Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Anti-semitic?

Could some please point me to the previous discussion on this topic. After all, we are labelling a living person, who has stated his respect for Jews, as anti-Semitic.Bless sins 20:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the category is "antisemitism." This is included because Ahmadinejad, regardless of whether or not he is an antisemite, has been discussed specifically in the context of antisemitism. The meaning of this inclusion is not to say that he is an antisemite. The Behnam 20:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No. He is not categorized in Category:Anti-Semitic people. Rather, the actegory is Category:Antisemitism. Completely different and a consensus worked out months ago. -- Avi 20:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, long and difficult consensus worked out I might add. (→Netscott) 17:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Some respect for the Jews! Are you kidding me? His Holocoust Denial is clear proof that he has very little respect for the jews, if any at all.--Sefringle 07:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

He presides over a country with a Jewish constituency. Go talk to them before you make such vehement accusations. He never denied the occurence of the Holocaust. He questioned the 6 millions figure to get some attention and make a point; Why should the Palestinians pay for the suffering of the Jewish people? They had absolutely nothing to do with the horrendous acts of Nazi Germany.

Understand that people who are critical of Israel's Apartheid policies are not automatically anti-Semites. Anti-Semitism exists, no doubt about that, but calling anyone who don't condone the Israeli carnage and oppression in the occupied territories an anti-Semite is simply refusing to see things as they are. Lixy 11:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't deny the holocaust!? Ever heard of the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, unironicly sponsered by the antisemite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad himself? Forget about Israel. The very fact that he denys the holocaust, and welcomed KKK members and neo-nazis to his country proves his antisemitism.--Sefringle 02:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

So the category applies to nayone hwo has been discussed in the context of anti-Semitism? Even authors or scholars on anti-Semitism would fit in this category?Bless sins 17:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You completely misunderstood the category. Anyone who holds negative views of Jews belongs in this category. Anti-Semitic people are such because they have persecuted Jews, or made racist statements describing jews, or made attacks on Jews as a whole. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fits that description.--Sefringle 02:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

When you say "fits that description", what exactly do you mean? Did you see him attack a Jew? Insult one? Persecute one? If you don't think one can be critical of the Zionist state's policies without being an anti-Semite, you may wanna revise your judgement. The crushing majority of the world is critical of Israel and lots of Jews are too. Lixy 17:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you read my above comment about Holocaust denial? He is antisemittic because he denys the holocaust, and wants to kill every jew in Israel which is what is meant by "wipe every jew off the map." I don't care what you think about Israeli policies. Once you want to wipe it off the map, you crossed the line into antiesmitsm. And while there are some insane Jews who also want to wipe Israel off the map, they are a very small minority, and if anyone is that religous, there is something seriously wrong with their ability to reason.--Sefringle 03:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Without going into the whole "mistranslation" story again that's been discussed around here ad nauseaum, I'll just refer you to the numerous interviews of Ahmadinejad during which he clearly and unambiguously refutes all your accusations. The regime that governs the state of Israel is seriously broken and saying that it should be no more, doesn't imply "wiping every Jew off the map". What you said is blatant slander that only undermines the Iranian reformists opposed to Ahmadinejad. Surely if his intentions were to "kill every Jew" as you claim, he'd have started by the 25,000+ ones living in Iran. Lixy 19:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

He explicitly states that he loves all people, including Jews.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  - Francis Tyers · 19:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hasty Generalization--Sefringle 23:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, this has been discussed at great, great length. There are reams of discussion among reliable sources all throught the world about the relationship between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and antisemitism, thus the Category:Antisemitism and Category:Islam and antisemitism categories. Conversely, there is no unrefutable evidence that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is himself an anti-semite, as such, there is no Category:Anti-Semitic people. Much of the uncertainty here seems to stem from a confusion about the categories; please remember not to confuse them one for another. This is the consensus decision worked out over month; please respect it. Thank you. -- Avi 19:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That is understood. However, I can't sit idely by while Sefringle propagates lies such as MA wanting to kill every Jew. Lixy 21:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

