let you keep it. Aucaman^Talk 05:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the problem here was that you kept insisting that Khomeini said Israel must be "wiped off the map". Once you were straightened out on that, things proceeded pretty well. And if something that belongs in the sub-article is not there, then I suggest you go add it next time; I've made the case for it's inclusion here, and you haven't refuted that. However, in this case, it's been in sub-article all along; the lengthy quote at the beginning has always included the phrase. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No my point was that you have been adding information from places other than the subarticle. Like I said, the phrase "disgraceful blot" does NOT appear there. We have "disgraceful stain" there. I'm going to fix it for you and let you keep it. And no, I wasn't a literalist at first. It all started when people started taking everything MA has said literally. I'm just keeping it consistent. I have no problem with summarizing or interpretation, but when you put things in quotes, you have quote the person correctly. Aucaman^Talk 00:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

While that particular source translated him as saying "disgraceful stain", the vast majority of sources translated it as "disgraceful blot", by a factor of about 100 to 1. "Disgraceful blot" is at least as accurate a quotation as "disgraceful stain"; probably moreso. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well we've agreed to go with this particular translation. You can't just pick and choose different phrases from different translations and somehow put them together in a sentence. This is also supposed to be summary of the subarticle (how many times have I emphasized that?), so everything here must already be in the subarticle. In any case, I think we're both more or less happy with the way things appear now. Sorry if I gave you a hard time. Aucaman^Talk 04:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a separate article that contains the phrase and context and if you want you can add two or three more paragraphs about the phrase "disgraceful blot" there. That is the point of there being separate articles. If "disgraceful blot" must appear in the summary there is no reason the entire sentence in which it appears should not also appear in the summary along with the context in which it was said. TopRank 03:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the overview, and enough context is given. The whitewashing needs to end, really. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's see, the testimony of a middle-eastern expert(Juan Cole) who actually can read Farsi isn't good enough? Wikipedia is f-cked. TELL THE WIKITRUTH

Mr. Cole's interpretation is not the same as many other equally notable experts. Blainetologist 19:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Which "experts" would those be? Nazila Fathi of the NYT's Tehran bureau, perhaps? The "expert" in this case is the translator who produces the interpretation most useful to those who want to portray Iran as a danger to the West. — JEREMY 00:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Accrding to one source "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).", i.e. it can be interpreted as "the Israeli government should go away". I know there are many who wants to interpret in various ways, but when the foreign minister also said "He is talking about the regime." it should be an open and shut case. // Liftarn

What the foreign minister said after the fact for damage control is mostly irrelevant, except for laughs. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Iranian reporters in the US

The statement:

Since Iranian revolution, no Iranian reporters have been allowed to enter US or take part in a press conference of US president. IRIB reporters have only been allowed to cover UN events and could only travel in 17 mile radius of New York. Several Iranian reporters criticised President Ahmadinejad on his support for CNN

is pure POV in its current form because (a) the aim seems to be to contrast the (presumably tolerant) treatment of the American media in Iran with the (presumably vile) treatment of the Iranian media in the States; (b) there is no context for why the Iranian media is treated in this way and (c) the content is irrelevant in the context of a Ahmadinejad article & leaves an impression of gratuitous America bashing. It ought to be removed or moved to an article about Iranian reporters in America... Mikkerpikker ... 20:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

America bashing? How do you figure? At any rate I believe the inclusion is warranted since it elaborates on why the (state-employeed) Iranian reporters in question criticized Ahmadinejad. It might need a bit of a rewording to illustrate context. A separate article with more details (while keeping this bit here) is a good idea as well, since it would also help educate the reader as to the differences amongst the various Iranian media outlets - the state-run media (which has total domination over television and radio and is directly under the control of the Supreme Leader) and independent media (limited to newspapers which are constantly harassed and shutdown by the authorities). SouthernComfort 21:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Since the Iranian Revolution, no Iranian reporters have been allowed to enter the United States or take part in a press conference of the US President. This sentence, however, is rather disingenuous. SouthernComfort 21:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

My point is in the context the statement amounts to gratuitous America bashing because it seems to imply that whilst Ahmadinejad (the good, the wise) allows CNN to operate in Iran despite its mistake, the Americans (the evil, the silly) don't even allow Iranian reporters into the wider US. I'm not saying this isn't true, all I'm saying that there is a clear implicature here of censure. Moreover, the statement is uncited and hence fails WP:V. (quoteth: "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories and claims in articles must only be included if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed."). Can we find a source for this info?? If not I'm removing it... Mikkerpikker ... 21:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Since you're here to promote NPOV and proper context (I'm sure you don't have any other intentions), I suggest removing the whole subsection. For one thing, how's "treatment of foreign press" a foreign policy position? I also suggest moving the subsection to the subarticle Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Aucaman^Talk 21:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, that seems fine... there then just needs to be context provided in the Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad page. Mikkerpikker ... 22:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've now gone ahead and moved the section... Mikkerpikker ... 02:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Remove Chirac's statement on preemptive nuclear use

I'm not sure it is relevant to a biographical article on Ahmadinejad, it is in the section about Ahmadinejad's support for the program but I do not see a direct relationship between them. TopRank 20:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This issue has not been addressed. I do not want to erase it until at least one person has responded. Chirac says France will use nuclear weapons on any nation that sponsors a terrorist atteck on France. Is that really a criticism of Iran's nuclear program? How? Did Ahmadinejad threaten to sponsor a terrorist attack on France? What is the relationship between this statement and Ahmadinejad's biography? Does the fact that MA probably read about it in the paper justify putting every news event into MA's biography? TopRank 02:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for a defense of the Chirac statement remaining here. In the meantime I'll remove it. TopRank 04:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Editing Relatons with Israel section

i tried to improve the paragraph dealing with "Antagonism to Israel" but it was insisted that i discuss changes here. I thought Wikipedia was open to all for editing but I guess not./

The current version: In October 2005, Ahmadinejad made a series of antagonistic statements about the State of Israel and its leadership, describing Israel as a "disgraceful blot" and at one point agreeing with a statement he attributed to Ayatollah Khomeini that Israel must be "wiped off the map". His comments were condemned by major Western governments, the European Union, Russia and United Nations Security Council Secretary General Kofi Annan.^[1] Egyptian, Turkish and Palestinian leaders also expressed displeasure over Ahmadinejad's remark.^[2]

My version: In October 2005, Ahmadinejad made several antagonistic statements about Israel in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He stated his belief that "no doubt the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world." Ahmedinejad attributed to Ayatollah Khomeini the Iranian policy that Israel must be "wiped off the map". His comments were condemned by major Western governments, the European Union, Russia and United Nations Security Council Secretary General Kofi Annan.^[3] Egyptian, Turkish and Palestinian leaders also expressed displeasure over Ahmadinejad's remark.^[4]

Why do I prefer my version? The differences are minor but there are no examples of statements about Israel leadership, I tried to include the context of the statement as referring to the Israeli Palestinian conflict and I provided a full quote of the offending "disgraceful blot" statement instead of a two word excerpt. --68.214.59.196 02:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. TopRank 03:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The sub-article is for "full quotes", as editors here have determinedly tried to remove as much as possible from the article regarding the subject, and it is not clear that there ever was an Iranian policy that Israel must be "wiped off the map"; rather, Ahmdinejad attributed that view to Khomeini. For my other comments regarding context, see below. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add:

• The October 2005 is not necessarily a starting point for Ahmadinejad saying things antagonistic to Israel. The first statement that got a lot of international press was made then, but that is not enough to say that several statements were made then.
• "disgraceful blot" did not stand alone, Israel was referred to as a disgraceful blot on the face of the Islamic world which is context necessary to understand the two words.
• Adding that the statements were in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict also adds necessary context
• He did not call Israel a disgraceful blot as much as refer to Israel using that term. Referred to vs. called describes that distinction more accurately.
• If we cannot agree to freeze the wording, then everything that one person insists must be added will inevitably bring an argument from another person that the new language must be clarified. I don't think we should just bring the entire subarticle back but that's where we are headed.

TopRank 03:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is meaningless and inaccurate, since the context was explicitly stated as "the Islamic world", which is much, much bigger than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and has a decidedly religious connotation not captured by the ethnic conflict. Wikipedia cannot base its statements on Ahmadinejad's much later apologetics, that would simply be another whitewash. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Much later apologetics? Did you read the speech? According to Ahmadinejad, speaking that day, it is not a religious conflict. But regardless of what Ahmadinejad said on that day, it seems you want to impose on wikipedia readers what he "really" meant. The idea that any language that does not fit your POV is a whitewash has come up before from another person. We have the speech. Where is the verifiable souce that supports your POV? TopRank 04:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

In the speech itself he talks about "the Islamic world"; as I said, that's much bigger than the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Unless you're assuming that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about a struggle between Muslims and Zionists; is that your view? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the current compromise version is OK. --68.214.59.196 03:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust denying

Is Holocaust denying a foreign policy position? I don't think so. I'm moving the paragraph to the article Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Aucaman^Talk 10:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust denial has important consequences for foreign policy just like, say, being a racist does. (i.e. African nations won't be dealing with you.) Besides, the holocaust denial bit is contained under the section "Antagonism toward Israel" which IS (obviously) a foreign policy issue. Indeed, the status of Israel is possibly the most important Middle East foreign policy issue of the last half century and holocaust denial says a lot about MA's position towards Israel (which, again, is a FP issue). It should be kept where it is. And, ummmm, Aucaman, I really don't want to antagonise you but given the general thrust of your edits you might want to go read WP:NPOV#POV_forks. Mikkerpikker ... 10:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to let you keep that paragraph under this section, but not because of the reasons you listed. In fact, it is your reasoning that is blatantly POV (you're taking something that's not related to Ahmadinejad's foreign policy and giving it a political spin). There have been political leaders who've denied the Holocaust but at the sime managed to have relatively good relations with Israel (see Abu Mazen for example). So, no, you're the one interpreting his statement as a foreign policy position. And what exactly do think my Point Of View is? If you think this article has a NPOV, a lot of it is because of me. this is what the article looked like less than a month ago. Both Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel were created by me in an attempt to save these information and make the article more readable. It's good to assume good faith, especially when dealing with someone for the first time. Aucaman^Talk 12:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Quote from WP:NPOV

