Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel

2005 call to "move" Israel

The referred BBC page does not contain this quote. Is reasonable to think that even Ahmadinejad would find it absurd first to burn people and then take them to concentration camps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.151.181 (talk) 10:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Where is the right place to put the official translations from Ahmadinejad's page that say Israel should be wiped off the map?

"the Zionist Regime of Israel faces a deadend and will under God's grace be wiped off the map." and "the Zionist Regime that is a usurper and illegitimate regime and a cancerous tumor should be wiped off the map."

In response to the question "whether Ahmadinejad believed in need for elimination of Israel from the world map" he answers "We say such moves need to be ended; now if the only way to end them is to wipe Israel, well let it be wiped."

These quotes are not from the "World Without Zionism" speech, (though they are relevant to it) instead they're from 2008. Where is the right place to put them in the article? Drsmoo (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

References

A new section is warranted if (1) you can show the quote is notable in some way (is the translation accurate, is it contested, or has it caused controversy?) and (2) if the quote has been picked up and reproduced be reliable sources. Dynablaster (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It is the official website of the President of Iran and run by the Iranian Government. It is as notable regarding Ahmadinejad as a source is possible to be. Drsmoo (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

State-controlled Iranian websites, alone, are not a reliable sources for anything. We would do well to recall that an English translation on IRIB News is the source of the original controversy. I have no idea if this more recent quote is accurate or inaccurate, but lacking reliable sources it is beside the point. Has the New York Times deemed this statement to be of any significance? BBC Online? CNN? Please produce sources that show the quote is notable (preferably ones that affirm its accuracy). I am simply following guidelines. Dynablaster (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[I've thrown in a reflist-line above, so people can quickly check out those indicated pages on website president.ir/en/.] Drsmoo’s question 16 December is put rather strange, but Dynablaster’s reaction is put strange too. The new information here is that a rather official-looking website, president.ir/en/, is publishing ‘speeches’ from Ahmadinejad in which he supposedly uses phrases like “Israel … wiped off the map”. This could perhaps become ‘notable’ information for Wikipedia as soon as anyone authoritative would take this Iranian website serious, no sooner. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Senate resolution Dec. 2005 concerning "anti-semitic statements" of Ahmadinejad?

I’m fully prepared to accept a notification in Wikipedia (see section Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel#Accusations of anti-semitism) saying that the U.S. Senate passed a resolution, December 2005, condemning “anti-semitic statements” from Ahmadinejad, provided such a notification would be truly referenced. However, the given web link Cleveland.com is dead, the links New York Sun and Wall Street Joutnal don’t directly cite from such a resolution. This troubles me; if noone gives a serious reference, I’m afraid we have to delete this paragraph.--Corriebertus (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed; I found that resolution. Reference is now in the article.--Corriebertus (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Al-Alam interview 8 December 2005

On 8 December 2005, in Mecca[59] during a two-day meeting of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the Iranian Arab-language satellite television channel Al-Alam invited[59][60][61] Mr Ahmadinejad for an interview. We do not know the question or questions posed to Ahmadinejad by the Al-Alam host. Of Ahmadinejad’s remarks in the interview four reports exist which differ remarkably.

Underneath we give remarks ascribed to Ahmadinejad by at least two reports in bold script, and extensions of these given in only one report in brackets. Of every word, batch of words, or whole sentence, the tag above the first word indicates the press report(s) they are taken from.

• “(Is[59] it not true that) European[59][62] countries insist that (they[59] committed a Jewish genocide? They say that) Hitler[59][62] killed[62]/burned[59] millions[59][62] of (innocent[62]) Jews[59][62] in furnaces.”

• ”They[59][62] believe in this so much and are so determined that any researcher who denies it with historical evidence is dealt with in a most harsh way and sent to prison.”

• ”(Because[59] the Jews have been oppressed during the Second World War the Europeans have to support the occupying regime of Qods.) We[59][62] do not accept this[.[59]] (claim[62], but if we would suppose it to be true, we ask the Europeans: is the death of innocent Jewish people by Hitler the reason for their support of the occupiers of Jerusalem?)”

• “Now[59][60] that you, Germany and Austria, believe the Jews were oppressed, why should the Palestinian Muslims have to pay (the[59] price) (a[60] price for it)?” “(Why[59] did you come to give a piece of Islamic land and the territory of the Palestinian people to the Jews?)”

• “(If[60]) you[59][60], Germany and Austria, oppressed the Jews (so[59])[,[60]] give[59][60] a part of Europe to the Zionist regime [.[59]] (and[60]) We[59][60] would[59]/shall[60] support[59][60] it.” “(So[59],) Germany[59][60][61] and Austria [,[59]] (come[59] and)(must[60] )(can[61] ) give[59][60][61] to[59][61] the Zionist regime (one[59], two or any number of your) (a[60] few of their) (two[61] or three) provinces[59][60][61] so[59][61] the Zionist regime can create a country there and[59][60][61] the problem will be solved (at[59] its root)(completely[60]).”

Both the links 59 and 60 are dead links, propose to delete this or find a better source. Cr!mson K!ng (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned up the article and links fixed with two working links. Cr!mson K!ng (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

# 1.1 "Wiped off the map" or "Vanish from the pages of time" translation

"One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising. The inflammatory 'wiped off the map' quote was first disseminated not by Iran's enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran's Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy."

The language of this whole paragraph is an opinion and represents biasness. For eg, "One may wonder" and "The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official propaganda arm" this is an extremely biased POV. This whole para needs to be reworked onto. Cr!mson K!ng (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Corrected the article Cr!mson K!ng (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That was a direct quote; I think it should have stayed that way with proper attribution. I actually think your change made the section more POV. It sounds like Wikipedia's opinion rather than Arash Norouzi's. csloat (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"The language of this whole paragraph is an opinion and represents biasness." We are allowed to describe various opinions providing it is clearly attributed and designated as such. On this basis I am reverting to the previous wording. Wikispan (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That is fine but if one is including his opinion on source then one should also include his statements on Wiped off the map statement. I hope it's not a problem if I add that back as well so his views on the entire subject may be known Cr!mson K!ng (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The passage is a bit long therefore I have trimmed it a fraction. Compromise? Wikispan (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• The full quote translated directly to English: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

• Word by word translation: Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

Sure no problemo.. I have just the above lines as it's relevant to the topic I hope you don't mind mate. Regards, Cr!mson K!ng (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Israeli Regime "will be annihilated" - speech 11 Mar 2010

Published by Press TV, owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting IRIB:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=120579&sectionid=351020101

Speaking in the southern Iranian Province of Hormozagan on Thursday, Ahmadinejad said that Israel was a Western prodigy that had now "reached the end of its road."

