Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 10

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Slander in the lead

User:Patchouli gave me a "last warning" (it was the 1st one as well !!!) for deleting the slanderous quote (“Our dear Imam (Ruhollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement") on ground that it violates Wikipedia's NPOV. I could not find the quote in any of the provdided references. There's also an ongoing discussion about the accuracy of the translation that's [1]. I feel obligated to point out that the support for Hezbollah part lacks evidence as well. Patchouli's addition is textbook POV, and yet I'm the one he accused of POVing. Lixy 19:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad is infamous for saying Israel must be "wiped off the map", and saying that the Holocaust is a "myth". This is what will be reported in the lead, not whitewashed statements trying to attribute it to someone else, or weasel words about "questioning the scale". We're reporting what made him infamous, not the various excuses his defenders thought up after the fact. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL! I think people like Patchouli, who I've had many wiki encounters with, are naturally prone to control the media... I gave up on wikipedia, and encouraged Iranian Telecommunication Company to filter this ridiculous "patcho-pedia". It finally happened![2] Me 2 - Patchouli 1 :-D (...and they complain why aren't their "media" allowed in independent nations.) --Gerash77 20:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. Just like Saddam was infamous back in 2003 for his WMDs. My point here is he should be quoted in proper context; My knowledge of Farsi is too rudimental to grasp the nuances, but I can attest that all Persians (who are on the polarily opposed to MA's policies) I've talked to pointed out that his words were misinterpreted and the whole "myth" deal blown out of proportion. That said, the current version is fine by me provided there's a link to the translation controversy (especially since it's in the lead). The French page seems to be a lot more professional and sounds a lot less propagandist than this one IMHO. 90.9.187.233 10:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What a nonsensical analogy. Whether or not Saddam had WMDs was a supposition and argument; however, there is no doubt that Ahmadinejad said the Holocaust is a "myth", quite openly, more than once, and a number of different ways, and he continues to do so. The French Wikipedia page may present apologetics for this kind of monstrous rhetoric; I would not be at all surprised if it did. Here, however, we'll stick to WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Here here! Some things are simply too extremist and too bigoted to be whitewashed. Whitewashed anti-semitism is simply anti-semitism dripping with wet white paint.

Phil Murray

72.16.201.2 19:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

everyone is antisemitic that doesnt support Israel, the man said he loves Jews, i believe him. And i would like to seperate Israel for Jewish people, because you can love one and hate the other. I actually heard he "QUESTIONED" the numbers of the Holocaust, but you have brought the proof. I find it funny that you can tear into the Maafa and no body flips and eyebrow. its open season on African Holocaust (mock it deny it slander it no prob) whn was Congo, Rwanda, Sudan, Namibia? anyway We must show restraint as he is a living person and it is better to be soft than eager to slander.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 22:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no slander in the article, and please review WP:SOAP and use the Talk: page for its intended purpose. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank U jaygig i was hoping that by mixing in my soap box you wouldnt notice.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 01:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but "Does not support Israel" does not even remotely equal "Wipe Israel off the map." One is a political opinion-- the other is mass murder.

Phil

168.103.71.65 02:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"Wipe Israel off the map". Such a joke. Tell me, do you know the Persian word for "Israel"? Does Ahmadinejad use it? Or does he actually say:

اﻳﻦ ﺭژﻳﻢ اﺷﻐﺎﻟﮕﺮ ﻗﺪﺱ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ اﺯ صفحه روﺯﮔﺎﺭ ﻣﺤﻮ ﺷﻮﺩ

In režime išqâlgare qods bâyad az safhehye ruzgâr mahv šavad.

This regime which illegally occupies Jerusalem must be removed from the pages of history.

Of course, I'm sure you can translate Persian better than I can, a mere fluent speaker of the language. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 06:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

So what "This regime which illegally occupies Jerusalem" means? Trinidad, Zanzibar or Israel? Perhaps imprecise translation, but I don't see "slander". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

THe point is he is a living person and we need to report the facts, he didnt say Israel, i wish Trinidad occupied Palestine, they might be less killing. And we need to see what he really said about the Jewish Holocaust, i really dont think he said Hitler didnt kill Jewish people, i really dont think he denied the whole thing.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 12:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

All you need to do in order to know what he said on the Holocaust is read the intro of this article. Beit Or 14:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter exactly what he said, it matters what he meant, and what was widely reported and condemned around the world. He meant Israel, everyone understood he meant Israel, everyone reported he meant Israel, and everyone either condemned his statement about Israel, or cheered it. Let's stop playing semantic word games, the "regime occupying Jerusalem" isn't Bolivia. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