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

Do I have a point of view? Yes. Is MA my fav. politician? No. But I'm not pushing POV because all I'm trying to do (and have been trying to do) is keep relevant info (wiped off the map, blot, holocaust denial etc.) in the article, which is clearly important & revealing of MA's position. Additionally, (from an Iranian perspective) Israel is a foreign country. The country most likely to go to war with Iran is Israel. Iran's relations with Israel is affected by MA's views about the holocaust (which the Israelis are understandably sensitive about). Therefore, holocaust denial is one important part of a set of propositional attitudes MA holds that has already caused severe friction with Israel and other nations (such as the US). Hence MA's views about the holocaust has FP implications. That said, I didn't really mean to imply you're a POV pusher or anything; I'm just worried that you keep wanting to move controversial statements to sub-articles which (IMO) violates NPOV#POV_forks. Mikkerpikker ... 12:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No my problem was with the section (I believe it belongs to controversies, not foreign policy). I don't care if it appears in the subarticle or the head article. Aucaman^Talk 13:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Opposing Zionism

I would like to expand this to include Israel as well. Opposing Zionism and opposing Israel are not the same thing. There are jews within Israel that oppose ZIonism that do not oppose Israel. Tbeatty 18:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't see how this is relevant to anything we're saying here. Most of his statements have been directed toward Israel (at least in translation). You would have had a case otherwise. Aucaman^Talk 22:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Acuman, I have read your previous claims and you don't have any clue what you are talking about, yet you insist on pressing your personal opinions. Ahmadinejad consistently refers to "the Zionists" and NOT "Israel". Also, phrases like "Israel should be WIPED OFF THE MAP" are inventions of Zionist-controlled Western media. Ahmadinejad never said that phrase, and what he was referring to, which was actually a statement of Ayatollah Khomeini roughly translates to "[the usurping regime of Israel] should be eliminated from the page of the world" -- one could argue that a good translation for that phrase in English would be "wiped off the map", but that is not what Khomeni had originally said. Nonetheless, Ahmadinejad was referring to what Khomeini had said and the Western media (in my opinion, Zionist-controlled Western media) suddenly blew it way out of proportion, for obvious reasons. The history of this article clearly shows that it has been obssessively manipulated by a disproportionate number of Zionists (their edit history shows they are Zionists). --Anonymous Iranian who used to oppose the Islamic regime in Iran but is now 100% supportive of them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.105.39.132 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 12 February 2006.

Why, poor man, you are really pathetic. 82.230.180.185 16:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This is probably the 10th time I'm telling you to sign your posts. Read Wikipedia:sign your posts. And I'm not the one translating Ahmadinejad's statements. You should probably e-mail the New York Times. As far as Ahmadinejad is concerned, there's not much difference between "the Zionist regime" and "Israel". Most Iranian officials use the terms interchangeably. Aucaman^Talk 01:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

69.105: If you have a source for Khomeini's statement and the best English translation you can produce of that statement, there probably should be a place for it in the sub-article along with a minor modification of the summary in the main article. Aucaman: Question, assuming someone can produce the statement verifiably in Persian but not in English what are wikipedia's translation standards? TopRank 02:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

See this:WP:RS#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English. So, basically, if there's no translation you can translate it yourself, but you have cite the original source. Aucaman^Talk 09:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What Ahmadinajad was saying was that there are two possiblities, either the Holocast happened or not. Setting aside if it did not, he says that if it did, why do the Palestinian people have to suffer its consequences by losing their homeland. Why shouldn't Germany and the countries that actually initiated the Holocast suffer from it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.235.22.1 (talk • contribs) 01:21, March 30, 2006 (UTC)

Template

{{User Anti-IR Iran}} For those of you who wish to make it clear on your user page.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Expatkiwi (talk • contribs) 19:28, 8 February 2006.

Name

I didn't know where it is appropriate to mention this, but the intentional misspelling Ahmaghinejad is a pun. (Do a google search, comes up with 10 pages of results.)Ahmagh (or Ahmaq) is Farsi for idiot. PhatJew 19:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This is as appropriate as it could be. Aucaman^Talk 21:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

In Turkish "ahmak" does also mean idiot.It's like saying Yasser Arafag,or Busht(Puşt means asshole in Turkish),the type of insult which I find no words to counter.--CAN T 20:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

He signed his letter as "Ahmadi-Najad". Why is this article title "Ahmadinejad"? Shouldn't we use the correct spelling of his name? I think we should move the article to an entry called "Ahmadi-Najad" and then have this one be empty and point to that entry.

Pay for link?

I tried this link # ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/international/middleeast/15tehran.html and got the Nytimes asking me for 3.95. Could whoever added it quote the source directly or remove it? Thanks. IronDuke 03:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the link, although I wish someone could find the quote and put it back (assuming it's made by someone notable). IronDuke 16:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I did a google search and it looks like the NY Times article is the only one cotaining these exact words, so I'm changing the wording of the paragraph using information from the subarticle. Aucaman^Talk 21:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It makes me angry that this person's changes were not immediately reverted. How much information in wikipedia is supported by information in books or information that is for any number of reasons not one click away from a free source? The fact that you have to either pay, go to a library or in this case spend a few more minutes digging up a non-paywall version of a link does not make a source unverifiable or merit the information supported by that source being removed. This was handled terribly. If it was a new link it would be less outrageous but a link in by far the most contentious section of the article would certainly have been removed if it had not said what the article claims it says. Even if now only a preview is available. TopRank 05:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Did I remove the wrong link? Perhaps I'm confused. And I also don't see any changes in wording, just a reversion minus the link. Aucaman, can you shed some light? IronDuke 03:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? You remove a quotation because a link is behind a paywall? I can't believe this is being taken seriously. A paywall makes a link unverifiable? It was placed there when the link was free and many people with various viewpoints did not challenge it then. This is breathtaking. Anyway at the bottom of this page the link is present, but even if it hadn't been, the fact that it is behind a paywall does not merit taking the quotation out of the article. This is insane. http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/3938/2/ I am very disappointed that this nonsense was even dignified with a response. TopRank 04:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I say again: does anyone have a specific source that they can actually cite (with a quote from a real, notable person) indicating that MA's remarks were misquoted? If so, please insert it (it will improve the article). Otherwise, I'll remove the sentence in question. IronDuke 05:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

TopRank, for your consideration: Be civil, Verifiability, Mutual respect, No personal attacks. IronDuke 05:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As I look again, I see that the NYtimes article supports that MA says he was misquoted, but not the earlier statement, "Ahmadinejad's supporters claim that various remarks have been mistranslated, misinterpreted and exaggerated in the interest of harming the nation of Iran.^[5]" This seems to link to an article about Chechens. Is there support for that statement, and in any case, can it be rewritten to say who these supporters are and what exactly they said? IronDuke 05:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Support for that any many more similar statements is ALL OVER the Iranian media, including the ones who are not in line with Ahmadinejad from a political or ideological point of view. Playing the retarded trick of "bring me a verifiable quote" for every sentence that you don't like or don't want, and even when a quote is provided, deleting it for lame excuses makes you look like, god forbid, a Jew. Are you a dirty Jew by any chance? 69.105.39.132 16:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

69.105: Please provide a couple of links to similar statements. If they are in Persian, please provide translations of the relevant sections. Either put them here in the discussion or into the subarticle and change the summary in the main article. The more verifiable quotes wikipedia provides the better, and they do not necessarily have to be in English. Also "dirty Jew" wasn't necessary. TopRank 04:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

69.105.39.132, please don't be a dick. Mikker ^... 17:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to that article. You just showed everybody how stupid you are, because that article, right at the beginning says this: "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself" -- ha ha you are a stupid dick!  :) 69.105.39.132 17:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but if you would only read on it says ""Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself, so don't bandy the criticism about lightly". I.e. calling someone a dick lightly is a dick move, however, calling someone a dick for asking rhetorically "Are you a dirty Jew by any chance?" is entirely appropriate. Please also peruse WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Thanks, Mikker ^... 17:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Everybody editing this article is reminded of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. DJ Clayworth 17:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see support for the sentence in question (other than droll speculation about my religious beliefs and hygiene), so I am taking it out for now. IronDuke 01:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The statement about smear Iran's image is sourced in the subarticle. The previous statement was a fair summary of the subarticle, which is what a summary such as this is supposed to be, but the language now more directly reflects the language sourced from the BBC in the subarticle. TopRank 05:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether u r mossad or iranian intel, KNOCK OFF THE VANDALISM!

Fundamentalist Jews Christian and Muslims take heed: Information wants to be free! Long live the enlightenment! No more Dark Ages!

Amen!! Aucaman^Talk 00:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Fuck you, I got a message from Allah and he says he is going to reduce Iran to a cinder before they can do permanent damage to planet Earth. I dreamt of Iran burning to the ground by the hand of their mentally retarded president who is a hypocrit who allows prostitution and drug traffic to run rampant in Iran. The U.S. is not Iran´s biggest threat, it's nuclear weapons and Iran's own government. I'm palestinian by the way, assholes.

You sound like a common American.--CAN T 20:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The correct use would be "average", "common" is generally a euro-asian use or mind set. Though i dont see how using profanity in a statement makes it anymore imporant i do have to agree with it general over view that MA will lead his country to being couquered and occupated. This from the average American... Soldier i might add.

"Logical order" of Iranian responses to criticisms

The response that statements have been misunderstood or misinterpreted apply to both that "wiped off the map" statement and the statements about the historicity of the Holocaust, which is clear from the sub article. Also the Jan 14 press conference is available in Persian and someone translated the portion relevant to the historicity of the Holocaust which is in the subarticle. This is consistent with wikipedia's translation policy. The Persian version of the press conference ran in IRNA, one of Iran's most authoritative news sources. Also wikipedia summaries of other wikipedia articles do not need citations for every statement in the summary, provided the summarized article is properly sourced, as the subarticle is.

There absolutely have been responses by Iranians supportive of Ahmadinejad to the controversy over Ahmadinejad's statements about the Holocaust. If you prefer, the summary can be four paragraphs - one about "wiped off", with a response and the other about Holocaust with a response. As it is, the two responses are consolidated which saves space. TopRank 13:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, breaking it up into sections on "Antagonism towards Israel" and "Holocaust denial" would be a good idea. While Ahmadinejad may wish to conflate these ideas, they are quite separate concepts, and the fact that Iran now plans a "Holocaust conference" indicates that this topic deserves its own discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree. And once we separate Holocaust denial from Antagonism towards Israel, Holocaust denial should be moved out of the foreign policies sections into the controversies section. TopRank 01:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

We have to note though that the fact that "Ahmadinejad may wish to conflate these ideas" is important in a biographical article about Ahmadinejad. I can't find any place where Ahmadinejad has mentioned the Holocaust except in the context that it does not justify a Jewish state being established in the Middle East, victimizing Palestinians. On one hand, his position on the Holocaust in itself it is not a foreign policy position once it is separated from antagonism towards Israel - so for that reason I'd favor putting it into its own section under controversies. On the other hand, these two specific controversies may well bring most of this article's readers, in which case there is an argument for keeping them in the same section. For me it's a toss-up but I'd lean towards keeping them together. TopRank 05:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I proposed breaking up the section and moving the Holocaust-related stuff into the controversies section, but people didn't like it. What has changed now? Most of the section looks the same to me. Also, the section reads pretty neutral and accurate the way it stands right now, so I'm not sure what's the reason for all these discussions. Aucaman^Talk 17:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "what has changed now"? Israel and Holocaust denial are separate topics, they should each be dealt with in a separate section. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

University Entrance Exam of Iran

What are the topics on the nationwide university entrance exams of Iran and how difficult is it? Does it, for instance, cover plane geometry or does it go as far as linear algebra — if the test has a mathematics section?

