Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim of not being an antisemite

I strongly doubt that he was sincere when he said he respects the jews. His actions speak louder than his words do. As such, we should avoid the POV that he is sincere about this quote by replacing "said" with "claimed," since this is less POV wording and doesn't take a side on the sincerity of his words. The way it is currently written implies that he is sincere about the quote.--Sefringle 03:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Good luck. Every week I have to argue yet again that there was a huge controversy about him stating that Israel should be "wiped off the map". Apparently there was no controversy at all about that, he wasn't condemned by all sorts of world governments and major organizations, not to mention the UN, for saying it. Instead, the real story was that he was horribly maligned and mistranslated, as part of a greater world conspiracy to vilify him, and this is what Wikipedia should be talking about. After all, what are thousands of reliable sources compared to a couple of editorials from polemicists, and a bunch of blogs whining that he really said "Zionist regime", not "Israel", and that it was really "wiped from the pages of time", not "wiped off the map". Oh, I see, that's completely different, and makes it all better. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle, when you "His actions speak louder than his words do", could you be more specific? Did he ever bake Jews in ovens or something? I'm curious. Lixy 10:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Lixy, when you say "Did he ever bake Jews in ovens or something?", could you be more specific? If someone doesn't do that, does that mean they don't hate Jews? Jayjg (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
no it doesn't mean. but by donating money to Jewish hospital in Tehran and etc (see the sources I provided 1 month ago) it means he doesn't hate Jews. And "Say" is the most non-point of view for that purpose. It is very clear.--Pejman47 17:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
According to whom does the fact that the Iranian government gave money to a Jewish hospital means he doesn't hate Jews (as opposed to, say, just being a cheap political trick)? And why would your view on this be relevant? Jayjg (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The question was not directed to you. I wanted Sefringle to illuminate me on what ACTIONS that "speak louder than [..] words" were performed by MA. Lixy 17:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
But my question was directed to you. Could you please respond? Jayjg (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll do that as soon as I get an answer to my question. Lixy 21:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Please adhere to WP:WTA consensus, if you think "say" is POV, address your concerns on that page.--Gerash77 19:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, please mind WP:SOAP. Also, he said the "illegal occupying regime of Jerusalem", not "zionist regime". --Kirby♥time 20:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I do mind WP:SOAP, which is not relevant here. Thanks for clearing that up about the "illegal occupying regime of Jerusalem"; he probably meant Switzerland or something; certainly not Israel. Jayjg (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Ahmadinejad is anti-state-of-Israel-since-he-percieves-it-as-an-illegal-occupier-of-Palestinian-lands and not an anti-Jews-as-a-racial-or-religous-group. His comment on holocust means no more than this. That's the truth.
Gawdat Bahgat, Director of Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, comments that: "The fiery calls to destroy Israel are meant to mobilize domestic and regional constituencies." and that Iran has no plan to attack Israel whatsoever.--Aminz 20:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's what Ahmadinejad's defenders and whitewashers say, anyway. Others differ. Jayjg (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Would you stop with the denigration of people who disagree with you? You don't see me making snide remarks about "Shoah business".--Kirby♥time 21:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not denigrating anyone, and I fail to see what this has to do with "Shoah business". Jayjg (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Assuming bad faith on editors who disagree with you, by saying that they are whitewashing the issue, is not exactly what I consider "not denigrating anyone". --Kirby♥time 21:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not assuming bad faith, and it's not about editors who disagree with me. Ahmadinejad has made it clear that he thinks Israel should be destroyed, many times, in public. Many world leaders have condemned him for it. Various people have also tried to make excuses for him, saying he didn't really mean what he said, or he only meant "getting rid of the Zionist government", or various other claims that either have no credibility, or amount to the same thing destroying Israel. That is whitewashing, and it's simple reality. Jayjg (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
That's your opinion. Just because people disagree with your "obviously contorted view" of the world, doesn't mean that they are "whitewashing" anything.--Kirby♥time 21:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not my opinion. It's the opinion of the major Western governments, the European Union, Russia, the United Nations Security Council and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Jayjg (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok now you're just trolling.--Kirby♥time 21:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It is you who is trolling. Holocaust denial alone qualifies as antisemitism, so with that whitewash you only discredit yourself. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
What the hell are you even talking about?--Kirby♥time 22:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad#Holocaust denial and accusations of antisemitism, Holocaust denial#Ahmadinejad and Iran, International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
What about them? When did I ever mention that? All I did was warn jayjg to stop using this talk page as a soapbox for his pro-zionism tirade.--Kirby♥time 22:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Please don't make this personal, this is not about Jayjg. MA was widely condemned by the international community for expressing antisemitic views. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
"Well, that's what Ahmadinejad's defenders and whitewashers say, anyway. Others differ." - Ahmadinejad is a random sample of a group of people in Iran. His denial of holocust was nothing more than an echo of a political heresy that had gained popularity among that party for similar reasons that Bat Ye'or's mythical thesis (not my words, Lewis's words) has gained popularity among some parties in Israel. Ahmadinejad's words should be taken in a pragmatic sense rather than in a literal sense. He is certainly against the regime of Israel and believes that the land belongs to Palestinians. But there is nothing beyond that. --Aminz 23:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Holocaust denial is antisemitism, and MA went even further. The definition of antisemitism does not say anything about "words should be taken in a pragmatic sense rather than in a literal sense" - and BTW, History of antisemitism proves you wrong again. The fact that MA finds a chorus of adorers in WP, while almost the entire world condemns him, is telling. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Humus sapiens, please don't use ironic language. Ahmadinejad was fairly condemned for denying holocust. He shouldn't be condemned for what he is not. --Aminz 01:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

He is a holocaust denier and that makes him antiemitic. There was no sincerity in his quote, and it shouldn't be phraised in this article like there was.--Sefringle 01:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Said vs. Claimed

For goodness sakes, they can be used as synonyms; I am not sure the connotations that everyone feels each are laden with exist. I do not see what is wrong with "said"? -- Avi 01:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Said implies sincerity in the context it is used in in this article. Claimed implies that he said it but it may not be his true feelings.--Sefringle 01:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
from where you think "say" imply sincerity? could you please check up that work in a dictionary (I prefer Oxford). --Pejman47 02:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Saying doesn't imply sincerety but "claming" may imply insincerety. That's the difference. --Aminz 06:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
He was insencere.--Sefringle 06:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia can not take side. The readers are free to come up with conclusions. --Aminz 06:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
MA consistently and repeatedly makes antisemitic remarks, and was widely condemned for that. By reiterating his remarks, MA embarrassed many attempts by his overzealous cheerleaders (including on this page) to deny his antisemitism. At this point is is undeniable.
Don't pollute talk page with noise such as "words should be taken in a pragmatic sense rather than in a literal sense", "But there is nothing beyond that", "Iran has no plan to attack Israel whatsoever", unless you are a quotable expert on both Iranian policy and Israeli security. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Pejman47 and Aminz: I have been observing this article from last summer. Unfortunately, one editor previously noted that "there can be no victory against the armies of Mordor."
Sefringle: Again, please move your discussion to WP:WTA and ironically as the person above noted: Don't pollute talk page. There would be no further discussion necessary as long as we have WP:WTA guidelines. Thank you.--Gerash77 12:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle reads minds. Lixy 21:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I bet Sefringle is Ahmadinejad's sock, there's no other way he could know exactly how Mahmoud feels. =P --Kirby♥time 14:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Lixy, Kirby, your previous comments are uncalled for. One can point out that deciphering the relative sincerity of MA is a matter of original research unless we have a reliable source that discusses it, without poking incivil comments at Sefringle. If y'all would like to have a brawl or name-calling fight, please take it off wiki. Thanks. -- Avi 16:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

watch for "your previous comments are uncalled for", every user of Wikipedia can participate in talk page debates and there is no invitation and nobody here "owns" an article. --Pejman47 16:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle was made aware of original research and in that light, my comment cannot possibly be interpreted as a personal attack. I granted good faith by asking politely what "actions that speak louder than words" he is alluding to to which he refused to provide an answer. Clearly, this is him/her someone who makes unsubstantiated claims and throws baseless accusations to defame a person. I did my best to frame that thought in a witty, yet civil manner. I'll ask you to refrain from accusing me of name-calling in the future per WP:CIVIL. Lixy 21:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Pejman, may I remind you of WP:TALK and WP:CIVIL? Those have nothing to do with article ownership. It may behoove you to re-read them. As I am certain you are aware, the ability to participate on talk pages remains contingent on accepting and following wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thanks. -- Avi 16:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle brought it upon himself by claiming (oh woops, do I mean saying) that he can read minds.--Kirby♥time 17:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether that is true or not (and a perusal of the evidence shows that Sefringle never made a statement regarding telepathic powers; rather a supposition as to someone elses sincerity - so you are actually incorrect) the old "two wrongs…" saying comes to mind. Especially on articles that can raise people's passions, it behooves us all to be extra careful in our editing. At least I would think so. -- Avi 17:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I respect the fact that you often keep a cool head and don't force your bias on others in a blatant manner. But you are not doing your best to be fair here. You read what Sefringle wrote so I'll skip the bull. In a perfect world, Sefringle should have avoided making unsubstantiated claims or, at least, could have answered me when I confronted him to back his claims up. He didn't. I couldn't let it slide given that the talk page becomes an integral part of the articles tagged as "disputed". So, for the sake of the kid who wanders around the Wiki, sees that the neutrality of the article is disputed, goes to the talk page to know the different opinions and buys the POV of an editor who says bluntly "MA is insincere", I included a tongue-in-cheek civil comment. I agree that it would have been more professional to remind him of original research, but he was made aware of the policy long ago. Plus, he uses the talk page to give his personal opinion and avoids debating. I don't see you frown upon that. Lixy 21:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that "MA is insincere" is not accurate and not a reason for changing the statement, but in articles such as this, I still feel, perhaps incorrectly, that it is more important if among ourselves we can debate respectfully and intelligently. I could just be wrong -- Avi 14:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't have to respond, because Humus sapiens did so for me. Why should I waste time repeating what already has been said?--Sefringle 02:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Nope. My question still stands unanswered. See my post of 10:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC). Lixy 14:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Avi, two wrong might not make a right, but who cares? It's a joke. Get on with your life.--Kirby♥time 21:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Avi, since you've commented on several people here, can you please comment on Humus sapiens's comment at 07:24, 26 April 2007 & Jayjg's comment at 21:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)--Aminz 02:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't pollute talk page with noise such as "words should be taken in a pragmatic sense rather than in a literal sense", "But there is nothing beyond that", "Iran has no plan to attack Israel whatsoever", unless you are a quotable expert on both Iranian policy and Israeli security.

— Humus sapiens ну? 07:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is the ad hominem attack here? -- Avi 14:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Gawdat Bahgat, Director of Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, comments that: "The fiery calls to destroy Israel are meant to mobilize domestic and regional constituencies." and that Iran has no plan to attack Israel whatsoever.--Aminz 20:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's what Ahmadinejad's defenders and whitewashers say, anyway. Others differ. Jayjg21:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure about you, but when I read this, I was certain that Jay was talking about Gawdat Bahgat, and not any wiki editors. And regarding Gawdat Bahgat, Jay's statements seem to be factual and accurate. Do you disagree? -- Avi 14:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Avi, I didn't understand what you said in above, what I have get from Jayjg comments is that he labeled the users in opposite of his/her POV as "Ahmadinejad's defenders and whitewashers"--Pejman47 21:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Jay's comments are in response to Aminz's comments about Gawdat Bahgat. Aminz brought a statement made by Gawdat Bahgat, and Jay commented upon it. Please re-visit the conversation above; I think it is rather clear. -- Avi 01:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly so; it couldn't be clearer. Aminz brought a statement from Gawdat Bahgat, and that was my comment regarding Bahgat's statement. Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Avi, my comment had two parts. One made by myself and the other supported by Gawdat Bahgat. Both my reading and Kirbytime's reading was that Jayjg wrote that in relation to my whole comment and not Gawdat Bahgat even if Jayjg did not mean it. I tried to leave wikipedia for sometime and my feeling is now gone. Again, Humus sapiens comment that "Don't pollute talk page with noise such as..." was clearly disturbing to me. I have had experiences that others haven't had. I remember I had seen a few people in Iran 5 or 6 years ago who said something around the line of denial of holocust and as such I can understand how this heresy could have been favored by Ahmadinejad. There are laughable common misunderstanding in Iran about Israel (e.g. a vast number of people don't know that many Jews are in fact only culturally Jews rather than religously Jew). Humus sapiens or Jayjg can reject my views based on their past experiences and what they know, and so I can about theirs. But we can do this respectfully. --Aminz 06:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we need to have these discussions respectfully. Perhaps the best thing is that if you are uncertain as to what a person means, you can either assume good faith if you have no contrary evidence to feel otherwise, and also, go ahead and ask him or her. At best, you'll see it was an unfortunate misunderstanding; at worst, you'll find out that this person does not react civilly with you, and you can decide to ignore, warn, start an RfC/RfM, etc. -- Avi 11:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe jayjg really didn't meant to call other users whitewashers, but by now this is simply beyond the point. I don't see any apology from him for poorly phrasing his diatribes. And also, I think that

