Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Jewish mother?

Can anyone here confirm/disconfirm that Ahmadinejad has/had a jewish mother? I was told that Mohsen Rezaee has claimed that but could not find any sources in languages I speak. 84.190.175.210 17:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

what the **** are you talkig about?

Some sources that describe Ahmadinejad as antisemitic

-- Jayjg ^(talk) 00:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So Jayjg, if I provide a list of sources(opinions) that see Israel as an apartheid state (ie [1]The Guardian, a highly respected British newspaper.) Can I label Israel an apartheid state in Wikipedia? Yas121 12:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jayjg, for providing this long list of sources. Here's my challenge, yet again, to those who say MA is not an anti-semite. I want, as I continue to want and NEVER get, a REAL analysis of the flaws. At best we get 'contains nothing' and 'well, i don't read german but I'm sure this isn't really a source'. The side supporting the addition of the category wants a detailed analysis of each and every source with some serious consideration as to their flaws, not flippant two word dismissals. Give us a solid basis for eliminating a source, and we'll discuss it. And we will go through the sources, one by one, until we're done. but no more of this mass dismissal of long lists. It belittles one entire side of the argument and promotes more and more bad faith. ThuranX 01:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg kudos on the great work and effort. I think that finally settles the dispute. I've never seen so many sources to support a fact in any wikipedia article. Amoruso 04:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It is great work. And the best thing is, he is not blatantly POV pushing. But the thing is, I still am not certain if you truly don't know the difference between fact and opinion, or if you are still just trying to inject your POV into the article by calling this a fact. Markovich292 05:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

this is a blatant personal attack of you against me, uncalled for and provocative. Amoruso 23:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally we have somebody that introduces quotes instead of expecting somebody else to do it for them. I have to say, ThuranX probably would have never gotten around to making this type of post. And before I continue, I have to address viewers of this debate, and hopefully an admin will see the kind of behavior he has engaged in. He has repeatedly used personal attacks and falsehoods in an attempt to strengthen his argument. Even just above, he says he has never gotten a real analysis of the flaws in any quotes, and that we should "give [his side] a solid basis for eliminating a source, and we'll discuss it." He has gotten in the past exactly that, and all he did was ignore or insult us. This type of behavior is not acceptable.

Now, onto the quotes. I don't think the word opinion is in the vocabulary of editors anymore. Just by a quick count, it looks like eight of those are directly attributed to individual authors. Is it your argument that anything people say in reliable sources is true?

Listing number eight is just about the least useful. It is acually the title of an article, and whats worse, that article is full of quotes by MA. If any of those are allegedly anti-semitic, why did you not use them? Does it not occur to you that most (if not all) sources that are not a direct quote or report specific actions are the POV of the author?

Now, I just hope this is the last time I have to point this out because I, as well as other people, have already done it at least a half dozen times: The quotes you included are by journalists, commentators, etc. Even if there is no reporter listed, all of those quotes you put down are opinions of people that share the opinion that MA is anti-semitic. It is like gathering a group of people that all call George Bush stupic, and claiming it is a fact because they say so. You have not one single quote of MA, and not one shred of proof that he has done anything anti-semitic.

Before you say "but they all call him anti-semitic!" remember the following (from wikipedia policy): "When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will be to a direct quote, citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence." You can not claim that somebody holds a particular belief (in this case, anti-semitism) by other people's opinions alone. What you are doing is the same as if I found somebody that says "ThuranX hates Iranians," and then I turn around and claim it is a fact that ThuranX hates Iranians. He may very well hate Iranians, or he may love them (or something in between), but there is not enough proof to say it is a fact that he indeed hates Iranians. Markovich292 05:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be insisting that Wikipedia editors themselves decide for themselves the truth of whether or not someone is an anti-Semite based on their own evaluation of their statements or actions. Not only would this be forbidden by policy, but it would contradict the WP:V policy, which is concerned with verifiability, not truth. As for citing the 17 sources here, how would you propose doing so; by naming each one in the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this one earlier. I think I addressed it fully in a prior edit, however. To summarize, it is not "original research" to add a reliable source that is reporting on actions that fit into Anti-Semitism. Some of the issues on "verifiability, not truth" are also listed later; the way you mention it here may lead people to believe that it is OK to call anything a fact because it is verifiable. Markovich292 04:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to take that little bit of snide behavior as a personal attack, and ask that you take a day to cool off. Thank you. ThuranX 11:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

With the way you repeatedly avoided the issue of giving quotes and insisting that I do it, my comment on you never getting around to adding quotes is justified. As for the rest, it is funny how you can make your jabs at me and other people that disagree with you all you want, but then when I call you on it, you ask that I take a day to cool off. I suggest the same for you. Markovich292 16:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

First you accuse me of laziness, saying i'd never put together a list, i did just a few sections above. Then you you me as an example, putting POV in my mouth? If you don't cease and desist, I will pursue this with an administrator. Go cool off, please. Before your get yourself into trouble. ThuranX 21:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I was not accusing you of laziness, but just as another editor seems to have noticed, you may have been stalling for quite some time before you added that section above. And I mentioned it to Jayjg I think it was, but I wonder if you can pick out an analogy when you see it. That is not the same as saying that you believe what I included in the analogy. As you hopefully recall, I did the same before, using myself in such an analogy. Markovich292 21:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed I forgot about your comment "saying i'd never put together a list." What I said was: "ThuranX probably would have never gotten around to making this type of post." You put together a list of sources, expecting us to look for the quotes you said were there, Jayjg actually put quotes on the page. They were not the same kind of post. I just thought I would say that before you get mad at me again for your misinterpretation. Markovich292 23:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Instead of just giving a list of links, why not give sources? But Ok, if it makes you happy:

[2] - yes, that's a good source
[3]- "said The Buffalo News in an editorial" (emphasis added)
[4] - opinions, not news
[5] - just say that MA "reminds" of Hitler and it's an op-ed, not news
[6] - he's entitles to his opinion, but opinions aren't facts
[7] - yes, that's a source altough it doesn't clearly say that he is an anti-Semite (only that he made such remarks). This is the kind of sources we need.
[8] - this is actually the closest I've ever seen to a real source
[9] - has been mentioned already, both biased source and no clear evidence of anti-Semitism
[10] - an online community. Is that a reliable source? And again it's the writers own opinion
[11] - op-ed piece, his opinions are not facts
[12] - op-ed piece, his opinions are not facts
[13] - op-ed piece, his opinions are not facts
[14] - commentary by a biased person, not a news item
[15] - editorial, not a news item
[16] - op-ed piece, his opinions are not facts
[17] - FOXnews, "the most biased news source in the west". Yeah, that's reliable source, but even they don't call him an anti-Semite but says "In the U.S. and much of Europe \u2014 in short, the traditional center of the Christian world \u2014 Ahmadinejad comes across as an out-of-control anti-Semite who wants Israel destroyed". But if you want to play that game the article is also a source to that W Bush is "anything from Hitler to a drooling caveman".
[18] quotes Israel's prime minister designate, Ehud Olmert and he is not a reliable source except for his own views. You may add it to the article that he thinks so.

So in conclusion all we have is a lot of people having opinions. I begin to think you just google for a few articles and add them without actually checking what they say. Is it some kind of stall tactic? // Liftarn

Actually, the articles all describe him as anti-Semitic, including number 4, which compares him to that other anti-Semite, Hitler. You seem to be asserting that there is a difference between having an "opinion" that someone is an anti-Semite, versus there being an established "fact" that someone is an anti-Semite. What, in your view, turns that "opinion" into "fact", and how does that square with Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between "according to a random person on the street mr X is a satanist" and "mr X is a satanist" or "a group of experts establish that mr X is a satanist". Of the articles nearly all (excluding only two) are either opinion pieces (i.e. they give the opionion of the writer) or states that somebody else has an opinion. If we would give opinons the same status as facts just because they are mentioned in a reliable source then we could write that Zionists occupy Washington, NY and London.[19] // Liftarn

Well, as I keep asking, who would you accept as an authority in this matter? What source is reliable enough to decide if someone is an anti-Semite? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is your intention, but you seem to be playing the role of mediator in this case...thats not a complaint, we finally have somebody here that wants to get things strait. Liftarn is again telling you and the other people here the same thing I have been saying the whole time. Based on your question though, I think you either messed up on your wording, or you again missed the fact that the reliability of the source is not the issue. If any of the sources you put here actually had MA himself speaking or acting in an overtly anti-semitic manner, this would not be a problem. Markovich292 21:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

But that absolutely wouldn't be acceptable, because that would be original research. Wikipedians cannot decide, based on their own assessment, whether or not Ahmadinejad has spoken or acted in "an overtly anti-Semitic manner". Instead, Wikipedia can only quote reliable sources which describe him as an anti-Semite. So the question is, which sources do you feel would be authoritative enough to establish Ahmadinjead as an anti-Semite? Can you name any specific sources who you feel are qualified enough to make this judgement, and, if so, who are they? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I responded to the issue of "original research" below.

"Overt" does not have to do with opinion, it smply means observable. So in other words, if he is observably saying or doing anti-semitic things, it is verfiable that he fits the definition of anti-semitic. If his actions are not overt, wikipedia users can not verify that he is anti-semitic; that is unproven and therefore libel. It is not a personal opinion if somebody says something that is described in a dictionary. Markovich292 23:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats exactly what it is. They first expect us to gather quotes (which is their responsibility), and then they throw quotes at us like crazy, all of which have the same fundamental flaw. Instead of accepting that these are all opinions, they expect us to address every single quote individually, just to waste time. Markovich292 16:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure who "they" is. I'm not part of any "they". I saw the discussion on this page, and contributed to it. I have not asserted that Ahamdinejad is an anti-Semite, nor have I insisted that he be described as one. I spent a great deal of time bringing sources and quotations which described Ahmadinejad as anti-Semitic, and now am trying to understand the criteria you are using to make this assessment, which appear to be undefined, unclear, or in violation of policy. If anything it is my time which is being wasted, since, after I actually bring sources, the responses I get are non-specific "you are wasting my time with too many sources" and "these are just opinions". Again, please explain, in your view, what turns the "opinion" that someone is an anti-Semite into "fact", while ensuring that we avoid original research? Is there any source which you would find acceptable for this purpose? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I know you are not part of the "they" I mentioned. In fact, as I recall, I said "they" would not have done what you did, taking the time to introduce a list of quotes with sources such as that. You are the only one that is actually trying to work with this side, rather than disregard it completely or call its supporters "nuts", "crazy," and the like.

Now, it is not just "in my view," but an opinion is this: "A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof." The minute "positive knowledge or proof" is found, it ceases to be an opinion. There is no "original research" involved in finding sources that state MA is exterminating Jews, or that he says "I hate Jews." Again, it doesn't have to be as extreme as "I hate Jews," but it still has to fall under the definition of anti-semitism on the English wikipedia (i.e. hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.) Markovich292 21:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

But the sources listed obviously believe Ahmadinejad's statements are anti-Semitic, and that, as a result, he himself is an anti-Semite. Are you saying that in order for Ahmadinejad to be an anti-Semite he must have said or done something that you believe proves he is an anti-Semite? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

From your wording, it appears you believe that MA automatically is an anti-semite because people say he is (using the phrase "as a result"). That is not even nearly in accordance with wikipedia policy. To answer your question, I don't contend that I am the sole authority on who is and who is not an anti-semite. By the same token, neither is any other editor. There are two options when looking at a definition; it can be interpreted/changed, or it can be used directly. The former is an opinion, the latter is fact. When people use an altered personal definition of a word to classify other people (for example, saying anti-zionist = anti-semite), that is clearly not factual. When words or actions are encompassed by a definition (that has not been changed by the person using it), that is a fact. As an example, look at MA saying Israel should not exist; his words in this case are "characteristic of opposition to the existance of Israel," which falls under the definition of anti-Zionist. Markovich292 22:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Liftarn asks, "Instead of just giving a list of links, why not give sources?" .Well, Liftarn, I did. it was given a summary dismissal, instead of actual discussion. Then I was insulted with 'I have to say, ThuranX probably would have never gotten around to making this type of post.' If the side which opposes the AS tag continues with this behavior of blatantly ignoring the conversation and forking the discussion into section after section, while insulting those on the other side, I will pursue administrator intervention. It's getting clear to me that we've reached the point in the debate where we have overwhelmingly met WP's standards, as JayJG has expressed, and the opposition seems most interested in playing parliamentarian with Robert's Rules. I believe that, as JayJG has summarized, we've met the burden of proof under Wikipedia's standards and the category can be established and supported by verifiable evidence. ThuranX 21:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You are again misinterpreting and/or misrepresenting the way things happened. Liftarn gave answers that were short and to the point; you were given a perfect opportunity for discussion by responding to to those comments. All you said was "If you'd read the page, you would see that we're all already aware of wiki policy. We're discussing whether or not the numerous sources provided meet or fail the tes of being RS." You were involved in no such discussion. This kind of discussion is actually taking place now, with a relatively neutral third party, so restating your opinion that "I believe...the category can [be]...supported by verifiable evidence" is not just going to all of a sudden give you to the right to make POV edits.

I urge you to look at the entire debate. As far as I recall, there has not been a single quote brought forward that does not involve opinionated editorial. It has been day after day of you insisting that your POV can be labeled as fact, just because people agree with you. There is also the issue that any casual observer can probably see that you, and others on your side, are plenty responsible for "blatantly ignoring the conversation and forking the discussion into section after section, while insulting those on the other side." There is no lack of evidence on that...in fact, here is the very first insult, "Your crazy if you don't think he's anti-Semitic." And BTW, I'm pretty sure calling someone nuts is a personal attack. Markovich292 01:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi all. I've been lurking on this discussion for a while now, and I just wanted to make a couple comments. It seems to me that a question has been raised several times now and not answered: What source or sources have the intellectual/moral authority to pronounce on whether or not MA is an antisemite? This does not seem to be being addressed head-on. Merely retorting, "Yes, but what proof do you have that MA is an antisemite" is not enough. Indeed, it misses the point entirely. If MA had said, "I hate Jews" last Friday, we could not, on the basis of that alone, include him in this category. Someone notable, preferably a number of notable someones, would have to agree. This is the situation we find ourselves in now. We have a large number of disparate, notable sources who say he is an antisemite. Is that their opinion? Well, yes. But how could it be anything other than an opinion? There is no ultimate referee on this or any other question WP writes about. The consensus is that MA is an antisemite; I see no evidence refuting this. IronDuke 02:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I don't recall anyone asking for sources that have "moral authority" though. I kind of said I little on reliable sources, is that what you mean? Anyway, I assume you are asking me so I will sum up a little in hopes it will address your concerns. All of the sources like news agencies, magazines, etc. brought so far all are perfectly reliable sources. It is not that sources lack "moral authority," and actually it is not even necessary to have some source labeled as a "moral authority" to report exactly what has been done or said. I would disagree with you that we need many "notable" people to agree that MA is antisemitic if he said "I hate Jews" and it was actually verifiable (wikipedia policy agrees with me on that I believe). As long as a source has the information that proves something, nobody has to say they agree because POV is not needed to substantiate facts. Quite the opposite; facts are needed to substantiate POV.

I'm glad my point that all of these quotes are opinions hasn't fallen on deaf ears to those "lurkers" like yourself. You are exactly right that plenty of people call him anti-semitic. Let me clarify a few things that may have gotten lost in the conversation about that though. Someone said that the criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not fact. What this means, is that if a source has someone saying "Mr. X is anti-Iranian," that can be included in the article, because it is verifiable. Anything like that can be included, but the basic rule of encyclopedias is that things that have been included must be kept in their original format. By that I mean that opinions in other sources must be called opinions here, facts must be called facts, studies must be called studies, etc. Markovich292 04:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is that there's a difference between a reliable source reporting that somebody called MA an anti-Semite and a reliable source saying that MA is an anti-Semite. We can have reliable sources reporting that people have said all kinds of nonsense. If that would be the rule we could report that W Bush is both Hitler and a caveman[20]. Of the long list of claimed sources there are only few that are actually usefull. We have a source that says he made anti-Semitic remarks[21] (altough you may want to ask if SpaceWar is a reliable source) and only two sources to that he actually is an anti-Semite [22][23]. // Liftarn

Why do so many people here find it difficult to distinguish between opinion and facts? I guess perhaps an example might help. Despite being of Jewish descent Bobby Fischer, the famous chess player, is/was Anti-semitic, that is a fact not opinion.

When asked what he wished to do with the remainder of his life, he answered, \u201cTo expose the Jews for the criminals they are, the parasites they are, the liars they are, the thieves they are, the murderers they are .... Jews were always bastards throughout history. They are liars, they are the worst pieces of shit in the world. They mutilate their own children.\u201d[24]

Now then until Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes direct Anti-semitic remarks against the Jews (sorry but Holocaust doubting doesn't qualify!) it is opinion that he is Anti-semitic. In the opinion of Israel's prime minister Ehud Olmert he is Anti-semitic![25]

So in the words of Amoruso "I think that finally settles the dispute." :-) Yas121 09:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks all, for the thoughtful and well-reasoned replies above. It seems to me that the arguments against putting him in the AS category fall into two camps: 1) He has not said he is an antisemite. 2) He has not made remarks that people on this page feel are, in their judgment, sufficiently antisemitic to qualify for the category. But 1) antisemites virtually never label themselves as such and 2) it isn't up to us to say what is and isn't antisemitic in MA's remarks. We can only follow what others say. As Markovich indicates, the sources we have are reliable, yes? So why is that not enough? The impression I'm getting is that some of you may feel that there is no standard by which we can put him or anyone else in the category, unless they admit it. Is that right? IronDuke 14:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, #2 is close, but it doesn't have to do with people "not feeling" that he is an anti-semite. There are plenty of people that say (paraphrased) "well golly, he could be anti-semitic, but there is no proof." They are the ones that fit into the category I mentioned earlier, those that apply the meaning of a word without interpretation. The people that say (sort of paraphrased) "he is an anti-semite and belongs in that category no matter what you say" are the ones that use words however they want. The point of having clearly defined words is so that opinions do not have to be used when classifying people or things. Take a knife and a dagger for example. Some people call a knife a dagger, because they do not apply the real definition of the word (either they don't know or they don't care). Here, people are doing the same thing; but calling an anti-zionist an anti-semite (but in this case they don't care, considering they obviously are aware of the definition). I do not know if you were here for the many instances the wikipedia definition of the word has been brought up, but none of the editors have shown reliable sources that have either quotes or actions by MA that fit that definition. You see the length of the debate? The majority of that is because the other side insists that people agreeing with their opinion automatically means that MA has done something to qualify himself as anti-semitic. Markovich292 02:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I just want to address everything directly so I have no doubt that I remembered to do so. Here is the last thing I think I have left: "The impression I'm getting is that some of you may feel that there is no standard by which we can put him or anyone else in the category, unless they admit it."

There are plenty of standards by which people can be classified. I said that on more than one occasion in the past on this very topic, but you may be new enough to have missed it. What I (and policy) do not accept is when people try to pass off opinions as a standard by which they can place him in the category (same as calling it a fact). A summary of what is required: verifiable anti-semitic words or actions. See above if you want more explanation...search for "23:04, 5" and "21:45, 5"

Markovich292 02:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me give you an example. If we was to put George W Bush in the category Category:Robots. What type of source would we need? Some examples of sources (fictional, but let's say they are printed in a reliable newspaper):

"W Bush is robot-like"
"J Random person said that W Bush is a robot"
"in my opinion W Bush is a robot"
"robotics experts have concluded that W Bush is a robot"
"W Bush is a robot"
"W Bush admits he is a robot"

Most of the so called sources to MA's alleged anti semitism have been of type 2 or type 3 and some of type 1. I would be happy with type 4 or 5, but given the bias 6 would be best, but that is unlikley. // Liftarn

Well, even #4 is sketchy at best. "Experts" are able to say anything they want, and statistics show that people believe even false claims. Beware of appeal to authority. #5 is also not very useful; I can virtually guarantee that any article that has "MA is an anti-semite" printed is because the author feels that way. Markovich292 01:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Liftarn, thanks for the list. That's nicely laid out. I would ask in 2., what if "J Random person" is in fact an expert on robots? Then we'd be looking at a situation like number four which you would be happy with, yes? Markovich: what I hear you saying is that MA must himself admit that he is an antisemite, or else we may not place him in that category. Correct? IronDuke 03:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. In the case of type 2 and the person is an expert in robotics then it would be type 4. Given the sensitive issue it would be best with more than one source. // Liftarn

Well, at the risk of sounding annoyed; I already aaddressed that...it can be found with a search for "20:43, 4 September 2006" on this page. Here are more entries that have supplemental information: "23:04" and "21:45" Markovich292 05:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, but where you address it at 20:43, you seem to be saying that it's up to us to interpret MA's remarks and actions. If they are "obvious," like Hitler's actions, then we may label him an antisemite. If non-obvious, we may not. I hope I do not annoy you further when I say something that's been noted before: that attitude violates WP:OR. It's hard to think of a more classic case of OR than saying, "I have cobbled together some words from MA that I think indicate that he is an antisemite." It's not up to us to define him; it isn't even entirely up to MA to define himself -- it's up to third parties. IronDuke 15:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you read both entries for "20:43" (one follows directly after another)? Sorry I didn't mention that. If you read it and you still think it violates WP:OR, look at the entry from "21:45." To summarize, it is not OR if an editor places a person in a category, if that person is in a reliable source saying or doing something that is covered by the definition of that category. I hope that isn't to clumsy a sentence to make sense.

