Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14

Lead section

It is absolutely disgraceful that the deliberate lies about Ahmadinejad's "Israel" statement are allowed to remain. I will not modify the article as it is a blatant instance of systemic bias in Wikipedia anyway. As a Persian speaker, what am I to do when the overwhelming mass of Wikipedia editors choose to follow English speakers' accounts? I can link to the Persian text, but that is not of use to the page's English-speaking readership, nor could it survive the swarm of whipped-up -- or, at best, ill-informed -- editors. This is political Wikiality at its best! --P00r 01:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the direct translation refer to the occupation of Jerusalem (Qods) and not Palestine?--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I had not intended my edit as a translation attempt, but was merely trying to make a distinction between the 'Israel' comment and the 'Holocaust' comment. I have now changed it to avoid such an impression. My point above deals with the problem of non-English original source, and geographic bias. In the least, a link to the original source has to be provided. If none is found (by a native speaker), or none can be determined (by a non-native speaker), then the absence of the original source has to be visibly flagged *in the article*. This is a small step towards the goal of countering geographic biases.
The absence of an original-language source for the "myth" allegation is particularly glaring. The Al Jazeera reference is _not_ in Persian; furthermore, it uses the "wipe off the map" mis-translation, thus invalidating it as a reliable source.--P00r 03:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I ignored your inflammatory statements earlier and attempted to focus on improving the article. However, I'm tired of editors flying in here, editing all kinds of things that have already been discussed, accusing other editors of being "whipped-up", "ill-informed", or politically motivated when those other editors revert and discuss the issues again, and then leaving when they don't get their way. Many editors with varying views have tried to keep this article as neutral as possible given the high visibility Ahmadinejad has. Dismissing all sources as unreliable because they didn't use your chosen translation regardless of whether it's word-for-word or not is just irrational. Most all editors here are fine with spirited debate, but you've been just downright rude.--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