And what he meant was that the government of Israel should comply with the UN and cease illegally occupying the Palestinian land for over 30 years. There is no call for genocide. There is no anti-semitism. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 06:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that you agree that when he stated "the regime occupying Jerusalem" he meant Israel. Argument over. Oh, and, as stated before, I'm not interested in ex post facto apologetics by his supporters. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No, he did not mean Israel. He meant the current government of Israel. That's the intention of the word regime, which always refers to the government. When someone said the Soviet regime must be stopped, they did not mean that the citizens of the Soviet Union must be genocided. Ahmadinejad has already stated that he loves Jews, hell he's kissed Neturei Karta members. And just for the record, I do not support Ahmadinejad. However, I am for honest presentations of the facts and controversies surrounding Ahmadinejad. Strawman criticisms of Ahmadinejad reduce the strength of legitimate criticisms of the man.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 23:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Your personal opinion doesn't really matter. The rest of the world understood it as a direct attack on the legitimacy of Israel as a state; many of his other comments have confirmed that. When he talks about moving Israeli Jews to somewhere in Europe, that's not about "the current government of Israel". Read the article; the then Prime Minister of Canada described it as "this threat to Israel's existence, this call for genocide". It was hugely reported, and widely condemned, as incitement to destroy Israel. This article reports the huge furor surrounding his statements, and how they were understood, which was the big news story, not how apologists present them. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not my opinion. It is Ahmadinejad's opinion. Please read his official blog or his letter to George Bush or any of his other public statements/speeches. And last time I checked, the Prime Minister of Canada was not fluent in the Persian language, so he is hardly one to judge what Ahmadinejad said. Now of course, this article should talk about how the world incorrectly understood Ahmadinejad's statements, but most importantly, it should explain how Ahmadinejad himself views the statements. Ahmadinejad is the one who speaks for Ahmadinejad, nobody else. And finally, please refrain from calling me an "apologist", as that ad hominem contributes nil to the discussion. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 00:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You keep forgetting that this article is about what has made him famous, not what various apologists try to explain after the fact. Even if you don't see yourself as an apologist, by trying to insert ex post facto "explanations" of various apologists, rather than the statement and understanding that created the controversy in the first place, you have the same net effect. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What made Ahmadinejad famous is that he is the President (a puppet rhetorical position) of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This article's mission is not to focus on a single mistranslated quote by him, it is to discuss his life and works as a whole. And again, please follow Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks. Also, I encourage you to reread Wikipedia's article on apologetics for a quick overview of that term and the negative connotation of the word apologist. I have not tried to "insert" anything in the article. The last time I inserted new information into the Ahmadinejad article was 18 October 2006. (I have made a few minor edits since then including wikilinking and the removed of Category: anti-semitic people which occurred without consensus). But besides those, I have not tried to "insert" into the article much anything. I am a rational person and I insist on using this talk page for discussing the article's contents before making major changes to the format. I'm trying my best to improve this article, and I hope you feel the same way. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 03:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No-one cared that he even existed until he started saying outrageous things (e.g. Israel "must be wiped of the map" and the Holocaust is a "myth"). Then people and countries and international bodies started to take plenty of notice of him. Ahmadinejad may have done all sorts of things, he may ride a bike, or watch birds in his spare time, or have an interest in woodworking; however, the lead should contain the items about him that have made him famous. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

As far the lead is concerned, I seriously think that our goal should be to not use the phrase "wiped off the map", but replace it with something else. Like, "he has been widely criticized for his views calling for the removal of the state of Israel" or something like that. Because this one statement about "wiped off the map" isn't the only thing he's said about Israel. I also believe he has been very consistent that Israel should not exist. The lead should reflect a summary of all of this, because he continues to say it, and it continues to be criticized. Am I mistaken here? The Anti-israel section contains the information that Kirbytime is talking about, too. It talks about the statement he made, how he was referencing Khomeini, and how the translation has been disputed. You could certainly add additional inforamtion to this. I also wonder if this could somehow be combined with the "Holocaust denial and accusations of antisemitism" section. This is all connected after all -- he's attacking the holocaust because it caused Israel's creation. He said that process was unfair to Palestinians and that Israel should have been created in Europe. Seems it would be good to tie this all together in one neat section of the article. Vir4030 04:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The "wiped off the map" phrase is the single phrase he is most infamous for, the one that got all the attention and response; of course that must go in the lead. And while he'd love to claim that he doesn't deny the Holocaust, just opposes "the government of Israel", that's more whitewashing that really won't fly here. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally do not have a problem with including that phrase, and I am willing to ignore your personal attack in the edit summary Jayjg calling me an Ahmadinejad supporter. Please just do not censor the bit that he was confirming the notion made by Khomeini. Not including this important part of the information makes Wikipedia not too different to the Sun newspaper. Thanks. --Rayis 11:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The world didn't care that he blamed it on Khomeini; this trivia is silly apologetics, and it won't be in the lead - it's fully addressed in the relevant section. Please don't violate WP:CIVIL by claiming that removing trivial apologetics from the Lead is censorship. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It is your point of view that it is "silly apologetics" and you are clearly claiming ownership of the article by not even discussing the matter and repeating your reverts by pushing your POV. I don't have time for this, you win. --Rayis 11:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, just because someone doesn't agree with your views does not make that person an apologist. Seriously, cut the crap about apologetics and whatnot. Putting down other users isn't helping to make this article better. And, I would like an apology from you for accusing me of "trying to insert" anything in the article. You seemed to have failed to address that part of my response earlier. And finally, I agree that Ahmedinejad's statements have caused some controversy. However, just because the vast majority of people interpreted his words in such a way does not mean we can present that interpretation as fact, especially when it is vehemently denied by many notable people (like MEMRI) --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 12:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I accused you of something that you weren't intending to do. I can find literally hundreds of reliable sources that refer to Ahmadinejad saying that Israel "must be wiped from the map"; all sorts of world-furor over that statement, etc. I can also find a very small number of apologetic sources stating that he attributed it to Khomeini, that he said something slightly different, or that he meant something slightly different. I can even find one reference which is non-apologetic and translates his words slightly differently. However, all of the latter is basically irrelevant; the news was that he said "wiped from the map", not that he attributed it to Khomeini, or that he used slightly different wording. Whether or not he actually said exactly that is no longer relevant; what is relevant is that it was reported and understood that way. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it harmful to include the description anyway? It didn't take much space or interrupt the sentence flow, yet it managed to provide a clearer description of the notion. How is its inclusion apologetic? Mentioning that Khomeini started it doesn't make it any more acceptable that Ahmadinejad supports it. I cannot see how it makes Ahmadinejad appear better, as a true apologetic statement would certainly do. The description seems harmless, so please explain how it is apologetic. However, it could deemed an unnecessary description, such as the "Holocaust denial conference" description from earlier, though I imagine considering the denial description you would support an additional detail. Please explain why you judge this detail differently. Thanks a lot! The Behnam 03:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is harmful to include any unnecessary word in the lead that distracts from or apologizes for fact. The sentence structure became harder to read, it interrupted the flow, the grammar was poor ("approving the notion made by Khomeini" isn't even proper English), and it was a detail that was not of interest to the hundreds of sources that actually took umbrage at his words. Ahmadinejad attributed it to "the Imam"; people assumed he meant Khomeini, and there's no evidence that that was actually true anyway. The news story was not who he blamed it on, but that he said it at all, and the lead needs to reflect that. In addition, the whole story about the conference was that it was a Holocaust denial conference. That's why the world got upset again. Rather than being examples of different treatment, they are examples of the exact same treatment. The key to these stories is that Ahmadinjad called for Israel to be destroyed, and convened a Holocaust denial conference. That is what got world attention, not apologetics about "but Khomeini said it first", or "but not everyone there was a Holocaust denier". Jayjg ^(talk) 18:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it was poorly written. Still, I cannot see how it is apologetic, but I suppose making a note reference may be a better way to mention the Imam part. Just out of curiosity, have you seen anything regarding "the Imam" as someone other than Khomeini in this context? Back during the heyday of the story, I remember seeing articles equating "the Imam" to Khomeini, sometimes going into greater detail about Khomeini's use of the phrase. I still think the denial description is unnecessary, but that issue is already resolved. Anyway, is there uncertainty about the identification of "the Imam" in sources mention him? The Behnam 18:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What I meant to say was "there was no evidence that Khomeini himself actually came up with this notion". The issue about "the Imam" is mostly that some people seem to have difficulty admitting that by "the regime occupying Jerusalem" Ahmadinejad meant Israel, but don't give a second thought to the claim that "the Imam" meant Khomeini. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

