![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
"Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion and without regard to the three-revert rule."
Ahmadinejad's repeated anti-semitic statements are HIGHLY sourced. I'm not going to get into childish semantic arguments of someone making multiple anti-semitic statements and their being an anti-semitic person. This has been covered in the talk pages. Your inability to understand the verifiable sources and ensuing logical arguments is fortunately not contigent about the accuracy of those sources and logical conclusions. Neither does the classification qualify as original research, as notable secondary sources have already published such claims. --FairNBalanced 18:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Of all the material on this page, I see references to the Government of Israel, I see references to "Zionists"... I see nothing of his that criticizes "Semites" or pan-Jewish peoples on an individual or group level. Unless speaking against a political ideology or a particular Government somehow now qualifies as a statement against ALL individuals, then I don't see how this is in anyway appropriate. On top of that, labeling someone with a such a charged term is almost always going to reflect the POV of the labeler. It is also not helpful to label the arguments of others with whom you disagree as "Childish." Let's keep this professional!! Sarastro777 21:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It also helps to not be belligerant. Your original research comment makes no sense and is entirely unrelated to the discussion above. Second your analogy does not in any way further a contention that criticism of a particular Government or political ideology constitutes hatred against an ethnicity or religion. However any discussion of lesbians is always entertaining :-) Sarastro777 05:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The Holocaust was a historical event related to World War II. How does him questioning (or denying it) show that he hates Jews... ANY Jews? You seem to be assuming a malicious conspiratorial motive. Using that frame of logic there should be equal emphasis on him being anti-Catholic, anti-Gypsy, anti-Freemason, anti-Homosexual, and anti-Slavic as these were also groups that died in the holocaust. None of his denials has brought these labels from THOSE groups. He does not seem softspoken, if he is an Anti-semite why is there nothing from him proclaiming the evil of the Jews or him sharing info about his hatred for them? Sarastro777 15:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The fallacy of your argument Sarastro, is that Ahmadinejad is not calling for the persecution and extermination of the freemasons, catholics or gypsies (he does however fully support punitive amputation, as well as capital punishment for gays, so we may want to include the (underground) iranian homosexual community in the lists of his targets). While i might agree in a very limited way that questionning the timeline and specifics of the holocaust is not neccessarily anti-semitic when it is does done with the intent to further academic research and arrive at a more complete understanding of the event in question, but you have to put it in context. Holocaust denial in furtherence of a personal agenda or political goal is entirely anti-semitic. Ahmadinejad is not concerning with correcting what he believes is a historical inaccuracy. Rather, he uses the fiery rhetorick of anti-semitism to fuel hatred of Israel and Judaism in general, especially throughout the arab world. He generally does this when he needs to drum up some support for a political initiave. It is a historical fact that arab peoples will happily put aside their differences and histilities when it comes to a common hatred of Israel, which makes Israel bashing the perfect tool for quelling domestic unrest in any arab country. For example, how many palestinians were slaughtered by Jordan? Why dont we ask the residents of what used to be Hama what they think of Syria's Hafez Asad and son? My point is we never hear Arabs complain about their barbaric treatment by other arabs or other arab states, only by Israel (i will also point out here that Israeli Arabs enjoy full citizenship, representation in the Knesset (israeli parliament) and on the Supreme Court. Isreal is perhaps the only country in the middle east where an Arab can actually win a court case against his government). In any case i'm getting sidetracked... In short, Ahmadinejad is not some noble civil servant trying to correct historical inaccuracies regarding the holocaust. He is a radical Islamist who firmly believes in pan-arabian islamic theocracy...a truly terrifying concept for any who understand its implications. When he invokes holocaust denial along these lines, common sense dictates that it can only be seen in furtherance of an anti-semitic position. And if that wasn't enough to prove to you that he is an anti-semite committed to Israel's destruction, just read some of the quotes from his speeches.
"Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks."