(snip)

"But whether they want it or not, with god's grace, this regime will be annihilated and Palestinians and other regional nations will be rid of its bad omen," he added.

(snip)

The article on "Ahmadinejad and Israel' is a prime example of a really bad Wikipedia article. Ahmadinejad has said similar things - 'annihilated', 'wiped off the map' etc etc numerous times, all reported by Iranian government news agencies. And still, Wikipedian authors keep on referring to 'bad translation' etc. Very sad example of desinformation in action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utalempe (talk • contribs) 16:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please STOP messing regime with country or nation.

Omg, when are you supposed to stop this antisemite debate. Have you ever read the interviews and so on where Ahmadinejad clearly take a clear stance on this. He criticise the regime/goverment not the state! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.62.192 (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

He says 'Israel' has 'reached the end of its road'. Israel is a state, isn't it?--Lopakhin (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

he means .... He criticises the regime/government not the ordinary population! Vexorg (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It's amazing to see the endless stream of apologists who will tell you with a straight face that Ahmadinejad doesn't "mean" what he says. Or that Iran is mistranslating itself through it's official propoganda organs. Drsmoo (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that Ahmadinejad has made so many contradictory statements they can't possibly all be true. (1) 'Wipe Israel off the map' by means of military science or (2) 'the Zionist regime will collapse as did the Soviet Union' without intervention. Moreover, we have reliable sources that say the quote is mistranslated from the original but it doesn't matter that much anyway because Iranian leaders are basically jerks who have been making similar remarks for decades to divert attention away from their own misdeeds. Whatever interpretation you prefer is irrelevant; our job is simply to describe the controversy in a complete manner as possible, incorporating all notable points of view. — ThePowerofX 18:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Arash Norouzi

I have restored Arash Norouzi because his analysis is published by secondary sources such as Huffington Post^[1] and California Chronicle,^[2] in addition to references on Google Books and Google Scholar. Wikispan (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all. The California Chronicle article is worthless as a WP:Reliable source because they accept all submissions. The Huffington Post article briefly mentions Norouzi, and gives a short quote. If we use the Huffington Post article as a source, all we can say from Norouzi is the material that they quoted:

Iran's President has written two rather philosophical letters to America. In his first letter, he pointed out that "History shows us that oppressive and cruel governments do not survive". With this statement, Ahmadinejad has also projected the outcome of his own backwards regime, which will likewise 'vanish from the page of time.'

The Huffington Post article is not an excuse to drag the rest of Norouzi's analysis into the article. Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability doesn't appear to be the issue. So can you point me to the relevant guideline that says, once a secondary source cites someone's written work, we must limit ourselves to using precisely the same excerpts? The California Chronicle appears to be cited extensively across Wikipedia. Do you know of any past discussions that discuss its worthiness? It would be a shame to lose Arash Norouzi because, while he detests Ahmadinejad, he explains in detail where the translation first appeared. Wikispan (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

California Chronicle articles can have limited reliability if the author is already reliable. Otherwise, my brief search through WP for such articles simply makes me think that there should be a little housecleaning performed. I know of no previous discussion.

WP is not a platform for self publishing, so even though it is a shame to lose Norouzi's research, lose him we must. Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Too much space is given to his analysis, that much I do agree, but I wish to explore the current references a little further, including this one in Counter Punch,^[3] (Norouzi's work is not reprinted though his translation once again is reproduced) plus the few Google Book references where the name of the same work appears. If these sources believe his analysis is relevant and important enough to quote a few passages from it, what forbids us from bringing him in as a primary source, in addition to his published translation? Wikispan (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

What is notable is that a few commentators have commented on Norouzi's translation. What is not notable is Norouzi's rambling opinion. I am trimming the problematic portions in which Norouzi claims that "wiped off the map" and "erased from time" do not have equivalent negative connotations. Binksternet (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Bronner's quote.

I can see there will be trouble with editors whose native language is not english so I'll bring this up here to avoid an edit war. Bronner accepts that Ahmadinejad said wiped of the pages of time or history not wiped of the map. He was argueing that Ahmadinejad said wiped off instead of vanish. Steele criticised Wikipedia (as it was on June 14, 2006) for "claiming falsly" that Bronner said wiped of the map but this error appears to have not been corrected as the article was still claiming this. When Bronner goes on to say So did Iran's president call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'? It certainly seems so Bronner is not claiming that was what was said, he is actually claiming that the phrase is misinterpreted because Ahmadinejad appears to mean that. Bronner only argues that vanish is wrong. Wayne (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That is your interpretation of Bronner, Wayne, and we do not allow original research on wikipedia. Gilabrand did us all a favor by bringing the entire quote, thanks, Gilabrand. -- Avi (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's defintely not OR or interpretation. Steel says that the NYT (Bronner's article) does not dispute that Ahmadinejad did not say map and he critisized WP for claiming Bronner did say that. Read Bronner's article, after stating that Ahmadinejad's own translators said it he gives reasons why wipe out is more likely than vanish, NOWHERE does he include map when discussing these problems. In the next paragraph Bronner gives reasons why it isn't map. The only time he mentions it is at the end when he says people think that is what Ahmadinejad means as a reason for their acceptance of the incorrect translation but he does not say he does himself. The nuance of that sentence can easily confuse people. The current version is much better.Wayne (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of image by Wikispan