It is very, very relevant that you mention "I have cobbled together some words from MA that I think indicate that he is an antisemite" as being original research. The people that want him classified as anti-semitic are making that exact claim. If I am not mistaken, that means they are all using original research.

When it comes to personal views, the subject in question is the best candidate to define themself. MA can easily call himself an antisemite, and all wikipedians need to do is make sure it is verifiable....boom, he is defined as an anti-semite. That is of course not the only way to define him as such, but it is the best way. Markovich292 23:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You're missing one other kind of source.

7. George W. Bush was seen inserting chips into his chest OR said he inserts chips into his chest

That would be an overt act and along the line of MA killing jews or saying something like "I hate jews." That would be how Hitler was classified as anti-semetic, and MA killing jews would probably one of the more likely outcomes. I guess. I hope that made sense, and wasn't pointless. --LifeEnemy 01:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to remind everyone, that this exact discussion has already taken place. Jayg made the same arguments that using primary sources is "original research" and citing Op/Ed pieces is citing fact. He's unwilling/unable to understand the point you are trying to make, which was the same one I made. There is a difference between documenting factual actions/speeches/etc, or quoting opinion and making that opinion equal to objective fact.

See the bottom of: [[26]]

Why waste your breath with him? Sarastro777 04:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

THAT IS THE AGES OLD PROBLEM WITH ANTISEMITISM HOW IS HE DEFINED?

WHAT IS ANTISEMITIC AND WHO CAN CALL WHOM ANTISEMMITIC FOR WHAT REASON?

Nowadays it is like this, nearly everybody is calling anybody anti-Semitic I mean it has become such a common insult that it has no value anymore. And even when I am called anti-Semitic by a Jew what does it mean. That I don’t like him, ore I don’t like his family, ore I don’t like all Jews.

Is somebody who questions certain elements of the Holocaust, like the number of Jews who died, an Anti-Semite? If yes than Anti-Semite is somebody witch just does not agree with a general view adopted by the Jewish people ore a part of mankind like the West, witch is by the way a minority. If this it is what anti-Semite means, to have an other opinion like some ore even one person who calls him self Jewish, than its nothing special and may not even be a deeper insult as I would say:" you ......! " J.

By the way it is quoted again and again. The Iranian President said "he wants that the Regime in Israel is disappearing" he did not say he wants to wipe out all of Israel. In several newspapers it was mentioned that his quote was wrong translated from Farsi by the people witch do the Translation for the Americans and we all know who might this be.

Wikipedia:Categorization

LifeEnemy is right that categories should not be in place in this situation (especially when there is a discussion going on).

"Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category."

I will remove the category, but that is not the opening move in an edit war. Any unbiased admin and editor alike should see the reasoning behind this removal is in accordance with Wikipedia:Categorization. Markovich292 22:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought there was something about that in the policies. --LifeEnemy 22:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears that a number of editors on this page think the evidence brough makes it self-evident, and that the controversy is artificial. Which makes the reversions to the article POV pushes dressed up as gaming the system :) Just a thought. -- Avi 23:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

So if you agree that some editors think it is self evident and think the controversy is artificial, I hope you also concede that reversions to address that (edits getting rid of the category until proof is given) are not POV editing. Conversly, adding the category would be POV editing. Just a thought to build on your thought :) Markovich292 01:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess we all should have known that ultimately, Markovich had a loophole to walk through. I'm done, I'm done. This has been such a gigantic waste of time. And now that he's got a policy interpretation to use for appeals for administrators, the entire debate was an exercise in bad faith. I don't think Markovich ever had any intention of allowing the cateogry, no matter how many editors went FOR the category, he could say he's AGAINST, and thuse there's controversy, and thus it must be kept off a la policy. bad faith all the way through.ThuranX 00:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the entire debate was to see if there truly was something out there that can be used, by the standards of encyclopedic writing, to warrant calling Ahmadinejad anti-semitic for a fact. You don't have the required sources, so I didn't change my stance (that you did not meet wikipedia requirements for inclusion). This has been a huge exercise in assuming bad faith on your part. You personally think the sources presented were good enough, and just because I disagreed (in accordance with policy), you began claiming that I was immobile in my position and therefore acting in bad faith. You were, and still are, the one who is acting in bad faith.

FYI, I just came across that quote TODAY, and added it immediately NOT TO TRY TO END THIS DEBATE, but to prove LifeEnemy and myself were warranted in removal of the category at least for the duration of the debate. Markovich292 00:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, Jay's list is sufficient evidence that MA has been reliably and verifiably called an anti-semite, and thus belongs in the category. -- Avi 01:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You are right in saying that Jay's list "reliably and verifiably" has people calling him an anti-semite, and I agree with that. But you can not make that into an extension that he belongs in the category. It seems like this has been brought up by editor after editor at least a hundred times; reading an opinion (or even multiple opinions) in a RS is not proof that the opinion is factual. To add someone to a category when it is not factual is violating the cardinal rule of encyclopedia creation-that you can not publish something as a fact if that is not proven to be true.

In case you missed it, lets go with the George Bush Robot example. One could say that G. W. Bush is a robot, and that could be printed in a RS. Now, by your argument that opinions printed in a RS can be called facts in wikipedia (you may not realize it, but you are saying "people think X, so we can put X in wikipedia as a fact), one could go ahead and add Bush to Category:Robots. It doesn't matter if there is no proof that he is a robot, all that matters is that someone said it. Do you see the inherent problem with this? By that mindset, any opinion that is printed in a RS magically can become a fact on wikipedia if you want it to. Markovich292 03:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, is is called an anti-semite, but he hasn't been specifically shown to be one yet. --LifeEnemy 04:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is that he can be reliably called an anti-semite in the article, as we can say "according to FOO he is an anti-semite", we can't say "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, famous anti-semite". This latter option, is, essentially what we are saying if we put him in the Category. Categories should be for facts not opinions. Opinions can go in the article body if they are WP:V. - FrancisTyers · 11:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what I (and others) have been saying the whole time. Unfortunately, no one seems to get that. Thanks for speaking up, though. --LifeEnemy 15:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly Avi, well said. Wikipedia is about WP:CITE and WP:V and it's all been thoroughly researched above. It's really unbelievable to me how people can honestly say that his comments are just "anti zionist" and not "anti-semitic". Why ? Those editors wish to say that it's obvious from the comments that they're just anti zionist, but refuse to acknowledge the fact that it's their opinion that it's only anti-zionist remarks. Their opinion on this is not in the standards of WP:CITE and WP:V, but enough WP:RS who agree with the interpretation of AM's as blatant and explicit anti-semitim is. This is such a clear simple case that I don't know why they're arguing over this. FrancisTyers, there will always be those who disagree to any category - like I said, there are those who would say that Hitler wasn't an anti-semite as well. This is an encyclopedia and its facts are opinions of the encyclopedia - there are enough disclaimers on the issue. Every fact is a matter of who tells it, but a wide known accepted fact like saying AM is an anti semite fits into the category perfectly. Amoruso 16:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It's really unbelievable to me how people can honestly say that his comments are "anti-semitic". You seem like an intelligent person, but I don't understand how you think anti-zionist/anti-semetic quotes are opinion. There are clearly defined definitions of the two. Anti-zionism is "opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish state," while anti-semetism is "hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group." MA has never demonstrated anti-semetism, and none of the sources provided have either except as opinons of others. It is true that Wikipedia is about WP:CITE and WP:V, which means you can include some of the sources calling MA anti-semetic in the article as opinions, but since it has not been proven as as fact that MA is anti-semetic, and putting him in the cat is the same as calling it a fact, you cannot put in the category. --LifeEnemy 19:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, those who would say Hitler wasn't an anti-semite would be grossly wrong. He condemed jews publicly, which MA never has done. It's an entirely different case. --LifeEnemy 19:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There is ample reliable sourcing indicating that MA has bene widely condemned for anti-Semitism. This is in the article. Stop trying to impose your personal belief system on this article. WP:NPOV does not require covering up of uncomfortable facts.--Mantanmoreland 19:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Why does no one ever respond to my points and instead respond with vague statements that go nowhere? As I have said before, I don't care whether he's anti-semetic or not, and I personally think that he probably is (so, I can't be POV pushing). I don't want to put something in that article as a fact that is nothing but opinions and speculation. Just because other people have called MA anti-semetic, it doesn't make him anti-semetic. Does no one understand this??? I could call you anything I wanted, but that doesn't make it true, does it? WP:NPOV does not require covering up of uncomfortable facts, this is true, obviously, and if it were a fact I would gladly put him in the category. BUT, you have failed to prove that MA is in fact anti-semetic. The only thing that has been shown is that many sources think he is, but that doesn't make them right, does it?

Also, you are a fool to say I'm imposing my own beliefs, for the reasons I stated above, and because if you had been keeping up with this discussion, you would have seen that I stated those same personal beliefs at least twice before. I am not POV pushing, but quite the opposite: I am putting aside my own ideas to make sure that this article lives up to wikipedia standards. --LifeEnemy 20:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Original research is also policy

Just because other people have called MA anti-semetic, it doesn't make him anti-semetic. Does no one understand this??? I could call you anything I wanted, but that doesn't make it true, does it? WP:NPOV does not require covering up of uncomfortable facts, this is true, obviously, and if it were a fact I would gladly put him in the category. BUT, you have failed to prove that MA is in fact anti-semetic. The only thing that has been shown is that many sources think he is, but that doesn't make them right, does it?
— LifeEnemy, 20:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, LifeEnemy, I believe that is 100% pur original research in that it as synthesis heretofore not expressed. What you or I consider MA is completely irrelevant. It is not our job to decide. We have indesputible evidence of many reliable and verifiable sources stating unequivocably that he is an anti-Semite. It is only the arguments and debates of verious editors here that is championing the other cause, and that violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, two of the fundemental tenets of wikipedia. -- Avi 21:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It is also not the job of the US Congress (and others) to decide whether MA is anti-semetic or not. As has been stated before, your argument violates WP:OR, because you basically say, "I have all these quotes from MA that I think are anti-semetic." Or, you claim that MA is an anti-semite because "this person said he is." That logic is very flawed. It's true that your sources are reliable and verifiable, and they can be included in the article as documented opinions, like we've said all along, but to use those opinions as basis for fact is just wrong. How about this, let's take a look at some actual anti-semites:

If you care to look, these and many other anti-semites are all categorized that way because they made public announcements condemning jews as a race. MA has done no such thing. Is there any other anti-semite on wikipedia that is only suspected and not proven or admitted? --LifeEnemy 21:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the difference. If AM only mentioned Israel's policy then you'd be correct but he specifically mentions Jews and blames them for inventing the holocaust, for controlling government in shadow-like powers (ZOG's), and various other techniques in order to commit genocide on other peoples. You realise that AM is sponsoring a conference where cartoons of Jews controlling the world and eating babies and having pacts with Satan and vermin running the world is part of it right ? This is a holocaust denial cartoon competition sponsored by AM with no censors of the cartoons. Now I understand all you said, you've made very wise and insigtful comments over what AM really said and if it's racial or not - but taking what I just told you and taking the historical context of anti-semitism, can you really say he's not an anti-semite ? Think for that for a second... now if it wasn't for this holocaust and conspiracy business, I'd agree with you - he would be a new anti-semite (would you agree to that category?) which is a violent form of anti-zionism where he's willing to kill all Jews because they're in Israel.... but since he became an arrow head in holocaust denial and endorsing such images - he's really an anti-semite. Amoruso 00:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful, now you admit that you don't see the difference between suspected and proven or admitted. I've said it, and I've said it again, wikipedia does see the difference between suspected and proven, fact or opinion. The bulk of the paragraph above that you (Amoruso) wrote is all personal interpretation, and your conclusion that he is anti-semitic is Original Research, as other people have pointed out. Some of the things you said are very clearly interpretations on your part, such as your claims that he blames Jews for inventing the Holocaust. Not a single source that has been provided substantiates all your claims like this, and you have ignored people when they ask for such unbiased sources. Markovich292 04:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

now you're putting words into people's mouths again. I don't see the differnece between proven anti semite like hitler and AM, not suspected and proven. It is your OR that he isn't. It is fact that he is. Denying now that he blames jews for inventing the holocaust (AGAIN! after showing it to to you million times) has become tedious. I can't believe people including me went through the trouble discussing this with you as clearly you will not resort to reason. Amoruso 05:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You could always be clear when you write a response you know. The only question he asked involved the difference between suspected and proven. Your first statement was a single sentence that refered to his post, and since nothing he asked ever had to with "seeing the difference" between anything but suspected and proven, you should have actually said what you were referring to.

Anyway, it is not OR if an editor does not call someone anti-semitic. It is OR for someone to claim anti-semitism based on personal interpretation (like you are doing). And lastly, all of the quotes you gave has MA saying it was governments, etc. for poor accuracy regarding the Holocaust; he never blames Jews as a people. Go ahead and put a source here if you refute that. Markovich292 05:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not OR to base yourself on dozens of WP:RS ... while it IS OR to simply say decide that his commens aren't blamed on Jews as a people. Clearly we see it against the Jews - see all the holocaust comments - and we have the WP:RS to back this up while all you have is your personal OR which is meaningless. Amoruso 12:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The "dozens of WP:RS" are either sources that you agree with the opinions of, or others that give quotes that you interpret as anti-semitism; as you said yourself "we see it against the Jews - see all the holocaust comments." I think you really need to have someone in a positon of authority here explain to you that not calling someone anti-semitic based on opinions of others is NOT OR; you obviously won't listen to me or anyone else that has told you that so far. Markovich292 15:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

repetitive. Amoruso 16:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it is to bad you won't pay attention to it. Markovich292 22:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Everyone here is being repetitive. That's why this argument is getting to be stupid and not going anywhere. --LifeEnemy 01:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral POV?

By reading the user information of the people that have posted, I noticed that Zionists and Israelis are essentially the only users discussing/editing this article. It\u2019s despicable how you can even claim the pursuit of neutrality\u2026

I am neither an Isreali nor a Zionist. Can I still claim persuit of neutrality? --LifeEnemy 05:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I to am neither Zionist or Israeli although I did have the good fortune to be born Jewish, do I fail too? File:Milegif -- vi 21:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, 'avi' the statement obviously did not apply to you.

Arbitration/compromise work

I'm pretty sure the only way to solve this now is by arbitration. Neither side is keen on budging, and this discussion has become increasingly hostile. Not to mention that an edit war is already springing up since the page has been unprotected. I don't have enough time to file a case now, but this weekend I'll have more free time and I'll do it then, unless someone else does it beforehand, or we seriously start working towards a compromise. Please use this section to come up with a solution to this mess, and please don't put any attacks or useless messages here. We need to get this sorted out. --LifeEnemy 21:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I am beginning to agree with you. Unfortunately, I am afraid that whatever the outcome of the arbitration is, the other party will cry foul. Regardless, placing this in front of a third-party group that is respected by wikipedia as a whole, may be the only way to prevent perpetual check :( . -- Avi 21:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm sure the other side won't be happy, but I don't think it'll get resolved any other way, unfortunately. --LifeEnemy 22:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Did the holocaust denial cartoon assembly/conference/party event convinced you ? Even the mayor of Paris condemed it as anti-semitism ;) Think about THAT ! Seriously, this article, in hebrew, [27] discusses the close relationship of AM (and Iran's government) with holocaust denier - the prominent ones who were already exposed as Nazis in the past by the Weizenthal Institute. Now make the connection yourself - they say, the holocaust deniers that Iran is a product of a meticulous visits they made in the past to Iran and that they endorse Iran's policy - they were invited to the cartoon party (this cartoon contest is where max awards will be provided to the best cartoonist that makes fun of the holocaust as much as possible) - this is the contest !!!! (it's done in order to have a contra to the Danish mohammaed picture). Now tell me if such behavior is not anti-semitism or are you kidding me... it's worse than Goebbles ... Amoruso 00:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I just want to make sure I am reading that right, are you saying that people exposed as Nazis endorsing a nation's policy or being invited to a Holocaust denial conference prove that Ahmadinejad is an anti-semite?

I also sincerely feel that you are much to close to this issue and to emotionally involved to continue. You had your obvious POV before, but now when an issue such as the Holocaust is brought up in the context of these cartoons, you are certain to have an even harder time keeping your POV in check and seperate from the issue. When you make a statement that could encompass an attitude (however distatseful it is) held by any editor that doesn't share your POV and say it is "worse than Goebbles," you really do need to take some time off. Markovich292 05:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Old corny used tactic. When faced with facts 100% disputing everything you say just say the other part is using WP:POV and that he should go away, thus dismissig the problem. It's Genius. Amoruso 11:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but this "old and corny" "tactic" is something that was told to me before by someone on your "side." I wasn't emotionally involved like you are, so that was corny. Your comment above shows how judgemental you are of others on this issue, just as you have been for a while now. I wrote my comment knowing full well that there are other editors out there that support your position that are fully capable of keeping this going, without as great of an overriding POV like you have. You also never answered my question, why is that? It is perfectly relevant to the issue. Markovich292 16:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

repetitive. Amoruso 16:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Only some of it, but thats because you brushed off my sincere comment before as "old and corny." Also, if it is so repetitive, why did you not answer my question the first time? Markovich292 22:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I wasn't able to make an ArbCom request this weekend because I used too much bandwidth and the college kicked me off the internet the rest of the weekend. Since there is a mediation going on here, though, I will refrain from requesting an ArbCom case unless the discussion falls through. --LifeEnemy 19:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

MA's advisor comments

I didn't hear MA condeming this - this is his spokesman.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22942

'Throughout History, This Religious Group [i.e. the Jews] has Inflicted the Most Damage on the Human Race'"

"On a visit to Gilan University, president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad\u2019s advisor Mohammad Ali Ramin said to a group of students in the town of Rasht, 'Ten years ago, when I brought up the issue of the Holocaust for the first time in this country, my goal was to defend the Jewish people. But among the Jews there have always been those who killed God\u2019s prophets and who opposed justice and righteousness. Throughout history, this religious group has inflicted the most damage on the human race, while some of its groups engaged in plotting against other nations and ethnic groups to cause cruelty, malice and wickedness.'

"'Historically, there are many accusations against the Jews. For example, it was said that they were the source for such deadly disease as the plague and typhus. This is because the Jews are very filthy people. For a time people also said that they poisoned water wells belonging to Christians and thus killed them,' Ramin said.

"Ramin also pointed that there were other plots that powerful people used to mislead public opinion around the world. 'When the Islamic Revolution of Iran succeeded and attracted many people around the world, including Christians, the AIDS epidemic came about, and fear again overtook the world. After the September 11 attacks, the deadly epidermis broke out, which was destroyed when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan. On the eve of the invasion of Iran, SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) illness broke out, but disappeared after the invasion,' he said." Amoruso 00:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the whole thing and then read this :

Turning to President Ahmadinejad\u2019s comments on the Holocaust, Ramin said that he criticized the president for making those comments. 'We do not know whether the Holocaust existed or not and so must find out in order to defend the suffered party. My suggestion to him was to set up an investigative committee on this to collect the supporting documents,' he said."

the cartoon contest made up by AM

http://www.voanews.com/uspolicy/2006-08-23-voa2.cfm http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read/31601 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4795709.stm http://thijsk.web-log.nl/thijsk/2006/08/holocaust_carto.html www.israelnewsagency.com/iranholocaustcartoonsisraelseo48480207.html

This I remind you was sparked by AM - it's his iniative... Amoruso 00:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.irancartoon.com/ Please :

1) go through the photos and drawings
2) keep in mind AM iniated this project
3) keep in mind AM encouraged this project and endorsed the cartoonists and invited them
4) keep in mind AM didn't condemn any picture
5) keep in mind cartoonists were awarded money financed by AM

Amoruso 00:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't possibly fathom how you can believe that MA automatically thinks what is said in the beginning of your post above. Those are not his words! What your saying again is that we can judge MA's attitudes because of the opinions of someone else.