{Old text archived} I don't want to argue for one side over the other here. However, we have to both agree that disagreeing with the idea of Israel existing as it has existed since 1948 doesn't equal disagreeing with Israel existing at all, which [the latter] is what the "wiped off the map" suggests in the worst kind of words (which weren't even said apparently). I think calling out "controversial statements about Israel's existence" is a more neutral option for the lead section than the one that currently exists and to me it is acceptable. I don't see an "edit" link for the lead section though. Hnassif 20:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"However, we have to both agree that disagreeing with the idea of Israel existing as it has existed since 1948 doesn't equal disagreeing with Israel existing at all" Well, I disagree. You seem to take "Israel" to mean "the Jewish people", kind of an Tanakh/Old Testament view rather than to mean "the country/nation/state of Israel". For most of the past 60 years, at least in the West, "Israel" corresponds with the latter definition and "Jews" matches the former. That said, I do agree that Ahmadinejad wasn't calling for a second Holocaust, but publicly hoping another country's government collapses/is replaced and is "wiped from the pages of time" or whatever translation you want is still a controversial comment and quibbling over exact words doesn't change that fact.--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
What I was talking about has nothing to do with the meaning of the word "Israel" at all. When someone says they disagree with something existing in a certain way, then that doesn't mean they necessarily disagree with that thing existing in any other way too. Again, it's not my goal to argue here for one side or the other, but you and I both agree there are two sides of a dispute regarding what he said and what he meant, and the lead section is choosing the words of one side over the other. I gave you what I thought was a more neutral sentence to use in the lead section, you also gave me what you think is even more neutral, I told you it's fine with me because I don't think anyone can deny the statements related to Israel's existence and they definitely were controversial, so I think we both found a language that we both agree on here. Would you be willing to make that change? Thanks.Hnassif 04:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Look, Hnassif, he wasn't condemned for "making controversial statements about Israel's existence", he was condemned for calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map", and I have dozens of reliable sources which say exactly that, including sources written by Persian speakers. On Wikipedia we quote what the sources say, period. Jayjg (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Well sorry Jayig, I thought on Wikipedia, we try to present information in a good and decent manner for the benefit of readers and not just repeat what others say. And in this case, there are sources that say different things. It doesn't matter how many sources you can present for one side of the story over the other when you know all the different sources one either side are just repeating the same story from the same source of translation. Truth is not determined by frequency. I think we've beaten this issue to death and there is now agreement that there is a dispute regarding what Ahmadinejad meant in his statement. Each side of that dispute represents a POV. This dispute has been acknowledged by this wikipedia article and other wikipedia articles. Each side is presented with sources. The lead section as it stands today chooses one side's language over the other when it could easily convey the proper more concise and focussed meaning in more neutral language, which I have suggested and Littleman has agreed with with minor changes. I suggest we go ahead and change it to what Littleman suggested. Hnassif 04:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
For the record, my suggestion was made only to stop this argument since I'm tired of having it rehashed over and over and over and over and get the point. I called my suggestion "more neutral" because it seems like a bridge between our opinions. However, I think the original "wiped off the map" statement is neutral. Hell, even Al Jazeera reported that translation and, in the 10-15 articles (spanning about 6-12 months) about Ahmadinejad and Israel I browsed, never corrected it. One would normally take that to mean that the translation used was accepted by the rest of the Arab world save Ahmadinejad and his government.--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I think I made it clear that the "wiped off the map" translation represents one POV in a dispute that is already acknowledged by Wikipedia and for which each side is backed by sources that Wikipedia also acknowledges. I still don't see how you can call it NPOV. Just because Al Jazeera used it too doesn't mean it's correct or that the Arab world, which Ahmadinejad and his government are not part of by the way, accepts it. Again, by choosing the language of one POV over the other in the lead section, we are simply doing that: choosing one POV over the other, and we shouldn't be doing that.Hnassif 20:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
You made it clear that you think it represents a POV. The article only says the translation is questioned by some. It doesn't say that anyone claims that translation is any more pro- or anti-Ahmadinejad than any other. It says that some claim one translation is more accurate than the one widely reported. There are far to many colons at the beginning of this paragraph.--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
A POV is not restricted to being pro- or anti- something. We can both have different points of view regarding something that we are both for or against. Also, the sources that are listed with the claims in the article from both sides present the pro- anti- relationship when one side raises the concern regarding the other being part of "war propaganda" against Iran, but like I said, that shouldn't even matter because two POV's don't necessarily have to differ in their pro- or anti- treatment of the subject. Regarding the length of this discussion, it's not something that I've expected or enjoyed, but don't look at me if you're trying to blame someone. I thought this discussion ended when we both agreed to certain language that is more neutral. If it were up to me, the entire issue of Nijad's statements doesn't even have to be mentioned in the lead section. I mean there is already a section for it in the article, and at least two other wiki articles for it. Hnassif 16:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
If Iran isn't in the Arab world what "world" is it a part of? I know most people from Iran are Persian, but I thought A and his government were Arab. Maybe he's Persian and I should correct to "Muslim world". There's not much info on his pedigree or early life in the article.--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Iran is not part of the Arab world. Where did you get the idea that the government in Iran (the product of a popular revolution in the 70's) is Arab? If Ahmadinejad were Arab, he would have never been elected president. By the way, if you want to see an example of the gap between Arab and Persian, check out the Persian Gulf naming dispute.Hnassif 16:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
If you have a different meaning, post it.