The article says "...and was a quote of Ayatollah Khomeini". Source 7 doesnt actually say such a thing. Source [7] rather quotes Ahmadinejad as claiming that Khomeini made such a statement. The actual quote made by Khomeini literally uses the phrase "destruction of Israel", as evidenced by the mural photo, which User:wikispan is trying to remove. Please do not remove that photo. It is a very important image. I will put back the photo if no good reason is given to suppress it.--Nightryder84 (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I cant see the relevance of the image. It is not Ahmadinejad and the mural does not depict the text of the Khomeini speech so you cant mention in the caption that the translation says "destruction of Israel" as that would be POV. The image is not evidence of anything. Wayne (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The large yellow text on the mural clearly states اسرائیل باید از بین برود - امام خمینی which unambiguously translates to "Imam Khomeini: Israel must be destroyed". I think that's quite relevant.--Nightryder84 (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The photograph has no relevance to this article. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said many offensive things. Our job is to describe the reaction and differing interpretation of his remarks. Is this guy really set on destroying Israel or is he (like many people before him) using anti-Israeli/American sentiment to divert attention from his own failed policies and as a means to gain popular support? etc etc. Wikispan (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Youre giving erroneous information to the reader. The Source 7 sentence is incorrect. Either dont mention Khomeini there in the article, or if you do, the photo then becomes DIRECTLY relevant. Khomeini didnt talk of wiping off maps. He talked of destruction. And the mural is displaying the original quote.Nightryder84 (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad briefly namedropped Ayatollah Khomeini during a speech, either quoting him directly or paraphrasing a sermon he once gave. Exactly which speech is uncertain. It is not for us to decide for the reader precisely what remark Ahmadinejad had in mind. The focus of this article is what Ahmadinejad has said and his relationship with Israel. You can't simply insert your preferred image of Khomeini with what purports to be a direct quote from an unspecified address. That's POV pushing. There are plenty of interpretations of Ahmadinejad's own remarks that say he seeks to obliterate Israel. These positions and reactions are covered in the article, so it's not fair to accuse editors of suppressing information. If you think a notable viewpoint is missing, you are more than welcome to add it. Wikispan (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ive seen you wikistalking me everywhere on Wikipedia erasing this image from all articles. That alone says who is POV pushing. It's not for you to decide if an image's address is verifiable or not. The quote is verifiable btw.--Nightryder84 (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The image needs to be relevant to the article it is placed in. That is not this one and it's likely the ONLY article it is relevant for is Ayatollah Khomeini so feel free to add it there.Wayne (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a picture of 2 anti-Israeli suicide bombers backed by Iran's supreme leader, with a flag of Hizbollah. How is that more relevant to Khomeini? Do u even see Khomeini's picture there? Please explain.Nightryder84 (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The yellow text (Israel must be destroyed) purports to be a direct quote (or paraphrase) from Ayatollah Khomeini, true or false? Upon further reflection, the best place for this mural might be an article that documents Iran's support for Hizbollah. Iran and state terrorism perhaps? Simply adding the image to several articles is not the right way to proceed. Wikispan (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I accept your suggestion to put it in Iran and state terrorism article. However, on a general note, I wish to add that I put the image into 2-3 articles where I think it is best relevant. That's not exactly spamming as you accuse me of. So please, instead of putting roadblocks in front of me, help me out here, and improve the articles. We need more images like these.Nightryder84 (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Overuse of primary sources

We have had this discussion before. Primary sources should be used moderately, particularly when dealing with official Iranian propaganda outlets. It is recommended that we include a reference to Ahmadinejad's PBS interview, if indeed that is what the man is quoted as saying. The problem, as always, is that the official translation differs to what PBS actually quote him as saying. One possible solution is to include both translations. Wikispan (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Translation controversy

Is anyone with the relevant translation skills still claiming that "Wipe Israel off the map" is accurate? If not, perhaps that unanimity should be reflected in the article. It seems crazy to me that we still have politicians around the world quoting Iran's intention to "wipe Israel off the map" as if it were the unchallenged truth, when no subsequent translation of the speech that I've seen contains the words "map", "Israel" or "wipe". Can an error by the original Iranian translators really be allowed to become the accepted version? --Theresonator (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"Wiped off the map" is the translation presented by the Iranian government in multiple instances. Ahmadinejad's personal website also says wiped off the map, with the article published in 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/20110716100837/http://www.president.ir/en/?ArtID=10114 Drsmoo (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

He means the Zionist Regime should be wiped off the map, not the people of Israel Vexorg (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You would need a Reliable Source on What He Means.--Galassi (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Farsi-English dictionary for example. Vexorg (talk) 06:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Renamed world without zionism speech section to wipe off the map controversy and moved 2008 link to Ahmadinejad's official website to the section

Renamed world without zionism speech section to wipe off the map controversy and moved 2008 link to Ahmadinejad's official website to the section, the section was entirely about the "wiped off the map" statement, and so this heading is more accurate. Also moved the relevant 2008 statement on Ahmadinejad's page which includes "wiped off the map" Drsmoo (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

8 UN Speech - Reaction

I found this brief section rather odd in that six individuals, not previously mentioned on the page, all with their own Wikipedia pages, were only identified by unlinked last names. I supplied the given names and links. Activist (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Similarity between UNSCR res 476

Noted ‎Activism1234's revert based on a false O/R assertion. A secondary source was supplied page 277. On that basis I have restored. What is not similar?

"Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;"

"the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime"

talknic (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You're taking a UN resolution and drawing your own comparison, which doesn't exist either. The UN resolution is saying that Israel should withdraw from most of the areas it conquered in 1967, while Ahmadinejad was referring to wiping out the "occyping regime" - in this case, as "occupying" the entire country which he believes should be all of "Palestine" and thus wipe out. You can't possibly compare withdrawing from territory to wiping out. And you certainly can't make YOUR OWN comparison on a Wikipedia article. Also, a book called "The Case for Palestine" isn't exactly the most RS one... --Activism1234 16:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Activism1234 - " which doesn't exist either." Odd I just showed the similarity

1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

2. Strongly deplores the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly;

3. Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

'"The UN resolution is saying that Israel should withdraw from most of the areas it conquered in 1967" No "most" there. What it does say is this "end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem"...