Through all of those sources, I didn't see anything to support your idea that MA took any role in the contest. His comments on the holocaust may have given rise to the idea of this contest, but the contest itself was not his doing. Quite the opposite in fact, "The cartoons are the result of a competition run by the country's largest-selling newspaper, Hamshahri."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of the sources above substantiated your claims made under #2, #3, and #5, and #4 is not suggestive of any attitude at all (I for example haven't publically condemned the Mohammed cartoons, does that mean I am an anti-Islam?).

no you don't have to condemn it but if you were president of Iran being "accused" of being an anti semite, then you'd be expected to say something after such travesty. anyway, in his case, this is not needed as he endorsed the whole project (see below). Amoruso 04:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the quote above directly refutes your claim in #2. In short, this section contains a lot of stuff that happened in his country, but nothing that is directly attritutable to Ahmadinejad. Markovich292 01:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm flabergassted. AM is the one who announced this competition and that it will take place. Did you forget ? He's the one who said that "let's see how the west are calm and tolerant when we make fun of the holocaust like they made fun of Mohammad" - these are HIS words, and it's sourced in the above articles. You have to be really "naive" not to understand that AM supports and endorses all pictures in this conference. Check the site and see comments from AM's government - this is sponsored by AM, and he iniated it in one of the first interviews after the Danish cartoon incident. Just google it if you don't believe me. first hit is this [28] where AM actually blames Israel for the danish cartoon - that's classic paranoid ZOG = antisemitism. Second hit writes that he endorses it [29], [30] [31] (yeah, some of these aren't WP:RS but it's just from random googling - check the msnbc link ((checked it - this is a newsweek article writing explicitly that AM endorsed the contest = proof of anti semitism = end of story)))) the paper published it but he suggested the whole "come and challenge the holocaust and the blame for the cartoons in the interviews already cited many times... he takes pride in the cotnest and will give awards, invited the cartoonists over himself. this is all documented per above). Now if you're going to deny this and keep wanting to take the category, then it's officially hopeless. Now if you ask me I was previously in the middle of the discussion on the opinion that he may be more anti zionist than anti semitic indeed, but that has changed during the course of the discussion. The sheer amount of evidence is too big and I'm in the opinion that AM is actually more anti-semitic than many "classic nazis". If you refuse to see this basic FACT, then it's just hopeless to discuss. Anyone can try to refute anything ad nauseum... It's pointless. You didn't even comment on the advisor comments - if this was Goebless talking one would say he carried out what Hitler told him , or else Goebless would be condemned and fired... this is basic (note that the advisor actually says that AM was too extremist !!!). Add that to the extreme holocaust denial, wanting to wipe off Israel and also saying that 5 million jews in Israel will be killed at one time... add all this now it's more than a fact, it's a super fact. FFS. Amoruso 04:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"AM is the one who announced this competition and that it will take place"

This is not in the original sources you gave (directly or phrased differently), if I missed it please give an excerpt from a source, with a link.

"He's the one who said that 'let's see how the west are calm and tolerant when we make fun of the holocaust like they made fun of Mohammad'"

This is also not in the sources as far as I could find either.

"comments from AM's government"

This is ridiculous, a government does not indicate the beliefs that an individual holds

The rest of your coments seem to be tied in with the new sources you give. I can't look at them right now, but I will take a look ASAP. Hopefully LifeEnemy can also post what he thinks, despite the improper block placed on him. Markovich292 06:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I really think the discussion is over... any president who endorses and praises such a cartoon iniative is at the very least an anti-semite. Together with the rest of his comments designated anti-semite by dozens of WP:RS it's an open and shut case. You can't get around this one Markovich. You really should let this battle of yours go, as it clearly makes very little sense with all the evidence. Amoruso 12:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope you agree. Anyway , I'v taken the initiative to contact the mediation cabalists as well in an attempt to get more opinions. I hope you agree though to the above and the discussion is essentially approaching an end. Amoruso 12:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation is not mainly about getting more opinions, it is primarily about having a mediator to guide a productive discussion between the the editors that are already involved. Hopefully everybody (especially the mediator) will keep that in mind. Markovich292 22:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-14 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

I've got other "RL" stuff to do at the moment, but in the mean time why don't you actually address my comments instead of claiming I "can't get around" the people that designated him an anti-semite (ie people that stated their opinion). You made tons of unsourced claims (as far as I could tell) and when I point that out, you have nothing to say but "I hope you agree with me" or similar. At the very least you could say "you're right, I couldn't find anything to support my claims either" if there really are no sources. That is just common courtesy. Markovich292 16:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Common courtesy is for you to address the fact you were wrong. Clearly showed you the endorsement (btw, you still haven't addressed his advisor comments) so the debate ended ... Amoruso 16:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you please read the newsweek quote saying AM endorsed the comics and then tell me why that is not enough for him to be called an anti semite ??? Thanks. Amoruso 17:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong about you making unsources claims, I dont think so. None of your sources contain the following (I assume "AM" refers to Ahmadinejad since you have been using that abbreviation for quite some time):

"let's see how the west are calm and tolerant when we make fun of the holocaust like they made fun of Mohammad"
"cartoonists were awarded money financed by AM"
"AM iniated this project"
"AM encouraged this project"
"AM actually blames Israel for the danish cartoon" (apart from the editorial style title of an article...that is, no quotes of his target Israel in that article). FYI, one does not have to be Israeli to be a Zionist, and one does not even have to be Jewish either.

MA blames Israel !!!!! "I ask everybody in the world not to let a group of Zionists who failed in Palestine (referring to the recent Hamas victory in Palestinian elections) to insult the prophet.
"Now in the West insulting the prophet is allowed, but questioning the Holocaust is considered a crime," he said. "We ask, why do you insult the prophet? The response is that it is a matter of freedom, while in fact they (who insult the founder of Islam) are hostages of the Zionists. And the people of the US and Europe should pay a heavy price for becoming hostages to Zionists," he declared

read the sources next time... btw if he didn't blame Israel it would be even worse... but it's ZOG either way. Amoruso 01:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You are unbelievable. I did read the sources, and I read them in a neutral fashion. That is why I said he does not blame Israel (BTW I even told you that I read the sources!). Do you even know what you are refering to when you say ZOG? It doesn't seem like it, because he does not claim of Zionist controlled governments: "they (who insult the founder of Islam) are hostages of the Zionists." Not to mention that Zionists, as I mentioned, do not have to be Israeli or Jewish so there is little point in trying to claim this his dislike of a political philosophy is anti-semitic. Markovich292 04:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"AM is the one who announced this competition and that it will take place" (and how this allegedly lends to the idea that "AM iniated this project")

You should dispense with the bull-headed attitude. You have not shown one reason why those aren't wrong. I asked you to place quotes from those sources that proves it, but you have not done that. As I said, I could have missed something and you need to prove it before you start calling me wrong. It is even more hogwash that I have not addressed his adviser comments. What did I say right away? Oh thats right, it was a direct reference to his advisor comments: "I can't possibly fathom how you can believe that MA automatically thinks what is said in the beginning of your post above. Those are not his words! What your saying again is that we can judge MA's attitudes because of the opinions of someone else." Markovich292 22:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I should mention that you make no effort to answer my questions, but you feel perfectly fine about requesting in bold for me to read your source after I made it perfectly clear that I would when I had more time. Talk about a double standard. You'll probably never answer my questions anyway, so lets just be done with this.

Here is the part of the article to which Amoruso is referring:

"...President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad exulted in cartoon-inspired hysteria, allowing protesters to try to storm the Danish Embassy, and endorsing a Tehran newspaper's competition for Holocaust caricatures. His now well-established policy is to confront the West, isolate his country, then wave the flag to consolidate his grip on power." Markovich292 22:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it odd that Amoruso says this points to anti-semitism when the source concludes that it is meant to factor into his policy to "confront the West...then wave the flag to consolidate his grip on power?" The bolded part even shows how Ahmadinejad was not the creator/sponsor of the competetion! Markovich292 22:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I was going to make a point, but I was blocked and I think you have brought up my point. I'll put it in different words, though. Here was my point:

Let's say everything Amoruso says about the contest is true, that MA did create it, endorse it, and give the money for it. Even then, it doesn't point to anti-semetism since it is a holocause denial conference. He's already in that category, and no one is really disputing that. Also, the contest is a retaliation against the west for the Mouhammad cartoons, and could very well not accurately reflect is views. --LifeEnemy 01:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to comment on the source at the top of this page. First off, yes, that is better and much closer to the type of sources we've been asking for. For now I won't mention that it's only his advisor's words (a pretty weak argument, I know), and I'll assume for now that it is a realiable source. There is the issue of verifiability which needs to be addressed. If those comments are real, there should be at least a few others sources that covered them. So, a few other instances of those words are needed to pass WP:V; a relatively simple task. --LifeEnemy 02:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you see some of the actual cartoons ? Amoruso 02:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've heard some descriptions, but even so, that doesn't make him an anti-semite. As I said, he's trying to piss off the west. --LifeEnemy 02:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The exact same thing was said by Jews in Germany in the 1930's. Look at the cartoons. Amoruso 02:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You have yet to produce proof taken from the sources above to substantiate claims you made in this section. You had enough time to make an incredibly long post directed at me rather than the issue, and still no response here. I am going to take that to mean that you were unable to find sources to back up your claims, and wonder why you can't bring yourself to apologize for saying I was wrong about this apparent lack of evidence. Markovich292 05:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Protected again

Hey, yas, should I run screaming that it is a conspiracy that it was protected sans the category this time? -- Avi 04:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

m:The Wrong Version. ;) - FrancisTyers · 14:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I know. I should flex my superior sysop muscles and revert to the Right wrong version and autoban any mere peon that dare stands in my way (i.e. become a Rough admin >:) {insert diabolical laughter here}

Totally. I orchestrated the whole thing, man. --LifeEnemy 02:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hopeless

It's now clear to me that Markovich will repeat his already disproven claims over and over again until infinity. Even when confronted with evidence of anti-semitism he tries to ignore it (the cartoon endorsement : cartoon which is obviously anti semite and we have a WP:RS that says he endorses it!) or simply he completely ignores other news, like the Advisor comments. Not to mention the already thoudsand WP:RS we have acknowledging that the same comments he made about the holocaust and blaming the Jews for creating the myth / fairy tale is outright anti-semitism. I'm beginning to think Markovich you actually believe that MA is really not anti semitic. Anyway, I've had enough.... not even MA will defend himself like that... he would probably come here and say "of course I'm an anti semite, what more proof do you need" and request Markovich to stop. At any case, I think the category was proven without doubt and the repetitve nature of Markovich has reached a dead end. We will wait for mediators/others to decide on the issue... Amoruso 01:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Note for future reference :

(1) Markovich never explained why his personal opinion which considers the comments to be anti zionist and not anti semitic should count more than the opinions of the rest of the world who read these comments as anti-semitic.

(2) Markovich ignored MA's personal advisor's comments blaming world diseases including SARS on Jews.

(3) Markovich ignored a WP:RS saying that MA endorsed the comic competiton, a comic competition which is more anti-semite than what the Nazi regime will have pulled - as demonstrated by the cartoons links above. If you haven't seen it : http://www.irancartoon.com/

(4) Commenting on the classic ZOG argument made by MA that the "Zionists" are taking governments around the world hostages and are seemingly responsible for the Danish cartoons, Markovich actually responded: "one does not have to be Israeli to be a Zionist, and one does not even have to be Jewish either."

Amoruso 01:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S: I'm pretty sure at this point that even if at some point in the future MA will say "I'm an anti semite" then Markovich will dismiss that as WP:OR and not fact. Amoruso 01:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to make it personal, Amoruso. I guess I will attempt to respond to some of those points, since some are pretty obvious in their flaws.

it's not personal, and it's not flawed...

Amoruso 02:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Markovich, I, and others have consistently said that we're not basing our position in the conflict on our opinions, but on demonstrating, according to definition, anti-semetic behavior.

You said that, but it is still your opinion on what is in the definition and what it isn't. Your opinion is not more important than the dozens of WP:RS who think otherwise. Amoruso 02:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You never learn. Definition is not opinion. A definition is specific by definition. --LifeEnemy 04:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

2. He actually responded to that right after you put it up. "I can't possibly fathom how you can believe that MA automatically thinks what is said in the beginning of your post above. Those are not his words!" He also told you that he responded when, earlier, you said he ignored it. "It is even more hogwash that I have not addressed his adviser comments. What did I say right away? Oh thats right, it was a direct reference to his advisor comments...".

What's the response then ? This was a response to the general "people that are not MA - supposedly the paper and such" - but does Markovich actually suggest that when the personal advisor of MA says that then it doesn't inflict on MA ????? Surely not... Like I said : Goebles-Hitler. Amoruso 02:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

3. As I've said, it's a holocaust denial conference. I don't think it can be used as a source for this without violating OR.

I think Markovich acknowledges that it's anti-semite. If you see the cartoons you'd see it too. It's far more reaching than holocaust denial (in fact, many cartoons have little to do with but just with blood drinking jewish vampires, swatika star of davids, zionist planes crushing on the twin towers and so on). So if you make the first connection, that he endorsed it, then it's also wins the argument with you - just see all cartoons for yourself. Amoruso 02:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

quote: "I think Markovich acknowledges that it's anti-semite". <-- you think, eh? --LifeEnemy 04:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

4. Well, he's right. Although I'm not really sure how good of an argument that is, but, whatever, not my place.

Since MA made ZOG comments he's an anti-semite. Amoruso 02:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he made no "ZOG" comments. More at 04:48 above. Markovich292 05:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

One last note, mediators don't decide an issue, they guide discussion (which, interestingly enough, they can't do if you're not debating anymore). Nevertheless, I concede that you have made some very convincing arguments which should at least be seriously considered. Sometime this weekend I plan to submit this issue to ArbCom so that more experienced and respected editors may make the call.

P.S. Isn't JayJG on the arbitration committee? If he is, it would seem a good idea if did not participate in the case, at least not as a comittee member. --LifeEnemy 02:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I think that you were a fair and good faith discussioner LifeEnemy. Amoruso 02:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It was clear, logical, and free of POV. I have stated that I am appreciative of his time devoted to this, so the following is in no way meant to diminish the quality of his work. Why is it Amoruso, that I can say the same kinds of things, and you say that I have a "one-man-vendetta," imply I "can...convince [myself]...that the Earth is flat," say that I would dismiss any source no matter what, etc.? Markovich292 05:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the compliment. I strive to be so. --LifeEnemy 04:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

To Amoruso: The following that you said in your opening (and mostly ad hominem) paragraph is an outright lie. "[Markovich] tries to ignore [the cartoon endorsement]."

I posted the following at the given time and date "'...President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad exulted in cartoon-inspired hysteria, allowing protesters to try to storm the Danish Embassy, and endorsing a Tehran newspaper's competition for Holocaust caricatures. His now well-established policy is to confront the West, isolate his country, then wave the flag to consolidate his grip on power.' Markovich292 22:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)."

Just because you probably did not like how I responded does not mean I ignored it: "Does anyone else find it odd that Amoruso says this [endorsement] points to anti-semitism when the source concludes that it is meant to factor into his policy to 'confront the West...'" Markovich292 05:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I wish you all the best my friend. Amoruso 13:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a moment. Ahmadinejad has said he wasn't anti-semetic. He recently met with a group ofAnti-Zionist rabbis. His problem is with Israel or the "Zionist Regime" as he put it. It is very clear that he is anti-zionist, but to say he is anti-semetic when he meets with jews and denies his alleged anti-semitism is at the very least, a disputable claim...

(Sorry I haven't helped wikipedia too much lately, if I ever do get more heavily involved, I'll probably bury this account and start fresh) --Loki Laufeyson 01:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool

I just wanted to say that this is one cool dude Kitler005 01:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Who, MA? He's not, really. He's kind of a dick. --LifeEnemy 02:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

He's a hero for white supremacists. Check out Kitler's user page here : [32]

Quote from his page, sounding familiar: They are presented with a single view of the world\u2014a world in which every voice proclaims the equality of the races, the inerrant nature of the Jewish "Holocaust" tale, the wickedness of attempting to halt the flood of non-White aliens pouring across our borders, the danger of permitting citizens to keep and bear arms, the moral equivalence of all sexual orientations, and the desirability of a "pluralistic," cosmopolitan society rather than a homogeneous, White one. It is a view of the world designed by the media masters to suit their own ends\u2014and the pressure to conform to that view is overwhelming. People adapt their opinions to it, vote in accord with it, and shape their lives to fit it

Amoruso 03:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Kitler is a white supremacist. Look at his user page. Not to mention, go two letters back for the first letter of his username :( -- Avi 17:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

MA is only a hero for white supremacists because people like Amoruso have been hellbent on maligning him as some kind of evil anti-semite, which he is not. MA is not a racist. He is a bigoted fundamentalist and Islamist, but not a racist. Rightists and neocons are making him a hero for fascist by advocating their lies. Tanzeel 19:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Poor Mahmooudy so misunderstood :( Amoruso 04:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

umm...tanzeel? bigoted=racist. and MA is anti-semitic. his solution to the middle east problem is to destroy israel and kill the jews living there. he is an exemplar of islamo-fascism Parsecboy 20:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm, actually bigoted =/= racist. The use of the word bigot, seen here, also applies to one's political views. This use of the word has nothing to do with racism. Markovich292 01:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The Mediation Attempt

Well, the mediation that Amoruso started has failed to resolve the situation. Here is the page where you can find it.

If there are still people that want the category in place, I am willing to continue this debate in a calm and civilized manner. I ask that anybody involved in the original debate that wishes to continue, please sign your name after your entry below. To keep this civil, do not add your name if you have falsely accused another editor of racial remarks. The compromize on the "Holocaust denial and allegations of anti-semitism" section seems to have fallen through as well, so the issue now is just about the inclusion of the category.

just pointing out the mediator has agreed that the category should be inserted. Amoruso 00:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he never said that, he said "It seems to me that what Amoruso says seems valid, but I have my own biases." Markovich292 01:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

So he agreed the category should be added - that's what I said... + added that he had his own biases, being honest and sincere. Adds to the credibility. Amoruso 02:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you assume he was talking about the category, you are trying to speak for him. You made plenty of comments right above where he said "what you say seems valid," so that is likely what he was referring to. Now if he actually comes here and says that he supports the category, so be it. But until that time comes, you can not say that he supports the category. And when he admits to having his own biases, that may be honest, but the mere fact that he does indeed have a bias decreases his objectivity. Markovich292 04:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"...he can't go into that category..." Hemhem20X6 02:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC). Markovich292 20:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No, he definitely agreed to it, it's pretty clear also from the latest remark. Funny you quote only the last part of the (new) sentence which was obviously said out of frustration. See Thuran X comment. Amoruso 20:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying that he agreed to the category even though he specifically said "he can't go into that category?" Seriously, how can you convince yourself of that? It is pretty clear what he thinks and it is rather obstinate for you to keep trying to speak for him. Markovich292 21:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

He said that my assertion that the category should be inserted seems valid (that's what he obviously meant), and then after a while (not at the time I wrote the above) - he said this : "I'm sorry that I took this too. It is clear to me that although MA is obviously anti-semetic, he can't go into that category". What he means probably is that he can't go to that category because of incessant pov pushing and fighting - that's also why he's sorry. For which Thuran X also explained : "I do thank you for your efforts. I hope, foolishly perhaps, that two or three admins all in agreement relative to wikipolicy and the sources will be enough to assure the place ment of a valid, deserved category on the page." That's what obviously is needed. Amoruso 20:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think nobody falsely accused other editors of racial remarks. And do not write arrogant comments like that. You're not responsible/inthe position for deciding who's entitled to discuss. Amoruso

Funny how you can call defending oneself from false accusations of racist remarks and asking the people that said them to distance themselves from the issue arrogant. I am entitled to tell editors that have made incivil, false accusations that they should not be dealing in an issue where that is likely to happen again. Don't forget, only two editors made comments like that (you included), and they both said they were not going to take part anymore anyway. Markovich292 01:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, are you going to stick to the issue this time, or are you going to start being incivil again? Markovich292 01:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop with your personal attack comments. If you have trouble with racist remarks, don't say them again. Amoruso 02:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Avraham: Avi 23:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
LifeEnemy: LifeEnemy 19:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Liftarn:
Evilbu:
Yas121:
Tanzeel:
Jayjg:
Deuterium:
Eszett:
Mantanmoreland:
Thuran X:
FrancisTyers:FrancisTyers · 20:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Markovich292: Markovich292 20:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Max: --Max 00:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Amoruso: Amoruso 00:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC) although I'll only add things if there's something new to discuss, as I think all areas were covered and the category should have been re inserted already.

Whatever happened to "I'm indeed stopping this engagement and wanting nothing to do with it?" Markovich292 01:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncalled for, Markovich. You asked for civil mediation in an attempt to get this article settled. Amoruso's statement above was about his opinion of the article. Yours related to his conduct. You should attempt to follow your own requests. -- Avi 01:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, lets give credit where it is due, Amoruso actually initiated the mediation. That statement though, was not his opinion of the article. If you look at the diff, he was saying that he was going to leave this entire debate. Why is it that he can say one thing, do the exact opposite, and I can't ask a perfectly legitimate question about it? Markovich292 01:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Read what I said again: "although I'll only add things if there's something new to discuss, as I think all areas were covered and the category should have been re inserted already." This is what I also said previously. The discussion is over I believe, so I'll only add things if something really new comes up, and not more bad faith comments from you. Also if I have time of course. I also don't owe you any explanations. Amoruso 02:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. That mediation was just embarassing for everyone. The whole thing seemed really immature. --LifeEnemy 19:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If there are still people from both "sides" that want to continue, we are going to have to come up with a sort of "official guide" for this situation so that this does not degenerate in the way it did before. Even if it is just a few key points to keep order, that is better than having a free-for-all style situation. Markovich292 20:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

My name added above under the understanding that he shouldn't be in the Category. - FrancisTyers · 20:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware of the mediation thing. It may not be a bad idea, in the future, to drop a line on user pages. It is skuledays now people.--Mantanmoreland 20:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines

OK, since there is at least one "representative" from each group at this time, I just thought I would start this section as a general guide before this continues. Please add simple comments as you wish, but discuss controversial propositions below before adding them. ~~Markovich292 21:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)~~ Updating time stamp, as Mantanmoreland had not officially signed at the time listed: Markovich292 00:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Conduct

Remain civil

General Points

Do not ask editors to proove a negative

It is very possible to prove a negative. Sometimes. The fallacy is appealing to lack of proof of the negative. It's quite a different thing. One can ask someone to prove a negative and use it as an argument if no proof exists, but not as a definite proof, since it remains possible. Amoruso 01:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not argue based on an argumentum ad populum

Wikipedia works according to WP:RS. Wikipedia is about verifiablity not truth. See WP:V and WP:CITE. Therefore this point is quite irrelevant in wikipedia. Amoruso 01:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Note quote : "An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "if many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."" ===> Wikipedia doesn't say the category is true - truth is in the eye of the beholder, but simply that it's based on reliable verifiable sources. Amoruso 01:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Acceptable Sources

To keep this concise, do not use the following types of sources that do not conclusively prove anti-semitism.