I personally am not interested in presenting what I believe Ahmadinejad meant to say, but I believe there are two sides to the debate about what he really meant, and those two sides are presented in this Wikipedia article, but one of them is chosen over the other in the leading section, where it doesn't really belong. My suggestion which I still stand by is to simply leave that disputed meaning to appear later in the article where it's discussed along with the other version and settle for mentioning the condemnation of his radical (and you can easily call them radical) statements in the lead section. I think this is the most reasonable option if you want to talk about it in the lead section of the article.Hnassif 22:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see how a side is chosen, I kind of understand how you do though. However, the fact that the statement was radical is why it merits a mention in the lead. Why not use the quote most widely reported in NPOV sources? The quibbling over exact translations and discussion of how some people overreacted and assumed things that were probably not meant by the statement is in the article. If people want more info, it's there.--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Why not use the quote most widely reported in NPOV sources? Because even though you can argue that the sources that used that quote are usually NPOV (something which others including myself will disagree with anyway), in this case they ended up adopting a POV. In simple terms, there's a dispute, with two POVs. The sources you quoted represent one POV. The reporting of the media is actually at the heart of the dispute regarding the meaning of the statements and if those sources didn't exhibit a POV then there would be no counter POV to talk about anyway.Hnassif 06:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The NYT's Bronner looked into it more and his article seems to show both sides fairly well. However, you don't see them as neutral. I would agree that no source is truly neutral and I disagree with the NYT a lot, but surely they are more neutral than Mottaki and the Iranian government. If you don't like the NYT, maybe Al Jazeera will convince you that not just the Western press translated it this way (or at least Al Jazeera had no major objection with, and therefore took, the Western translation).--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at your Al Jazeera articles again, one of them clearly states that he stated Israel should be moved to Europe. It is a serious and dangerous implication to say they he suggests destroying them through some type of military action. You know what happens when we assume. Also, if you don't know any languages other than your natural, you probably don't understand that you can't take things literally. If you were to say "don't beat around the bush" and translate it directly to Arabic, they would say "wtf are you talking about?". I completely agree that, although "reliable" American sources who happen to be sympathetic to Israel went through a single or a few possibly compromised translations, who translated it in the worse light possible, doesn't make it so. Both sides NEED to be clearly stated in the article for people to decide. Wikidan829 13:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Littleman, from your 3rd source: "The president, who said in October that Israel must be "wiped off the map", said last week that if Germany and Austria believed that Jews were massacred during the second world war, a state of Israel should be established on their soil." Try reading the article before posting here, thanks ;) Wikidan829 13:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read my comments before assuming I think Ahmadinejad meant that he wanted to attack Israel militarily. Note my comment formerly right below yours and now right below mine (21:42, 1 March 2007) and the one (22:27, 5 March 2007) that say/imply I don't think Ahmadinejad meant that and that it was unfortunate people who took his words that way. I knew about his Israel->Europe relocation suggestion. To me, that doesn't change anything. It's still a radical statement whose meaning I think is conveyed quite well in the "wiped" translation, but I'm not rehashing that argument with you. I'm responding because, even though you're probably trolling, your "bombshell" about relocation is ridiculous and changes nothing I said because I knew about that way before I ever got into this discussion with Hnassif and the way you presented it to me was not very civil and I don't appreciate that. Furthermore, both sides of the argument are in the article, just not in the lead. So I'm trying to assume the best about you and your intentions, so if you want to further discuss anything, please read what's already been discussed and don't assume anything except good faith and that I am trying to be civil.--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Please accept my humble apology. I realized the notes I left were not very nice the second I clicked send, but it was too late. I didn't read further down because of the "backdent" (if that makes any sense). I see your view, and correct me if I'm wrong. You know as well as I do that the Western media equates their supposed nuclear arms program with their desire to destroy Israel(based on this false quote), this is the image they are creating. This is what is "widely reported", but we shouldn't make Wikipedia a place for politics. There are clearly some sources(including Al Jazeera) that further explain what is meant by this possible idiom. To accept a "widely reported" view doesn't make it so, and it is POV. Adding a note that it was possibly taken out of context should be necessary. And FYI, I'm not "trolling". I encountered an article that needs a lot of work and figured I would submit my opinion. Wikidan829 19:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem is not the exact words we use. The lead has the words as most widely reported. The controversy didn't come about because the translators didn't say, "[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history" or whatever translation you want to use. It came about because Ahmadinejad doesn't think Israel has a right to exist in the manner it does now and much of the Western world thinks that Israel does have that right. Some people thought he was calling for war against Israel and that's unfortunate, but that misunderstanding wasn't the result of the translation, it's that that sentiment is considered radical by the West.--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
If that were the real reason why the controversy exists, then it would have sufficed to say in the lead section that he has been widely condemned for denying Israel its right to exist under its current regime (which is the accurate description of the meaning you just mentioned) without having to quote the heavily disputed translation of only one statement that he made which you also just argued is not even the real reason for the condemnation. So even in that case, the "wiped off the map" quotation still doesn't belong here. Even the portrayal of the meaning you speak of doesn't really belong in the lead section. The only thing that could reasonably be included there if we are to talk about the condemnation is mentioning that they were regarding statements that he made and then leave the details to later on.Hnassif 22:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
So we're like the 5 o'clock news trailers? "Ahmadinejad was condemned for saying something...details at 11!"--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


