Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Some discussions to note: Some topics have been discussed at length on this talk page. Please consult the archives before attempting to:

• Argue that Category:Anti-Semitic people should be added to this page.
• Argue that Category:Holocaust denial should be removed from this page.
• Discuss translation issues or, more specifically, the alleged "wiped off the map" quote.

• Please redirect comments that have to do with Israel to Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel.
• Please redirect comments that have to do with controversial issues to Talk:Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

---

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7

Glaring omission of military service and background!

There is no mention of Ahmadinejad's membership with the Office for Strengthening Unity in 1979, his entry into military service during the war against Iraq beginning 1980, and voluntary entry into the Islamic Revolution's Guard Corps in 1986. Further, no mention of him being a senior commander in the Qods force. It is typical in biographies of political leaders, especially Presidents, to document their military service record. There should be a section on the front page on this. This is public information and not seriously disputed. If a particular detail of his service is in dispute, readers are free to provide factual evidence supports for that.

I would suggest this inclusion for starters:

Military Background: Member of the Office for Strengthening Unity 1979 IRGC officer beginning 1986 - Intelligence Qods Force Senior Commander

Details such as his role in planning assasinations can be included in subtopics mentioning those specific details, or in another section.

Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/ahmadinejad.htm --User:Alecmconroy 13:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC) --rjp2006 4:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested comment

So, quickly looking over the page, it seems to me like:

Meeting with Jews Against Zion is largely irrelevant to the debate over whether MA is anti-semetic. Few people are so extreme in their prejudices that they wouldn't even meet with the people they are prejudiced against-- merely meeting with someone isn't relevant to the debate, it doesn't sound.

That MA denies being anti-semetic, however, is _critical_ to the debate, and very relevant. That alone makes me think we should generally refer to his anti-semetics as merely "alleged". I haven't yet run into a case where I've felt it appropriate to unambiguously declare someone to have a prejudice when that person actively denies it. Of course-- nothing stops us from citing all the ample evidence suggesting MA is anti-semetic.

It _seems_ like his holocaust denial is not alleged. CNN certainly treats it that way, and there's a lot of evidence to back that up. So based on what I've seen for now, I'd say just call his holocaust denial a fact-- but I leave the door open that there might be cause to list it as 'alleged'-- I haven't read through the whole page. Again, in any case, the vast majority of the evidence adn the reliable sources characterize him as denying the holocaust, and we can mention all that.

Are there other issues I'm missing that are in dispute? --Alecmconroy 13:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the heading title, it states Holocaust denial and allegations of anti-Semitism. I think that any printed denials by MA about anti-semitism also need to be in the article, but that fringe groups are out-of-scope per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Also, this is why Category:Anti-Semitic people was removed and replaced with Category:Anti-Semitism. There is definitely debate and applicability of Anti-Semitism, but I think we've decided that "Anti-Semitic people" is a bit too much now. I may believe that to be true, and Jay did bring 18 sources to back that up, but enough ambiguity remains in others’ minds to make it not 100% clear, as is his Holocaust denial. -- Avi 13:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Right-- I should have been clear-- the anti-semetic IS currently stated as alleged, and I think the current way of doing it is a good thing. :) --Alecmconroy 22:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; a lot of editors are hashing out many difficult issues with the intent that pertinent issues are portrayed in a way that neither marginalizes nor overly-emphasizes the contraversial statements and actions of a contraversial man. If your skin (or head in my case) is thick enough, jump on in . -- Avi 22:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because a leader claims to not be anti-semetic does not mean he actually is not. There are many other possible reasons why he would say one thing (i.e. "I am not anti-semetic") when that is not his belief, such as wanting to maintain the illusion of impartiality and credibility. Not saying that a judgment should be made one way or the other because it is obviously very subjective and open to POV bias, but the fact he claims not to be does not mean he is not.

Removing journalism from the top of the article

Suppose that someone start Ariel Sharon's article with saying "he's the one that most of the middle eastern media call him the killer of Sabra& Shatila". Wouldn't it be funny? But this has happened for Ahmadinjed's article. It's absolutely wrong journalism, and you can see in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons (Writing style section) that this kind of journalism is prohibited. User:Avraham is repeatedly threatening me, and calling this vandalism, so please provide your comments about this, so I can get rid of these personal attacks. The last important thing is that User:Avraham is removing Ahmadinejad's own words from the "Holocaust" section. It seems that everyone's comment about his talks is more important than his own! --Hossein.ir 16:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read Advocacy journalism, I believe you are mistaken as to what it means. Thirdly, placing proper warnings on user talk pages is never a threat or an attack. Secondly, please see your talk page. Lastly, please remember to be civil here; that policy is as important as any other in wikipedia. Thank you. -- Avi 17:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Your problem is that you're not giving proper reasons. You're edits are very similar to what internet trolls do, because you insist that this is vandalism because IT IS. --Hossein.ir 14:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hossein, you might check out the actual Ariel Sharon article. In the lead, it says: "Some of his critics have sought to prosecute him as a war criminal for alleged crimes related to the Sabra and Shatila massacre during the 1982 Lebanon War, for which the Kahan Commission held him both 'indirectly' and 'personally' responsible. While no Israelis participated in the massacre, the investigation found that Sharon was personally responsible due to negligence and complacency. Sharon was dismissed as Defense Minister as a result." Detailed criticism of Sharon. IronDuke 20:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It is based on a fact, not opinion of journalists. This is the distinction. --Hossein.ir 14:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Avi, you're not implying that Advocacy journalism is all right for wikipedia, are you? --LifeEnemy 03:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. But the section Hossein is referring to does not suffer from that particluar malady. -- Avi 12:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sharon's article has suitable sources and is based on facts. --Hossein.ir 14:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I was pretty sure you weren't saying that. Just making sure!

Although the lead could use some fixing up (but that is being discussed right now, I believe) it doesn't need to be blanked, certainly. --LifeEnemy 01:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't think there's a problem with the summary of the article. In the mainstream media, Ahmadinejad is most well-known for his rhetoric regarding Israel and the Jews. And I haven't seen any "alternate translations," that changed the essence of what he said about Israel being wiped off the face of the map. Saying Israel should be "removed from the pages of history," or "removed from the pages of time," is essentially no different. What I'm concerned about is the section on him being anti-semitic. The section highlights anti-semitism while the article on controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have his anti-semitism as only a small section. And while I agree that one can be anti-semitic and still be friends with Neturei Karta, one can also be a Holocaust denier and oppose Israel without being anti-semitic. In both cases, though, it's rather unlikely, which is what makes Mahmoud's views on Jews so puzzling and subject to differing views. Robocracy 12:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

But see, he isn't even referring to Israel as an entity. He said "The illegal occupiers of Jerusalem". I don't think that every Israeli is illegally occupying Jerusalem, but rather the government of Israel. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

And every Jew living there as well, no? -- Avi 03:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, putting words his his or her mouth. When someone says that they want to destroy the "state of x", they usually mean the government, no the people. Had he meant that he wanted to kill everyone in the "state of x", I don't think he would have remained their president.

Not Neturei Karta, apparently. Remember, according to him, Zionists aren't Jews.

Case in point: I googled to see what David Duke's relations are with Neturei Karta. He avoids them.

David Duke's comments from Stormfront.org:

“ I don't have any objection to hearing anti-Zionist Jews and even promoting their writings. In some way they are more convincing about the evils and dangers of Jewish supremacism than our own pronouncements because they are from Jews themselves.

But there is a difference between Jews exposing Jewish supremacists such as the late Israel Shahak and having Jewish rabbis lecture us on the dangers of immigration or how Jews are really on our side on the major issues and we shouldn't be concerned about them.

This actually occured at one conference I attended. I also sat dumbfounded at a Jewish speaker telling us how WASPs are responsible for egalitarianism and immigration problems and that there is some flaw in our people rather than we being a victim of direct deceit and subversion by the Jewish supremacists.

So that was my main point. I hope I have cleared up my position for you.