It is you who is trolling. Holocaust denial alone qualifies as antisemitism, so with that whitewash you only discredit yourself. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

is clearly a case of someone accusing me of whitewashing. And seeing how jayjg offered no disagreement with humus, I made the (unreasonable?) assumption that jayjg implicity agreed with humus's personal attack--Kirby♥time 21:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The incredibly POV use of 'stated'

I don't understand why "stated" is being replaced with 'claimed' or (on the other side) 'rejected' because 'stated' is supposedly POV. How is it POV, or in one editor's words, "very POV"? If I recall correctly "stated" was used after a previous discussion as a compromise since it is very neutral, though flavorless (hence neutral). I ask that you all please make a good clear case now why "stated" is so unacceptable. Thanks. The Behnam 01:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you be specific? A diff that shows that change will do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes. According to WP:WTA we should use "said". --Aminz 01:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[1] is the most recent. Apparently Sefringle thinks there is something very POV about 'stated' that has something to do with his sincerity. I simply can't see where he is coming from; "stated" seems so neutral to me as to approach bland writing. The Behnam 01:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
the way it is written implies that Ahmadinejad was sincere when he claimed to not be an antisemite. Even the source says "claimed." It is written as if saying that the accusations of antisemitism are thus invalid, since he "stated" that he is not antisemitic. He claimed not to be antisemitic in response, it is a claim, and lacks sincerity. --Sefringle 01:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
We shouldn't be trying to address his supposed sincerity or lack thereof here. This POV type of writing was stripped when adding to this article so as to prevent a POV projection. And we shouldn't be changing to 'claimed' with the sole purpose of questioning his sincerity, as that is purely POV editing. The Behnam 01:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Again with the sincerity bit? It's extremely hard to assume good faith here. First of, the burden of proof is on the accuser and besides twisting of the words in some speeches, you have yet to show any evidence which would support that he is anti-Semitic. Secondly, it is none of our business if he is sincere or not. The article is here to serve a higher purpose than to represent your POV. Lastly, I'll ask you to follow the talk guidelines and refrain from using biased titles in the future. Did you really need to append incredibly there? I do not consider "stated" to be POV Lixy 00:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
In wikipedia, we should give all the raw data to the reader and let them decide for themselves. --Aminz 01:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It is also POV editing to imply that he is sincere about his quote, and to imply that the charges of antisemitism are invalid, as the lead, as it is currently written does.--Sefringle 01:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
What is your definition of "saying". Isn't it the words that come out of mouth? --Aminz 01:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
"Said" seems to me more factually accurate. He said that, right? I do not think that any reader will not be able to make his/her own mind about if he was sincere or insincere. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I think your recent change improves the wording, swaying it away form Ahmadinejad's propaganda. But claimed would be better, since the charges of antisemitism are stated as alleged, his response should be as well, or it should be re-phraised, for example: "in response to these assertions, he said..."--Sefringle 01:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
"Claimed" is clearly POV as it implies insincerity. "said" or "stated" is neutral - he did say it for goodness sake! - Wikipedia must allow readers to make up their own minds - that's precisely why we're 'free' and Iran isn't.88.111.87.49 17:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"reported as..."

Everything in this article is "reported"; we do not allow original research. There is no non-POV reason to single out one statetement as "reported as." What next, his reportedly saying he likes Jews; his reportedly graduated with a PhD, etc? -- Avi 03:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

say that to sefringle too!--Pejman47 19:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
"Allegations" is not the issue, I see no problem with that, but once again, everything on this page has been "reported" in the news media. To single out one instance for the "reported" term is a violation of neutrality, Pejman. -- Avi 14:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem is your friend Jayjg has previously deleted the Iranian response about "wipe of the map" from the into. Since you have removed the previous consensus about "reported as" that means the response must be included. I will add it.--Gerash77 19:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I strongly back that up! Lixy 00:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The only consensus I can see on this is you deciding to make the edit and Lixy agreeing with you. I agree with Avi that everything in the article is "reported" and I think adding "reported as" in implies that the sources were incorrect in their reporting.--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What does one have to do with the other? "Reported as" is something that applies to every statement that belongs on this page. So we can either be rediculous and add it to every statement, or assume the reader has a modicum of common sense and let them assume it and/or follow the references.

Now, not every statement that relates to MA belongs in the lead of this article. Whether a specific statement, such as the Iranian response to the MA's being internationally condemned or his PhD thesis in univerity, belongs in the lead has to be argued on the merits of each individual instance. But "punishing" statement "A" because statement "B" is not in the lead is illogical, and likely a violation of any number of policies such as WP:POINT, WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and so forth.

Lastly, you should remember both to be civil; statements such as “your friend Jayjg” are unhelpful and arguably antagonistic. Whether I am friend or not with Jay is completely irrelevant to the discussion and a classic example of poisoning the well. Perhaps if your argument had a basis in logic, you would not need to resort to such fallacies. I look forward to a reasoned response to my argument. Thanks. -- Avi 19:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please state why shouldn't the response from the government be included. You claim he has said wipe Israel off the map. OK, but don't remove his government's response. Furthermore don't accuse me of "reverting" when you didn't even read my edit. Which part of it was "reverting"?--Gerash77 20:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to a future revert; my apologies if I was not clear. Your edit was undeniably not a reversion; although, as I pointed out above, I believe it is not a valid argument. Once again, sorry about any unintentional misrepresentatin of your actions. -- Avi 21:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This article is about Ahmadinejad and the worldwide controversy was about his statement, not about the mealy-mouthed after-the-fact claims made by the Iranian government. Jayjg (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Stay calm. The response of the Iranian government is relevant, but I don't know if it is appropriate or worthwhile to add that statement to the lead. The Behnam 20:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually quite calm; calling a mealy-mouthed statement "mealy-mouthed" is not an expression of emotion, but an assessment of content. The "wiped off the map" statement was huge news, and continues to be so; here's an Associated Press story from this week that says Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust a "myth" and said Israel should be "wiped off the map." On the other hand, the statement of this foreign minister died a deserved death. Jayjg (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Since the western media claim of 'wipe off the map' is worthy enough, surely the view of government is noteworthy as well.--Gerash77 21:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Not really, because the government's lame excuse was ignored by the world, as it should have been. And please top promulgating the additional myth that this was only a big deal in "western press". Jayjg (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, "Western"! Last time I checked the rest of the world media are still remaining free and independent :-) --Gerash77 21:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
LOL! Yes, the press in Pakistan and Iran is "free and independent", but not in the Western states. Anyway, is the Middle East Online "Western"? Pravda? al Jazeera? Asia Times Jayjg (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
"the press in Pakistan and Iran is "free and independent", but not in the Western states."
We seem to be in agreement on this issue. Correct, they are yet to be infected *cough* :)--Gerash77 22:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Please don't pretend agreement where there is none; you are abusing the Talk: page. Anyway, your claim that this is a "western press" thing has been disproved, and your soapboxing about the western press does not belong on Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Please don't start soapboxing when you don't want to see a reply. --Gerash77 00:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the-Behnam, the government response is relevant and important, the only question is where it must be. and Jayjg you were the first one who started the soap-boxing here. --Pejman47 23:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The Behnam never said it belonged in the lead, so please don't pretend he did. Jayjg (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
and I never said it either, read it again. --Pejman47 23:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Well he did say it was relevant. That said, I agree with Pejman47 that the response needs to be included. Lixy 00:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I reverted back, you can move the quote from the lead, but please don't remove it. till getting a consensus for it. --Pejman47 23:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
As you keep pointing out, we have a consensus intro; please do not insert new items until there is consensus for it. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Jay is right. This whole issue started because Gerash decided to make a change [2] without consensus.--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I've moved it to the proper section. Jayjg (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thanks,
there is a consensus for an article and once a new user comes with new sources and etc. this happens a lot in WP, this must be addressed as usual. and sometimes this process leads to a new consensus--Pejman47 23:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a new source, and neither Gerash77 nor you are new editors on this page. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The previous consensus "reported as" was removed. Furthermore wp:consensus can change. A vote on the issue will make it clear. Your very high position in wikipedia doesn't except you from following consensus. Please adhere to guidelines.--Gerash77 00:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no !vote in Wikipedia. If involved editors cannot find common ground, they need to pursue the established dispute resolution process. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There is no consensus necessary in this article as long as we have 3 internationally renowned admins here monitoring the issue. --Gerash77 20:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
From WP:NPOV: The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Consensus is not strictly necessary. This is not because of the presence of the admins, but instead because of the policies that govern Wikipedia. Consensus is important, but not as important as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, or WP:Verifiability. Antelan talk 06:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
yes, and most importantly the WP:Hail THE CABAL ;) --Gerash77 01:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
That was a funny one. Lixy 18:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Said vs Claimed

Hello, Please help with The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion article where User:Arrow740 is changing "said" to "claimed". Thanks --Aminz 08:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad not being an antisemite quote

Can we move this quote out of the introduction, and into the 'antisemitism' section, because it is far more relevant there, and it would make the introduction less POV.--Sefringle 19:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

for an other sequence of your politically motivated edits? NO, it was discussed to death and in its current form it is still highly biased against him.--Pejman47 19:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not bias against him, it is highly bias to present him in a positive light.--Sefringle 19:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It is just another sign of your POV pushing. Would you please be nice and before just reverting read the above talks?, in almost always the anti-ahmadinejad edits was asserted in the article. and that part which you wish be deleted, was discussed before heavily --Pejman47 19:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I didn't revert anything on this article today, but Ahmadinejad is an antisemite and has been recognized as such by very legitimate people, including the U.S. state department senate, The Guardian, etc. His actions prove he is antiesmitic, and the only ones saying he isn't are his loyal worshippers and himself. Assertions is far better wording. --Sefringle 20:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
first there is no "action", the most they found was political speechs. and you are becoming really disrupting in here for you rhetorics and careless reverts in the past. and by the way, bring sources for "U.S. state department which recognized him as anti-semitic." --Pejman47 20:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Here is a source, and my mistake, its the U.S. senate[3]. Second, Holocaust denial is a recognized form of antisemitism, and doing so is his "action." Not to mention wanting to wipe Israel off the map, which proves he supports genocide and hates Jews there.--Sefringle 20:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems that you have already made of your mind and this talk has no point. and what you found as "the recognition of anti-semitic person" was just the wording of the reporter of New York Sun (a ultra-right newspaper), and your definition of "action" is also interesting. and you yourself look again, the consensus is against you, e.g. read the comment of Avi in above,--Pejman47 20:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's another source, since you are clearly denying that he has anyhting antisemitic about him.[4]--Sefringle 20:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Why do you call the criticism of Ahmadinejad to be an "allegation". The critics are not alleging that he is antisemitic. They assert that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
when you look at the renowned news sources like BBC, CNN or etc which at least try to show themselves natural (not New york republic), they don't 'assert' antisemitism, at most allegation. and it is also in line with the WP rules of NPOV.--Pejman47 19:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Citations?--Sefringle 20:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The allegations of antisemitism are mostly limited to the US and Israel, so I don't think that WP:UNDUE allows them to be in the lead.--Kirby♥time 20:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you rather remove the quote from the lead? The guy is an antiemite, and it is not undue weight to say so, since very notable organizations have said accused him of being such. I don't see anything in WP:UNDUE that says it cannot be in the lead. It is a very notable view, not some minor view.--Sefringle 20:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"The guy is an antisemite". Original research. And it is in fact a minor view; look at all the people with the view, and all of them are in US/Israel. The United States and Israel, contrary to what many people believe, do not actually compose of the entire world (although it may soon be that way).--Kirby♥time 21:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian is not U.S. or Israel, and Deutsche Welle is german. So it is a pretty international view. And your claim that many people believe he isn't anti-semitic is origional research. But since you think it is origional research to say he is antisemitic, I'll quote the list of sources mentioned in the references section of this article that say he is:

--Sefringle 21:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, minor correction: The United States, Israel, United Kingdom, Germany, and Jamaica (?) compose of the entire world now. --Kirby♥time 21:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
They compose more of the world than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's word of mouth. Not to mention these are well known reliable sources. This does not violate WP:UNDUE. Do you need a source from every country to believe it is not undue weight to say he is an antisemite? --Sefringle 21:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a minority opinion, and should be classified as such.--Kirby♥time 21:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Original research.--Sefringle 21:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Kirbytime, it would be best to avoid U.S./Israel conspiracy-mongering, particularly when the actual sources used quite embarrassingly show the falsity of your claim. Jayjg (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not just keep it as is? This seems quite an unnecessary source of conflict. As this change relies on the claim that the current setup is POV in Ahmadinejad's favor, I'd like it if Sefringle would demonstrate that first. Reading the text I don't see any POV to hit the reader with a pro-Ahmadinejad view. I personally support keeping his response as part of presenting 'whole story' in summary; we mention the criticism and the response together. The status quo seems best on this one. The Behnam 06:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahmedejinad is a confirmed anti-semite, the above sources prove it. Kirbytime has also said before that "the holocuast is 'alledged' to have happened". His statement thus that this label of anti-semite on AhmedD is an allegation is not surprising. When we have so many newsources confirming his anti-semetic behavior and beliefs, I dont see why this label should be in quotes.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, The Behnam. In a week or so Pejman 47 or Gerash77 or Kirbytime will be back here, complaining yet again that the lead isn't "fair" to Ahmadinejad because it mentions accusations of antisemitism against him, or mentions the famous "wiped from the map" controversy, and will again insist that the paragraph be deleted, or that original research be allowed in order to defend Ahmadinejad. They do it just about every single week as far as I can tell, like clockwork. In fact, they still insist that the intro contain the "POV-intro" tag; it (or similar tags) have been there for months now. How about this compromise; if they agree to stop trying to remove the notable controversies from the lead, and finally agree to take down the POV-intro tag, then everyone else will agree to leave Ahmadinejad's defense in the lead as well. Sound reasonable? Jayjg (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Please be WP:CIVIL.
I am trying to find a central and neutral POV, but every once in a while a person such as yourself decides to remove previous consensus such as "what was reported as" which we fully discussed previously and decided to keep it as such. Then all of the sudden a number of people who haven't edited the... I am going to stop there.--Gerash77 18:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I have been civil, and I was not the one who removed that phrase. Have you given any thought to the proposed compromise? Jayjg (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid "slavishly stopped" can not be considered neutral. -- Avi 18:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

