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:Antisemitism should be removed from this page.
• Argue that Category:Holocaust deniers 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	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15

How tall is this guy?

In the photo of him shaking hands with the 15 captured British sailors, he appears to be rather short. There also don't appear to be many pictures released of him standing next to other people. 128.252.251.44 19:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking much the same when I saw the footage. :-) Assuming that the sailors were of average height (say 5'7" / 170 cm), I'd say he was about five to six inches shorter - say 5'2" / ~157 cm. That's purely a guess though; anyone know of any official figures? -- ChrisO 00:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

Who added the neutrality tag, and can we discuss it? --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 16:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There is obviously no more discussion on the matter, so I don't see why this can't be removed. It is probably just a leftover. For once we appear to have something of a stable article here. The Behnam 17:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember how I linked to this site but..... "wiped from the map" - this mistranslation is so bad/false/old.. that it truly belongs on wikipedia. This has been debunked so long ago and so completely that I thought only right wing nuts - whoops sorry...159.105.80.141 18:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

While it may be a mistranslation, it has been heavily used and continues to be heavily used in the media, so we have to represent this prevalence. We've tried our best to not 'side' with that translation despite its popularity. The Behnam 23:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

there is no doubt that this article is heavily biased (especially the lead) and most of the concerns are not answered yet; so, till we get to a NPOV article, that tag must be there. I am going to change some parts to reflect the neglected truth and other side POV.

I understand that some parts of it is different to some of your POVs, but please be natural and first read the sources carefully. I highly recommend every one before giving comment about the Government of Iran or this person, read the Iran's constitution and Ali Khamenei. --Pejman47 19:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Several users here doubted the translation of "wipe of the map", it is correct the meaning is not the same as translated from Persian. I hope you will read this article from Noam Chomsky carefully : (taken from [1], originally from Guardian)--Pejman47 19:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC) :

"It is also necessary to demonise the leadership. In the west, any wild statement by President Ahmadinejad is circulated in headlines, dubiously translated. But Ahmadinejad has no control over foreign policy, which is in the hands of his superior, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The US media tend to ignore Khamenei's statements, especially if they are conciliatory. It's widely reported when Ahmadinejad says Israel shouldn't exist - but there is silence when Khamenei says that Iran supports the Arab League position on Israel-Palestine, calling for normalisation of relations with Israel if it accepts the international consensus of a two-state settlement."

You don't need to quote sections of the article. If I cared what Chomsky said, I'd read the article. Anyways, we shouldn't rehash the translation issue again. I'm quite tired of it. Let's just put the neutrality tag back in and stop this argument before it starts again.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 21:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

if there are lots of sources (some of them academic) that says the translation is not accurate, trying to ignore them and just saying "put a POV tag" is of course POV pushing. The lead of this article is of course biased, if "wipe out of the map" must be in lead section, the concerns about it, must also be there. Please be open minded and read sources. Truth is not always on your behalf. --Pejman47 23:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not rehashing the translation argument with you or anyone else. It's been done to death. The consensus each time is to leave lead as is and have the explanation in the section about the controversy. The reason I say to just put the tag back is since there obviously are people that disagree with the neutrality of the article. It's also obvious that we're not going to please everyone, but the consensus is what stays, and if a neutrality tag keeps people from arguing the same things with the same arguments and sources over and over, then I'd just as soon leave it in, but I'm not sure that's necessarily the best thing to do.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 00:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The lead about that sentence must be as it is, but don't you agree that it must at least give a link to that secton?--Pejman47 14:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a link. "Wiped off the map" goes to the Ahmadinejad and Israel article. There's also an indirect link in the table of contents right below the lead.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 07:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