'wiped off the map' quote

This quote has been takn as fact here. However, is not Wikipedia meant to look any every sid eo fhte story to get a balanced biew? People have removed my referecnes stating that they are not reliable but quote as relible the very sources they everyone else sas is not reliable. Who funds Wikipedia? Or is this just a small segment of the editors that want to surpress? I gave references saying that this alleged "quote" was noyt exact. Firsto fo all I admit thaT i GAVE dAVID dUKE AS A REFERENCE. Some say yhis is not a reliable reference but is the BBC? I gave other references:

[wiped off the face of the map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Personal_life_and_education]' has been widely discredited. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

This was not acceptable and they were deleted regardless of their accuracy and 'un'bias. So, I gave others:

www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/260107offthemap.htm] [6]

Not only were these others independent but also Video evidence of Duke and Israeli Zionists supressingi the truth.

I say that this quote was mis-represented. Is Wikipedia going to deny that? Robert C Prenic 17:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:ATT. David Duke is a fringe extremist, and per wiki policy is only usable as a source in the article about him. The BBC is a respected mainstream news source. The differences are both obvious and apparent. -- Avi 17:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Further, please look at the past 10 or so talk history archives. This was discussed at great length. -- Avi 17:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Duke may be extremist? OK. BBC may be extremist? OK. YOU TUBE quoting both sides? You even block that? I find it a joke that Duke is condenned as a source but the BBC isn't. If You Tube is regarded as either (and I am sure you can find an argument) then this only adds to the ever growintg belief that Wikipedia is Zionist controlled (NOT Jewish). I 100% refuted this for years under different names. I was adament, but now, regardless of you now calling me a hater (you did not directly) (which I used to call other editors) I now see it for what it is.

First of all, YouTube is not the source, it's only where you find the video from the original source. Second, even though CNN ran the interview, the source was David Duke. Third, your conspiracy theory indicates to me that you are not attempting to make this article neutral, but to give credence to your POV.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 17:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The BBC a respeced source? Please! I will look at the past archives but this is like comparing these arguments to converted racists. This is rubbish. The least I expected Wikipedia to be was to give BOTH sides of a story? Will you deny that? What chance have I against an orthodox Kosher Jew? The next thing you will deny is that Zionists control the Porn industry or once cotrolled the slave trade? Wll you argue this? Robert C Prenic 17:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Both sides of the story are in the article, just not in the lead. Again, as Avi said, read the archives, most of these points have been discussed a lot. I would deny your porn and slave arguments and I'm not an Orthodox Jew, but I won't discuss it with you here.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 17:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with Avi that I should read the archives. I have. And arguments are poor to say the least, regardless of what side you stand on. Deny my porn and slave arguments? That is fine and I respect that, but not discus it here? I find that odd to say the least. Wikipedia is an online Encyclopeida where both sides shoud be discussed and represented before being passed as fact. Why wll you not discuss this withe here? I am n o threat to orthodox opinioth? Robert C Prenic 18:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Zionist porn and slavery allegations are inappropriate here since this page is to discuss the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad article. Also, the religious identification of other editors does not matter here. Stick to the content and the focus of the article please, thanks. The Behnam 18:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)I am actually very inclined to remove such "Kosher jew","porn" and "slave trade" commentary per talk page guidelines and not a soapbox. We're here on this talk page to discuss how to improve the article not go off on some rant about nonsense best left off of Wikipedia. (→Netscott) 18:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Behnam, great. But where can I address this on Wikipedia? Both the Zionist porn and slavery? Please help me and I will co-oprorate happily. Robert C Prenic 18:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you have real reliable sources (not people like Duke), you could try to add mention of those allegations on the pages for those topics, but don't expect to do so successfully. Somehow I doubt the sources for those claims are reliable. I really don't know what to say. Wikipedia isn't a forum, so if you want to discuss the topics themselves you may have to go somewhere else. In any case, this page isn't the place for it. The Behnam 18:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories, WP:NPOV#Undue weight, Wikipedia:Attribution#Using questionable or self-published sources, and Wikipedia:Attribution#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, such claims should only go on the page of the person who made them, if that person is notable. In your case, I believe the only acceptable place for expansion would be David Duke. -- Avi 18:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As Avraham's well-known for his POV edits here and engaging edit wars, most of the editors see his edits as vandalism and trolling, and his opinion can not be seen as NPOV. Deleting sourced content, from someone's official website that is used for quoting him, is nothing but vandalism. Look how he responds your statements: It's discussed before so you can not add anything, even if it has enough sources. The funny thing here is that he's also an administrator that locked this page many times, while he's engaged in edit wars. See logs for this page, to understand what I'm talking about. --217.219.236.17 18:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else not surprised this IP resolves to Iran?--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 08:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What a disgusting thing to say. Do you find something wrong with an Iranian editing Iranian-related article? Or do you believe that the Wikipedia is a tool of the likes of Wolfs and Golds? --Gerash77 09:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Disgusting? I had a long post, but decided to just ask you not to assume the comment was meant to disparage all Iranians or whatever you've taken it as.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 11:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is somewhat sad that an anonymous IP feels the need to post vituperousness, that is actually contradicted by the edit history he or she refers to. Policy is policy, whether we like it or not. Oh well. My edit history is open to all, just as each and every one else's is . Regardless of someone's cry for attention, it does not change the facts that we have had months of discussion on this, and that the current category structure is the accepted least of all evils, as it were. -- Avi 03:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Your post indeed sounded awfully agressive towards Iranians. Lixy 17:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, only against one anon user, who may not even be from Iran for all I know (IP forwarding et al) who decided to attack people and not content. Can you point out exactly where I refer, or even connote "Iranians"? -- Avi 18:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Lixy was referring to my post and it wasn't meant to sound aggressive. I guess that's just the nature of reading a comment vice hearing it.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 03:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