”

An anti-semite hates Jews, so of course, they can't make any distinction between "good Jews," and "bad Jews." And they can't pretend to be okay around "some" Jews. Robocracy 06:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

File:Zionism protest1.jpg

Jews against zionism

Repeat with me: "Zionism is not judaism". He's against zionism as a form of racism, not judaism or jews. --Hossein.ir 14:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a problem in starting the article with the contentious piece about Israel and wiping it off the map. That issue is discussed in detail and explained in greater depth in the section about Iran/Israel relations and gives more explaination about the translation of the phrase. I think that snippet belongs there, and another paragraph of concise biographical information ( like that he was a PhD lecturer in Engineering in Tehran and that he is the first non-cleric president of Iran) belongs in its place Fyntan 10:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I came to Wikipedia for some help with research on the president of Iran but upon reading I have to comment this article is somewhat poor and slanted. I mean, how can you include the bit about Israel in the introduction? I can see other people have raised this point and I would like to emphasise how lame and biased it makes the article seem from the very beginning when it mentions a rather small detail in MA's public life. I mean, it would be better if the intro concentrated on how he won the election or other his pretty well-known characteristics (such as his oft-used jacket etc.) than a diatribe against Israel. Israel isn't that important in the context of his biography to merit its insertion into the intro. Surely some Jewish/Israeli/Neo-Con hack started this off. The debate about what he said and how he said, because its actually inaccurate what the intro says (he was quoting Khomeni, should be properly included further on down. No mention of it should be made in the intro, that's very shabby writing indeed.--82.23.146.17 15:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The J in Nejad

What is the correct pronunciation of the "nejad" part of his name? Is it like the "J" in "Jack" or like the "s" in "pleasure"? Thanks! --Amir E. Aharoni 09:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I added back the audio pronunciation to the article, so if you have the .ogg codec, clicking on his name in the beginning of the article should give you the best idea of how it is pronounced. In short though, I would say the "J" is closer to the "s" in pleasure than anything. Markovich292 01:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijani?

A Russian news article (link) claims that Ahmadinejad is an ethnic Azerbaijani. The article doesn't say it. Is it true? Thanks! --Amir E. Aharoni 09:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure if it is true or not...Unfortunately it doesn't seem like that article it is certain to be accurate on Ahmadinejad's nationality though (this is mainly because that article is found in the comments section of that website if I am not mistaken, and because Ahmadinejad is not the focus of the article). Since there is only a vague reference to him being of Azerbaijanian nationality, I think it would be best to find out from a few other authoritative sources if this is true or not before adding it to the article. Markovich292 01:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This page has nothing to do with anti-Semitism

So why is it in the anti-Semitism category? It's a biographical page about a modern politician. It's already been decided that this page won't go in the anti-Semitic people category. It's absolutely nonsensical to have it in the anti-Semitism category. FuManChoo 07:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Read the archives, this compromise was reached after a lot of debate and discussion, and I have a distinct hunch you know that already. -- Avi 12:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. FuManChoo, please respect consensus. IronDuke 18:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that there is further discussion on this matter, I think it is time to address the temporary solution that you both are referring to. As I recall, it was agreed on by some people from the original discussion that we should create a new section that outlines the possible solutions to the anti-semitism issue. When people read it, the idea would be that they could then decide for themselves which solution is more proper in its use of categories. Markovich292 18:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitism makes perfect sense. I haven't been following this article lately has that compromise not been stable? (→Netscott) 19:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Up until this point it has been stable, although much of the material on this talk page that referenced this category has been archived recently, so you may start to see a rise in removal of that category. Now that this category is under scrutany again, it seems time to find a more permanent solution to the anti-semitism issue, since it was agreed before that adding the anti-semitism category is only a stopgap measure. Markovich292 19:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well considering all of the haranguing that previously occurred realtive to the Category:Anti-Semitic people question and the prior rather serious lack of stability of the article with people adding and others subtracting that category, how things are now may just be the optimal solution. (→Netscott) 19:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

An editor that is new to this issue questioned the category, and was basically told "don't mess with the category," which was only added to resolve a dispute in the first place anyway. I have no doubt that this will happen again, possibly prompting a longer edit war than what we saw here. That doesn't seem like the optimal solution to me, which is why I proposed what I did (found here) a few weeks ago. That way, we have something concrete to direct people like FuManChoo to, instead of just telling them not to change something because it "is basically vandalism." Markovich292 00:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: FuManChoo is confirmed by checkuser, and admitted on his talk page, to be user:Deuterium, who will switch to the FMC account because the password to D is unavailable. He is not a new editor, but an old hand at this account, as can be seen here, here, He was well cognizant of the compromise, and was a regular contributor as was the rest of us. I am somewhat afraid that this was more of a trolling attempt with the thought that his former identity would not be connected. -- Avi 00:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we get back to talking about writing an encyclopedia? These personal attacks are of no relevance here. FuManChoo 02:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks were made; just a correction of Markovich's misunderstanding, and a concern I have based on the fact that you are obviously a rather intelligent individual. -- Avi 02:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As I see it we have agreed that M.A. doesn't belong in anti-Semitic people. So why then does he belong in the anti-Semitism category? Is he a historically significant anti-Semite? I don't think so. FuManChoo 02:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No, we have not agreed that MA does not belong in Category:Anti-Semitic people. Rather, we did agree that until we can get clarity we all agree on, that Category:Anti-Semitism is a suitable compromise that does not paint MA directly as an anti-semite but does not whitewash his considerable remarks and the 18 or so reliable sources that were brought supporting his placement in the people category. That is the gist of the situation now, I hope that clarifies things for you. Thanks. -- Avi 02:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Either he's an anti-Semite or he's not. IF he is he belongs in Category:Anti-Semitic people. If he isn't then he doesn't. But he's hardly significant enough to belong in Category:Anti-Semitism which should be reserved for notable or historically significant anti-Semites. FuManChoo 04:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

FuManChoo/Deuterium: a dispute has lasted for way too long and a compromise was achieved. Do you have something new to contribute, other than new disruption? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely Ahmediniejad is an opponent of zionism not an anti-semite? I am not aware he has ordered Jews in Iran to be discriminated against or punished in any way. Arniep 22:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be very difficult for someone of good faith to deny MA is an antisemite. The question is only, may we include him in such a category, is it verifiable? Reasonable people may disagree. As to whether he belongs in a category that denotes his involvement in a controversy related to antisemitism, reasonable people may not disagree. You've only to look at his WP article to see that. IronDuke 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the anti semitism category Ironduke is that many people may be accused of anti semitism when it was not actually correct to accuse them of anti semitism, as they are in fact anti-zionists. Everyone knows that it is a tactic used by certain campaign groups to try and dismiss anti zionism as something equivalent to Hitlers nazism when it is nothing of the sort. Arniep 02:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It would not be unreasonable to oppose the application of Category:Anti-Semitism though, because categories are not meant to be added just because something is being discussed in an article. That seems to be the primary misconception here. I am actually quite suprised that the comment that was added to the anti-semitism category page has lasted this long, because that is actually not how Wikipedia:Categorization says categories should be used.

Also, I ask that you take a look at the comment I made earlier regarding this issue. Thanks. Markovich292 01:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe this category and its use here is entirely consistent with Wikipedia:Categorization. I'm not sure what it was about your previous statement you wanted me to note. POV forking the category off into a daughter article is not a solution, I think. Was there more? IronDuke 01:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

IronDuke I think you misunderstand anti-semitism (as do many other people). Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has not advocated attacks against Jews or discriminated against Jews in Iran, he has only has said it is legitimate to attack Israel and those that defend it as a state specifically for Jews because he considers it a racist and discriminatory ideology. Arniep 02:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If I don't understand it, I'm joined by numerous commentators, and the governments of the US, UK, and Germany. Holocaust denial (which you omitted to mention) = Antisemitism. IronDuke 02:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw the interview on U.S. TV and he has explained that he does believe the holocaust happened, he does not deny it. However, he does not believe however that the holocaust justifies zionism. Arniep 03:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You are also, of course, missing the point entirely. Having him in the antisemitism category doesn't mean he is an antisemite, just that he's involved in the issue. See also Abe Foxman. IronDuke 02:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but it's quite obvious this category is being misused for political purposes. It is well known that pro Israeli campaign groups routinely equate anti semitism with anti zionism so they should not be considered reliable sources to justify someones inclusion in the category. Hitler was an anti semite, Ahmedinejad is not. Arniep 03:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You needn't be sorry, you only need to grasp this point: it does not matter what you or I think for the purposes of this category. Merely that MA is involved in the subject. Misused? That's just begging the question. You can't deny there are controversies involving MA and AS. IronDuke 03:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The only things in that category should be places, events and writings. To place people in it when there is already an anti semitic people category is clearly just trying to get away with tarring people with the anti semitic brush when they are not anti semites. Arniep 16:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I would not object to putting him in the ASs people cat, but I see that other editors of good will do object, and have legitimate reasons. (Not saying I agree with the reasons, just respecting them.) But since we're not putting him in AS people, the plain old AS category is a reasonable substitute. IronDuke 19:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please review the past discussions and compromise reached. Antisemitism is the perfect category until people will decide whether MA is an anti semite or not is controversial or not. this particular category Category:Antisemitism is not contrvoersial in any way. As it says on the top of the category page:

This category signifies that anti-Semitism is discussed within the article. When placed on the page of a specific person, it does not mean that the person is necessarily an antisemite. Please see Category:Anti-Semitic people.