Calling for politicide (isreal being wiped off the map)can he do it is a big question mark?,politician always big mouth. and calling the jewish state a "disgraceful stain on the islamic world", not to mention the myriad of threats of a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Israel and/or America, are the manifestations of highly anti-semetic ideas and policies. Furthermore, Ahmadinejad does everything he can to stall or completely neutralize any sort of peace process between israel and the palestinians which only goes to support the argument that he is an enemy of the jews, of peace, and by extension, the palestinians (even though he routinely sends them, along with various other terrorist groups aimed at israel complete destruction, illegal weapon shipments). I could go on at length with detailed arguments regarding why Ahmadinejad is unquestionably anti-semitic, anti-peace and anti-stability, but simply listening to the man talk and analyzing his goals leads any rational human being to this conclusion. The world would be a better place without him. Iran would be more socially progressive without him, the middle east would be more stable without him, Israel and the Palestinians would be closer to a peaceful resolution without him, HAMAS, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah (all designated terrorist organizations by the US state department, Israel and any person with half a brain) would not be nearly as well armed as they are without him... Proponents of peace and basic human rights would not shed any tears if Ahmadinejad were to drop dead this minute. Is my characterization of Ahmadinejad reasonably fair, based on his public statements, positions and elected platform, or am i just "assuming a malicious conspiratorial motive"? (see Sarastro's comment above if that joke went over your head) Signed: AlexiKobayashi
AlexoKobayashi, if you want to go talking about pre emptive striking, start looking at israel and american and complain about them. Seriously, what kind of a hypocrite do you have to be to even mention that without looking at those perpatrating other inhumane crimes? I dont see you going on about George Bush or Ehud Olmert and their idiotic pre emptive strikes. And ahmedinejad has always been willing to talk about peace. Wasnt he the one who wanted to help resolve the current lebanon-israel issue? And maybe if israel wasnt armed upto its teeth (thanks to america) we would have more balance in the middle east dont you think? Every sentence ou write is complete hypocrisy. Start looking in your own back yard before going and pointing fingers at others.
I hate it when people start calling other antisemitic just because they have critisized israelies or a jew. Get over it. The nation of israel is not safe from critisicm and they are very much so losing support around the world for their inhumane actions and blatant ignorance. They bring up the holocaust and the word 'anti-semitic' whenever critisicsm is laid against them. They are not perfect infact are very much so in the wrong. Maybe if they listened and were willing to talk rather than drop bombs on innocent people to communicate they wouldnt have so many enemies. Signed:NotSoIgnorant
Get your facts straight NotSoIgnorant (in fact you are VERY ignorant). "Wasn't he the one who wanted to help resolve the current lebanon-israel issue?" That was your comment. You neglect to mention that his idea of resolving it, based on his speech at the 2006 Islamic conference in Malaysia was to solve the crisis by destroying Israel, but for the time being he was okay with a ceasefire. BUT, not a ceasefire which invovles a foreign stabilization force. He wants lebanon to secure its own borders, which is great, except that lebanon has not complied with UN resolution 1559 which excplicitly directed them to take control of their borders and disarm hezbollah. They didn't do it because they claim they couldn't. Ahamdinejad seems to still think this is the only solution even though even the lebanese say its impossible. No other nation on the planet would be asked to pay for a neighbouring country's domestic insufficency with the lives of its own citizens...no other nation except israel. Futhermore, failling to mention every human rights violation on the planet in my comment does not undermine the human rights violations i DID mention. Besides, this talk page is about Ahmadinejad... not Bush or Olmert, for whom your POV is clear as day. This is not a talk page for ranting about your own uneducated and overly simplistic political viewpoints... As far your claim that i believe anti-semetism equals criticizing israel, try reading and UNDERSTANDING my comment again. At no point do i equate the two. In fact, i drew a distinction between Holocaust study which is not anti-semetic and holocaust study that is. Personally i think i made my case very well for the distinction, and for which side Ahmadinejad is clearly on. I went on to say that criticism of Israel, like any other country is fairgame and is a neccessary component of any democracy (Muslim/Persian countrie(s) wouldn't know since they have no true democracies and no free press). However, disproportionate criticism of israel IS anti-semetic, or at a bare minimum it is not based in any normal conception of reality. Is there really any question of whether or not Ahmadinejad is anti semitic? I think its pretty clear that he is based on his comments, the aim those comments try to achieve and his policies (supporting terrorists as long as they hate Israel). By the way, these Israelis who "dont listen and just drop bombs", were not the ones who struck first, they retaliated. They were not the ones who walked out of peace negotiations with the palestinians without making a counteroffer. They WERE the ones who did not respond to consistent provocation by Hezbollah on their northern border for 6 years (which in hindsight, was a major mistake). Oh and by the way, had Israel not been "armed to the teeth by america", Israel would have been destroyed