"in this case, as "occupying" the entire country which he believes should be all of "Palestine" and thus wipe out" an unsupported opinion. The article already gives us this "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." or " Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history."Memri talknic (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Dude. The point is you're drawing YOUR OWN similarity. You CAN'T DO THAT on Wikipedia. End of story. And for the record, there's a difference from "withdrawing from Arab territories" and "withdrawing from the Arab territories." As well as a difference between referring to those territories as being "occupied" and should be withdrawn from, and referring to a country as "occupying" and should be completely wiped out. But once again, YOU CAN NOT DRAW YOUR OWN COMPARISON. You are taking the text of a UN resolution from a book, and claiming it's similar to what a leader said, and putting that in the article. You can't do that. Feel free to believe such nonsense on your own, but you can't just write that in a Wikipedia article. See WP:OR. Please self-revert immediately. --Activism1234 17:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you please provide a quote from the source that makes the comparison between the UN resolution and what Ahmedinijad said, while I check if this edit is not in violation of your ARBPIA topic ban? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Is "Zionism" the same as "Israel"?

When Ahmadinejad uses phrases like "annihilation of the "Zionist regime,"" do we really need someone translating his words by saying "which Ahmadinejad frequently uses instead of saying "Israel."". Are they mind readers to know what he really means? It seems like a politically inspired guess, to me. If he says "Zionisdt regime" he means "Zionist regime", until someone shows that he actually means something else, surely. --Theresonator (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad does not recognize the existence of Israel, and thus rarely mentions Israel by its name, but instead refers to it as "the Zionist regime." Reliable references (for example, see here) often write it as calls to destroy Israel, when he says "Zionist regime," since that is exactly what it is, and we go by these references. --Activism1234 19:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad doesn't recognise the Zionist government. He is calling for regime change, in the same way that many nations call for regime change in Iran. Unless there is some real evidence that Ahmadinejad himself means "Israel" when he says "Zionist regime" I think people should stop saying that he means something other than what he says. --Theresonator (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

We report based on references. Comments such as "Zionist regime and the Zionists are a cancerous tumor. Even if one cell of them is left in one inch of (Palestinian) land, in the future this story (of Israel's existence) will repeat" disprove your theory about "regime change" in a democratically elected government that has constantly changed governments from leftist governments to rightist governments. Or perhaps referring to "the creation of this regime" as being in 1948, when the state of Israel was established, as opposed to say 2009 when PM Netanyahu was elected. Anyway, Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox for you to say what people should or should not think, and we write based on reliable referenced sources. Your opinion is welcome, but doesn't determine Wikipedia policies. That's pretty much it. --Activism1234 21:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you reconcile with Ahmadinejad frequently using the term "Zionist regime in Israel" regardless of which political party was in power? Doesn't it wory you that the reliable sources that say that Zionist regime means Israel still say he meant Israel in the wiped of the map controversy despite this interpretation being debunked? I have no problem with saying that the media often interpret this to mean Israel but mind reading by reliable sources is still mind reading and puting Israel in brackets next to a mention of Zionist regime is POV pushing. As you yourself said..."Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox for you to say what people should or should not think" he means. Wayne (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Even in that attempted explanation, you inserted words that Ahmadinejad didn't actually say - (Palestinian) and (of Israel's existence). I think this type of imagining or interpreting what people say has no place in an encyclopedia. It is disingenuous nonsense to just assume that Ahmadinejad means something other than what he says. Report his words and let people decide for themselves --Theresonator (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

FALSE. I copied directly from a reliable source. --Activism1234 04:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

So you are claiming that it is "disingenuous nonsense" to assume that when Ahmadinejad speaks about the "Zionist Regime/Cancer/etc., that he is refering to the State of Israel. That's pretty rich. Why don't you enlighten us then - if the statements made by Ahmadinejad regarding the "Zionist Regime" do not refer to the state of Israel, then what exactly is he (or might he be) refering to? Do you actually think that when he uses the terms "Zionist Regime/Cancer/entity/ etc. that he is not refering to the current state of Israel? (No offense, but your argument seems to be a little disingenuous).

I suggest you read Wikipedia's entry on the term Zionist entity/Zionist Regime. It notes that the term is an extremely common phrase used by Arabs and Muslims as both a pejorative and a as statement of nonrecognition of the State of Israel. When Ahmadinejad uses this term, there can be little doubt as to its true meaning. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC))

I suggest you actually read the entry before misrepresenting it. Nowhere does it say that Zionist Regime has the same meaning as Zionist entity. The article doesn't even mention regime. The statement "there can be little doubt as to its true meaning" is WP:OR. Wayne (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

How did I misrepresent it? Zionist regime leads to the same Wikipedia page as Zionist Entity. Ahmadinejad's has used the term "entity" at least once - (see the transplanted kidney quote). You are entitled to your opinion, but I think its stretch to argue that there is a big difference between terms Zionist Regime and Zionist Entity - both are perjorative, both are a non-recognition of Israel's existence, and both of widely used when calling for Israel's destruction/collapse/disappearence/ etc.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC))

Also, as for Wayne comments about the "Wiped off the map" quote, it is essentially just semantics. Even if we accept that Ahmadinejad stated that he only wants Israel "to vanish from the pages of time" (or something like that), the meaning of this statement is pretty clear - that he wants Israel to cease to exist (i.e. in Ahmadinejad's fantasy, a map (yes, a map) of the Middle East will not include any territory identified as Israel). Also, given all of his subsequent statements (of which there is little or no controversy) such as his 2008 statement that: "Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation", the real meaning of his words seems pretty clear.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC))

Yep, seems pretty clear to me that he means the Zionist mindset of the government. While many Arabs may mean Israel when they say Zionist Regime, being common does not mean universal and you really need to be somewhat illiterate to think regime and country are the same thing. I assume Ahmadinejad is not illiterate but I do accept he may sometimes intend his audience to misinterpret his meaning. After all, politicians are prone to such tricks with semantics to manipulate the public. Bush for example was the master of BS as shown by subsequent events. Ahmadinejad may mean Israel sometimes but generally he is refering to the government of Israel. Who gets to determine which he means in any speech? Does Wikipedia now accept mind reading as a legitimate source? Wayne (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