For those folks who think the translation is wrong, what is the correct translation into English and how is it substantially different in meaning? Are these translation errors attested to with verifiable and reliable sources?--Blue Tie 13:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a right-wing nut, far from it. Some see me as appallingly left-wing, as I do have/have had socialist sympathies. I recognize this is not a simple conflict. It goes back decades, and there's no easy answer. Yet even I am taken aback by certain aspects of Ahmedinejad's view of Israel. "Israel must be wiped off the map and, God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism."-That's what he said on October 28th, 2005, according to AL JAZEERA. You know, that Arabic news network whose offices were hit by U.S. missiles, and who, in a leaked memo it was discovered Bush, a blatant sympathizer of Israel, planned to bomb.64.231.189.197 19:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are the original words, and the direct translation into English. "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)". There may be lingering disagreement amongst speakers of Farsi whether the last verb is "active" (as in "to wipe") or passive (as in "to vanish"), but some (eg Juan Cole) insist that it is passive. PalestineRemembered 18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What's the source or sources for this?--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 19:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Just don't bother... we've already been through this, but people always come here and don't bother to read what we have already discussed. So they show up and bring in their own take as someone who knows the language. They are probably right but we have to go with sources. The Behnam 19:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not using what Noam Chomsky (I remind you that His first career is linguistic) used? and settle this forever.: "dubiously translated" in Parenthesis.--Pejman47 20:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You see, the problem is that it isn't about representing truth. This is about what the various source are saying, and unfortunately mainstream sources continue to repeat the "wiped off the map" version. Of course we must discuss the significant disagreements to this common description, but we already do this. If it was widely considered discredited we could represent this, but sadly enough it is still used, over and over again, with every news report mentioning Ahmadinejad. I personally think it is stupid that they continue to translate safheh-ye ruzgaar as "map" but they obviously don't care. The Behnam 20:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

where did you "but we already do this"? I don't see anything in the lead or elsewhere. and Chomsky and Guardian are household names.--Pejman47 20:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is mentioned here [2]. Chomsky isn't mentioned by name but I believe he falls under "Some experts." And the Guardian is the source used. The Behnam 20:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think, If that translated quote must be in the lead, "dubiously translated" also must be there maybe with an appropriate link. --Pejman47 20:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In context, I see no substantive difference between wiping someone off the map and wiping them from the pages of time, or, if I do see a difference, wiping someone from the pages of time is somewhat worse. So this argument is pointless. Use wikipedia policies about sources and let it be done. --Blue Tie 20:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. I'm just trying to explain to Pejman why we can't take a side here. I actually think MEMRI's "eliminated" is much less confusing than the 'vanished' versus 'wiped', but unless Pejman still objects this should be all done. The Behnam 20:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

my objection is just about the lead. --Pejman47 20:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it enough to have the 'Easter Egg' link to the information? The Behnam 21:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice the link, But why you called it "easter egg"? It was just a link to the full details of that speech. I propose adding "(dubiously translated)" I hope this compromise will settle this issue forever.--Pejman47 21:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Discussions about translations belong in the article about the phrase. This article is about MA himself, and the VAST majority of English language sources (this is English wikipedia) use wiped, which is what belongs in the article without any white-washy POV tags. -- Avi 23:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. We've been through this many, many times. All the reliable sources repeat again and again that he said that Israel should be "wiped off the map", and the claim that it was "dubiously translated" is both original research and an extreme minority view - and even then, the alternative translations say the same, or worse. The compromise was that the words would be put in quotes, and linked to the section discussing the exact translation. That was done, and it has "settled this issue forever". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It can be questioned whether or not some of these RS are reliable for the complicated language issue, but this isn't so critical that a change is required. The curious can just click the link and read more about it. Of course the issue may not be settled forever if these "RS" ever decide to correct themselves, but until that distant day all of this is just beating a dead horse. The Behnam 00:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, I have a question: why you always bring the issue of original research, even if it is not related to that debate, at all. The sources where some linguistics professors one of them was Chomsky , I know that he is in a far far far left in political atmosphere, and of course a very small minority. But it is not OR and he and other sources debated the translation to show that it is not as bad as perceived; they said those on Behalf of Ahmadinejad, Not for worsening the issue. let me frank, maybe (I don't know) they just wanted to white-wash it, but me and you are not in the place to judge the "hidden motives" of someone e.g. Chomsky. And by the way, I want to continue the debate about "the hospital" which also resulted in 24 block of me. But this time I will open a RfC for it and bring fresh unbiased users to this talk page. Do you agree with it?--Pejman47 00:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky doesn't speak Persian; a linguist is not a translator. More importantly, the controversy is about him stating that Israel should be wiped off the map, regardless of what he really said. This has been explained many times, but you still insist on trying to defend him from the charge. "Wiped off the map" gets 325,000 Google hits; that's what notable, not Chomsky's political piece published on some left-wing blog claiming that the translation is "dubious". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

So it wasn't OR!, and As I said in some lines above, me and you are not in the place to judge the "hidden motives" of someone like Chomsky, and I think that article was published in Guardian, too. (I am not sure)