The use of so-called weasel words in this article is absoloutely ridiculuos, the article reeks of euro-americentrism, and finally the article has turned into a complete bureaucracy where changes are reverted to whatever the self-appointed gods of this article without any rational discussion.

1) -> I changed the word "insisted" in the introduction of the article to "stated" (To have it reverted within minutes)-- now I realize that the original article from BBC uses the word "insisted" however, the word insisted is not in quotations in the article and thus reflects a statement from WP rather than the source... and using a word like insisted (that carries connotations that will be outlined below) is in my opinion in conflict with the NPOV policy. The fact that BBC uses the word, a western media source with certain interests, does not make the word impartial!

To state: express in words; "He said that he wanted to marry her"; "tell me what is bothering you"; "state your opinion"; "state your name" put before; "I submit to you that the accused is guilty" [syn: submit] indicate through a symbol, formula, etc.; "Can you express this distance in kilometers?" [syn: express]

To insist: To be firm in a demand or course; refuse to yield: insisted on giving me a second helping. To assert or demand (something) vehemently and persistently: We insist that you accept these gifts.

And contexually, at least in the North American environment that I live in, "insist" almost carries a presumption of guilt, whereas the "guilt" in this case is itself questionable. From my understanding, this guy has stated, indicated, EXPRESSED rather than demand or assert that he is not "anti-jew"... thereform the former word is much better and much more --neutral-- word-choice specially in the INTRODUCTION.

2) RE: "calling for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'" First and foremost, I think it's quite disturbing that this statement that is clearly in disagreement with what the man actually said in Persian (and the individuals who can't speak Persian better rely on those who can to make the judgement of what he said rather than blindly argue that this is what he actually said) However, I am sure this has been argued to death in here so I chose not to remove the statement (although having it in the introduction is still problematic, could you simply not indicate that "statements" have been made that have been considered controversial and raised condemnation from many in the international community? Thereby telling the facts, remaining neutral, and allowing more opportunity for clarification later on in the article) If you are not going to remove this statement, for neutrality's sake, at least make some sort of gesture about how this statement is "claimed" or "one translation" (which as a fact happens to be quite distant from the actual persian). I tried to do this... however again, reverted by the same individual.

3) The international issue-- there is a clear distinction between |internationally| and |many/some in the international community| and I believe internally is much more euro-americentric than the latter statement. The only benefit I see in internationally is that it is shorter. However I believe that it is extremely important to at least be free of bias and clear in the introduction of an article. Seriously... if Wikipedia seeks to become an international it needs to take into consideration that the international community /= the westernn hemisphere.

I find systematic reversion of attempts to atleast neutralize articles a bit extremely discouraging... M87 21:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

3) I'm guessing that you were reverted because, if you'd read the talk page before editing, you'd see that anything in the lead gets a lot of attention and discussion before anything actually changes. I agree that "many in the international community" is probably a better (more NPOV) wording, but, as with any article on a controversial topic or person, if you get reverted, you might want to check the talk page. If you discuss your edits first there's a better chance they'll get in. Commenting in the edit summary does not count as discussing. That's what this talk page is for. Oh, and continuing to mark your edits as minor probably didn't help much.
1) As for "insist" I don't agree that it carries a presumption of guilt. In this context, I perceive its meaning as "asserting or stating something in the face of objection or accusation". Either way, the wording in the current revision (14:02, 4 March 2007) seems more neutral to me.
2) I disagree that the translation is so far off as some here claim. That argument might hold water for me if the translation said something like "nuke the crap out of Israel and burn all the Jews". However, take any translation you want and many in the West will see it as saying just that; there's just no arguing with those people. That's still no reason to claim that the translation is as far off as you do.--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
No, your argument might hold water if the text did not have an English equivalent. However, the words that the individual used in persian have clear equivalents in English. And the English text makes sense, and conveys "meaning" like/similar to the persian, and of course, like its Persian counterpart, it can be interpreted in multitude of ways. However, that is a matter of INTERPRETATION. If your going to try to interpret what something means, at least use the right original text for Pete's sake!M87 06:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
"The second translation issue concerns the word "map." Khomeini's words were abstract: "Sahneh roozgar." Sahneh means scene or stage, and roozgar means time. The phrase was widely interpreted as "map," and for years, no one objected. In October, when Mr. Ahmadinejad quoted Khomeini, he actually misquoted him, saying not "Sahneh roozgar" but "Safheh roozgar," meaning pages of time or history. No one noticed the change, and news agencies used the word "map" again." So because he misquoted one syllable of Khomeini's the "meaning" of the quote is totally different? Wiping a country from "the map" or "history" doesn't change much, if anything, in meaning. You want that country to not exist. Don't quibble with me over regime v. country either, we know he wasn't calling for genocide, but he was saying the Jews shouldn't have their country where it currently is. He wants Europe to give them some land so Muslims can take back Jerusalem.--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I recommend anybody who wants to know more about this mistranslation to read this article from a Persian Journalist: [1] . What Ahmadinejad said was a quote from the late Ayatollah Khomeini saying that "This regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" (Which ist solely referring to the Zionist regime and neither Israel as a country, nor the Israeli people, nor Jews or Judaism). Vanishing from the page of time has a very different meaning that getting wiped off the map, and we only need to think of the Soviet Union, the Roman Empire, the former Shah of Iran, or the Apartheid Regime, which have all "vanished from the page of time", without being wiped off the map in the sense in which Ahmadinejad's quote was percepted. The Soviet Union as the most recent example has brought by its own downfall and was not wiped out. (Ahmed, guest user) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
1. The source says "insisted", and it has no presumption of guilt.
2. Hundreds of sources talk of him insisting Israel be "wiped off the map", and the various apologetic differing translations mean much the same thing. Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say, and it's tiresome to go over this same point dozens of times. Please read the Talk: page and its archives.
3. The sources also specifically talk about "international condemnation"; I've now added the sources to make it explicit. I'm not sure why every single word in this lead requires at least 3 references, but I'm always willing to provide more references. I've provided as many as 21 references for a single point on this page, and I won't be put off by blind reverters. Jayjg (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Great logic. Just because lots of x and y news-sources carried this-- it must be right. Take a dictionary, and look up the words or ask someone you trust... To be a reliable source-- one must state what an individual has said and THEN INTERRET IT WITHIN CONTEXT, RECOGNIZING that what one may have said was an interpretation not the actual statement. 'The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time' is the closest translation to the actual statement (native speaker in both English and Persian) pretty much word for word, and it makes sense in the context that it was said... people are saying that he may have said that, but he actually means this or that... I don't claim to know what he meant, because that would be my OPINION. However, unlike other individuals here, I dont' feel like imposing my opinion and my interpretation of the text on others. The way the ACTUAL TEXT is framed in the article now is MISLEADING, however, to readers that might come to this article to find FACTS -- because how can he have made the statement, when he... DIDN'T? there needs to be some recognition of this fact at the beginning of the article (rather than in some subpage elsewhere) OR at least a recognition of the fact that flurry of response was to the "translation" (which was inaccurate) that was carried by western media.
"various apologetic differing translations mean much the same thing."
--different translations are apolegetic? --- how about, right? how about people who can actually read what the text says?

