Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 5

←

Archive 7

→

Neutrality compromised

The information regarding President Ahmadinejad's recent letter to Americans has clearly been presented in a way that reflects the author's personal opinion. I would like to suggest an edition of this particular information, or else a re-entry.

68.103.160.85 05:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Dr. Caffrey

It's very difficult to summarize the whole letter, which touches on many issues, in one nice little paragraph. I think I did this. There were many more things that I had originally written, but I ultimately decided that it was just too long for an encyclopedia entry. If people want that level of detail, they can click on the letter and read it themselves, right?

Anyways, I'm including my first draft text here, in case anyone is interested. This is the stuff that I wrote, but didn't include in the article. Vir4030 17:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

About Palestine, he argues "that the US administration has persistently provided blind and blanket support to" Israel, even while Israel "has driven millions of the inhabitants of Palestine out of their homes." About Iraq, claims that "hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, maimed or displaced," that "terrorism in Iraq has grown exponentially," and that "nothing has been done to rebuild the ruins, to restore the infrastructure or to alleviate poverty." He says that he considers it extremely unlikely that the American People "consent to the billions of dollars of annual expenditure from your treasury for this military misadventure."

Ahmadinejad also criticizes the "illegal and immoral behavior" of the US administration, not only throughout the world in Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib, but also inside the United States. He states that "civil liberties in the United States are being increasingly curtailed" under the pretext of "the war on terror." He claims that "private phones are tapped, subjects are arbitrarily arrested, sometimes beaten in the streets, or even shot to death."

Ultimately, he concludes that "the American people are not satisfied with this behavior and they showed their discontent in the recent elections." He recommends that "in a demonstration of respect for the American people and for humanity, the right of Palestinians to live in their own homeland should be recognized." He also suggests that it would "be more beneficial to bring the US officers and soldiers home, and to spend the astronomical US military expenditures in Iraq for the welfare and prosperity of the American people."

He also had a message to the Democrats who won the 2006 mid-term elections: "The United States has had many administrations; some who have left a positive legacy, and others that are neither remembered fondly by the American people nor by other nations. Now that you control an important branch in the US Government, you will also be held to account by the people and by history."

Why do we need to cite four different references for the summary of the letter? Can't we just cite the text of the letter itself? Vir4030 17:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ufwuct, I sincerely apologize for not including an edit summary for my wholesale revision of the bit about the letter under US-Iran Relations. I should have. I also made that edit while I was not logged into my account, so it showed up under my IP address. That was a mistake also. I obviously described it above here in the talk page, but you wouldn't know that just from the revision history, especially with not being logged in for the edit, but signing my talk page comments appropriately.

My problem with the way it is now is that, as pointed out by the editor above, it can appear biased because of the parts of the letter that are described in the article. I feel that the best way to handle this is to not go into any specific parts of the letter in the article. This way, people can just read the letter for themselves if they want to see each point that Ahmadinejad made.

You wrote some good stuff, though, in the main article when you replaced my summary. I'm going to make the edits to your text, keeping these pieces, but removing the parts specifically discussing the letter. As you can see above, I tried to write something that would treat each section of the letter fairly, but it became way too long for an article about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I will leave an edit summary this time, pointing to this section of the talk page. I hope that you consider my edits to be fair. Thanks! Vir4030 19:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I also left in the comment about "In the letter, he also claims that Iran condemns all terrorism, though many consider Iran to be the world's leading state supporter of terrorism." It's relevant to the US-Iran relations section, and is well-sourced. I did remove the MSNBC citation, because it's an article about the letter, and we've already cited the letter. I also apologize again for my relative newbieness and not being more clear in the edit summary. Vir4030 19:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Good catch

I don't speak Persian, so I won't label it vandalism, but this was a good catch. Without any translation, Persian sources shouldn't count as sources on en.wikipedia.org. Thanks. Ufwuct 04:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was a good catch. The only comment I want to make is that there seem to be a lot of Persian sources which discuss Ahmadinejad's internal policies. I'm not sure there are many of these that are in English. I have been trying to clean this up, but it's difficult when you don't speak Persian. I have been very actively trying to recruit a Persian-speaking editor to verify these sources, and until then we have the {{citecheck}} tag in place that Avi requested. So hopefully we can resolve these issues shortly.

Also, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability, there is no restriction to not use foreign-language sources. It does clearly state that they should not be used when English-language sources are available. If there is a policy that says blanketly we should not use Persian sources, please post a link. Vir4030 19:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad and UNSC Veto

The text currently seems to imply that Ahmadinejad has a veto on the UNSC; As best as I can tell, he does not.

Can someone either correct the text or otherwise enlighten me?

update-- you know, I just checked the text again, and it flatly doesn't make sense. It refers to "the same interview," although no interview has been mentioned in that section. HELP!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.199.29.178 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

It looks like this got mangled on November 4th by 70.28.116.167. I restored the affected text to the 5 Nov 2006 00:13 edition of the page. Thanks for pointing this out! Vir4030 23:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear that who is his father because he has told in an interview with the Mehr news agency that his father has been died in 1992 but an intensive news and reports of his father's death in 2006 has been reported recently! you can find some alternative about this paradox at this address[1] in persian.

No mention of terrorism support

Since Iran supports Hezbollah and other terrorist groups, and Amhdinejad has denied supporting terrorism, why is this omitted?Decato 21:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably because conclusive evidence is lacking. MeteorMaker 08:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I can quote any number of sources: NY Times,Fox News, BBC etc. Any objections if I put this in the article?Decato 10:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If you bring reliable and verifiable sources, there should be no problem. -- Avi 15:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, only a handful of countries consider Hezbollah as a terrorist group and unsurprisingly it's the usual suspects (US, UK, Netherlands, Australia). Anyone even remotely connected to Lebanon knows that Hezbollah is a grassroot organization whom the Lebanese elite (the quality people in the words of a famous Maronite) in concert with the media tries to demonize. So, I'll object to the fallacy/bias of your statement. Lixy 11:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is mentioned in the article under United States-Iran relations: "In the letter, he also claims that Iran condemns all terrorism, though many in the United States consider Iran to be the world's leading state supporter of terrorism." Then there are three cites. This is the section talking about the letter he sent last week to the American People where he denied supporting terrorism. It looks like these same three sources are also cited in the Iran article where it says: "Today Iran is regarded by the US to be the world's leading state supporter of terrorism." There is also a rather large article on United States-Iran relations where this information is presented. I'm not sure it's appropriate to have a whole section on the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad page about Iran's support of terrorism, but I think it would fit on either of the other two pages. Vir4030 15:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Does Iran consider the United States to be a sponsor of terrorism? - Francis Tyers · 15:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Freely admiting my own bias, I think there is a major difference between the U.S and Iran. Iran isa despotic theocracy where women and other religions do not have equal rights. The U.S is one of greatest democracies in the history of the world.71.233.211.201 19:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with having your opinions. However, please note that this talk page is only for the discussion of ways in which to improve this article and to resolve disputes regarding article content, not to espouse opinions regarding the subject of the article or other items. --Strothra 19:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

On the paper, I'd totally agree with you. However, the essence of the US system could be summarized by "live and let die". This immobility of the American people (who are too busy making a buck) to act and change the way the government is spending THEIR money is why the "greatest democracy" is going down the drain. Lixy 11:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I was just responding to user f-m-t comment which seems to put moral equivilency between Iran and the U.S.Decato 21:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Go an add terrorist support to George Bush's page. --Halaqah 19:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a Bush page and looking at the terrorist orginizations listed on the wikipedia page, The U.S does not support any of them. Why is it so hard to call someone a terrorist supporter on this site? Decato 23:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes because the Def of terrorim is a POV, so to call someone a supporter of terrorism is a POV. Since most people in the World see america as a terrorist government. DONT THE USA SUPPORT THE IRA? KKK is another terrorist organization in America, why cant Ethiopia or Ghana invade America to clense America of this terror threat? the debate is about world view and in the eyes of most the Bush Administration is a terrorist system which has destroyed more lives than all of those listed as being terrorist--Halaqah 23:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

flag and anthem dont make u clean of the def of terrorism u know. --Halaqah 23:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The US does not support the IRA. In fact, it has worked for many decades to disarm the IRA. Remember, the US and the UK have had a close and cordial relationship for many many years. Support for the IRA would damage that. Also, that accusation is off-topic; please restrict comments to those which pertain to the content of the article. --Strothra 23:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