So you actually believe that when Ahmadinejad refers to the "Zionist regime" he isn't refering to the state of Israel but only to the "Zionist mindset"? Let's take a look at some of his statements:

• "the Zionist regime and the Zionists are a cancerous tumor"
• "the nations of the region will soon finish off the usurper Zionists in the Palestinian land"
• ""They should know that regional nations hate this fake and criminal regime and if the smallest and briefest chance is given to regional nations they will destroy (it)."
  • (notice that he repeatedly refers to the Zionists, and not just the "Zionist regime")

His numerous repeated statements like this, combined with his suggestion that the "If Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe – like in Germany, Austria or other countries – to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe" make it pretty clear that Ahmadinejad doesn't want the state of Israel to exist (not just the "Zionist mindset" but the country as a whole).

All I see is that Ahmadinejad doesn't want Zionists in Palestine. Or do you believe that all Israelis are Zionists? Wayne (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you - Ahmadinejad doesn't want Zionists or the "Zionist Regime" to exist in the Middle East. You are correct that not all Israelis are committed Zionists, but I would add the qualifier that almost all Israelis (except for a few fringe groups) probably oppose the implementation of Ahmadinejad's fantasy. Likewise, I bet almost all Israelis would much rather live in their current country (flawed as it may be) than in the regime that Ahmadinejad (and those that think like him) would like to see replace it.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC))

By the way, as for your accusation that I determined the above conclusion through some kind of telepathy, you are incorrect. Rather, I based it on an my own analysis of Ahmadinejad's statements, history, comments on the Holocaust - this isn't telepathy, its Common sense (i.e. a sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts). Furthermore, if Ahmadinejad is really only referring to the "Zionist mindset" and is somehow not referring to the state of Israel (as you seem to believe), why doesn't he just say that? Why is he constantly making statements such as those above? Why doesn't he just say that when he is calling for the destructon of the "Zionist regime" that he isn't really calling for the destruction of Israel? I'm sorry, but based on common sense, I find it very difficult to believe that Ahmadinejad is somehow making a distinction between the "Zionist mindset" and the state of Israel.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC))

Common sense is not a reliable source as there is no way to determine reliability. Your common sense is likely very much different from that of an unbiased source. Wayne (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the nature and scope of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, your definition of an "unbiased source" is likely very much different from mine. It's true there are lots of sources that support your interpretation, but I doubt I would consider them to be "unbiased." Even so, given that Ahmadinejad's strongest supporters are Islamists, Marxists, Holocaust deniers and far-left radicals (who often depict Ahmadinejad as some kind of magnanimous hierophant), I would argue that common sense supports my interpretation (although you are free to disagree with me) .(Hyperionsteel (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC))

This debate is pointless. We have a wide range of reliable sources that frequently report his comments, even when referring to "the Zionist regime" as Israel. Why? Because that's what he's referring to. We base off of reliable referenced sources. --Activism1234 04:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad says he means government. Some reliable sources THINK that he means Israel, they can't know without mind reading. Ahmadinejad is the only source that knows what he means for a fact. Scientific consensus does not view telepathy as a real phenomenon. Therefor the article should say that the media often interprets it as meaning Israel, not stating in Wikipedia's voice that it does mean Israel. Wayne (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not how WP works. If what you say is true, we would write it as, in regards to the specific case, "Ahmadinejad, however, denied here that he was referring to..." It's not "some reliable sources." The reliable references we use are from a variety of countries and with different standings as well, not just 1 country with a certain bias. --Activism1234 06:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Please show the relevant policy to prove that is how WP works re sources re-interpretation of English definitions. Wayne (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

As one example, please see what Ban ki-Moon (world leader), Catherine Ashton (foreign policy leader of European Union), and Tommy vietor (United States National Security Council spokesman) had to say on the subject when A-jad said "Zionist regime." --Activism1234 20:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. So what you are really trying to claim that Ahmadinejad's repeated calls for the annihilation/destruction of the "Zionist Regime", his denial of the Holocaust, his proposal to move Israel to Germany, his statement that "I would like to declare that the idea of "smaller Israel" is also dead. The very notion of Israel is dead," and his repeatedly giving speeches in to large crowds that chant "Death to Israel" have just been misunderstood? Nearly all of the media organizations and political figures cited in this article have stated that not only is Ahmadinejad anti-Semitic, but interpret his statements as a call for the destruction of Israel (in one form or another). Wikipedia should reflect the fact that the large majority of mainstream sources intrepret Ahmadinejad's words this way. It is true that some of Ahmadinejad strongest supporters (i.e. Islamists, Marxists, Holocaust deniers, far-left radical academics, and state owned media outlets like Russia Today and Press TV) may interpret his words differently (and these views can be cited in the article). However, since nearly all mainstream media sources intrepret his words as a call for the destruction of Israel, Wikipedia should reflect this. Since Ahmadinejad is constantly and enthusiastically giving speeches to crowds which are chanting "Death to Israel" over and over, its difficult to draw any other conclusion than the one most media outlets and politicians have reached (i.e. that he wants the destruction of Israel). (Hyperionsteel (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC))

• Of course, if the crowds were only chanting "Injury to Israel", Ahmadinejad's outlook might be interpreted differently.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC))

Please refrain from using misdirection and bullshit to support your point. Nowhere have I said anything regarding Ahmadinejad's mentions of the Holocaust or other statements he has made that directly refer to Israel. I'm also not interested in a diatribe on why you hate the guy. The discussion is solely about the meaning of "Zionist Regime" and I'm still waiting on the relevant WP policy which no one seems willing to supply. Wayne (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

So you are claiming that its #@$%^@ to mention Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust. Really?? I was responding to your claim that Ahmadinejad doesn't support the destruction of Israel, but instead, somehow only hates the "Zionist mindset." Denying the Holocaust is certainly a strike against him on this issue (most people who deny the holocaust generally hate a lot more than just the "Zionist mindset"). Please keep in mind, you were the one who is alleging that Ahmadinejad doesn't really hate Israelis (and Jews), but only the "Zionist mindset." The fact that he is a Holocaust denier and calls for Israel to be relocated to another continent (among other things) clearly disapproves your view of him. It's not ^%#@*&! to point this out.