To address your concern about the phrase, I made a minor change.--Gerash77 19:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The words "submissive" and "scolds" are not neutral, and the change was ungrammatical. Jayjg (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to find words that address your concern, meanwhile please discuss before blind reversions.--Gerash77 19:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Gerash, how about: Please discuss before putting in POV words and grammatical errors. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the word "submissively" is POV, it shows how the act was done. nevertheless I removed the term per Jay's concern.--Gerash77 19:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The correct term also to use is "Nuclear programme of Iran", not "Civilian Nuclear programme of Iran". The latter redirects to the former. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Again you and Jayjg are blind reverting. It is amazing that you claim to want a compromise when you can't even accept a word different from your own. The neutrality tag should remain unless you agree to stop this behaviour so that we can work together to neutralize this lead.--Gerash77 19:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It's rather bizarre that you would claim that I "blind-reverted", when I clearly expressed my specific concerns in both the edit summary and on the Talk: page. Please do not make false claims in the future. It's true that the lead is not neutral, in that it is too POV in favor of Ahmadinejad, but your edits are only making that worse. Jayjg (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I think and hope you are joking.--Gerash77 19:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not. That's what this whole section is about; haven't you been reading it? Sefringle, Matt57 and others have pointed out that the intro is too biased in favor of Ahmadinejad, and they want to make it more neutral. Jayjg (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Is anybody arguing that the lead is not NPOV? If at all, the lead is to lenient on Mr. Ahmadinejad's antisemitism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Incredibly for 3 months now people have been claiming that it is biased against Ahmadinejad. I know it's hard to believe, but I've been watching it for that time. Every week or two they try to remove the allegations of antisemitism, or remove the fact that he is known for Holocaust denial and wanting Israel to be wiped off the map, or insert some OR defense of him. It's amazing. Jayjg (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
"holocaust" revisionism is correct. The rest are total BS forced into the lead by powerful admins. If he was anti-Jewish or anti-israeli, then there would be no news like this coming out of Iran.--Gerash77 20:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Gerash, please follow your own advice of being civil and stop using terms like BS. What do you think is the problem with the lead? Please raise your concerns here. I'm surprised you used the words "slavishly stopped" and didnt recognize that as a POV issue. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I dont' agree with recent contributions of Gerash, it is not in line with naturality policies of WP either and please do not remove the tag until you get a final consensus for the lead, it is not too late, just wait for a day or so!--Pejman47 20:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
and I am really concerned with this edit [5], Avi in above talk you said clearly that there is no problem with "Allegation", but you reverted that with out an explanation and also changed some other words and not mentioning them in your edit summery. And it is not enough to give the responses of him after the the allegation. He is a government official and you resisted heavily including the official response of the government to it. and then there is Sefringle who just ignores the call to honor the WP:WTA and keeps to push his POV. the wording of the lead that you propose is not at all natural and must include the goverment response too.--Pejman47 20:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
{ed conf)This is not an article on the government of Iran, bit about Mr. Ahmadinejad, the person. As such, we do not need to include any official government responses. Let the man speak for himself, and that is what we are doing. As for the example of the airport incident, what that has to do with Mr. Ahmadinejad's position on the State of Israel or the Holocaust? Nothing that I can see, beyond political apologetics. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I think this edit from January pretty much sums up what you want to do to the lead. Jayjg (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
airport?!, I fount the relevant news, and I am wondering why nobody believes that there is no actions of antisemitism in Iran beyond some disperse political rhetoric.
do not recall the very past edits for just justifying your POV, no I don't want the article be like that either now.
every government has a speaker, didn't you know they just say what they boss told them to say? --Pejman47 20:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course that there are government spokespersons. I am not disputing that. What I am saying is that the lead contains what Mr. Ahmadinejad said about these subjects, and there is no dispute that he said that, is there? We all have our POVs, Pejman47, but we can all write for NPOV, if we care about this project, that is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
You are confusing two things: Allegations of antisemitism in Iran, and the fact that Mr. Ahmadinejad has been asserted to be an antisemite and a Holocaust denier. For the former, discuss at Iran, for the latter, we discuss here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
my first problem is the words. why you say 'asserted', it is at most allegation. allegations may be true or not, it is up to the reader to decide the truth of it, not us. for example lots of left wing western politicians has constantly labeled Israel as a apartheid regime (e.g. see the latest book of Jimmie Carter). they have clearly asserted it, but still in WP you say allegation, and this is the correct thing to do. and the government response was issued by his close spokesman, I am wondering why it is not related to him? --Pejman47 21:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
What do you think should be changed in the lead? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
First, Use what some reporters call professional (diplomatic, inert) words and in accordance to WP:WTA, e.g. undoing [6] really it is not a big deal!, let the reader decide
give one sentence for his government response to that allegation.
Then, I agree the POV tag be removed and I hope "we can all write for NPOV, if we care about this project" , good luck to all of you--Pejman47 21:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
What is the wording you want to add, Pejman47? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I suggest just undo this edit [7] and leave room for one sentence for his government response to that allegation. and let the reader decide if they are lying or not.--Pejman47 21:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The Security council did demand that Iran stop nuclear enrichment, and the lead outlines the controversy, per WP:LEAD; the foreign minister's feeble response isn't part of that controversy, since it was rightfully ignored by the rest of the world. Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
there was 3 resolution, one was request the other two was demand. so, OK about it.
and Jayjg you are an admin, you are not making a good example of yourself by using "feeble response". and It is not ignored or most importantly censored by the media, it was usually quoted after the allegation; maybe what you imply is that nobody believed it (and it is an OR of you!), but even if you can prove that "nobody believed the government's official response", you can not censor it in WP, as I said above usually prestigious news sources bring the alleged persons response after the accusation for naturality, even if the whole the world beleives that he is a bloody liar. I just want to you all honor the WP naturality policies and what jossi said "we can all write for NPOV, if we care about this project"--Pejman47 21:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It "was usually quoted after the allegation"? Really? Where? Jayjg (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You want this, Pejman47:

He has continued the nuclear program of Iran, regardless of the requests of the UN Security Council, declaring that the Iranian nuclear enrichment program is for peaceful purposes only.[6] He has been condemned internationally[7] for "calling for Israel to be 'wiped off the map,'"[7][8][9] and describing the Holocaust as a "myth",[7][10] leading to accusations of antisemitism.[11] In response to these allegations, Ahmadinejad said “No, I am not anti-Jew, I respect them very much.”[12]

But that does not work:

  1. The UN Security council did not "request", but demanded
  2. The condemnation of Mr. Ahmadinejad are not "allegations". After all, his words about wiping the State of Israel of the map, and his words about denial of the Holocaust are not disputed. So, we are not talking about "allegations", rather, outright criticism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, what about "antisemitism11, in response to which, Ahmadinejad..." etc.? Hornplease 15:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
please read my above comments, I said OK about the "demand", but in line with WP:WTA you must use allegation like in other articles (Allegations of Israeli apartheid) and the official response of its government must be included in the lead to make it natural.
last week, I filled a RfC of this article but nobody new showed up!, I will proceed to the next steps of "solving disputes" in WP, take care. --Pejman47 19:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
You still haven't answered the question above. Jayjg (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
see it for your self!
CNN and BBC [8][9]
and what you get by Google search? [10]? the article we have here, www.antisemitism.org.il/, www.jnewswire.com/article/, www.memri.org, creativedestruction.wordpress.com/, www.saradaniel.org/, and finally a mirror of WP. --Pejman47 20:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
What point are you trying to make? Your links didn't link to any specific articles. Jayjg (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The point he's trying to make is blindingly obvious, Jay, its that he thinks Ahmadenijad as an antisemite is ruled out from the lead under WP:UNDUE. Instead of holding up discussion, respond to the specific point; namely that it is not the case that major news sources use the word in connection with this head of government, and that WP should not do so either. Hornplease 22:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how he's making that argument; there are quite a few reliable sources alleging his antisemitism. Moreover, Holocaust denial in and of itself is a form of antisemitism, and there are hundreds of reliable sources alleging that. Jayjg (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You're not reading what he said? It's the links he's provided above. No results for the searching for "antisemite" + "ahmadinejad" at the BBC or CNN; all the results minus wiki mirrors are blogs or MEMRI etc.
(About Holocaust denial=antisemitism being obvious then fine, dont put the latter in the lead if the first is stated, unless you want to argue the point Pejman makes about undue weight."Quite a few" doesnt cut it, if you want to put it in the lead for a major head of government.) Hornplease 23:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see, unless CNN and the BBC have articles describing him as an anti-semite, then it's not notable. Very well, I've added four sources from CNN describing him that way, and three from the BBC describing him that way. Anything else? Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