--66.81.193.174 07:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

University entrance exams of iran( also known as konkoor ) are administered in 6 different groups and students can take up to two of these depending on what departments they want to attend. There is a Math and Physics format for those who intend to study engineering,math and physics and this is the one MA has taken. The topics on konkoor have changed slightly over the years, but at the time he has taken it(c.1974) they included three general subjects(persian literature,English and Intelligence test) and three group-related subjects(Math, physics and chemistry). the topics tested in mathematics include integral and differential calculus, Analytical Geometry and Linear algebra, discrete mathematics, probability and statistics, classical geometry( roughly 75% planar geometry and 25% spatial geometry ), and with less emphasis elementary algebraic techniques and numerical analysis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.91.136.50 (talk • contribs) 21:15, March 18, 2006 (UTC)

Spouse?

Does anyone knows the name of his wife? 88.152.238.66 22:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ever since the mullahs took over, it has become common for women to hide in the back, which is dictated by the fetish desires of mullahs.

What is your proof of this. Wikipeida is for facts, not your biased opinions —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.235.22.1 (talk • contribs) 01:21, March 30, 2006 (UTC)

More on wiped off the map

Juan Cole translates the statement as "vanished" and on the following page at comment 5173, a commenter gives what he or she describes as a literal translation of the phrase: "The regime that is occupying Jerusalem should be cleared from being present [or existance]" This should be verified by Farsi speakers but if the word "map" does not appear in Ahmadinejad's speech, as Juan Cole and the commenter assert, then the article should change how it deals with the quotation. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060313_fishing_for_a_pretext_in_iran/

The speech in Farsi:

http://www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/speeches/1384/aban-84/840804sahyonizm.htm TopRank 17:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Memri, an organization widely considered pro-Israel and anti-Muslim has produced a full translation of the text. According to MEMRI, the sentence was: "'Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise.

While I do not think a complete rewrite of the section is called for, at some point somebody, maybe I, should make an adjustment to the article that informs the reader that the exact phrase "wiped off the map" is disputed.

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP101305 TopRank 14:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The "controversy" is a tiny one, if it can truly be said to exist at all. However, if you and other editors really think it merits some kind of inclusion, perhaps there could be a mention of it here: [[6]] IronDuke 20:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Today, on Fresh Air, Terri Gross interviewed Hans Blix. Blix made the point that MA had used that phrase, quoting the imams, in the parliament meeting to oppose that thinking. Whether or not Blix is correct, the alternate version should be explored by thos more willing to take the time, and more familiar with this part of this article.ThuranX 20:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Voice clip for his name?

I don't know how to pronounce his name, and I think many people have that problem. Sijo Ripa 15:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

In Farsi, you need to aspirate to pronounce the first syllable of his last name; the h in the first syllable is pronounced like hey. In the phonetic alphabet of Merriam-Webster, it is \'ah-ma-dē-nə-'zhäd\.
Also, you have to aspirate the first syllable of the first name; so \'mah-müd\. Again, here \ah\ is not pronounced like mar. Patchouli 15:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I just added a voice clip of his name.Patchouli 00:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Good job :-) Sijo Ripa 00:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hugo Chávez?

It seems a bit odd to so prominently feature a photo of Hugo Chávez in this article on Ahmadinejad. Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but it gives the impression of an insidious attempt to establish a sort of "guilt by association" of the (comparatively) benign Chávez. A minor point perhaps, but even putting aside that interpretation, it does seem that Chávez is featured more prominently in this article than is warranted. Swittters 00:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Chavez and Ahmadinejad have only two things in common: 1) a serious stake in OPEC; and, 2) and a certain disdain for "American imperialism". This picture should be replaced, and soon. --(Mingus ah um 18:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC))

Why should it be replaced if both are avowed enemies of western democracies. I think it just further shows the growing mix of Marxist and Islamist regimes against what they percieve as American Imperialism. I say keep the pic. - JUDE84

Remove.They do NOT oppose "Western Democracies"(or what's left of it),they oppose American Imperialism,which is no more a perceived phenomenon,but a fact,like Damocles' Sword hanging above the world.If all else fails,at least Hugo Chavez is less militaristic.--CAN T 20:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought the picture documented a meeting between two heads of state. If readers are getting the impression that it's somehow evidence of a developing Islamo-Leftist axis (which I suppose it could be seen to imply), it should be removed as a WP:NPOV vio. — JEREMY 03:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Reference cleanup required

I have noticed the refs in this article have become confused, and have begun a clean-up. This will be a work in progress for half an hour or so. — JEREMY 10:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Complete now; several quotes appear uncited now, and there are many spare cites which need to be matched up with the relevant text. But at least now the numbers actually match! — JEREMY 10:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic people

Glad to see that Wikipedia is finally working on this article ! SirIsaacBrock 16:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Has he been listed by the ADL as an anti-semite? What is the source for your libelous opinion?--68.214.58.161 02:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC) The charge of anti-semitism is opinion, not fact. If the ADL calls him an anti-semite, the article should say that the ADL calls him an antisemite. The ADL's opinion is not justification for the category as if it is a fact. --68.214.58.161 03:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I notice the recurrent, unexplained "rvv" reversions of the category deletion. I'd ask that those defending the category provide citations of antisemitic statements or actions, as there is no claim of antisemitism in the article itself. I note that the article is already categorised in "Holocaust denial"; perhaps a "Critics of Israel" category could cover the gap. — JEREMY 04:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've also just noticed the article is tagged "Right-wing populists". Achmadinejad's politics are poorly covered in the article, but one gets the impression from his electoral platform that he tends towards leftist populism, with rhetoric about redistribution of oil wealth and his appeal to Iran's poor. Again, those who would support this categorisation need to provide citations. — JEREMY 04:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

JEREMY read the article, there are many citations, and the admins agree SirIsaacBrock 09:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have certainly read the article; indeed I have been working on it intensively for the last fortnight. (In contrast, your entire contribution to the article seems to have been the addition and staunch defence of your category — although of course this is not directly relevant to the discussion at hand.) I see no citations claiming antisemitism, and I don't know what you mean (or intend to imply) by "the admins agree"? Please address my questions, rather than simply making ambit claims. — JEREMY 10:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I am no defender of Ahmadinejad and I am just as averse to his political views as most Jews, but Ahmadinejad is not an anti-semite. An anti-semite is someone who exhibits or harbours great hatred towards Jews simply for being Jewish or believes Jews are inferior in some way - Ahmadinejad in no way is party to any of those views. Staunch criticism of Israel and holocaust denial do not constitute anti-semitism. Nowadays, rather ludicrously, anti-Zionism is too often equated with anti-semitism. Zionism is just a political ideology, which is associated with Jews but is not exclusive to them, and a hatred for Zionism and the state of Israel is not the same as a hatred for Jews. The ultra-orthodox Jewish group Neturei Karta display some of the most open hatred towards Israel and call for its destruction, just like Ahmadinejad, but they are not anti-semitic, for they are Jewish themselves! Just because many Jews are offended by Ahmadinejad's views, that doesn't mean he is anti-semitic and it is outrageous to suggest so. Tanzeel 17:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is, automatically and without exception, antisemitism (unless the person making the claim is simply feeble-minded). Consider this: in order for the statement "The Holocaust did not happen" to be true, a massive fraud would have to have been perpetrated by hundreds of thousands of Jews (as well as every respected historian who has ever looked at the subject). Insinuations of massive Jewish conspiracy = antisemitism. It really isn't even up for debate. IronDuke 19:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"Unless the person making the claim is simply feeble-minded" - exactly, Ahmadinejad just seems think that the holocaust is exaggerated because he has no idea why people go on about it, he has no idea about how there must be a massive Jewish conspiracy for there not to have been a holocaust etc, he just thinks, in his ignorance, that people go on about it too much. He has no idea about the facts. There is no hatred for the Jewish people - although, much hatred for the West. And besides, Ahmadinejad didn't deny the holocaust, just the extent of the holocaust, a lot of MEMRI translations malevolently giving the wrong idea... Tanzeel 19:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

He has said a number of things about the Holocaust, some of them contradictory, all of them having a somewhat dimwitted rant-y character, yes. That MA is a dimwit does not inoculate him from charges of antisemitism, it rather makes him all the more susceptible to it. So... are you planning on adding a section to this article on his feeble-mindedness? Cause I'm sure not. IronDuke 22:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