by its neighbours in wars of genocidal aggression in 48, 56-57, 67 and 73. The fact that Israel is well armed is the only reason it still exists... Today as i amend this comment, Hezbollah just rejected the ceasefire propsed by the UN. So far they have A)crossed a UN recognized border and attacked Israel, B) Fired over 2500 rockets at Israel, targeting civilians, C)Hidden amongst the civilian populations of lebanon ensuring that civilians will take the brunt of the counterattack, and D) rejected the ceasefire that every lebanese civilian is desperately waiting for. Sane humans know exactly where the blame for this entire war lies...and yet again it lies on the doorstep of psychotic terrorist islamic fundamentalists (gee, can't say i'm shocked) who are actively supported by Syria and Iran. You comments are about as intelligent as the French foreign minister calling Iran a "Stabilizing force in the region". (he has since amended what he said, realizing how rediculous it was) Get your facts and middle-eastern history straight before you make unbalanced, inaccurate and moronic criticisms of Israel while clarifying your support for terrorists, tyrants, and those theocrats in blatant violation of international law (Iranian Nukes anyone?)....."NotSoIgnorant", you'd made me laugh if i werent so confident that there are plenty of other people who are just as ignorant and opinionated! Signed: AlexiKobayashi
I don't even know how this crept in here. First if we look at the NPOV entry, he violates at least 4 of the enumerated items in the BIAS section. Second, the piece being sourced is an Op/Ed (OPINION)... why do we care about the opinion of (one) biased man? He is not a qualified expert in Political Science or anything else germane to a biography of the President of Iran. He was a former Psychiatrist. The quotation amounted to nothing more than name calling, which also violates the recommendation:
The quotes of Mahmoud speak for themselves, as is the approach advocated above. Sarastro777 19:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Re Krauthammer's being a psychiatrist and not a qualified expert in political commentary: He won a Pulitzer Prize for political commentary. He's as qualified as anyone -- no, more so -- to offer his opinion on world politics, including Iran's. But it's still opinion, so perhaps his statements have no business here. We're supposed to be contributing to a factual article about MA, not engaging in a political debate like on some political discussion forum. --Schnaz 05:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
When people support their proposals for amending wikipedia articles with unverifiable information, "spin" or out and out lies, we have a responsability to correct them in order to stimulate positive and ENLIGHTENED debate. I don't engage an argument based on lies and half-truths, i correct them so that intelligent debate can continue amongst reasonable, intelligent people. Wikipedia should do the same. Some political/historical debate will be neccessary to iron out exactly what constitues a fair and balanced article on a particular subject. When a man (Ahmadinejad) is clearly anti-semetic based on any intelligeable interpretation of the word, we can label him as such. Would you suggest that Wikipedia no longer label Dr. Werner Von Braun as a rocket scientist? Rather let the fact that he built rockets speak for itself? It isn't biased to call a spade a spade. Signed: AlexiKobayashi
The issue is: Was the info published ? see WP:RS. Zeq 12:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I think his opinion can be included, but an op-ed piece is not a reliable source regarding the question if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an anti-semite or not. However, we have a reliable source that Charles Krauthammer thinks he is. ANd as it says in WP:RS "Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?". // Liftarn
I am sorry if there is an impression that only critical items are being eliminated. That would certainly not help to further the objectivity of the article.
If I may propose... an anti-semite using the definition used here, must hate all jews or find them innately evil (as defined in anti-semite).. in essence a "gratuiotous jew hater" for lack of a better term. An approach that would not rely on opinions of people would be to list A.M. saying something like "Jews are evil", "I hate jews", "Jews must die"..... much like Hitler did. Someone could quote copious amounts of material from Mein Kampf, without us having to take the opinion of some commentator saying he is anti-semite.
If A.M. is such a rabid anti-semite there should be tons of primary source material that we can use. This to me seems like a much more academic way of approaching the problem. I realize people were complaining about no quotes, but I think they wanted to see why people like Krauthammer or the Christian were calling him an Anti-Semite, not to merely hear their specific name-calling. If we can't find anything along those lines then perhaps our notions are due to spin or we need to simply await better material. JMHO Sarastro777 22:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
No you misunderstood me. I am saying to use what is known as a "primary source" .. there's no research to do so to speak, as you will quote exactly from that source and not use yourself (as in original research) as the source. What this allows is for the reader to be presented with the facts, rather than someone's conclusion from those facts. What we have are secondary or third sources with the reader having no idea why the people being quoted are saying "anti-semite." It should be fairly straightforward to find better (for our purposes) material to quote of him actively being an anti-semite (assuming he is one) rather than someone just calling him one without the reader understanding why because only an unsubstantiated opinion has been referenced. This is not a new idea. It's actually standard..especially for biographies.