So, mentioning the Imam/Khomeini really isn't apologetic then, right? I am now confused as to what exactly was the source of your complaint about apologetics. Definitely, the "the regime occupying Jerusalem" relates to Israel in some way, but what do the apologetics claim that it is instead? There is truly no information saying that Khomeini himself came up with the phrase? I'll take a look I suppose. The Behnam 19:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course mentioning Khomeini is apologetic. It takes the focus off Ahmadinejad, and tries to blame Khomeini instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that is just your opinion. My opinion is that Ahmadinejad is not excused from association with the notion by simply mentioning that Khomeini first said it. So, in your opinion, should the article be based on your opinion or my opinion? :) By the way, I found this article http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?ex=1307678400&en=efa2bd266224e880&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss . While it is not as un-editorial as I would like, it seems his opinion was important to the conflict regarding the Khomeini quote, and it provides an actual description of Khomeini's quote. Please ,tell me what you think of it. Thanks. The Behnam 19:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, what does putting Khomeini in the lead add to the lead? In what specific way is the lead improved? As for the article you "found", it has already been referenced in this article for months now, and Bronner is even quoted. See the actual section on the issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought it possible that it was already a source, but there was no advantage in looking through all of the sources on this page. The main idea is to consider the article for this discussion, since I feel it is relevant. Indeed, I found it, on my own, and I detect incivility in your use of quotes for the word "found". In general, I feel you haven't been altogether polite about these things, and would like it if you would be more respectful, even if you feel I do not deserve respect. Anyway, it can be argued that the detail simply provides a better description of the notion, at no real cost to the lead, assuming it is written correctly. However, it seems that your main reason for not wanting it is because it is , in your opinion, apologetic, but you still have not shown what exactly is so apologetic about it. It seems unjust that this detail be excluded because it does not accord with you point of view. Please explain, thank you. The Behnam 20:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've seemed uncivil; I would have thought you might read the actual section describing this specific controversy, and noticed the link and quoted author. Regarding the lead, if more detail is better, then why not simply include the entire article in the lead? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose it is silly that I haven't looked at the actual section for awhile, apology accepted. Anyway, while I think this is clear from my previous remarks, the details cannot be too cumbersome to the lead; I think we both agree that having the whole article would not only be cumbersome but would be mostly irrelevant. To make a stupid analogy, if Ahmadinejad drove Khomeini's van, that said "Israel must be wiped off the map" on the side, and was criticized for it, it is clearer to say "Khomeini's van" than just "the van", but we need not give the specifications of Khomeini's van, as that would be cumbersome. I still wonder why you see the detail as apologetic? I am worried that while you may argue against it by calling it unnecessary, your real reason may be to prevent a detail you consider apologetic from being present in the article, but I am trying to assume good faith, so I politely request some elaboration regarding your motives and intentions. Thanks again. The Behnam 20:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