Clearly you missed the point of my above argument, I was not explaining why I find him execrable (which I certainly do), but rather I was explaining why your view of Ahmadinejad's supposed benevolent intentions is certainly misguided, if not specious.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC))

It BS if it is totally irrelevant to the discussion and your unsupported accusations as to my views of Ahmadinejad is a personal attack and is obviously a deliberate misdirection to avoid providing support for your view. I have never said that Ahmadinejad doesn't support the destruction of Israel. The arguement is centered entirely on what regime means. Wayne (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If I misunderstood your views, I sincerely apologize. I interpreted your above statement "All I see is that Ahmadinejad doesn't want Zionists in Palestine. Or do you believe that all Israelis are Zionists?" as an indication that you believe that Ahmadinejad doesn't seek the destruction of Israel but only the "Zionist mindset" (clearly, I misintrepreted this). If you had stated from the start that you agree that Ahmadinejad is implicitly (if not explicitly) calling for the destruction of Israel, we could have avoided much of the asperity above (although I take responsibility for not asking you to clarify this earlier).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC))

When I said "All I see is ..." it was an on-topic reply to a specific post not a statement. Wayne (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

In any event, I still believe that Wikipedia should reflect the fact that almost all mainstream news outlets and politicans in the Europe and North America intrepret Ahmadinejad's repeated calls for the annihilation of the "Zionist Regime" as an implicit or explicit call for the destruction of Israel. If someone were to call for the "annihilation" of the "regime" of another country, I doubt there would be any debate about this person's true intentions.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC))

As I said earlier, I have no problem with the article saying "most mainstream news outlets and politicans in the Europe and North America intrepret Ahmadinejad's repeated calls for the annihilation of the "Zionist Regime" as an implicit or explicit call for the destruction of Israel". What I dissagree with is putting Israel in brackets next to regime which is POV. Wayne (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a difficult issue to figure out - many people (including myself), world leaders and media outlets have concluded that "Zionist Regime" and "Israel" are synonyms in Ahmadinejad's vocabulary. Even so, placing Israel in brackets every time Ahmadinejad uses the term "Zionist Regime" (unless the source has written it like this) may violate Wikipedia's policy on POV and/or OR. (On a side note, Wikipedia does differentiate between the terms Israel and Zionist Regime (each has a separate Wikipedia page)). Does Wikipedia have any advice on how to handle this in its policies?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC))

WP:Reliable references --Activism1234 03:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That is not a Wikpipedia policy regarding a sources use of alternative definitions for English words so I'm still waiting for this mysterious policy you keep quoting. Wayne (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The closest policy I can find is the substitution of words with another not used in it's dictionary definition because it is "used routinely within certain communities or professions" in place of that word. Wikipedia says don't do it. Wayne (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Ahmadinejad is talking about regime change, which is commonplace in the modern world. He wants the Zionist regime gone, replaced with something else.--Theresonator (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

A Palestinian/Arab one. Different from "You know, I'm not too crazy about the Democrats or Republicans, I hope that the Republicans or Democrats get elected next time." When you participate at a "World Without Zionism" conference you want the whole thing gone, not just a government... --Activism1234 21:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think what he wants to replace it with matters a great deal. The point is that he's talking about regime change and that's perfectly permissible. Zionism is just a political philosophy, like any other. It is just as legitimate to want to get rid of Zionism as to want to get rid of an Islamic theocracy. --Theresonator (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Not really, I can say "I want to end Iran's Islamic theocracy" without meaning I want to destroy Iran or replace it with a Russian government (random example). I'd be more than happy with an Iranian government chosen by the Iranian people that's democratic. Nearly all Israelis, and anyone who believes that Jews, like every people, are allowed the right to self-determination, are Zionists, be it right wing or left wing or center. Ending Zionism would be saying they don't have that right, and don't have the right to Israel or an Israeli government, and instead should be replaced by a Palestinian or Arab government. Indeed, Ahmadinejad has repeatedly said as well he wants to eliminate "the Zionists," not just the "regime." Not something people hide in Iran either, when they hold signs "The end of Israel" at a government-sponsored rally. --Activism1234 22:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Not all Israelis are Zionists and the vast majority of people who believe that Jews should have the right to self-determination are not Zionists. You obviously dont understand what Zionism means. Wayne (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I said most, a fringe radical minority are not, but most are, whether they're leftists or rightists. Yes, most Zionists are not Jewish, because Jews are less than 1% of the world's population. But telling me that I don't know what Zionism means? Now you've discredited everything you've said. That's a gross, incorrect assumption. Can't believe you would actually say that. --Activism1234 05:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm repeating myself but: you are correct that not all Israelis and Jews are committed Zionists. However, I will again point out that the vast majority of them (except for a few fringe groups) are strongly opposed to the kind of Islamist "regime" which Ahmadinejad and Co. fantasize as a replacement to the existing state of Israel. Israel as it exists is certainly not perfect (neither is any state, for that matter), but the vast majority of Jews and Israelis would rather live in Israel as is rather than the "regime" which Ahmadinejad and his allies seek to create in its place.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC))

As I've shown above, this isn't disputed at all amongst international media outlets, even those with different "biases," who often put Israel in the headline, becuase that's what A-jad is referring to, he just doesn't recognize the country and thus says "regime." The United Nations secretary general also understood this and condemned it as a threat to Israel, not to a "regime." The United Nations is an international body. --Activism1234 22:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