what I posted was self-describing, and with the comment of Hornplease, I don't see any room for more clarification of that.
you even don't let the reader decide and reverted (If I remember two times) the official response of that allegation from the lead, you put something that must no be in the lead of a living president due to undue weight and even don't let the offical defence of him be after that allegation.
and you just used the word "allegation", it is an improvement.
and putting the "holocaust denial" in the lead is undue weight, but now, at least if you put that there is no need to be followed by the allegation of antisemitism, the readers can make that link if it is so obvious. --Pejman47 23:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
What you posted was not "self-describing", it was misleading. I've brought all sorts of BBC and CNN sources describing him as antisemitic, you can find them in the article. Now, you claimed that the Iran's response to accusations that Ahmadinejad is antisemitic were "not ignored or most importantly censored by the media, it was usually quoted after the allegation." Can you provide evidence of that? Jayjg (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Your sources are simply not enough to permit this to be in the lead for a world leader. (One of them is from the Guardian's football editor, unless I'm wrong!) There are probably as many RSes claiming that GWB invaded Iraq because of some Freudian obsession, but a blunt and un-nuanced statement like that wouldnt belong in the lead of his article. Try and see the similarities here, or I fear that you shouldnt be editing this article. Hornplease 13:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Wait a minute - you first said the issue was that the BBC and CNN hadn't referred to him as antisemitic, so I brought 7 BBC and CNN sources that specifically stated it. Now you say it's not enough? Seventeen reliable sources? Norbert Lammert, President of the Bundestag? Pierre Pettigrew, making an official statement as Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs? A huge headline in die tageszeitung calling him an antisemite? Associated Press? United Press International? The Guardian, Deutsche Welle, The New Republic? I fear it is you who need to review policy. Jayjg (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Is this in reply to me, or to someone else? The point was not made by me, but by Pejman. I havent had anything to do with this article, or I suspect it wouldnt be the mess it is.
But, since you are incapable of telling 'enemies' apart: no, seventeen reliable sources isnt enough, or at least not the seventeen you seem to claim. Pettigrew's remarks were not official, and he said the statement was antisemitic. As did the head of the Bundestag. I'm afraid that for heads of government, the actual accusation has to be substantiated with much more than that. A major review article on his career to date, specifying that the accusations are sufficiently central, for example. Otherwise it's you cherry-picking what you think is important, from the several hundreds of thousands of articles written about this man in a hundred languages. And, given that its an extraordinary claim, we don't want to rely on your cherrypicking. Clear?Hornplease 16:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm replying to you, of course. Please review your comment of 23:26, 9 May 2007, above. Jayjg (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Where I was restating Pejman's point for you. My point is elsewhere: that in order for you to put it in the lead in the form in which it is, you will have to demonstrate that it is central to his notability as a world leader, and in order to do that, you will have to produce a few scholarly articles or survey articles on major news sources saying that. Your so-called BBC sources are excellent inasmuch as they provide us with an overview of the individuals who have called MA antisemitic over time; they are reports. I note also that one of them talks about "Iran's" antisemitic remarks, and those reporting on major individuals say that the individuals allege the remarks are antisemitic, not the speaker. This won't do.
You think you have responded to Pejman's concerns, and he can tell you if you have. I fear you appear to have not yet understood mine, though I have explained them already. Hornplease 23:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It would be quite surprising to find scholarly articles regarding Ahmadinejad; his outrageous statements are pretty recent. The source referring to "Iran's" remarks are clearly referring to Ahmadinejad's remarks; read them in context. Regarding your argument, outside of Iran essentially the only things Ahmadinejad is known for are his nuclear enrichment program, his "wiping off the map" statement, and his anti-Jewish/Holocaust statements. Perhaps that's unfair to him; he may have a whole body of deeds that are more significant, but from a world perspective, it is precisely his Jewish related comments that have made him famous. Jayjg (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Err, that's not good enough. Jay, your estimation of the world's perspective might be flawed. For your information, in India, for example, these remarks are completely unknown, and Ahmadenijad is known primarily for his statements on nuclearisation, and about the gas pipeline, and as a populist.
Even accepting that point for the sake of argument, there are at least three hundred scholarly articles on him. Foreign Affairs ran an article a while ago. I'll try and get hold of it sometime soon, but the point is that while these statements received coverage, and could certainly be in the lead, the specific antisemitic nature of those statements, as opposed to the geopolitical threat, might not be worth mentioning in the lead. Which is why I think it needs substantiation. In any case, I would prefer a line saying "..his controversial statements on the Holocaust and Israel's existence sparked worldwide condemnation." Hornplease 00:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it is good enough, and I've got 17 reliable sources to back me up on that. As for the rest, mealy-mouthed generalities about his statements aren't helpful or informative. The actual controversies were about him saying that Israel should be wiped off the map and about Holocaust denial. Not "controversial statements on the Holocaust and Israel's existence". A search on that phrase, combined with his name, gets 157,000 Google hits; that, along with his Holocaust denial, are the main sources of his notoriety. (p.s. a search on "Holocaust denial" and Ahmadinejad gets 144,000 hits). Jayjg (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I begin to wonder if you read what I write. Never mind, I shall restate it. These 17 sources that you claim are open to charges that they are not representative of the body of writing that analyses his statements. I personally suspect not. To include the statements in the lead, you need to be able to claim that they are representative enough, which you cannot do given this setup.
Further, the 'wiped off the map' statement seems open to some debate; given that, it seems particularly inappropriate to have it in the lead.
Finally, you can quote google hits to me till you are blue in the face; we have no way of working out the contents of those hits unless you can quote to me a few major articles, preferably peer-reviewed, that indicate that antisemitism is central to his notoriety. Hornplease 01:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The "wiped off the map" issue (and others) have been gone over at length on these Talk: pages. He is infamous for having said Israel should be "wiped off the map", regardless of what the actual translation or intent was. As for your claim that we must have an analysis of exactly what makes him notorious in "peer-reviewed" articles before we can mention it in the lead, poppycock; this standard is unique to you, and not present in any policy or guideline. Jayjg (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I've read the talkpages. I don't see the point answered satisfactorily at all. Not everyone who will come along and question this, Jay, is likely to agree with whatever compromise you hammered out with other editors; I shouldn't have to spell that out for you. If you want to avoid explaining it over and over again, I suggest you have a lead that is less obviously in need of explanation.
And as for 'poppycock', I have a high tolerance for blatant incivility, Jay, but it would help if you attempted to answer the point rather than ask me to take on faith your interpretation of what consensus on WP is. It's not my standard, its a simple consequence of WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR; the lead should summarise the subject as a whole, and unless an allegation of antisemitism is citable as duly central to a summary, it is questionable as original research. I await your cogent, well-reasoned, attentive, and above all civil reply. Hornplease 04:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
What point do you not think has been answered satisfactorily? You've made some claims without backing them up. If you want to quote specific sections of policy which insist that article leads in biographies have to reflect the views of "peer-reviewed articles", I'm eager to read them. Jayjg (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
We'll come to the 'wiped off the map' thing in a while. Why try and settle all issues simultaneously? That benefits nobody but those who already believe discussion is useless.
You ask me to quote "a specific section of policy that insists that article leads...." and even put peer-reviewed in scare quotes. I haven't the vaguest idea what you can't understand. Still, I shall repeat myself, because - and I repeat myself - my patience is indeed remarkable. As I said, in the section immediately above your response - or "response" - that a lead should summarise the subject as a whole is unquestioned. I simply demand a citation that antisemitism is central (WP:UNDUE) to a summary of the man's life and work. Unless you provide that, I can remove it per WP:OR. You seem to think that citing seventeen articles out of several hundred thousand make your point, regardless of whether its a throwaway reference, a formal statement about comments, or a survey of the man's life. Jay, the first page of results for "Ahmadinejad"+"antisemitism" simply won't make your case; that's lazy, lazy research, and precisely why we people with a little experience of real research are so needed on Wikipedia. Hornplease 18:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The lead should summarize what has made a person famous or infamous - "explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies". In the case of Ahmadinejad, to a large part is his statements on Israel and the Holocaust. You've tried to make similar arguments recently, only to have them roundly rejected; as was pointed out, if people tried to follow the new standard you are proposing, "all Wikipedia biographies would be blank". You also seem to misunderstand the WP:NOR policy; which part of it are you invoking? Jayjg (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Better blank than non-neutral original research, especially when we are dealing with living people.
"Briefly describing"? What the hell? Didn't it used to be "include a mention"? Who changed that without discussion? Anyway, mine's not a new standard. It is a required standard. Mentioning of controversies is necessary to ensure we don't whitewash individuals - which is why I am pointing out that the lead cannot but mention these issues. There is a big difference between that and using the word 'anti-semitism', accusations of which, as I have explained at length, you have not cited as other than marginal to his notability, or essential to 'briefly describe' the controversy, which centred on the geopolitical threat to Israel and the stability of the Mideast. That is original research; in that you seem to think that building up citations can be used to indicate relative importance, as opposed to the citation of scholarly opinion. It's their job to decide the centrality of an issue, not ours.Hornplease 21:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, I've asked you to quote the sections of policy you feel are relevant, but you have not done so. He's been accused of antisemitism by 17 reliable sources, including the President of Germany and the Canadian Foreign Minister. These are not people who make these statements often or lightly. 21:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

(removing indents)1. Köhler said nothing of the sort. 2.Pettigrew said the remarks were anti-semitic. Unlike WP, he seems to see a difference. I am not discussing at the moment the nature of the remarks. 3. The sections of policy? WP:UNDUE. Since you are apparently unable to go and read it for yourself, here's a selection: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." The crucial word? the significance to the subject. How do we divine that significance? WP:OR, or wp:att, or wherever it is these days: "we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars, and not interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians." You seem to think that citing primary sources that some people consider his remarks anti-semitic is sufficient. It isn't. You need to cite a few secondary sources that indicate his anti-semitism is of sufficient note that it needs to be name-checked as such in the most prominent of locations. (You may well find such sources. I haven't been able to.) Hornplease 22:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Norbert Lammert, President of the German Parliament. The lead says "accusations of antisemitism", not "accusations that he is antisemitic", so saying someone has made antisemitic remarks falls under that, and Foreign Ministers don't go about saying Presidents of countries have made antisemitic remarks willy-nilly. Regarding significance, these accusations are indeed extremely significant, and the article doesn't use primary sources (Ahamadinejad's statements) to claim that they are antisemitic, but rather reliable secondary sources which make that claim - in this case, primarily newspapers. The claim that "scholars must say that something is significant before we can include it in the lead" is not found in any policy, nor is it followed in practice in Wikipedia. If you want to propose it as a new policy, or a modification to existing policy, go ahead, but it will mean you have to delete almost every single lead of every biography on Wikipedia, so I suspect you'll meet with resistance. Jayjg (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Lambert is not the President of Germany. Accuracy is a virtue.
"Accusations of antisemitism" is not the same as "remarks that were viewed as anti-semitic".
You are completely and absolutely wrong in that the article does not use primary sources about these remarks. We are not discussing his remarks in the lead, but their notability; the primary sources in question are not the remarks themselves, but the news reports of reactions to the remarks. In order to properly analyse their relevance to the subject of the article, we need secondary sources. A report stating "The Foreign Minister of Canada condemned X remarks as antisemitic" is plainly not a source that meets that requirement.
Finally, I have explained to you in great detail above - more than once - how I am not proposing new policy, or even a departure from established policy. I have pointed out how this is an application of existing policy. Please deal with those questions, rather than suggesting I create new policy, which is manifestly unnecessary in this case. Hornplease 23:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
His name is Lammert, not "Lambert". Accuracy is a virtue.
Ahmadinejad's remarks are primary sources; newspapers are secondary sources. And I have explained to you in great detail above that you are proposing a departure from existing policy. Jayjg (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Not everything published in a newspaper is a secondary source. This is, indeed, the sources of your error here; I suggest you remedy it. The question is: what is being reported? What is being summarised and analysed? These are basic questions in evaluating sources, and you are not performing them in this case. Please read again my remarks above and below if you wish to improve. Hornplease 19:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
In particular, consider "the way that we work out whether or not an accusation is notable enough to be in the lead of an article about a serving head of state is by consulting reliable sources about the individual that mention it as being notable, not about particular accusations; or even reliable sources about the accusations in general that indicate that they are notable accusations levelled at this individual. Simply put, otherwise we're conducting OR". Note that this is in no way a departure from existing policy. Please cease saying that it is, because that's a misrepresentation. I continue to await a reply; failing further objections I will draft a change and post it here for comments. Hornplease 20:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I still stand by my objections to that line of reasoning as per below. Determination of notability of secondary sources is not OR, it is a task that we as editors are specifically enjoined to perform per policy. I thought you had agreed to this below, and had instead shifted your objection to claiming that scholarly sources are required and that newspaper sources aren't enough. This claim I still dispute because scholars have not yet examined the question of M.A.'s alleged antisemitism (AFAIK). - Merzbow 20:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
1. I was asking Jay about his objection, namely that I was not operating within policy, not yyou about yours, namely that I am interpreting secondary sources as primary etc.
2. Please note that I have not questioned that the notability of secondary sources is a function that we must perform, to a degree. My question was regarding the notability of specific interpretations; we need secondary sources saying that this interpretation of his remarks is sufficiently notable. The two are different things.
3. You say first that scholars have not examined the question of his antisemitism. Since they certainly have examined his remarks, and concluded that they are geopolitically destabilising, for example, surely that in itself tells you something? Hornplease 21:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
On a related note, I notice that Jay, instead of discussing it here, has gone ahead and added another 'reference' to the article. Joel Rosenberg, no less. Jay, can I ask you to please revert it while this discussion is on? Merzbow, notice: Rosenberg has had time to write a book. He isn't even remotely academic or non-partisan, and that's the best reference Jay can get. This is not mainstream criticism. A ton of people have written about MA, and the anti-semitic nature of his comments on Israel is simply a marginal reaction. Hornplease 02:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I can only react with stunned disbelief at the claim that accusations of antisemitism are a "marginal reaction" to a figure who regularly holds Holocaust denial conferences. After this much discussion it is extremely unlikely you're going to convince me or Jay that the references present are insufficient. If you want to take this to a larger audience, I suggest RfC. - Merzbow 03:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Please do not misunderstand me. I personally think the man is antisemitic in the reflexive manner of some people in certain Middle Eastern cultures, and the conference merely makes it obvious. However, our impression of him is patently OR; the fact is that we have to make a case that the criticism of him as antisemitic is mainstream criticism, and that has simply not been done.
Oh, and I am here following an RfC. Hornplease 06:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, there's already been an RfC? In that case, I don't know what to say. Criticism by CNN and The New Republic is about as mainstream as you can get. I suppose we've reached an impasse here in the discussion. - Merzbow 06:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Once again. The 'criticism by CNN' you claim is CNN reporting criticism. It is not an indication that the criticism they report is central to the controversy in question. It is not the case that CNN regularly begins its reports "the anti-Semitic President of Iran, Mahmoud A...". And the New Republic article that is used as 'support' for the claim starts with: "...I've searched high-and-low for any instance in which the Iranian speaks specifically of Jews, and can find nothing overtly anti-Semitic". Yeah, great support. This is simply not enough, and I really think it should be obvious by now. Hornplease 07:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I finally discovered there was an on-going discussion; placing it in the middle of an incredibly lengthy section/argument is not the best way to draw attention to it. I've made an arbitrary section break above and below to help deal with that. Regarding Rosenberg, he's a perfectly good source, and yet another example of just how many reliable sources have made the accusation. Some of the sources report Ahmadinejad as being criticised as "anti-semitic", and by some major figures. Others simply refer to him that way. Either way, the sheer volume of reliable sources indicates that this is a notable issue - it's not just some Israeli politician. Jayjg (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Jay, I did the same google books search you did, and Rosenberg is the only thing that turned up for me too. He is as far from the mainstream in terms of commentary on the Middle East as it is possible to be in the West, and is quite definitely not notable enough. That he's the only

major result should have told you something. I simply don't see how that makes your case.Hornplease 22:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You haven't really responded to the point; Rosenberg is just one source, there are almost 20 more in this article alone. Ahmadinejad made most of his statements within the past year; there simply hasn't been time for all sorts of books to have been written about them. Jayjg (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Jay, I've responded to each and every point. In particular, Rosenberg is a fringe figure if we are concerned with estimating the reaction to Ahmadinejad's remarks; in addition, the quote does not specify that he is reacting to the remarks specifically. The twenty more 'references', as I have pointed out in each case, do not serve to indicate that the interpretation of Ahmedinejad's remarks as antisemitic in nature is in any way mainstream; as I have pointed out ad infinitum, we smiply cannot claim that it is without reliable sources stating it is! The implication is that if we were to state "MA's remarks were widely interpreted as anti-semitic", we would need a reference stating that. Putting it in the lead is the same as stating that. None of your references in any way analyse the interpretation of the statement itself. That is the central point I have made, and you havent responded to that other than to claim that this is not required by policy - which is, as I have demonstrated above and again just now, not true - and that you have provided seventeen, or twenty, or whatever references, ignoring the fact that the references you continue to provide simply aren't the right ones. Hornplease 01:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
For your second claim, see my remarks of 00:27, 13 May, below. Hornplease 01:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we've reached an impasse. I think the sheer number and variety of reliable sources referring to Ahmadinjad's views as "antisemitic", combined with the world-wide outrage over his Holocaust denial (a common symptom of antisemitism), makes it quite obvious that at least a brief mention of the accusations of antisemitism must go in the lead. There are very few people who have been accused by as many sources of being antisemitic, even white supremacists, and I can't think of another leader of a country, besides Hitler, who has been branded by as many different sources in this way. He's even been accused of it to his face, and denied it; how many other current world leaders can you say that of? You, on the other hand, think that unless we have some secondary source stating that these accusations of antisemitism are notable, we can't put it in the lead. I suppose you could extend this to every other item in the lead; unless some scholarly source states that it is significant, it can't go in the lead, but you've only focussed on this particular item. As other editors have told you, if we tried to adhere to the novel guidelines you wish to impose, then almost none of our biography articles would have any leads at all. Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

{removing indent)Actually, I think we've made a bit of progress. We agree, at least, that these accusations have not been considered notable enough to be described as such. Now to your substantive points: first, you claim that it is unusual that a leader of a country has been branded as anti-Semitic by as many sources as MA. Quite so. It is unusual - though many of the sources that you have provided restrict themselves to the interpretation of his comments, not his words themselves. (I think, personally, it indicates the closer attention that we have been paying to what leaders in the Middle East actually tell their populations. But that is neither here nor there.) What it isn't is notable given the degree of controversy that surrounds him.