--mean the same thing? "MEAN" maybe something means something to you-- to me, "regime" and "Israel" are quite different... TO ME one could entail a system of governning and the other... some country-- to me "map" is different from "page of history" one meant to allude to something physical, while the other to something metaphoric but it could very well mean something different (Or all the same) to someone else. At the end of the day, it is -up to people- to make that judgement, and you are not doing ANYONE any favours by preventing that. See the above regarding personal interpretations and POV.M87 06:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

اﻳﻦ ﺭژﻳﻢ اﺷﻐﺎﻟﮕﺮ ﻗﺪﺱ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ اﺯ صفحه روﺯﮔﺎﺭ ﻣﺤﻮ ﺷﻮﺩ

In režime išqâlgare qods bâyad az safhehye ruzgâr mahv šavad. This regime which illegally occupies Jerusalem must be removed from the pages of history.

Just to let you know "mahv" is to disappear/to hide, the closes work for to wipe is "pak kardan", and to remove "bardashtan", "raf kardan" "door kardan"... there is nothing in the sentence about removing anything. "It is, believe or not, the government of Israel." That interpretation was my interpretation as well, however that was from the original "occupying regime of Qods", however, the way that Western media has carried the quote, and the way that wikipedia carries the quote could very well mean anything associated with the country called Israel, including it's people and so on. This is a very VAGUE interpretation of the word regime, if EVERYONE KNOWS what that regime is (do I sense a logical problem here?) then why don't we just use the ACTUAL QUOTE, rather than the quote with a layer of WHAT WE THINK it says. M87 16:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's all which needs to be said. Israel is never mentioned. It is instead "the regime occupying Jerusalem". Last time I checked, it isn't Israel's farmlands that are occupying Jerusalem. Nor is it the cows or chickens. Nor is it the balloon salesman in Haifa. Nor is it the owner of this store(nsfw). It is, believe or not, the government of Israel. And that has been the stance of the Islamic Republic ever since Khomeini had a beard. --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 07:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