To Theresonator: If all Ahmadinejad wants is "regime change", as you claim, why hasn't he just said so? If he actually used the term "regime change" instead of calling for the annihilation or destruction of the "Zionist regime" your argument might hold water. However, he repeated makes speech calling for the "annihilation" or "destruction" of the Zionist regime, has suggested relocating Israel to Germany, and enthusiastically speaks to large crowds that chant "Death to Israel" - given these facts, its very difficult not to conclude that Ahmadinejad seeks the destruction of Israel. Also, given the fact that Iran is one of the most repressive regimes in the world, and that Iran openly supports Islamist groups such as Hezbollah, and that Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier (among his other anti-semitic views), the "regime" which Ahmadinejad seeks to replace Israel with would be a "regime" where almost no Jew would want to live (with the exception of a few fringe groups). If you want to call this "regime change" instead of the "destruction of Israel", I suppose you could - but its really just semantics.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC))

I don't see how Ahmadinejad can be an anti-Semite, given the fact that there are about 25,000 Jews living in Iran. --Theresonator (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I see - so because ~25,000 Jews live in Iran, you've concluded that there is no way Ahmadinejad can be anti-semitic? First of all, the thousands (if not tens of thousands) of Jews who fled Iran after the 1979 revolution will probably disagree with you. Second, Ahmadinejad repeated denying the Holocaust (at least in my humble opinion) qualifies him as Anti-semitic (although I'm sure there are people who will disagree with me on this). Most importantly, though, your apparent logic (i.e. that because a certain number of an ethnic group reside within a nation, it is therefore impossible for the leader of that nation to be (or to be accused of being) prejudiced or hostile towards that group) is more than slightly flawed - tens of thousands of Jews lived in Germany during the 1930s - does this mean that Adolf Hitler and company (at least until the death camps started up) couldn't be considered anti-semitic? Likewise, there are over one million Arabs living in Israel - therefore, by your logic, any accusation that Israel is discrimintary towards Arabs must also be false. No offense, but your line of reasoning on this particular issue seems to be somewhat fallacious.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC))

Straw man arguements. First of all, the Jews who fled Iran after the 1979 revolution did not even know who Ahmadinejad was so have no knowledge of whether he is or is not Anti-semitic and they fled to America because they feared being persecuted, not because they were. In 2007 Israel offered Iranian Jews a financial incentive to emmigrate which was not only refused but resulted in a statement ; "The identity of Iranian Jews is not tradable for any amount of money...Iran's Jews love their Iranian identity and their culture, so threats and this immature political enticement will not achieve their aim of wiping out the identity of Iranian Jews." They may suffer some serious problems due to Irans stance towards Israel but Khomeini issued a fatwa banning persecution. they even have some freedoms that Muslims are not permitted ie: they are allowed to drink alcohol, Jewish schools are co-ed and Jewish men and women are allowed to fraternise in public. Making comparisons to WWII Germany is dishonest. No offense, but your line of reasoning on this particular issue seems to be somewhat biased. Wayne (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, many of them emigrated to Israel, not just America. Getting the basic facts wrong doesnt give credibility. Secondly, that essentially proves a lot live under fear to denounce regime and are scared of government and to speak in public. Israel isn't listed on the map in Iran. Although I'm not sure the connection between Iran's Jewish community and Ahmadinejad's call to destroy Israel, as understood by various international reliable media outlets and the international community (United Nations, EU, U.S...) --Activism1234 04:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

More than 70% of Iran's Jews immigrated to America. Secondly, there is no fear "to denounce [the] regime and [nor] are [they] scared of government and [or] to speak in public". Iran's Jews usually submit written protests to the government following any Anti-Semitic remarks made by Iranian politicians or clerics (as they did after Ahmadinejad's Holocaust speech) and these documents are posted on Iranian websites with no government interference. The Jewish Journal is not a reliable source on Iran. It is also irrelevant whether Iran has a direct phone connection with Israel or not as the woman interviewed in that Times of Israel article was free to visit Israel personally if she wanted. Iranian Jews are allowed to visit Israel and many do so to visit relatives. Regarding "Ahmadinejad's call to destroy Israel", some western media outlets have published retractions. Wayne (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, that still leaves another 30%... Secondly, the Jewish Press is just one article I can bring. And please don't pretend Iranian Jews are treated as equals and so nobly... I'm also sure that many of them have been sadly brainwashed by PressTV (think Stalin in Soviet Union, where nearly every Russian, even some today, believed he was the greatest person, until after he died). Thirdly, you're getting another basic fact straight... Have you seen an Iranian passport? "The holder of this passport is not entitled to travel to occupied Palestine." And by that, they mean Israel ( 1 - do you think they would tell people they can't travel to Palestinian territories? 2 - They mean Israel, because Iranians simply can't travel to Israel). Fourthly, I was referring to his more recent incidents, and I'm unaware of any media outlets, Ban ki-Moon, the EU, or the US issuing a retraction. This is a waste of time though if I'm going to hear such silly statements as Iranian are free to visit Israel... Good night. --Activism1234 05:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You obviously ignore what you dont like and have no problem with misrepresenting what editors post. I have never said that Jews are treated as equals and in fact I previously posted that Iranian Jews suffer serious problems due to Irans stance towards Israel. Iranian policy is Anti-Zionist, not specifically Anti-Jew. What Iranian passports say is irrelevant as Jews can and do visit Israel via a third country and are not penalised for doing so. Wayne (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, Wayne missed every point of my previous entry.

First, I was not making a strawman argument (i.e. I was not comparing Iran to Nazi Germany) - rather, I was pointing out Theresonator's line of reasoning (i.e. that because a certain number of an ethnic group reside within a nation, it is therefore impossible for the leader of that nation to be (or to be accused of being) prejudiced or hostile towards that group) is fallacious, at best. The fact that you ignored this (and simply accused me of comparing Iran to Nazi Germany) was a serious error on your part. Nazi Germany was certainly an extreme example, but there are plenty of examples in history (and today) where an ethnic group willingly resides in a country despite the fact that this country's leader (or leadership) is hostile towards that ethnic group.