TAMU, how is your claim that the ip resolves to Iran helpful to the discussion? You don't see me bringing up Avi's Jewishness. Stop playing the race card, and WP:NOT a battleground. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 21:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Could we please stop discussing the anon. S/he doesn't like me, fine. Let's not let that persons ire spill over to those of us who edit the article regularly. -- Avi 21:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't "playing the race card" or whatever. It was an off-hand comment that only meant that I wasn't surprised that someone from Iran, whose president this article is about, would read some kind of bias into the article simply because we try and present both sides. It wasn't meant to slight supporters of Ahmadinejad, Iranians, Muslims, or any other group you people have apparently assumed that I hate. I don't need you to tell me what Wikipedia is not. Try not to assume the worst about me and I'll be more careful with things that I post that I never thought would offend anyone (and I didn't think it'd offend anyone or I wouldn't have posted it). That's all I have to say about this issue and will not respond on it anymore.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 05:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't assume anything. Also, I find it offensive that, because I disagree with you, I'm a "supporter" of Ahmadinejad (whatever the fuck that means). Did you learn this smearing from jayjg, who calls anyone who disagrees with his POV an "apologist"? Give me a break. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 17:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that I don't see Littleman accusing you of being a supporter of Ahmadinejad? Perhaps because he didn't? The Behnam 17:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

He said "supporters of Ahmadinejad, Iranians, Muslims, or any other group of people..." I am Iranian, but he already said above that he doesn't hate Iranians (lemme guess, some of his best friends are Iranian?). I'm not Muslim, so the only explicit category left for me is "supporter of Ahmadinejad". Enough is enough.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 18:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What about "any other group"? Is it at all possible that you are part of "any other group"? You oughtn't confine yourself to only the explicit categories. The Behnam 18:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not part of any groups. That's my whole point. I am ONE editor, on ONE computer, editing Wikipedia. I don't have a fucking organization or society behind all my edits.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 18:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)