To the West and probably the rest of the non-Muslim world, "the regime occupying Jerusalem" is best translated "Israel". See my reply to M87 in this same edit above.--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The the West and probably the rest of the non-Muslim world? How do you know this? Do you have a source for this claim? The regime occupying Jerusalem is the government of Israel. Dolate Esrâil. If Ahmadinejad wanted to say "Wipe Israel off the map", he could have easily said "Esrâil bâyad az jadval pâk šavad". This "no such idiom" nonsense is totally ridiculous and a gross ignorance of the Persian language. --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 23:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't need a source since it's not in the article...I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that to a lot of Europeans and Americans, that's the case. If you don't think so, fine. I'm not going to be drug into an argument over it. The point is that some people don't see a difference between "regime occupying Jerusalem" and "Israel". If you'd bothered to actually read my reply instead of picking on Juan Cole who was quoted in my source (note that it was a completely unrelated section of the article to what I was sourcing and that I disagree with Juan Cole), maybe we'd get somewhere. M87 did the exact same thing a few comments lower...--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I never mentioned Juan Cole. What are you talking about? And yes, I did see M87's comments. But you were talking to me, not M87. --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 06:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Your whole argument was about the "'no such idiom' nonsense". That came from Cole not me.--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
So what made you think that was directed at you? --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 08:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
You were replying to me. If you weren't talking to me, you had a funny way of talking to someone else.--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 07:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
If it's not relevant to you, then don't assume it has to do with you. --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 21:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not as if this hasn't been talked about for months now:

Jayjg has pointed out it is not important what Ahmadinejad said because everyone knows "his intent" or "what he meant". Only Ahmadinejad knows what he meant. I have found a few other instances where he has used the "wiped of the map" reference. For example this from the Jerusalem Post: ""The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom," Ahmadinejad said at Tuesday's meeting". Last I looked Russia (and the Russians) were still there but it's Soviet "regime" had indeed dissapeared. Isn't it possible that he uses the word regime to mean regime (government) rather than to mean Israel (country)? To to say Israel instead of regime is POV because they have different meanings. BTW, for comparison, the original Iranian source of the above quote reads "President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday "As the Soviet Union disappeared, the Zionist regime will also vanish and humanity will be liberated"". Third party translations should always be approached with caution. Wayne 15:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The Soviet Union has disappeared, with Russia in its place. That is precisely the wishes stated by MA, to remove "Israel" as a political and governmental entity and replace it with an Arab-run Palestine. No one thinks he wished to vaporize the very soil, but by saying he wishes the "occupying regime" wiped off the map, that is tantamount to saying he wished everything that is related to the political and governmental entity known as "Israel" to be destroyed and the land either be Palestine, or subsumed into Jordan or something of the like. The equivalent would be to Saddam Hussein saying he wishes to wipe Iran off of the map and engulf it into "Greater Iraq". -- Avi 15:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