e.g. To convey Lincoln's ideas on slavery, one could quote the Emancipation Proclamation (a primary source). This would be preferable and more rigorous to randomly quoting someone that was awarded a "Guardian of the Confederacy award" that works for a newspaper opinion column saying "Lincoln is an abolitionist." Original research would be a third option where you went and interviewed the descendants of people that worked for Lincoln as to whether or not they recollected any stories about his viewpoints. You then cited yourself and these interviews you conducted in a Wikipedia article about slavery. Sarastro777 23:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
You can't avoid the issue of using good verifiable information/sources (not opinion) by claiming doing so is original research. Nobody is advocating launching a study of A.M. I think it is disingenuous for anyone to pursue this in response to what I have suggested. Sarastro777 05:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the Bob Edgar comment. The issue isn't Bob Edgar's bias. The issue is that he is peripherally connected to the whole situation. He is simply not relevant in this case. Why not put up a comment by Olmert or the Simon Wiesenthal Center or Elie Wiesel? They are far more qualified to address the issue of anti-semitism. Putting up quotes by people with little connection to the matter just because they are pithy is probably a violation of NPOV. Pbasu 00:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
As above, the section is introduced as saying M.A. is "widely criticized." This is established. Bob Edgar has a religious AND political bias. Why are we listing the name calling opinion of this one person? (again not particularly qualified to comment). This type of thing needs to be stopped. The approach as advocated by policy is to list the quotations and PERHAPS give some analysis of them by notable individuals (preferably without known bias). Not just put a smorgasboard of name calling without any context. Sarastro777 20:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
In Academia there are different types of references for different situations. If someone is giving an unqualified opinion, "The Earth is Flat" then we are relying solely on credentials to establish the credibility of the statement. This is when it is most important the person be highly qualified and completely without bias. If you believe as part of your religion that a certain nation will be essential in fulfilling a prophecy, then that probably does not meet that standard. Or say you are awarded a "Guardian" award by a country that is the mortal enemy of Iran, then that probably also does not meet that standard.
Another scenario would be where person <x> presents "The earth is flat because you can see the curvature of the horizon" or the "Earth is flat because .." or A.M. is an anti-semite because he said "All jews are evil" then that does not require the credentials of person <x> to be especially credible other than we can believe he/she is not distorting the facts that are being relayed. It appears that line has been blurred here in the past, and it was accepted that people with serious bias issues were simply allowed to be quoted with their own viewpoints. I propose a way to move away from this and be more rigorous above. Namely if he is anti-semitic, then we need to document why he is anti-semitic, and not just accept other people calling him so as proof that he is (or is not). Sarastro777 22:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
You can't avoid the issue of using good verifiable information/sources (not opinion) by claiming doing so is original research. Nobody is advocating launching a study of A.M. I think it is disingenuous for anyone to pursue this in response to what I have suggested. Sarastro777 05:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
First, the accusations of skewing are in violation of Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, namely that one assumes good faith on behalf of the other editors.
It seems this is the chain of events, I have assembled since working on the article:
1) It was decided to call the President of Iran "anti-Semite" and put a section on it
2) No sources exemplifying him being an anti-semite were ever found or used in the section
3) Instead there were placed random out of context opinions of biased individuals calling him "anti-Semite" or it being used as a perjorative by newspaper writers.
Why this is a bad idea:
Opinons do not prove facts... even when in newspapers..
e.g. "United States is the Great Satan."
e.g. "Die Juden sind unser Unglück!" ("The Jews are our misfortune!") -- Der Sturmer
e.g. "Richard Jewell is a terrorist."
e.g. "..the acceptance of homosexuality could result in hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, terrorist bombings and "possibly a meteor." -- Pat Robertson
Requiring ethical and factual (preferably primary source) source material for an encylopedic/biographic entry is not a burden, but a privilege. It is (only) through this process we insure vial POV propaganda such as above does not happen. Although it may seem like following good editing technique is causing bias, I hope you can see the true motive is in fact to prevent/remove it. Sarastro777 23:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Now I see why you are so upset. You don't know what the term "primary source" means. I strongly suggest you re-examine the piece you are quoting. You are confusing creating a primary source with quoting one. Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. (WP:NOR} It looks silly when we are not even familiar with the basic terms under discussion here. Especially when it is the basis for false accusations against other editors.