MA referred to the way the West views the Holocaust as "mythic". I do not believe he meant it is a myth but that he questions whether it has been exagerrated. More importantly he is pointing out that the Holocaust is a defining paradigm of Western thought, an obsession, and a lens through which Westerners view the world. The Holocaust does not carry these mythic connotations in India or China or most of the rest of the world outside of Europe, Australia and the USA. So he is saying, even if it's true what Western historians say about the scale of the Holocaust then why should the compensation to its victims be taken from Palestinians and the holy sites of Islam? This is a valid question that many millions of Muslims and others also agree with. Instead of responding with a logical and irrefutable rebuttal, the US and supporters of Israel accuse MA of anti-semitism so they can dismiss his position as offensive and unworthy of discussion. It is the classic tactic of using anti-semitism accusations to deflect legitimate criticism of Israel. --65.81.21.167 23:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right on some points, but you miss the point of this discussion. Whether Israel ought to have been brought into existence as a direct result of the Holocaust is something reasonable people can disagree about. What they cannot disagree about is whether the Holocaust even occurred. MA stated "Some European countries insist on saying that during World War II, Hitler burned millions of Jews and put them in concentration camps. Any historian, commentator or scientist who doubts that is taken to prison or gets condemned. 'Although we don't accept this claim,' if we suppose it is true, if the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe—like in Germany, Austria or other countries—to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe." This is in addition to calling the Holocaust a myth. When you pair this with statements calling for Israel to be wiped off the map (or wiped away) making the case that MA is not an antisemite is virtually impossible, unless you include in that category only people who openly claim the label. IronDuke 01:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This "Questioning details of the Holocaust is necessarily antisemitism" argument (frequently found in association with the "antizionism = antisemitism" and "Self-hating Jew" constructs) inevitably raises doubts in the casual observer. When, for example, "The Six Million" is transubstantiated from an approximate accounting of individual victims of the Holocaust into a kind of statistical totem, it acquires the taint of mythmaking, and the issue becomes a honeypot into which Israel's foes, in their rhetorical excesses, are prone to stumble. When User:IronDuke suggests that "making the case that MA is not an antisemite is virtually impossible", he highlights the fundamental impossibility of proving a negative, and "includ[ing] in that category only people who openly claim the label" is precisely what we, as neutral editors of an encyclopaedia — as opposed to original researchers defending a political position — should be doing. There's certainly nothing wrong with creating a "Claims of antisemitism" section in the article and providing citations (eg. from Paul Martin) in which third parties make such accusations but, until the viewpoint is no longer contentious, we should not prejudge the issue by adding categories. — JEREMY 04:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to get it out of the way: "This "Questioning details of the Holocaust is necessarily antisemitism" argument" = strawman. I don't see anyone saying that questioning a small detail denotes denial. Questioning whether the event, in very significant ways, happened at all is, however, antisemitism. I would welcome evidence that MA is not an antisemite, and I believe that, in theory, it's possible. What if he had a Jewish wife? Donated money to Hadassah? Called for peace and reconciliation between Palestinians and Israelis? These things would make it hard to call him an antisemite. Virtually no person on earth self-identifies as a racist or antisemite. Heck, David Duke claims he is not a racist. Therefore, according to Jeremy's logic, those things can't be said to exist in the present on Wikipedia. IronDuke 15:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

As IronDuke points out, "questioning details" is a strawman argumen. Ahmadinejad has denied the entire thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad actually called it a "false religion", translated as Myth (an accurate translation) by Western media, and complained that Israel (the state, not the Jewish equivilent of Ummah) worshipped this false religion as opposed to Allah Almighty. But, when does Wikipedia care about such trivial banalities. --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

In other words, Ahmadinejad is claiming that the Holocaust is a kind of secular religion for the State of Israel? So, if you substitute into his "myth" remarks, you get "They have invented a false religion that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets. [...] The West has given more significance to the false religion of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets, (it) deals very severely with those who deny this false religion but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophet." Hmm... Let's look at his other "Holocaust denial" statements. "If the Europeans are telling the truth in their claim that they have killed six million Jews in the Holocaust during the World War II — which seems they are right in their claim because they insist on it and arrest and imprison those who oppose it" seems to indicate he accepts that "they are right", and "If there are doubts regarding the Holocaust, there is really no doubt regarding Palestinian disaster and Holocaust" seems like pretty tame second-hand, rhetorical scepticism. Which leaves us with "during World War II, Hitler burned millions of Jews and put them in concentration camps [... W]e don't accept this claim". An apologist interpretation might point out that Hitler didn't personally burn anyone, and that "murdered millions" is a more precise description of the Nazis' crimes — although I admit this is pretty weasely. Was this then the fatal slip which exposed the terrible truth he's otherwise managed to conceal, or was this, as the Iranians claim, the anti-Israeli line that Mohammad-Ali Ramin (apparently his Karl Rove) advised him to push getting away from him? What about his more recent statements "Some Western powers admit that they have killed a large part of Jewish population in Europe" and "Anti-Semitism in Europe has forced Jews to leave their countries of origin"? Clarification, or frantic back-pedalling? I think, as impartial editors, we must give him the benefit of the doubt here. Certainly, it's all pretty flimsy evidence on which to place him in company with the likes of Ernst Zundel, Bill White and the League of Rights. — JEREMY 19:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

<---------------------------------------------continued comment in thread

Jeremy, since you are clearly a smart and articulate guy, I'm going to AGF here and assume that you in fact do understand that MA is an antisemite. I interpret your, to use your term, "weasely" maneuvers to try and downplay MA's quite blatant antisemitism as a combination of playing Devil's Advocate and taking the piss (which I admire, BTW). But in all seriousness, other than David Duke, I would be hard pressed to name a more prominent, virulent antisemite than MA, as would many, many others. This isn't a tough call. IronDuke 23:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliments, but perhaps I'm not as smart as you think I am. I have not yet seen evidence to convince me that MA is an antisemite, although my mind remains open on the issue. If the MA Holocaust stuff were beefed up with some unarguable material — which, given he's such a "prominent, virulent antisemite", shouldn't be too difficult — I'd be prepared to accept the categorisations. In contrast, your statements above suggest to me that you are not open to argument — short of photos of MA in his yarmulke. Moreover, that you can only conceive I'm acting in good faith by considering my exposition above as trolling (not to mention the arrival of the big guns) suggests to me that I really am wasting my time here. &#0151; JEREMY 05:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I do hope you don't think I was accusing you of trolling. My comments were meant to be light, quite sorry if they didn't appear that way to you. I am certainly open to argument -- that's what we're doing now, aren't we? But that doesn't mean I'm just taking your word that he is not an antisemite (with not a shred of evidence) as the final say. As for "unarguable" material, well, I don't think I've met the Wikipedian yet who couldn't find a way to argue about material, however obvious. But I will take your challenge and see if I can't adequately address your concerns (finding cites, not proving beyond all doubt that MA is an antisemite). And please don't be discouraged. Wikipedia needs smart editors arguing about content. It's what makes the whole thing work, I think. IronDuke 06:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your demonstration of good faith, IronDuke. How're you going with those cites? &#0151; JEREMY 09:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jer. Been unable to do anything WP related for a bit. Here's what I have right off the top of my head: [[7]], [[8]], [[9]]. There's more out there, I am sure. Cheers. IronDuke 17:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

He don't hate Jews, just Zionists. Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ^edit) 16:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

After reading this I have changed my mind. Category:Nazis will work too. Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ^edit) 15:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "I don't hate Jews, just Zionists" is a red herring. Many hateful groups use associations with a small, select number of their foes as "proof" that they are not hateful towards the larger group. Mr. Ahmadinejad is most definitely anti-semitic. Blainetologist 17:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said after, he's not just anti-Semitic but a Nazi. Read the attached news article. Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ^edit) 22:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The almost surreally absurd "yellow badge" story (since debunked), like the deliberate and calculated over-reporting and creative mistranslation of MA's political rhetoric, is part of a "passive conspiracy" of self-fueling bias currently being perpetrated by a media keen to sensationalise and frantically eager not to be the last to cast a stone. These are extremely dangerous lies (whether or not those who spread them are aware of their untruth), and the fact that they accord so well with the (perhaps unrecognised) biases of certain wikipedians means that we will see them introduced here regularly. It's critical we check such stories thoroughly in order to avoid becoming just another part of the propaganda machine currently engaged in whipping up the fanatical fervour necessary to support war against Iran. &#0151; JEREMY 07:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed User:Jayjg has removed this link to the debunking of the yellow-badge story because it's not directly relevant to this article. Perhaps we need to start an Anti-Iranian propaganda article or something? &#0151; JEREMY 01:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the conclusion to this discussion? Is he to be included in the category or not? Personally, I think he's not at all anti-semitic. He is definitely, on the other hand, anti-zionist. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not possible to be an anti-Zionist and NOT be an anti-Semite. Zionism and Judaism are inextricably linked. To condemn the former is to condemn the latter. Anti-Zionism is thinly veiled anti-Semitism. Schnaz 02:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Regretably, it is possible to be an Anti-Zionist and a jew, to ssay nothign of being an anti-zionist and not an anti-semite. However, MA is an Anti-Semite AND an Anti-Zionist. Unfortunately, this article will never have him in the category Anti-Semite, because some people here think that assigning a label to his views, no matter how often he expresses them, is not NPOV. even if he stood in front of millions and said, 'i hate the jews for beign jews', they'd object. HE shoudl be labelled as Anti-Semetic, but probably never will. ThuranX 03:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's perfectly possible to be an anti-Zionist and not being an anti-Semite at the same time, just as you can be an anti-Nazist and not hating Germans. One is politics, one is ethnicity. // Liftarn

That analogy is very poor. To equate the relationship between Nazism and Germany to the relationship between Zionism and Judaism/Israel reveals a lack of understanding of either Nazism or Zionism. Since you characterized both as being political movements, I suspect your concept of Zionism is limited to the late 19th-century secular movement started by Nathan Birnbaum. But the desire of Jews to return to Zion -- that is, Jerusalem -- is a deeply religious construct that is millennia old and as integral to being a religious Jew as devotion to God and Torah. -- Schnaz 18:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's somewhat lacking, but then there is atheist zionism. There are also jewish anti-zionists that (altough they are often called "self hating") aren't anti-zionists. Anyway, the main point is that saying you have to be an anti-semite because you are an anti-zionist is a POV. // Liftarn

I agree with you Liftarn. If someone could show us a quote or two that shows how he hates Jewish people themselves, I would definitely agree to having him in the anti-semitic category. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You fail to understand how Wikipedia works. We don't chatreize him ourself we look for published description of the person. If there are those who describe him as antisemitic this is something we can use. If there are those who describe him differently we should list this either.

Additionaly, we should review his holocaust denial" it is a common view that denial of the holocaust is antisemitic in it's nature. In fact in several countries (such as Austria, Germany) denial of the holocaust is a crime which is part of the bills against antisemitism.