He means to remove the governmental entity that now resides in Jerusalem, to wit, Israel. All semantics, sophistry, and circumlocution (sorry, but it is phonetically alliterative) aside, to deny he wished the the poltical entity known as Israel "removed", "wiped out", "erased" is disingenuous at best and blatantly POV whitewashing at worst, I am afraid. -- Avi 07:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has ever denied such a thing. Don't be ridiculous. And the comparison with the Soviet Union is very clear. Last time I checked, the Russians weren't genocided, bombed, nuked, or anything when 1991 came along and crashed the People's empire. When people in the 80s wanted the Soviet Union to collapse, they weren't labled anti-Russian, racist, fascist, etc. And in the same way, people who want to end the Palestinian apartheid aren't racist or antisemites. --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 23:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The Soviet Union no longer exists, and Russia is certainly not the Soviet Union; if nothing else, it's much smaller both physically and population-wise. As for what he "really, really" said, it doesn't matter; the world thought was talking about wiping out Israel, that's what the dozens and dozens of reliable sources refer to, and that's what was notable. As for "the Palestinian apartheid", are you referring to the way Palestinians are kept as 4th class citizens in Lebanon? Jayjg (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a big difference between recording what reliable sources refer to, and what Ahmadinejad actually said. The latter is unimportant to Wikipedia. The threshold of information on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Having said that, there is no excuse for claiming that the verifiable sources are the ones that contain the absolute truth. Pretending that there is no controversy surrounding the translation of his words is no better than claiming there is no controversy about Ahmadinejad. Also, by Palestinian apartheid, I am referring to anywhere that Palestinians are having their human rights violated, be that in Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, etc. It just so happens that a lot of it is currently happening in the West Bank, which has been illegally occupied by the IDF for over 30 years. Mistreatment is mistreatment, no matter who does it. Tu quoque arguments are going to lead you nowhere.--ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 06:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
There really isn't a controversy about this; a couple of op-eds and blog posts doesn't make a "controversy", and in any event we link directly an article about the whole translation thing, which is already far more attention than it deserves, per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. We don't claim the sources "contain the absolute truth"; far from it, in fact. However, we do report what the real controversy was about (as opposed the fake controversy, where a couple of bloggers and whitewasher pretended he really meant something else). As for your rhetoric about Palestinians, apartheid, etc., please see WP:SOAP. Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Fake controversy? How do you decide? It will inevitably require original research. Also, the only reason I spoke about Palestinians was because you asked me to do so. ("Are you referring...") Stop wikilawyering. --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 06:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
No, the world decides what the real controversy is, and it has already, in hundreds of newspaper articles, condemnations by international leaders and bodies, etc. The whole "translation" issue, on the other hand, is barely found in any reliable sources, aside from a couple of blogs and op-eds. As for who mentioned "Palestinians" first, it was you, on 23:33, 8 March 2007 - see the thread above. I never asked you to. Jayjg (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The stance of the Islamic Republic of Iran is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments were mistranslated. Last time I checked, the Islamic Republic of Iran is not "a couple of blogs and op-eds". Also, I don't care about your comments on the Palestinians, as it is not relevant to the topic. If you want, we can continue it on my talk page or something. What you are referring to (8 March) was not a comment about the Palestinians themselves. In any case, I'm through with speaking on this irrelevant aside. --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 21:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see the references in Persian if you can provide them, because beside the language issue, Jersulalem Post is probably not the most NPOV to read a story about Iran from, specially a translated story at that. Secondly just because something is mistranslated many times, doesn't mean its right. M87 16:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Look no one is trying to deny anything, no one is trying to white-wash anything. I simply suggested that since this article has a lot of reponsibility (where do people look when they first want to find out about someone as the most reliable source?) it is extremely important to make the article as neutral and factual and interpretation-free as possible. There is a lot of analysts and alot of commentators out there, if people want to find out about what other people think of this individual and their comments, they won't come here. People come here to get facts, and unfortunatly certain things in the article are short of being facts. What this article has done is essentially He said this quote "----" in the introduction, and he was condemened for it internationally~~ and he is anti-semetic, but he has stated... oops INSISTED (why does this remind me of a whiney five-year old, rather than a world leader?) that he isn't. You don't have to DENY that he may have malevolent wishes against Israel by putting down the facts. You don't have to deny anything. An encyclopedia article is not a speculative peice. You just state what happened, and the reactions from all sides and allow people to make their own judgements. You try to minimize any bias that might be infused in the words. That's not white-washing, that is simply stating the facts rather than speculation. It seems right now that the actual text of what he said is regarded as an "alternative", while we know that this is not true, he said something --> for which we ACTUALLY have a pretty accurate translation, it was carried as something elese (yes, different words, specially disappear -> wipe, regime -> israel, page of history -> map are extremely interprative), and the reaction was to the second set of quotes. Some readers will see both quotes as the same, or at least carrying same meanings and connotations, and others will see the slight difference; however, the important thing is that you are giving the reader that choice. Factually, the introduction needs to make this clear, or otherwise the article is as reliable as newsources that carry made-up information (e.g. ) I mean seriously-- how in the world do you get "map" out of page of history.... Someone really lost something there in translation, but this is not the place to speculate what and why. M87 16:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
See Bronner's article or my other reply to you above about the map thing. Maybe you should read up on all the articles and speculations that have already been written before rehashing them here. Hint: I've linked to a lot of the material already.--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

From your source: "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian"

No I think what this argument does is create a strawman.

1. Even if Persian did not have wipe Israel off the map (which I assure you it does -- nabood kardan --> to destroy-- Israel ra az zamin paak konid (clean/wipe Israel from the Earth=zamin or map=naghsheh), there are plenty of ways to suggest the destruction of a country-- and in fact quite commonly used as slogans.


2. The argument above doesn't make sense because it's essentially saying 1. we think x (english) is what say this in English-- 2. he said something else y (english) -- 3. therefore they must not have an equivalent for x (english) in Persian, and therefore, y (english) can implicitely be taken to mean x (english). 4. translate y (english) as x (english)

This argument might hold some water if dude used an idiom in Persian that had no equivalent in English, but that's not true, the sentence is quite coherent in English when translated-- and gets its message across (e.g. it doesn't say bird, mambo, ... to suggest "israel" but says regime-- which based on historical/political might be very obvious to to mean Israel).