All these guidelines ("the unreasonably high standard")... THEY ARE NOT MINE. All can be found in: Neutral_point_of_view,Guidelines_for_controversial_articles, Source
The phrasing in your responses makes it clear you assume he is an anti-semite. If he is, then document it. That's not me skewing things. In fact if the argument is that someone should be able to call a leader "anti-semite" with no facts, then in fact that would be where the POV and bias lay. The burden is on YOU to prove he is anti-semite. You must meet the standards of Wikipedia:Verifiability as well. Don't blame everyone else that does not share in your POV for not giving you a pass on this. None of this is personal. If it makes you rest any better, I personally think the guy is a dolt.. but that doesn't mean I can just write that in his biography.
Sarastro777 00:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
It's useless to mince words. It's apparent that you are unwilling or unable to comprehend my point. For sake of balance, I will be contributing counter "opinions." Anticipating hearing whining about skewing articles, I remind you that these are your ground rules as sticking just to unadulterated facts is apparently intolerable. Sarastro777 03:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for insulting my integrity, might I add perhaps you have POV that is threatened by this information. I see no evidence that MA refuted this. If your claim is true, cite your source and place it after the quotation I added. Accusing me of things is not helping the article :-) As to its credibility it is from Radio Free Europe, carrying a Reuters feed. By deleting this, you violated Wikipedia policy. There is not a problem with the credibility of the source. Upon inspection of your user page, it appears quite inappropriate to accuse me of bias. I ask that you leave your own background and political bias out of this story. Sarastro777 05:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Humus sapiens seems to have accidentally reverted the following material in his "RV whitewash." edit:
Rather than re-adding it immediately, I think we should discuss it here first. We also need to discuss Humus' contention that "MA is a Holocaust denier, and that makes him an antisemite."
MA is a populist whose actual views are hard to discern through the political rhetoric. There is no doubt he is ideologically opposed to Israel (because Khomeini was), and he seems to believe the holocaust is a kind of secular religion for Israel and that by attacking it he can weaken Israel politically. He may be an antisemite too, but that's neither obvious from the available evidence, nor have I seen convincing argument that it would be encyclopaedic in this circumstance, even if demonstrated. I am, however, quite willing to be convinced otherwise. — JEREMY 13:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
First, the badge story was important because it was used as a reason to call MA an anti-semite. It was shown to be a lie and directly related to a section on M.A. and "anti-semitism" (thought admittedly not favorably for those advancing the name-calling. I suspect this was why it was completely reverted under the comment 'whitewash').
Secondly as I state above in first section, there are several logical problems with linking holocaust denial to anti-semite. First the holocaust was a historical event. There are many examples of why people could deny this without having any hatred for the jews whatsoever. It appears A.M. does this because he wants to relocate Israel to Europe, so the Palestinians can move back to Palestine from their refugee camps. Also, I point out the other groups that died in equal total number to the jews: poles, catholics, freemasons, gays. It would be silly and I don't see anyone labeling him "anti-Freemason" for denying the holocaust. The same logic pattern dictates it is equally silly to label him anti-semite based on this one aea of discussion. An anti-semite is someone like David Duke who writes a book specifically about the evils of the jews. An anti-semite is a Joseph Goebbels or Hitler that claims jews are evil. An anti-semite MAY be .. but is not proven to be someone questioning events of history, by that questioning alone. Sarastro777 15:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Even if it is, I think it might be better to say "He is widely regarded as an anti-semite." Which may sound to you like "wiggle words" or whatever, but I think it is a higly relevant statement, seeing as this wide regard shapes international opinions. MikeNM 17:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
This is rediculous. What is this infatuation with calling him an "anti-semite?" The whole point of these articles is to provide facts, not to call people names (even if they deserve it). Take a look at the article on David Duke. At no point is he explicitly called an anti-semite or a racist, but his biography makes it clear that he is one. Why can't we do the same here? It seems to me that anyone and everyone could accurately infer MA's position after reading his comments about the Holocaust and Israel. I wouldn't have a problem even if he were introduced as the "Iranian president who has invited controversy with his repeated calls for wiping out Israel and for referring to the 'myth' of the Holocaust." Where, then, is the need to explicitly label him? A simple question... does Britannica call him an antisemite? 146.115.113.69 02:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I see now it had nothing to do with skewing the article.
I have posted a quotation (primary source) of the foreign minister of Iran reiterating the meaning of the "wipe Israel off the map." This was referenced essentially from Reuters. It was deleted by Humus sapien because he said it was an unreliable source. I added it back, and now it was deleted because it was "whitewash." This is unacceptable and now is obviously suppression of any facts that may go against the POV 'anti-semite' smear campaign against this man.