By the way, You are welcomed to discuss your views on Noam Chomsky on his article. take care,--Pejman47 22:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It must be noted that google hits doesn't constitute factuality. for example, out of curiosity one might search the term Jayjg, to see what it means, but instead he/she will encounter: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-18,GGGL:en&q=Jayjg . Hence, we know google searches are of irreverence --Gerash77 21:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are making. There was a huge controversy about his statement that Israel be "wiped off the map". World leaders condemned him for it. The UN Security Council and Secretary General censured him for it. It was a big, big deal. I'm not sure why people keep trying to pretend it never happened, or that he was not internationally condemned for the statement. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Speech translation question

Does anyone know where I can get a full translation of Ahmadinejad's speech on 4th April? And I think Archive 15 was created prematurely - some of the archived topics were active less than 2 days ago! LeBofSportif 08:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This had been unanswered since April 6. I don't know where to find it; does anyone else? -- Avi 19:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you try www.president.ir? -Mohseng 14:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

His websites generally don't use actual transcripts of any speeches, but instead summarize the text. The Behnam 18:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

The page was way too long. I am certain you can continue conversations as we now stand. -- Avi 19:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding, right. It seems like this page has gone under way too many archives recently. Some of these excessive archives should be combined. Otherwise, trying to read through the archives becomes more inconvient and annoying for the readers. Most talk pages I've seen on wikipedia wait until there are about 50 or more contents in the talk page before archiving.--Sefringle 03:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It usually depends on length, noty number of entries. BIAS and Neutrality are the equivalent of 15 or so simple entries. -- Avi 04:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about excessive archiving. This article's talk page is one of the better archived talk pages that I participate in. Most talk pages are way too long and have rarely if ever been archived. I don't know how to do it so I can't help those other pages. I wish I could since many of them have discussions from 2004 and 2005 and sometimes later. Combining the archives might help searching them, but, as I said I don't know about it (oh I just noticed the WP:ARCHIVE link). Anyways, combining them would make a very large archive article and I doubt it'd help enough to justify going through the archives and intelligently combining them into topic discussions or even just combining every two archives. Is there no way to search them using Wikipedia's search?--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 22:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim of not being an antisemite

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

Good luck. Every week I have to argue yet again that there was a huge controversy about him stating that Israel should be "wiped off the map". Apparently there was no controversy at all about that, he wasn't condemned by all sorts of world governments and major organizations, not to mention the UN, for saying it. Instead, the real story was that he was horribly maligned and mistranslated, as part of a greater world conspiracy to vilify him, and this is what Wikipedia should be talking about. After all, what are thousands of reliable sources compared to a couple of editorials from polemicists, and a bunch of blogs whining that he really said "Zionist regime", not "Israel", and that it was really "wiped from the pages of time", not "wiped off the map". Oh, I see, that's completely different, and makes it all better. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, when you "His actions speak louder than his words do", could you be more specific? Did he ever bake Jews in ovens or something? I'm curious. Lixy 10:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Lixy, when you say "Did he ever bake Jews in ovens or something?", could you be more specific? If someone doesn't do that, does that mean they don't hate Jews? Jayjg ^(talk) 12:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

no it doesn't mean. but by donating money to Jewish hospital in Tehran and etc (see the sources I provided 1 month ago) it means he doesn't hate Jews. And "Say" is the most non-point of view for that purpose. It is very clear.--Pejman47 17:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

According to whom does the fact that the Iranian government gave money to a Jewish hospital means he doesn't hate Jews (as opposed to, say, just being a cheap political trick)? And why would your view on this be relevant? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The question was not directed to you. I wanted Sefringle to illuminate me on what ACTIONS that "speak louder than [..] words" were performed by MA. Lixy 17:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

But my question was directed to you. Could you please respond? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that as soon as I get an answer to my question. Lixy 21:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please adhere to WP:WTA consensus, if you think "say" is POV, address your concerns on that page.--Gerash77 19:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

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

I do mind WP:SOAP, which is not relevant here. Thanks for clearing that up about the "illegal occupying regime of Jerusalem"; he probably meant Switzerland or something; certainly not Israel. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad is anti-state-of-Israel-since-he-percieves-it-as-an-illegal-occupier-of-Palestinian-lands and not an anti-Jews-as-a-racial-or-religous-group. His comment on holocust means no more than this. That's the truth.