Furthermore, In English-we do HAVE and we do use the idiom he used- to have something vanish from the pages of history, now someone might argue-- that wiping something off the map might just be a more crude way of saying have something "vanish from the pages of history", and they may very well be right (in my opinion they aren't, I believe there is a subtle, yet clear distinction between the two).

By following the procedure I outlined earlier, what you are doing is essentially IMPOSING your own interpration on what he actually stated-- Your interpratation may be --completely valid-- but the point IS that's not what he SAID. Facts must be reported FIRST.M87 22:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You realize that you just ranted about an argument that Juan Cole made and that I disagree with him (though my disagreement is different from yours since I don't speak Persian)? Not only that, but you missed the point of reading up on the sources and the history of editing this article. You whine about the "gods of the article" reverting your edits when it's pretty obvious from them that you didn't read the talk page or just ignored the consensus (or disagreement) there when making them. Pretty much anything that goes in the lead that is not is discussed first is likely going to be reverted since there's generally a discussion on this page going on about it. I'll let you read the other discussions on the talk page about this, but basically I'm not imposing my view, I'm advocating reporting what many reliable sources printed and a translation that might not be exact, but does not advocate a POV. Writing things in ALL CAPS does not make them true. You seem to be agitated and I hope that's not the case, but if it is, I'm honestly not trying to contribute to that.--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for going under the presumption that you agreed with what was said in the article, and if I seemed agitated (the caps are not shotuing but emphasis, and to reduce the number of dashes -) in any case, I am done here, but I hope that regardless of whatever diagreements, my previous proposals are taken into consideration. M87 23:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Too many references

The reference count in the lead paragraph is ridiculous. It is pathological. Why do we need that many footnotes to support a single word or phrase -- over and over and over again? Its insane. --Blue Tie 04:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's because people like Gerash like to put {{who}} tags in when something doesn't have an explicit source even if it's implied or readily available.--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, you only need one or two references to answer that sort of thing, not seven. There are 30 references in a sentence with 42 words. Its ridiculous. And it cannot be blamed upon a person wanting references. It is overkill as though someone is seeking to make a point -- which is almost a form of disruption. --Blue Tie 06:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
What's disrupting is people quibbling over items in the lead when they're well sourced, arguably NPOV, and been discussed to death. That's why there's so many sources. Read the talk archives and see what I'm talking about. Some people want sources for every word of the lead and they moan about the first source or two that's presented. Hence the situation now. Better too many sources than too few.--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
First of all, it is not in the spirit of wikipedia, to describe discussion (which is the wikipedia way of getting to concensus) as disruptive. That you personally believe something to be NPOV, does not mean that it is. That you personally believe something to be discussed to death, does not mean that it is. Statements like that are not in harmony with WP:AGF. Furthermore, I have read the discussion. I see NOTHING in that discussion that says "Not enough sources, hence my idea prevails". I do not even see, "Not enough sources (period). The discussion never centers on whether something is sourced enough. Whether something is sourced enough is simply a non-issue. So again, there is no need for all that sourcing. It does not address the objections raised and it creates a simply awful first paragraph. I do not even agree that it is better than no sources at all.
If someone can find a case where there were ANY objections to the first paragraph which can only be handled by including 7 different sources, then there might be a reason to keep them. But failing that, I believe that they should be removed, at least as referenced footnotes. --Blue Tie 10:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand what {{who}} means. "leading to charges of antisemitism" is a very strong sentence with typical WW by certain admins.--Gerash77 03:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the archive pages, you will see discussion that people kept on removing the "wiped out" and other statements for BLP reasons, which are incorrect when well-sourced. The plethora of citations is to ENSURE that this remains well sourced. What I MAY do, is combine one-use cites as bulleted lists under one footnote, similar to footnote #6 at Messianic Judaism. This would leave all the sources but cut down on the numbers. -- Avi 13:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I did not see the archive pages. There is no reason to blank something if it is well sourced -- which does not mean multiple sources, it means that the source is credible and clearly supportive of the matter. I still do not see any reason for so many sources, but I agree that if it is all under one number that would relieve the ridiculous congestion in the opening paragraph, and that would be sufficient for me. --Blue Tie 13:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, take a look now. Every single citation is still there, however, those used in the same spots (espcially if used in only one spot) have been combined into the same outer ref tag. If we have to bring the same source in another place, we'll have to separate it out and give it its own name, but for what was there now, this should make the lead more "readable" without sacrificing any citations. -- Avi 16:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)