Additionaly, any calles for destruction of Israel, the only jewish state (and the only homeland to the jewsih people) is clearly antisemitic. Zeq 08:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The Zeq 08:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"calles for destruction of Israel"? But does he? or does he simply wish for a change of leadership? Also, being anti-Israel and bein anti-semitic are two different things. Not to mention that it would be WP:OR to draw such conclusions. // Liftarn

So you claim that he "only called for change of leadership" ? I say that if this is a lie: He called for moving the jewsih people country to Alaska, to Europe or to return the jews to Germany. He is an anti-semite and it does not take a lot to see it. You also editwar to push your POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeq (talk • contribs)

What he said was "This regime that is occupying Qods must be eliminated from the pages of history.". The use of "regime" seems to indicate the government, especially since he also mentioned the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq as examples of other regimed that had vanished. Regarding the miving issue he did say "You oppressed them, so give a part of Europe to the Zionist regime so they can establish any government they want". It's not the same as calling "for moving the jewsih people country to Alaska, to Europe or to return the jews to Germany.". Anyway, drawing such conclusions (that he is an anti-Semite) from those sources constitutes WP:OR. And sorry, but the POV pusher is you (and a few others). I don't think Wikipeda should be used to spread wartime propaganda. // Liftarn

That you refer to reporting him as an anti-semite constitutes "wartime propaganda" clearly betrays a bias on your part. I think that as much as Zeq shows one bias, you're showing the opposite, instead of seeking an NPOV. maybe you BOTH should step away fro a couple days.ThuranX 20:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no reports of him being called an anti-Semite. Iw we had a reliable source saying he is an anti-Semite it would be one thing, but we have is just a bunch of overzealous editors jumping to conclutions (i.e. original research). // Liftarn 07:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There are now citations in the article that I trust resolve the above concerns. --Mantanmoreland 15:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Right-wing populism

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not right-wing at all. To the contrary, he is a left-wing nationalist - he supports nationalisation of industry, redistribution of wealth and land, the free provision of various services, the welfare state etc. The left-right scale is politico-economic - just because he is a nationalist and and "Islamist", that doesn't make him right-wing. Tanzeel 17:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The way I always remember it. Ideological/cultural: conservative = right, progressive = left; economy: liberal = right, socialist = left. So in fact he's a right-wing (islamist, nationalist) and left-wing (social services, redistribution, etc) politician. I think it's pointless to include the word right-wing or left-wing. We should be specific about his ideas and policies. Sijo Ripa 22:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing personal views from roozonline.com

In this article, there are some links to roozonline.com, that is a group weblog(that calls itself a newspaper). It can not be used as a reference, because of these reasons: 1. All the contents on that site is aggressive, and do not agree with the NPOV thing on wikipedia. 2. A weblog is the point of view of one(in this example more than one) people. Nothing more, and nothing less. 3. If you see the website roozonline.com, you can not find any reasonable source for the news; I'm telling you that they write anything that comes to their minds. I suggest removing links to roozonline, and related contents, if there is no other sources for that content.

Current dispute over talk-page "vandalism"

User:ThuranX believes the content block he has been attempting to remove from this page is vandalism. I dispute this, and direct all readers to the history of the section:

• User:24.16.208.91 reverted page-blanking vandalism by User:141.117.77.22 on the main article 23 February
• User:24.16.208.91 immediately posted the initial commentary, critical of the vandalism he'd just reverted, in this edit
• The initial commentary was immediately supported by User:Aucaman
• Much more recently, on 12 April, User:168.243.222.20 added an abusive commentary. (Note that this user might be termed "a vandal", based on his limited and confrontational edit history.)
• User:Can Kırığı responded to this a fortnight later.

None of this exchange, except the third response, could be characterised as vandalism in any sense. If you like, you may wish to censor the third comment, perhaps as follows:

Fuck you, I got a message from Allah and he says he is going to reduce Iran to a cinder before they can do permanent damage to planet Earth. I dreamt of Iran burning to the ground by the hand of their mentally retarded president who is a hypocrit who allows prostitution and drug traffic to run rampant in Iran. The U.S. is not Iran´s biggest threat, it's nuclear weapons and Iran's own government. I'm palestinian by the way, assholes.

This would remove the personal attacks made against the editors in question. — JEREMY 04:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Letter to Bush

Iranian state news is confirming that the letter was a Da'wa (linking the english version but trust me the word Da'wa is used on their arabic version).

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0605110155191821.htm

can someone please add this confirmation to the section on the letter? Blainetologist 22:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

can someone add the following to the section on the letter? "Iranian news says President Ahmadinejad confirmed that the letter was intended as a Da'wa letter in a press conference."

Thank you Blainetologist 16:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Responding to the helpme. Although you are reasonably new, you should be able to edit the article yourself (or if not, within a day or so). Anyway, I'd rather let someone with some knowledge of the article make any changes - just be patient.--Commander Keane 18:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've merged all except the first leadin paragraph from the Letter to George W. Bush section into Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Letter to George W. Bush article, to avoid duplication. I saw that the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had changes not reflected in the split article (and vice et versa). I'm now fixing any present tenses I brought over into past. -213.219.161.27 17:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad that name

Ahmadinejad resembles Nagheenanajar (last name of a character in Office Space (movie) when I've heard it pronounced. DyslexicEditor 12:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Name

He signed the letter as محمود احمدی نژاد, that is, with a space inside of his surname. However, the official translation into English gives his name as Mahmood Ahmadi-Nejad, the Spanish as Mahmud Ahmadi Nejad, Russian Махмуд Ахмадинежад and French Mahmoud AHMADINEJAD. The Arabic wikipedia gives his surname with space (أحمدي نجاد) but indicates that the farsi name is without space, only with ligature break (this is also the version given in Farsi wikipedia - محمود احمدی‌نژاد), which would roughly correspond to hyphen in western typography. Could someone with more knowledge in Farsi typography bring some light into the issue? Is this just a difference between transcription and transliteration? Anyway, I think redirects from hyphenated and joined version of his surname are justified. rado 08:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad as 1979 Iranian hostage taker

It seems fairly well established that Ahmadinejad was one of the five student leaders who planned and directed the takeover of the US embassy in 1979. Published sources show pictures of him as well hostages remembering him and his fellow student leaders who now have leading positions in Iran. The hostage taking is not believed by most people in Iran to have been a mistake and Ahmadinejad has denied taking part, but his denial does not change the facts. I am wondering why the article does not discuss his role in the historical event and link to several of these sources. [10] [11]

Does the article anywhere mention the fact he is wanted for murder in two Germany and Austria? [12] I do not remember seeing it. I would certainly like to have a better source for such a claim. On the other hand, I do not see how wikipedia can ignore it if it is true.RonCram 14:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I find now that the page has a link to his "controversies." In my opinion, this is not displayed early enough or prominently enough in the article. RonCram 14:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It is just a propaganda. First of all involvement in the hostage crisis is a source of pride in Iran especially for people like Ahmadinejad and revolutionaries. All of the leaders of hostage takers clearly said that Ahmadinejad was not involved in this story. However they clearly say that they themselves were the leaders and are proud of it. Ahmadinejad would never hide his involvement in this story if he were involved. Those pictures are not related to Ahmadinejad. And what some of US hostages have mentioned are just lies. Is this surprising ??!! They say lie because it is in favor of them. Very simple ! This is western culture. Make propaganda and distribute lies if it is in your favor. --Mitso Bel20:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That is an un-encyclopedic comment, which I resent personally. You can dismiss the sources because they are not proper sources, but stating that: "They say lie because it is in favor of them" = Western Culture, is not constructive. If you have verifiable sources for you claims, go to Western_culture. If not, please refrain from such unconstructive comments, and instead focus your efforts on making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Iafrate 06:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Myth about Myth

The translation that records that Ahmadinejad denied the holocaust is not a universal one, and should be stated.. which I did.. and cited. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

This is a removal of accurate sourced content: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad&diff=55544531&oldid=55540907

This whole article looks like it was writen on some completly blend figure. The Lead paragrph should describe the whole aspects that made this person famous. If it was not for the threat he makes on world peace he would not be notable enough for an article. Zeq 08:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The content was neither accurate nor correctly sourced; that JP article doesn't mention anything about "routinly [making] military threats against the west". That you seem to believe it's necessary that the President of Iran be controversial for him to rate a wikipedia article frankly astonishes me. &#0151; JEREMY 09:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

He routingly makes therets. This is fact. You want to aqrgue about it ? well i don't.

To your second point: What is astonishing is that this article does not cover the most important issues that made this person notable. The article is writen as if this person is not making routine threats on the west and israel.

A serious overall is needed in this article, especially the lead paragraph. Zeq 09:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

He routingly makes therets; cite, please. [T]his article does not cover the most important issues that made this person notable. No? Try Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. A serious overall is needed in this article; in what way? Why not try some alternate wording out here first? You're much more likely to reach consensus that way (rather than, say, this way). &#0151; JEREMY 09:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You can wave my arbitration case as much as you want. The issue about this article remains: The article lead paragraph does not describe the most important aspect of the person. Zeq 09:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The most important thing about him is his political career. What you're talking about are the controversies which have attached to him, which are never dealt with in the opening paragraph but instead left to an appropriately named "Controversies" section or equivalent, in accord with WP:NPOV. Please have a look at some other articles about similar people. I only cite your arbcom case as evidence of past misdeeds, which I would assume you've learned from and therefore do not intend to repeat here. &#0151; JEREMY 09:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Jer, I don't think the policy to look at her is WP:NPOV, I think it's WP:LEAD. I've agreed with your position in the past that criticism should come later in the article, not the intro., but that doesn't seem to be policy. Therefore, even though I'm not thrilled with said policy, it has to be applied all across the board, right?

The lead section should contain up to four paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide a preview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable. The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article...

There are controversies galore surrounding MA. The intro shouldn't imply that criticism of MA is "true," merely that it exists with (as briefly and neutrally as humanly possible) the particulars. IronDuke 04:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There are facts which are undisputed (mostly what he said) this should be described accuraltly in the article and in the WP:lead Zeq 05:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. What do you think of the changes I've just made? &#0151; JEREMY 08:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Good addition. I've made a smallish addition of my own -- fair? IronDuke 16:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Holocaust isn't a foreign policy issue. And given the controversial nature of the "translations" of a number of anti-government Iranians employed by Western media outlets, the holocaust denial claim does not belong in the opening. &#0151; JEREMY 02:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I confess, I'm a bit taken aback. The Holocaust is a huge foreign policy issue, on many levels. The perception that MA is a Holocaust denier creates an impetus on the part of some countries to isolate Iran, or to hasten plans for invasion or bombing. I think, too, the issues of Israel and the Holocaust have to be taken together here: many commentators have asserted that paradoxically, Holocaust deniers are never attempting to minimize what happened out of a forlorn hope that they can minimize Jewish suffering by minimizing the numbers/events. Rather, the argument goes, Holocaust deniers are everywhere and always antisemites and wish to recapitulate, in whole or in part, the policies of the Third Reich. When you take that perception together with calls for wiping Israel off the map (or wiping it away or tearing it from the Yellow Pages of history or whatever it was he in fact said) many people have strong reactions. WP needs to document the reactions, which are hugely notable. The possibility of biased Iranian translators can and should be discussed later. IronDuke 03:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You may be taken aback, but it's not a Foreign Policy issue: it's a Human Rights or perhaps an Ethnic/Minority Affairs issue. That said, the perception that MA is a holocaust denier does indeed cause international commentators to view his presidency in a more jaundiced light than they might otherwise; so yes, I can see the argument for including something to that effect in the introduction. It's the particular form of those words we need to be most careful about, and I'm not yet satisfied we've reached an optimal form. &#0151; JEREMY 09:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverting a talk page.