Opinions
Editorial comments by journalists, etc.

WP:RS sources are accepted in wikipedia for categories as well. All facts are opinions as represented. Every history is written from someone's perspective. Don't change wikipedia. Amoruso 00:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Layout

Please propose a format on how sources will be presented, what circumstances dictate a new section, etc.

Discussion

RFC request

Dear me, I cannot believe this has sparked so much debate. I should probably be more acute to everyone's sensibilities, but I'm going to have to apologize for coming down decisively on one side here: that category needs, not should, but needs, to be part of the article. I cannot understand what would motivate anyone to claim that Ahmadinejad is not anti-Semitic, but it certainly is not logic.

That aside, let me make some further points in regards to the section above. One can never prove a negative as long as the fundamental connections between natural languages and reality have not changed, and to my knowledge, they have not, otherwise all of this would be incomprehensible rubbish. However, this does not apply here at all. The "proof" in this case comes from an interpretation of his statements and actions, which is a necessity. There is no other way to "prove" anything about what a human believes other than to interpret. Some here seem to have the idea that this proof must be akin to a mathematical theorem, but those assumptions are dangerous and will prolong this edit war for eternity. To that end, Amoruso is citing evidence that interprets Ahmadinejad's actions and statements as being anti-Semitic. We can have a discussion about whether objects are defined by their properties or by intrinsic characteristics, but with strict regard for Wikipedia's policies, as long as we have a reputable commentator making allegations that Ahmadinejad is anti-Semtic, and preferably many reputable commentators at that, then the criteria has been met for the category to be included in this article.

I think a very big problem in this debate is a loss of focus for what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is here to express majority views, so claiming an argumentum ad populum fallacy, while rational, will not get you anywhere. The majority view in the West, or at least in many countries in the West, is that Ahmadinejad is anti-Semitic. Should this be the reason that we include the category? Not entirely, but it certainly should factor in our analysis. This man is a highly objectionable and offensive figure, persona non grata in Germany during the World Cup (gee I wonder what the Germans think of him).

To me, the central problem is about his statements and how we should interpret them. The best job that we can probably do is to provide reputable source interpreting those statements (and actions), but we should not hide behind 'logical' screens to form our own opinions because that is hardcore original research. So my final take is this: if the vast majority of global opinion and many reputable sources regard him as anti-Semitic, he is not necessarily anti-Semitic, but the category in question should be put in because enough evidence can be given for its inclusion. That is, he's not anti-Semitic just because people say he is, but the fact that people say he is in such large droves somehow needs to be actualized or acknowledged here on Wikipedia. That's my fundamental point. Thank you.UberCryxic 02:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for taking the time to answer that RfC.

I'm very happy that you addressed the point about proving a negative. I just wanted editors here to hear it from someone else that it is not possible to prove a negative, which is something that those that support the category have asked others to do; namely in asking for sources that give "proof" of him not being anti-semitic. The contention there is very similar to the phrase found right on the negative proof page: "his anti-semitism exists because you can't find proof that it does not exist."

You are right in stating that we only have words and actions to "prove" attitudes (since humans can't read minds :) ), but relying on any form of interpretation introduces a distinct POV lean. There is a large difference between someone that says "I think he is anti-semitic" and a quote by Ahmadinejad that fits into the definition of the word "anti-semitic." You say that "a reputable commentator making allegations" is allowed to be put into the article, and I wholeheartedly agree with you. The problem is, however, that allegations are not always true. Calling an allegation factual is defamation, which is clearly covered in WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Libel.

I can not say exactly what Jimbo Whales wanted to create when he started out, but based on policies as of today, I don't think anyone can say that wikipedia is here to cave into the will of the majority. WP:NPOV is one of the most important rules here (if not the the most important), and that rule actually says the exact opposite: "[NOPV] requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth."

I again agree with you saying "the fact that people say he is [anti-semitic] in such large droves somehow needs to be actualized or acknowledged here on Wikipedia," but that is not to say that the category needs, or even should be in place. This is completely against WP:NPOV. As an illustration, lets look at another controversial figure: George W. Bush. Many, many people around the world say that he is anti-Islamic. They have interpreted his actions that way, and there are people that have been published in WP:RS that call him such, but nowhere in his article is that even mentioned (and he certainly is not in Category:Anti-Islam sentiment). Markovich292 22:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That was a very good argument and also very civil. Although I disagree with some of your ideas (for reasons others have stated) I appreciate that you wrote out all that so well. --LifeEnemy 19:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Have scholarly works been published which refer to Ahmadinejad as an anti-semite? I'm sure works have been published which refer to Hitler as an anti-semite (so the Category is ok there), and for other anti-semites, such as Martin Luther (again Category ok). But when most of the sources are opinion pieces published in (however reputable) newspapers or magazines, I'm not sure that this is sufficiently reliable for the inclusion of the Category. If there are no scholarly works which specifically refer to the man as an anti-semite, then I don't think we should include the category. The article has plenty of space for discussing his views in an NPOV and WP:V fashion, but we can't do attribution with categories. - FrancisTyers · 23:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not make statements that pertain to truth. We are only supposed to document what is presented in reputable sources. It does not matter if the allegations made against Ahmaedinejad are "true." The only thing that matters is that those allegations are made and that they are reputable. Wikipedia does and is supposed to represent majority views from a global perspective. You are confusing the intent of NPOV, which is to express any type of view, minority or majority, in a neutral and encyclopedic tone. NPOV is not a guideline on what material should be covered on Wikipedia, there are other policies for that, it is only a guideline on how best to cover the material that already is on Wikipedia.UberCryxic 17:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it should not make statememts that pertain to the "truth," but it happens. Sometimes bad edits (although well intentioned) will claim "truth" based on one side of a POV. That is one circumstance where POV tags pop up and debates start on talk pages.

Wikipedia is supposed to represent all views (that are verifiable of course), as most good encyclopedias, political coverage, etc. do. Wikipedia is not, however, supposed to endorse one POV over another by calling it right, or truth as I pointed out above. Without ample evidence to establish this as a fact, adding the category is adopting the POV of one side in a very controversial issue.

I know that NPOV is not supposed to dictate what we write about, but that it is meant to make sure the topics are covered in a neutral manner. That is why I brought up this issue in the first place, because I know that POV has no place in an encyclopedia. The inclusion of an unproven category is POV and/or Original Research (or unverifiable at the very least), and therefore violates policy. Markovich292 23:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The most important aspect in this context is how individuals interpret the statements of reputable sources. If a large number of reputable sources state that he is an anti-Semite, then this category must be included. Wikipedia is not supposed to cover all views, although it can. Here's what WP:NPOV says:

Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.

It is largely a matter of preference how much weight we give to minority views, though the general rule is that majority views must always receive greater coverage. Using a word like "fact" in this context dilutes the issue again. Wikipedia does not operate like that. Again, it doesn't matter whether our particular allegations are true or not. The only thing that matters is if reputable sources make the claim. If enough of them do (and they do), then, again, he must be classified as an anti-Semite in a Wikipedia context. Although please understand: there is an obvious difference between him being classified as an anti-Semite on Wikipedia and him actually being an anti-Semite. We may probably never know whether he is or he is not - in a way only he can - but that's not our business to decide here. In that sense, you are just arguing around (or over and under) the heart of the matter.

The inclusion of him in that category would not violate any policy nor is it original research as far as I can tell. I'm sure there are some competent and reputable sources we can find that explicitly claim he's an anti-Semite or that detail anti-Semitic actions.UberCryxic 01:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, wikipedia may not include minority views, but that is not to say it can not. To create a balanced encyclopedia, if there are minority views that pass all the other wikipedia policies, those are supposed to be allowed.

The first problem with your argument that he "must" be included in the category just because people say he is anti-semitic (and whether true or not), is that Wikipedia:Libel forbids it. As if that is not enough, WP:NPOV forbids a POV skew which is what would be introduced if the category were added. Add on top of that the notion that wikipedia is not a tyranny by majority, and the idea that "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Finally, if we start using the philosophy that all we need are opinions to classify something, we might as well kiss the accuracy of categories goodbye. Just think of it; the Pope in "anti-Islamic sentiment," Israel in "Artificial State," or even the US in "Fascist."

Just to directly address your last statement, I have to say that the following is original research "I have cobbled together come quotes that I think are anti-semitic." That is what has been done with his quotes here in the past. What is obviously not OR is to have people in RS that flat out call him anti-semitic. That, however, is not enough to actually justify placing him in the category. Dont get me wrong, I have said all along that policy does not prevent these quotes from being put in the article, but NPOV must be maintained (that means both sides of the issue need to be quoted, Mike Wallace was one example I have before for people that say he is not anti-semitic. Also, categorization does not keep a NPOV stance when controversy is involved). Anyway, here is a sampling of the categories that would be violated with the application of this category: WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and Wikipedia:Libel. This categorization would also ignore at least the following guidelines: Wikipedia:Categorization of people, Wikipedia:Consensus, and Wikipedia:Categorization. Markovich292 04:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You can't show that the majority view is that he is an anti-Semite. Categories are qualitatively different from articles. You can see the guideline here Wikipedia:Categorization, "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." — it is obvious that there is controversy here. The man is controversial, and whether or not he is an anti-Semite is disputed. There have yet to be reliable, scholarly sources presented which describe the man as an anti-Semite. - FrancisTyers · 02:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You can't show that the majority view is that he is an anti-Semite.

This is unreasonable doubt to the nth degree. I think it's pretty clear that the majority view in the West and across most of the world is that he either is an anti-Semitic person or he behaves in an anti-Semitic way. You can doubt this, but you have no good reason to. I could equally say that you can't show that the majority view is that he is not an anti-Semite, but this gets us nowhere. However, this is not why he should be included as an anti-Semite. That part comes only from reputable sources. That's what you have to find in order to include him as anti-Semite, and I'm sure if you dig in hard enough you'll find something. I have a question too: is this dispute just about the category or also about making an explicit statement on the page that he's an anti-Semite?UberCryxic 02:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that matters is if reputable sources make the claim. If enough of them do (and they do), then, again, he must be classified as an anti-Semite in a Wikipedia context.

Does this fit with the description of anti-semite on the category page? It doesn't seem to.

Also, this dispute is mostly about the category, but it has been stated often that many of those sources could be included in the article as allegations of anti-semetism (with direct quotes). --LifeEnemy 05:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversial Living People in General

I do not think negative categories should be applied to controversial living people or functioning organizations at all. How many verifiable reputable sources should suffice to put Bush into the "draft dodger" category? How many verifiable reputable sources should put Clinton into the "dishonest politician" category? What should put the IDF into the "organizations that commit war crimes" category? Ahmadinejad does not admit he is an anti-Semite, neither do his supporters. For wikipedia to take a side in this controversy and assign him the category hurts wikipedia and does not hurt Ahmadinejad. If Tony Blair is put into a category "subservient leaders" then all readers will suspect the objectivity of wikipedia, but only those who already see Blair that way will find it convincing. Count this as a vote for not categorizing the Pope under "people who slur Islam" and also not assigning Ahmadinejad the category "anti-Semites" despite any reliable verifiable sources we can find to negatively categorize all controversial figures and organizations. TopRank 04:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

i couldn't have said it better myself. isn't the whole schtick of wp to just report the hard, proven facts and let the readers decide based on their own bias/pov? some people love bush, while others hate him, but to label him as "the greatest president in modern history" or as a "knuckle-dragging neanderthal" is taking one side over another. while i honestly believe ahmadinejad is an anti-semite, it wouldn't be fair to categorize him as such, as it's just my opinion Parsecboy 20:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is the main conflict of this debate. I'm glad both of you see where the non-categorization people are coming from. This idea you mentioned is pertty much the basis for most of the policies that we have been trying to point out to the the people that are pushing for categorization. As you say, it is up to the reader to decide what they think; it is not up to editors to put people or things in a category based on opinion. Just think of how the quality of categories would suffer if we could add anything just because someone says it is true. Markovich292 20:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

bs (Bosnian)

Please add the Bosnian version to the interwiki links: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Thank you, Kseferovic 21:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. In general, please use an {{editprotected}} tag, as that categorizes the article for sysops. Thanks. -- Avi 22:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it should be unprotected so people other than Zionist admins can actually contribute :-) Sarastro777 04:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

President Tom...seriously?

Watching a pundit on TV refer to the man as President Tom, I was surprised. Typing it into Wikipedia and getting redirected to this page surprised me further. Not getting an explanation of this nickname bothered me. Don't get me wrong, I've seen it used enough to justify the redirect. Someone out there knows where this trend started, so could you please include it somewhere, PLEASE don't forget to cite sources. Thanks. Angrynight 01:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Interview with Brain Williams on September 19

This needs to be added under the U.S.-Iran relations section once protection is removed. Minutiaman 00:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Also add speech at UN general assembly. Hello32020 00:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Here is an article on Ahmadinejad's UN speech today (the 19th, from where I am) Minutiaman 00:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Addition for external Ahmadinejad link

Here's a full english language translation of Ahmadinejad's speech to the UN General Assembly on 9/19/2006: http://vitalperspective.typepad.com/vital_perspective_clarity/2006/09/ahmadinejad_ran.html

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a Doctor?

http://www.tohir.co.za/2005/07/dr-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-irans-new.html http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Iran/2006.htm http://www.iranchamber.com/history/mahmadinejad/mahmoud_ahmadinejad.php

I have noticed that a few websites refer to this man as a doctor. Is this an honoraray degree? I couldn't find information in this article about his doctor status. Surely he isn't a medical doctor, but maybe he is a doctor in the same way that a sociologist is (Ph.d.)?Kitler005 04:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about source 1 and 3, but I am from Adelaide and the Adelaide Institute is well known Holocaust denial/nonsense organistation lead by Gerald Fredrick Töben who got put in jail for his activities, and frankly wouldn't use that as a credible source for anything except perhaps a Nazi wikipedia. Just for the record, the son of the man in question went to my high school (he was a few years above me) and spent all his time suring classes irritating the other students with his father's theories. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In 1987, he received his PhD in traffic and transportation engineering and planning, so yes he technically earned the title "Dr. Ahmadinejad." Markovich292 05:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I was going to point that out as well. So, yes. That would make him a doctor (Ph.D). Although you should make sure you have enough WP:RS to be verifiable. --LifeEnemy 06:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've heard of the love doctor but could this be the first hate doctor? --mitrebox 05:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Transportation and planning, wonder where he got that from. Amoruso 05:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

He received his PhD from IUST. And he was ranked 132nd out of 400,000 contestants in Iran's national board exams. 132 is one hell of a rank. It is common knowledge in Iran that anyone within the top 5,000 score rank in Iran's board exams are virtually guaranteed admission into Ivy league or equivalent institutions for graduate school. Just to give you a comparison, I ranked 16,000 in the exam, and I got admission into Univ of Texas without breaking a sweat. I scored 760 on the GREs by just studying no more than one single day for the test. They didnt even ask for a Toefl from me (despite university regulations). And this is moreorless the story for our entire class of Tehran University: Almost every single one of us got admission from a prestigious grad school in the west, and some have even finished: [33][34][35][36][37][38]. And these are just people that had a webpage. And this is just a sample. And yet none of us were ranked in the top 2000. The top 2000 get into Engineering schools. The top 200, medical schools, and the top 100 receive full scholarship offers from the Ivy League. Which is why Iran's govt is trying so hard to prevent them from leaving Iran.--Zereshk 21:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)--Zereshk 21:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure he's intelligent, which is why he specialises in the same field of Eichmann. Amoruso 21:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Not all Jews agree to that:[39]--Zereshk 21:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously. Although you might find they don't necessarily object to Eichmann either. Amoruso 21:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As did Bush's grandfather:[40].--Zereshk 22:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Very relevant. Amoruso 22:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso do we really need your little comments like that? I know you are Jewish (from your user page) and I can understand why you might take offense to someone who is an anti-zionists, but the snide little comments doesn't help the zionists at all. We have learned that he graduated supremely well in Iran's system. I'm assuming , based upon your Eichman comment, that your refrence to 'transportation' was also a holocaust refrence. I think they are extremly uncalled for in the talk page about this man. I would expect something more from a user such as you. ThanksyouKitler005 22:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Kitler, being a "white supermacist" yourself (from your user page, name and etc), I didn't think you would think otherwise of course. Amoruso 23:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Markovich292 22:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Just as a note, Markovich292 was agreeing with my message above there. Amoruso posted right after mine to make it seem as if Markovich292 was agreeing with his, yet again, personel attack. Just wanted to set the record strait. Thanks.Kitler005 04:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't make it seem like he agreed with me, nor anyone would think so. I resposed with three indentions just like Markovich and therefore no confusion could be made, I was simply responding to you directly. It is actually disturbing that Markovich agreed with you, I was going to point that out, as he's now affiliating with a nazi symphatizer (you). Amoruso 05:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

His point is you put your comment ahead of mine even though the situation warranted that you should have placed it after mine instead.

It is quite pathetic how someone can not even agree that your comment was uncalled for without you calling it "disturbing." What really is disturbing/apalling is that you can justify to yourself how you go around saying anything you want, no matter how uncalled for it may be. What is absolutely despicable though is that you repeatedly resort to false insults just because you feel like it. Markovich292 22:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

One word - Bullshit. Or is that 2 words ? At any case, stop it. It is disurbing you're aligning yourself with the false and silly comment made by a self admitted nazi. Amoruso 03:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey now, let's keep this civil. Amoruso, you should be able to admit that your comments were uncalled for, regardless of who is pointing it out. --LifeEnemy 04:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

alleged revolutionary

is it not worth mentioning somewhere in the section about the presidential race that several of the 1979 hostages accused MA of being one of their captors? whether it's true or not, it's an important allegation, and i think it deserves mention Parsecboy 20:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Take a look

Despite media and Zionist hysteria to the contrary, the Iranian President has always been a dear friend of the Jewish people and has profound respect for the Jewish religion. Unfortunately, many people have been led to believe that a rejection of Zionism equals a dislike of Judaism and Jews. Nothing could be further from the truth. Zionism denies many basic beliefs of the Jewish faith and has endangered Jews with its aggressions towards Palestinians and others. By proclaiming that Judaism and Zionism have nothing in common, the Iranian President has actually helped lessen anti-Jewish sentiments throughout the Islamic world. This is in keeping with his policy towards the Jews of Iran who have enjoyed his respect and protection as well as that of the Iranian people in general over the years. This is an undeniable fact and one that our group's Rabbinic leaders have repeatedly witnessed on their many trips to Iran.
— http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Statements/2006Sept20.cfm

Markovich292 22:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe someone said "You find proof he's a Jew hugging matzah eating happy guy with nary a care about Jews, and we'll relent." Well, this source above may not say he eats matzah, but it fulfills the intent of those requests. It clearly describes his actions toward the Jewish people as being profoundly respectful. I think that concludes this debate. Markovich292 22:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Markovich again with arrogance proving he is not aware to any wikipedia policy especially not WP:RS, WP:V and WP:CITE. Neturei Karta is not Reliable source. You could have used Hamas web-site all the same. And even if you had one source, the debate was concluded long time ago when Jayjg brought 20 reliable sources showing he's an anti-semite. Really sad attempt, especially since you're contradicting yourself by bringing an opinion (!) of extemists who are such a minority that even people who think MA is a Jedi Warrior are more abundant. Amoruso 22:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Really "20 Reliable Sources"??! well even if they didn't include Fox News and Ehud Olmert they can best be described as "20 reliable opinions!" Yas121 16:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

So you find yourself faced with documented behavior of him showing that he is not anti-semitic, and decide to resort to unfounded personal remarks about my knowledge of policy. Wonderful. You even try to minimalize the facts here with a bogus statement talking about numbers of people thinking of him as a jedi warrior. Whats worse, is when you claim that something that is printed in USNewswire ([41]) that describes his actions is "contradicting myself." Markovich292 22:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you read what I said ? You're actually citing an extremist opinion of an extreme group that despises Israel after you claimed opinions don't even matter and this suddently becomes documented behaviour of something - R-O-T-F-L. Now I've seen everything. Amoruso 22:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"Jews of Iran who have enjoyed his respect and protection...This is an undeniable fact and one that our group's Rabbinic leaders have repeatedly witnessed on their many trips to Iran." Need I say more? Markovich292 23:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you need to say why you're citing an opinion of a tiny group of fanatics and reverting back on all your week long claims before... Seriously, it's embarrassing. Amoruso 23:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't you see...this is an observation of his actions/policy directed toward Jews in Iran. Just because this group is small does not mean that the observations made are any less credible, and just because their political views are different than yours does not mean they "despise Israel", either. The mere fact that a group of (non-antisemitic) Jews share his political philosophy should point you to the fact that anti-zionism is not the same as anti-semitism. Really, its quite sad how you can call it embarassing to add a source without even understanding the point behind it. Markovich292 06:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You see, this is why I think people with little knowledge on Judaism issues, like you, shouldn't be discussing this issue. You're actually arguing now that Neturi Karta might not despise Israel or that their observations might actually be credible. Amoruso 23:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, you made a few fatal errors there. First, you assert I have little knowledge on Judaism issues. That really has no factual base. Second, you imply that someone needs a large amount of knowledge on "Judaism issues" to discuss how wikipedia policy pertains to categorization into "anti-semitic people." Third, this comment is based on your misinterpretation of why that was added here. That all adds up to a pretty illogical statement with a questionable motivation behind it. You have also misrepresented what I said about despising Israel and credibility as well. "Does not despise because of X" is not the same as "does not dispise" for one thing, but lets not forget that their gripe is with Zionism...as the extension of that, Israel is obviously something they disagree with; that does not mean they outright despise it though. Also, saying "X does not make them less credible" is not the same as saying "they are credible." As a note, even wikipedia policy does not automatically decree that political groups with an obvious position are not credible. Markovich292 00:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't made any error. Your comments are non factual. The very idea that you think they might not despise Israel shows your ignorance on the issue, and your attempt to change the meaning of what I said is also pathetic. The statement was logial and true. You embarrassed yourself by bringing that quotation to begin with and you're continuing with it. Amoruso 01:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have seen this behavior over and over from you. You claim something, and there is no way you can possibly be wrong about it. When someone says you have made a mistake/misinterpretation/error, you often start with insults or just go off on a tangent. At least once in there, you affirm that you are right without even backing it up with facts.