Gawdat Bahgat, Director of Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, comments that: "The fiery calls to destroy Israel are meant to mobilize domestic and regional constituencies." and that Iran has no plan to attack Israel whatsoever.--Aminz 20:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's what Ahmadinejad's defenders and whitewashers say, anyway. Others differ. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you stop with the denigration of people who disagree with you? You don't see me making snide remarks about "Shoah business".--Kirby♥time 21:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not denigrating anyone, and I fail to see what this has to do with "Shoah business". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith on editors who disagree with you, by saying that they are whitewashing the issue, is not exactly what I consider "not denigrating anyone". --Kirby♥time 21:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith, and it's not about editors who disagree with me. Ahmadinejad has made it clear that he thinks Israel should be destroyed, many times, in public. Many world leaders have condemned him for it. Various people have also tried to make excuses for him, saying he didn't really mean what he said, or he only meant "getting rid of the Zionist government", or various other claims that either have no credibility, or amount to the same thing destroying Israel. That is whitewashing, and it's simple reality. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Just because people disagree with your "obviously contorted view" of the world, doesn't mean that they are "whitewashing" anything.--Kirby♥time 21:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not my opinion. It's the opinion of the major Western governments, the European Union, Russia, the United Nations Security Council and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok now you're just trolling.--Kirby♥time 21:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

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

What the hell are you even talking about?--Kirby♥time 22:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad#Holocaust denial and accusations of antisemitism, Holocaust denial#Ahmadinejad and Iran, International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What about them? When did I ever mention that? All I did was warn jayjg to stop using this talk page as a soapbox for his pro-zionism tirade.--Kirby♥time 22:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make this personal, this is not about Jayjg. MA was widely condemned by the international community for expressing antisemitic views. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Well, that's what Ahmadinejad's defenders and whitewashers say, anyway. Others differ." - Ahmadinejad is a random sample of a group of people in Iran. His denial of holocust was nothing more than an echo of a political heresy that had gained popularity among that party for similar reasons that Bat Ye'or's mythical thesis (not my words, Lewis's words) has gained popularity among some parties in Israel. Ahmadinejad's words should be taken in a pragmatic sense rather than in a literal sense. He is certainly against the regime of Israel and believes that the land belongs to Palestinians. But there is nothing beyond that. --Aminz 23:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is antisemitism, and MA went even further. The definition of antisemitism does not say anything about "words should be taken in a pragmatic sense rather than in a literal sense" - and BTW, History of antisemitism proves you wrong again. The fact that MA finds a chorus of adorers in WP, while almost the entire world condemns him, is telling. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Humus sapiens, please don't use ironic language. Ahmadinejad was fairly condemned for denying holocust. He shouldn't be condemned for what he is not. --Aminz 01:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Said vs. Claimed

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

Said implies sincerity in the context it is used in in this article. Claimed implies that he said it but it may not be his true feelings.--Sefringle 01:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

from where you think "say" imply sincerity? could you please check up that work in a dictionary (I prefer Oxford). --Pejman47 02:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Saying doesn't imply sincerety but "claming" may imply insincerety. That's the difference. --Aminz 06:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

He was insencere.--Sefringle 06:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia can not take side. The readers are free to come up with conclusions. --Aminz 06:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

MA consistently and repeatedly makes antisemitic remarks, and was widely condemned for that. By reiterating his remarks, MA embarrassed many attempts by his overzealous cheerleaders (including on this page) to deny his antisemitism. At this point is is undeniable.

Don't pollute talk page with noise such as "words should be taken in a pragmatic sense rather than in a literal sense", "But there is nothing beyond that", "Iran has no plan to attack Israel whatsoever", unless you are a quotable expert on both Iranian policy and Israeli security. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Pejman47 and Aminz: I have been observing this article from last summer. Unfortunately, one editor previously noted that "there can be no victory against the armies of Mordor."

Sefringle: Again, please move your discussion to WP:WTA and ironically as the person above noted: Don't pollute talk page. There would be no further discussion necessary as long as we have WP:WTA guidelines. Thank you.--Gerash77 12:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle reads minds. Lixy 21:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I bet Sefringle is Ahmadinejad's sock, there's no other way he could know exactly how Mahmoud feels. =P --Kirby♥time 14:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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

watch for "your previous comments are uncalled for", every user of Wikipedia can participate in talk page debates and there is no invitation and nobody here "owns" an article. --Pejman47 16:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle was made aware of original research and in that light, my comment cannot possibly be interpreted as a personal attack. I granted good faith by asking politely what "actions that speak louder than words" he is alluding to to which he refused to provide an answer. Clearly, this is him/her someone who makes unsubstantiated claims and throws baseless accusations to defame a person. I did my best to frame that thought in a witty, yet civil manner. I'll ask you to refrain from accusing me of name-calling in the future per WP:CIVIL. Lixy 21:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