Cheers. Amoruso 05:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not acceptable. It is perfectly obvious that the Anti-semitism category is being used as a second best by people who want to label people anti-semites which was all but admitted by IronDuke above. Israeli lobby organizations consistently equate anti-semitism with anti-zionism to try and scare people from criticising Israel for fear they will be labelled "nazis". Ahmedinejad has not made laws against Jews in Iran, he has not criticised them, ostracized them or punished them in any way for their religion or culture. He has however criticised Israel because he is an anti-zionist. Arniep 10:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is why the compromise was not to use Category:Anti-Semitic people even though, I believe it was eighteen reliable sources were brought calling him an anti-semitic person or saying he was guilty of anti-semitic statements. You may not like that the US senate and others call him an anti-semite, but he was called so in reliable sources, and your removing the information is tantamount to pushing a POV in the face of evidence. -- Avi 13:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A bit puzzling to see a new edit battle developing over the Anitsemitism category. Who can deny that anitsemitism is discussed in this article? Its pretty clear that the antisemitism category is not being used for smearing when you've got the chairman of the Anti-Defamation League Abraham Foxman in the same category. (→Netscott) 13:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Netscott I absolutely believe that there should be no people at all in the anti-semitism category as it is ridiculous that as soon as anyone is called anti semitic by any number of Israeli lobby groups for making comments perceived as anti-Israeli they will automatically get put in this category. Foxman should not be in the category at all- a much more appropriate category for him would be Anti-Racism, or Combatting Anti-Semitism, something like that. Arniep 17:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears Arniep has been indef banned. I don't think his arguments were at all persuasive in any case, but just for everyone's information... IronDuke

Nobody can deny it is discussed in the article, but I remind you that categories are not supposed to be used simply to say that something is being discussed in an article. Also, just as a side note, that line at the top of the anti-semitism category stating "This category signifies that anti-Semitism is discussed within the article" was only placed because of the debate on this page. If you will read WP:Categorization, you will see that this does not properly decribe the use of categories. I didn't remove it while the temporary compromise was in effect, but I'm going to remove it now.

Also, I am going to remove Abraham Foxman from the Anitsemitism category. According to guidelines, he does not belong there since he is in Category:Anti-Defamation League. Markovich292 00:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

So, I'm going through the discussion, and I see, in favor of this cat:

Ironduke

Amoruso

Netscott

HumusSapiens

Avi

Sr13

Mantanmoreland

Against:

Arniep (indef banned)

FuManChoo (multiple blocks, 6 with old account, 4 on a new account)

Markovich292

Francis Tyers

That's five users in good standing against one user in good standing. I'm happy to keep discussing, but I'm also sensing we're near consensus here. Thoughts? IronDuke 05:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You can count me as a "For" as well, Iron. Also please note my comment below.--Mantanmoreland 13:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposed to including the "Anti-Semitic people" category too. - Francis Tyers · 11:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You can count me as against. Robocracy 22:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting much- just clarifying the situation here...

First, let's set the record straight- Ahmadinejad is an anti-Semite. It's all in the first paragraph of the article. There are numerous citations from verifiable sources (CNN, New York Times) suggesting that he is an anti-Semite.

Next, about whether there should be a cat for anti-Semitism. There are quite a few people in the cat, so keep it!! Labeling someone an anti-Semite is not offensive to them nor is it POV because they openly say that they hate Jews. The cat is a list of believers of an ideal; treat it like List of Christians or the like.

My point-either keep the cat or change to list. Sr13 07:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Jews are respected by everyone, by all human beings," he told a news conference at the United Nations headquarters in New York.

The remarks come months after Mr Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be wiped off the map - and described the Holocaust as "myth".

In response to questions about Iran's controversial nuclear programme, he said the Iranians "do not need a bomb".

The Iranian president's comments on anti-Semitism came during remarks on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"Some people think if they accuse me of being anti-Jew they can solve the problem.

"No, I am not anti-Jew," he said. "I respect them very much."

"Let us remember that there in Palestine there are Muslims, Christians and Jews who live together," he said.

Later, he added: "We love everyone in the world - Jews, Christians, Muslims, non-Muslims, non-Jews, non-Christians... We are against occupation, aggression, killings and displacing people - otherwise we have no problem with ordinary people." [1]

Not the words of an Anti-Semite. - Francis Tyers · 11:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the reason he shouldn't be in the category is quite simple.

1. There are many people who claim that some comments he has made are anti-Semitic -- these are opinion.
2. There are few people who claim that he is anti-Semitic.
3. There are no reliable sources (books, journal articles, monographs etc.) that state that he himself, the man is an anti-Semite.
4. He has stated that he loves Jews.
5. Categories are for facts, not opinion.

- Francis Tyers · 11:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

We've been going back and forth over this for months. Whatever you can say about MA it is that he is subject of accusations of antisemitism, so the category fits. Also this category is a compromise, and I reluctantly agreed to it. I was reluctant because I felt that 1. he belonged in anti-Semitic people and 2. a hard core of editors would oppose even "antisemitism" and repudiate this compromise. Sure enough, that is what has happened.--Mantanmoreland 13:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Francis, there are many, many people who have said that MA, the man, is an antisemite. But even if no one had, virtually every sane person on the planet agrees his remarks were. Thus, the category. This isn't controversial. IronDuke 16:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Some people, but you have presented no reliable sources (books, journal articles, monographs etc.) which state that the man is an anti-Semite. - Francis Tyers · 18:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching this for quite some time. There should be an "Allegations of Anti-Semitism" heading in the article. Anti-Semitism should not be discussed in the opening paragraph, though. Because anti-semitism is discussed on the page, Category:Anti-Semitism is appropriate. This man has not been proven an anti-semite, so we should not use Category:Anti-Semitic people. Since there is considerable debate about it, though, it certainly warrants a heading in the article. I believe this is the proper way to handle this situation, given WP:BOLP. Vir4030 01:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with you about Category:Antisemitism being appropriate if categories were supposed to be used just to say something is being discussed, but that is not the case. They are primarily used to group similar articles together, which is why this category is much better suited to Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which is unquestionably in compliance with WP:BOLP. In fact, the "Accusations of anti-Semitism" section on that page should even be expanded since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad#Holocaust denial and allegations of anti-Semitism directs readers there. Markovich292 01:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:Categorization says "Categories help users find information, even if they don't know that it exists or what it's called." That's the first sentence under the first heading, "When to use categories". If someone wants to find information about Anti-Semetism, there is information on this page in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad#Holocaust denial and allegations of anti-Semitism. In order for me to go along with removing Category:Antisemitism, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad#Holocaust denial and allegations of anti-Semitism would *only* have to point to Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and not offer any additional information except to say there's a controversy, and please see this special page we made. As the article stands now, however, this information is on the page, and I believe the category is appropriate. Vir4030 01:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

MA chose to surround himself with antisemitic controversies. Surely his name belongs in a category that deals with that subject. If not Category:Anti-Semitic people then at least Category:Antisemitism, which, among other entries, includes Anti-Defamation League and Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's good to see that you took the time to read that guideline. Ironically, the parts that we both have quoted say essentially the same thing but just in different words...categories group similar articles together which is done to help people to find information. With that purpose in mind, it is hard to justify adding the anti-semitism category to this page since .

"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad#Holocaust denial and allegations of anti-Semitism would *only* have to point to Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and not offer any additional information except to say there's a controversy."