O.K., so we agree that not every detail belongs in the lead. Now, again, what does this specific detail add to the lead, and why is it significant? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It adds clarity, without cumbersome size. The way it is now, a reader might think Ahmadinejad invented the notion, since the Imam is not mentioned, just Ahmadinejad and the notion. Of course, the reader can click to the note, but it looks like all the other numerous references; it is unlikely that each reader will click every reference. The significance is simply that it clarifies, it prevents mix-ups, it accurately portrays the notion with only a few words. Surely you do not oppose adding a clarifying statement where there is potential for confusion. Surely you do not oppose clarity. You have previously objected because it is "apologetic", but have failed to demonstrate this; it seems to be only your opinion. There doesn't seem to be anything controversial about the Khomeini attribution; did he not say "As the Imam said,"? Now I have stated why its inclusion is an easy way to prevent possible confusion. Can you explain to me why I am wrong in this, and why the detail should not be included? If you can, I would appreciate you doing so, thanks. The Behnam 05:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What difference does it make if Ahmadinejad invented the notion, or merely approved of a notion he attributes to someone else? What "confusion" might arise? If he had made a speech in which he said "By warding off the Jews I am fighting for Allah", and attributed the original notion to Hitler, would the fact that he blamed the idea on Hitler be notable, or would the fact that he made the remark itself be what was truly notable? Would it "confuse" people if we didn't mention that he attributed the original notion to Hitler? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The difference is whether or not the sentence accurately and clearly describes the notion. While I admit that Ahmadinejad quoting the Imam is not the most important thing about the sentence, it is not right to leave room for confusion when there is so easy a remedy. As I said before, the possible confusion is over the author of the notion, as the current set-up may lead to the reader mistakenly thinking that Ahmadinejad invented the notion. I do not understand what inspired you to mention Hitler here. The analogy is pretty much a replica of the Khomeini situation but with strange name and place changes; the situation does not differ enough as to be enlightening. Your analogy does not provide a better demonstration of the ideas. I would have preferred that you simply have discussed using the Khomeini-notion situation, since I had to translate your Hitler analogy back into the original anyway. What do you mean by "blame" in your statements? Who is blaming Khomeini? It does not seem that if someone criticizes Ahmadinejad or the comment, he responds, "Don't blame me! Blame Khomeini!", or at least little indicates such a response would be probable. As I mentioned before, there is no reason to assume that mentioning this fact excuses Ahmadinejad in any way from his statement. You seem to think otherwise, but despite my requests for an explanation of this, you simply repeat your conclusions. Please, try to persuade me; I already know what you believe about this matter. Prevention of misinformation is important; do not you agree? The Behnam 06:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea of destroying Israel did not originate with Khomeini; it has deeper roots. Who is the original author of the idea is hardly a relevant point for the lead of the article on Ahmadinejad. What's relevant is that he endorses the idea. Beit Or 09:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The language itself is clear that Ahmadinejad denies coming up the the notion; after all, he is just "agreeing" with it. Exactly who is going to be "confused"? The detail is in the footnote, so if anyone really cares about who Ahmadinejad claims came up with the notion (which is highly unlikely), they can click on it. What possible "misinformation" could result? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The notion is not simply "destroying Israel"; this is about the "wiped off the map" phrase. The risk of misinformation lies not with the people who really care about the origin of the notion, but rather with the people who do not care. The current sentence does not make clear the author of the phrase to those readers who do not wonder enough to click the small number next to "notion". It is unreasonable to assume that such people do not make judgments about what they have read; I am concerned that, with this particular sentence, the fact that Ahmadinejad was citing "the Imam" is not clear, and that consequently a reader may end up thinking that Ahmadinejad was the author of the notion. This would be misinformation. Is not it bad for readers to be misinformed? As I have before mentioned, I understand that the fact that he is judged by his endorsement of the idea is important; I seek only a simple remedy to a vague statement. As it seems we agree that he is judged by his endorsement of the idea, I once again cannot see why you believe that including the Imam detail is apologetic, and you still have not explained this to me. My aim with the change is to make the article better by working towards clarity. What is your aim? The Behnam 16:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait, are you seriously asserting that Ahmadinejad is asserting that Khomeini is the one who came up with the "wiped off the map" phrase? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad didn't actually state that Khomeini came up with the phrase, he just came into it by saying "As the Imam said," so I do not assert that. While I am not sure if someone before Khomeini used that particular wording, in any case it seems that Ahmadinejad draws his statement from a belief that Khomeini spoke those words at some point. Since I do not have enough information to make the assertion you accused me of, I definitely do not make that assertion. Is there something about that you would like to add? I am always open to new information. With that aside, I would like it if you would address my other concerns, since I would like to resolve this and I am tired of repeating myself simply because you do not address certain issues. By the way, I remind you again to please be civil. The tone of your last reply was hardly polite, and considering your behavior elsewhere in this discussion, I really think that there is room for improvement. Remember to assume good faith, as I have done with you even as evidence appears that you may be arguing your position due to you POV/opinion(you wanted to remove the detail because you felt it was "apologetic", without a real supporting argument for why your view should shape this Wikipedia article). Since I am starting to doubt my initial assumption about your good faith, I want to hear more from you regarding your aims and how they account for your edits and comments. Pejorative speculations about whether or not an editor is an apologetic are undoubtedly a violation of WP:CIV; I sincerely hope Jayjg abandons this kind of indefensible breach of policy. The Behnam 23:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That was a serious question I asked, and apparently a good one too, since you are now backing down from the assertion that Ahmadinejaad alleged that Khomeini used the phrase. Beyond that, you've made up some sort of case about me and WP:CIV now, essentially out of nothing; I can't even understand your statements any more. Please state your issue in one or two sentences that deal only with the contents of the article. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if you cannot understand my statements. You see, sometimes issues need to be explained with more than one or two sentences. To make it simpler for you, I will use bullets to separate topics; I hope this will help you understand:

Your question was not very good, since you did not explain how you came to believe that I made such an assertion.
In your first mention of the assertion, you asked if I was asserting that Ahmadinejad asserted that Khomeini "came up with" the phrase.
In you last mention of the assertion, you claim that I am "backing down" from the assertion that Ahmadinejad said Khomeini "used" the phrase.
In the first, you say "came up with". This is different from "used". Please clarify which assertion it is that you accuse me of, and how you came to believe that I asserted such a thing.
Please tell what you wanted to say about the alleged assertion.
Regardless, it is clear that Ahmadinejad cited "the Imam", and that this Imam is equated with no other than Khomeini in the sources.

About the civility and assume good faith remarks, I am just providing a friendly reminder about those Wikipedia policies:

You violate the assumption of good faith in calling other editors and their edits apologetic. You should assume that their edits aim to improve the article, and hence are not apologetic, unless you can provide sound evidence that they are indeed apologetic.
You have not provided such evidence. If you have, please recall this, because I really haven't seen you present any such evidence yet.
I sincerely hope you abandon this kind of indefensible breach of policy.
I found the tone and nature of some of your replies impolite, but I do not think it necessary that I repeat my explanations for these. Read back to the set of replies where you apologized for seeming uncivil if you want to know why I think there is problem with you manner.
Please explain why my case is made "essentially out of nothing"; I really would like you to present a case to back up your assertion.
Please avoid future infractions.

I appreciate your responses to these concerns. Thank you very much for your efforts. The Behnam 01:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth would you think that you would understand various infractions better than me, that I would need a "friendly reminder" of policy, or that doing so would not be provocative and insulting? In any event, your comment is almost exclusively about me, not about article content. Please try again, referring only to article content, which is what this Talk: page is for. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I never said I understand various infractions better than you. Why on earth would I think that? I call them as I see them, and I do not claim to be perfect, but if I am wrong, please explain why, instead of just claiming they are made out of "essentially nothing" without elaboration.
I thought you needed the friendly reminder for the reasons I have already given, regarding "apologetic" and the tone of your responses.
I am neither trying to provoke you nor insult you, and I do not understand why you think my reminder would do these things to you.

Am I wrong in following your example by reminding you to adhere to civility and assume good faith rules? One example is your dealing with Sarastro777, see Talk:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Jayjg_.26_Holocaust_Denial_Conference, where you address a violation of civility and provide a reason. Am I wrong in following your example by discussing these things?