so why are you breaking your own rule? Yeah what they do on the surface is one thing, dont be so simplistic in observing global politics. read history of Palestine and see what the British Did. So No one, absolutly no one (no one) in the USA supports the IRA, i'll take your word for it.--Halaqah 23:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The question when I started this thread was Iran's President support of terrorists groups. Not Britain, not U.S. Most of the world that have access to unbiased news sources may criticize the U.S but no rational personal can say they support terroirsm. As Iran has said Israel should be wiped off the map they do.71.233.211.201 01:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

listen can the convo now, okay this is wikipedia add something constructive and move on. didnt the us wipe vietnam off the face of the earth, didnt they wipe iraq off the face of the earth? didnt the wipe Japan off the face of the Earth? So what if he wants to do that with Israel, they are enemies. I am sure Israel would love to "wipe them out 2"--gee wiz. Why is it such a big deal? or cant u say anything bad against good old israel? the issue is about balance, world view and POV, what you think is an opinion "no rational person", go and read the def of terrorism and then go and c what most of the non-align newspapers are saying. again this is wikipedia and it rep a world view not an american view of the world. how many times did John Pilger say the US supported/s IRA terrorism. "no rational person" U must be God speaking.--Halaqah 02:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"More terrorists are given training and sanctuary in the United States than anywhere on earth. They include mass murderers, torturers, former and future tyrants and assorted international criminals. This is virtually unknown to the American public, thanks to the freest media on earth."[4]-John Pilger

cordial relationship? UK and US or G Bush and T Blair? American been killing British troops and they dont even go to trial, cordial?--Halaqah 02:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The Arab/Muslim world as a whole considers the US to be a sponsor of terrorism. If the 1986 verdict from the international court of justice is of any relevance, the world considers the US to sponsor terrorists. Opinions on the issue may diverge, but history and evidence shows that the US can more verifiably be labelled as supporting terror. Don't get me wrong, conservatives like Mahmoud are not the best thing for Iran but there is a blatant double standard around here that needs to be denouced and if possible, stopped.Lixy 11:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear that who is his father because he has told in an interview with the Mehr news agency that his father has been died in 1992 but an intensive news and reports of his father's death in 2006 has been reported recently! you can find some alternative about this paradox at this address[2] in persian.

Citations

I cleaned up a lot of citations on the page. If someone could help with the Cabinet section, that would be great. Also, we still need someone to verify the Farsi links -- I've had no luck finding anyone. If anyone has any Farsi-reading friends they could recruit, that would be fantastic. Vir4030 18:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Could we please use Persian as oppose to Farsi? It's like saying I speak Francoise instead of French. Anyway, I have added some info and cleaned his Intelligence Minister. Will try to do the same for the rest of them. user:Takinson 7:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic people

Despite the fact that I generally disagree with its existence, with David Duke invited to speak at a conference in Iran questioning the Holocaust I'm beginning to think that the usage of Category:Anti-Semitic people on this article might indeed be warranted. (→Netscott) 04:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that counters this thinking is the fact that Rabbis from Neturei Karta were also in attendance at this conference. (→Netscott) 05:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And the fact that he doesn't hate Jews or want to see them exterminated. Thats another thing that might have a bearing on the inclusion. - Francis Tyers · 08:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Francis Tyers, in your point of view does a person denying the holocaust not qualify as antisemitic? (→Netscott) 08:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There's an article about this convention now: International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust. (→Netscott) 09:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad is not anti-semitic, he is anti-Zionist. There is a huge difference between being against Israel and being against Jews. There are plenty of Orthodox and Hassidic Jews who hate Israel and Zionism. Infact, Ahmadinejad met alot of them in New York, they wished him luck. There is a huge confusion going on, with people attempting to slam anyone speaking out against Zionism, as "anti-semites". I don't think Ahmadinejad belongs in the anti-semite section simply because he speaks out against Zionism. He never said he wanted Israel wiped off the map either, theres no words in Farsi to say that. He said he wanted Israel 'removed from the pages of history', and not in terms of war which is proven in this section Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. Haramzadi 09:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Haramzadi, in your point of view does a person denying the holocaust not qualify as antisemitic? (→Netscott) 09:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Netscott -- Denying the holocaust can be anti-Semitic, and it may not be anti-Semitic. The two are linked, but not necessarily causative. For example, I can imagine someone who accepts the holocaust and is anti-Semitic, and someone who denies the holocaust and is not anti-Semitic. Going from the available evidence, I think that Ahmadinejad is not anti-Semitic, I have no opinion one way or another on the holocaust denial issue. - Francis Tyers · 10:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Francis Tyers, not even Neturei Karta is denying the holocaust... their contention is that the history of it is being abused in its use as a political tool. (→Netscott) 10:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean you've never heard some fascist anti-Semitic asshole say something like "The problem with the Nazi's is that they didn't finish the job?" — accepting the Holocaust, yet lamenting that more Jews didn't die? - Francis Tyers · 10:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually you're clouding the discussion. I'm specifically talking about the act of denying the Holocaust (I think even going so far as to question the veracity of it even occurring) as being antisemitic. (→Netscott) 10:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It isn't anti-Semitic any more than it is anti-Roma, anti-Communist, anti-Homosexual, anti-Serb, Polonophobic, anti-Socialist, etc. One might say that it is anti-Human, do we have a category for Anti-Human people? I'm sure he dislikes homosexuals much more than he dislikes Jews, after all, hasn't he ordered homosexuals to be killed? Not so for Jews. Do we have a Category for "anti-Homosexual people"? No. You cannot conflate with such certain ease, anti-Semitism & Holocaust denial. - Francis Tyers · 10:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting) That argument may be a little disingenuous, Francis, as most people denying the Holocaust do so in spec ific reference to the Jews. -- Avi 12:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Avi -- there are indeed anti-Semites, and there are indeed people who are really upset about Israel, and sometimes those circles do indeed overlap. But to say that holocaust denial, in and of itself, is inherently anti-Semitic (and not, for instance, anti-gay or anti-Roma), seems deeply problematic to me. Holocaust denial is certainly bullshit, of course, and it is doubtless a tool of anti-Semites. But an encyclopedia does not have the right, I think, to ascribe particular motives to intellectual lapses or even mass delusions.

For instance: It seems clear that the idiots in Iran are convening a debate club meant to undercut the political and moral reasoning behind the creation of the Israeli nation-state. It seems clear to me, too, that some of them hold a fierce prejudice against any and all Jews. Someone within that band of idiots who specifically expresses hatred for Jews as a people could (and should) certainly be described, individually, as anti-Semitic, if we've got a notable source confirming the statements. But to declare the entire band of idiots (or any other band of idiots gathered for a similar purpose) "Anti-Semitic" by definition seems to me unencyclopedic, because doing so would equate a political position (opposition to Zionism) with a religious prejudice against all Jews, even those Jews who oppose Zionism. I don't believe that's what's going on here. BYT 13:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadnejad's comments at the conference is summarized by Yahoo at [3] - including "Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out." I'd say the category is clearly deserved. Simesa 19:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he said that, but if you had actually researched the fall of the Soviet Union you would see that corruption and bad decisions (Afghanistan etc.) caused it to be wiped out - not any intervention from outside forces (Although the U.S did have a minimal part to play at pushing it over the edge while it was already teteering).

Also, I'd just like to point out that he said 'Zionist regime', as you yourself have quoted. How can that be Anti-Semitic? Personally I am against the idea of Israel and the ideals of Zionism in general, yet I have many friends who are Jewish, and I have no dislike for Jews as a race/religion at all. Kytok 20:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

So people who wanted to see the Soviet Union fall hated Communists or Russians? - Francis Tyers · 19:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

We've been through this all before. There is consensus that MA is an anti-zionist. There is no consensus that he is anti-semitic, nor is there a consensus that anti-zionism automatically means anti-semitism. The last time we had the discussion, we did get consensus to include the page in the "antisemitism" category, and that is what the page is like now. I doubt that we will get consensus for "Anti-Semitic People" unless MA comes straight out and says "I hate the Jews". The other thing is that this will all be more clear once he's dead and we're able to review his life as a whole. At that point, I think it will be much easier to label him anti-semitic if all of his acts collectively warrant it. In the meantime, we have to follow WP:BOLP, which says that we can't label him an anti-semite unless there's clear-cut evidence, which naturally he's not going to provide, whether he is or not. So it seems like something we're just going to have to live with. Vir4030 19:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree, although the Anti-Semitism category is also inappropriate, it is less inappropriate than the Anti-Semitic people category — I suppose mistakes happen in achieving consensus :) I wholeheartedly agree that, providing he remains notable enough, the situation will become much easier once he is dead. - Francis Tyers · 01:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Lol, yep...a consensus is always a mistake when you disagree with it