I'm glad you took a look at this issue in my post above as well. I believe it is stated in guidelines or an official manual of style somewhere that what you say above is how it is supposed to be done. That is, any section within a main page (in this case Mahmoud Ahmadinejad#Holocaust denial and allegations of anti-Semitism) that directs to a seperate article (Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in this case) is supposed to be a summary with no additional information just as you have mentioned. Markovich292 03:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not a standalone article - just a subarticle of this one. But now I see the reason why it was whisked away - so whitewashers caould make their specious arguments. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not follow the decision to break off the Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad page, so I can't really speak to that. If there is a guideline about how this should be handled in the main article, then could someone please link to it so we can all read it? Humus, let's assume good faith on the part of past editors, and just work towards making this article good and uncontroversial. Vir4030 15:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I found it myself. Wikipedia:Summary_style describes how there should be a summary of the broken-out article appearing on the main page. Is this guideline appropriate here? Vir4030 17:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thank you...I knew I saw that somewhere before. To answer your question, yes, that does apply here; in fact, this is exactly the kind of situation that is addressed on that page. It is interesting to note how a/some seasoned editor(s) haven't even mentioned this particular guideline once in the months they have been working on/discussing this article... Anyway, I have added the Sync template for now: as you mentioned above, once this is taken care of there is certainly no need for the category on this page. Here is an example I gave before on how this situation is handled in another situation-a situation in which the category in question is not added to the main page:

It is quite unnecessary to add this article to Category:Antisemitism because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel is already listed. That is a dedicated article that goes further into the allegations of anti-semitism; if Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was added after a re-write as well, that is two articles that address the issue in full that eill be in the antisemitism category. Compare this situation to Israel and human rights issues. Israel is not listed under Category:Human rights to "tell the user that human rights is being discussed in the article," but the main article, Human rights in Israel is listed under Category:Human rights by country. Markovich292 20:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit new to this whole thing, so I'm not quite sure what all of these templates and such do. Anyways, it would seem to me that the best course of action would be to make sure that everything currently listed in this section of the article is covered in Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and then write a summary of that article to put in the section on this page, replacing what's there. Does that make sense? Is there a process for this? Can we just post to Talk:Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and ask an active editor to go through the information and make sure it's all covered? Vir4030 23:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is regarding Iron duke's use of people's standing in his argument. Lets stick to the arguments rather than the people who are making it. Ad-hominem never helps. I am also against anti-semite 06:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.159.133.91 (talk • contribs) 01:20, November 16, 2006 (UTC)

I think a sub category of Category:Persons involved in Antisemitic controversies can be appropriate. Amoruso 12:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have no problem with including him in a category of Category:People involved in Anti-Semitic controverseries. - Francis Tyers · 16:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Great... I wonder if people will agree to this category. I would also like to place Walter Guinness, 1st Baron Moyne there, I think it's a good choice. Amoruso 13:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

anti-Zionism isn't anti-Semitism. Are all the Jews at http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com and the 10,000 who marched in NYC "anti-semites"? They are semitic! Wow. A concensus of lies is still a lie. Haramzadi 21:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that is a big debate. People like the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. and Thomas Friedman seem to disagree with you. See Anti-Zionism#Anti-Zionism and antisemitism for more details. -- Avi 12:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The alleged Martin Luther King quote "When people talk of Zionists, they mean the Jews" is only hearsay based on one person's recollections from 30 years ago, it doesn't appear in any of his writings or in any recorded or written records. You may have fallen for a well-known hoax. What is the source of your claim "Thomas Friedman seems to disagree with [the view that anti-Zionism isn't anti-Semitism]"? MeteorMaker 12:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"..We love everyone in the world - Jews," -- MA No debate at all.. it's clear to everyone but particular Jews trying to use this as a vehicle to smear their blood enemy. Totally inappropriate! Keep the politics off Wikipedia. 68.7.67.96 01:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It isnot that simple; please see See Anti-Zionism#Anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Thank you -- Avi 01:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It is that simple, he says he loves Jews. Please stop pushing your Jewish-Zionist propoganda. Your personal political beliefs are inappropriate here. 68.7.67.96 01:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It actually is pretty darn simple: wikipedia has two seperate articles detailing detailing anti-semitism and anti-zionism, which absolutely do not say that they are the same thing. Even in the section you mention, there is nothing that affords us the liberty of saying he is anti-semitic because he is an anti-zionist. Trying to say that Ahmadinejad's rabid anti-zionism "confuses the issue" or some such thing is ridiculous: there are seperate categories for antisemitism and anti-zionism for a reason. Markovich292 06:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Your personal attacks are uncalled for. Secondly, a reminder from archive 6about some sources that believe MA has made anti-semitic statements follow below: -- Avi 03:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The man says he "loves jews", and you insist on pushing your anti-semitic/anti-semitism category in his biography, againist Wikipedia:BLA. Please address that rather than quoting Jews (reformjudaismmag.org) and other sources merely dropping the label in editorial/opinion pieces.

BTW... YOU identify yourself as member of a group which has avowed itself as an enemy of M.A. don't be surprised when people mention your obvious bias. If you were a confederate trying to smear Martin Luther King Jr. it would be just as reasonable and impersonal to bring up the flag and other material ..esp. when making such ridiculous and unfactual statements which amount to slandering a living official of a foreign country.

68.7.67.96 07:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, your argument is that Ahmadinejad says he loves Jews and is therefore not anti-Semitic. This is simply not a sufficient argument. The fact that someone says something does not make it true. I'm staying out of the debate as to whether Ahmadinejad is an anti-Semite for now, but please realise that this argument is not very convincing. Heimstern Läufer 07:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

To that point, what action has he taken that is anti-semitic? Words or more precisely people's assumptions about his words for certain speeches are the ONLY justification being used to put this label on M.A. 68.7.67.96 17:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Some sources that describe Ahmadinejad as antisemitic

1. ...the country's viciously anti-semitic President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. - The Guardian, a highly respected British newspaper.

   Opinion of Luke Harding in Berlin and Denis Campbell in Cologne. -ft

   Yes, the individual authors of this article call MA [Iran's] viciously anti-semitic President, but they do not back up that claim. It's just name-calling in the context presented in the article. Vir4030 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

2. ...the anti-Semitic president of Iran... - The Week magazine.

   Opinion of This Week magazine. -ft

   No, actually, this article quotes an editorial of The Buffalo News as saying "When an American religious leader starts sounding like the anti-Semitic president of Iran, something's deeply wrong." This is secondhand recounting of opinion, certainly not fact. Vir4030 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Ahmadinejad, who has caused a stir with a number of anti-Semitic remarks... - The Gulf Times an Arab newspaper.

   Comments on his remarks, which they perceive as 'anti-Semitic'. Does not discuss which particular remarks. -ft

   I cannot even get this to come up anymore. I get an ASP.NET application error. Vir4030 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

4. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is notorious for Holocaust denial and his Hitlerian exhortation that Israel should be "wiped off the map." This open call for Israel's extermination cannot help but remind us of 1933, when another anti-Semite who openly called for the extermination of the Jews was elected by his people. - Eric Yoffie, President of the Union for Reform Judaism

   The Union for Reform Judaism is hardly a neutral source. -ft

   Yes, this is an opinion piece written by the Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie, President of the Union for Reform Judaism. He compares Ahmadinejad to Hitler, and thus the tie into Anti-semitism. But he offers no evidence supporting up this comparison. Vir4030 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

5. Nadler Condemns Ahmadinejad\u2019s Latest Anti-Semitic Rant - Jerrold Nadler, U.S. Representative

   The Rant is anti-Semitic, not the man. -ft

   This piece quotes Congressman Jerrold Nadler in response to some "hideous remarks" that Ahmadinejad made the same day. It links to an outdated Yahoo news article. This page itself cannot be used as source, because it is mearly Congressman Nadler's opinion. But the Yahoo news article, if tracked down, could be. Vir4030 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

6. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent anti-Semitic remarks - United Press International

   Comments on his remarks, which they perceive as 'anti-Semitic'. Does not discuss which particular remarks. -ft

   This article does quote Ahmadinejad's remarks and calls them anti-semitic. The quote from MA is: "They have fabricated a legend under the name 'Massacre of the Jews,' and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves. This is our proposal: give a part of your own land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to (the Jews) so that the Jews can establish their country." This quote does not call for the destruction of all Jews, or the persecution of Jews. Wikipedia defines Antisemitism as "hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group, which can range in expression from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution." That's the first sentence in the article Antisemitism. This quote from Ahmadinejad, which is what the article calls "anti-semitic", even if an accurate translation, calls the holocaust a "legend" and calls for the removal of Israel from its current location. Neither of these things expresses anti-semitism. Vir4030 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

7. Not all Muslims, however, share Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitic views - Deutsche Welle

   Opinion of Mohamed Ahroba, although this is one of the better articles you've linked. -ft

   This article says that MA has repeatedly called the holocaust a "myth", but not all Muslims share his anti-Semitic views. Holocaust denial is not, in and of itself, anti-semitism. This article would need to show more proof to back up the anti-semitism claim, otherwise it is opinion. Vir4030 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

8. Anti-Semitism International: Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his Own Words - Anti-Defamation League

   I construed one comment as possibly anti-Semitic, "Are they human beings?... They (Zionists) are a group of blood-thirsty savages putting all other criminals to shame." — one might associate this with blood libel crap. The other seems to be vocal, but not necessarily anti-Semitic criticism of Israel and Zionism. -ft