I respect the fact that you often keep a cool head and don't force your bias on others in a blatant manner. But you are not doing your best to be fair here. You read what Sefringle wrote so I'll skip the bull. In a perfect world, Sefringle should have avoided making unsubstantiated claims or, at least, could have answered me when I confronted him to back his claims up. He didn't. I couldn't let it slide given that the talk page becomes an integral part of the articles tagged as "disputed". So, for the sake of the kid who wanders around the Wiki, sees that the neutrality of the article is disputed, goes to the talk page to know the different opinions and buys the POV of an editor who says bluntly "MA is insincere", I included a tongue-in-cheek civil comment. I agree that it would have been more professional to remind him of original research, but he was made aware of the policy long ago. Plus, he uses the talk page to give his personal opinion and avoids debating. I don't see you frown upon that. Lixy 21:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "MA is insincere" is not accurate and not a reason for changing the statement, but in articles such as this, I still feel, perhaps incorrectly, that it is more important if among ourselves we can debate respectfully and intelligently. I could just be wrong -- Avi 14:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't have to respond, because Humus sapiens did so for me. Why should I waste time repeating what already has been said?--Sefringle 02:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope. My question still stands unanswered. See my post of 10:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC). Lixy 14:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Avi, I didn't understand what you said in above, what I have get from Jayjg comments is that he labeled the users in opposite of his/her POV as "Ahmadinejad's defenders and whitewashers"--Pejman47 21:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Jay's comments are in response to Aminz's comments about Gawdat Bahgat. Aminz brought a statement made by Gawdat Bahgat, and Jay commented upon it. Please re-visit the conversation above; I think it is rather clear. -- Avi 01:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly so; it couldn't be clearer. Aminz brought a statement from Gawdat Bahgat, and that was my comment regarding Bahgat's statement. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Avi, my comment had two parts. One made by myself and the other supported by Gawdat Bahgat. Both my reading and Kirbytime's reading was that Jayjg wrote that in relation to my whole comment and not Gawdat Bahgat even if Jayjg did not mean it. I tried to leave wikipedia for sometime and my feeling is now gone. Again, Humus sapiens comment that "Don't pollute talk page with noise such as..." was clearly disturbing to me. I have had experiences that others haven't had. I remember I had seen a few people in Iran 5 or 6 years ago who said something around the line of denial of holocust and as such I can understand how this heresy could have been favored by Ahmadinejad. There are laughable common misunderstanding in Iran about Israel (e.g. a vast number of people don't know that many Jews are in fact only culturally Jews rather than religously Jew). Humus sapiens or Jayjg can reject my views based on their past experiences and what they know, and so I can about theirs. But we can do this respectfully. --Aminz 06:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Request for Comment

There is a disagreement here whether to include the quotes of this person about Isreal in lead or not and if yes, should it be accompanied with some sentences from sources saying that the state of Jews living in Iran has not changed after the presidency of Ahmadinejad and all of the rhetorics are just somehow "political"--Pejman47 21:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

plus the Christian science monitor and CBS that you can find in recent edits please see this links [3][4] [5] [6] [7] and then consider the reasonings of Jayjg, me and others regarding this issue in the talk page archive: Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 15 and in above sections. Then please give your comments!--Pejman47 21:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed many, many, many times. Please see Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10, Archive 11, Archive 12, Archive 13, and Archive 14 where this was discussed. This may well be what he is best known and most notable for in the West (English Wikipedia) and the constant attempts to remove this from the lead seem to be merely to try and rehabilitate this man's image. Whether we like it or not, he is known for these statements, he has been internationally, and near universally condemned for these statements, and this is one of the key elements that makes him notable in the US. Whitewashing is a violation of WP:POV just as much as smearing is. The article has iron-clad, watertight sources for his statements; they should remain. -- Avi 22:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding extraneous, unrelated except at most tangentially, data trying to mitigate his statements is classic POV whitewashing as well, and does not belong in the lead. The statements added in the past were not only POV, but WP:OR as well, IIRC. -- Avi 23:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an article on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The number and status of Jews in Iran do not belong in the article and surely not in the intro. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Ahmadinejad has been accused of antisemitism, so it is very relevant to include such information.--Kirby♥time 23:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, the status of Jews in Iran is irrelevant to whether or not Ahmadinejad is an antisemite. More importantly, has anyone notable made the argument that Ahmadinejad is not an antisemite because the Iranian government gave some money to a Jewish hospital, or the various other original research arguments invented by User:Pejman47? I'm not sure why he persists in this, he knows OR is not allowed on Wikipedia, and has been told that about this specific argument by many different editors. You should know better too. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the source? The CSM is a highly respected and notable organization.--Kirby♥time 05:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Referring to the status of Jews in Iran is clearly OR and an attempt at apologia. No, it shouldn't be included. <<-armon->> 01:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime, there is whole lot of info that does not belong in this article. When the info is irrelevant, no matter how reputable its source is. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