Secondly Mantamoreland has again deleted a triply sourced doucment that shows the comment was interpreted by most other outlets as advocating the overthrow of the regime and not a call for the death of all the residents. Again this is triply sourced and factuality is completely established. Deleting this because you don't like it is completely an egregious violation. I am shocked to see this behavior from someone who was just said previously...
There is no question this material is valid, even moreso than the opinion of a Church leader because it comes from multiple sources, and directly from those directly involved in the original subject matter. You may be risking the deletion of your accounts. A warning. 68.6.254.16 15:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
"Anti-semetic smear campaign against this man [Ahmadinejad]". I think this comment speaks for itself. You're only smearing someone if you are hurling baseless accusations at them. Informed and referenced notions, ideas, and positions are known as "responsable journalism" or "broadcasting". There IS a distinction. Do you take issue with lack of inclusion of what you and your sources (whoever they may be) say was the more complete translation, bceause that in itself is editorializing. Why not just write, "the accuracy of this translation is disputed amongst experts in the field", followed by your sources. This however would also be misleading because what Ahmadinejad was doing in that specific speech was directly quoting Khameini (of that there is no doubt), and there is no dispute i've ever heard of regarding what Khameini meant by "wipe Israel off the map". If you're going to quote someone, reasonable people can expect that you mean what they meant. Signed: AlexiKobayashi
Reverting verifiable material under the auspices of it being "whitewash" or "reversing POV" (when it is simply a quotation) IS VANDALISM. At the point I restored, it appeared your minor edit was gone and the entire quotation had been removed. I don't have a problem with changing "freedom of speech" though that is certainly accurate and describes the concept as it relates to Western Liberal Democracies and will be recognized as such anyway. Sarastro777 15:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You've deleted the same piece multiple times. "Blanking" is considered a form of vandalism. Whomoever made the change.. which appears to either be you or Humus Sapien did so removing a vast amount of verifiable content that was primarily quotations directly from the individuals involved. These cannot be considered POV by any stretch of the imagination... simply words of those involved in the matter. "Whitewash" does not justifying blanking paragraphs of well-sourced and objective contribution. Although "Administrator" is obviously not a paid position, one with such a title should certainly understand they will be held to a higher standard and know better than others how egregious that behavior is. Sarastro777 15:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Quoting your entry from Humus Sapiens' talk page:
You should not be proud or happy to see the deletion of legitimate work. This is a shameful thing, and your praise of these actions is also shameful. Obviously your outrage was somewhat feigned as you seem to be quite happy with what has taken place. Sarastro777 16:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The word is 'legitimate' which the additions you deleted clearly were. You have put forth the claim that the badge piece is irrelevant or inaccurate. You need to support this claim. Your word is not fact around here. If you believe this, the correct way to handle the situation would have been to edit with appropriate citation, not delete on a whim. This section is on "Anti-Semitism" and here we have a fabricated piece trying to show M.A. and his gov't in that light. It's beyond argument this is relevant, and as to the accuracy.. the offending newspaper issued a retraction. I don't think I have yet seen valid justification for your having repeatedly removed it. Doing so is clearly vandalism as this is useful information supported by the verifiability requirement. If this continues, I intend to begin warning steps for vandalism as you have offered no evidence to show this is anything but malicious.
As to the whether questioning the holocaust equates with antisemitism, this is a matter still open to discussion. Again, I note more people are on record in contention with your viewpoint than with. You have also not offered a substantative rebuttal to the points we have raised, other than declaring the matter closed and myself in need of learning. This is not acceptable discourse. Sarastro777 20:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Sarastro777, you have to put Ahmadinejad's holocaust denial into context. This is not an attempt to review in good faith what is taken as historical fact regarding the holocaust. Ahmadinejad invokes holocaust denial in furtherance of inciting hatred and bolstering domestic support, or at least curtailing domestic unrest. That is unquestionably anti-semitic based on any intelligent definition of anti-semitism. Take into consideration that these are exactly the techniques that Hitler would have made use of in order to rouse or quell the german people, had the holocaust occured before his time and not by his own hand. I'm starting to wonder how a clearly educated person such as yourself can interpret holocaust denial in this context as anything other than anti-semitism. Signed: AlexiKobayashi
Forcing all jews to wear yellow stars is not about anti-semitism? and a lie that Iran is the one to do it does not pertain to the President of Iran? (when the media and people on here used it to justify calling him anti-semite?) This is absurd. I strongly protest that you keep reverting info about the fabricated news story about Iran (guess who the President is) forcing all jews to wear yellow stars. Reverts are not even to be used except for in vandalism. Correcting vandalism is an exception Hummus to 3RR, but thanks for threatening me on my talk page. Please report whatever you think you should to 'authorities.' I am sure they would be surprised to see the antics taking place. Also Pecher removed the vandalism warning template. That is also against the rules.