   The only comment on this page that may be anti-semitic (instead of Anti-Zionist or Holocaust Denial, both of which I will credit MA with) is the quote from August 6th, 2006: "They (Israel) kill women and children, young and old. And, behind closed doors, they make plans for the advancement of their evil goals." This is credited "as quoted by Khorasan Provincial TV", which effectively means that I cannot check the source to validate the quote and its context. This page is also questionable from a POV status, since it is published by the Anti-Defamation League, and the first navigation item on their site's navigation is called "Anti-Semitism" and the tagline at the top says "To stop the defamation of the Jewish people." Vir4030 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

9. Mr. Ahmadinejad's anti Semitism is a true face of the Iranian government - Ghassem Namazi, Iranian.com.

   Nice article, I can sympathise, but still this is an opinion piece, and the opinion of Ghassem Namazi. -ft

   This is completely an opinion piece, and it doesn't site any of its sources. Vir4030 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

10. Like the Persian royal adviser Haman (the most infamous anti-Semite of antiquity), Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reeks with his own considerable animus for Jews... Similarly creative anti-Semitic rants... Avi Shafran, spokesman for Haredi Judaism

    Describes rants as anti-Semitic. -ft

    This article is clearly marked as opinion. It links MA to anti-semitism through "his recent blaming of the terrorist bombing by Sunni Muslims of a Shi'ite Muslim shrine on 'a group of Zionists' who nevertheless 'failed in the face of Islam's logic and justice.'" This quote is uncited. Zionists means support for a homeland for the Jewish people. (first sentence from Zionism) Anti-zionism is the opposition to Zionism. Even the Anti-zionist article describes linking this to anti-semitism as controversial. Vir4030 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

11. ...Iran and its anti-Semitic president - Alan Dershowitz.

    Opinion piece of Alan Dershowitz. -ft

    Dershowitz calls Ahmadinejad's denial of the holocaust and calls to "wipe Israel off the map" as "anti-Semitic and genocidal threats". He does not cite his quotes. Vir4030 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

12. That coin -- virulent anti-Semitism -- circulates throughout the Muslim Middle East, not just in Iran. Ahmadinejad's ugly outpourings were condemned in the West... - Jeff Jacoby

    Does not describe the man as anti-Semitic. -ft

    This is also a clearly-labelled opinion piece. The quotes used are the same ones described above. This article offers nothing except a rehashing of what was stated above. Vir4030 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

13. There really are anti-Semites in this world of ours right now who not only wish to destroy all Jews but are doing all within their powers to bring that about. Does the name Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian leader, suggest anything? - Daniel Lapin, Modern Orthodox Rabbi and political commentator in The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

    Does not describe the man as anti-Semitic. -ft

    This is an article about Mel Gibson, and he also calls Ahmadinejad an anti-Semite: "There really are anti-Semites in this world of ours right now who not only wish to destroy all Jews but are doing all within their powers to bring that about. Does the name Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian leader, suggest anything?" Later, he says that Mel Gibson apologized, but MA hasn't. There is no supporting evidence given. Vir4030 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

14. ...Ahmadinejad has tried to recast himself as less a radical anti-Semite... - The Australian

    Does not describe the man as anti-Semitic. Your elipsis has left out the rest of the quote and now it is not possible to access it. -ft

    This article is no longer available, but is available through a news archive service, and I couldn't find it in their sample searches. I can't really say anything about this source, but we can't use it if it's unavailable, right? Vir4030 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

15. ...people who lack a baptismal certificate are excused for their clearly anti-Semitic hatred. Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are symptomatic of those who glide effortlessly back and forth between reproaching the "Zionist entity" and glorifying the massacre of Jews. - San Antonio Express-News

    Opinion. If this is all it takes, you should put Mel Gibson in the category ;) -ft

    The quote: "Another source of this confusion is the exceedingly easy way in which people who lack a baptismal certificate are excused for their clearly anti-Semitic hatred. Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are symptomatic of those who glide effortlessly back and forth between reproaching the 'Zionist entity' and glorifying the massacre of the Jews." This is the only mention of MA in the story, and it dosen't cite any sources or offer any supporting facts. Vir4030 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

16. ...Ahmadinejad comes across as an out-of-control anti-Semite who wants Israel destroyed... - Fox News Channel

    HAH Fox News, nuff said. -ft

    The full quote: "In the U.S. and much of Europe -- in short, the traditional center of the Christian world -- Ahmadinejad comes across as an out-of-control anti-Semite who wants Israel destroyed and who would risk his country's survival on a gamble that the world will not and cannot stop him from producing a nuclear weapons arsenal." This author is saying how he believes "the U.S. and much of Europe" sees Ahmadinejad. There is no solid evidence or facts offered. Vir4030 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

17. So you see, we are dealing with a psychopath of the worst kind \u2014 with an anti-semite - Ehud Olmert in The Times.

    Ehud Olmert has his own opinion, but that doesn't belong in discussing categorisation. -ft

    The full quote, attributed to Ehud Olmert, Israel's Prime Minister designate: "Ahmadinejad speaks today like Hitler before taking power. So you see, we are dealing with a psychopath of the worst kind -- with an anti-semite. God forbid that this man ever gets his hands on nuclear weapons, to carry out his threats." It suggests that these statements were in response to MA questioning the holocaust and suggesting the Jewish state be moved to Europe or North America. This article offers nothing new, except to add the comments of a leader of Israel, the exact state MA wants to remove. I have a hard time believing this quote isn't subject to some serious POV. Vir4030 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What a plethora of independent factual viewpoints. Maybe we can find some Carthaginians to quote for some articles on Rome. 68.7.67.96 07:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So you saythe Gulf Times and the Guardian are pro-Israel? Have you read either recently? -- Avi 13:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And none of those are reliable sources. As I have previously mentioned, find books, journal articles, monographs. Good academic stuff that describes him as an Anti-Semite, then we'll see about it. - Francis Tyers · 14:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That is somewhat interesting, as for example, we use the Guardian to support all of Chris McGreal's, Desmond Tutu's, and Meron Benvenisti's statements at Allegations of Israeli apartheid, should we remove all those? How about the statements regarding the west bank wall at Human rights in Israel and Israeli West Bank barrier, should we remove those as well? It is difficult to claim that a source is only reliable when it brings something that supports your position, but not when it brings something against your position. -- Avi 14:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure why not? I have no particular feelings about those other articles. I'm interested in this one right now. I understand that you personally feel that the man is an anti-Semite, but it has not been confirmed by any reliable sources yet. Please see below for categorisation compromise. - Francis Tyers · 10:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That position does not make any sense... see Two_wrongs_make_a_right. Also see Francis Tyers above. What you are happily omitting is that those other cases all use the papers to document events/facts not repeat a label which is the opinion of the writer. Is the paper being used to show words from a speech, or as justification to use the slanderous opinion label mainly parroted by Jewish-Zionists as above? (Haredis, Reforms, Alan Dershowitz, Ehud Olmert). How far is your head up your ass to think those are objective or even remotely factual/verifiable sources on Iran? I can't believe you think we are all so stupid you could actually mention that with a straight face. It just goes to show the outright deceit taking place here. Please don't quote assume good faith...demonstrate some and we can maybe begin to believe you even understand the concept. 68.7.67.96 17:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Emotinal attachment to an article or point-of-view is not an excuse to ignore civility. Please remember that WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are also cornerstones to proper wikipedia function. -- Avi 17:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can address the topic rather than continuing the victim charades. 68.7.67.96 19:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I already have above, and in the archives. I have asked for civil discourse and to discuss ideas, not to bandy about emotional catchphrases and personal attacks. If you cannot attempt the former, please do not substitute it with the latter. Thank you. -- Avi 19:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the answer is no, and the victim charade continues... 68.7.67.96 19:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I went through the list of quotes above, and tried to exact more detail out of each article. It's one thing to just post a huge list of links, but how many editors are actually going to click on each one and read enough of each article to get a proper context and understand what's really being said. I do not believe that any of these articles, or even all of them collectively, could be used to categorize MA as an anti-Semite. If anyone has any varying opinions on any of the articles, I would emplore you to please quote the articles themselves as much as possible. I hope I didn't miss anything, but please let me know if I did. Vir4030 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus?