some of the sources, e.g. CBS, clearly discussed "the state of jews" in Iran in relation to his "anti-Isreal" remarks; so, it is not OR. --Pejman47 06:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you reread the title of this article. As noted, MA's comments have caused a lot of reaction and therefore are notable. The "the state of Jews" (please note capital J, also you consistently misspell Israel - I hope unintentionally) in Iran does not belong here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

of course the misspleings are unintentional. anyway, nobody questioned the notability of that quote, but of course there is objections about its representation. And you also please read the article again, you will find it that the author has intentionally saw a relationship with that quote and the state of Jews (OK capital) in iran. it is not OR. please help to make this article natural. and yesterday I made a post in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies to bring fresh voices here. But I don't see any yet. sigh!--Pejman47 20:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

CSM is saying that the state of the Jews is being used as a response to the antisemitism allegations, it is highly relevant. Read the source.--Kirby♥time 12:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As other editors pointed out, for a biographical article, MA's exorbitant remarks and corresponding worldwide reactions are notable, but the status and the number of Iranian Jews are not. That CSM article (or rather, a more scholarly reliable source) probably belongs in the article Persian Jews. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the two sources are the same source, a story by Scott Peterson for the Christian Science Monitor. Second, this one story does not at all discuss whether or not Ahmadinejad's statements were antisemitic; rather, it notes Ahmadinejad's rhetoric, and Ahmadinejad himself is mentioned only peripherally. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

but in that article, clearly the author linked those with each other. and why I am still don't see any new name here. It seems that Request for comment doesn't work --Pejman47 23:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the author did not "link with each other"; there is nothing in the article that claims to be about whether or not Ahmadinejad is antisemitic. As for the RfC, it worked well enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

for me it is very clear: he intentionally linked them with eachother, and of course Request for Comment failed, do you see any new name in above?--Pejman47 23:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The incredibly POV use of 'stated'

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

Can you be specific? A diff that shows that change will do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. According to WP:WTA we should use "said". --Aminz 01:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[8] is the most recent. Apparently Sefringle thinks there is something very POV about 'stated' that has something to do with his sincerity. I simply can't see where he is coming from; "stated" seems so neutral to me as to approach bland writing. The Behnam 01:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

the way it is written implies that Ahmadinejad was sincere when he claimed to not be an antisemite. Even the source says "claimed." It is written as if saying that the accusations of antisemitism are thus invalid, since he "stated" that he is not antisemitic. He claimed not to be antisemitic in response, it is a claim, and lacks sincerity. --Sefringle 01:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't be trying to address his supposed sincerity or lack thereof here. This POV type of writing was stripped when adding to this article so as to prevent a POV projection. And we shouldn't be changing to 'claimed' with the sole purpose of questioning his sincerity, as that is purely POV editing. The Behnam 01:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Again with the sincerity bit? It's extremely hard to assume good faith here. First of, the burden of proof is on the accuser and besides twisting of the words in some speeches, you have yet to show any evidence which would support that he is anti-Semitic. Secondly, it is none of our business if he is sincere or not. The article is here to serve a higher purpose than to represent your POV. Lastly, I'll ask you to follow the talk guidelines and refrain from using biased titles in the future. Did you really need to append incredibly there? I do not consider "stated" to be POV Lixy 00:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In wikipedia, we should give all the raw data to the reader and let them decide for themselves. --Aminz 01:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It is also POV editing to imply that he is sincere about his quote, and to imply that the charges of antisemitism are invalid, as the lead, as it is currently written does.--Sefringle 01:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What is your definition of "saying". Isn't it the words that come out of mouth? --Aminz 01:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Said" seems to me more factually accurate. He said that, right? I do not think that any reader will not be able to make his/her own mind about if he was sincere or insincere. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think your recent change improves the wording, swaying it away form Ahmadinejad's propaganda. But claimed would be better, since the charges of antisemitism are stated as alleged, his response should be as well, or it should be re-phraised, for example: "in response to these assertions, he said..."--Sefringle 01:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"reported as..."