About whether it is 'novel' - no it isn't. We have already determined that we need some idea about what goes in the lead. Note the Lyndon LaRouche thing that has gone to RfC, which turns on a similar point. I can recall a similar discussion about Jawaharlal Nehru or something back when I was an anon in 2004.

About extending the principle to other items in the lead, if necessary, I can produce several sources stating that MA has a high profile because of his various reckless, troubling statements; that he is believed to be a destabilising influence; etc., etc. Actually, I can produce even more for something that isn't covered enough in the article, let alone the lead: his religious millenarianism. I can't produce one for this particular thing, and I've looked. Note that it is an exceptional claim, as you yourself have pointed out. Leave alone exceptional sources, there aren't any worth the name.

As to your last point - there would be no leads at all - of course, you're wrong. Leads are primarily summaries, and as long as there's an article, there'll be a lead. I think you may need to restate that. Hornplease 05:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease, you're a smart editor, and a great debater. But even you have to recognize your precarious position vis-a-vis policy simply due to the number of words needed to present your argument. Our argument, again, is extraordinarily simple: Since there are many prominent reliable sources - secondary sources - leveling the accusation of antisemitism, we are justified in stating this fact in a prominent place in the article. Again, we are not stating that he is antisemitic, which would be a conclusion only justified by absolute consensus among sources, we are saying that reliable sources are making the accusation, an indisputable fact. Yes, CNN and TNR are indisputably reliable per WP:RS - the only basis you have for disparaging them is if you can present even more reliable sources to trump them with (such as the apocryphal Oxford/Harvard book on the subject you keep wishing exists). When you do, please let us know. Otherwise this is the last I'm going to say on the subject. - Merzbow 06:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Merzbow, you haven't been listening. CNN/TNR haven't said that the response to these remarks has been largely about antisemitism. (The TNR article says the opposite!).
I don't have to present a reliable source indicating that these remarks aren't notable enough. You have to present at least one indicating that they are a notable part of his career. And that hasn't happened. Because there aren't any readily found. I have looked really hard.
Also, please don't withdraw from the discussion. You may think I am being obtuse, but the simple fact is that these matters cannot be decided by everyone bringing large numbers of references to the table, because we have no way of judging proportion - and if we do, that would be OR. We can judge that an accusation has been made by notable sources and is thus probably encyclopaedic; but accusations made by notable sources are not lead-level notable. Us claiming that the criticism of his remarks centred around anti-semitism is simply a violation of policy.
Finally, you seem to confuse length with desperation. If you wish, I could restate my argument: "You are wrong that these are secondary sources. You need secondary sources that establish notability of the criticism." That's it. It's simple. Otherwise, it can be challenged and taken out at any time, within policy. Hornplease 06:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that regardless of the validity of your argument, you are focussed on the wrong issue, or at least one of the less important issues. Rather than trying to get the comment regarding antisemitism out of the lead, why haven't you focussed on a) his religious millenarianism, which, as you point out, isn't even in the article, and should be both in the article and the lead, and b) on this statement: but, according to article 113 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Iran, he has less total power than the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is the commander in chief of the armed forces of Iran and has the final word in all aspects of foreign and domestic policies. From what I can tell, this bit of trivia was inserted only to downplay how important Ahmadinejad is in relation setting Iranian policy vis-a-vis attacks (nuclear or otherwise), particularly on Israel. Do academic secondary sources state that he has less power than Khameni, and that this is significant? Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 3

Jayjg, tell me why did you assume "wipe off the map" issue is resolved? Take a close look at the history of the page and the talk page, and tell me how was this issue was established. Through a consensus, or through certain misuses of administrative powers?--Gerash77 04:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Through consensus, of course. Can you specify which administrative powers have been "misused"? That's a very serious charge. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, I changed my mind, putting the the official response of that allegation from his spokesman is not enough (which you reverted it two times), the allegation of antisemitism must be moved from the lead to its appropriate section, and is it really matter who said a point in here?
and about " I suspect it wouldnt be the mess it is", hornplease, I dare you!--Pejman47 23:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I see, now that I provided CNN and BBC sources you asked for, you've changed your mind. Jayjg (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I am some how heart-broken with this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad&diff=129674253&oldid=129618390, there is me, Kribty, The-Behnam, Gerash , Gaff and now Hornplease who thinks that this article is not neutral. But then some user who has not been in this dicussion for at least two months, come up and erase the tag with a misleading edit summery. --Pejman47 23:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The 17 cites provided are more than sufficient to support merely reporting that there are accusations of antisemitism. I find the arguments of Hornplease specifically to be almost surreal - dozens of cites from the world's major news organizations that contain a particular accusation aren't sufficient to source an article statement that says merely that such accusations are being made? This is a novel policy argument if I've ever heard one. The provided sources meet every standard of WP:RS; demanding university-press sources for every disputed statement in an article about a modern political figure is a dodge. We're not discussing Roman history here. - Merzbow 07:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I took pain in explaining why in my view Ahmadinejad's comment on holocaust was purely political. Ahmadinejad said that because of the Israel-Palestine issue. In west those who deny holocaust want Hitler back. These should not be mixed --Aminz 08:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
If you wish to participate in this discussion, please respond to the specific points I made. Hornplease 16:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, what else... Your claim that these newspaper reports are primary sources is also wrong; the primary sources are fact Ahmadinejad's words themselves. It would be a mistake for us to link directly to Ahmadinejad's speeches and claim they are antisemitic, but we are not doing so. The newspapers reports that discuss his words and render accusations of antisemitism are clearly secondary. - Merzbow 17:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
No; those are primary sources that some people consider his remarks anti-semitic. They are not about his speech; they are primary sources about the response to his speech. Hornplease 20:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Simply not correct. This is part of the definition of a primary source from WP:NOR: "Newspaper accounts which contain first-hand material, rather than analysis or commentary of other material..." The cites we are using are specifically analysis and commentary on M.A.'s words. This is part of the definition of a secondary source: "A journalist's analysis or commentary of a traffic accident based on eye-witness reports is a secondary source..." Again, analysis and commentary in a newspaper article is a secondary source. This cannot be any clearer in policy. - Merzbow 20:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Your quotes are unimpeachable in their accuracy. However, their applicability here is mildly different from what you suggest; a report stating that the Canadian foreign minister described the remarks as antisemitic is, using the guide above, not a secondary source about the remarks, but a primary source about the Canadian foreign minister's response to them. With what about that do you disagree? Hornplease 21:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Analysis and commentary is always secondary, I think that's completely clear from NOR. Whether it's usable or not depends on the reliability of the analyzer or commentator. The Canadian foreign minister's response is secondary analysis with him as the RS and M.A's speech as the primary source, as reported via a newspaper article; some journalist saying he thinks M.A. is antisemitic is secondary with the journalist/newspaper as the RS and M.A.'s speech as the primary source. - Merzbow 21:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
You think so? Even if you are right- which you are not - the question then becomes: in the analysis and commentary of MA's remarks, is their anti-semitic nature a minority or majority opinion? Clearly this cannot be answered by citing seventeen sources out of several hundred thousand. You need a secondary source analysing the primary sources of the reaction.
By the way, is the Canadian foreign minister a peer-reviewed publication? Hornplease 21:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
We emphatically do not need to check all 17,000 references to a subject before stating that certain accusations are being made about a subject - all we need are a collection of reliable sources making the accusation. This is all the burden that policy places on us. If we were stating his antisemitism as a fact, then you might have a point. But we aren't. We aren't even stating that this is a majority opinion. We are simply saying that it is a notable opinion. Again, a sufficient collection of reliable sources is all that is necessary to establish notability. - Merzbow 21:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't agree with you more. We aren't supposed to check all the references. That's someone else's job. I can't emphasise enough that a threshold for notability of an accusation has to be higher than 17/17000. And the way that we work out whether or not an accusation is notable enough to be in the lead of an article about a serving head of state is by consulting reliable sources about the individual that mention it as being notable, not about particular accusations; or even reliable sources about the accusations in general that indicate that they are notable accusations levelled at this individual. Simply put, otherwise we're conducting OR. Hornplease 21:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Deciding whether the threshold of notability has been reached is not something we need a source for. In fact, it cannot be so, because even with such a source in hand, we are left, as editors, with the task of deciding on that source's notability. A decision on notability is necessarily an editorial decision made based on the reliabilities of the secondary sources at hand. - Merzbow 22:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, and I don't claim that the reliability of a secondary source is not a estimation we must make. However, the point that I wish to make is that seventeen sources are not in themselves sufficient to indicate notability absent the sort of secondary sources which I have advised. Am I to assume that you concede this point? Hornplease 22:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Unless you can show evidence that academic sources have considered the issue of M.A.'s alleged antisemitism and have rendered a verdict, I won't concede that the provided sources are inadequate. We go with the best sources we have at the time. In twenty years, I'm sure there will be many books published by Harvard and Oxford presses that delve into this issue (like there are today about the rise of Khomeini, Carter's presidency, etc.). But academics are usually circumspect about rendering such verdicts about modern events. - Merzbow 00:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for considering my arguments like this. I don'T know about books from academic presses; you may be right. Since you specifically claim that the bar must be lowered, though (which I don't really agree with - recentism is not acceptable) - peer-reviewed articles in journals like Foreign Affairs or the Journal of Contemporary History, or Diplomatic Review, or Foreign Policy would also qualify. For that matter, a couple of citations even from a New Yorker review of his career, clearly indicating that the allegations of anti-semitism are sufficiently central to his notability. Quite simply, all one requires is a few reliable sources indicating that this interpretation of his remarks belongs in the lead. That's not too much to ask for when we're talking about a widely-covered world leader. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hornplease (talk • contribs) 00:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
the accusation of anti-semitism must be in article, there is no problem with it. don't forget that this discussion is mainly about the lead. He is not known for those allegation in world wide, search "anti-semitism + ahmadinejad". --Pejman47 19:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
That's somewhat of a red herring argument. This is an English encyclopedia, English-language sources are encouraged by policy. And at least in the English-speaking world these accusations are very notable, as shown by the cites. It's not our responsibility to check all Chinese, Hindi, Russian, Iraqi, etc. sources to attack or support a claim of notability. - Merzbow 19:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
it is not "red herring argument", you can search it in english in Google, and in BBC,CNN sites, see the weight of that allegation in the thousands of articles. --Pejman47 19:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

cleanup

  • Who put this here? Read the source and tell me what has this Majlis bill has to do with President Ahmadinejad?

In 2006, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government applied a 50% quota for male students and 50% for female students in the University entrance exam for Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmacy. The plan was supposed to stop the growing presence of female students in the Universities. In a response to critics, Iranian minister of health and medical education, Kamran Bagheri Lankarani argued that there is not enough facilities such as dormitories for female students. Masoud Salehi, president of Zahedan University said that presence of women generates some problems with transportation. Also Ebrahim Mekaniki, president of Babol University of Medical Sciences stated that an increase in the presence of women will make it difficult to distribute facilities in a suitable manner. Bagher Larijani, the president of Tehran University of Medical Sciences made similar remarks. According to Rooz Online, the quotas lack a legal foundation and are justified as support for "family" and "religion."[1]

  • We've never heard of this student and his supposed followers. It seems to be claim by this person himself, totally lacking verification.