Support antisemitism categorizing:

1. IronDuke
2. Sr13
3. Mantanmoreland
4. Vir4030
5. The 13th 4postle
6. Humus sapiens
7. Avi
8. Amoruso
9. Netscott
10. Robocracy (see comment below)
11. Ford MF

Support Category:People involved in anti-Semitic controversies

1. Francis Tyers ·
2. Vir4030
3. Category:People involved in '''antisemitic''' controversies - i support my suggestion but if the cat deleted of course maintain Category:Antisemitism. Amoruso 00:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not support antisemitism categorizing:

1. Markovich292
2. Francis Tyers
3. Strothra
4. FuManChoo
5. Klymen
6. Haramzadi
7. MeteorMaker
8. Mach Seventy
9. Tanzeel

• Arniep (indef banned)

Category:Anti-Semitic people

I supported Category:Antisemitism as a compromise based with those who opposed Category:Anti-Semitic people. If Category:Antisemitism is not goinf to remain the current compromise, I believe the argument must return to the appropriateness of Category:Anti-Semitic people as well. More importantly, I think that some of the arguments being raised against Category:Antisemitism are more properly raised against Category:Anti-Semitic people. To wit, the WP:BLP, which in my opinion is not violated as the sources brought are high-quality and well verified. Regardless, that is not an argument against Category:Antisemitism in my opinion, as Category:Antisemitism does not categorize the user as an Anti-Semite, but categorizes the article as having significant discussion about anti-semitism; a fundemental difference. I would appreciate hearing counterarguments (as long as they are both civil and not ad hominem. Thank you. -- Avi 15:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you are upset that people are calling you on irrational arguments used to slander a foreign leader and you are now threatening to make an even more illogical/ridiculous alteration to the article as an attempt to "punish" people for questioning your position. 68.7.67.96 17:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid you are not remembering the history of the compromise. Please read through the archives. Also, please remember to remain civil. If you let your passion overwhelm your ability to edit wikipedia in accordance with its guidelines and policies, it only does the project harm. Thank you. -- Avi 18:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The "history of the compromise" as you put it is nothing more than this being "a temporary compromise in order to unnlock the thread." The only extra "provision" of this compromise (that was agreed on by more than just one person) was to do what we are already doing now: to create a poll in search of a consensus that would either exclude or confirm the antisemitism category. Markovich292 06:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that we have to look at something different. We have three possible categories now.

1. Category:Anti-Semitic people. I think, given WP:BOLP that we would have to equate anti-zionism or holocaust denial with anti-semitism in order to support this categorization. MA has clearly demonstrated that he is an anti-zionist, and has clearly doubted the holocaust (although I understand that it is controversial whether he actually denied it). The link between anti-zionism and anti-semitism is very controversial. The link between holocaust denial and anti-semitism is less controversial, but there is increased debate about whether MA actually denied the holocaust, or merely doubts it and wants additional research. Either way, though, I do not believe this link is solid enough to officially declare MA an anti-semite, which is what this categorization would do. WP:BOLP summarizes itself: "Wikipedia articles about living people can affect the subject's life. They must therefore be written with the greatest of care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research, particularly regarding any controversial materal." This material is certainly very controversial, so we must take the greatest of care when making this assignment. Let's make sure that if we do this, we are getting it right. I edited this after the fact to clarify my point here. My original text did a poor job of it.

2. Category:Anti-Semitism. WP:Categories says that categories help users find information, even if they don't know that it exists. If there is information on this page about Anti-Semitism, then this category is appropriate -- even if we plan to remove this information. I don't think it's unreasonable to put MA in this category until the information in Anti-Semitism is summarized and moved completely into the sub-article specifically discussing this issue.

3. Category:Persons involved in Antisemitic Controversies. This category does not yet exist, but there is discussion further down this page about creating one. I think that MA would definitely be in this category. The only reason I could see not to create this category is that it would invite people to use it to attempt to brandish someone an anti-semite. I have no clue the ramifications of this from a legal perspective, but I think the Wikipedia community, through processes exactly like the one we're undertaking now, can do their best to enforce WP:BOLP and make sure that it isn't used for malicious purposes.

My personal opinion is reflected in the comments above, but I still think that these are the only three options available on the table. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Anti-Semitism are definitely linked. Wikipedia should definitely show this link. It's our job as editors to make sure that this is done in an appropriate way with WP:Verifiability, WP:NPOV, and WP:No Original Research. Vir4030 17:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You are certainly not the only one to think this way about the antisemitic people category in this case. Especially with Ahmadinejad's most recent comments (you know, the ones where he says he respects Jews or something like that ), it is ridiculous to revisit the anti-semitic people issue, IMHO.

Number two is certainly not so ridiculous. Categories are used to help users find information, however, this is not a page on antisemitism-it is a page about the president of Iran. WP:Categories says that the primary use of categories is to group similar articles together, which is not accompished by adding the antisemitism category to this page. In an ideal world (that is, one adhering to guidelines), the current "Holocaust denial and allegations of anti-Semitism" section would be moved, in its entirety, to Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, then a summary would be created for this page (taken from the text on that page). Just as is done for nations with a human rights subarticle, the category would then be applied to Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the subarticle in this case.

"The only reason I could see not to create this category is that it would invite people to use it to attempt to brandish someone an anti-semite...the Wikipedia community, through processes exactly like the one we're undertaking now, can do their best to enforce WP:BOLP, [however]."

This process we are undertaking started with people trying to brandish MA as an antisemite-look at the archives for how long that went on, and then tell me if you still think that creating a new category that invites POV usage is a good idea. It seems that this category will be hopelessly POV and/or OR because there is no way to definitively say "this person has officially become part of a controversy" and it is unlikely that a reliable source will actually say "X is involved in an anti-semitism controversy." Markovich292 22:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, in going along with the original suggestion and subsequent agreement to run a poll for two weeks, I think it is time to get past this issue and move on to making the article better. The final tallies, as of the two week marker, are listed below:

• 11 Support Category:Antisemitism
• 10 Oppose Category:Antisemitism
• 3 Support Category:People involved in anti-Semitic controversies

No consensus has been established to keep Category:Antisemitism. I will wait to remove it until it is tentatively placed on Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and a poll created (on that page) to confirm its placement there. Markovich292 00:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that the category was added since the last time I checked that article. I created a poll to make sure there is a consensus so if people try to remove/replace the category against the consensus (whatever the case may be) in the future, it can be resolved without a new argument erupting. Feel free to comment: Talk:Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad#Antisemitism category poll

There doesn't need to be a consensus for keeping the category since it's already there. There needs to be a consensus to remove it. It should stay as best compromise available. Amoruso 03:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation still required?

Does this discussion still require mediation? --Ideogram 09:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This article will have much argument for a long while because this is a contraversial person. The discussion will always have some sort of mediation. Sr13 02:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I can try to find someone to help moderate the discussion but it requires the voluntary cooperation of all of the concerned parties. The moderator will have no power so if any party chooses not to cooperate he cannot help. --Ideogram 05:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to close this mediation case. If you wish to have a mediated discussion, let me know on my talkpage and I will reopen it. --Ideogram 07:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Im removing a piece of propaganda

It appears a Zionist has snuck in the piece of propaganda "Ahmadinejad has denied the holocaust", I am removing this since he never denied the holocaust, he only called for it to be investigated, please see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haramzadi (talk • contribs) .

Please don't do any such thing. This has been discussed already. Also, please avoid personal attacks. Also, please sign your posts. IronDuke 19:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please remove it. Claims without support in sources can be removed at any time. // Liftarn

Hilarious

I find it hilarious that there is an article on here Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel explaining that he never denied the Holocaust, yet the admins and others constantly put up that he does deny the holocaust. What a wonderful defended lie... Haramzadi 20:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain you understand the concept. Please see holocaust denial. Thanks. IronDuke 20:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And im not entirely certain you understand the reality of how illogical it is to assume that someone is "denying" something whenever they ask for more information on it or want to investigate it. Are you a POV warrior? or something? Haramzadi 20:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"POV warrior?" That's an interesting accusation from someone who has only just started editing. Is this the only Wikipedia account you are editing/have edited with? As to your point, suggesting that the Holocaust might not have happened is called Holocaust Denial. Check out our article on it. IronDuke 20:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here. Haramzadi, could you show me where the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel says Ahmadinejad didn't deny the holocaust? I couldn't find it. If our articles contradict each other, we need to fix them, obviously. IronDuke, could you show me where consensus was achieved to include the information that is being removed? Heimstern Läufer 20:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In the subject you ask about, it quotes Ahmadinejad as saying "If the Europeans are telling the truth in their claim that they have killed six million Jews in the Holocaust during the World War II - which seems they are right in their claim because they insist on it and arrest and imprison those who oppose it, why should the Palestinian nation pay for the crime. Why have they come to the very heart of the Islamic world and are committing crimes against the dear Palestine using their bombs, rockets, missiles and sanctions. [...] The same European countries have imposed the illegally-established Zionist regime on the oppressed nation of Palestine. If you have committed the crimes so give a piece of your land somewhere in Europe or America and Canada or Alaska to them to set up their own state there. Then the Iranian nation will have no objections, will stage no rallies on the Qods Day and will support your decision"