As far as the Imam issue goes, I have presented numerous points on that issue that have not yet been answered by you. I would appreciate you doing so. Please refer to my previous posts, and address those issues which you have not answered. Thank you. The Behnam 04:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please state your current article content issue in a one or two sentence comment that deals solely with article content, not with other editors. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already stated my current article content issues. At this point, what is lacking are complete responses from you. Must I again repeat my points for you? Cannot you read my previous posts? Are they too complex, even the bulleted ones? If you need help understanding my points or even realizing their existence, I can try re-posting them for you, or simplifying them further(without compromising argument quality). So, if you need help, I'll try my best to help you. Hope to hear from you. The Behnam 20:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have completely answered any outstanding objections and issues regarding article content; if there are indeed any outstanding ones that you think I have missed, please state them in a brief comment that deals solely with article content, not with other editors. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You have not completely answered any outstanding objections. Also, I am in no way required to compromise my arguments to make them "brief"; I cannot help you if you cannot handle anything aside from one or two sentence responses. Anyway, here is one example; I quote my previous post,

"The notion is not simply "destroying Israel"; this is about the "wiped off the map" phrase. The risk of misinformation lies not with the people who really care about the origin of the notion, but rather with the people who do not care. The current sentence does not make clear the author of the phrase to those readers who do not wonder enough to click the small number next to "notion". It is unreasonable to assume that such people do not make judgments about what they have read; I am concerned that, with this particular sentence, the fact that Ahmadinejad was citing "the Imam" is not clear, and that consequently a reader may end up thinking that Ahmadinejad was the author of the notion. This would be misinformation. Is not it bad for readers to be misinformed? As I have before mentioned, I understand that the fact that he is judged by his endorsement of the idea is important; I seek only a simple remedy to a vague statement."

Your answer was, "Wait, are you seriously asserting that Ahmadinejad is asserting that Khomeini is the one who came up with the "wiped off the map" phrase?". This insinuative "question-answer" did not completely, or even partially, answer the objection. In a nutshell,

The current wording does not make clear that the notion is the Imam's in this situation.
By lacking clarity on this point, a potential for misinformation exists, since only Ahmadinejad's name is associated with the notion.
A small edit, adding the detail about the Imam/Khomeini, can prevent this misinformation from materializing.
A reader may not bother with looking at the footnote by clicking on the small number one, as it looks like any other reference, and thus may not seem important.
This edit is a harmless to the article(a.k.a. not apologetic), so it can only improve the article.

For starters, answer to these arguments soundly, not with insinuative question-answers. Thank you. The Behnam 01:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The world furor was about his insisting that Israel be "wiped off the map", regardless that a small number of commentators have insisted he said slightly different things. Reliable sources continue to refer to this as the issue; for example, Reuters today again stated that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" as did CTV television network Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," and many other sources. Even Iranian source said it today: "following repeated calls by President Mahmud Ahmadinejad for Israel to be wiped off the map." No-one would imagine that Ahmadinejad was the author of the notion that Israel must be destroyed; that idea has been common currency in the Muslim world for 60 years now, and in any event the article is quite clear that he only "approved" the idea, not "invented" it. The fact that Ahmadinejad attributes it to "the Imam" doesn't mean that that is actually true, and more importantly is not particularly relevant, since, regardless of the fact that defenders of Ahmadinejad have tried to deflect attention to "who said it first", or "what was the exact translation", no-one really cares who said it first, or which specific translation is more accurate, but rather what his intent was. In fact, including "the Imam" in the lead (rather than a footnote) would actually be misleading, as it would detract from the real issue, the fact that, but rather that the current president of Iran, who is also supporting a nuclear program, approves the notion. Far from "harmless", this edit would only make the article worse. Thus, a footnote is the most reasonable and NPOV solution to this issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough response:

My whole purpose for wanting the change is because, for reasons given previously, the statement is not as clear as it would be with the proposed change, as the proposed change only clarifies the authorship of the notion in this situation.
Your other point seems to be that the change would somehow be POV. You use such terms as "detract" and "blame", and claim that somehow the change would defend Ahmadinejad.
As we both agree that people, in general, have judged him based upon his intent, you fail to persuade me that somehow the proposed change would be POV and "defend" Ahmadinejad. I am very interested in the basis for your view, as your opinion alone should not dictate the article. The Behnam 22:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg that it's not important that Khomeini said it first. Khomeini wasn't the first person to call for the removal of the state of Israel, and he and Ahmadinejad certainly weren't the only ones to do it. I think the phrase "approving the notion" should be removed from the intro completely. I have no problem with the full quote being included further down the article, but the "wiped off the map" comment is what he's known for saying. He only said it once, so the word "statements" should be singular, and the intro should reflect that he has repeatedly called for the removal of the state of Israel since then, although he has chosen different words to do so. Vir4030 05:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that Khomeini saying it wasn't the important part; I argued for clarification of the sentence being used. However, I stared at the sentence for awhile, and have decided that your idea of removing "approving the notion" entirely is better than clarifying the Imam attribution. The potential for misinformation that I perceive seems to come from the "notion" being mentioned in the first place. By mentioning that he approves "the notion", the "notion" becomes an issue. Was it his notion? Or was it someone else's? From there, problems could occur, along the lines I explained previously. Adding the detail was justifiable as it would only make things clearer, and despite Jayjg's personal opinion, he never demonstrated what exactly was so "apologetic" about the clarifying statement. To avoid the issue altogether, I second the removal of "approving the notion" from the lead, and hence rendering it a non-issue. Then, may we be happy to finally resolve this frustrating matter. Make the change(assuming Jayjg has no further objections). The Behnam 06:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that agreement didn't last very long did it? Apologists have been inserting circumlocutions again; however, as has been proved again and again, he was condemned for stating that Israel should be destroyed, not whatever his supporters claim her really said or meant. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, "regime" was taken from direct translations of his words, so I am not sure what exactly is so apologetic about using his wording. If you want to point out that this was sometimes reported as Israel, without mention of "regime," feel free to do so. You should really explain, in a persuasive manner, what is so apologetic about the things you claim are apologetic. It can be rather offensive. I know you are a big-time WP editor but it doesn't mean that your opinion alone can dictate the content. I don't know what agreement you speak of; from what I recall our little discussion wasn't about saying "regime", it was about the "notion." Also, it isn't really a circumlocution considering that it isn't rambling or indirect. Of course, if some news and other figures have equated the "regime" mention with Israel in general, this should be mentioned, but I don't know if it can actually be stated that he actually said that. This is very confusing since it involves conflicting sources, some equating the two without word-for-word translation versus those that use direct translation and hence arrive at "regime." Still, I see where you are coming from when you say that he was condemned because of the equation of the "regime" with the nation by certain sources regardless of the direct translations. However, it doesn't make sense to simply have the article take the former view when there are primary-er sources indicating that regime was used. The situation is covered eventually, but I'm really not sure how to keep the lead itself neutral without having a burdensome sentence. I hope you do realize that he said "regime"(rezhim) in Persian, regardless of whether this really means Israel or not. Confusing stuff. Anyway, good to hear from you again. The Behnam 09:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, he was widely condemned for calling for the destruction of Israel, not some circumlocution for Israel; that is what was notable. His supporters continually claim that he didn't really want to destroy Israel, just the current "regime", or that it wasn't really his idea at all, but rather "the Imam's". All of this downplaying, however, is irrelevant; he was condemned for calling for the destruction of Israel regardless of what he actually said, and that is what is notable. I hope that is perfectly clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I realize that is a really bulky response. Basically, word-for-word translations have him saying "regime," but he was condemned because many equated this to Israel as a whole. Should we say that he said Israel? The Behnam 09:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, he said "the regime occupying Jerusalem", but everyone knew what he meant, and condemned him for it. All the flowery language in the world and/or post-statement apologetics doesn't mask his meaning, and that is what was condemned, and that is what was noteworthy. Next we'll be saying that we shouldn't refer to "Jerusalem" either, but rather "The Holy", because that's what the Arabic words literally mean. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the contentious point derives from using the "say" part, since word-for-word sources don't have him saying Israel, regardless of what people thought he meant. While the difference between using al-Qods and its literal meaning isn't signifcant, the difference between "regime" and "nation" is significant. For example, a lot of Iranians, myself included, regularly refer to the current government as "the regime." When we say we don't want the regime, it is not saying we don't want Iran. Anyway, if he said "regime," then the article shouldn't state that he said something else. The Behnam 10:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Saying "I agree with the dear Imam that the regime occupying Jerusalem must be wiped off the map" is, in fact, saying that Israel must be "wiped off the map"; sophistry regarding this is unimpressive. And, in relation to Wikipedia policy, the problem with your argument is that the sources say that he said Israel should be wiped of the map, and that is what he is being condemned for. Regardless of what actually transpired, or what spin people would like to put on things after the fact, the furor was about him saying that Israel should be destroyed, and that is what Wikipedia reliably reports. Remember WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Even better, in this case, it is both verifiable and true that he said Israel should be destroyed, regardless of the somewhat flowery language used. By the way, in English "regime" has a strongly negative connotation, and in the Muslim world "Zionist regime" is a pejorative epithet for "Israel", so "regime" in this context means something other than what you've implied - but you know that. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm rather disappointed that I must repeat these things over and over, and that Kirbytime continues to ignore weeks old discussions in which he took part. Please re-read this section, starting at the top; it was all said before, a month and a half ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that there are also sources that have him saying "regime." Hence, the problem is the "saying" part. I am not saying that I'm going to revert, since I really don't think the other version was very good, but eventually someone will unless this issue is resolved. You may call it apologetic, but they may simply change it because some sources have him saying "regime," and they think that the article should reflect that. Have you considered that a source with an actual word-for-word translation could be considered more reliable? In any case, your change isn't going to solve this problem, so I ask you to try finding some middle ground here, or people will keep making "apologetic" edits. I will continue to look for a better version too. The Behnam 19:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is what the sources say:

That is what the sources used say, and there are dozens more like that if you want. That is what he did, that is what he is known for, not double-talk about "regimes". And that is why it is reported in the lead this way; because Wikipedia policy says we reproduce what the many sources have identified as the issue, rather than what we wish it were. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, I know. I'm just saying that because some sources also mention regime, people are going to keep making the change. If you can, try to find middle ground such that nobody will contest the sentence. I don't know what you mean about double-talk; it isn't like the difference is being emphasized, but rather just the fact that he said "regime." Obviously, a bunch of sources interpreted this as meaning Israel as a whole, but can we actually say he said in light of sources that actually translate his statement word for word? I am trying to solve the problem as a whole, not merely enforce a particular mention time after time, because this will not prevent the edit conflicts. The Behnam 21:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The news was not about the specific words used, but about his intent, and about the reaction of the world to his saying it. It wasn't just "a bunch of sources", it was dozens and dozens of them, governments, other important bodies. Wikipedia reports on that, per policy. What he said was that Israel should be destroyed; the specific words are not significant. If editors want to insert a different agenda into the lead, there's an easy solution. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm astonished that Kirbytime has reverted a number of times, but still hasn't managed to show up here. As explained over and over, regardless of what Ahmadinejad actually said, he was condemned for calling for the destruction of Israel, and that is what is reported in the intro. I've actually gone to the extent of directly quoting a source. I'm finding Kirbytime's ignoring of discussion and consensus in favor of blind reverts to be increasingly disruptive. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is getting very annoying. Maybe he's just not thinking about it. Perhaps he should receive a mild warning to wake him up and encourage him to respond here, or else his edits will have to be constantly undone. I don't know what he expects to accomplish without communicating here. The Behnam 22:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have posted a request on Pejman' page to please discuss on the talk page here before reverts. So, if he doesn't start to comply, there are grounds to issue him a formal warning. The Behnam 22:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have posted a request on Kirbytime's talk page for him to discuss before reverts. So, if he doesn't start to comply, there are grounds to issue him a formal warning. Also, he accused me of stalking and made other uncivil remarks [3]; they also are noticed. The Behnam 05:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not uncivil to question baseless claims. Plus, it wasn't until 30 seconds ago that I realized this section is still being updated. Whenever I check a talkpage, I go to the bottom first (that's where the new stuff is). Without further ado:

So Mahmoud was condemned for what some have interpreted as calling for Israel to be wiped off the map. It is a violation of NPOV not to mention that certain sources contradict Ahmadnejad and interpret his words against his own wishes. My main concern is that the statement is given no qualifier in the lead, as if to portray that there is no controversy regarding whether or not Ahmadinejad actually said that, which is of course a violation of WP:LEAD.