. Anyway, just to clear things up, there isn't really a consensus to keep the anti-semitism category on this page (the result was 11 votes to 10, which does not a consensus make)...I guess we can't have a "mistaken" consensus if there is no consensus to begin with

. Markovich292 05:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we don't have a consensus, why is the Category still in the article. If it truely is 11/10. There is no reason for it being so. - Francis Tyers · 10:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Shortly before my last message, the anti-semitism category had been removed...only to be replaced by "anti-semitic people" of all things! Anyway, I removed that, and within 20 minutes Jayjg added back Category:Antisemitism. Since the material that deals with allegations of antisemitism was moved to Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I totally agree that there is no reason for the category on this page (which is also why I imagine there is no consensus to keep the category)...I will remove it now. Markovich292 03:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This article also briefly discusses antisemitism as well, as well it should; when the U.S. Senate, and dozens of other sources, describe you as an antisemite, and when we have Ahmadinejad defending himself against the accusation twice in the article, it should at least be noted. The category is simply about articles that discuss the issue of antisemitism, not a listing of individuals who are antisemites, as the category itself makes clear. Any further removals of this category will be dealt with as vandalism. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, the man is a virulent anti-Semite and Jew-hater who would give Hezbollah nukes to wipe every single inhabitant of Israel if he was able to. I've seen people calling G.W. Bush Hitler again and again, and those very same people ignore the horrifying threat that this man poses. Are we back in 1933 when the world didn't give a damn? I'd like to ask all of you what you would say when Ahmadinejad finally is able to make an attempt at pushing all the Jews into the ocean. Would that satisfy any lingering doubts as to whether this zealot is a Jew-hater or not? Let's not try to engage in whitewashing here. It's indefensible. metaspheres 10:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticizing the State of Israel is NOT Anti-Semitism

No, but calling for it to be "wiped off the map" certainly is.

Phil Murray

72.16.201.2 18:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is the point of the discussion. In Western thought there is a separation between Religion and State. Yet, Israel itself calls anyone that criticizes their practices as anti-semitic. Now, whatever our POV towards Ahmadinejad is, his arguement is politically motivated towards a STATE, rather than racially towards the good Jewish community.

70.55.238.80 18:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

True, but unless I'm mistaken Holocaust denial is a recognized form of antisemitism. (→Netscott) 19:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see how an individual denying the Holocaust makes him an anti-semite. I would not label an individual who denied 9/11 or the attacks on Pearl Harbor, anti-American. Just delusional. Indeed, Mr. Ahmadinejad has a warped sense of history but that, in of itself, doesn't make him hateful. And, in all fairness, I believe Mr. Ahmadinejad has said repeatedly he does not hate Jews. I think it was in the Mike Wallace interview. Winter Light 02:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think such a horrendous denial of the holocaust is fundamentally anti-semitic whether he hates individual Jews or not.

I also think that denying the attacks of 9/11 is fundamentally anti-American because it presupposes that American is so corrupt that it would fabricate an attack on itself. Such a degree of corruption as this describes would be so profound as to impugne our national character to a degree that is bigoted and therefore anti-American.

Phil

72.16.201.2 18:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"Zionist Regime" as not representative of all Jews

"I love the jews." -- Mahmoud Ahmadenijad

There is a clear seperation here.... not only is the "Zionist regime" not exclusive to only Jews (that would be racist apartheid), but not ALL Jews live in "Israel", support "Israel", or even have anything to do with it. Sarastro777 17:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I love chicken, but that is a very particular kind of love if you think about it. If the Iranian president 'loves Jews', what kind of love is he talking about?

Phil Murray

72.16.201.2 19:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a great deal of "racist apartheid" going on in Israel. When more than two thirds of Israeli Jews claim they won't live in the same building as an Arab, there's no other word to describe it than blatant racism. It is getting institutionalized now with the nomination of Leiberman as minister of strategic threats. Lixy 16:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

And what does this have to do with the legitimacy of Almadenijad wanting to "wipe Israel off the map"...?

72.16.201.2 19:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wipe Israel off Map (Revisited)

Sorry for bringing this matter up again, but the following may be of interest. Curiously, the Bible has almost the very lines which the President of Iran used with reference to "Wiping Israel off the Map". It is Psalm 83. I am sure the President of Iran is not a believer of the Bible, nor probably has an interest in the Bible, but it is a curious coincidence that what the Iranian President is proposing had been written many thousands of years ago by Asaph, a prophet, probably under the great King David of Israel. Here is the full text: GlenninBerlin

Psalm 83 0: A Song. A Psalm of Asaph. 1: O God, do not keep silence; do not hold thy peace or be still, O God! 2: For lo, thy enemies are in tumult; those who hate thee have raised their heads. 3: They lay crafty plans against thy people; they consult together against thy protected ones. 4: They say, "Come, let us wipe them out as a nation; let the name of Israel be remembered no more!" 5: Yea, they conspire with one accord; against thee they make a covenant -- 6: the tents of Edom and the Ish'maelites, Moab and the Hagrites, 7: Gebal and Ammon and Am'alek, Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre; 8: Assyria also has joined them; they are the strong arm of the children of Lot. [Selah] 9: Do to them as thou didst to Mid'ian, as to Sis'era and Jabin at the river Kishon, 10: who were destroyed at En-dor, who became dung for the ground. 11: Make their nobles like Oreb and Zeeb, all their princes like Zebah and Zalmun'na, 12: who said, "Let us take possession for ourselves of the pastures of God." 13: O my God, make them like whirling dust, like chaff before the wind. 14: As fire consumes the forest, as the flame sets the mountains ablaze, 15: so do thou pursue them with thy tempest and terrify them with thy hurricane! 16: Fill their faces with shame, that they may seek thy name, O LORD. 17: Let them be put to shame and dismayed for ever; let them perish in disgrace. 18: Let them know that thou alone, whose name is the LORD, art the Most High over all the earth.

And how does this specifically relate to improving the article? I'd suggest perusing the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines if you haven't already. (→Netscott) 19:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How? It places Mr. Ahmadinejad in a long line of people who have wished that Israel be "wiped off the map". So, the article should include a reference to the fact that he is reiterating a wish/desire/goal/whatever that has been expressed many times before, including a more well known case during the middle of the 20th century. GlenninBerlin

*rolls eyes* {220.236.217.139 13:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)}

Wrong, Glenn, it places Mr. Ahmadinejad in a long line of people who have been unverifyably claimed to have wished Israel "wiped off the map". Your Bible quote was in fact written by the Israelites themselves. MeteorMaker 15:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the misleading phrase "When asked point-blank by 60 Minutes's Mike Wallace, Ahmadinejad made no denial of the statement". It sounds like he said, "Well, Mike, I can't deny that", while in reality the question was interjected in a discussion about Iran's nuclear ambitions, put on hold by Mr Ahmadinejad and never brought up again by the interviewer (full transcript here: [4]). MeteorMaker 16:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I also removed the line "in [the interview, he] suggested that Israel should be relocated to Europe", since, according to the transcript, he did not, only raised the question why the Palestinians should pay for crimes committed on another continent. MeteorMaker 16:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The sentence you added, However, like many of Mr Ahmadinejad's critics, he has overlooked the fact that the unabridged statement expresses a desire to see the "occupying regime" in Israel become history like the Soviet empire, Saddam Hussein and the Shah regime. is one of the more obvious instances of original research I've seen in a while. Original research is forbidden on Wikipedia; you can't add your own opinions and arguments to articles, but must simply quote what reliable sources have to say on the matter. If a reliable source makes this argument, that's fine, but you can't make the argument. Please carefully review both WP:NOR and WP:V before editing again. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hardly original research, the full transcript of the speech [5] has been available on the Web since day one. Ahmadinejad very clearly expresses a desire to see the occupying regime in Israel become history like the Soviet empire, Saddam Hussein and the Shah regime, and his critics who prefer to believe he's out to destroy Israel consistently fail to take that context into account. I have added a reference to a US professor, Virginia Tilley, if some scholarly backing of that obvious fact makes the medicine go down.

Moreover, this context is not a matter of translation or interpretation of words, and is not disputed (only suppressed), which is why it doesn't belong with the sentence "The translation of his statement has been disputed".