An organization numbering 12,000 students led by student leader Abbas Fakhr-Avar, living in exile in the United States, opposes Ahmadinejad and hopes to topple his government.[2]

removed--Gerash77 23:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ynetnews is a reliable source though.--Sefringle 23:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
For Iran articles, no. Thats like quoting an Iranian newspaper on Israel.
WARNING: You blindly reverted my cleanup, contrary to wikipedia guidelines, unless you adhere to the policies, you will be reported and may be blocked from further editing wikipedia.--Gerash77 23:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. Al Jazeera is brought on pages having to do with Israel
  2. Your edits were full of words like "landslide win", "...becuase of the joy felt...", you can hardly pretend that this was neutral

Edits that make article-wide changes in connotation and denotation need to be discussed and nott performed unilaterally, unless they are violations of wiki policy such as BLP or OR corrections. I too can put "Warning" in bold if you wish, but I shant -- Avi 00:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You are reverting what was already discussed above. It seems some supporters of the so-called reformers have inserted many POV edits into the article. To address your concern, I won't change the lead, but revert the rest of the article to reinsert the citation requests, correction of spelling and grammar, and removal of weasel words. If you feel one of the issue is unfounded, please tell me so.--Gerash77 00:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
No, what you are refering to was never "previously discussed. And you can't revert the changes right now. you already made 3 reverts.--Sefringle 01:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I still have one more revert. So, please explain why did you put the wrong claim of 50% quota, when the source says it's a bill proposed by some MPs and not the government? Furthermore, why did you remove the "elderly" word as the sources say? Please undo your changes. --Gerash77 01:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
No, you clearly now made 4 reverts. The rule says 3 reverts within a 24 hour period to one article. You clearly made more than 3 to this article. Creative counting to ignore reverts doesn't work. I removed eldery because it is better the other way.--Sefringle 01:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, if your only problem is the removal of the 12000 follower claim, then reinsert the issue with a source citing a third party, not the person himself. If he tells the truth, then you can easily find what he claims. until so, its a doubtful argument and contrary to the WP:LIVING--Gerash77 01:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Ynetnews is a third party source--Sefringle 01:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
No. Look at the article: "the Ayatollah regime" "Former President Khatami. 'He was a lie'" (this one I agree with) "President Ahmadinejad. 'Stupid'" ... which part of these Jewish propaganda can be called a reliable source?--Gerash77 01:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed this person talks about toppling the "Ayatollah regime", not just the Ahmadinejad's government, so it is irrelevant here in this article. The only thing he says about Ahmadinejad (PhD) is that "Ahmadinejad is stupid." Do you want to put those words instead?--Gerash77 01:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle unexplained edits

  • he was elected Mayor of Tehran => he was appointed - Mayors are elected by city council not appointed by an learned elder. Please explain your reversion.
  • elderly Iranian scientists -> "numerous Iranian..." - contrary to the source which state the former
  • Uncited and wrong claim of 50% quota - this one is just outright vandalism

Please explain yourself. Thanks.--Gerash77 01:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle's refusal to respond

It seems that Sefringle is misusing his support from certain internationally renowned admins to vandalize the article contrary to the WP:LIVING The following is simply wrong, let alone uncited:

  • Uncited and wrong claim of 50% quota - one whole paragraph
  • Uncited claim that a student leader wants to topple Ahmadinejad's government
  • changing back elderly Iranians... -> "numerous Iranian..." - contrary to the source which state the former

Unfortunately the admins here not only do not stop this editor, but force other editors who try to fix his vandalism into blockage, contrary to WP:IGNORE. I added proper tags until the situation is resolved.--Gerash77 20:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In WP, you can delete every thing disputed that is not supported by the references or references provided for it say something opposite, and no body (even and Admin!) can stop you doing that, unless he/she bring some sources for it. It is a general rule --Pejman47 20:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You know I tried that, and was reported by Jay for 3RR, resulting in my block. Please don't remove the tags. It's the least we can do to inform the readers of the material in question. Thanks.--Gerash77 20:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I have reported his situation on [11] hoping to see the person involved receive at least a warning. The discussion might be relevant to tags currently in place.--Gerash77 00:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Firings of scientists and other disputes.

There appears to be a dispute over whether "numerous" scientists were fired or "elderly scientists" were fired. There are disuptes over anti-semitic comments and attitudes. Ther are disputes over whether the city council "appointed" or "elected". Likely there are several others. For the time being, the disputed header should remain. —Gaff ταλκ 20:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Archiving this page

Avi was kind enough to archive this page; even the archived version is almost 75k. No doubt much more should be archived, but this will do for now. Please don't disruptively un-archive the page again. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

wipe off the map - final solution

It seems that the "western" medias' censorship of the Iranian response to the is taking its toll on certain arabs as well, resulting in repeated clarifications, showing the power of the "western" media, and the reason a few certain admins have been trying so hard to remove Iran's response to their "wipe off the map" claim:

Off the wires: full news Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erakat tells Iran to abandon calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

I'll add the Iranian response, and just to let you know, will revert certain known editors attempt to remove Iran's response, in the interest of a neutral encyclopedia. I ask other neutral editors to do this as well, certain POVs have been pushed for so long and the controversial side of the "western" media can come out now :)--Gerash77 15:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Your own theories as to the power, extent, and control of your "western" media, regardless of how true or false it is, is nothing more than original research. Re-adding inappropriate information to the lead of the article will be reverted to maintain wikipedia policy and guideline. The Iranian response belongs in the text, not the lead; please do not try and push POV editing under the disingenuous guise of NPOV editing. Thank you. -- Avi 15:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
When you include your side's claim, per WP:NPOV, the response from the side that you despise must be included as well.
Please note that your claim of "wipe off the map" is now spreading to Arab media. Hence, this is no longer a western issue that I can sit and laugh at. So please be patient as we both attempt to work this out.--Gerash77 16:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Iran has repeatedly rejected the allegations that Ahmadinejad has stated 'Israel must be wiped off the map'.

[3][4] --Gerash77 16:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, someone else's apologies for MA himself do not belong in the lead. MA's own statements, such as "I respect Jews very much" IS in the lead. One fuctionary's attempt at spin-control, unverified and disregarded by the rest of the (evil/Zionistic/brainwashed/Western/Insert epithet of choice) media, including the Arab media, does not belong in the lead, but in the further discussion of the quote. Please refrain from further violating NPOV rules here at wikipedia. -- Avi 16:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no apology, there is a response coming from government,--Gerash77 16:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Call it what you will, it already exists in the article in its proper place, the "Anti-Israel statements" section. Some functionary's response does not belong in the Ahmadinejad lead. -- Avi 16:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

it is a response and must be included as well in the lead per WP:NPOV.--Gerash77 16:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, incorrect. It is a response by someone else to try and spin MA's statement; it is not a response by MA himself. It also goes against the vast majority of the citations, including those of Arab media, so its presence in the lead is a violation or WP:NPOV#undue weight. It belongs in the detailed discussion section, where it currently is. Any further trying to magnify this statement seems to me to be nothing more than Ahmadinejad apologetics (I do like alliteration), or, in wiki-terms, POV editing. -- Avi 16:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

you used to say wipe off the map is correct, because it hasn't been challenged by anyone. it's an incorrect translation as seen from repeated responses. hence you are very wrong--Gerash77 17:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not an incorrect translation when it has been verified by scores of media outlets (including Al Jazeera). However, it is an embarrassment to Ahmadinejad, and it is understandable why members of his government would be interested in spinning after the fact; heck, that happens in the US all the time too. However, it still does not change the fact that ex post facto spin-doctoring, especially by someone else, is completely not leadworthy in the article about Ahmadinejad. Maybe in the article about the statement itself, but that is not here. -- Avi 17:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you are incorrect yet again, I am afraid. Iran has repeatedly rejected the allegations that Ahmadinejad has stated 'Israel must be wiped off the map', as did some sources even inside the western media who dared to speak out about this--Gerash77 17:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

One person in Iran, who is not Ahmadinejad himself. You may wish to re-read the 60 Minutes transcript in which Ahmadinejad was afforded the opportunity to back-down or explain his statement, and he did not. Regardless, it is unquestionably clear that the vast majority of reliable sources on this incident support the translation as it stands now, and WP:NPOV#undue weight prohibits us from magnifying one outlier to special status. -- Avi 17:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you are incorrect yet again. Ahmadinejad responded by saying he wants Palestinians to be allowed back home and be given a free election. This very obvious response rebukes the "western media" claim. Although I am aware of censorship of Ahmadinejad's proposal in "the western media", but the words are obvious nevertheless.--Gerash77 17:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

And around and around we go -- Avi 17:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
To begin with, it is not the role of Wikipedia to counter what you see as Western influence on Arab media. Second, a statement by Iran is not a statement by Ahmadinejad; as you have insisted, the lead itself points out that Ali Khamenei has more power than him. More importantly, as has been explained on the Talk: page perhaps 100 times now, and likely even more, what was notable was the controversial statements "wiped off the map", not the feeble excuses that the Iranian government invented and everyone sensible rightfully ignored. We had an agreement, including you, that the way we would deal with this issue was by linking "Wiped off the map" to the article discussing the differing opinions about the translation - why are you reneging on our agreement? Perhaps we should unlink the phrase now, since you've broken that agreement. As to what he actually meant, read this. That's another thing that will soon have to go into the lead, if we keep seeing this kind of disgraceful whitewashing and attempts to use Wikipedia to further your political goals. Jayjg (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


Jayjg, dear some parts of what you say is correct! but please it is as stated before, he is an important government official. and whenever some politician say something that he or his bosses finds stupid, they simply deny that; even though it was recorded! you should give space to the official responses, every reader with normal IQ will find if it is real and what that denial means.--Pejman47 18:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
As has been explained over 100 times, the controversy around the phrase "wiped off the map" was notable; the feeble responses from the Iranian government that everyone ignored were not. Jayjg (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
that response was also broadcasted in the mainstream media, over and over. and for a neutral lead it must be there. again: no reader with normal IQ after reading that denial will think that quote was a "conspiracy" and he really didn't say that. He will think that he or his bosses have regretted that. and as I said above that response is notable. --Pejman47 19:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
that response was also broadcasted in the mainstream media, over and over. You've made this claim before, but never backed it up. Where was it broadcast in the mainstream media "over and over"? Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know your definition of "mainstream media", but I think two sources that Gerash put there are all important "mainstream media", and for a neutral lead it must be there--Pejman47 19:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
You said "over and over"? What have you got, besides France24 and the Pakistan Daily Times? Jayjg (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether the response was notble in-and-of-itself is both disputed and irrelevant to this article; it was not notable vis-a-vis Ahmadinejad himself. Neither did he make this apology/spin/explanation, nor does he make any reference to this apology/spin/explanation. In the article on HIM, it does not belong in the lead, but it belongs in the detatiled discussion of that statement. -- Avi 19:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

really, I tried but failed to understand what you meant by saying that response is irrelevant. He is government official and when his spokesman or other parts of Government says something, it is the same as he himself said that.
you don't know the politics, if he said he regretted that it may seems that he is weak. And you don't know either the Iranian culture, the face saving sometimes (always) is much more important than the outcome. that denial and his silence about that denial, and the fact that it was not repeated after that denial, is enough for any wise political reviewer to conclude. --Pejman47 19:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

All completely and totally your opinion as to what happened, and unacceptable as original research. -- Avi 20:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

we are not discussing my political beliefs!, my edit in above was just a response to your questions. but what Gerash put in the article was NOT original research; he only quoted some main stream media.--Pejman47 20:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Ahmadinejad hasn't responded, though, nor has he ever made a reference to it. This is an article about him, not about government spokespeople. Jayjg (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
is it necessary to again remind you that he is high ranking official and what his spokesman and his foreign ministry and aides says have the same meaning?--Pejman47 20:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I also feel that unless such a statement is explicitly made by his office or in his name, putting it in the lead grants undue weight. It certainly deserves space below. If perhaps a greater hubbub by the international media is made about these new statements, I might be inclined to alter my position. Cheers, TewfikTalk 21:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Just on a brief look through the article I notice it says "He has been condemned internationally" ref the wipe off the map comments whereas the references given all appear to me to either condemn his call to wipe Israel off the map (which isn't the same as condemning him) or condemn both this and his Holocaust remarks at the same time. Is there a source which says HE was condemned internationally (which would be rather more serious) just for the map wipe gaff? --BozMo talk 20:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand - what's the difference? He has been condemned because he called for Israel to be wiped off the map. Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between condemning an action and condemning a person. Condemning a person is making an overall judgement about them, condemning their call for xyz is saying that they shouldn't have said xyz. An MP can condemn the action of a minister but still oppose a vote of no confidence in them. However if he condemns the minister for the action he would be expected to vote "no confidence". This allows the French to condemn a call to wipe Israel off the map whilst actually remaining very good pals with the person who said it. Welcome to the world of diplomatic langauge --BozMo talk 06:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
you say He has been condemned because he called for Israel to be wiped off the map.: perhaps but I don't see it in the references (at least not "internationally").
So can I change "He has been condemned internationally[7] for "calling for Israel to be 'wiped off the map,'"[7][8][9] and describing the Holocaust as a "myth",[7][10] leading to accusations of antisemitism.[11]" to "His call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map,[7][8][9]' and description of the Holocaust as a "myth",[7][10] have been condemned internationally, and led to accusations of antisemitism.[11]"? The meaning is completely different and seems much truer to the sources? --BozMo talk 18:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell the meaning is identical. I've now provided a bunch of sources that say he himself was condemned internationally. Here's one, for example: Ahmadinejad has been condemned internationally after denying the Holocaust, and calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map." Jayjg (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I am happy with your sources. Maybe its a US English usage thing but I am happy for Wikipedia to follow the US media on the issue. Do you think the sentences "I dislike your tie" and "I dislike you because of your tie" are identical too :) ?--BozMo talk 12:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
If wikipedia's endeavour is to provide unbiased and objective information for the general public, then I don't believe this article, especially the lead, is up to wikipedia's general standard. I know I am new, and haven't been here for much of the conversation, but speaking as a completely objective third-person with no emotional ties to this issue, I believe that the opening paragraph is overly biased against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The way I see it is this; there is more to MA than simply his 'wipe Israel off the map' moment-and while it was controversial, it is important to keep in mind that most of the controversy was actually over whether he said it or not. And if you are going to include the 'wipe Israel' statement, then you must present the arguments from the opposite side of the room, that is the response from the Iranian government, or MA himself, and the claims that he was misinterpreted. If you insist on including the 'wipe Israel' statement-which I frankly think isn't important enough to merit the lead-but not to provide any contradiction or alternative views, then you are leaning heavily against MA. I don't condone what he did or didn't say in general, but I do believe that it is the responsibility of an international encyclopaedia which has thousands of visitors every day, to be as unbiased as possible. And to be unbiased, on an issue such as MA, which is obviously going to be contraversial, is to represent as many sides of the story as possible, and let the reader make up their own mind. Because after all, a lot of people take what Wikipedia says very seriously, and I would hate to think that we were negatively influencing people's opinion of MA by twisting his words and omitting information simply to benefit a minority.Quibbler321 13:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What does the "western" claim of "wipe off the map" mean?