This is just a nonsense attack. You're actually describing yourself. Amoruso 02:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Your recent comment "not accepting the compromise [is] not only bad faith, but also proves the POV pushing of those who oppose the category" quite clearly shows your attitude on this matter, especially since that "compromise" you mention is self-serving AND based on a totally inaccurate solution. It is clear that you have no intention of letting go of this attempt to classify based on POV, no matter what evidence is presented or what policy is cited. Markovich292 02:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Saying something true and obvious is the only thing you quoted here. Amoruso 02:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You're quoting Neturei Karta

right after it was already quoted. Woo hoo. The funny thing is you think quoting Neturei Karta actually helps your POV, LOL. Amoruso 22:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you would look at the URL at the bottom, you will see that I am quoting a statement published by a Jewish Organization that describes the actions of Ahmadinejad. Markovich292 22:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if someone that doesn't know what Neturei Karta is should even be involved in the debate, to be honest. Amoruso 22:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I think thats a cheap tactic, to be honest. Markovich292 23:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI, one can not know the name of a group but still know the type of group they are. In this case, as I pointed out, they are a Jewish organization. In fact, they are a Jewish organization that sees MA as respectful of Jewish people, also as I pointed out. MA being respectful of Jewish people doesn't sound very anti-semitic, does it? Markovich292 23:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

What they say is irrelevant because they're not WP:RS markovich. Try to adhere to wikipedia policy PLEASE. Neturei karta are a tiny group (but really tiny) of fanatics who want Israel to be destroyed - if you think they won't jump in and defend MA then you're clearly not knowledgable enough to be discussing the issue to begin with. Amoruso 23:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, irrelevant? Now you are just trying to stifle any hint of opposition to your viewpoint. What they say is NOT irrelevant, as MA's actions in regards to Iranian Jews has been observed by leaders of this group. As an aside, you really seem to be the one that needs to adhere to wikipedia policy: have you not read WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:Libel, and of course WP:CIVIL? Note the following: "neither political affiliation nor religious belief are in themselves reasons not to use a source." Also don't forget that USNewswire published the above quoted material as well. Instead of calling this irrelevant and saying it isn't reliable, why won't you look at the content of the article for a minute. It really is quite telling on how your position is the one that is not proven by available data. Markovich292 07:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now we are talking about this group "jumping in to defend" him. Well then tell me, what do you think is MA's opinion on these people that "jump in and defend" him? Markovich292 07:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, someone that thinks Neturei Karta are a WP:RS for this discussion as opposed for example to German and other European, and even Iranian sources calling him anti-semite like depicted above, is clearly not understanding the issue. WP:RS are sources from reputable journalists or editorials or historians and so on, from reputable sites. What Neturei karta says, and it really has no bearing who quoted them - that's completely irrlevant, is simply not factual - you can add their opinion of course, but it's not reliable per categorization. The list of 20 sources above though was reliable. Amoruso 23:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, thats funny, I never said NK are a WP:RS. I said this excerpt is not irrelevant to the issue. Please just discuss the issue at hand and answer my question instead of going off on a tangent. Markovich292 23:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't think that NK (which you didn't even recognise) is WP:RS then it really shouldn't be here in the first place, questioning why you even brought it up or showing a complete lack of knowing what's wikipedia. Amoruso 01:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the reasoning for placing it here before you start up with that 'lack of knowing wikipedia' bull again. You still are ignoring my question btw. Markovich292 01:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The only one ignoring questions is you. And stop your personal attacks (bull). Amoruso 02:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"Well then tell me, what do you think is MA's opinion on these people that "jump in and defend" him?" (originally posted: 07:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC) but still unanswered) Markovich292 02:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've answered that already where i explained to you that it's irrelevant, and that Jews can also be anti-semites. Amoruso 02:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Coming up with reasons why you want to ignore a source is not the same as answering a question that I asked about something you said. Markovich292 04:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You also need to brush up on WP:NPA if you are trying to call that a personal attack. Markovich292 02:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

no, I don't. Using words like bull are very incivil. Amoruso 02:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If the full form of "BS" can be placed on your userpage (by you), you are not in the position to call "bull" incivil. Not only that, but since now you are saying incivil when before you said personal attack, I daresay you DO need to read up on policy. Markovich292 04:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If you said it jokingly and amiably that would be a differnt thing, but your attitude is very offensive. If anybody needs a brush up on policies it's you and I'll suggest a brush up on Judaism and anti-semitism issues as well. Amoruso 05:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is you think it is offensive when someone tells you to stop your "insolent talk or behavior" (aka bull). Markovich292 21:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The only bullshit here until now was spread by you. Amoruso 03:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Markovich-I have been so disillusioned by this article. Choosing to quote Neturei Karta, a fringe extremist organization is choosing to quote an obscure candidate for the Reform Party. This organization is beyond out-of-step with mainstream Jews. You have consistently given voice to israel-bashers and jew-haters around the world. I was willing to compromise-but your relentless denials and claims have totally, completely, in every single possible way has alienated me. If your not willing to come to the basis of the recognition of the Holocaust or Israel; you're an anti-semite. Bottom line. But the thing Markovich-it is totally different when people of their own religion or own sect criticize eachother. Black people call eachother niger-but you wouldn't go up to a black person and call them that-that would be beyond racist. Gay people call eachother queer-but you wouldn't go up to a gay person and call them queer. These jews- of Neturei Karta base their "anti-zionism" on the bible. They however don't support the slaughter of millions of us- or driving us into the sea. In reality-that would happen if Israel ever lost a war. Your inability to distinguish mere disagreement of Israeli policy to denial of the State of Israel and the Holocaust provides credibility for anti-semites. As Thomas Friedman said, "Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction - out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest." You want an edit war-your getting an edit war-because you have pulled yourself into an emotional ugly mess and along the way have refused to accept any arguments against this man. --Max 00:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been citing sources and policies that pertain to this issue, and I have been steadfast in my attempt to demonstrate that MA can not be called an anti-semite at this time according to wikipedia policies. I obviously did not set out to alienate you and for that I apologize, but I feel that you need to try to look at this logically rather than emotionally. This may be an emotional issue for some, but it is very heavily dependent on policy and therefore purely about the facts. Nobody is attacking your viewpoint or ostracising you for believing a certain way, we are just trying to show that your beliefs do not necessarily translate to details that can be added to wikipedia. Markovich292 20:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"If your not willing to come to the basis of the recognition of the Holocaust or Israel; you're an anti-semite."

Throughout this debate, it is this belief that has been the driving force for people to call MA an anti-semite. Unfortunately, this belief has also elicited strong emotions about the issue and has caused some editors to engage in incivil behavior.

There are plenty of anti-zionist groups like NK that also do not support "driving [Israelis] into the sea," so the only real difference between those groups and NK is that NK is composed of Jews that "base anti-zionism on the bible" and the others probably are not. It is interesting that you have paralleled Jewish anti-zionism with the idea that it is only accepted for one black person to call another "nigger." By this example, you are saying that only Jews have the "right" to criticize/object to Israel, and it is offensive when others do so.

I can tell the difference between an opposition to policy and an opposition to a state, and I have in fact said that MA opposes the State of Israel, not just its policies. The point that everybody on the "non-cat" side has been trying to make, is that this attitude does not qualify him for the "Anti-Semitic People" category. Markovich292 20:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Neturei Karta

It seems as if you are not Jewish, or not at least not practicing, Markovich. Neturei Karta is a fringe, fringe, fringe group, considered lunatic fringe by most Jews, including the standard Satmar from which they branched off. They love Arafat, Hamas, Hezbollah, b/c they are so rabidly anti-Israel that they would rather consort with affirmed murderers of Jews than Jews themselves, their Hasidic dress notwithstanding. Quoting Neturei Karta to defend MA is like quoting the Aryan Brotherhood to defend a Grand Wizard of the KKK. They are as far from a reliable source on Zionism/Israel as is Hezbollah; whom they adore. I am afraid you are demonstrating a fatal ignorance of the various parties here, which undermines the credibility of your arguments. You have to KNOW the players in the game. How many decades have you been following the history and politics of Israel, its relationship with other Middle Eastern countries, the US, various religious, secular, and political groups worldwide? I daresay less than those of us whose lives are directly or indirectly affected to a great degree. I am not saying that your opinion is not valued, far from it, but an opinion couched in a lack of knowledge about the situation needs to be recognized for what it is worth in relation to others, which is why I am afraid that quote you brought borders on the ludicrous in its applicability here. Here is a little about Neturei Karta. With less than 5000 people worldwide, and their laughingstock approach to Kol Yisrael Areivim Ze LaZeh, their only function in this discussion is for comic relief. -- Avi 14:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess you are entitled to call the inclusion of that ludacris or "comic relief" , but I hope you actually gave it some thought as well. I hope I am not wrong to assume this, but you probably say that because you think I wanted this added to the article as a WP:RS. That is not true. I added it because as a group of people that share MA's political idea of anti-zionism, and remembering the fact that they are Jewish, this has to tell you that anti-semitism and anti-zionism are seperate things. The idea is, even if one rejects this groups observations of MA that demonstrate a lack of anti-semitism, it still illustrates that the opinion of some editors that claim "anti-zionism = anti-semitism" is not true.

Anyway, I am going to refrain from comment on the rest of your entry, at least until you or Amoruso responds to my question above, "Ok, now we are talking about this group "jumping in to defend" him. Well then tell me, what do you think is MA's opinion on these people that "jump in and defend" him?" It seems Amoruso brought up a valid point I would really like a thoughtful response on this. Markovich292 21:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Markovich my friend, it might come as a surpise to you, I'm not being cynical, but Anti-semitism is something that existed in Jews too. Hitler also cared for specific Jews who helped him. And so can MA like them. If you're basing something on them being Jews, it's not much of relevance. Amoruso 23:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm well aware that anti-semitism can exist in some form within a Jewish person as well, but the point was to compare and contrast NK's views with the views of MA, as well as the ideas of anti-zionism and anti-semitism in gereral. I had hoped that making you aware of anti-zionist Jews that point out a respect on the part of MA might make you strongly consider whether the addition of the category is still warranted. Markovich292 23:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Like said, bringing a comment from Neturei Karta is simply not relevant. We long established that the supporters of MA's comments, even on this board, assert that his comments only constitute anti-zionism. It's really not a surprise, and it adds nothing. And them being jews is irrelevant of course. What disturbs me is your inclusion of an opinion, which suddently becomes relevant, simply because it supports your side. When 18 different WP:RS were posted claiming he's an anti semite, you said it's opinions and disregarded, but now that excuse is off the window and suddently it's very relevant and even "closes the debate". Highly disturbing. Especially the attempt to describe this as "behaviour description" as if any crediblity can be attributed to this group of fanatics. Amoruso 01:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, why might this close the debate? Oh yes, it is the kind of source that says something like "[MA is a] Jew hugging matzah eating happy guy with nary a care about Jews," JUST LIKE THURANX WANTED. He even said "we'll relent" in that circumstance. Well, the intent of that request has been fulfilled. Based on your comments though, I guess you won't even acknowledge that ThuranX's statement has been addressed, just because you disagree with the viewpoint of the organization that made the comments he desired. It is hard to believe how you can say that any observation by this group is opinion or uncredible, only because people don't agree with their politics. Markovich292 01:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What did Thuran X actually say ? That if a fanatic group will say that MA is a good guy then it's enough ? Or if proof is presented ? And why do you suddenly quote opinions if you dislike them as sources ? Not very credible by you. Amoruso 02:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said, "It is hard to believe how you can say that any observation by this group is opinion or not credible, only because people don't agree with their politics." Even wikipedia says that "neither political affiliation nor religious belief are in themselves reasons not to use a source." Markovich292 02:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean ? It doesn't matter who said it, it's their opinion that MA acted this way on their observation. Some other observer could have a differnet opinion. You're not making sense here. Amoruso 02:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I mean that you can not throw away this groups statements as trash just because they are not in the majority. And I am wondering, do you mean to tell me that it is an opinion for a group to state, "By proclaiming that Judaism and Zionism have nothing in common, the Iranian President has actually helped lessen anti-Jewish sentiments throughout the Islamic world?" The NK leaders no doubt have a lot more experience in the Islamic world than you do, so you are not in the position to refute that statement. If you actually claim that this statement is opinion or that it is not true, I really wonder if it is ignorance or POV that allows you to honestly say that. Markovich292 05:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's an opinion and not only opinion but opinion of a very biased not reliable and fanatic almost lunatic source. I'm deeply disturbed you're trying to defend their opinion as something else in light of your previous comments on opinions. It's very dishonest. Amoruso 05:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This was observed in the "Islamic world"; how much firsthand experience do you have there? You are not in a position to say this is incorrect or opinion just because you disagree with this group's political leanings. Even wikipedia policy does not allow you to automatically discount this groups statements like you have. Markovich292 22:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Again you prove you don't what's WP:RS. If a group called "Elvis is Alive" says that they saw him walking in the streets it wouldn't appear as a reliable source to categorize Elvis as a living person. What they say is completely irrelevant and it's their opinion of what they allegdly observed.Italic text You proved your bad faith by even citing them. Amoruso 03:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that there has been misunderstanding. Markovich is only bringing this up because others once asked for a pro-semetism source (which was a tactic, you don't have to prove MA isn't semetic but you have to prove he is). Also, he's saying it's different from the other list of sources (opinions) in that it's an observation of behavior, which is what was brought up as a good source for deciding on the cat a while ago. --LifeEnemy 08:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Just so we remember

The debate was actually over after sources like this (there are atleast 17 of them : see above list here) : Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad#Some sources that describe Ahmadinejad as antisemitic

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's remarks calling the Holocaust into question have disappointed Muslims in Germany, who do not share his anti-Semitic views.
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called the massacre on six million Jews during the Nazi dictatorship a "myth." His statements may have provoked outrage around the world, but neo-Nazi and radical Islamic groups found in Ahmadinejad a new spokesperson.
Not all Muslims, however, share Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitic views.

...

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1907670,00.html

Amoruso 22:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the debate was actually over users citing opinion (mainly from Op/Ed pieces) and waving those opinions around as factual evidence justifying the label "anti-semite." This would be in contrast to using sources documenting alleged anti-semitic behavior itself-- an approach which has been incorrectly deemed "original research." Sarastro777 04:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly right. The beginning statement of this section is incorrect and misleading because of that. Thanks for your insight; it was clear, neutral, and much appreciated. Markovich292 22:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well he's clearly not neutral. He's on your side in the matter. People that think the same (false, according to 1 side) views like yours are not neutral, they're one of the sides. Amoruso 23:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, stating what one side of a debate is trying to say and talking about policy is not taking sides; therefore, he was being perfectly neutral. Markovich292 23:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

He took your side, claiming the false idea that this contradicts policy (he didn't use this word), which it clearly doesn't. He wasn't neutral, he was simply one (of a few) who agreed with your position. Amoruso 01:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure any neutral observer will see my point about that comment above being neutral, so go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe; I don't feel the need to convince you otherwise. Markovich292 02:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

very one sided view... Amoruso 02:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

15 Year Historical Record Gap !!!!

I'm quite surprised no one seems to have mentioned this (at least in this archive). There is a substantial part of this man's life that's missing from the biography. Going from a professor to an appointment of mayor didn't happen overnight. Events led to that appointment from 1987-2003. I have tried to search and have not come up with much.Prospero74 02:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

He was governor of Ardabil province before becoming mayor of Tehran.--129.111.68.21 05:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there an English language new service that can verify this? (I can't read Farsi/Persian.)Prospero74 14:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[42][43][44]--Zereshk 10:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Has Mahmoud Ahmadinejad been reading Wikipedia? :-)

"Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said he is not an anti-Semite." "Jews are respected by everyone, by all human beings," he told a news conference at the United Nations headquarters in New York. [45] Yas121 16:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If only he would back that up with actions. :( -- Avi 17:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Back that up? Why? I thought the "innocent until proven guilty" rule applies to all. Not, "we think you are guilty of this, now prove to us you are not!" We are the ones who need to "Back up" our claims calling him anti-semitic. Yas121 11:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"Jews are respected by everyone, by all human beings," he told a news conference at the United Nations headquarters in New York.
The remarks come months after Mr Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be wiped off the map - and described the Holocaust as "myth".
In response to questions about Iran's controversial nuclear programme, he said the Iranians "do not need a bomb".
The Iranian president's comments on anti-Semitism came during remarks on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"Some people think if they accuse me of being anti-Jew they can solve the problem.
"No, I am not anti-Jew," he said. "I respect them very much."
"Let us remember that there in Palestine there are Muslims, Christians and Jews who live together," he said.
Later, he added: "We love everyone in the world - Jews, Christians, Muslims, non-Muslims, non-Jews, non-Christians... We are against occupation, aggression, killings and displacing people - otherwise we have no problem with ordinary people."

I'm not sure these are the words of an anti-Semite. - FrancisTyers · 17:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is something that came up in this debate a long time ago, presented almost almost word for word:

This is taken from ThuranX on Talk:Who is a Jew?: "...self-identification should be the first and foremost source...self-identification fully MEETS [wikipedia] verification...No one can know what a person believes better than the person themselves. So long as they self-identify in a source that others can check that quote at, it should be all that's needed." In response to that, I will say that MA obviously self-identifies as NOT being anti-semitic above.

If you disagree with specific self-identification on this matter, the following also is something to remember (also in the words of ThuranX and presumably all from WP:RS): "When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will be to a direct quote, citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence...nothing, according to Wkipedia's own policies, can trump a direct quote, which is exactly what sourcable self-identification is."

In light of the above, and considering there are no sources that detail overt anti-semitic actions, it is time to stop insisting on calling MA anti-semitic, especially when the only sources you have (that do not involve your own OR) are just POV. To include such unproven accusations in the form of a category is "counterproductive, NOT factual, and misleading, as well as legally troublesome," especially since he self identifies as the exact opposite of what you are accusing. Markovich292 04:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC). Markovich292 22:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If he does read wikipedia, maybe those comments are just to give editors a chance to resolve this properly so he doesn't have to sue wikipedia for libel. Markovich292 22:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

So the small mountain of anti-Semitic comments and actions taken by him are "not the work of a human being." I'll buy that. :) P.S. The thing about "libel" is a joke, I suppose?--Mantanmoreland 23:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The comments and actions that other people label as anti-Semitic. I've yet to see him say he hates Jews. In fact, he says he loves Jews. - FrancisTyers · 23:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering what you mean by "small mountain of anti-Semitic comments and actions taken by him are 'not the work of a human being.' I'll buy that." I don't want to guess at that, so could you explain a little? And yes, the libel comment was a joke :) Markovich292 23:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

yeah, he loves jews alright. loves them medium-rare, with a side of ball bearings and shrapnel. Parsecboy 13:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

An editor removed the above comment. Please don't remove comments with which one disagrees. While crude, it falls in the realm of fair comment, as it is an obvious reference to the sponsorship of Hezbollah missiles. I would suggest to Parsecboy that he make his point directly and not through sarcasm, as it is a valid point.--Mantanmoreland 15:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yea it was Parsecboy's opinion to which he is entitled. By the way Mantanmoreland Hezbollah had Rockets and Israel had Missiles :-) Yas121 18:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to unlock article

I have a proposal, not a final compromise, but for now - to add MA to this category of New Anti-Semitic people that I've created [46] it seems it can be a good category for now to stop this debate. New anti semitism is defined in the article as :

Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, third worldism, and opposition to the policies of the government of Israel or to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland, are coupled with anti-Semitism, or constitute disguised anti-Semitism. [8][9] Critics of the concept argue that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, and that it is sometimes used to silence debate. [11]

Do we agree ? Amoruso 23:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope. In fact, that category should be deleted. - FrancisTyers · 23:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be thoroughly unacceptable. The category is already up for deletion, and there is the possibility that people could just vote for it to be merged with anti-semitic people. Boom, you then magically have what you have wanted all along. Also, that quote you provided from the article is not even a definition of anti-semitism like you claim.