I also noticed you have put back the phrase "in [the interview, he] suggested that Israel should be relocated to Europe", which isn't entirely advisable, since, according to the actual transcript [6], he in fact says the exact opposite. Also, as I said before, the phrase "When asked point-blank by 60 Minutes's Mike Wallace, Ahmadinejad made no denial of the statement ["Israel must be wiped off the map"]" is clearly misleading and has to go, especially since he has officially stated that the translation is wrong. Furthermore, the paraphrasing of the interview contains factual errors and shows clear anti-Ahmadinejad bias. I have reverted it to the corrected NPOV version of yesterday. MeteorMaker 10:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

MeteorMaker, I actually reverted this back about 30 minutes before you did, but I also changed the citation back to using the official 60 minutes site. That site has the video of the entire interview, so I think in this case it's better to use than the typepad page, which is a blog. It's just a slight detail of having the best citation available -- in this case the original source. So I made this change to the text to restore the 60 minutes citation. My objection to the previous text was that most of it was about what Mike Wallace pressed MA on, rather than what MA actually said which should be the focus.

Thanks, Vir, after I made the revert I noticed you had already done it. I agree the original video is a better source, but for those without the time to sit through it, would it be possible to keep the transcript link as well? MeteorMaker 17:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'm the right person to ask about this. My problem with the transcript link is that it's from a blog, which by definitition isn't a reliable source. I would say that as long as you keep the 60 minutes link, too, there shouldn't be a problem adding in the link to the written transcript. Just make sure that it is an accurate transcript. Vir4030 19:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I would encourage you to try to avoid the tone expressed in your words, "if some scholarly backing of that obvious fact makes the medicine go down." This seems a violation of WP:Civility. I've seen the editing community for this article in a pretty heated state, and I'm rather enjoying the fact that things seem more calm and stable now. Just stick to the facts -- they speak for themselves. Vir4030 16:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was in affect after having been accused of posting original research and having all edits reverted, even those not pertaining to that alleged original research - neither of which felt justified. Apologies to Jayjg and anybody else I may have offended. MeteorMaker 17:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

MeteorMaker, to begin with, the opinion expressed was completely unsourced, and therefore constituted original research. In addition, I'm pretty sure Tilley was once an associate professor at a minor American college with a student body of under 2,000, one which doesn't even grant doctorates. She no longer holds that position, nor did she when she published that polemic in that non-reliable source. In addition, this is the summary of the main article, so the material, if it belongs anywhere, belongs in that article not this one. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, I saw your edits, and I don't have a problem with them, but I wonder about the statement: "Later on in the interview, Ahmadinejad, referring to the Holocaust, raised the question why the Palestinians should pay for crimes committed on another continent." This seems notable to me, in that Ahmadinejad is making clear his position on the Holocaust, especially as it is used as a justification for the creation of the state of Israel. Maybe if it were worded a bit better, would it be acceptable? Vir4030 19:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad can backpedal all he wants now, but the section is regarding his statements about Israel, and the only reason it was included in that section was to try to excuse Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial. Was the statement widely quoted, likely the other things Ahmadinejad has said? If it was, then find reliable secondary sources referring to it. If not, then it's just cherry-picking to try to make an argument. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"He was widely condemned for saying that Israel "must be wiped off the map" Accurate: He was widely condemned for reportedly saying that Israel "must be wiped off the map" A few paragraphs down the page the reader is told that some of the translations to english are disputed. Cant have it both ways.

"According to widely published translations, he agreed with a statement he attributed to Ayatollah Khomeini that the "occupying regime" had to be removed, and referred to it as a "disgraceful stain [on] the Islamic world" that must be "wiped off the map" Weaselworded. The only translation linked to (is this the widely published translation?) has him saying that Khomeinis original statement contained wisdom. Leaving aside the entire meaning of az safheh - ye ruzgar the above paragraph cleverly attributes the origin of statement to Ahmadinejad. A direct quote would be more useful, and accurate. Accurate?: Nazila Fathi translation: "Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement." It also might be worth mentioning that Ahmadinejad is often attributed with a double misquote: "Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth"

"The translation of his statement has been disputed". Which translation is disputed? The MEMRI one? Fathi's? Coles? Who disputes the translation? Bronner claims knowledge of 'official translations'and a description on the .ir website; this one?. As of today this is the only text of the speech at the official site [7]. Currently not linked to. Bronner doesnt bother to give any links either. Why is his account so heavily relied on?

Finally, article claims the speech was given on 10/23, the actual date was 10/26. Funny how a basic detail like the speech date is a nonissue, but ensuring that the waters are muddy on the quote isnt :)

I have fixed the date. The big problem is that this is an English Wikipedia, and a vast majority of users aren't going to read Farsi. In this case, there are many sources talking about this speech written in English, and it is very common for these sources to use the quote "wiped off the map". Furthermore, this is the translation that brought massive condemnation from the Western World. To not credit him with this statement would be a fallacy, and would be completely ignoring reality. This is why we treat it the way we do. We're saying that he said it, but we're also providing the other point of view.

Do you have some suggestions of how you would rewrite the text to make it more accurate? Vir4030 18:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead of direct translations every source seems to use their interpretation of what was said. Maybe including the exact words and a direct translation in the artical can help by giving a starting point to compare the various interpretive translations with.

The words used by Ahmadinejad were "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." The direct translation from Farsi to English is: Imam (Imam "meaning Khomeini") ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

Sahneh ruzgar (from scene of time) has historically been translated by western media as meaning "map" and it's possible this might have been confused with Ahmadinejad's similar sounding words "safheh-ye ruzgar"? Wayne 07:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The article should mention that it is not only the "wiped off the map" aspect that is disputed, but also that the words refer to the "regime occupying Jerusalem" which can be taken to mean he is opposed to the occupation of Jerusalem, a city holy to Muslims, as opposed to being opposed to the existence of Israel. I also agree with the person above that the word "reportedly" should be used to qualify the inaccurate or at least disputed characterization of his comments. Shnng 20:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is one or two persons who don't want to accept the general consensus about the dispute.--Gerash77 01:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg & Holocaust Denial Conference

You do not make an attempt to refute the notion that people who read about the conference can decide for themselves if "Holocaust Denial" describes it. While I praise your ability to find no more than 15 references that also describe it as a Holocaust Denial Conference, they are alike, and not necessarily neutral just because they are references. Have you considered that the people who set up the conferences did not describe it as a "Holocaust Denial" conference, and that some attendees are not Holocaust deniers? Some sources also mention this; I suspect that the description as a Holocaust Denial conference may simply be the opinion of those who authored the reports.

In any case, it does reflect a POV to state it as a Holocaust Denial conference in that way. If it is so obvious, people should be able to simply click and read the article about the conference, which I believe is convincing enough, and has an excellent quote-based approach. Again, I see where you are coming from, as the conference had an unbelievable amount of Holocaust Deniers at it. However, it doesn't seem right to have a POV-ish statement here, and it is not necessary anyway, since people can read about hte conference.

Perhaps, a more neutral statement can be be afforded, representing that while the creators of the conference purport it as being neutral, numerous sources have concluded that it was made to promote Holocaust Denial. Or a similar statement. While I am glad that you did better than "let's call a spade a spade", I don't feel you addressed the fundamental issue I had with the wording. Why are you so adamant about using that description here anyway? Let people decide based off of the conference page. The Behnam 19:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Not only is it a fact that it is a Holocaust Denial conference, but numerous reliable sources have described this as a Holocaust Denial conference; I can find many more sources than that, so the statement meets Wikipedia's verifiability and WP:NOR requirements. Not only that, but this is, in fact, the mainstream view of the conference, that it is a Holocaust Denial conference, so the description meets Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy as well. Thus this description meet Wikipedia's 3 main content policies. The fact that some attendees may not be Holocaust Deniers is neither here nor there; the conference itself is about Holocaust Denial, even if some of the attendees might not specifically deny the Holocaust. It certainly isn't being attended by any legitimate historians of the Holocaust, or indeed, of anything else. Readers, of course, can still click on the link and decide for themselves if it's really about Holocaust Denial, so they have lost nothing. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I already acknowledged that you have a lot of similar sources in support of your view. I don't know what you mean by "is neither here nor there"; if you are saying that news sources do not mention the presence of people who do not deny the Holocaust, you are gravely mistaken. Or at least just mistaken. You do not address why this description added, as you acknowledge that people can read the main article anyway. So what purpose does your "denial" description serve? Do they need to know that it is about "Holocaust Denial" before they click? Is this somehow necessary? You fail to give a good reason for this.

Also, while your numerous similar sources all press the same view (a Holocaust Denial conference versus a Holocaust conference), they do not establish that this description is more than just the opinion of those writing, or the opinion of select outsiders. I think that the main article discusses this well and focuses on quotes. The quotes say a lot, and as long as they are not misquotes, can be indisputably tied to their speakers.

While I acknowledge that by amassing a ton of similar stances in various news reports you can establish the "mainstream" by Wikipedia's rules(perhaps a flaw), I hope you realize how the authority of such references compares to direct quotes. Of course, these quotes go on the conference page. But your description just predisposes readers to its POV, however mainstream you may argue it to be, and hence may keep the viewpoint mainstream. There is no guarantee that they will click to go to the main article.