One has to notice why is it that the west *cough* insist on censoring, or per Jay "ignoring" Iran and Ahmadinejad response to this claim? It means to annihilate by a devastation, such as an earthquake, nuclear bomb etc... (see examples of usage for Hiroshima: hiroshima + "wiped off the map"

This is why a few people, who I am told not to say of what background they are, have tried unbelievably hard to remove this from the lead.

You must choose to include Ahmadinejad's response to this claim, by including his whole explanation regarding this phrase in the interview with Mike Wallace, or to include a short sentence of his governments explanation regarding this phrase. Please be ready to use your own logic.

Last summer, in a conversation with Avi, he finally accepted to use the phrase "Occupying regime" per Ahmadinejad rather than "Israel". Once everyone was gone after this new consensus, the same hoax was reverted.--Gerash77 06:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Other issues:

Look how the Internet works out against their monopoly: Search "wipe off the map" on google [12] * The first page are all regarding this hoax... the response to the hoax gets better ranking that translation of the phrase [13][14]... makes the blood of some people boil, doesn't it?!

  • In response to Tewfik, Ahmadinjad's own website, made note of "wipe away" not your hoax "wipe off the map", hence your argument is nullified. Furthermore, as pointed above, you can write Ahmadinejad's personal own response to Wallace explaining his words, right in your lead, per WP:NPOV.--Gerash77 06:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
There are plenty of articels on google that are not reliable soruces. Answers.com is just a copy of wikipedia, so that can't be taken as a reliable source. Thefreedictionary is just another search engine; doesn't prove anything. Third, the views of the interior minister are not necessarily Ahmadinejad's views; the Iranian government is not run exclusively by Ahmadinejad. So really, you porved nothing.--Sefringle 01:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yet another response today: Mottaki: Israel won't be wiped off map - I wonder how much Jayjg and Avi's years of work on the lead of this article had effect on the world "ignoring" Iranian response. Surely, the era of journalistic hoaxes are over. It's no longer 1940s...--Gerash77 19:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The source says Iran's foreign minister doesn't want to wipe Israel off the map. It says nothing about Ahmadinejad's beliefs.--Sefringle 01:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Please stop formulating conspiracy theories directed at Wikipedia editors, and please stop making even more comments about "what background they are". Jayjg (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought I'd try chiming in. Hopefully, I won't be bitten too harshly! I think what he means to say, albeit lacking in eloquence, is that he sees a potential conflict of interest when evidently pro-Israeli editors argue for the insertion of somewhat, shall we say, contentious material. I do fault him for using the (unverified?) religious backgrounds of other editors editors as a pretense for assuming bad faith, and it can indeed be seen as a form of personal attack, but there's an important lesson for all sides in question; being a Jewish editor does not inherently make one a zionist POV pusher, and being anti-zionist does not inherently make one antisemitic. Holocaust denial (please note that I don't use bullshit term 'revisionism') is not explicitly antisemitic either. Association fallacy makes fools of us all. I'm in agreement with user:Hornplease regarding the sources in question; the allegations of antisemitism are primary to those sources, as it has yet to be established as fact. Given WP:BLP, and in light of Ahmadinejad's position, Hornplease is correct with regards to the necessary standards of the sources used to make such claims. Though completely unnecessary, since backgrounds have been called into question, and to demonstrate the flaws of presuppositions of which, I'm a moderately pro-zionist arab atheist. Cheers. -Etafly 16:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought the only difference between revisions are including or not including that sentence in the lead, so, I reverted to Gerash; so,the sources added by Jayjg was also deleted. sorry.
Avi, If you are going to delete that from the lead (due to undue weight that I don't agree) at least re-add it in an appropriate section. --Pejman47 08:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It has been explained to you many times why your WP:UNDUE insertion of statements not made by Ahmadinejad nor commented on by him are inappropriate. Please do not insert them again, even if Gerash feels he must use Wikipedia as a vehicle for overcoming some sort of Western conspiracy to poison the minds of Arabs against Ahamdinejad. Jayjg (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think your interpretation of WP:UNDUE is correct on this matter. You can't claim that the Iranian government is not a reliable source. As it stands, the lead is POV because it only gives one side of the story. Lixy 16:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The claims of the Iranian government, as stated earlier, are neither Ahmadinejad's views, nor were they commented on by Ahmadinejad. His own response was to say he was not "anti-Jew". In addition, also as stated many times, Ahmadinjad's call for Israel's destruction got a huge response worldwide, but the comments of the Iranian foreign minister did not. It's in the article itself, but it's not significant enough for the lead. Jayjg (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Please read the section on Anti-Israeli statements; the Iranian minister's response is already there. Any other non-Ahmadinejad responses belong there as well. -- Avi 13:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, you simply just revert anything that you don't like in this article. The fact that a good portion of the attendance of that conference was Holocaust believers can be found even in sources you put that or by searching in BBC or CNN websites. But still you reverted it by calling it "original research."
This situation can not last for ever. I will request a formal mediation for this dispute. Please all of you go and say if you agree with it or not --Pejman47 19:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
What in the world is a "Holocaust believer?" --Leifern 20:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I have protected the article for 1 week for edit warring. We will have to wait and see what mediation comes up with. Sr13 19:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
To add, here is the mediation discussion. Sr13 19:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Sr13, you forgot to add the protection template so that people know the page is protected.--Sefringle 19:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that; I figured that the lock was enough, but I guess not :) Sr13 20:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Mottaki has clarified - this is a nonissue now: "Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki denied on Saturday that he had been referring to Israel when he told journalists at the World Economic Forum in Jordan that "a nation cannot be wiped off the map." TewfikTalk 19:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik, as I mentioned previously, you may opt for Ahmadinejad's own response to this "western" (cough again) hoax:
TIME: You have been quoted as saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Was that merely rhetoric, or do you mean it?
Ahmadinejad: Our suggestion is that the 5 million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government. This is a democratic and popular way.
Once again: the era of "western" (achem) journalistic hoaxes are over. It's no longer 1940s :)--Gerash77 20:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
furthermore, Mottaki was speaking in Persian, comparing todays "Israeli regime" to the former South African regime, which wasn't in English term "wiped off the map". hence, your hoax is irrelevant here, "After the collapse of the apartheid regime in South Africa, Iran [now had] very good ties with that country." --Gerash77 20:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "your hoax", but if you are saying that I'm somehow attempting some nefarious conspiracy, you mind want to reevaluate. If the entire world is mistranslating Mottaki, well then Wikipedia will have to reflect that translation. TewfikTalk 21:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  1. "The entire world" is not mistranslating Mottaki. Its only one Jewish newspaper. The IRNA itself translated Mottaki as talking about elimination of the zionist regime, not Israeli newspaper's typical "Israel" and "wipe off the map" propaganda.
  2. Regading the hoax that you are backing... since his own government and website are "WP:UNDUE"!!!, I am still waiting for your response regarding Ahmadinejads own response to what he meant, mentioned above --Gerash77 22:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I just realized you might say Ahmadinejad's own response is "WP:UNDUE" as well, since this contradicts "western media" (cough as always) widely alleged quote. Is this what you want to do as well?--Gerash77 22:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Since you referred once again to your bizarre "western media" conspiracy theory, I ignored your comments as meaningless disruption. Jayjg (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Conspiracy or not, you can't ignore the WP:NPOV policy of wiki forever!--Gerash77 06:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Please review Begging the question. Jayjg (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Translation of "wipe off the map"!!

Now you guys are desperately trying, even disputing the translation of this phrase! Here you go Sefringle, is Cambridge good enough for you? [15]--Gerash77 00:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know what "wipe off the map" means. You apparently didn't read my comment. What Mottaki said is irrelevant to this article, as Mottaki is not Ahmadinejad. Mottaki was speaking for the country as a whole, not for Ahmadinejad. You are taking what he said out of context.--Sefringle 01:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
As you know this was your first and second "points" above. Now that you know the phrase, and changed to a different topic, you should read my comments on previous days to include EITHER full President's response OR his government's response. I opted for the second, as noted because it was shorter, but since you guys are back in full force, I opt for the longer and more revealing information about the homeless people of Palestine in the lead, for the purpose of explaining his own words. Anything else?!--Gerash77 02:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you show me the link to the origional source so it can be verified for context and accuracy?--Sefringle 03:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on: nor all your piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all your tears wash out a word of it. But maybe that is not what it says in the original Persian. Tom Harrison Talk 02:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In the original Persian it actually says "digit of the hand" rather than "finger", so it means something completely different, but the western press (cough) keeps promoting this rumor that it says "finger". Jayjg (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, since you guys are claiming his own government responses are undue!, this will be irrelevant to you anyway. but his own response is not, and is to be included. is there an agreement or does jayjg want to continue the finger thing?--Gerash77 06:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide some evidence that he actually said these things, like a link? Or is this one of these obscure interviews that goes unreported on the internet?--Sefringle 06:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Your response suggests you support the NPOV considering it is cited, unless you are trying to find a diversion: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1535777-2,00.html now I'll wait for the mighty and unchallengeable jayjg!--Gerash77 07:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Please review WP:CIVIL, and restrict your comments to discussion of article material, not other editors. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I am guessing you don't have any response for your behaviour, by your comments. Now admiring people is uncivil as well, who knew.--Gerash77 03:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that Ahmadinejad's quote on this matter have been translated and parsed so many times by so many people that there can not possibly be a dispute that he thought things would be better if Israel no longer existed. I'll grant that he didn't specify how that should happen, or what would the fate of the people who consider themselves Israeli; but it is also pretty clear that Ahmadinejad would prefer to present a radical, anti-Israeli face in one direction and a moderate impression in the other. I'm not saying that this perspective should be central in the article, but it is unreasonable to give a patently unreasonable quote the benefit of being reasonable. As for all these allegations about the (cough) Western press, I think it's cute but wholly unconvincing. --Leifern 02:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop your WP:OR statements. The lead says he has been condemned for calling 'Israel to be wiped off the map'. We have already established what 'wipe off the map' means. Per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, his response to this claim must be included right where it is alleged. I also think it was cute the way some editors removed his, and his government's response to this claim for 2 years, but I won't let this article to be a propaganda point for certain point of views any longer. Please rest assured :)--Gerash77 03:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
What OR? And what claim? He said what he said. It is not the Western media's fault that he said it and there happens to be people in the world who can translate it. --Leifern 10:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
We haven't determined what it means at all, nor is it in our purview to do so. Your attempts to use this article to "right" the "wrongs" of the "western (cough) press" are against the purpose of Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 04:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Now that we know the exact context of the quote, it is pretty clear that he hasn't exactly refuted his statements that Israel should be wiped off the map. He is only claiming that a better idea would be to have some major election. Nowhere does he say he no longer intends to destroy Israel. The only thing he is saying is that later, the palestinians should return and "vote" on a new government. His actual intentions are not clear. This contradicts his earlier beliefs. I think he is making political lies to try to look good, knowing the intended audience is Americans. --Sefringle 04:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
His response is to be included, regardless how you want to "feel" regarding the issue.
We have already established what 'wipe off the map' means. This is his response to 'wipe off the map' issue, also previously rejected in interview with Wallace, and the words clearly rejects the meaning of "wipe of the map". My personal views, remains my own, so please do not attack my beliefs regarding Western media, and use them as an attack to wipe off my edits. Please WP:AGF--Gerash77 04:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, we cannot establish what "wiped off the map" means; Wikipedia does not establish meanings. His words in the interviews were, as is typical with politicians trying to cover themselves, mealy-mouthed and vague, and in any event received no coverage outside the publications that printed them. Too wordy and unclear, and not notable enough for a lead, I'm afraid. Jayjg (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
"Wipe off the map" is his widely quoted phrase, and his response to this will be given in the lead im afraid.--Gerash77 06:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, "Wiped off the map" was widely cited and criticized around the world, but his unclear statements in Time magazine were not. Wikipedia has to go with what is notable in the lead, per WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE, and apparently no-one noticed what he said in Time magazine. And don't be afraid, there's no need to fear. Jayjg (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
there is a reason to fear some, from what you read on the forums and weblogs dedicated to some these days.
It is his response and it is relevant. invocation of wp:undue is your pov and in contrary to wp:blp and wp:npov, i am sure you amongst others might know that--Gerash77 09:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Gerash77, you talk about his "response" as if he has had only two things to say about the matter: the original point and his "response." In truth, he and other Iranian leaders talk about Israel (or whatever the euphemism du jour is) all the time, and it's rarely in moderate terms. The "wipe off the map" comment is only one such comment, but an extreme one. If you read articles about other politicians in Wikipedia, you'll see that what they say on the record stays on the record, notwithstanding their attempts at backpedaling or clarifying. --Leifern 10:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Leifern makes an excellent point; Ahmadinejad has said all sorts of stuff about Israel. Which of his statements have been notable, though? I can find hundreds of references in the worldwide press to his "wiped off the map" statement, but where can I find any references to his statements in Time magazine, besides Time magazine itself? Apparently no-one noticed those particular statements, which is why WP:UNDUE applies. It's not a matter of opinion; if you can find hundreds of sources referring to his statements in Time, then they too will deserve to go in the lead. Jayjg (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:BLP is clear in regards to issues like this. Surely you of all people should know. It is his response to this widely reported quote. His response therefore has nothing to do with undue weight, as you seem amazingly seem to claim--Gerash77 21:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, now it's WP:BLP? Please quote the section you believe is relevant. Jayjg (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