Notice here he says "which seems they are right in their claim", I believe that is proof he is not denying it, but rather asking questions and wishing to investigate it, he is not denying the event. But further down you see that the "American media" reported that he called it a myth. I believe that the "American media" is the problem here, same with CNN, Fox etc. I am debating the factual relevance of CNN's statement, since it doesn't match the actual translation of what he said. Haramzadi 20:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's all in the archives, which you are welcome to dig through. I don't want to seem rude, HL, and you seem a decent sort, but I'm not interested in launching a federal investigation into this because a single purpose account, quite possibly a sock, appears on the talk page to start braying about "Zionists." Playing whack-a-mole is hard enough on this article as is. IronDuke 20:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I won't worry about it as long as we don't have edit warring. Just a reminder that you're both getting close to three reverts on this article. Heimstern Läufer 20:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

(in response to (Personal attack removed)) Federal investigation? I should say, if you launched a federal investigation into every broadcast and report on a news station that wasn't factual, you'd be launching more investigations than you would be "whacking moles"! If launching an investigation is your reactionary response to my assertion that CNN is not completely factual, this only leads me to the conclusion that you have taken CNN and other western media news stations as fact for a very long time, and this has lead you into the mind-set of believing their sphere of influence. But I do find it interesting that "Zionist" is a personal attack (when in reality it is a movement) yet "sock" is a compliment? I see. The only braying im seeing is from neoconservative right-wing zionists that continue to re-affirm and support racist, xenophobic, bigoted, and closed-minded anti-Middle-Eastern ideaologies. You have a 30 page section on "Holocaust Denial" yet when it comes to statements Ahmadinejad made, you rely simply off a CNN news link or the media. I find this fascinating, and a very big revelation about wikipedia. People have continually told me that wikipedia is not a relevant source of information, I have always argued in wikipedia's defense because i've found it's information useful, perhaps I need to change my mind as of today about wikipedias relevance, since it seems to be run by thugs who wish to enforce false allegations. I will not edit the topic again, but let it be known that I plan on writing an article about Wikipedia very soon. Haramzadi 20:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You see what I'm saying, HL? Good thing I have a thick skin, I guess. IronDuke 20:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well to resort to replying to me with merely a sentence and an idiom, suggests that you are walking away, have a nice walk. Haramzadi 20:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

{edit conflict, replies to IronDuke} Yes, indeed. Haramzadi, if you want your perspective to be taken seriously at all, you must be civil (and note that, despite your allegations, IronDuke has been civil). I see no reason for me to waste any more time with your edits until you begin discussing reasonably. Heimstern Läufer 20:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The temporary illusion of "civil" is all in perspective. I've already wasted enough time trying to talk to a wall as it were, but it appears I have only made a small crack, whilst the painters and fillers rush in to fix it with the white wash of ignorance, the wall of propaganda stands, and I walk away shaking my head, this article is a sad mockery of any type of historical documentation. Haramzadi 20:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Usage of a Talk Page

Remember Haramzadi, Wikipedia is not a blog. The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to point out inaccuracies, not debate your opinion.

For the last few months, I've been noticing that people are using this page as a battle ground of opinion. Everyone, please use this talk page for it's purpose- correcting mistakes on the article. Sr13 04:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This has got nothing to do with blogging or opinions, my friend, go look at what Ahmadinejad said on the Mahmoud and Israel page, he states that "The Zionist regime must be removed from the pages of history" he never used the words "wipe" , "off" or "map", this smoke screen thrown up is ridiculous propaganda. Haramzadi 06:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Haramzadi, that's fine, and may well be true. But Sr13's point is still valid. There is way too much personal attacking and opinion pushing going on on this talk page. If you have a problem with something stated on the MA and Israel page, then you should be making this comment on Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. Vir4030 15:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Changed my vote

Whoever made the second list -- they didn't count my vote, for some strange reason. I was originally against the anti-semitism category, but after seeing the huge list of sources, you know, it's just sort of common sense. The anti-semitism category merely implies that people think he's anti-semitic, not that he actually is. So, anti-semitic category, yes. Anti-semitic people category, no. Robocracy 08:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"The anti-semitism category merely implies that people think he's anti-semitic"

This is actually not the case. If it were, I'm sure you can see how out of hand that category would get-it would include Mel Gibson and a plethora of other people that have been called antisemites (sometimes for almost no reason). That certainly is not an encyclopedic way of using a category like that, and not in compliance with WP:Categories. Markovich292 23:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If anybody's been called anti-semitic for no reason, it wouldn't be in the media. I've never heard of a case where suddenly, out of nowhere, upon no basis whatsoever, the Anti-Defamation League just suddenly came out and said, "Such and such is an anti-semite!" There's always some kind of basis, whether dubious or not. If the accusation is widely known, it's notable enough for an encyclopedia. though in order to maintain a NPOV, the accusation should not be upheld as true or false, except in rare cases where it's widely agreed upon, I.E., the Nazis, David Duke, etc.. Robocracy 13:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible compromise

Copied from above

I think a sub category of Category:Persons involved in Antisemitic controversies can be appropriate. Amoruso 12:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have no problem with including him in a category of Category:People involved in anti-Semitic controverseries. - Francis Tyers · 16:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Great... I wonder if people will agree to this category. I would also like to place Walter Guinness, 1st Baron Moyne there, I think it's a good choice. Amoruso 13:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

We could include Mel Gibson too. I think this category is a good idea. - Francis Tyers · 10:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems too wishy-washy and unnecessary. I think there's a strong enough consensus so far to keep the anti-Semitism category. It doesn't imply that he's anti-semitic. Robocracy 12:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

How is being factual wishy-washy? There is no-way near consensus, there is currently a small majority. - Francis Tyers · 13:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I would support this category as well. Vir4030 15:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

When I say wishy-washy, what I mean is that the title of the category is extremely long, as if the category itself isn't notable but was solely created out of people complaining of the controversy. It is almost as bad as naming a category, "People who may or may not be anti-semitic." Just keep the category as Anti-Semitism. It doesn't imply that he's anti-semitic. Robocracy 19:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Robocracy. Instead of using a really long title, just explain in the category that these people have admitted and/or have been referred to as antisemetic by several sources. Sr13 01:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Robocracy. It really does boil down to "may or may not be anti-semitic", and in fact would probably open the gates even wider for dubious inclusion of articles. Ford MF 04:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that the information has been moved to its proper location, there isn't really a reason to include the category on this page. I don't know if you were here for the first time I mentioned this, but compare this situation to Israel#Human Rights and Human rights in Israel. A category in the Israel article for human rights would be out of place-even though there is a fairly sizeable section. On the page dedicated to that issue, however, you will find a category placed there because that is consistant with how categories are supposed to be used. Markovich292 18:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust denial and allegations of anti-Semitism

I summarized this information and linked it to the subpage in accordance with the summary style guidelines. This was the only section marked as POV, so I removed the POV marker at the top. If there's a dispute remaining, let's talk about the specifics and get it solved.

I also removed the Citecheck template. Avi added this originally back on October 17th, citing the reliable sources guideline, but it doesn't say that non-English citations cannot be used. If anyone reads Farsi and wishes to dispute a specific citation, please post that here on the talk page. Vir4030 16:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the text I removed from the section, I placed in the Talk:Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad page. The anti-Semitism comment was easy to add directly into the Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad article, but the Holocaust Denial part was pretty well written and needed quite a bit of work to merge in the randomly-arranged facts that were on the MA page. I left this up to the regular editors of Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Vir4030 16:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Robocracy 14:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I readded the {{citecheck}} tag because a large number of citations have been tagged with {{check}} for weeks and no one has seen fit to verify them. If I am not mistaken, non-English citations may be used, if verified by someone fluent in the language. I think that someone fluent in Farsi should quickly check them, make a note of that on the talk page, and remove the {{check}} tags, otherwise, those citations should be removed and replaced by {{fact}} tags. -- Avi 02:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find someone who can verify the Farsi links. I'd hate to remove them, since we'll probably never find the source material again if we do. If I may ask, what made you suspicious of the links? Vir4030 03:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to do with suspicions. However, I would like assurances that the Farsi links support the text. I went through almost every English link in the article to check them, and since I cannot do the same for the Farsi, I think it reasonable that they are verified for the benefit of most users of this wiki. If there were only one or two, it may not matter as much (although it should), but around 1/4 to 1/3 of this article depends on citations that cannot be easily checked, and thus verification is more of an issue, IMO. -- Avi 02:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my newbieness, but shouldn't your assurances come from the policy Wikipedia:Assume good faith? I understand the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy states that "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source," but it also does not state that foreign-language sources cannot be used. Since nobody who speaks Farsi has questioned the sources, I don't see why they need to be checked again.