This is even more unacceptable because by the excerpt you have above, MA does not even qualify as a new anti-semite in that he does not have "anti-Zionism...coupled with anti-Semitism." Markovich292 00:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have a new category, Category:Anti-Semites who love Jews or even better Category:People who have been accused of holding anti-Semitic views who love Jews. :) - FrancisTyers · 00:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Too bad, the category fits exactly the description of MA. Of course he's also a classic anti semite but in his actions and statements he's an outright obvious new anti semite like explained, quoted , sourced. Deleting the category or proposing this , and not accepting the compromise, is not only bad faith, but also proves the POV pushing of those who oppose the category, and generally it proves that they're really just trying to whitewash MA for their own purposes and political beliefs - that's sad and disturbing. Amoruso 01:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Read this from the article :

The French philosopher Pierre-André Taguieff argues that Judenhass based on racism and nationalism has been replaced by a new form based on anti-racism and anti-nationalism. He identifies some of its main features as the use of anti-racism for anti-Jewish purposes, identifying Zionism as racism; the use of material related to Holocaust denial becomes an ordinary feature of discourse e.g. doubts about the number of victims, allegations of a Holocaust industry; discourse is borrowed from third worldism, anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism, anti-Americanism, and anti-globalization; there is widespread dissemination of what he calls the "myth" of the "intrinsically good Palestinian — the innocent victim par excellence → →

I simply don't understand how one can argue that MA is not an anti semite or atleast a "new anti semite" per the above and per the all discussions and sources. Amoruso 01:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Waiting for someone to refute this.. Amoruso 03:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about this idea either as I said. He is an old-fashioned antisemite. One speech saying how much he loves his Jewish brethren doesn't by any stretch of the imagination cleanse him of all his past antisemitism, though it shud be mentioned in the article. As for unlocking the article, there are various other ways of doing so. The locking of the article w/o the cat is not an endorsement of the current version.--Mantanmoreland 03:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No one is arguing that the allegations of anti-Semitism should not be included in the article. We are discussing the Category Category:Anti-Semitic people. - FrancisTyers · 12:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, people have not been arguing that, and the fact that you do not realize this should show you something. Beyond that, the fact that you can not "understand how one can argue that MA is not an anti semite" is the reason that you are unable to see that policy dictates that MA can not be classified as an anti-semite at this time. If one tries to argue like this, without even being able to admit that one's stance on the issue could be incorrect, that is the height of arrogance and anything the opposition says is useless.

You should excuse yourself from the editing of this article as you said you were going to do before, and allow this debate to continue in your absence. When somebody can't even see the opposing viewpoint for what it is, another person is needed to take over. Markovich292 03:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest dropping this "step off the page" business. That's a nonstarter. The guy is in a content dispute with you. Lighten up.--Mantanmoreland 04:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't owe him any explanations and I'll come and go anyway and anytime I want. But it's possible I'll leave because his bad faith comments and consistent personal attacks and hypocrisy can indeed get on one's nerve. Amoruso 04:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

So ignore them. --Mantanmoreland 12:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Restatement of argument not to categorize.

Ahmadinejad openly does not believe Israel, as a Zionist state, should exist. This is also Iran's official policy. That is a very controversial political view in the West and holding that view exposes him to fervent attacks from those who see themselves either as defenders of Israel or defenders of Jews. Some consider it their duty to demonize Ahmadinejad and Iran to the fullest extent possible.

There are three arguments that he is anti semitic:

1- He called for wiping Israel off the map. Two things are completely clear from both the speech itself and from his and other Iranian reactions afterwards. He actually called for wiping a regime off the map. The argument that his call is anti-Semitic is that he called for killing Jews. Not only is there no consensus that he called for killing Jews, there is no translator or expert source of any kind that translates his remark that way. The second thing is that his preferred way to wipe Israel from the map is via a referendum in which Palestinians can vote away Israel's Zionist political character. He said that in the speech, has said it in nearly every interview he has given in which he was been asked directly. I've seen it three or four different interviews over the last two days, and I believe also in the US speech.

2- He made a statement to the effect of they have created this myth and elevated it over the belief in religion. If your goal is to demonize Ahmadinejad, you can read that as meaning it did not happen. But he has never said that the six million number is wrong or that another number is right. He has never defended Hitler or said anything positive about him. He has never brought the issue up except in the context that it does not justify the suffering of the Palestinians and when the issue is brought up, he has never failed to connect it to his supposition that whether it happened or not it does not justify Zionism.

3- There is a Holocaust cartoon competition into which were entered anti-Semitic cartoons. Some cartoons were not anti-Semitic. Ahmadinejad did not draw or submit any of them. He did not say or imply that any of the anti-Semitic cartoons represented his views. He may or may not have endorsed a competition that was held in his country while he was president. Unless your goal is to demonize him, it is impossible to say that the competition proves that he personally is anti-semitic.

Usually, almost always, these arguments are presented as opinions of the author. They have been presented as facts by reliable verifiable sources - not expert sources, but press sources outside of opinion pages a small number of times.

But there have been reliable verifiable sources that have occasionally outside of editorial pages presented as facts that George Bush was dishonest leading to the war in Iraq, that Sharon and Olmert have at different times ordered war crimes, that Bill and Hillary Clinton are corrupt regarding Whitewater. My understanding is that while that is enough to have the issue mentioned and discussed in the article, that is not enough to put Bush into the category "Liars"

This has been presented. I have not seen it addressed.

[Wikipedia:Categorization], "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category."

While supporters of Zionism in the West do vastly outnumber its opponents, and Ahmadinejad has far more who consider it their duty to demonize him than defend him, it is absolutely not the case that Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitism is self-evident or uncontroversial. Ahmadinejad himself as well as his supporters have said repeatedly that his views have been mischaracterized by people with agendas and that he has always respected Jews as a religion and as people. TopRank 03:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a well written post, kudos for that effort, and we could have used more comprehensive and good faith posts like that. I however do not see eye to eye some of your statements.

On number 1 - he didn't say the "kill jews" sentence in his interview/famous speech, and it's true... but Iran did in the past said they're building nuclear weapons in order to destory Israel and he too has made comments paralleling the nuclear power and Israel's destruction - note this is in addition to the more modern comments that nuclear power is only for peace purposes , in the past he made it clear what it's for. Now wiping Israel off the map in this sense can only mean physical.

Really, even if the nation of Iran seeks nuclear weapons, that is certainly not proof of anti-semitism on the part of MA. I have a sneaking suspicion that any comments "paralleling the nuclear power and Israel's destruction" are all your interpretation, but I'll reserve judgement until you can provide reliable sources. Markovich292 05:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You've already shown ignorance on Judaism issues. I wonder why you want to show the same on Iranian issues. Amoruso 05:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh thats right, you claim that because I didn't recognize the name of a small Jewish group I am ignorant on Judaism issues. Markovich292 06:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

On number 2 - His attack on the holocaust did not always involve the Palestinians like you say. Many times he was simply talking about it as per academic issue. If someone asked him why - he would say it's because the Palestinians suffering OR becaue the West ridiculed Mohammed the Prophet - so why don't they ridicule the Holocaust, or other reasons. Cleaely, he's a holocaust denier. Talking about "doubts", "number of dead", the "possibilty that it happened but maybe not" is all holocaust denial.

Strictly speaking, he does not deny the holocaust, but rather is a skeptic. Even so, he is qualified for the holocaust denier category, but really this has no bearing on the issue because in wikipedia terms, anti-semitism =/= holocaust denial. Markovich292 05:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No , strictly speaking, he's the classic Holocaust Denier. The fact you don't understand this term is something else. That's another issue you showed total ignorance about. Like explained, it has 100% bearing since his comments together with the holocaust denier are clear. Btw, most holocaust deniers are anti semites, including the most prominent ones, and most are alost listed as such on wikipedia. Amoruso 05:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about specific words that better describe how his views the holocaust. Not once did I say that skeptics are not considered "holocaust deniers." In fact, I think I said a long time ago something similar to your first sentence above.

Just so you know, most holocaust deniers being anti-semites still does not mean that all are, and thats why this is irrelevant. You really need to cut out the superiority complex/stop calling people ignorant. Markovich292 06:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

On number 3 - He may or may not, but we have a WP:RS that he endorsed it. Many if not most of the cartoons wer anti-semitic in nature.

I'll add the fact that juxtaposed to his holocaust denial comments were clear and explicit ZOG comments. I know it has been contested here by 1 user that they weren't ZOG comments but it's not a logical interpretation since he actually blamed control of foreign governments on the Zionists and said they're behind the holocaust conspiracy and they have powers in all places etc. This is a favour indication of anti-semitism.

Wow, that is seriously the most far out interpretation for any of these quotes I have seen so far. As such, it is also just about the biggest case of OR I have seen to date. Markovich292 05:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It has absolutely nothing to do with OR. Amoruso 05:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Some have said that Iranian Jews are respected etc. This is not true. There's one article of an Iranian Jew speaking "in favour" of MA. This is most probably due to fear. In the interview itself, he talks about how Jews are discriminated and are under lots of limitations (other minorites also under limitations - maybe even more, but that only shows that Iran is racist not only against Jews. Remember Nazi regime hunted not only Jews). There are other reports of abuses against Jews - the arrest of Jewish "spies" and their mock trial, the disappearance of Jews who tried to ESCAPE the country, the story that may or may not have been true about the new requirement to actually wear BADGES / Recognition remark by Jews (and other minorities). So I think the Jewish community lives in fear and some like Iran and won't leave , some can't, but it's not different to Jewish populations living under nazi regimes and so on, necessarily.

You have got to be kidding me. Now you are trying to speak as if you are an authority on day to day life of Iranian Jews, and are trying to make everybody think that the Jewish representative in the Iranian Parliament was saying it is not a big problem to be Jewish is Iran "probably due to fear." This really isn't connected to your allegation that MA is an anti-semite anyway. Markovich292 05:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I was refuting the ridicilous notion to take into account "speeches" from the jewish community in iran rather than realise that anything that comes out of filtered media secluded prisoner/ghetto of Iran should be taken with a pinch of salt. You probably don't understand but we established you lack a lot of perspective on the issues of the middle east. Amoruso 05:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, thats funny, it seems that you just decreed based on your own flawed analysis that I don't know anything about "Judaism issues." Or do you also think that because I didn't recognize the name of a Jewish group I am automatically ignorant or "lack perspective?" Markovich292 06:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, I have noticed your comments becoming increasingly hostile over the past few days, and you're starting to cross the line into personal attacks. Please, everyone, be sure keep this discussion civil and mature. --LifeEnemy 08:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Some have now used MA's latest comment as rebuttal. But these comments have come after serious attacks and a change of strategy for MA to portary himself differnetly - largely in the context of Iran's wish not to be on the receiving ends of sactions because of its nuclear program. If we want to be honest , then the category should be placed, and if after a while it seems that MA really changed his views - then it can be dropped. I think it's not fair that after so many months of anti-semitic comments and so many sources gathered on the issue, just because a couple of days' interviews, it will be decided he's suddenly not an anti semite. Note he hasn't apologised for anything - I think he needs to clearly say he changed his views so that one can acknowledge his latest remarks - else, it simply contradicts the previous comments. Why should we place the latter before the earlier ? Only if he says that he regrets saying the earlier should it make sense. Amoruso 04:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

So what your saying is you still want to call him an anti-semite "just in case" and that you think policy allows that. That kind of categorization doesn't even seem to be ethical, much less in accordance with policy. It is also rather odd for you to expect him to apologize and say "he changed his views." Well, he doesn't have to say that if he has not been an anti-semite all along. It it highly POV driven to expect an apology just because you are one of the people that thinks he was an anti-semite. You still don't get that he doesn't feel regret for earlier remarks because they were expressing anti-zionist views, which he does not hide. Markovich292 05:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not just in case, it's exactly the opposite. If he apologises, then he MIGHT not be. Now it's CLEAR that he is. Your interpretation of what he said is irrelevant since we clearly showed that the world in general in the 20 WP:RS sources see his comments as blatant anti-semitism. So your opinion is meaningless compared to that. And since that's how his words are interpreted, he should show that he doesn't hold them anymore. Amoruso 05:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources calling MA anti-semetic don't necessarily make him anti-semetic. He may not even think to apoligize if he wasn't an anti-semite the whole time, which is quite possible. --LifeEnemy 08:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, thats the point I was trying to get across. Unfortunately it doesn't make a bit of difference. No matter what MA's attitude was, Amoruso still wants an apology because he thinks the comments were anti-semitic in nature. If that apology comes, I can virtually guarantee what Amoruso will say, even though the apology would be for political reasons. Markovich292 20:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The Joint Conclusion : The problem is the combination of all the above. There are the anti zionists who believe Jews can live happily without a state. This is annoying to most Jews but a difference can be made and say that it's simply anti-zionism. There are also Jews who feel this way, although a minority. That's "fine" by itself, let's say. But with MA he doesn't stop there. He then makes anti semitic comments in the context of the holocaust, in the context of ZOG, in the context of Zionist war crimes and monstrous behaviour, and he seems to have no regard for Jewish loss of life. He then also supports wiping Israel off the map , and also endorses the nuclear program , and like said, Iran mentioned the destruction of Israel in this sense in the past. If you combine these together, then it's atleast the form of new anti-semitism. His choice of words for Israel's "zionist government" and his bringing up the holocaust CONSISTENTLY and on EVERY OCCASION is classic anti semitism. Amoruso 04:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

See here for example on nuclear purpose. IMO, the wipe off the map can only be interpreted this way in light of this. Note the banner on the missle actually used the same words of MA: “Israel should be wiped off the map” [47]

So are you saying it is uncontroversial that Ahmadinejad is anti-Semitic and that Ahmadinejad and other Iranians' denials that he is anti-Semitic do not represent a controversy over the issue, or are you saying Ahmadinejad should be put into the category, disregarding the directive that people should only be put into categories where it is self-evident and uncontroversial? I can, and maybe later will address the points you made individually but I want to know where you are on the major issue. As an aside, should Bush be put into the category "liars" if I find two or three reliable verifiable sources that are not editorials that describe him as such? TopRank 05:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not 2 or 3 but 20. And I'll give you a counter examples. You know how many sources I can give you that Baruch Goldstein is not a murderer ? Many many. Including books. People who are guilty of a crime won't admit it. Taking the position of the criminal or those that support him seems not encyclopedic. Anti-semitism is similar to that. Amoruso 05:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There are not 20 that were not editorials or presented as opinions. Baruch Goldstein is no longer alive. I haven't checked, but I doubt he is in the category "murderers" if he was alive, he certainly would not be. Bush is not in the category "liars", as he should not be. TopRank 06:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, when those "20 WP:RS sources" was checked only two actually called MA an anti-Semite and with only two sources saying he is and just as many or more saying he isn't we have to take the safer choise and not label him. // Liftarn

Baruch Goldstein is in the category of Mass murderers and he will be there whether or not he was dead or not. See Ami popper also in that category and he's alive. Liar is not a category I'm aware of, but anti-semitism is a category that exists, and if the perpetrator himself or his supporters deny it, it shouldn't be enough. Amoruso 06:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Murder isn't a belief, though. You can tell whether someone is a murder or not by whether they murdered. You can't with anti-semetism, at least very little. Remember, self-identification is the best method. And, I know this comment is late, but whatever. --LifeEnemy 18:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Marko and Amaro: There are reliable verifiable sources that say MA is anti-semitic. Amaro's own arguments are irrelevant. But that also means you, Marko do not have to address them. I could but did not address them myself. Now I definitely will not. I don't see that there is more than only live question left: Ahmadinejad is a controversial operating politician. There are some (not many but more than one) reliable, verifiable occurences of reporters stating as fact that he is anti-semitic. He and his supporters say he is not. The only live question is, is there a controversy. If there is, then wikipedia policy is that he not be put into the category. TopRank 06:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

With that rationale, there won't be any (what some may perceive as) "negative" categories on wikipedia since the person will always deny it and so will his supporters (like neturei karta). This doesn't in itself regards this category, you should attack it on a broader level and re-instate the category as long as it exists. Amoruso 06:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That's wikipedia's rationale. The reason for that rationale is because it will always be possible to find negative categorizations, even in reliable, verifiable sources, about controversial figures. That's what controversial figures means. While these negative categorizations can and should be addressed in the article, where it is possible to also address contrary positions, they should not be used to make wikipedia categorizations, which would be wikipedia as an encyclopedia taking a side in the controversy. TopRank 14:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, we have a reliable source that W Bush is Satan.[48] ;-) // Liftarn

This debate is interesting but is becoming circular. Both sides agree that there are a significant number of reliable, verified sources describing him as an anti-Semite. It is not necessary to plumb to the depths of his soul. That is OR.--Mantanmoreland 12:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't call two "a significant number". If there were no anti-sources (sources saying he isn't) then it would be less of a problem. // Liftarn

[Wikipedia:Categorization], "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category."

There is a wikipedia standard that he should not be put into a category unless it is uncontroversial. Ahmadinejad's anti-semitism is not uncontroversial like Goldstein's mass murder. It is controversial like Bush's lying. I also do not agree that there is a significant number of reliable, verifiable sources that describe him as an anti-semite. There are no expert sources and so far two or three cases where it is not explicitly presented as an opinion or editorial. TopRank 14:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is where I would disagree, as I think it is self-evident. That is what I find bizarre about this entire discussion.--Mantanmoreland 14:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"unless it is self evident and uncontroversial" "self evident" is in the eye of the beholder. I see Ahmadinejad as self-evidently not anti-semitic, as long as anti-semitism is defined in a way that you can oppose zionism and not be anti-semitic. I do not think you can honestly say it is uncontroversial, as you did not in your previous statement. TopRank 14:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The wheels on the bus go round and round... more on that story later. There have been no reliable sources quoted which describe the man as an anti-Semite. There have been no reliable sources quoted which describe the man as an anti-Semite. There have been no reliable sources quoted which describe the man as an anti-Semite. In comparison, there are many scholarly reliable sources (books, journal articles, etc.) which label Adolf Hitler, specifically, the man in question, the leader of Nazi Germany, as, an anti-Semite. This is what we should be looking for. We should not be looking for Op. Ed. pieces, editorials, opinions that some comments he has made are anti-Semitic. Happy hunting. - FrancisTyers · 22:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

A few small notes I thought I'd add:

Iranian Jews have criticized MA for his holocaust remarks. But they do not consider him "anti-semitic". (assuming of course that "anti-semitic" is not the same as anti-Israel)
Iran's Jews support the nuclear program unequivocaly.[49]
His statement continues to be misquoted: He said Israel as a political entity should be wiped off the map, not as a land and place where many Jews live. IOW, he's simply saying Israel is an illegitimate government. That's all. And btw, this is Iran's official state policy, even b4 MA came to office. Otherwise according to Islamic texts, the Dome of the Rock is acceptedly home to Christians, Muslims, and Jews. I dont know why wiping-off-map this fuss keeps dragging on.--Zereshk 11:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Other issues to be addressed before unlocking

The intro can discuss the wiped off the map issue, but "wiped off the map" cannot be in quotes because according to most farsi speakers who have read the speech, that is not what he said. If anyone has any other issues with the article, I suggest this is a good place to put them. TopRank 14:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of this revision? [50] Markovich292 21:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I find that much better. TopRank 01:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no problem in the earlier version. You can link to that page talking about the remark but this is the common way it's known. It's literary meaning is the same - wiping off the map/exterminating/obliterating : that's not disputed. What's disputed is whether he meant obliterate the regime or the whole physical entity - of course that's silly because like said the same line was already used on missle in parade (will be added here too), but that's the "dispute", not the actual basic meaning without interpretation of the words. Amoruso 03:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? I don't want to debate just for the sake of debating. In English, quotation marks do not indicate that the "literary meaning is the same". They indicate that enclosed is the exact phrase used by the speaker. The expert consensus is that it is not the exact phrase. Why on earth would you even argue for this. Do you consider it your duty as a defender of Israel or Jews to ensure that the article demonizes Ahmadinejad to the maximum degree possible? TopRank 03:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are just revolting. What I said I stand behind it, if you want to make it personal not in this forum please. Amoruso 15:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it odd that you can tell TopRank not to make it personal "in this forum" even though you have done precisely that already, on more than one occasion. Markovich292 01:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "wiped off the map" could be included in quotes because it's so well known, but then it could be explained that experts agree that it isn't the correct translation? Just an idea. --LifeEnemy 08:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Revisiting "wiped off the map."

Since this is an issue of wording and not so much of policy, I propose that we try to seek a concensus on exactly how to phrase the very beginning of this article that refers to MA saying "wiped off the map." To get this started, here is a proposal: [51] (also above). So far this seems to be the revision that shows the least political bias, but I welcome suggestions on how to improve it.