‌BLP and NPOV clearly state the matters of criticism and the responses from the other side. Why are you denying this?--Gerash77 21:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please quote the specific sentences you believe apply here. Jayjg (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The article in its entirety is about this issue. WP:NPOV. Your claim wp:udue, is not only funny but also violates the whole NPOV, I am sure you have the capacity to understand that given your intellectual level.--Gerash77 22:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Please quote the specific section or sentence of WP:BLP you feel is relevant to this situation. As for WP:NPOV, I've already explained the part of that that is relevant to Ahmadinejad's interview with Time magazine: WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Again BLP puts high emphasis on neutrality as mentioned, much more than NPOV, whose Undue policy is only about minority views, not the view of the person in question itself. If someone said said "Olmert is gay" that would be undue, since it is not claimed by himself, nor by many sources.--Gerash77 22:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Please quote the specific section or sentence of WP:BLP you feel is relevant to this situation. Jayjg (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned, based on BLP-criticism, the critics point of view can be categorized as wp:undue; and surely not the person response, unless the person is undue as well, contrary to the fact that the person has an article on wiki. You are saying Ahmadinejad's own response is "WP:UNDUE" as well, since this contradicts the more popular view of the medias. As you may figure out by your own rationale, this is absurd beyond being weird. Do you understand?--Gerash77 00:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Gerash, our policy on biographies say we must take special care with verifiability and neutrality, and avoid original research. Our policy on neutrality says this involves representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. The section on undue weight says the article should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." This has gone back and forth for a while now. Maybe you should take your concerns to the BLP noticeboard. Tom Harrison Talk 01:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
You are completely correct regarding these policies. Currently a mediation has been filed by Pejman, so I guess that has to be dealt with first before a BLP report.--Gerash77 06:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Please quote the specific section or sentence of WP:BLP you feel is relevant to this situation. Jayjg (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Please read previous responses before replying, Thanks: As mentioned, based on BLP-criticism, the critics point of view can be categorized as wp:undue; and surely not the person response, unless the person is undue as well, contrary to the fact that the person has an article on wiki. You are saying Ahmadinejad's own response is "WP:UNDUE" as well, since this contradicts the more popular view of the medias. As you may figure out by your own rationale, this is absurd beyond being weird. Do you understand?--Gerash77 23:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a fresh analysis of the "wiped off the map" issue: --Shoshoni 14:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not a "fresh analysis", that's the same old propaganda from the same extremist sources. "Antiwar.com" hardly qualified as reliable. Jayjg (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Using words like "same old proganda" and "extremist sources" is NOT an argument. The source is reliable, and like it or not, just because you say something doesn't make it true. Also, why is it that anyone who has a different opinion from yours has to be a propaganda-pusher? Do you even speak Farsi? If not, do us a favour and temper your language please. Lixy 19:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Really? What makes the antiwar.com a reliable source? Is it peer-reviewed, for example? Does it have a strong policy of editorial oversight? And what about Arash Norouzi? Is this self-proclaimed genius of faces a well-known academic? Respected journalist? Please be specific. Jayjg (talk) 05:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Admin Jayjg, should you be reminded of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF on every session? I would thank you for assuming good faith and not using "same old proganda" and "extremist sources" henceforth...--Gerash77 23:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Gerash, please review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, since the clearly don't say what you think they do. Jayjg (talk) 05:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is another place where his comments are presented on Wikipedia. I think the section is quite neutral. Perhaps the information there could be moved to this article. There seems to be too much information regarding him in the linked article that should be part of this article, anyway. --Sgarlatm 15:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant for the readers, right? Well, as a reader, and, as I said before in my previous post, as a third-party reader who came across this article because I was simply interested, I would like to see MA's response stay in the lead. I don't believe it is right to present one side of the story and not the other. I elaborate more on that in my other post, but I wanted to repeat it here as well. Give readers the chance to make up their own mind about the 'wiping Israel' quote by giving them all the information without discrimination. And that information includes MA's response to the 'wiping Israel' translation. Don't make up your own mind first and then try and influence the article to reflect that. It's not right, and shouldn't be allowed on an international encyclopaedia which reaches so many people across the world, especially when it refers to someone who is currently the President of a nation. Quibbler321 13:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I get the impression you are quibbling. Jayjg (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
OK then, try this on for size: Caught Red-Handed: Media Backtracks on Iran's 'Threat' --Shoshoni 11:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge request: Plans_for_military_attacks_against_Iran

There is currently an AfD on the related Plans_for_military_attacks_against_Iran article. It may be best to merge the contents of this other article into this article where appropriate. --70.51.234.169 23:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Image

Apparently the image has been deleted. Must not be PD. Can someone find a fair use image that can be used for this article?--Sefringle 04:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have, but I think it would be better to let Jayjg find it, for obvious reasons.--Gerash77 06:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Huh? What reasons would those be? Jayjg (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you own the license to Mossad surveillance photos. *Ducks* :> -Etafly 14:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
;-) Jayjg (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know Jay worked for Mossad. Doesn't this create WP:COI? --Gerash77 21:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
If you're interested in Mossad members, you should be looking at the Mossad membership list. You might also want to review the secret Mossad plans to subvert Wikipedia, using its classified weaponry and disinformation techniques. Jayjg (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The article that you provided is too long and I will take a look at it later. But I seems that you are accusing many Jewish editors of being members of Mossad without any proof, a libellous accusation. You must apologize, or I'll have to report you--Gerash77 21:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
ROFLOL. Gerash, that was a good one! -- Avi 02:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the deleted image with another image. -- Avi 16:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Avi, about one years ago, there was a bitter discussion about the copyright status of Iranian Pics between some users (mainly as I remember: User:Zereshk and User:Armandeh) Finally Jimbo decided on behalf of later: "WP should honor the copyright laws of Iran" (or something like that) for more info contact User:Armandeh.
and I am really angry for the fact that you used one of your admin privileges for editing an article which you are part of its dispute. --Pejman47 18:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
What, was there an argument about the image now? He was simply replacing a dead image with a live one; this is an attempt to make trouble where there is none. Jayjg (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
the main point of the above post was that "the used image is unfree, it must be deleted from the article." and it is much better when an article is locked, not to edit it, till getting consensus for it and or at least wait for at least one day for complaints to arrive--Pejman47 22:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Now you are being somewhat illogical. Part of being an administrator is "janitorial" duties. Important articles are better served with pictures, and this one lost its picture. Part of my responsibility here in wikipedia is to fix those issues. Please point out where exactly my admin rights were used to gain the upper hand in a content issue? Have fun looking, as I do not think you will be able to find one. Upholding wikipedia policies and guidelines and making janitorial corrections to articles is what I am supposed to be doing. Your trying to make an issue out of one where there is none strikes me, unfortunately, as completely misled. I am sorry that you are "angry", but my responsibility is to wikipedia, not to you personally. -- Avi 02:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, about that.
but still that picture is not free, I will search to find a free one.--Pejman47 02:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Technically, it is free in the US, but if you can find one that is free worldwide, that would be great! -- Avi 02:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a copyrighted image in Iran and we should respect every single country's copyright law. WP:C#Afghanistan, Bhutan, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Nepal, San Marino, Yemen Hessam 20:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It is still acceptable as fair use as a {{promophoto}} I believe, until someone can supload a free-use photograph. -- Avi 03:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it's first published in Iran, It's just copyrighted inside Iran. Iran has no fair use law for images. Hessam 08:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Please cite the particular section of policy that requires us to observe the draconian copyright laws of countries that we don't even have a diplomatic relationship with. - Merzbow 08:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
See Copyright Policy. Hessam 11:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
So we should operate according to the most restrictive copyright laws of any nation in the word to avoid any possibility of conflict? Frankly, that's ridiculous. Fair use policy makes no mention of us having to observe foreign laws that ban the practice. - Merzbow 17:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in, but Merzbow, we respect copyrights, or else Wikipedia could get in legal issues. The United States of America respects the copyright laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran (and so does every nation in the UN, AFAIK). Wikipedia's servers are located in Florida, meaning it must abide by the laws of the United States. This has nothing to do with Iran's laws, and everything to do with the right of a nation to impose its own laws. Why do you think a publishing house in China has to respect UK copyrights?--0rrAvenger 19:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

From what is being said, Iran has no fair use laws. So why aren't we respecting their laws by completely banning fair-use in Wikipedia? Because to take the principle of respecting the national laws of all countries to its absurd conclusion would be to destroy the encyclopedia. I'm pretty sure that Iran and other Muslim countries have laws against defaming Islam as well, but I see no outcry against censoring articles to satisfy these laws. - Merzbow 21:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyrights are an exception. Copyrights are part of international law. Or else someone who invents something in France won't receive the fruits of his labor! Do you seriously want the UN to start sanctioning Wikipedia? ;)

On a more serious note:

Copyright laws are standardized through international conventions such as the Berne Convention in some countries and are required by international organizations such as European Union or World Trade Organization from their member states.

From Copyright. The precedent you are trying to set is disastrous.--0rrAvenger 22:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The key word is "standardized". Is fair use standardized or not? If not, then we have the moral choice to either respect or not respect the laws of other nations as we see fit, much like laws against blasphemy. - Merzbow 00:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is something particularly strange about the copyright

situation in Iran, we should generally respect Iranian copyright law as best we can, the same as we do for other countries around the world.

The situation with respect to treaties or non-treaties with the US seems to me to have very little impact on this. As always, we have to balance various factors in thoughtful ways. Simply saying "Well, this is legal under US law, so let's do it" is not a very compelling argument.

A similar situation exists with "fair use". Fair use doctrine is significantly better in the US than in other jurisdictions, which is a fine thing, but German Wikipedia, for example, follows more restrictive German law on this point. Why? Because part of our goal is re-use in Germany.

--Jimbo

King Jimbo hath spoken.--0rrAvenger 05:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

{File Removed - BLP} - from commons --Gerash77 03:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

it is screen shot from a TV program, who has uploaded it in commons?, I will tag it for deletion. --Pejman47 09:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like some people are trying to do away with images of MA, so as to shine as less light on MA as possible. Why was the "Wiped off" image deleted? Could anyone tell me? I havent followed this article for some time. thanks --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Because of some attempts here to delete pictures of M.A., I'm even more motivated to find pictures of him. I dont see why getting pictures with permission should be a problem, e.g. see here. We can contact Behrouz Mehri who seems to be the owner of the "Wipe out Israel" image used here. Any comments? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
as I remember, some user other than the users who participated in this discussion tagged it for deletion, believe me I am also seeking a GFDL image of MA too. --Pejman47 19:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

fact tag date update

Resolved
 – Done.

Could an admin change the dates on the appropriate fact tags so as not to generate non-existent categories, please? There's one April 07 that should be April 2007, and four May 07 that should read May 2007. Nice simple non-controversial fix, really. :) -Ebyabe 19:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Avi 20:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! -Ebyabe 20:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Mis translation ? No way

http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=200247 - Iranian news agency Zeq 19:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It is well-known that the actual phrase began with state news. This is old news and doesn't change anything here. The Behnam 20:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Iran state English services is an embarrassment in its entirety, subject to much ridicule from MEMRI and online video sharing such as Youtube. They have started a new service called PRESS TV who seem to have hired normal people rather than 3 and a half mullahs with speciality of knowing which hand to wipe their behind with :-) --Gerash77 21:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

the left hand72.189.79.72 11:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


{editprotected}Please change stadiums to the correct stadia! utisoft 17:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The plural stadiums is just as correct, see Stadium. SGGH speak! 18:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Domestic criticism of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

{{editprotected}} Typo at the end of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad#Domestic criticism of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 'Israel should be wiped of the map' -> 'Israel should be wiped off the map'. Feezo (Talk) 07:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 08:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Category

{{editprotected}} Please an admin add the category Category:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the article. Sina Kardar 21:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ [16]
  2. ^ Iranian student leader: Ayatollahs will run if Iran attacked
  3. ^ Iran not seeking Israel destruction: Larijani
  4. ^ Ahmadinejad misunderstood, says Iran
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad/Archive_17&oldid=1136980441"