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

say that to sefringle too!--Pejman47 19:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"Allegations" is not the issue, I see no problem with that, but once again, everything on this page has been "reported" in the news media. To single out one instance for the "reported" term is a violation of neutrality, Pejman. -- Avi 14:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is your friend Jayjg has previously deleted the Iranian response about "wipe of the map" from the into. Since you have removed the previous consensus about "reported as" that means the response must be included. I will add it.--Gerash77 19:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly back that up! Lixy 00:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The only consensus I can see on this is you deciding to make the edit and Lixy agreeing with you. I agree with Avi that everything in the article is "reported" and I think adding "reported as" in implies that the sources were incorrect in their reporting.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 05:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please state why shouldn't the response from the government be included. You claim he has said wipe Israel off the map. OK, but don't remove his government's response. Furthermore don't accuse me of "reverting" when you didn't even read my edit. Which part of it was "reverting"?--Gerash77 20:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to a future revert; my apologies if I was not clear. Your edit was undeniably not a reversion; although, as I pointed out above, I believe it is not a valid argument. Once again, sorry about any unintentional misrepresentatin of your actions. -- Avi 21:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Ahmadinejad and the worldwide controversy was about his statement, not about the mealy-mouthed after-the-fact claims made by the Iranian government. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Stay calm. The response of the Iranian government is relevant, but I don't know if it is appropriate or worthwhile to add that statement to the lead. The Behnam 20:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually quite calm; calling a mealy-mouthed statement "mealy-mouthed" is not an expression of emotion, but an assessment of content. The "wiped off the map" statement was huge news, and continues to be so; here's an Associated Press story from this week that says Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust a "myth" and said Israel should be "wiped off the map." On the other hand, the statement of this foreign minister died a deserved death. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the western media claim of 'wipe off the map' is worthy enough, surely the view of government is noteworthy as well.--Gerash77 21:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really, because the government's lame excuse was ignored by the world, as it should have been. And please top promulgating the additional myth that this was only a big deal in "western press". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "Western"! Last time I checked the rest of the world media are still remaining free and independent :-) --Gerash77 21:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Yes, the press in Pakistan and Iran is "free and independent", but not in the Western states. Anyway, is the Middle East Online "Western"? Pravda? al Jazeera? Asia Times Jayjg ^(talk) 21:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"the press in Pakistan and Iran is "free and independent", but not in the Western states."

We seem to be in agreement on this issue. Correct, they are yet to be infected *cough* :)--Gerash77 22:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't pretend agreement where there is none; you are abusing the Talk: page. Anyway, your claim that this is a "western press" thing has been disproved, and your soapboxing about the western press does not belong on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't start soapboxing when you don't want to see a reply. --Gerash77 00:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the-Behnam, the government response is relevant and important, the only question is where it must be. and Jayjg you were the first one who started the soap-boxing here. --Pejman47 23:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Behnam never said it belonged in the lead, so please don't pretend he did. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

and I never said it either, read it again. --Pejman47 23:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well he did say it was relevant. That said, I agree with Pejman47 that the response needs to be included. Lixy 00:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted back, you can move the quote from the lead, but please don't remove it. till getting a consensus for it. --Pejman47 23:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As you keep pointing out, we have a consensus intro; please do not insert new items until there is consensus for it. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Jay is right. This whole issue started because Gerash decided to make a change [9] without consensus.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 05:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it to the proper section. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks,

there is a consensus for an article and once a new user comes with new sources and etc. this happens a lot in WP, this must be addressed as usual. and sometimes this process leads to a new consensus--Pejman47 23:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a new source, and neither Gerash77 nor you are new editors on this page. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The previous consensus "reported as" was removed. Furthermore wp:consensus can change. A vote on the issue will make it clear. Your very high position in wikipedia doesn't except you from following consensus. Please adhere to guidelines.--Gerash77 00:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no !vote in Wikipedia. If involved editors cannot find common ground, they need to pursue the established dispute resolution process. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There is no consensus necessary in this article as long as we have 3 internationally renowned admins here monitoring the issue. --Gerash77 20:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV: The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Consensus is not strictly necessary. This is not because of the presence of the admins, but instead because of the policies that govern Wikipedia. Consensus is important, but not as important as WP:NPOV, WP:RESEARCH, or WP:Verifiability. Antelan ^talk 06:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

yes, and most importantly the WP:Hail THE CABAL ;) --Gerash77 01:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That was a funny one. Lixy 18:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Said vs Claimed

