Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

• 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

WP: BLP for Liftarn

"Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion and without regard to the three-revert rule."

Ahmadinejad's repeated anti-semitic statements are HIGHLY sourced. I'm not going to get into childish semantic arguments of someone making multiple anti-semitic statements and their being an anti-semitic person. This has been covered in the talk pages. Your inability to understand the verifiable sources and ensuing logical arguments is fortunately not contigent about the accuracy of those sources and logical conclusions. Neither does the classification qualify as original research, as notable secondary sources have already published such claims. --FairNBalanced 18:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The statements are poorly sourced and the translations dubious, but then the statements are not what is in dispute but the fact whether he is an anti-Semite or not. So far we only have one source saying he is an anti-Semite and that source is not reliable (it's from an op-ed piece). So, unledd some reliable, verifiable source is presented the controversial cats will be removed as per WP:BLP. // Liftarn

Having researched the question or referring to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as an "anti-Semite" I can only find one notable individual using that particular term and that is Ehud Olmert. As a source Mr. Olmert does not qualify as neutral. User:Irishpunktom swapped out the previously missing Category:Anti-Semitism for Category:Anti-Semitic people. This swap struck me as particularly correct in light of the fact that there is no disputing that the term "anti-semitism" has been widely used in reference to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad while the instances of the term "anti-Semite" are rather sparse. Netscott 19:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Of all the material on this page, I see references to the Government of Israel, I see references to "Zionists"... I see nothing of his that criticizes "Semites" or pan-Jewish peoples on an individual or group level. Unless speaking against a political ideology or a particular Government somehow now qualifies as a statement against ALL individuals, then I don't see how this is in anyway appropriate. On top of that, labeling someone with a such a charged term is almost always going to reflect the POV of the labeler. It is also not helpful to label the arguments of others with whom you disagree as "Childish." Let's keep this professional!! Sarastro777 21:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Krauthammer Gone

I don't even know how this crept in here. First if we look at the NPOV entry, he violates at least 4 of the enumerated items in the BIAS section. Second, the piece being sourced is an Op/Ed (OPINION)... why do we care about the opinion of (one) biased man? He is not a qualified expert in Political Science or anything else germane to a biography of the President of Iran. He was a former Psychiatrist. The quotation amounted to nothing more than name calling, which also violates the recommendation:

Let the facts speak for themselves

Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over.

The quotes of Mahmoud speak for themselves, as is the approach advocated above. Sarastro777 19:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Re Krauthammer's being a psychiatrist and not a qualified expert in political commentary: He won a Pulitzer Prize for political commentary. He's as qualified as anyone -- no, more so -- to offer his opinion on world politics, including Iran's. But it's still opinion, so perhaps his statements have no business here. We're supposed to be contributing to a factual article about MA, not engaging in a political debate like on some political discussion forum. --Schnaz 05:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It was added in response to suggestions that the section needed specific quotes on Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitism, and as someone pointed out he is a nationally syndicated, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Washington Post. I think his presence is desirable but not absolutely necessary. --Mantanmoreland 12:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue is: Was the info published ? see WP:RS. Zeq 12:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The "info" is the opinion of one man, an affirmed Zionist with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science. This would be akin to quoting Dr. Laura in an academic article on schizophrenia or psychiatric illness. Just because she has an opinion on the matter does not make it informed or correct, or unbiased. The Pulitzer Prize he won was for commentary, not for any academic accomplishment or having particularly studied anything in the area of Middle East Culture, Politics, World Relations... it's just for giving his opinion as a 'conservative' or 'semite' on various political matters. Commentary in the form of "Op/Ed" pieces are not rigorous enough to meet any kind of sensible intellectual or academic standard. Did anyone else notice the dubious wording in his biographies regarding his studies at Oxford? No mention of completing ANY graduate studies .. i.e. he dropped out of the political science program. LOL. More fluff and no substance! Let's quote people that can at least 'make the grade' and use some sort of facts. Sarastro777 16:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

From the little piece you linked.. did you read it?

"Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field" Sarastro777 16:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That quote from WP:RS is absurdly irrelevant. The "avowed Zionist" Krauthammer is not being quoted as an authority on the speed of light or the composition of the atom, but as a noted political commentator who directly called Ahmadinejad an anti-Semite. It was requested by editors who noted the absence of such quotes despite the inclusion of this person in the anti-Semitic people category. Krauthammer is amply qualified under WP:RS to opine on the subject of Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitism, and it is nonsense to suggest that he is not qualified to be quoted in Wikipedia. --Mantanmoreland 18:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think his opinion can be included, but an op-ed piece is not a reliable source regarding the question if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an anti-semite or not. However, we have a reliable source that Charles Krauthammer thinks he is. ANd as it says in WP:RS "Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?". // Liftarn

Juan Cole is quoted copiously in this article and his bias is well-known, and I don't see anyone objecting to his being quoted. The same can be said for every other source quoted in this article, which range from obscure pro-Iranian websites to the Iranian govenment and its news agency. This is not an article about an academic subject. It is an article about the world's most controversial head of state. If one were to remove sources with "bias," one would have to remove every single source in this article and there would be no article.--Mantanmoreland 19:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Krauthammer is hardly more biased than Cole, or the Iranian foreign ministry. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if there is an impression that only critical items are being eliminated. That would certainly not help to further the objectivity of the article.

If I may propose... an anti-semite using the definition used here, must hate all jews or find them innately evil (as defined in anti-semite).. in essence a "gratuiotous jew hater" for lack of a better term. An approach that would not rely on opinions of people would be to list A.M. saying something like "Jews are evil", "I hate jews", "Jews must die"..... much like Hitler did. Someone could quote copious amounts of material from Mein Kampf, without us having to take the opinion of some commentator saying he is anti-semite.

If A.M. is such a rabid anti-semite there should be tons of primary source material that we can use. This to me seems like a much more academic way of approaching the problem. I realize people were complaining about no quotes, but I think they wanted to see why people like Krauthammer or the Christian were calling him an Anti-Semite, not to merely hear their specific name-calling. If we can't find anything along those lines then perhaps our notions are due to spin or we need to simply await better material. JMHO Sarastro777 22:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

What you are arguing we should do is original research, discerning for ourselves whether or not Ahmadinejad is an anti-Semite, based on our analysis of his statements. What Wikipedia policy insists on is quite different; specifically that we quote what reliable sources say regarding whether or not he is an anti-Semite. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Bob Edgar / Anti-Semite section

As above, the section is introduced as saying M.A. is "widely criticized." This is established. Bob Edgar has a religious AND political bias. Why are we listing the name calling opinion of this one person? (again not particularly qualified to comment). This type of thing needs to be stopped. The approach as advocated by policy is to list the quotations and PERHAPS give some analysis of them by notable individuals (preferably without known bias). Not just put a smorgasboard of name calling without any context. Sarastro777 20:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Every single person quoted in this article has some kind of bias. Let's stop selectively attacking and questioning the credentials of people who are critical of Ahmadinejad, as was done above with Krauthammer. --Mantanmoreland 18:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course. The Iranian government's quotes are the result of a very biased position of trying to do "damage control" for multiple ongoing anti-semitic statements by ahmadinejad. Perhaps an appropriate place for the Krauthammer bit would be to add a fourth link to the end of the sentence "Identification of Ahmadinejad with antisemitism has come from a variety of sources. [16][17][18]" --FairNBalanced 18:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

In Academia there are different types of references for different situations. If someone is giving an unqualified opinion, "The Earth is Flat" then we are relying solely on credentials to establish the credibility of the statement. This is when it is most important the person be highly qualified and completely without bias. If you believe as part of your religion that a certain nation will be essential in fulfilling a prophecy, then that probably does not meet that standard. Or say you are awarded a "Guardian" award by a country that is the mortal enemy of Iran, then that probably also does not meet that standard.

Another scenario would be where person <x> presents "The earth is flat because you can see the curvature of the horizon" or the "Earth is flat because .." or A.M. is an anti-semite because he said "All jews are evil" then that does not require the credentials of person <x> to be especially credible other than we can believe he/she is not distorting the facts that are being relayed. It appears that line has been blurred here in the past, and it was accepted that people with serious bias issues were simply allowed to be quoted with their own viewpoints. I propose a way to move away from this and be more rigorous above. Namely if he is anti-semitic, then we need to document why he is anti-semitic, and not just accept other people calling him so as proof that he is (or is not). Sarastro777 22:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)