Personally (and I am saying this only on my self, not anyone else) I feel it will be a waste of time to revert a talk page so it would refelect the flow of conversation.

So if any one actually care to listen you cann just see my comments that were deleted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMahmoud_Ahmadinejad&diff=55563725&oldid=55561329

As for the edit summary. Well I am not going any where. I think there is a big problem in this article and I intend to fix it. Zeq 15:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If you attempt to impose your POV on this article — as you have on a range of other articles — your changes will be reverted; and if you persist, you will be re-referred to arbcom and (I would expect) banned from this article as well. If, instead, you make a good faith attempt to investigate all points of view regarding any new information you wish to add, so as to accurately and fairly represent it, your contributions will be very welcome. I look forward to working with you. &#0151; JEREMY 02:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So does this mean you will take back the "Zeq go away" ? Zeq 03:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That's my particular idiom; I meant simply, "stop this nonsense". &#0151; JEREMY 08:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No hope for wikipedia

This article now includes:

"controversial comments he has made about the Holocaust. "

really ?

is that what he did ?

He denied the holocaust . !!!!!!! (a criminal offense that some people sit in jail for)

He called for anothet holocaust.

What is so "controversial" about it ?

For some people (including some wikipedia editors) this man is just saying what they only think and fear say outloud (so this is why they try to hide his comments ? - I hope not)

Wikipedia moto is "Be BOLD"

So be blod and call it is you see it.

The statements he makes are clear. the only controvesy is:

is he criminal case or mental case  ???

Zeq 12:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, you are simply mistaken. I suggest you read back through this talk page to discover the weight of evidence against your contention. &#0151; JEREMY 13:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I read the talk page but also listen to what the man sais on Iarnian TV. You should also take facts into account when writing an encyclopida Zeq 17:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, are you saying you're actually in Iran? If so, what's your Persian/Farsi like? &#0151; JEREMY 18:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I am in the middle east. They translate Iranin TV to Arabic where I am at. Zeq 18:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of controversy about his comments = and even CNN once made a wrong translation of his speeches --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 14:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semite, again?

Editors appear to want to add the category: Category:Anti-Semitic people to this article but nowhere in the article is there mention of his being an anti-semite, only that he's made statements counter to Zionism. Isn't the difference clear enough about this issue? If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is going to be added to such a category there should be sufficient detail in the article about him to warrant doing so. Netscott 16:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, thank you. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The least you should expect is a source to why he is included in the category. // Liftarn

There seem to be quite a few sources concerning that. Why not simply add them, as well as a reference to the controversy in the text of the article itself? It seems like a rather gaping omission. The editor involved could do so, or I could. --Mantanmoreland 12:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Links please! // Liftarn

So if some guy in America says that Ahmadinejad hates all the jews in the world he automatically qualifies to be anti-semite?! --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No, but when there are a sizable number of verifiable sources regarding the anti-Semitism of a person, and when the United States Senate uanimously passes a resolution decrying that person's anti-Semitism, I am sure you would agree that the subject needs to be dealt with in an article. Particularly when the person is a world leader.--Mantanmoreland 00:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've got not problem myself with whether Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is catted as an Anti-semtic person or not but I do have a problem if there's not overwhelming support in the very article about him that corresponds to such categorizing (which until the last day or so there was not). Netscott 01:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I was actually not referring to the category, but rather to mentioning of the anti-Semitism controversy in the article. (I trust there is no objection to including a discussion of that in the article.) The category is a separate issue. I do believe, however, that one of the major objections to his inclusion in the category was that there was no mention of the controversy in the article. I think that was a valid objection and the section "Ahmadinejad and anti-Semitism" resolves that point. --Mantanmoreland 01:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the US senate a reliable source in this matter? // Liftarn 15:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. Senate is not a source. The sources cited in the article are news articles reporting the U.S. Senate resolution.--Mantanmoreland 15:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence from reliable news sources (deemed acceptable by Wikipedia) that Ahmadinejad has made anti-semitic remarks. These same news agencies have had every opportunity to "retract" the translations as invalid if there were some controversy surrounding them-- but they haven't. Netscott made an excellent comment: "If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is going to be added to such a category there should be sufficient detail in the article about him to warrant doing so. Netscott 16:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)"

My edit fills in this gap.

If any of you would like to find a notable source that demonstrates any improper translation of Mahmoud's anti-semitic comments, I invite you to do so.

It's hard for me to understand why we've seen repeated zealous attempts to whitewash such an important aspect of Mr. Ahmadinejad's public controversy. For the record, I don't think Ahmadinejad speaks on behalf of all Muslims with his anti-semitism. Maybe certain wikipedia editors are taking this as a personal attack on their religion and thus upon themselves? This should not be a reason to whitewash something so well documented. --FairNBalanced 21:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

We have sources that he made certain remarks (altough various translations exists), but from those statements jump to the conclusion that he is an anti-Semite would probably fall under WP:OR. // Liftarn

Who has accused the entire country of Iran as anti-semitic (apart from an official Iranian administration response claiming so)? This article is about Ahmadinejad and this section specifically about his own anti-semitic comments. There is no indication that the "Western Media" is trying to portray Ahmadinejad's anti-semitic comments as reflecting the sentiments of the entire country. --FairNBalanced 09:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The Iranian government's response to this controversy is entirely relevant. In fact, this whole Antisemitism thing is looking like a POV campaign to me. I mean, there's already a huge section on his relationship with Israel which goes into detail on all this material. Why is it being repeated half a page lower? &#0151; JEREMY 09:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Because his statements have been condemned roundly on that basis throughout the world community, and have been a subject of massive media coverage throughout the world. A search of Google shows 231,000 hits on search terms "Ahmadinejad anti-Semitic." Google news produced 205 hits. Just today, for example, we have an article in the German News Agency DPA picked up by India ENews, describing one of the many reprecussions of his anti-Semitic statements: "The European Parliament and the Jewish lobby in Germany had several times called for the disqualification of the Iranian team due to anti-Semitic remarks by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his insistence on pursuing atomic technology." [13].

Given the widespread condemnation of his statements throughout the world specifically for their anti-Semitism, removal or downplaying of this significant controversy would be a POV edit. The Iranian government's response to this controversy and the translation issue is indeed already in that section of the article, at least in the current version. --Mantanmoreland 13:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"removal or downplaying of this significant controversy would be a POV edit." The material is duplicated, and has already been dealt with at length in the Antagonism towards Israel section and the spin-off article associated with that section. The fact that you apparently didn't bother to read the article before you popped over from Category:Anti-Semitic People to fix things — while hoping aloud that "some of our other friends here [...] will join in to see to it" that this article remains listed in that category — would seem to indicate significant prejudice on your part. &#0151; JEREMY 14:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please desist from making personal attacks. WP:NPA --Mantanmoreland 20:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not attacking you; I am making an observation based on the pattern of your edits (ie. I'm applying the same procedure used in checkuser cases). If you continue to display obvious bias in your editing, your changes will be reverted. &#0151; JEREMY 05:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Your "observation" was in the form of an accusation of "significant prejudice." That is a personal attack. This is my second request that you stop. Please do not accuse other editors of "bias."

As for the substance of your comments, remember this dispute originated because of editors objecting to the inclusion of Ahmadinejad in the anti-Semitic people category. Editors objected on the grounds that there was no mention of his anti-Semitism in the article, and no citations. As Netscott correctly pointed out, "If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is going to be added to such a category there should be sufficient detail in the article about him to warrant doing so." So that was done, and then came objections that it was done and now the entire subject is now removed en toto to a subarticle.

Surely there is need for the two subarticles, and they should be far more prominently cited right at the very top of this article. However, keep in mind that this is a controversial world leader. His anti-Semitic statements are a major aspect of that controversy and reverberate in the headlines to this day. They surely need to be mentioned, and in detail, in this article.

Lastly, I am going to ask for the third time that comments on this issue be directed to the editing not personally to editors. I have tried to do that and ask the same in return.--Mantanmoreland 13:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The article can and should show that Ahmadinejad has been accused of anti-semitism. You as a wikipedia editor, are not allowed to make the arguments. TopRank 04:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So what does the category imply? Is it for people who are confirmed anti-semites, or for anyone who has ever ben accused of anti-semitism. I can see the arguments for how his remarks sound anti-semitic, and the arguments for how they're mis-interpreted that way. Personally I'd lean more towards the latter. If the category is for those who have been accused of anti-semitism then the tag is appropriate, otherwise not. Obhaso 16:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Obhaso, What do you mean by "confirmed" anti-semites?Doright 17:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he means people who would also self-identify as one. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking someone who identifies as an anti-semite, or who there is absolutely no question about. It seems that there is at least some question on how to interpret his remarks, so maybe MA doesn't fit? Or it could just be me and a few crackpots?  :) So where does everyone think he fits? Obhaso 21:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, Doright, any particular reason you moved the anti-semitism section out of Criticism where I put it? It seemed to make more sense to me there as well as moved it away from the other discussion of Isreal so that it didn't seem like a re-hast/repeat of the section above it. Obhaso 21:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As a compromise I have changed the cat. Stating he is an "Anti-semetic person" is clearly a POV, and non-Neutral. however, the issue of Anti-Semetism does arrise in the article, and so the category "Anti-Semetism" has taken its place. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom's change make sense to me. Unless there's a significant body of neutral points of view labeling Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as an anti-semite (a point I'm not arguing to be sure) it's a bit POVish (and likely original research) for him to be tagged with a category as such. Netscott 15:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"Anti-Zionist" is factually inaccurate. The issue is Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitism, for which this major and massively controversial world leader has been condemned throughout the world, as amply sourced in the article.--Mantanmoreland 17:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed which is the reason User:Irishpunktom changed which category Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was added to, to be Category:Anti-Semitism. Netscott 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And indeed is the reason why the category "Anti-Semitic people" is correct and the subject header "anti-Zionist" is incorrect.--Mantanmoreland 17:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The point about "anti-Zionist" vs. "anti-semitic" is annother issue. From what I can tell following this article there does not appear to be much conflict relative to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and anti-Semitism while there is contention regarding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad being an anti-Semitic person. The article does discuss Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and anti-semitism but does it discuss Mahmoud Ahmadinejad himself actually being anti-semite? I realize that this point may seem pedantic but labeling someone an anti-semite when there isn't a large body of neutral points of view referring to that individual as such doesn't ring as neutral. Netscott 18:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the point has been amply sourced.--Mantanmoreland 18:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm seeing plenty of sources regarding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and anti-semitism but not much specifically referring to him directly as an anti-semite. I grant you that there are surely sources who will refer to him as such but I suspect there will be an equal number of sources refuting such a label. The question is, "how neutral are these sources?". Does that not make sense? Netscott 18:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If you have verifiable, notable sources saying that he has not been condemned throughout the world for his anti-Semitism, please cite them. If you have verifiable, notable sources indicating that the United States Senate did not in fact condemn him for anti-Semitism, please cite them. --Mantanmoreland 18:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about anti-Semitism relative to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (which is why it makes perfect sense for him to be included in the Category:Anti-Semitism) so it is pointless to go over that again. What I'm arguing is his being included in the Category:Anti-Semitic people. Perhaps you can re-read my earlier comments in that light and respond accordingly? To be perfectly honest with you I am inclined to think that he is an anti-semite but it would be original research on my part to include him in such a category without a significant body of neutral points of view labeling him as such. Netscott 18:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The requirement is reputable, verifiable sources and that the article reflect a neutral point of view, not that the article be based upon "neutral points of view." The section on anti-Semitism is based upon a significant body of well-reputed and verified sources, and he clearly meets the definition of anti-Semite. --Mantanmoreland 19:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, where are the sources which are directly saying, "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an anti-semite."? At the bare minimum there should be reputable verifiable sources saying that to qualify including him in the anti-semite category. Netscott 19:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In the article.[14] Specifically:

"Criticism of the "anti-Semitic statements of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" "of hate and animosity toward all Jewish people of the world" has come from the U.S. Senate, which passed a unanimous resolution condemning his "harmful, destructive, and anti-Semitic statements." Identification of Ahmadinejad with antisemitism has come from a variety of sources. [15][16] [17]

"Widely published American writer, Charles Krauthammer, has described Ahmadinejad as "a Holocaust-denying, virulently anti-Semitic, aspiring genocidist."[32]

"Condemning Ahmadinejad’s call for the obliteration of Israel and claim that the Holocaust was "a myth," Rev. Dr. Bob Edgar, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches USA said, "Anti-Semitism’s most vociferous manifestation is the 'Big Lie' now coming from Tehran"[33]."

Certainly this section can be expanded, but I think this is sufficient.

Now, I suppose one could make a distinction between a "person who makes virulently anti-Semitic statements" and an "anti-Semitic person" but I think that would be an artificial, semantic and hair-splitting distinction at best. --Mantanmoreland 19:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You may have noticed that since the info about anti-semitism relative to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been added to this article I have not edited it. I don't intend to edit it relative to this discussion but I suspect that until such time as specific wording (quotes) saying something to the effect that, "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an anti-semite" is added to the article it will likely continue to undergo edit warring in this regard. Netscott 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

First off, can anyone find the sun article which is cited (15) with the full text? Linking to the first two paragraphs doesn't quite seem to cut it.

Also, I'm still not seeing the appropriateness of the anti-semitic people category. His remarks don't even to really fit in with New Anti-Semitism since he's not holding all Jews responsible for the actions of Isreal, or denying the right of Isreal to exist, albeit somewhere else. Anti-Zionism and the category anti-semitism seems appropriate. Just don't think there is the broad agreement Mantanmoreland refered to in the last revert. Obhaso 20:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, several times I think, Wikipedia defines anti-Semitism as "hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group, which can range from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution."

If you any editor here can produce reliable, verified sources saying that Ahmadinejad’s well-known and oft-expressed hostility toward Jews is a mere fantasy, please produce. Let's stop getting bogged down in increasingly less useful semantic arguments. --Mantanmoreland 20:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Who's getting bogged down, as is clear from the edit history of this article there is quite a bit of contention relative to adding this individual to the category anti-semite people and now User:Obhaso appears to be agreeing with what I'm saying. If you're talking about being bogged down... I think edit warring is sooner an example of that. Netscott 20:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

We're getting bogged down in semantics, and also in artificial distinctions between an "anti-Semitic person" and a "person who makes anti-Semitic statements."

There are reliable, verified sources demonstrating that he belongs in the anti-Semitic people cateogry. You asked me where those sources were, and I pointed out that they are in the article. If you are saying that he still does not belong in the anti-Semitic people category, then please produce verified, reliable sources supporting that position.--Mantanmoreland 20:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You should know that according to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons guidelines:

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

If there isn't quotes (very preferrably from neutral sources) specifically stating something to the effect that, "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an anti-semite" his addition to the Category:Anti-Semitic people can be removed repeatedly by any editor (and fellow editors who re-add the cat continue to be subject to 3RR). Netscott 21:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your analysis is that indeed, Ahmadinejad’s inclusion in the anti-Semitic people category is amply sourced. As I have pointed out to you at least twice in this discussion, there are indeed statements that Ahmadinejad is an anti-Semite. They are in the article. That being said, there is no such "requirement" and I would appreciate it if you would not set forth "requirements" that do not exist. Also I would caution against editors violating the 3RR as you suggest.--Mantanmoreland 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, a bit odd this really, I've checked your sources and while it's true they all discuss anti-semitism in relation to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad there doesn't appear to be one saying, "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an anti-semite". Maybe I'm just ignorant, could you provide me with a link making that statement? Netscott 21:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

They are not "my" sources. They were placed there by another editor. Please do not personalize this discussion. Please check again the link to footnote 32 [15], in which Charles Krauthammer states that Ahmadinejad is "a Holocaust-denying, virulently anti-Semitic, aspiring genocidist." I think that even without that fairly clear statement, or indeed any statement by any person, "neutral" or not that Ahmadinejad is an anti-Semite, his frequently demonstrated hostility to Jews would meet the criteria for inclusion in the anti-Semitic people category. Again, please produce verified, reliable sources to the contrary if you disagree.--Mantanmoreland 21:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well logic dictates that rhetorically speaking the sources became yours when you referenced them but aside from that, as a son of Jewish parents would it be safe to assume that Charles Krauthammer might not be the most neutral source to be citing? Would you say that it is safe to assume that many individuals confuse Anti-Zionism with Anti-Semitism? There's no denying that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made anti-Semitic comments (questioning the Holocaust for example) and he has made even more anti-Zionist comments but at what point does a person actually become an anti-Semite? Netscott 21:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you've answered your own question. See Anti-Semitism. --Mantanmoreland 21:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm looking at Anti-Zionism and seeing a bit more correlation. But for now we'll just have to remain in disagreeance as neither of us is budging here. Netscott 22:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I think we're really quite close. As you point out, he has made anti-Semitic statements. What I would simply suggest is that the fact that he has done so, and the notoriety surrounding those statements, combine to make his inclusion in the anti-Semitic people category a really fairly simple and easy call. It is a separate issue from his antipathy to Zionism. Anyway, I do appreciate your patience and appreciate the passion you are bringing to this discussion, which has been stimulating.--Mantanmoreland 22:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny, if he qualified for that category you'd think one would find more than one individual saying "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an anti-Semite" (Ehud Olmert). Not even Google news is turning up much. Even searching "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" "anti-semite" appears to have mostly links relating to Ehud Olmert. Netscott 22:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd draw your attention to the search results for "Adolf Hitler is an anti-Semite", searching the entire Internet.--Mantanmoreland 22:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well duh, how can one "be" something if you're dead? While not drawing comparisions to Amadinejad beyond labeling were you aware that Anwar Sadat was labeled with the term "anti-Semitism"? Here's what Dr. Alfred M. Lilienthal has to say about the term "anti-semite" here:

“ Notwithstanding, the mere interjection of the label "anti-Semite" halts discussion, mutes doubt and crushes debate on Middle East policy. In fact, nothing has accounted more for the success of Zionism and Israelism in the Western world than the skillful attack on the soft underbelly of world opinion--"Mr. Decent Man's" total repugnance toward anti-Semitism. The charge of this bias, bringing forth the spectre of Nazi Germany, so totally pulverizes the average Christian that, by contrast, calling him a Communist is a pleasant epithet. ”

Netscott 22:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Adolf hitler openly admitted to being Anti-Semetic. Any good student of Propaganda, World War II or germany will see him admit it time after time. Read Mein Kampf, read Der Sturmer - these were Self -publicattions by Hitler and the Nazis, so there is no problem there whatsoever. Ahmadinejad has not said he is Anti-semetic, and the iranian Government have said he has been, deliberately, misinterpreted or Mistranslated. That is why the inclusion of the cat is POV.--Irishpunktom\^talk 22:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Try Google Search: "Adolf Hitler was an anti-Semite you still turn up nothing on the Internet. Again, am looking forward to seeing reliable, verified sources contradicting the massive number of reliable, verified sources demonstrating his anti-Semitism. The "mistranslation" sources consist of an obscure website that hardly fits WP:V criteria.

Irishpunktom-- The Iranian government has not claimed that he was mistranslated. Kindly cite the Iranian government's official denial that he made the comments widely attributed to him. Please do not make inaccurate statements of fact.

Anyway, I am beginning to realize that indeed, Netscott's recent comment may be correct and that we may simply have to agree to disagree. --Mantanmoreland 23:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources from the iranian government? Iranian FM denies wanting to 'wipe Israel off the map' and - Islamic Republic News Agency (Iranian version of the "holocaust denial" speech)and read here.

The first source, the one in which an obscure website quotes the Iranian news agency quoting the Iranian foreign minister supposedly seeking to spin the "wipe out Israel" comment, contains the following statement, "Iran's official IRNA news agency quoted him as telling a conference: 'Israel must be wiped off the map'." That kind of makes nonsense of the spin attempt. The second source is not the Iranian government denying the Holocaust statement, but the Iranian government news agency paraphrasing the speech, and the third source is an analysis by a no-name website that would not be considered a reliable, verified source under WP:V.

It is absurd to suggest that what you've presented here even attempts to negate the Everest of reliable, verified sources concerning Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitic statements and the widespread revulsion and condemnation they caused. None of these sources are verifiable, reliable sources, and the IRNA article, as I said, does not contradict the Holocaust speech as publicized in the west.

As I said, let us see, an verifiable, reliable source reporting the official Iranian government's response. I'd settle for a UN speech. Surely the Iranian UN rep said something?