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

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad not being an antisemite quote

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

for an other sequence of your politically motivated edits? NO, it was discussed to death and in its current form it is still highly biased against him.--Pejman47 19:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not bias against him, it is highly bias to present him in a positive light.--Sefringle 19:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It is just another sign of your POV pushing. Would you please be nice and before just reverting read the above talks?, in almost always the anti-ahmadinejad edits was asserted in the article. and that part which you wish be deleted, was discussed before heavily --Pejman47 19:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't revert anything on this article today, but Ahmadinejad is an antisemite and has been recognized as such by very legitimate people, including the U.S. state department senate, The Guardian, etc. His actions prove he is antiesmitic, and the only ones saying he isn't are his loyal worshippers and himself. Assertions is far better wording. --Sefringle 20:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

first there is no "action", the most they found was political speechs. and you are becoming really disrupting in here for you rhetorics and careless reverts in the past. and by the way, bring sources for "U.S. state department which recognized him as anti-semitic." --Pejman47 20:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a source, and my mistake, its the U.S. senate[10]. Second, Holocaust denial is a recognized form of antisemitism, and doing so is his "action." Not to mention wanting to wipe Israel off the map, which proves he supports genocide and hates Jews there.--Sefringle 20:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you have already made of your mind and this talk has no point. and what you found as "the recognition of anti-semitic person" was just the wording of the reporter of New York Sun (a ultra-right newspaper), and your definition of "action" is also interesting. and you yourself look again, the consensus is against you, e.g. read the comment of Avi in above,--Pejman47 20:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's another source, since you are clearly denying that he has anyhting antisemitic about him.[11]--Sefringle 20:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you call the criticism of Ahmadinejad to be an "allegation". The critics are not alleging that he is antisemitic. They assert that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

when you look at the renowned news sources like BBC, CNN or etc which at least try to show themselves natural (not New york republic), they don't 'assert' antisemitism, at most allegation. and it is also in line with the WP rules of NPOV.--Pejman47 19:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations?--Sefringle 20:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• "Iran's Football team will be met with a series of protests across Germany during their World Cup campaign as anger mounts against the country's viciously anti-semitic President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad." "Iran team face mass protest", The Guardian, June 11, 2006.
• "The current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a bit of a loose cannon, spouting anti-Semitic and anti-Israel vitriol and vehemently denying that the Holocaust ever occurred." Keeble Mcfarlane. "Is the Bush League gearing up for war with Iran?", The Jamaica Observer, February 17, 2007.
• "Each time the White House issues threats against Iran, it strengthens the crude, anti-semitic prime minister Mahmoud Ahmadinejad". Gary Younge. "Once George Bush has got hold of a bad idea he just can't let it go", The Guardian, February 19, 2007.
• "Ahmadinejad's recent anti-Semitic statements have added to fears in Israel that Iran's nuclear program is intended to produce weapons that could be used against that country." The Associated Press. "Eurovision may ban Israeli entry due to lyrics on nuclear war", Haaretz, 02/03/2007.
• "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent anti-Semitic remarks may have dealt a fatal blow to the already fragile negotiation process due to restart next week over Iran's nuclear program, German experts have said." Stefan Nicola. "German Experts Worried By Iranian Nukes", United Press International, December 16, 2005.
• "Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's remarks calling the Holocaust into question have disappointed Muslims in Germany, who do not share his anti-Semitic views." "Iran's Rhetoric on Holocaust Anger German Muslims", Deutsche Welle, February 18, 2006.
• "Of course Ahmadinejad is an anti-Semite, and anyone who doubts it is either a knave or a fool." Bret Stephens. "Anti-Anti-Semitism defended", The New Republic', February 12, 2007.
• "Ahmadinejad is an easy target — a simplistic, rambling, blustering anti-Semite — in pop culture terms, he's "Borat" with a mandate and political clout." "We won't be fooled again", The News Leader, February 15, 2007.
• "Mr. Ahmadinejad's anti Semitism is a true face of the Iranian government." Ghassem Namazi. "We should be sorry", Iranian.com, February 1, 2006.

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