As you acknowledge that people can click to find out anyway, your description is not necessary. While I mostly agree with your description (I believe the conference had a few other purposes as well, not relating to the actual Holocaust), it seems unfair to place such a description here. I hope you will respond to my main points. Thanks! The Behnam 22:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The people at this conference are not qualified to research the Holocaust, since none of them are experts in the subject. At best they are Holocaust deniers, so the conference certainly cannot be about the Holocaust, but only about Holocaust denial. The "denial" description serves the purpose of accurately describing the conference, per many reliable sources. And I'm not sure what you mean by "numerous similar sources"; just because sources agree on simple fact, that does not make them "similar". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Again, I don't know if the description truly fits without being POV, since there were some participants who were not denying the Holocaust (some of the Jewish ones, if I remember correctly). But you have admitted that people can click anyway, so the description is not necessary (as you say, "so they have lost nothing"). In your next response, I hope you tell me why it IS necessary, and how your explanation reconciles with your statements. Hope to hear from you. The Behnam 22:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't stated that the description isn't necessary; on the contrary, it is a factual and accurate description of the conference, and supported by WP:V. It doesn't really matter whether or not "there were some participants who were not denying the Holocaust", since the description is of the conference itself, not the beliefs of every single participant. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Your "on the contrary" does not relate to your description not being necessary, so I do not see how it refutes it, or is contrary to it. You have already established that many of your sources support the description you wish to add, and I have agreed that it is their line. But by saying "Readers, of course, can still click on the link and decide for themselves if it's really about Holocaust Denial, so they have lost nothing", you show that the description serves no real purpose, since they can simply go to the page to learn about the conference. There is no need to include it, especially considering that the article about the conference provides a much more detailed description of the conference, with many views taken into account. What do you have against removing the description? You admit that readers can just go to the page to "decide for themselves". By saying this, are you implying that your description is supposed to decide for them? In sum, based on my statement and your statement, readers can just go to the page to decide for themselves whether or not it is a "Holocaust Denial conference". It seems best, for something like Wikipedia which is supposed to be neutral, to have readers decide for themselves instead of something else deciding for them. The description is unnecessary. Please take all of this account, and I look forward to your response. Thank you. The Behnam 03:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, while this isn't my main point, I cannot help but note that your 15 verifying sources are not very good. I looked at that them, and found very few references to "denial conference". The closest most sources got was in describing the conference as a gathering of Holocaust deniers and/or skeptics, which doesn't justify your statement, since your statement regards the essence and purpose of the conference itself. Here is my analysis:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-iran13dec13,0,2528243.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail

This editorial uses the phrase "denial conference".

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/12/europe/EU_GEN_Europe_Holocaust_Denial.php?page=1

Does state outright, but mentions "denial conference" in light of Deborah Lipstadt's analysis.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=auGTWx2QrILM&refer=home

Bloomberg link dead.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-holocaust13dec13,1,5920414.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true

Link required registration, so inconclusive.

Only two use your description, "denial conference". One is an editorial, and the other hardly can be described as the direct conclusion of an in-depth analysis. This weak sourcing, together with other comments suggesting thatyour preferred description may be POV, suggests that it may be best to not include your description. Such a suggestion is only made stronger by the fact that the description is, per both of our statements, unnecessary. I think it is best that you remove the "denial" description. Hope to hear from you. The Behnam 02:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Behnam for putting the issue at hand so clearly. Obviously your suggestions are standard, but Jayjg will typically call this type of objective approach "original research" so as to red herring his way out of the discussion while leaving the POV edits. Sarastro777 04:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil and avoid personal attacks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the support, but do give Jayjg a chance to explain himself. He hasn't called it OR yet, and I do not see how he could on this matter. I don't think there was a personal attack, but maybe some incivility because of "typically". Everybody stay calm. The Behnam 22:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Pejorative speculations about what an editor might or might not "typically call this" are undoubtedly a violation of WP:CIV; I sincerely hope Sratro777 abandons this kind of indefensible breach of policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it speculation considering: [[8]] [[9]] [[10]]. BUT that is not really the point of the discussion... I was merely trying to keep you on topic as you have had trouble doing here and in the previous examples cited. Please address the issue. Thanks. Sarastro777 05:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, please avoid violations of WP:CIVIL, and please use the Talk: page for its intended purpose. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The sentence in the Holocaust denial and accusations of antisemitism section is incorrect. It says that Ahmadinejad "hosted" the conference. I have checked numerous sources and found that most of them, while talking about the conference and even quoting Ahmadinejad, do not say that he hosted the conference. In fact, several of them say that he "called for" or "initiated" the conference, or that the conference was called "at the behest of" Ahmadinejad. Once source even says that it was "inspired by" him. UPI said that the conference was organized by the Iranian Institute for Political and International Studies, which is overseen by the Iranian Foreign Ministry.

Additionally, it's not our place to call this conference a "Holocaust Denial" conference in the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad article. This information should at least be in the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust page, which it's not.

Because of this, I am removing the sentence from the article. I have added the quotes from Ahmadinejad to the previous section, "Anti-Israel Statements". If we can find a dated source showing when and how he called for this conference, I would invite editors to add this information to the "Holocaust denial and accusations of antisemitism" section. Vir4030 21:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A huge part of the outrage at Ahmajinedad's Holocaust denial related to this conference which he initiated; every single source on it mentions him as well. Whitewashes won't wash here. I'll fix the wording, per your note. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I deny that I'm whitewashing anything, I just want to get the article right. For some reason you seem really keen to get the Holocaust Denial Conference phrase in there, which I don't really understand. International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust doesn't call it that. I also looked through the fifteen sources cited for this phrase, and only two of them actually use the phrase "Holocaust Denial" to describe the conference, and both of those in jest. The LA Times article is an editorial which says "What's the perfect way to top off a Holocaust denial conference featuring input from the likes of such scholars as former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke? Why, calling for Israel's obliteration, of course." The Independent calls it this, in the title of the article, "Revisionist fringe gathers for Iran's Holocaust denial jamboree." All of the other references to "Holocaust Denial" in the articles refer to it being illegal in the west, and not to the conference itself.

So, I removed this specific phrase from this sentence, and kept the rest. I found a CNN article which discusses the opening of the conference, mentions the condemnation, and mentions Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I still think there is a bit of original research in saying that he organized it, especially since the CNN article I found [11] which is dated January 15, 2006, when the conference was originally scheduled, doesn't state that MA actually organized it. I'd like to find an article around this time tying Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the call to organize this conferenc, but I haven't yet. (I distinctly remember reading this when it happened, though... but again, that's why I say there's a little bit of original research here. I didn't want to remove the sentence altogether, though, because I don't want to be accused of whitewashing again. I do believe that he organized the conference, and I definitely remember reading that, but I cannot find the source at the moment.

Maybe someone could lend a hand with this? Vir4030 15:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I found a link myself, at freerepublic.com. The news came from AKI. I linked this in. The only complaint I really have left is that some sections of this article read like a timeline rather than an encyclopedia article. This section, too, but not to the extent that other sections do. I'll leave that as a project for later. Vir4030 15:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Every single source there lists it as being either a Holocaust denial conference, or a conference for Holocaust deniers. I'm tired of mincing words about this. The denial of the Holocaust only started a few decades after the Holocaust, but the denial of Holocaust denial seems to happen simultaneously with the act. Must be our fast-paced world. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Only two of fifteen sources call it a Holocaust denial conference, both in jest. One of these is an editorial. This hardly qualifies us to stick this term into an article that isn't even about the conference, especially when the article that is about the conference doesn't say it. I have replaced our de-facto calling it a Holocaust Denial conference with a cited statement that Iran denies it is a holocaust denial conference. Since the organizers explicitly deny that it is such, we cannot say that it is without well-cited sources explicitly claiming that they are incorrect. Vir4030 17:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

These are all reliable sources, none are used in jest, and the ones that don't say it is a "Holocaust denial" conference describe it as a "meeting of Holocaust deniers", or various other similar phrases. I've retained your inclusion of Iran's denial of its denial, and re-worded to account for NPOV, but keep in mind it is rather absurd to have Iran denying it was hosting a Holocaust denial conference unless there were persistent allegations insisting it was doing just that. Also, please keep in mind that a contentious article like this always needs more references, not fewer; that's because various whitewashers keep showing up and trying to claim that Ahmadinejad never said what he said, or that it was only "a few" sources that said something, or only "Western" sources, or that the facts are not "well-cited". Any attempts to remove sources on spurious grounds (e.g. they are "extra") will be reverted out of hand. I've been down this road far too long with this article, and I know what is required to keep even the simplest fact that might be seen as mildly negative in it. Finally, the reason for the wording "approving the notion" is precisely to appease the whitewashers, who keep insisting "oh, he was just echoing the words of Khomeini". Yes, you and I both know it's nonsense, but regardless, I've kept it there to avoid the inevitable insertion of Khomeini in the lead, as if anyone really cares that Ahmadinejad blamed Khomeini for the idea. Not that it stops people from repeatedly inserting it anyway, but it's still an attempt to adhere to NPOV regardless of the inevitable POV-pushing. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, I think we've done some good work here. I still have some issues that I'd like to address, but they're not major and I will leave them for another day. Mainly, I still think those references in the intro need to be cleaned up, there should be references to other times that he called for Israel to be removed and the text should be adjusted appropriately. I also still think that the statement in the Holocaust denial section is incorrect, since it can't be widely described as a "Holocaust denial conference", since only two of fifteen sources called it that, and both of them in jest. I think it's totally fine to say that many speakers were known holocaust deniers, and I think there's plenty of source material for that.