Even if an official denial were issued, the question is-- does this mean Wikipedia has to say, "OK, that's it. He didn't mean it or it was misunderstood and it was a mistranslation. Didn't happen." The very thought of it is absurd.--Mantanmoreland 23:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So far the only source that actually says he's an anti-Semite is an op-ed piece, i.e. ot a reliable source. // Liftarn

The notable contentions over the mere possible mis(use) of the term anti-semite and the controversy surrounding it necessitated a mention in the beginning of this section. Quoting from the Semitic article:

"a significant proportion of these peoples' ancestry comes from a common Near Eastern population to which (despite the differences with the Biblical genealogy) the term Semitic has been applied."

Ahmedinjead is not accused of being biased against the "Near Eastern" population, only Jewish people, and arguably a subcategory of Zionists only. I think further clarification to this regard is necessary, but realize this may be contentious so opened up for discussion before further alteration. // Sarastro777 22:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to echo that Charles Krauthammer obviously is not a disinterested party when it comes to judging mideast policy and labeling countries and their leaders near Israel. Is it really appropriate in the interest of NPOV to have his name-calling (why not just list WHY he is saying that.. i.e. the facts, rather than a biased man's opinion). Also I think it is intellectually and academically disingenous to include "Opinion" pieces as academically verifiable sources. Sarastro777 23:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Must we label someone merely for a few remarks, and accusations by those who would seek to drive him from power? Remember that the United States, Bush in particular, would like nothing better than to see Mahmoud discredited and driven from his office. It doesn't surprise me that they would seek to attack him based upon such spurious evidence. People say "he made anti semitic remarks". So has American television like Family Guy and South Park, and Christianity asserts that their savior was murdered by the Jewish people and "his blood is on them and their children". This would, by many interpetations, assert that Christianity is in itself anti-semitic and that anyone who adheres to its doctrines be labeled an anti semite. It takes actions, specific and bold, in order to cast someone into such a permanant category. Has Mahmoud taken any actual physical actions against the Jewish populations in his country? No. He is not an anti-semite. Never Cry Wolf 12:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is turning into an endless, repetitious, circular Usenet-style debate, so I am not going to bang my head against the wall repeating my previous comments concerning Ahmedinjead's anti-Semitism. It's all been said, not once or twice but three or four times. However, I did want to respond to the comments concerning the use of the word "anti-Semitic" as incorrect because it Ahmedinjead is presumptively not hostile to Semitic non-Jewish people. As can be seen from the Wiki definition of anti-Semitism, that term is used to define only anti-Jewish prejudice. If one says that an anti-Semite is not "anti-Semitic" because he doesn't dislike Jews, then anti-Semites throughout history, including Hitler, would not be included in that term. This is the kind of semantic nonsense that has plagued this discussion. --Mantanmoreland 14:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

First if you read the "anti-Semitic" article discussion, there IS contention on this issue. It is a matter of being articulate, so as to not confuse the reader. IF you mean anti-jewish, why not SAY anti-jewish? Obviously, anti-semitic applies to a broader category of people by the mere definition of semitic (I see you didn't refer to the wikipedia article linked in this case). It's troubling you seem to find this issue of less than precise wording as "semantic nonsense." Using that logic why don't we just label Ahmedinejad as "Misanthrope"? LOL.. it's absurd! Also, reverting those changes without any kind of refutation than a vague and confusing diatribe about Hitler is vandalism. Sarastro777 15:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What you're arguing is nothing new. It's a well-known fact that the commong usage of this term, as many others, does not match up completely with its dictionary definition. Even Juan Cole uses the term while also acknowldging the gap between usage and denotation. It is an insult, however, to imply that educated individuals are ignorant of this difference in the term. Popular usage gives words their meaning, not dictionaries. Dictionaries afterall were created after words were being popularly used. Dictionaries simply serve to record their usage and are updated as the popular usage of words change. For instance, see the dictionary.com entry for "anti-semite" [16]. --Strothra 15:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Usage of the word "anti-Semitic" to appy to non-Jews is not generally accepted. See anti-Semitism. Dredging that up to say that "some people say he is not anti-Semitic becuase he isn't hostile to non-Jews" is irrelevant and a POV edit in this person's article. His inclusion in the anti-Semitic people category is amply sourced. This isn't Usenet and I'm not going to repeat myself any more on that subject. --Mantanmoreland 20:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is the word should be "anti-Jewish" or "anti-Zionist" or "anti-Israel", because as has been documented anti-Semitic is misleading and does not apply. As it was phrased, my edit specifically mentioned that etymologically (not necessarily usage OR dictionary) incorrect. It also did not claim this was the only opinion on the matter. If it was, then we should even have the word present. I am not saying the man is not a potential racist or anything else, I just think for integrity's sake we should not use a word which does not apply. Just because it is misused elsewhere does not mean we cannot make this article precise. What is the problem with selecting any or all of the three more concise examples I am listing?

Not only is anti-Semitic incorrect but Semitic as it is being used is connating a "race", an antiquated/concept theory which is entirely rejected by modern anthropology and is not borne out by DNA evidence. This type of practice can be directly dated back to Eugenics and Nazis. Even if we accept this, then it is still mischaracterizing as it identifies several other unintended groups as the recipients of his alleged bias. (Also documented in the semitic article).

To try to give an equivalent, a similar linguistic term that could be similarly misused would be to call someone with bias against French people "anti-Aryan." Does that sound silly? Yes.. well there is a parallel here. If we just expand the subject line as I have done, and eliminate the small intro which doesn't serve to make the quotations any clearer, is that acceptable? I think it is a nice compromise and avoids having to mention any contention one way or another. (Since apparently the mere mention of another widely held understanding of the matter is completely intolerable) Sarastro777 21:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Then you have a serious argument with the English language, not me. "Anti-Semitic" is the English language expression for anti-Jewish. See anti-Semitism. This is not the time or the place for such irrelevant semantic quibbles and I view this entire discussion to be entirely off-topic and disruptive.--Mantanmoreland 01:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• I* don't have a problem with anything. My guess is that you did not read the 'etymology' section of the anti-semitic article you cited, nor the semitic article I linked to. There are entire countries of people that dispute your understanding of the term and its usage here. One of the mandates of Wikipedia is to include notable viewpoints, of which this alternative I presented certainly is. As I see it, we are including one understanding, with everything else "slander","irrelevant","off-topic", despite the millions that may see things differently. Why is it a problem to list another viewpoint? It appears to threaten one POV that is being defended ardently. This is not the place for ideological bickering.. it is for encyclopedic span of information. To keep reverting it amounts to censorship. Just because you consider it off-topic and disruptive does not mean other people find it to be the same case. Sarastro777 03:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed

Citations are needed in the Controversy section (even if these are available in the subarticle) Think of the reader. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The controversies section is already a regrettable POV fork. We don't need to add to it by implying cites may not exist. However, if you wanted to go through the article and copy the cites to the main article as a service to the reader, I doubt anybody would object. 05:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC) (fixed signature, thanks for pointing it out) IronDuke 14:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think is it reasonable for me to ask for these citations. It is in keeping with WP:BLP requirements. Please read the page. I do not find any exceptions to the list of items there. Please note that the community is so serious about this, they exempt editors who remove uncited negative comments from the WP:3RR. --CTSWyneken 10:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the citations tags are totally unecessary for the reasons stated. (editor of 05:11 comment should fix signature)--Mantanmoreland 12:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain how WP:BLP doesn't apply? --CTSWyneken 12:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP isn't the issue. The issue here is inappropriate use of cite tags. See WP:CITE. "If an article needs references but you are unable to find them yourself, [empahsis added] you can tag the article with the templates [templates omitted]. It is often more useful to indicate specific statements that need references, by tagging those statements with {{Fact}}, which can be placed in the same place you would place an inline reference."

You surely know where to "find" the citations. They are in the subarticle referenced at the top of the section. If you feel that a two-sentence summary of a subarticle requires replication of the citations in the subarticle -- which in my view is absured -- the appropriate remedy is for you or anyone who feels that way to supply the citations. Placing cite tags throughout the summary section gives a false impression and would be an inappropriate use of the tags. --Mantanmoreland 13:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that these citations are in the subarticle, it is meaningless to this conversation. Citations needs to be added to the sumamry sections of spinned-off articles as well. So stop the bickering about the {{fact}} tag and someone go and get these refs from the subarticle and add them to the Controvesry section. I added one yesterday as an example. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If editors feel that more citations are necessary, they should do as you have done and add them. I certainly will not remove unecessary cites, and as a matter of fact if anyone takes them out, I for one will put them back in. I think that is a good resolution of this issue. Thanks.--Mantanmoreland 14:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed cite tags can be used as a rhetorical device to improperly cast doubt and to push a POV in violation of WP:DISRUPT. Doright 16:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No bicker here. My impression was that the objection was to the citations themselves. I'll move them up when time permits. --CTSWyneken 14:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. --CTSWyneken 16:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Good! Rest assured that I will personally watch them like a hawk to prevent their removal.--Mantanmoreland 16:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Pointy Finger Picture

Someone keeps ripping out the comment underneath it. The problem with that is that the picture is there as accompaniment for the paragraphs next to it, which highlight the fact that Mahmoud is willing to act on what he believes, even when he is opposed by powerful nations like the US. His stern and unwavering finger is rendered almost useless when the subtitle under the picture is erased, especially when someone puts in the simple text "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad". Of COURSE we know that this is Mamms, but that's not what the picture highlights. Never Cry Wolf 13:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me; you're actually attempting to justify your caption? Wikipedia is not a place for sophomoric jokes and humor. Wikipedia attempts to be an encyclopedia. Your caption was not only POV and unverifiable but it also gave to context or background to the image itself. It is custom on Wikipedia to make image captions hold background detail about the photograph above it. Anyone with eyes can see that he has a "stern" look on his face but they do not know the important information relating to the image (ie the who, what, when, where, and why.) Unfortunately, your summary of the image on the image's page gives us no more information to go on. --Strothra 16:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME? HOW DARE YOU!!! I have contributed a significant amount to both this article and to numerous ones on Wikipedia, and you have the absolute GALL to insult me by calling this caption (which is extremely informative) rude names? The only thing "sophomoric" about this discussion is your unsolicted, and quite frankly, incidendiary attempt to uphold YOUR OWN POV by levelling personal attacks at me. Let it be known that if you keep insulting me, I'm going to make sure that the administrators here are aware of your behavior, that's for sure. I guess that even on Wikipedia, there are people like you who are willing to destroy any semblance of fact in order to attack people that they don't like. It makes me sick, but the only thing I can do is make sure that I revert your horrible personal attacks. Never Cry Wolf 16:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

um...please see WP:CIVIL. Really, that sort of stress leads to things like heart disease and cancer. Take care of yourself buddy. Thanks. --Strothra 16:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)