As other editors have pointed out though, "wiped off the map" is a partisan translation that really shouldn't be listed without questioning whether is is accurate. Since this appears in the very beginning of the article, it also is probably not the best solution to try to include a long explanation on why "wiped off the map" is contested. Thats why the proposed version is written how it iswith a direct link to wikiquote (which has a good source assosciated with it): avoiding partisan [mis]interpretations and to the point. Markovich292 21:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think, given the nature of this quote, that it shouldn't be included in the beginning of the article (as per your reasons), but it should be included in the proper section, followed by the reasons for it not being completely accurate. --LifeEnemy 22:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is better [52]. -- Avi 05:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad was an executioner

i have heard alot from my relatives that Ahmadinejad was an executioner in Iran and is responsible for the deaths of over 2,034 young men and not just responsible, but he commited them as a hangman. please get some research about this because the world needs to know.Random 14:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Youre trasmitting the rumors incorrectly. He wasnt a "hangman". The rumors were that he was "tir-e akhar" or "tir-e khalas" (the guy that makes sure people are executed after a firing squad has executed someone). And also that he was involved in the US embassy hostage ordeal in 79. But none of these allegations have ever progressed beyond hearsay, speculation, and stories from Iranian opposition websites. One would think that if there were any verifiable documents pertaining to these rumors, they would have been postered all over the internet by now. Especially now that he's visiting NY.--129.111.68.21 00:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

postered all over the internet by now In a democracy with a free press, a free internet, a freedom of information act, and a stable government with a fetish for documenting everything, that would be true. In a nation with a totalitarian police state headed by a religously charged oversoul of absolute authority overseeing all aspects of everyday life, chances are nil. --mitrebox 06:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

But our internet and press is supposedly free now, isnt it. So that shouldnt be an obstacle.--Zereshk 17:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the categorization issue settled?

Of the active participants in this discussion, nobody seems to disagree that there is a higher standard for putting Ahmadinejad in a category, as opposed to discussing claims that he is anti-Semitic in the article.

[Wikipedia:Categorization], "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category."

And nobody seems to disagree that sources have not been produced that demonstrate that is it both self-evident and uncontroversial that Ahmadinejad, the individual as FrancisTyers says, is anti-Semitic. Unless somebody is willing to argue at least one of those points, I think this issue is settled in favor of leaving the categorization out. Is there disagreement? TopRank 01:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course it wasn't "settled". Atleast the following active users disagree :

Avi
Me
Thuran X (see his comment for instance on new anti semites category page, he's still active on the issue)
Mantanmoreland
FDR315

and others in the page. Amoruso 02:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

So rather - YES. The category issue was settled and it should be included ! Amoruso 03:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You do not have any kind of majority (not that this would necessarily affect matters), and the guidelines state that Categories should only be included if it is non-controversial - FrancisTyers · 12:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you willing to argue one of the two points? Either, contrary to posted policy, it is not the case that articles should not be put into categories unless they are self-evident and uncontroversial or, it is the case that the assertion that Ahmadinejad is anti-Semitic can be shown by reliable verifiable sources to be both self evident and uncontroversial. Which of these two arguments are you willing to make? TopRank 03:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Your "points" don't make any sense and we don't even have to relate to them. Amoruso 15:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Is Amoruso the only representative of the categorize side? Either the following is not the relevant standard for including Ahmadinejad in a category, or you can meet that standard. It really has to be one of the two. I am now officially asking the people who have participated in this discussion, including but not only Amoruso, to support your position in light of what I believe is the relevant standard. If you do not believe you can argue that you can meet that standard, it would be very mature of you to admit it so this issue can be resolved.

[Wikipedia:Categorization], "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." TopRank 02:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

They can't argue either point because they have no logic to stand on. At this point people in opposition to the Zionist POV get labeled as anti-semites and accused of "Original research" for merely following Wikipedia policy. Sarastro777 03:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never been accused of being anti-Semitic, or anti-Zionist for that matter. - FrancisTyers · 12:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The 'pro-cat-ers' seem to be keen on declaring the debate over and trying to include the cat despite everything against them. It's sad, really. --LifeEnemy 08:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that it is not self-evident that MA is an anti-Semite. He may indeed be, but he denies it, and his actual quotes are at worst ambiguous. The evidence simply does not support adding him to that category at this time. I also believe that those arguing for his inclusion are biased against him because he is anti-Zionist, and that they should consider the possibility that this anti-Zionism is coloring their perceptions of his beliefs. Wikipedia is too valuable a resource to be used for partisan purposes. This is a public figure of immense importance to near-term events, and therefore we must be cautious and fair in writing about him.Neant 09:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What I am wondering, is how "The Joint Conclusion" of Amoruso can admit "There are the anti zionists who believe Jews can live happily without a state. This is annoying to most Jews but a difference can be made and say that it's simply anti-zionism" and yet he still continues to argue. His excuse is "[MA] makes anti semitic comments in the context of..." which is quite clearly opinion/POV.

It also appears to be total ignorance (or one might even say arrogance) that Amoruso says "his bringing up the holocaust CONSISTENTLY and on EVERY OCCASION is classic anti semitism." He still refuses to acknowledge that holocaust denial = anti-semitism in his eyes, but not according to wikipedia. And to me, is is just plain stupid that Amoruso can think that bringing up the holocaust "on every occasion" has to do with anti-semitism as opposed to the fact that HE HAS BEEN ASKED ABOUT IT IN ALL OF HIS RECENT INTERVIEWS. Markovich292 20:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Calling the viewpoints of others "plain stupid" is a violation of WP:CV. Please tone it down. 68.7.67.96 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I did not mean to attack his viewpoint, but rather point out the illogicality in trying to claim that MA responding to questions about the holocaust "on every occasion" is proof whatsoever to support Amoruso's viewpoint. Perhaps the wording was poor (would preposterous instead of stupid be better in your opinion?), but pointing out illogical connections like that which Amoruso made above is not incivil. I might consider apologizing for my choice in words had Amoruso shown any remorse for comments like this [53], but that has yet to happen. Markovich292 01:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Markovich is indeed a regular violator of wikipedia policies, and is a disgraceful editor. This is why I totally ignore him... Amoruso 00:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You're not much better. Don't act so high and mighty. Also, you probably just violated WP:NPA by calling him disgraceful. --LifeEnemy 22:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Pronounciation

Which syllable in his last name is the secondary accent on? There are so many to choose from... -WikiMarshall 06:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Typing the pronunciation/phonetics is kind of difficult (and I may get it wrong anyway), so I suggest you click his name in the article where it is listed at the beginning. If you have the required codec, you should hear the pronunciation. Hope that helps. Markovich292 22:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: verification needed

re: ref of the persian articles

[8][verification needed]:^ خاتمی رٿت (in (Persian)). Note: this needs to be confirmed by someone who understands Farsi:

The article is about Khatami, and has nothing to do with what is being refered to.

[9] "This government is the most favorite government of Iran in 100 years": the article says "one of the most ..."

ref [4] and [13] are correct.

someone correct it when this comes out of lock.

Gerash77 17:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. [8] has been removed and replaced with a {{fact}}, and [4], [9] (now 8), and [13] (now 12) have had the {{check}} tags removed and the words "one of the" added. Once the article is unlocked and the references can be checked on a regular basis, we will likely need more Farsi verification. Thanks again. -- Avi 05:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti Semitism Category

Until the issue is finalised, the category "Anti Semitism" can be added as opposed to "Anti Semitic people". This has been a solution for other articles as well. I'm not sure though if this temporary solution is accepted by the other users who belive that the category "Anti Semitic people" is the correct one like Thuran X, administrator Avi, Mantanmoreland and so on. But I think this can be done temporarily - Anti Semitism category per other articles like this says that the issue is being discussed in length in the article, like it is, but it doesn't say MA is an anti semite (although he is per all the WP:RS we showed...) . This can be done as a compromise for now since the article certainly deals with anti-semitism. Amoruso 00:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

We cannot put Ahmadinejad in the category "anti-Semitism" any more than we can put him in the category anti-Semite, or Bush in the category "dishonesty". This strikes me as grasping for a way to demonize MA more than an attempt to be encyclopedic. The standard for categorization "self-evident and uncontroversial" is clearly not met here. I'm less disappointed in Amoruso than in the other editors who were on the categorization side but now refuse to weigh in. It is clear that the consensus is against categorization at this point and Amoruso, the only remaining pro-categorization editor refuses to argue that it is both self-evident and uncontroversial that Ahmadinejad belongs in the category. TopRank 01:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso: You've said earlier how annoyed you are that there are editors who do not negatively look upon anti-Zionism. So I can imagine how strong the urge is for you to demonize any head of state of a country near Israel that is openly anti-Zionist. But the standard for categorization is clear. If you cannot meet that standard but you continue "debating" then what you're doing is not much different from trolling. I know this is an emotional issue for you, but I'm asking you to control yourself. TopRank 01:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Top rank, all you're saying now is non factual. First of all, the reason for this category is to address the fact that anti-semitism is being discussed. Like I said this was a solution for other articles on issues similar to this. Secondly, your hypthtesis that there's majority against categorization (the majority is meaningless anyway, it's false of course, but it's meaningless - since Markovich and others admitted that majority doesn't even matter), your attempt to make it personal while attacking me, and your reasoning that people "stopped" discussing it - it's all one big fallacy. People simply stopped because they're tired of repeating the whole point again and being involved in circular hell. The category is justified per wikipedia standards because of the many WP:RS presented and verified. You can see the relevant discussion above by Jayjg, Thuran X, Avi and all the others. It's been cleared and finalised and users don't have anymore to add to this basic fact, so they refuse to keep wasting their time arguing the same fact again and again. That's why the category should be insereted per them, and they made it clear. This is where the discussion is over by these many users, and justly. Your recent reasoning is simply false, doesn't make sense and it's not implied from wikipedia policies whatsoever. The assertion concerning the WP:RS is however the wikipedia policy on the issue. Amoruso 01:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

btw, if you have a question you want to address to other users, do so on their talk pages. Amoruso 01:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

A few small notes I thought I'd add:

Iranian Jews have criticized MA for his holocaust remarks. But they do not consider him "anti-semitic". (assuming of course that "anti-semitic" is not the same as anti-Israel)
Iran's Jews support the nuclear program unequivocaly.[54][55]
His statement continues to be misquoted: He said Israel as a political entity should be wiped off the map, not as a land and place where many Jews live. IOW, he's simply saying Israel is an illegitimate government. That's all. And btw, this is Iran's official state policy, even b4 MA came to office. Otherwise according to Islamic texts, the Dome of the Rock is acceptedly home to Christians, Muslims, and Jews. If the very same state of Israel comes along and holds elections for everyone, i.e. its own Jews and the millions of pal refugees everywhere, and the pals in gaza, wb, etc, and determine the fate of the state based on that election, you can bet Iran would recognize "Israel" then. I dont know why this wiping-off-map fuss keeps dragging (mutating) on.

Note that these are not my opinions. Im merely reporting to you what I know.

I think he shouldnt be on an anti-semitic Category. But he certainly should be on an anti-zionist category.--Zereshk 11:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As having stated his belief in the Muslim "end of the world" including the battle against Jews, having stated his belief that the Holocaust does not exist and constantly using it as an attack in the press, he's very much an anti-semite.

The fact that anyone is trying to defend him on this point is just ridiculous. But we have many, many biased editors around who will try it I'm sure. Blainetologist 16:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As having stated his belief in the Muslim "end of the world" including the battle against Jews - what is the source of this allegation? Furthermore, please see WP:NPOV. Simply because you feel or believe that he is an anti-Semite does not make it a fact. He is an anti-Zionist and his comments have been directed entirely at the political entity of Israel (State of Israel), not the Jewish people. You will not find one single remark from Ahmadinejad that condemns or displays hatred for the Jewish peoples. His comments about the Holocaust and questioning it are unfortunate but your claim that he has denied the Holocaust is incorrect. There is no evidence that he has denied the Holocaust, but it is obvious that he has questioned how many Jews actually died. We can speculate whether this is stupidity on his part or some political strategy intended to provoke Israel but it does not make him an "anti-Semite".

This article already portrays the man as if he is the Devil himself, which clearly violates WP:NPOV and the spirit of WP. But no, they will not be satisfied until Ahmadinejad (whose views are no different than any other regime ideologue and perhaps even more "liberal" than the likes of Rafsanjani!) is further vilified into this ridiculous all-powerful "boogeyman" who can destroy the world with the snap of a finger. That is what is ridiculous and it's so stupid. Khorshid 17:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So let's see... we have an Iranian partisan, trying on one side to split hairs and on the other outright denying published facts.

Sigh.

Ahmadinejad has repeatedly, in the world press, stated that the Holocaust is a "myth." That's holocaust denial. And your behavior isn't helping make this a better article.Blainetologist 17:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont think he questions the existence of the holocaust. Hes questioned its scope, and criticizes why it keeps being used to justify violence against the Pals.

And he's definitely not ever said anything about any "end of times war against Jews". That's just plain stupid hype fabrication. Please refer me to an original text, any original text, where he says such things. Not a translated one. Even CNN mis-translates him. Even Mike wallace's interview was mistranslated at one point.

Seems to me, some people are just itching to have a villain to go to war with. That's unfortunate.--67.11.240.167 19:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Blainetologist, please keep your personal attacks to yourself and see WP:CIVIL or you will be blocked from editing.

Other editors who are interested in WP:NPOV and accuracy should read this article from BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5367892.stm - after reading this, ask yourselves what kind of "anti-Semite" donates money to a Jewish charity hospital (in Iran, only one out of 4 such hospitals in the world)??? Khorshid 02:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Most of the patients and staff are Muslim these days"... the Jews in Iran can't speak against him obviously or they'll be prosecuted/killed. It already happened with those that disappeared while trying to escape (Iranian jews aren't allowed to emigrate in families and so on, and other horrible restrictions), the "jewish spy" trial and so on. I guess all the WP:RS simply regarded him as an anti semite for denying the holocaust, for blaming it all on jewish/zionist world conspiracies and for wanting to kill off all Jews in Israel or throw them to Alaska. What do they know. Amoruso 13:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The article states that the hospital is run by a Jew and obviously "most" does not mean "all". The rest of your argument is personal opinion and original research. But whatever, the source is BBC and thus WP:RS so you cannot complain at all about it. You do not even provide sources for your assertions about Ahmadinejad being "anti-Semite" and please do not provide links to B'nai Brith or ADL or AIPAC or the Israeli government as examples of "reliable source". As it stands it is not a fact that Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust or is an anti-Semite - these are opinions, not fact. As for your last highly inflammatory and derogatory sentence (Ahmadinejad has NEVER said anything about killing Jews), please cease and desist from making such bogus and libelous claims or your incivil behavior will be reported. This is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum where you can spout such things. Khorshid 15:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well him giving money to a hospital which is for mostly muslims - what gives ? It means nothing. It is a FACT that MA has denied the holocaust (geeeez) or that he's an anti semite. It's also a fact that he wants to either kill all Jews in Israel or deport them - that's how WP:RS have interpreted his comments and justly, because it's obviously what he meant. I will not furhter repeat myself here, you can read all the proofs and the discussions above. Amoruso 00:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, you yourself have further proven why those sources can not be used to justify the category. First, as many people have said already, they are opinion. Beyond that though, this accusation is not based on anti-semitism as it is defined on wikipedia and elsewhere. Labeling someone as an anti-semite because of statements that are interpreted to be anti-semitic (but do not fall under the generally accepted definition) is POV, nothing more, nothing less.

As you touch on above, people have called him anti-semitic because of how they perceived his comments. For example, they called him an anti-semite because of his statements on the holocaust, but it is not accepted on wikipedia to say that holocaust denial entails anti-semitism. If you will note, not a single one of the reasons that you listed (for why people call him an anti-semite) satisfies the wikipedia standard of "hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group." Markovich292 22:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Khorshid, if you want to continue with your intellectually dishonest "arguments", be my guest. I didn't violate either civility or NPA standards, I am accurately describing your conduct as dishonest for your attempts to twist the facts about this man. He IS an anti-semite and an unapologetic one at that. Blainetologist 14:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed you have made personal attacks and continue to do so despite my warning and you have been reported to an admin. Khorshid 15:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, it is you (Blainetologist) that is not behaving appropriately. You can not say his conduct is "dishonest" or say he is "twisting the facts" just because you have interpreted MA's words in your own way. Please do not fall into the trap of attacking people just because they do not share your POV. Markovich292 22:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope they finally do something about it too. Instead of rational arguments the response has been only insults and lies. Sarastro777 15:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Reading the arguments here, it seems people here seem to think: Judaism = Zionism and that anti-semitism = anti-Jewish.

That's bull. Zionism is a political party. An originally secular ideology, unlike Judaism.

You can bet MA is anti-Zionist.

But it's funny that Iranian Jews dont think he's "anti-semitic", because Semitic by definition includes Arabs and the Islamic (aka "Abrahamic") faith. How can he be against himself?

Do you know what homosexuality means literally ? I suggest you read the article on anti-semitism and see how it's possible. Amoruso 00:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This is all politically charged muckraking.--129.111.68.21 17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering the facts, politically charged whitewashing. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It is quite sad that editors can be so set on their own POV that they think that acting based on wikipedia policy is "whitewashing." Markovich292 23:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitism? Usually used to label people and attract sympathy. The funny thing is that as Ahmadinejad is a muslim, some edits resemble islamophobia.

Hossein.ir 13:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitism? Usually used to label people and attract sympathy. - thank you for that precious POV. You only prove the point. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope you realize that can easily be interpreted (without a stretch) as calling him an anti-semite. Alternatively, one could think you are saying that this attempt to label MA as an anti-semite is meant to ellicit sympathy. Markovich292 03:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You keep making this personal and keep assuming that your opponents do too. The history of anti-Semitism is factual. BTW, it includes the Holocaust. True, some clowns deny it and some other clowns prefer to defend them, but what serious encyclopedia was ever written by clowns? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

First, it is odd that you didn't even bother to explain what you said. Second, you really need to look at the actions of those involved before you say that it is I that is making this personal. Oh and yes, by all means, say that people are "clowns" because they dare stand up for wikipedia policy...what a wonderful attitude. Markovich292 20:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Markovich is right about explaining, your comment isn't very clear at all. --LifeEnemy 21:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sympathy for those opposing him, so that Bush can set up another Iraq (just clarifying). --LifeEnemy 20:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

New article

In the early 1920s, an imprisoned Austrian rabble-rouser dictated his thoughts for eventual publication. The book that resulted, Mein Kampf ("My Struggle"), was a clear manifesto of how he saw the world. Yet, even when Adolf Hitler became Germany's chancellor in January 1933, the international community, with few exceptions, failed to grasp that he might actually mean what he wrote, instead choosing to believe that power would moderate his actions

The celebrated American journalist Walter Lippmann wrote in May 1933, "The outer world will do well to accept the evidence of German goodwill and seek by all possible means to meet it and to justify it."

The same year, U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull declared, "Mistreatment of Jews in Germany may be considered virtually eliminated."

The world cannot afford to get it wrong again. Ahmadinejad has a long paper and voice trail that is impossible to ignore. He calls openly for the destruction of Israel, threatens the United States, denies the Holocaust, supports terrorist groups outside Iran's borders and suppresses human rights inside them.

Like Hitler, Ahmadinejad surely feels emboldened by the world's timid response. Tehran's leaders have negotiated masterfully to date, buying precious time to reach the technical point of no return.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/70675,CST-EDT-REF25.article Amoruso 09:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, I find your views absolutely appalling. Comparing Ahmadinejad to Hitler is a gross insult to the victims of the Holocaust. Who the fuck do you think you are to claim that they are similar?

It's not me. It's an article. Please use civil language. Amoruso 09:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Civil language? Excuse me? How about you use some fucking civil language by not insulting my family by saying that Ahmadinejad and Hitler are comparable? There is no rule against using the word fuck as an intensifier on a talkpage anyways. And if it's an article that doesn't represent your views, why the hell did you post it?--Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 03:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is a rule. "fucking" is incivil language. I didn't even say this myself, just quoted an article from a WP:RS. this can't be insulting in any way. Amoruso 13:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hitler slaughtered over 6 million Jews. How many has Ahmadinejad slaughtered? Zero.

That's actually the point . Hitler also slaughtered 0 Jews at the time. And many Jews were already killed if by trying to escape from Iran and disappearing and if by sponsored acts by Hamas, Islamic Jihad or Hizballah. Amoruso 09:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so then don't make the comparison until Ahmadinejad starts slaughtering Jews. This bullshit "premptive" strategy of yours is disgusting. Condemning people for crimes they aren't going to commit just doesn't make any sense. And you're right that Jews have been killed after trying to escape from Iran. But there are 2 things misleading with that statement. One, they weren't killed because they were Jews. And two, ANYONE who tries to escape from Iran gets killed. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 03:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hitler also killed many non jews, millions of them. I'll make the comparison now, or more accurately, I'll bring WP:RS articles that make the comparison, before he slaughters Jews in order to avoid that outcome. Amoruso 13:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hitler admitted that he hated Jews. Ahmadinejad says he loves Jews.