Your viewpoint on holocaust denial == anti-semitism is not shared by the majority of people that have contributed on this discussion board. I realize you think you are smart, but this does not mean the rest of us are necessarily wrong, stupid, ignorant, or uninformed of your "experts" because we don't see things as you do. The metaphor in your rebuttal makes no sense. I fail to see the connection between appendicits and how holocaust denial means that somebody hates jews. If this is some kind of joke about the victims of the holocaust, I don't find it funny. Sarastro777 22:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
"..the incessant attempts to chip away at criticism of Ahmadinejad" -- One could make the observation that you have a very strong opinion that M.A. is an anti-semite. Anything that even nearly shows him in a different light is described as “chipping away, POV, whitewash”, which is more a reflection of your own bias than that of other editors adding verifiable information. Sarastro777 22:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
You made a statement that I had a motive in my editing, and I provided some constructive feedback. There have been no personal attacks coming from me. By any stretch the most one could say is I have made criticism of the revert behavior of 2 editors, but nothing attacking them personally. Please learn the difference before making such a strong accusation (especially when it falsely portrays the idea as an established pattern). Sarastro777 03:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
In the anti-Semite section is all sorts of questionable source material documenting OPINION… from out of context name-calling from a Church Leader to a passive voice unattributed perjorative from a sports article.
On the other hand this story represents fact -- a fabrication that was circulated in the media which by definition (tagging yellow stars to Jews) represents an example of anti-Semitism entirely fictitious and later proven false and retracted by the source. Without question this encouraged world opinion that M.A. is an anti-Semite. My efforts to include this information have been thwarted by at least two Administrators, and I think we now need a valid explanation for why it is acceptable to suppress this information. Saying it “whitewashes an anti-Semite” is an opinion and merely representative of bias on behalf of others that M.A. is an anti-Semite. For those that have forgotten, the goal is to objectively include data as if we have not formed our own ideas on the subject. Sarastro777 22:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Genuine objectivity can only exist in theory, not in practice. Everyone censores, Sarastro, even you. Thus the goal is to maintain a good faith attempt to be as objective as possible throughout one's writing, and not push a POV disproportionately. I see no problem with labelling M.A. an anti-semite, because he is under any intelligeable definition of the word. I dont know why you're so frightened of labelling, when it is well documented and backed up. Based on what you have written all through this talk page, i can assume that your biggest issue of contention is a disagreement over what constitutes "anti-semitism". Personally i think that when M.A's comments are put into context, they are clearly identified as anti-semitism, and not a good-faith effort to examine the accepted history of the holocaust. To paraphrase shakespeare: a rose called by any other name would smell just as sweet. You can call M.A whatever you like, but the fact remains that he is anti-semitic. Signed: AlexiKobayashi
Since you are quoting the OR article yet again, even though OR has not been mentioned -- I assume you understand that we both realize that is not allowed and I have not advocated it. The term entered the dialogue in a response by JayG responding to Mantamoreland because Mantamoreland did not understand what a primary source was. Eventually after quoting the article to me several times, I showed him (Mantamoreland) where it stated primary sources are preferable fodder for source material. Despite him quoting the WP:OR link to me several times, he apparently had not read it or overlooked that particular area.
Second, the relevance is obvious, but if we want to be obtuse there are references to Ahmadenijad all throughout the article to which I linked. That is unless of course, you can say with a straight face that M.A. does not comprise part of the "regime?" I really doubt that was the argument you were trying to make, as it wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
So can we now quit suppressing this article even though your personal opinion is it "whitewashes a holocaust denier?" Sarastro777 03:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Is it really neccessary to have this much excessive info on translation in the article? Everyone knows that languages do not translate directly into each other but it's not disputed that at least the idea of his comments were portrayed correctly. --Strothra 16:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree entirely. Put the comments in context and compare them against the accepted definition of anti-semitism. I mean it. stand up, walk away from the computer and think about it. Gee, what conclusion did we reach? Are M.A's comments a good-faith effort to analyze the genuinly accepted history of the holocaust (which would not be anti-semitic, but rather, what academia refer to as "research") or are they meant to incite hatred? Signed: AlexiKobayashi
I agree with Strothra. It is blown way out of proportion and grossly skews the POV of this piece. --Mantanmoreland 14:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
It is a big deal, as US politicians are using it as a means to gather support for another Iraq. Ahmadinejad said that the regime occupying Jerusalem (which legally does not belong to either Israel or Palestine) should vanish from the pages of time, just as the Shah's regime did. How that translates into "we are making nuclear weapons and are going to bomb Israel and kill all the Jews", I do not know.