I do want to thank you for going back and forth with me on this, and keeping the whole process civil. I really think that we improved the article today. Vir4030 20:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your give and take as well, and your reasonable tone. Regarding the source, you're right in a sense, they don't all use the exact phrase "Holocaust denial conference". However, they do use phrases like Tehran's gathering of Holocaust deniers, The conference for Holocaust deniers, meeting of holocaust deniers, meeting of Holocaust deniers in Iran, Holocaust deniers' meeting, meeting of Holocaust deniers in Iran, Holocaust deniers gather in Iran for 'scientific' conference, Iran's Holocaust denial jamboree, Tehran conference denying the existence of the Holocaust, etc. This is why I find analyses like The Behnam's hairsplitting at best, disingenuous at worst, and in addition, violations of WP:V - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Also, note that even though the phrases themselves are quoted, The Behnam immediately dismisses any link he considers to be "dead" or "requiring registration, so inconclusive" - do you see now why more sources are always required? Also, please note, we don't say it is a Holocaust denial conference, merely that it is widely described as that or as a meeting of Holocaust deniers. If I find even more sources referring to it in some way as a "Holocaust denial conference" or "meeting of Holocaust deniers", will that be enough? Or will there never be enough sources stating this before it becomes "widely described" in that way? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it unpleasant that you did not respond to me back when I posted. I apologize if you found my analysis "hairsplitting" or "disingenuous". I made it as only secondary, since I really wanted to address the necessity of this description based upon your comments and mine. However, you failed to respond, so I suppose it didn't work. I am not really sure how it ultimately differed from Vir4030's analysis. But thanks, for responding now, though I find your manner somewhat impolite. Truly, I think that it is best to not include the phrase, or at least not in the way it was back when I had originally posted. The current version seems more appropriate, though I do not know if you should say "widely described" for specific phrases that may not be the actual description. Also, I don't really dismiss the registration link, I said "inconclusive" because I simply could not reach a conclusion regarding its use of the phrase. I am sorry if this seemed a dismissal; I honestly did not intend to throw it out. I hope you can actually respond to the necessity-based arguments I made above, and I, again, hope to hear from you. Just out of curiosity, why are you very particular about using the phrase? I also do not get it. Thanks again! The Behnam 07:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The conference outraged much of the world precisely because it was a Holocaust denial conference; to try to hide that fact is to distort and dismiss one of the most important controversies surrounding Ahmadinejad. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that the approach is what's causing the problem. Rather than labelling the conference, which is contentuous, I think we should be focusing on the speakers. If we can say that the conference featured several/many known holocaust deniers as speakers, I think that's significantly more appropriate. Do we have a good source that's an overall review of the conference which would say summary type things like that? Vir4030 15:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The point that outraged the world was the purpose for which the conference was convened; the fact that the speakers were nearly all Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis was merely the means to the end. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why I was looking for sources from January 2006 when MA first called for the conference. I don't think he called it a Holocaust Denial conference then, either. But that is when he was most involved with it, aside from the speech he gave on the second day. This is confusing, too, by the way, since I've seen various sources say he gave the speech at the conference, or just during the conference, and sometimes "to conference delegates". It's really hard to get reliable consistent information about this stuff, it seems. Argh! :) But anyways, I think the answer may lie in news articles from that month. Vir4030 21:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the interim, I've added a half-dozen other sources which explicitly describe it as a "Holocaust denial conference", including the White House and the Council on American-Islamic relations. I can add a dozen more if you like. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I'm satisfied with the wording as it is now. The text says the conference was widely described as a "Holocaust denial conference" or a "meeting of Holocaust deniers", which is true. It is almost universally described as one of the two. I think my hangup is that the term "Holocaust denial conference" is mostly in editorials and not where people are held to being factually correct, but it is how people are describing it. So now the problem is - how can we keep it this way without having that huge list of sources? I'm concerned that someone will see the sources and think that it was someone trying to stick their POV into the article, and using a huge list of sources to "force it in", so to speak. So they remove the statement and declare it original research. I guess it would be great if we just had a CNN article about the conference that says that it was widely described as a "holocaust denial conference", huh? :) Vir4030 00:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

On normal articles I might agree, but, as I've said before, on contentious articles, especially any even remotely relating to Israel, one is always required to increase the number of references, not decrease, because inevitably someone will then start "analyzing" each reference and explain why it is not good for any number of dubious reasons (e.g. the author is incorrect, the source requires subscription, the link didn't work for me, etc.) I wish that weren't the case, but unfortunately it is. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The current wording seems NPOV enough to be acceptable, since it is not the blatant POV statement it was before. There is no reason to add more sources, and were it not for the better structure and wording used in the current version, the "force it in" perception would only be accurate on the part of the reader. It is fair to mention its consideration as a Holocaust Denial conference by a number of sources, just as it is fair to mention Iran's own stance. Hence, for this situation, it is most just to document what the array of articles say in relation to Iran's position without stating either view as "the truth", as was done previously. Please, take it easy. Thanks. The Behnam 03:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

2 rules on wikipedia, The conference was not called HOlocaust denial, it was an academic debate about the facts surrounding the Holocaust, which is illegal in some countries to have this discussion but not in Iran. Many Holocaust supporters where there, (we cannot debate if it was a meeting of Holocaust deniers unless you went through the list of guest) but we can write in Holocaust denial conference against the facts and its gets passed as fact. If you tell a lie on the millionth time it doesnt become truth (by Darwin or any other process), it stays a lie, if infactual material is duplicated 1 million times it doesnt become correct by virtue of volume.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 01:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean? :) Vir4030 04:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what it looks like, I'm afraid. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that HalaTruth is not helping much in the debate. Denying the Holocaust just gives more fuel to the Zionists&co. While studying the details of the tragedy might be regarded as tactless, there's no doubt that denying its very occurence is nothing but outragous. And by most interpretations, this is what HalaTruth just wrote. There goes the guy's credibility... Lixy 18:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The 2nd Section is about alleged involvement with Hostage Crisis

I don't see why this is here. Isn't the Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad article the correct location for these sort of assertions? The Behnam 19:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that having a separate page for these kinds of allegations is a bad idea. For one thing, when I first read the article, I did not even realize there was a separate page for controversies. This link is buried at the bottom of the page in the heading about Zionism. Furthermore, all of the other pages of prominent political figures I have read on wikipedia have at least some mention of their controversies on the main page. See the article on George W. Bush for an example of this. If we follow this kind of reasoning to extreme, we will end up with a expurgated version and unexpurgated version of every biography. Esbullin 13:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have provided the link in the Hostage Crisis section. The Behnam 02:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the controversies can be mentioned together in brief. I feel that this section is out of place, even if it is to stay in the article. It should go on the bottom near the Zionism-related section; perhaps they can share the controversies link. Hence, the controversies would be the main article, but an introduction can be provided here. Besides, the current writing in the section doesn't properly introduce the hostage controversy. The Behnam 02:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

KINGPIN

I noticed a very POV link in the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad box at the bottom of the page. There are several links, such as Missive to George Bush and Israel. The objectionable link is entitled Kingpin and links to Ali Khamenei. I believe this to be a blatant POV, casting Ali Khamenei as a crime boss and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a member of a criminal gang. This may be the opinion of some, but it is hardly encyclopedic. The Behnam 22:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the template from the page until somebody NPOV-izes the template itself. See Template: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if you are interested in helping. The Behnam 01:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

SOMEONE NUKED THE ARTICLE!!