Wrong on both. Hitler said at the time he has nothing against the Jews but he protects Aryan interests.MA says he has nothign against the Jews - never said he "loved" them - but protects Muslim and Palestinian interests. Very similar. Amoruso 09:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Again I ask, have you read the Mein Kampf before you make such qualifying statements towards Hitler's beliefs? Hitler clearly believed that Jews were scum and must be eradicated like vermin. Protecting Aryan interests was simply another one of his concerns, it didn't take the place of his anti-semitism. President Ahmadinejad has stated that he loves Jews and Judaism, and he can realize that Judaism and Zionism are two different concepts. And it isn't that he is protecting Muslim and Palestinian interests; sure I agree with that, but it is simply misleading to leave it at that. He has been protecting their interests because they are being oppressed by foreign occupiers.

Comparing the two is insulting towards Holocaust victims. It cheapens their plight.

Comparing the two is making sure it doesn't happen again. Obviously, MA doesn't have the power Hitler had and now Israel has its own means to protect itself. Amoruso 09:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad can't get power like Hitler. Hitler was Der Fuhrer auf Deutschland. Hitler had control of the German armed forces, everything. Ahmadinejad is only the president of Iran. He can't do shit. He doesn't control the armed forces, and the Supreme Leader has absolute veto over any of his actions.

Iran's Supreme Leader won't vetoe any action to exterminate the Jewish population of Israel by nuclear weapons, the stated goal of the regime. Amoruso 13:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

And second, have you even read the Mein Kampf? In German? Sprechen Sie Deutsch? If you have, you would not even consider comparing Hitler's statements to statements made by Ahmadinejad. Ahmadnejad said:

(transliterated)In režime išqâlgare qods bâyad az safhehye ruzgâr mahv šavad.

Which means "This regime which occupies Jerusalem must be abolished from the pages of the world." Compare that to quotes from Hitler:

I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work.

Speech before the Reichstag (1936)

… the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew. Vol. 1, Chapter 11, precisely echoing Martin Luther's teachings.

I got both of those from Wikiquote. Are you trying to claim that these quotes between Ahmadinejad and Hitler are comparable?

Yes. In fact, cartoons in the conference endorsed by MA had Jews pictures as devils. So the Lord of Allah or God it is very similar indeed. Amoruso 09:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Those cartoons were made in response to Jyllands-Posten's cartoons. They weren't made to make fun of Jews because Jews are evil, they were made to show the hypocrisy in Europe towards thoughts about the Holocaust versus thoughts about Islam. It is perfectly okay to insult over a billion Muslims, but not ok to even suggest insulting Jews. That's hypocrisy. I have, myself, drawn pictures of Jews as devils. Jews themselves have done so too. Remember the cartoon contest hosted in Israel? I sent them an entry of my own. And, you're also twisting the facts by assuming that Ahmadinejad is using the same religious imagery as Hitler is, and that is entirely false. Hitler was simply following in the steps of the protestant leader Martin Luther. He had doctrinal evidence against Jews as a religion. Hitler used this excessively. Ahmadinejad is a Shia Muslim. Islam respects Judaism, and, as history has shown, Muslims have treated Jews much more amicably than Christians have. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 03:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Cartonns have insulted Jews since time immomerial. It didn't need a conference in Iran to show that. The fact that Jews didn't go in terror campaigns after being depicted as devils, nazis and evildoers, blood sucking vampires, and ridiculed over their believs, like the muslims did over a couple of innocent cartoons should show you the differences. This reasoning to make such an appaling revolting cartoon conference is anti-semitic in itself and offensive, therefore I have no interest in continuing this, and of course not to relate to the ridicilous notion that jews as oppressed dhimmni, massacred and eventually expelled, were actually treated with respect (in the middle east. in spain, read the whole article). Amoruso 13:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Truly, it is an insult.

And let's see what your article claims:

Ahmadinejad openly calls for the destruction of Israel

The destruction of Israel has been the official stance of the Islamic Republic of Iran even before Ahmadinejad was even President. And as is clear, he supports the destruction of Israel as a political identity, the same Israel that violates UN resolutions and oppresses the Palestinian people by occupying their territory, the longest occupation of foreign territory in modern history.

Ha ? It's not even an occupation, yet alone "longest occupation". UK still has areas occupied. Very strange allegation. Detruction of Israel - and where will the Jews there go ? True, this is the stance of Iran, making New regime of Iran = Nazi Germany. The same line of "wiping off Israel" appeared on missles in parades where MA was present - missles able to carry nukes. Amoruso 09:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I consider it an occupation when I cannot leave my house without observing a foreign nation's tank rolling down my street. I consider it an occupation when a foreign nation's troops are stationed at my doorstep and detain anyone they wish. I consider it an occupation when I cannot go from point A from point B without going through hundreds of checkpoints created by a foreign nation. This occupation has been going on for over 30 years now. Even Hitler's Thousand Year Reich (and subsequently his occupation of France and other nations) only lasted about a decade. The UK is not currently occupying any nation. They have apologized for their actions during the age of imperialism and have somewhat granted compensation to their victims. Israel doesn't even acknowledge that it occupies a foreign entity, much like how Japan denies its Rape of Nanking and its other atrocities committed within China. You're asking me where the Jews will go? Why would they need to go anywhere? They are already home (most of them). Do you think that Jews cannot live in a free Palestine? I see Israeli Arabs. I think it is racist for you to assume that opposite cannot happen. And again I repeat, President Ahmadinejad has never once called for the destruction of Israel. He has only stated that the current government of Israel needs to be removed through referendum. Your equivocation between "Israel as its people, infastructure, and culture" and "Israel as a political entity" is seriously flawed, as Ahmadinejad has nothing against the first definition of Israel, while a stark critic (as any sane person should!) of the second definition. And who cares if those things were written on missiles. Lots of inflammatory things are written on missiles. I remember seeing a picture of a US military missile that said "FUCK SADDAM" written on it. I have seen pictures of Israeli schoolgirls writing to Palestinian kids on IDF missiles. It is nothing out of the ordinary. It's the whole point of a military parade. Those missiles should destroy the Israeli government and what it stands for. And that was the message which was intended. Not your bullshit claim that innocent Israelis themselves should be killed.

Threatens the United States

So what? Every single nation in the world has threatened the United States at one time or another. Who gives a shit?

I didn't write the article. Amoruso 09:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't agree with it then why bring it up.

Denies the Holocaust

That is simply not true. His position has been clear and consistent from the beginning. He is saying that IF the Holocaust was committed, then Jews should have been given compensation at the expense of the Germans, not the Palestinians. That is not Holocaust denial.

He said the holocaust is a myth and like any event it should be questioned, that there are scholars who think it didn't exist and it seems that "they may be correct" so the holocaust is questioned, and he is friends with those people. How is that NOT holocaust denial ? See discussions above and see his interview with German paper and his letter to Germany's chancellor cleary questioning whether the holocaust happened and blaming its creation of zionist conspiracy. Amoruso 09:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Prove it. Show me the transcript of this in Persian. If the media can totally mess up and misquote him about his thoughts about the illegal occupation of Israel, then chances are they fucked up about this one too. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 03:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Supports terrorist groups

Terrorist is a POV term that is not acceptable.

Blowing up children in buses, malls, clubs and markets is also not acceptable. Amoruso 09:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

When you said those things, the first group that came to my mind was the IDF. Last time I checked, Ahmadinejad does not support the IDF ;). --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 03:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, SNAP!

The only one acting like Hitler right now is you; since you are blaming everything on Ahmadinejad and ignoring his own statements on the issue. Ahmadinejad clearly says the loves Jews and loves Judaism.

LOL. Amoruso 09:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Enough with your original research, let the facts speak for themselves BEFORE you put the spin on them. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 09:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Neville Chamberlain2.jpg Amoruso 09:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Is your hatred for Ahmadinejad so much that you violate Wikipedia policies in order to promote your nonsense? --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 03:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That certainly seems to be the case. [56], [57], [58]. Here is why he is pushing so hard to include the category [59]. And here is of course HIS "POV EXPOSED:" [60].

Here are just some of the policies that he has violated already, or is trying to violate by adding the category: WP:NPOV, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:BLP, Wikipedia:Libel, Wikipedia:Categorization of people, Wikipedia:Consensus, and Wikipedia:Categorization. Markovich292 20:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are a couple more: WP:NOT and WP:AGF. Markovich292 20:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Markovich , if you don't stop with these fitlhy personal attacks and lies, action will be taken. Your references don't support any of your allegations. It is you who broke all conventions on wikipedia and tried to attack users personally when your arguments were refuted one by one in legitimate ways. Amoruso 13:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Lol you threaten further action against me in the same sentence that shows you violating policy...that is funny. It is also kind of funny that you think me citing your past behavior and stating the policies you have broken is a personal attack, since it says right in WP:NPA that "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks." Markovich292 16:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

He brings up a good point. Besides, Amoruso, I don't think you should be threatening others so much, you're no more innocent. --LifeEnemy 22:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

People always believe what they want to believe, despite the facts. Amoruso thinks the fact that Ahmadinejad has financially supported Iran's largest Jewish hospital "means nothing". I think it means everything. He also believes that "many Jews were already killed if by trying to escape from Iran". Not true, but in fact the opposite. Amuroso also believes Iran is a "threat to America". Now that kind of pugnacity can only come from Iranophobic pro-war advocates.--Zereshk 12:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe Iran is a threat to America, or rather I've made no opninon over that. These's one source that says the office of MA financed a hospital used mostly by muslims. what does that mean. About iranian jews being killed or disappeared don't talk about what you don't know [61]. Amoruso 12:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's a reputable source. It's jewish news. --LifeEnemy 21:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That "one source" youre talking about is the BBC. You'll find it a bit hard to refute them, I think.
The hospital? I'll tell you what it means. It tells you that in Iran, Jews provide services to everyone, not just Jews. Furthermore, in Tehran, for a hospital to stay in business, it will have to have its doors open to as many people as it can. That's why the Christian Armenian hospital in Tehran that I always used to go to for my needs, was also largely visited by muslims as well. Why not? If they can make more money by admitting muslim patients, then all the better. Not only that, they also have private Jewish schools, and are represented in parliament. Neither the US nor Israel has muslim reps in their parliaments.

Eh, actually Israel does. There are 12 Arabs in the Israeli parliament many of them muslim. And I assure you that the Jewish rep in the Iranian parliament can't support Israel does he, while these Arab reps actually call for the destruction of Israel sometimes. Like the article I brought to you says , Iran has an interest to hold the Jews as hostages and for image purporses, which is why there are draconic laws on emigration as well. It all depends on how naive people are. Amoruso 13:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh, Actually it doesnt. Those 12 Arabs are not elected to the Knesset because they are muslim. They could in fact be communist, as Knesset MP Tawfik Tubi was. Iran's constitution however guarantees a seat for each religious minority (Jews, Christian, Zoroastrians) no matter what race or party affiliation. That's very different.--Zereshk 17:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Israel doesn't guarantee a seat for Jewis either. I think the word you're actually looking for is Democracy.

No, Im actually looking for "protection of minority rights". Something similar to the afirmative action clause in the American legal system. Iran's parliament guarantees a seat for Jews, just because they are Jewish. Israel doesnt have a comparable law.--Zereshk 17:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, Israel is a democracy. In a democracy you don't guarantee different races seats. Iran doesn't "guarantee" this seat -> it also means that there can be only 1 Jewish person - no more are ALLOWED. Amoruso 17:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There can be more, they are just guaranteed to have at least one. --LifeEnemy 20:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Iranian Jews dont want to support Israel. It's not that they cant. They dont need to. It isn't that hard to see that Zionism is not Judaism. From the point of view of Iranian Jews, Israel's policies is giving Jews a bad image.--Zereshk 17:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Or they just scared to death.

Not really.--Zereshk 17:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes really. It is the exact same reason that you don't hear the Copts in Egypt complaining too much. It's quite classic. Amoruso 17:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Conjecture. --LifeEnemy 20:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You havent given your opinion about Iran being a threat to the US. But you have been disseminating that idea on this page, as is evident from your posts above.--Zereshk 17:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I never brought the U.S and never considered the idea on this page, or at all as far as I remember. Amoruso 13:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

My report is newer than yours. Yours is dated 2003. Mine is dated 2005. And besides, somebody goes "missing" almost every other day in Iran, whether it be a journalist, a professor, or a muslim cleric [62]. what type of prisoners do you think fill up Evin prison? Yes, muslim Persians.--Zereshk 17:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have friends who told me how they escaped from Iran risking their lives. Even the pro Iran article mention that Jewish Iranians can't freely leave. It's not surprising that some of them were captured and probably killed. This is before MA too, true. Amoruso 13:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That law applies to all Iranians. There are approximately 2 million Iranians in Europe. Almost all escaped Iran, all came as refugees to Europe, and almost none are Jewish. Getting an exit permit in Iran is very difficult. You have to serve in the army for 2 years, and prove youre not affiliated with any political opposition parties, have had no "criminal record", etc. So leaving Iran never takes place "freely" anyway.--Zereshk 17:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

And last, I think you'll find it a bit hard to accuse me of not knowing something here. I lived among the Jews of Shiraz. In fact I went to high school with them. (Shiraz was the center of the "Jewish spy" incident).--Zereshk 17:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

My advice to you: Unless you fully support a war against Iran, stay away from Iranian politics and events. Iran is not like Arab countries. Their politics is highly complicated and layered. While on the surface they advocate anti-Israeli rhetoric, underneith, you see Iran doing business with Israel. I remember it in the Iran-Iraq war: a lot of the weapons Iran was using, actually came from Israel, through 3rd party sources and clandestine deals. No one can make a clear cut conclusion about almost anything when it comes to Iran.--Zereshk 13:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Israelis frequently visited Iran before the revolution. Once the Ayatolot are down, everything will be ok again. Amoruso 13:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

They were in Iran indeed. But Im not sure if the Ayatollahs will "go down" that easily. Their grip is firmly rooted. It will take maybe 10-15 years for a grass-roots evolution to change things in Iran. We have to wait for the young progressive generation to come of age. Meanwhile, I particularly think attacking Iran is the worst ever option possible. It will strengthen the Ayatollahs and flip the allegiance of younger Iranians away from the west.--Zereshk 17:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That said, I dont think any Jews need to worry about Ahmadinejad. The executive office in Iranian politics doesnt hold that much power. He doesnt control the armed forces, like the American president does by law. He's more of a spokesperson, a figure head. Everything he does must be approved by "the party". The real policies are devised by others. MA just has a big mouth, and some pretty skewed hardline opinions. Even Khatami agrees that the holocaust happened. You have to understand, MA is from the ranks of the Iran-Iraq war veterans. Like all brutal and ugly wars, this war had drastic impacts on their personalities.--Zereshk 17:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not related to the article or the debate. Anyway, obviously the real danger is the supreme leader himself who is even more extreme than MA. Amoruso 17:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, Amuroso, changing my comments is actually violating WP rules. Please stop changing my comments. Thanks.--Zereshk 17:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I never changed your comments. Amoruso 17:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You liar! [63] --LifeEnemy 20:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

How dare you call me a liar you insolent kid. I didn't change the comment. This was dropped accidentally because of an edit conflict, so I checked what was dropped and restored it. Amoruso 00:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I figured that might not have been the best thing to say, but there's no need to insult me over it. jeez. Remember, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. At first glance, it looks like you lied, so I tried setting that right. I now know that it was a mistake and apologize, but you could have easily explained that without resorting to unecessary attacks. --LifeEnemy 19:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, your opinions that allowed you to alude to Ahmadinejad as the next Hitler before, and now you starting this section is plenty "apalling" to ~~Zereshk~~ Kirbytime, and I'm sure other people feel the same way. I for one won't condemn you for making this comparison though because you are entitled to this opinion, but it is certainly time to definitively address your attitude on this matter.

In the past you have shown that you are strongly motivated by POV and have no intention to adhere to policy, which is bad enough. But now, you make it obvious that you are trying to make edits on this page that are politically and/or personally motivated. Wikipedia is not the place for you to "take a stand" and try to villify someone. Editors such as myself have tried to politely point out to you that you are not acting in the interest of wikipedia, and you have reacted in a hostile and bigoted manner. This newest topic has nothing to do with the issue of categorization, and not even anything to do with content of the article itself; it started as your own personal quest to prove that MA is the next Hitler. If you do not recognize that you are acting completely against the policies of wikipedia, arbitration is surely needed to put a stop to your disruptive behavior. Markovich292 00:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Really, it seems that you including such an opinionated source that has no bearing on the issue (and would not even adhere to WP:NPOV#Fairness of tone if placed in the article) is just meant to stir up trouble. Markovich292 00:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Markovich292, please stop that stream of whitewash under disguise of upholding WP policies. I find it ironic that you chose to mention political motivation. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Markovich stop with your personal attacks. I brought an article here by someone who made this comparison, not even me. It's an article from a WP:RS that addresses the issue on hand. I'm not even arguing the issue and I'm trying my best to ignore you and not to engage with you in any discussions after your repetitive bad faith behavior and personal attacks towards me. Please do the same and stop stirring up trouble. Now you're simply butting yourself in to a discussion between me and another user over an article that deals with the situation at hand using more false allegations and personal attacks. It's out of place and stop it. Just go on and leave me and the issue alone. I'm entitled to bring relevant articles to this discussion and discuss it with other users, users that unlike you are also civil. Amoruso 07:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. This has dragged on for over a month, mostly because you are trying to advance your personal opinions, and you dare blame me for stirring up trouble? Even in some of your very first comments here, one can see a poor attitude (which I ignored), so you are not in a position to say that I am stirring up trouble. The number of editors that have said your attempt to categorize is POV and/or commented on your behavior should send you the clear message that you are being disruptive. To use a word you have used many a time before, it is "pathetic" for you to try to claim that I am making false allegations or acting in bad faith after the kind of behavior that you have demonstrated here.

Its interseting to note that you said that my addition of material from NK was irrelevant (even though it dealt directly with MA and alleged anti-semitism), but now you bring in a source that is spouting opinion that has absolutely no value in a NPOV encyclopedia. That is hypocritical in the extreme. Markovich292 19:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not ridicilous. It's you who was disruptive all along pushing your poltical POV in order to whitewash MA in an obessesive behaviour. You have been acussing other members of personal thigns and never addressing the issue. And yes, I'm entitled to bring WP:RS and discuss it with other members. NK is not WP:RS nor is The moon people website. Learn what wikipedia is about for once. Amoruso 00:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So talking about sources for weeks doesn't count as addressing the issue? And I guess standing up for policy is what you call "pushing [my] poltical POV in order to whitewash MA" because you think your opinion is above policy. Stop twisting the facts to suit your purposes. Markovich292 21:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You sir, are the one who needs to learn what wikipedia is about for once. Article talk pages are not for general discussion, they are for improving the content of the article. The source on which you based this section is one man's propaganda piece, which can't be included in the article because of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox and WP:NPOV#Fairness of tone. Therefore, it has nothing to do with improving wikipedia as an encyclopedia, so you really are not "entitled" to bring such a source for discussion as per WP:NOT#What the Wikipedia community is not. Also don't forget "Wikipedia...is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge." Markovich292 21:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And I find it ironic that you are in no position to make such claims, Humus sapiens. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 03:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"I'm trying my best to ignore you and not to engage with you in any discussions..." this is a terrible attitude to have, and it's probably one of the reasons this has dragged on for so long.

And you, Amoruso, are also guilty of "repetitive bad faith behavior and personal attacks", perhaps more so. --LifeEnemy 19:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Humus sapiens reverts anything that he doesn't like, whether or not his actions have any justification in actual policy. He also does not hesitate to throw out claims of whitewashing when he is questioned about his extremist zionist pov'ing. One quickly notices the hypocrisy when we don't hear whining cries of "Godwin's Law" [[64]], though in this case it probably actually applies. Sarastro777 05:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks, which in this case are way off-base. --Mantanmoreland 11:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What other editors said is right. How does comparing MA to Hitler have anything to do with this? It's a terrible way to try and prove anti-semetism.

Also, I think everyone just needs to SHUT UP with accusations of personal attacks. You've all done it! This discussion has been falling lower and lower, and now it's almost descended to the point of stupidity. Here's the basic structure of this entire talk:

1.One side states their point.

2.Other side refutes, states their point.

3.First side restates point, adds scathing remark.

4.Other side restates their point, also adds scathing remark.

5.Accusations of personal attacks, POV, and political bias abound.

6.Repeat process a few hundred times.

I'm not saying whether these accusations are right or not, but they're almost meaningless now. And I know some of you will be offended by the tone of this comment, but the maturity level on this page is very low right now. --LifeEnemy 21:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Remember, Wikipedia is a place to write and discuss about those articles, you are not supposed to be discussing about the personal beliefs of others. Please, stop talking about each other and talk about what information from that article could be used. Kirbytime, it may have been offensive to you but I assure you that there was no intent to insult anyone here with that article. It was posted for reference purposes, information could be used to expand the article more. This conversation seems to have derailed quite quickly. Get back on topic. - Zero1328 _Talk? 11:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. This argument on conflicting ideas has gone too far and has drifted away from the topic in question. There has been no progress made in the status of the article for over a month. Help Wikipedia, don't divide it. Sr13 00:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)