"Non-notable, marginal groups" Jayjg? What, people actually living under this regime are less important than foreigners who oppose it? Sounds a lot like selective antisemitism to me. — JEREMY 07:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The new heading is appropriate since the new section shows not everyone, including Jews would agree with the label. Also the football quote has the accusation written in a passive voice and is unattributed. I doubt this would even have made it past a newspaper Editor were it not in the sports section. Sarastro777 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Removed two dead-end citations[4] [5]. The cited documents do not actually make the charge of anti-Semitism but rather report on issues surrounding the senate resolution (which still needs a good citation) . 83.91.187.9 12:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
As suggested by at least two other editors, have condensed the issue of the translation, which rambles on far too long with semantic quibbles over whether Ahmadinejad said "map" or not. Current version gives undue weight to this semantic issue, thus skewing the POV by obscuring the fact, as noted by Bronner, that all Farsi translations refer to "wiping Israel away." --Mantanmoreland 15:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
It is thoroughly established that neither "Isreal" nor "map" appears in the farsi text. Hence I'm replacing the mistranslation and the POV interpretation of it as "the State of Isreal" with the correct translation. 83.91.187.9 18:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I've gone back through this article, which is far too long and rambling, to remove repetition while trying to preserve a neutral POV.
I've cut some of the stuff early in the piece that readss llike it comes from a bio sheet from the Iranian foreign ministry. The segment on the letter to Bush is absurdly skewed, not mentioning that the letter was dismissed by US officials. I tried to replace the reverential tone that had pervaded certain parts of the article with a more neutral tone.
Meanwhile I cut dramatically the section on anti-Semitism, which is absurdly repetitious -- repeating the ramble on the Israeli "translation issue" now succinctly dealt with in the Israel section -- and replaced that section header with a more neutral one on the Holocaust. --Mantanmoreland 17:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Neturei Karta is a tiny, radical fringe group - as per WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, it should not be given any weight at all in this article, much less two paragraphs. Please respect policy. Jayjg (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
83.91.187.9, the section gives a reasonable chronological sequence of events. He made the speech in October 2005, and it was widely translated as "wiped off the map" etc. There was an international outcry etc. The translation itself wasn't contested until months later. All of this is accurately captured in the article. Please review Wikipedia's content policies, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. We don't try to decide which translation is right here, we just list the controversy itself in a neutral way, as it occured. The current section does so; please stop violating policy. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, since he hasn't even commented on the Talk: page in a week, and is now duplicating sections that are already there, it seems the only recourse at this point is to revert him. Jayjg (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
One POV is that he was refering to the state of Israel, another POV is that he was refering to the government of Israel. All this POV-pushing has to stop and we have to get a NPOV statement. Any suggestions to how it should be written? // Liftarn
Ok, Dr Benita Ferrero-Waldner thinks he refered to the state[2], but Juan Cole says "he did not actually call for mass murder (Ariel Sharon made the "occupation regime" in Gaza "vanish" last summer)". // Liftarn
Why is it that in editing this article, people feel that it is necessary to attempt to interpret the words of Ahmadinejad. It is often a POV issue when interpreting what was said by somebody else. We all have access to direct quotes by Ahmadinejad that are published by reputable news organizations, so in this case the only sensible thing to do is to place his quotes in the article, not interpret them for yourself and say what you feel like saying. In the absence of direct quotes, it is just fine calling it "antagonistic statements," because this is factual and not based on personal interpretation.
On a related topic, there is nothing about this article that warrants it being marked as having POV problems. There may be people out there that want to paint a biased picture of Ahmadinejad, but that is not what wikipedia is for. As the article stands, the facts are accurate and there are no problems with suppressing controversial aspects of this topic. In keeping with the facts, there is really nothing that can be done with this article to portray Ahmadinejad any more or less favorably and as stated before, that is not the point of a wikipedia article anyway. Markovich292 08:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Does anyone know which languages Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks? It could be something interesting to add...Evilbu 16:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)