So... any of u guys see the article lately? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.239.202.2 (talk) 03:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

He definetly has a point

When he says that instead of Palestine a territory in either Europe (germany) or the U.S. should be given to Israelis. Why put them with the Palestinians? Were arabs responsible for the Holocaust? Let the germans deal with their own fuck ups (it was 90% of them who supported Hitler anyway). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.124.121.29 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for the "insight", I suggest you take it up with the UN or someone who cares, we're here to write an article. VxP 19:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The idea of having a "Jewish country" in Germany is nothing Mahmoud should be credited for; It's just common sense. Now, you have to understand that Zionists were working closely with the dying Ottoman government long before Hitler in order to dispossess the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine of their lands. When WW2 came along, they had already made huge gains in those territories using a corrupt system to twist the laws. By the end of WW2, Roosevelt met with the Saudi king Abdelaziz to discuss the creation of Israel. Teddy admitted that he was pressured by "part of his constituency" (clearly a very affluent lobby) to set an Israeli state in Palestine. Abdelaziz argued against that, saying that Arabs should not suffer for the horrific acts Germans were responsible for. After the meeting, Roosevelt promised to consult with the Arabs before doing anything about the Israeli issue. He reiterated that promise in writing on on April 5, 1945. However, a week later Teddy died and with him the promise made to the Arabs. Truman, an ardant supporter of the Zionist cause, was then president and the rest is history. It is also worth noting an Israeli state in central Europe would have clearly been opposed by every major European power, because of the obvious unstability that would ensue in the region if it was set there. That said, I agree with VxP about the irrelevance of your comment to the subject at hand.Lixy 11:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Of possible relevance to this article is that Ahmadinejad tacitly acknowledges the Holocaust in this statement. Either something bad happened to European Jewry, for which Palestinians are paying, and it is thus an unjust and midirected retribution, or something DIDN'T happen, in which case MA's statement makes no sense, since then it wouldn't make sense to let Europe host a homeland for the Jews. There must have been some harm done if one is to pay for damages. This means that either a) he is not a Holocaust denier, b) he is an inconsistent Holocaust denier, c) he regards the political manipulation of the Holocaust, and not the veracity of the Holocaust, as the game he is engaged in, or d) there has been a misquote or misstatement somewhere.

I don't know if any sources have picked up on this inconsistency. It reminds me of Freud's joke about the man who was asked to return a kettle, and he gives it back full of holes, saying: "First, I never borrowed your kettle; second, it was like that when you gave it me; and third, there's nothing wrong with it!" Ahmadinejad appears to be utilizing arguments from different groups, arguments which, while each having a point of themselves, are not logically compatible.

If the case is c (he sees the Holocaust as a political football), then one can argue the case that MA, while not a declared anti-semite, is mobilizing a network of contradictory beliefs involved in anti-semitism. For example, an oft-cited Arab lament is that the Nazis "didn't finish the job," frequently coupled with the assertion that they had started no campaign of extermination in the first place, and that Israel is just like the Nazi regime (with the latter's cruel policy of discrimination, ghettoization and extermination). The point of such assertions is not to make a credible argument but rather to feed general resentment against both Jews as a group AND against Israel as a political entity.

Hope this hasn't been too off-topic. Perhaps I am a bad reader, and Ahmedinejad's inconsistency is already mentioned in the article:P Or perhaps editors have noticed it but failed to find a credible source. Isaacabulafia 11:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure case c is closer to the truth, but then again it's total speculation. His speeches, however, seem pretty consistent to me as the said statement was carefully preceded by a "assuming it happened". Mahmoud is a remarkable speaker and anyone who watched the unedited version of the interview with Mike Wallace can attest to that. He clearly emerges as the better man in all his interviews. That said, denying or questioning the amplitude of the Holocaust is disgraceful for the memory of the victims and does absolutely nothing to help the Palestian issue. Take a peek at this interview [12] to get an insight of his position. Lixy 15:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Lixy. I have viewed the interview segment twice, and it seems that Ahmadinejad's points arise from an even deeper muddle than I thought. He might just as well ask why a state that relies on a memory of ethno-religious peoplehood does not use the Holocaust as a corrective to its repressive policies. His argument, in logical terms, does precisely nothing for the Palestinian cause, since the political meaning of the Holocaust is equivocal (Israel could be a "moral beacon" or exact a "price" equiprobably, as a response to the Holocaust experience). In political and moral terms he does worse than that, associating the current political problem of the Occupied Territories with the Holocaust denial groups. Moreover, his comments about the hypothetical European Jewish state assume that Jews are a nation apart, who therefore express a static and unitary political will (that is, they cannot live in a secular state with non-Jews on the basis of equal rights and non-discriminatory participation). Again, that might be predicated upon the conditional stance (that is, "if" the Holocaust happened, Jews need a separate state of "their" own to feel safe), but it does not seem all that clear in context.

Whether questioning the Holocaust is morally indefensible depends, I think, precisely on one's attitude towards the victims. Making political mileage of victims is a disgrace prepetrated by state Zionists and anti-Israel ideologues alike. A lot of victims were internationalists, secularists, or simply opposed to an ethnonational state, so the use made of them by Israel arguably a disgrace. But enough ranting. Thank you for that clarifying context. While it was helpful for me, I guess it doesn't need to go into the article. Isaacabulafia 02:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Needs to be protected

Ahmadinejad is a very controversial figure, he's been in the news lately, and it's obviously drawing vandals. For example, User:82.82.168.199 (aka htlrlovr666) recently redirected this page to God... inexcusable, on every level. Who knows what they'll think of next. Just protect it so this crap can't happen. -Scharb 23:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:The lead

Per the tag on the article, I have done some expansion of the lead into the article, summarising more of the controversies surrounding Ahmadinejad. The biggest thing that's in the article that seems to me to be missing in the lead is a summary of Ahmadinejad's domestic policy, so that might be a direction to go to get the lead up to standard. Heimstern Läufer 05:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Quote farm

Wikipedia articles shouldn't have little quote farms at the bottom. Random quotes go in Wikiquote, the project specifically set up for that. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

POV Tag

I removed the POV tag from the top. If you put it back in, please state why so we can correct the offending text. Vir4030 20:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete the student protest section

The section that presents the student protest should be removed IMHO. It doesn't belong here and should be made into a separate article. The number of student protests against Bush or Blair are orders of magnitude more than this one (in size and frequency) but obviously do not belong on their biographies. If anybody sees any reasons why it should stay, let me know. Lixy 16:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep it there because Ahmadinejad's government is banning students and expelling them for their political disagreements with him (not even for such things as protests). Something Bush or Blair's administrations never do. There is a huge difference between Ahmadinejad's attitude towards activists students and Bush or Blair's. Takinson 02:15, 26 January 2006 (EST)

I agree with Takinson on this issue. It needs to be included.--Sefringle 08:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Lixy 22:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

POV on Israel statement

The statement is already discussed in the body of this article, it is a pov and not a nuetral one to add it to the first few lines of his statement. Can we add what the pope said to the first lines of his article-- NO! Worldview and NPOV are what is important, I dont think his statements are that important, most peopel in Africa are not intrested in that, Others are concerned about different things, so it doesnt belong in his intro. If belongs in the critism section. He has done too many things to focus on that it is not notible only as a non-Worldview.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 12:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Watch the news (international news) and see how many times this is bought up. Also see how much of this Talk page is dedicated to this. Looks like another attempt to whitewash MA. What's next? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont like your conduct, lets start there. I watched the news and on my news, MY NEWs, it doesnt even come on, it is not a WOrld View. Do you understand that 6 billion people live on this planet? Why is it in the intro? You dont put that content in an intro. This is your Political view which takes centre stage. show me a bio page where you put one single statement on his front page. Again my media didnt focus on it.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 12:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If i wanted to white wash it , which is a poor claim, i wouldn’t want it in the article? I don’t know him but i know he has done a lot of things, good and bad. But his intro shouldn’t be out weighted just because he is "anti Israel" You dont get it do you? It reminds me of the defenders of South Africa. pushing a POV, this is the danger here so truth fairness is blinded. It is a unbalanced viewpoint. removing sympathy. show balance discuss it all you want in the critics section.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 12:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There are never-ending attempts to whitewash MA - even contradicting his own stance. Here you are against the consensus: this info has been in the intro for a long time - at least for 5 months: [13], and probably much longer, I simply didn't bother check further. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 13:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont care, Slavery was 300 years old before they decided to stop it, consensus on wrong doesnt become right. the discussion should focus on the merit of the claim not those who have a bone to pick with this man. Now i have no problem with you wanting to add this, but in the correct place. balance and fairness!--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 13:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure you don't care. Please don't make false analogies. Search in the news will conclusively prove strong correlation between the words Ahmadinejad, Israel and Holocaust. That is what he is famous for, like it or not. Ands again: it is not "I am wanting to add this" but "You are wanting to remove this" against the long-time consensus. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 13:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I searched my news and i didn’t find it, It didn’t appear in any news i read, the mistake you are making is 6 billion people live on this planet, yet because of political power some news comes up before other news, 3 million people die in the Congo and the news talks about some anti-Israel statement. this is the news you are discussing, Kenya is starving and CNN is on and on about this issue, our news isnt! As i said slavery was wrong and it took 300 years to stop it, agreement among the choir is not a good agreement. I wonder how many people from Iran are here. I haven’t deleted anything, i just suggest strongly it belongs in another section. like all bios of people, it is against the trend. into are for introduction not immediately discussing what some people dont like about him. I think what he said was very very stupid, i couldn’t believe he said it--thats my opinion. But he has done many other things, show balance, put the pros and cons in their respective places --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 13:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What difference it makes if it was discussed already, does agreement among a choir make it right. I will contest this issue, the format of wikipedia shows that these discussion are always open.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 13:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Had it not been for Ahmadinajad's open antisemitism and calls for genocide, he would remain a pretty obscure figure in the West, something like Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Beit Or 14:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