Also, behnam you are in violation of WP:TROUT --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 05:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Slander in the lead II

More slander:

20051105_B_iran.jpg --tickle me 18:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You are adding this in anticipation of a slander objection? How quaint. The Behnam 19:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

...and curious an image of forgotten lore - croak! 19:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't get it. Are you trying to funny? It is not secret that such translations are found in Iran; in fact, the IRNA itself originally used "wiped off the map." Supposedly it tried to stop it too, but that obviously didn't work. But again, I find it very odd that you would add an image and then make a slander section for it yourself. The Behnam 20:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this a pointless violation of WP:POINT? The Behnam 01:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Women's Rights

I have added another news story about women's rights to the section. Any improvement to my addition, which is about conservative anger at lack of strictness over hijab enforcement, is welcome. However, the section strikes me as a bit disorganized. I think it may be improved if the individual events are separated into paragraphs. Does this seem a good idea? If so, I am willing to divide the events for easier reading. The Behnam 02:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Verifications

There are alot of {{check}} here. I took out two of them but then saw there's a bunch of others. Do people want the translations? I can personally vouch that all the Persian (Farsi) sources say what is listed in the article, so if someone else can also attest to this, would that be enough? I just don't think all this tags is necessary because the sources are reliable and say what is in the article. Khodavand 04:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Translations are welcome; as I do not know Persian, I am left wondering what these sources say. Would using a vouch system accord with policy? Are there translations available? The Behnam 04:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the sites have translations available. I am not sure about the policy, I'm curious about that myself. The problem is if we have to translate every non-English source to include that information in the article, it will take a very very long time because we would need more than one person to verify that that the sources say what is being written. So either way it comes down to a matter of the honor system in a way. Of course it would be easier not to use non-English sources but then we limit our choices. Khodavand 06:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Awesome - I have been trying to find someone to verify those links for quite some time. Another editor added those {{check}} tags because he couldn't understand the Farsi. If you can verify that the cite is correct, then remove them. And Thanks! Vir4030 19:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I can check them too. =) --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 04:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. There are seven of them left on the page, just remove the {{check}} tag as you verify them. I left you a message on your talk page some time ago asking for help. It's much appreciated! (I really wish that I read Persian, but I'm up to my ears in Japanese at the moment -- one language at a time.) Vir4030 05:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Televised Debate

Hello,

I can't edit the page, since its simi-protected. I want to change:

On August 29, 2006, he invited George W. Bush to an open televised debate on his plan to have a peaceful nuclear program in place. The invitation was promptly rejected by the White House.[citation needed]

to

In Mid 2006, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad invited President George W.Bush to a debate at the United Nation General Assembly which was to take place on the 19^th of September 2006. The debate was to be about Iran's right to enrich uranium. The invitation was promptly rejected by the a White House spokesman Tony Snow who said "There's not going to be a steel-cage grudge match between the President and Ahmadinejad."

Since I have a american and iranian source.

CNN report: http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/situation.room/blog/2006/09/no-steel-cage-grudge-match-between.html and Iran Focus: http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8535

Unfortunately, There is no date, to when the invitation was sent.

Can somebody edit the articale please. They can change the above edit as they see fit.

Thank You, Internet Nerd 15:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 03:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

First sentence footnote

I personally believed that having the numerous alternate spellings, as well as the IPA spelling and Farsi-script text was just too much for a parenthetical statement in a sentence, so I decided it'd be best if the information could be expressed as a footnote. Any thoughts? ★MESSED ROCKER★ 17:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Terrorism / Sivand Dam

This section is flawed. I had to remove the unnecessary comparison to the Taliban, since this isn't an article about the Taliban or "cultural terrorism." The section appears to be either OR or a case of undue weight on a special interest source. Also, it doesn't appear to be about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Behnam 20:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it's about his cabinet's policy toward cultural heritage. May be it was not balanced properly. I agree. I just made a preliminary draft for others like you to come and contribute. The ideology behind the destruction is similar to the Taliban's one as indicated in the source. I personally do not care about mentioning or not mentioning Taliban. So if you prefer the latter, I agree with you. Sina Kardar 21:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's good to have if it is about him. I think the problem may be that the source itself wasn't particularly balanced. Perhaps less vehement ones can be used. Considering that this is a biography of a living person, the accusations of a few special interest sites probably shouldn't be given such weight. I think it is fair to simply title it "Sivand Dam", since that is essentially what it is about, and include the basic information; i.e. that his energy minister announced the flooding, and that some said that this threatens Pasargadae. This would also be inline with the neutral titles given to the other subsections. It is not right to characterize Ahmadinejad based upon commentary by a few strong POV sites regarding an occurrence that he does not appear to be directly involved in. In sum, mention the dam and the conflict regarding the threat to Pasargad, but don't include the random commentary from special interest websites as fact. Hence, the section will present facts, and people can decide for themselves if that constitutes "cultural terrorism." The current presentation, because of titling and mention/comparison to Taliban, seeks to be more argumentative than informative. Thanks, I will make appropriate changes to seek neutrality. The Behnam 04:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The more I look at this section, the less relevant it becomes. It is not about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; it is about a member of his cabinet announcing that the dam, which has been planned for at least a decade, it going to be flooded. The section shouldn't be here unless Ahmadinejad himself has commented on the matter in some significant way. It seems, especially considering the wording and content of this section when it was first made, that the section was made more in campaign against Ahmadinejad than for fair, encyclopedic coverage. The Behnam 18:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Reuters confirm translation about "wipe israel off the map"

From news wire: Iran president says Israel's days are numbered

"Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out," he added.

comment by reader:

You continue to report that "Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map"" even though many Mideast experts have stated that the interpretation of what Ahmadinejad actually said was that the "Zionist regime will not last." In other words, rather than calling for ethnic cleansing, as your news stories imply, Iranian officials are calling for regime change--a common enough phrase these days. Are your reporters and editors deliberately misinforming the public? Jan

Reuters editor: We actually had access to this speech, and heard the president's words verbatim from our own TV footage. We stand behind our translation. In this case, he used the word "mahv," which in Farsi means "wiped off" (signed by Reuters editor)

see: http://today.reuters.com/news/GBUStories.aspx

Zeq 09:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC) '