Second, I was not stating that Ahmadinejad was president (or that he was widely known) in 1979 but rather that he represents a regime which, when it took power in 1979, resulted in a mass emmigration of Jews, as well as many others who feared the radicalism and violence this new regime brought. You claim that these Jews only "feared being persecuted" - this may be technically correct, but given the immediate aftermath of the revolution (i.e. the mass executions, deportations, imprisonment, torture of those opposed or preceived as being opposed to the ideology of the new government) show that this fear was certainly justified. Likewise, given this environment, it is certainly possible that many of these Jews may very well have been persecuted had they stayed in Iran during this period and not fled.

Finally, are you really claiming that my argument that Ahmadinejad can be considered anti-semitic due to his repeated denial of the Holocaust is a straw man argument or that it is bias? Really? Theresonator stated that "I don't see how Ahmadinejad can be an anti-Semite..." I was pointing out that because of Ahmadinejad's repeated denial of the Holocaust, a large number of people (myself included) can see how Ahmadinejad can be an anti-Semite. No offense, but making temerarious accusations of straw man arguments and bias doesn't help your position.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC))

I would like to point out that Ahmadinejad said "the solution is democracy" in Israel and Palestine. After he said this he was falsely reported in a way that reinforced his alleged calls for destruction of Israel. [[4]] I strongly suggest you watch the Youtube video present in that article. There is a history of bias against Ahmadinejad, and I agree that Wikipedia should limit, as much as possible, equating "Zionist regime" to "Israel." Miona152 (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Another thing

Ahmadinejad didn't say anything new. What he said was a statement made by Khomeini three decades ago ("بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود"), he just quoted him. --Z 16:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Quote Farm

This article is becoming a quote farm and I have tagged it as such. Some of the quotes recently added are not particularly controversial and for some of them I'm pushing to find western media that have even reported the quote so they fail notability. Particularly newsworthy quotes can and do have their own sections. Views on particular topics also have their own sections and should include one or two quotes as examples. There is no need to make a new section for a quote from every speech Ahmadinejad makes when the subject is already covered unless the quote is a better example and can replace the ones already in use. Wayne (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless full quotes can be reliably sourced, I suggest weeding out the extensive cherry pickings, half quotes, non quotes and words that have been added in parenthesis by journalists/editors. ... talknic 03:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using lots of quotes, as long as they are bound together by some theme - the general topic for which the article is named. Moving these quotes to Wikiquote would destroy the intended theme of the article, which is to bind together these quotes in order to provide a general context for current international disputes. Regards,-Stevertigo (t | c) 23:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that every time Ahmadinejad says something nice about Israel, "in order to provide a general context for current international disputes" they should all be added as well because they "are bound together by the general topic for which the article is named." You are missing the point entirely, there is nothing wrong with using quotes, as long as they are 'notable. Many of the quotes being added are not particularly notable and some are not even reported by most western media which has to tell you something. Wayne (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Article is in breach of NPOV

Comments by the State of Israel's representatives about Ahmadinejad/Iran seem to be missing ... talknic 02:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Noting: Activism's removal of POV template while the issue remains unresolved, completely against WP:NPOV. Reason given "article is properly reliably referenced" WP:RS is not WP:NPOV. Suggest a self revert .... talknic (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Noting: Shrike's "I have marked article in question with ARBPIA tag as it clearly belongs to the I/P conflict." 12:56, 10 September 2012

I sought guidance and was informed "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel article is not inherently related to the I/P issue "I have to agree with Talknic here; Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't inherently about I/P (although certain parts of the article are, that wasn't what Talknic was editing), so I'm really not seeing it" 16:38, 9 September 2012

Furthermore your adding it at 12:56, 10 September 2012 over 24 hrs after this AE complaint of 20:32, 9 September 2012 and almost a week after my first edits were made on the article, It bears no relationship to this AE request ... talknic (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Description of Zionists/Jews as "Criminals" and "so-called humans"

(The title of this section is also the title of section in the main article, minus "/Jews") There is some disagreement on whether his speech is referring to all Jews or only Zionists. In the speech, he is referring to people that moved to Israel. If you read the actual source that the quote cites, there is no reference to Jews, only Zionism. He only condemns people that support the "Zionist regime" and reinforce the taking of Palestinian land. It does not make sense to claim he is talking about all Jewish people. There are Jews living freely in Iran and other countries, and he makes no statements that are negative about those Jews (you can even see him happily greeting and shaking hands with Rabbis on Youtube). The quotation sounds like he is referring to Jewish people, but this is due to taking it out of context, poor translation, and fears of antisemitism (which creates a bias). If any of the people he referred to were not Jewish, he would still condemn them. I think there is a serious problem with people confusing Anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Miona152 (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The equation of Zionists with world Jewry seems like a political maneuver more than a factual one. Even if a plural majority of Jews are indeed Zionists, especially those who come from a leftist or pacifist background, as well as more than a few Haredi sects.

This article must be done in the vein that Ahmadinejad is not in fact a raving racist, even if some organizations like Press TV have published that is offensive to Jews before: Iran is not Ahmadinejad. Even this [[ http://archive.adl.org/main_International_Affairs/ahmadinejad_words.html%7C Even this libelous compiled archive]] of "anti-Semitic" material shows very little commentary on Judaism or Jewish people (with the exception of Holocaust Denial), and lots on Zionism.

I thus suggest the article be written in accordance that this article tone down on the accusations of Anti-Semitism when it might just be rabid political anti-Zionism (and as far as I know, the "Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitic" myth doesn't hold true on wikipedia, or anywhere else I can think of outside of the right-wing Neocons or AIPAC.), which is a view shared by the majority of Iranians. Solntsa90 (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Original Research in Controversies/Wiped off the map/Translation sections

User Galassi reverted my edits to a previous version on the basis of WP:OR violations. I would like to make it clear that the original research present in the article was there before I made my edits. My edits were primarily with fixing format, fixing repeating, conflicting, and false information in relation to citations, and removing broken citations. Please, if you want to remove the original research, do so, but do not do it by reverting back to a previous edit, because you will destroy many good edits. I will take a look at the original research, and do something about it eventually, if you don't want to do it yourself. I have reverted back to my previous edit. Miona152 (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)