HalaTruth is right, this shouldn't be in the lead. It is disturbingly Western-centric. - Francis Tyers · 14:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I don't see how can Humus_sapiens claim there's a concensus on the matter. It is blatant POV that Wikipedia should not relay the way US mainstream has been doing. Lixy 18:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry if my edits clashed, i think it is fully discussed in the body why is it in the lead, it is in the lead and given undue dominance because it is a political POV, correct or not it is bias and unencyclopedic.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 14:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Francis, it's inappropriate to add "Professor" as a title in the lead. We don't even do that with real professors, or we're not meant to. As for the rest, he is currently known all the over world as the leader of a state who (a) appears to be developing a nuclear capacity and (b) has threatened to wipe another country off the map, which is a worrying juxtaposition, and it's obtuse to pretend otherwise. That is not a "western" view. That is a world view, and it very much belongs in the lead. Look at the lead of George W. Bush: 9/11, invasion of Afghanistan, invasion of Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Hurricane Katrina. But here, Francis thinks we should say "Professor Ahmadinejad, sixth president of Iran, a very nice man, wonderful smile." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Opa, sorry there. I should have looked at the talk page. It states on the page that he is a Professor. If this is wrong, it should be removed, if this is right it should be in the lead. A Professor is a Professor (I don't think George is, but he might be I don't know). I think the article on George is way off, it probably shouldn't include the Iraq war in the lead, in fact the whole lead of that article sucks too, so we certainly shouldn't be taking lessons there. You assert that this is a "world view", and yet provide no sources to back this up, how do the other Islamic states see him, how is he received in places like China and India. Let alone Thailand and Sudan. The majority of criticism I've come across (on this talk page) and in general has come from the United States and from Israel, hardly the most impartial of sources... having said that, we do tend to have a dearth of good, impartial, reliable material on political figures, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Regards, Actually, second thoughts, after looking at Richard Feynman and Freeman Dyson, I guess we shouldn't include Professor. - Francis Tyers · 02:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

America and Israel aren't the most impartial sources regarding the potential for unpleasantness when a country is wiped off the map with a nuclear weapon? You're right. What a silly fuss they're making. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Just as North Korea isn't a particularly impartial source on South Korea, or China on Tibet, or Russia on Poland, or .... well I could go on but you get the point. - Francis Tyers · 11:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add 'PhD' after his name though, like on the Noam Chomsky article? - Francis Tyers · 02:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Professor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad PhD? I like it. It's better than all the nonsense about antisemitism and Holocaust denial. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read my post you would have noticed that I said, "I guess we shouldn't include Professor." — as it isn't on other most similar other articles. - Francis Tyers · 11:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

professor may not be appropriate in the context of who he is.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 15:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Bio of a living Person

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view this man is alive and the article needs to be neutral not a political POV. The lead is an introduction to him in general, not a place for a discussion on his views on one single country, or two countries. The body of the article is the place for that content not his lead. who is he, when was he born, finish.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 15:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:LEAD, which instructs editors to include all significant controversies into the intro. Beit Or 15:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not significant in the world only in the WESt, in china it isnt an issue, in Africa with 800 million people it is not an issue, it isnt headlines in Brazil or the Caribbean, "significant is the issue" i am happy you have added this, but i disagree a single statement should be in the lead, the balance is disputed, the Pope made a serious statement against Muslims and that was not allowed in the lead, now why i have mentioned this is i believe balance must be reflected across the board and if it isnt good for one person it shouldnt be okay for him, he is at the disadvantage here, even if he is wrong he is being targeted because a western agenda is at work, not a balanced agenda. so it is a POV--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 15:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

it is not a world view and why was my notice removed, Israel and the USA are not the World. 2 countries, what is the population of these places, moreover the elements in the population that have these POV, vs the world. Tell me honestly had he said "Ethiopia/Somalia should be cleaned off the face of the Earth" would it make news? now population of EThiopia/Somalia is much greater, so why would it not be an issue? My further issue is has only used words, some governments have used actual bombs, some countries have invaded other countries but his words stick out. but that is different.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 15:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

304 million people are plenty enough for it to be relevant. Yes it would have been news if he had mentioned 'cleaning any country' off the map and it probably would have been added to his bio on wikipedia.

By the way, your other implied point that 'the world' represents some sort of unified opinion is absurd. 'The World' is extremely diverse and has very few, if any, unified opinions. There is no single 'world opinion'-- except as a fantasy stick used by some to beat up on the country or leader of their choice.

Phil Murray

72.16.201.2 19:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

also see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words for "he is most know for..."--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 16:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

His statements repeatedly caused worldwide stirs from the UN to the EU to CNN to BBC, etc. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

EU is 'Western', BBC is 'Western', CNN is 'Western', No idea about the UN, what exactly did they say? (This might give a basis for dealing with the controversy). - Francis Tyers · 02:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

To qualify this "Western perception" is wrong. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

A few more links proving that: Reacting against Iranian leader’s reported Holocaust denial, Annan points to facts (United Nations News), Ahmadinejad draws ire of Saudis, Iranians, West over Israel remarks (Daily Star, Lebanon), Targetted words. The Iranian president's fiery comments on Israel have caused controversy inside and outside Iran (al-Ahram, Egypt), Poland to Bar Iranian Team from Auschwitz.←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

BBC = Western, Voice of America = Western, Al-Ahram = Not western, but potentially non-notable, Daily Star = Western, UN = Possible non-Western and notable. - Francis Tyers · 03:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The UN takes a pretty reasonable minded approach "..reacted against the reported denial of the Holocaust by Iran’s President..", "..was shocked to see the remarks attributed to H.E. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.." -- perhaps we should take a similar approach? - Francis Tyers · 02:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, Shimon's page says nothing about wishing Iran to be "kicked out" of the United Nations. - Francis Tyers · 02:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The UN is regulated by the diplomatic protocol, we are not. We should address the issue in NPOV manner. Qualifying it as "Western perception" is misleading. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Granted we should certainly point out the UN pov as the UN pov, as I have done :) So how about that Shimons? - Francis Tyers · 03:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who is Shimon, but it is wrong to characterize Iranian, Saudi, Lebanese, Egyptian, Polish and Russian as "Western". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Peres is quite a famous guy! - Francis Tyers · 03:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Al Jazeera describes him as calling the Holocaust a "myth"; is that another "Western source"? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope. - Francis Tyers · 01:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

How about Middle East Online? Somalia News and Information? Iran News? The Kenyan Daily Nation? The Middle East Times Pravda? If the Brunei Times reprints a piece from The Guardian on it, is it still "Western"? How about an Iranian living in America and writing in Pravda? Exactly how many English language "non-Western" sources do you actually expect people to be able to find? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality compromised

Good catch

Ahmadinejad and UNSC Veto

No mention of terrorism support

Citations

Categories

Category:Anti-Semitic people

Criticizing the State of Israel is NOT Anti-Semitism

"Zionist Regime" as not representative of all Jews

Wipe Israel off Map (Revisited)

Jayjg & Holocaust Denial Conference

The 2nd Section is about alleged involvement with Hostage Crisis

KINGPIN

SOMEONE NUKED THE ARTICLE!!

He definetly has a point

Needs to be protected

Re:The lead

Quote farm

POV Tag

Delete the student protest section

POV on Israel statement

Bio of a living Person