I'm still looking for a Farsi speaker, though, because I think the best way to solve the problem is to just re-verify the sources that way, since that will undoubtedly alleviate your concerns. Don't suppose you know anyone? I just really hate seeing the article tagged like this when I don't see anything wrong with the cites, except that they're not in English. Vir4030 18:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The lead revisited...again

Since the rest of the issues are winding down a bit, how about we take care of the lead at this time so we can put that issue to bed sooner rather than later? Markovich292 01:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, shoot. :) -- Avi 02:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Allrighty, hopefully my lack of creativity will not be a problem :) I was just thinking that the undue weight given to controversies surrounding MA (esp. the inclusion of a single quote and how it is dealt with) has been a major point of concern for a number of people in the past, so perhaps we should reconsider what of these things really have a place in the lead (especially since the section that justified it being there has just been pruned down substantially)-also, we probably should find some Farsi speakers to check sources regarding the "wiped off the map" quote too. The lead could also benefit from having information on his internal policies, actions as president, etc. Since most of the material in the article deals with these issues (and since he just happens to be a president), it seems rather odd to omit such information from the lead. Markovich292 00:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the "wiped off of the map", I believe that Ms. Fathi is a Farsi speaker. She translated the phrase in its current form, and that was the translation used by most of the world. We also know that the translation is disputed (although not refuted by MA in his interview with Wallace). So, finding another Farsi speaker to disagree will not clarify issues. Whether or not that sentence should be in the lead, or just a reference to controversial statements in general with this sentence being more fully explicated below, is something I an see as worthy of discussion. Also, there should be more reference to his policies up top, I agree. -- Avi 02:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the idea of having a Farsi speaker was not to clarify the issue per se; it is just to make sure that we do a fair job of representing the issue, which would include the use of Farsi sources if need be. Wherever this material gets inserted, I'm glad we agree that this is worthy of discussion. It's just too bad there hasn't been any other input here...Perhaps we should post an RfC?

Oh, if nobody gets to it before me I can work on making a short summary of presidential related things for the lead a bit later in the week. Markovich292 00:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

2006 Iran Holocaust Conference

I just created the article 2006 Iran Holocaust Conference and was hoping some people here would help me by fleshing it out. It is a bit of a stub at the moment. Thanks!Sup dudes?[[User:Kitler005]] 19:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Letter to the American People

Does anyone have the copy of, or a link to, the letter which Ahmadinejad wrote to the American People which was made public today in New York? I can't find a copy, and I'd really like to read it word-for-word. Vir4030 19:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the letter that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote for me and for all Americans!

http:/upwiki/wikipedia/en/3/35/Descartes_mind_and_body.gif Sup dudes?[[User:Kitler005]] 19:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation

Could someone double check the translation of the quote mentioned in the section "Quotes by President Ahmadinejad" and verify the source? Sr13 21:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please fix this quote, as it's something like this: "The world is becoming rapidly Ahmadinejadized, if I'm allowed to make a joke. [2]

No problem, it's done. Thanks for the help, unknown person. Vir4030 17:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality compromised

The information regarding President Ahmadinejad's recent letter to Americans has clearly been presented in a way that reflects the author's personal opinion. I would like to suggest an edition of this particular information, or else a re-entry.

68.103.160.85 05:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Dr. Caffrey

It's very difficult to summarize the whole letter, which touches on many issues, in one nice little paragraph. I think I did this. There were many more things that I had originally written, but I ultimately decided that it was just too long for an encyclopedia entry. If people want that level of detail, they can click on the letter and read it themselves, right?

Anyways, I'm including my first draft text here, in case anyone is interested. This is the stuff that I wrote, but didn't include in the article. Vir4030 17:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

About Palestine, he argues "that the US administration has persistently provided blind and blanket support to" Israel, even while Israel "has driven millions of the inhabitants of Palestine out of their homes." About Iraq, claims that "hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, maimed or displaced," that "terrorism in Iraq has grown exponentially," and that "nothing has been done to rebuild the ruins, to restore the infrastructure or to alleviate poverty." He says that he considers it extremely unlikely that the American People "consent to the billions of dollars of annual expenditure from your treasury for this military misadventure." Ahmadinejad also criticizes the "illegal and immoral behavior" of the US administration, not only throughout the world in Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib, but also inside the United States. He states that "civil liberties in the United States are being increasingly curtailed" under the pretext of "the war on terror." He claims that "private phones are tapped, subjects are arbitrarily arrested, sometimes beaten in the streets, or even shot to death." Ultimately, he concludes that "the American people are not satisfied with this behavior and they showed their discontent in the recent elections." He recommends that "in a demonstration of respect for the American people and for humanity, the right of Palestinians to live in their own homeland should be recognized." He also suggests that it would "be more beneficial to bring the US officers and soldiers home, and to spend the astronomical US military expenditures in Iraq for the welfare and prosperity of the American people." He also had a message to the Democrats who won the 2006 mid-term elections: "The United States has had many administrations; some who have left a positive legacy, and others that are neither remembered fondly by the American people nor by other nations. Now that you control an important branch in the US Government, you will also be held to account by the people and by history."

Why do we need to cite four different references for the summary of the letter? Can't we just cite the text of the letter itself? Vir4030 17:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ufwuct, I sincerely apologize for not including an edit summary for my wholesale revision of the bit about the letter under US-Iran Relations. I should have. I also made that edit while I was not logged into my account, so it showed up under my IP address. That was a mistake also. I obviously described it above here in the talk page, but you wouldn't know that just from the revision history, especially with not being logged in for the edit, but signing my talk page comments appropriately.

My problem with the way it is now is that, as pointed out by the editor above, it can appear biased because of the parts of the letter that are described in the article. I feel that the best way to handle this is to not go into any specific parts of the letter in the article. This way, people can just read the letter for themselves if they want to see each point that Ahmadinejad made.

You wrote some good stuff, though, in the main article when you replaced my summary. I'm going to make the edits to your text, keeping these pieces, but removing the parts specifically discussing the letter. As you can see above, I tried to write something that would treat each section of the letter fairly, but it became way too long for an article about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I will leave an edit summary this time, pointing to this section of the talk page. I hope that you consider my edits to be fair. Thanks! Vir4030 19:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I also left in the comment about "In the letter, he also claims that Iran condemns all terrorism, though many consider Iran to be the world's leading state supporter of terrorism." It's relevant to the US-Iran relations section, and is well-sourced. I did remove the MSNBC citation, because it's an article about the letter, and we've already cited the letter. I also apologize again for my relative newbieness and not being more clear in the edit summary. Vir4030 19:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Good catch

I don't speak Persian, so I won't label it vandalism, but this was a good catch. Without any translation, Persian sources shouldn't count as sources on en.wikipedia.org. Thanks. Ufwuct 04:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was a good catch. The only comment I want to make is that there seem to be a lot of Persian sources which discuss Ahmadinejad's internal policies. I'm not sure there are many of these that are in English. I have been trying to clean this up, but it's difficult when you don't speak Persian. I have been very actively trying to recruit a Persian-speaking editor to verify these sources, and until then we have the {{citecheck}} tag in place that Avi requested. So hopefully we can resolve these issues shortly.

Also, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability, there is no restriction to not use foreign-language sources. It does clearly state that they should not be used when English-language sources are available. If there is a policy that says blanketly we should not use Persian sources, please post a link. Vir4030 19:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad and UNSC Veto

The text currently seems to imply that Ahmadinejad has a veto on the UNSC; As best as I can tell, he does not.

Can someone either correct the text or otherwise enlighten me?

update-- you know, I just checked the text again, and it flatly doesn't make sense. It refers to "the same interview," although no interview has been mentioned in that section. HELP!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.199.29.178 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

It looks like this got mangled on November 4th by 70.28.116.167. I restored the affected text to the 5 Nov 2006 00:13 edition of the page. Thanks for pointing this out! Vir4030 23:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No mention of terrorism support

Since Iran supports Hezbollah and other terrorist group, and Amhdinejad has denied supporting terrorism, why is this omitted?Decato 21:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)