I checked out the Iranian government website that has English translations of Ahmadinejad's speeches and it reads: "As the Soviet Union disappeared, the Zionist regime will also vanish." Mahv may mean "wiped" but it seems it can also be translated as "vanish". If the Iranians say vanish then wiped has to be POV. Wayne 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

'

If they stood by their translation then this is the way it must have been reported: "Just as the Soviet Union was wiped off the map and today does not exist, so will the Israel soon be wiped off the map". This is why my trust in the western media has been shattered.--Gerash77 09:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest reading this article writen by The Guardian's Jonathan Steele and having the quote corrected accordinaly. http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html 75.136.192.168 05:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That is merely an op-ed piece by a single person trying to make a point. The fact that much of his article is based upon a translation from Juan Cole (whom he refers to as indefatigable) should give some indication as to his pov. He also pretends to be part of a near-consensus, when in fact the opposite is true and all but a few people, who advocate an incorrect translation in an attempt to support their political goals, agree that Reuters' translation was in fact correct.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

He presents a pretty compelling case - do you have some links to actual counterarguments? Haukur 23:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you two talking about the interpretation of "regime" meaning "nation" or "government", or about the "wiped off the map" issue? The latter has strong sourcing as it is, and the former has received brief mention, though if a neutral section about conflicts in that arena of discussion is added, it wouldn't hurt. Anyway, the editor's response to the reader in that quote above doesn't appear to address the reader's concerns, so I am not sure what the point is. The Behnam 06:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This page has been semi-protected for a long time. I don't really have an objection to it, but I just wanted to get a feel for what the current consensus is on this. Personally, I enjoy that we aren't subject to random vandalization in the article, but I also wonder how much legitimate contributions are not happening because of it. According to the semi-protection policy, this is not usually a pre-emptive measure, but Jimbo has suggested that it could be used specifically in cases such as this: [4].

So I guess the real question is, do you guys want to try turning it off and see how much vandalism we get? We can always re-add it if there's a problem. I have no problem keeping it, and I have no problem removing it. I just feel like I don't know if it's necessary.

Thoughts? Vir4030 15:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Give it a shot, I say. If after a few days we've just had too much, then put it back. Right now there is a big NYT article on MA, and I wonder if new folks who are drawn to the article are being turned away at "edit this page." (Personally I disagree with Jimbo and his assesment of the "consensus.") Sdedeo (tips) 07:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that anonymous users should be advised to direct their proposals to the talk page. If they really have a legitimate contribution, and aren't lazy, they'll be willing to direct it to the talk page. The proposed edit can be discussed and then simply incorporated into the article by an established user. The Behnam 08:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk Archive

I think it's time for another archive of the Talk page. There hasn't been any comments in quite some time, so I think it's appropriate. I've never done it before, and don't want to mess it up. Would anyone care to take care of this? (archive this comment, too) Vir4030 15:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you should archive the Sivand Dam talk yet though; I am still trying to make the section appropriate for this biography. The Behnam 18:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

But as for the issues that are no longer under discussion, they should be archived. Just make sure that a "general consensus" bulletin is placed on top of this talk page afterwards so that we don't have a flood of "Anti-Semitic People" category adds and removes. People have trouble abiding by that decision as it is, and archiving the relevant talk page may furtheraggravate the problem. Nevertheless, this talk page is very lengthy, so the archive is overall a good idea. The Behnam 08:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

For some reason I didn't see the "general consensus" bulletin is already here. Anyway, make sure it stays. The Behnam 08:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

human rights

Very surprised that we don't have a "human rights" section here for MA. The Tehran government is a pretty bad offender and MA's statements about, and approaches towards, human rights need to be detailed. Right now we have a small section discussing his tolerance of a demonstration during a lecture of his, but plenty of dissidents are imprisioned, tortured and disappeared under his regime. Really I'm ready to put an "NPOV" tag on the article, but won't until I have a chance to edit rather boldly to broaden the WP discussion beyond this one event. Sdedeo (tips) 07:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this is because there is nothing particularly special about his government's policies on human rights relative to other IRI governments. Aside from his tolerance of that demonstration, nothing has been particularly special about his approach. Of course, if you think there is something worthwhile to add, feel free to do so; just make sure that it is actually about Ahmadinejad and not just about Human Rights in Iran. The Behnam 07:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that the focus on this one student demonstration is undue weight. The impression given is that MA is a pretty tolerant person when it comes to dissent, when the opposite is the case? What do you think? And why is the student demonstration not something that belongs only in the specific HR article along with the long list of detentions, tortures, etc, etc? Sdedeo (tips) 07:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a "however" statement mentioning that human rights in Iran has remained an issue of concern under Ahmadinejad's government can be added. The student part gets mention here not only because they directly criticized Ahmadinejad, but also because of his reaction to it, which was unique. If it isn't mentioning in the other article, it probably should be, but it received very Ahmadinejad-related coverage so it oughtn't be removed unless some other reason can be brought forth. Overall, I don't think that the article gives him a very "tolerant" look, considering the stuff about university purges, etc., but if you feel that that particular section is too nice on him, feel free to mention something along the lines of the "however" statement. Other editors here will make necessary improvements to the addition anyway, so its worth an edit. Try adding it and we'll see if it improves the section. The Behnam 07:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a rather odd argument: you are saying that we should place emphasis on a deviation from MA's usual human rights practices because it is "unique"? One would think the opposite would be the case: the majority of the section should focus on the dominant aspects of his human rights record (miserable) with a brief mention of an exception. Do you disagree? I'm not saying remove it, but rather give it proper prominance in what should focus on the mainstream aspects of his rule. Sdedeo (tips) 08:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it's just that the usual practices aren't really "his" so to speak, and he hasn't received much special attention for the usual practices. The deviation is from the "usual" practices in IRI, making that particular incident unique. Of course, the primary reason for inclusion is the fact that the entire incident received a lot of attention, and Ahmadinejad was directly involved. I don't think it would be appropriate to include a little subset of the HR in Iran here, since those issues in Iran aren't particular to Ahmadinejad aside from what has already been mentioned; aka the purges, etc. Again, I suggest a small "disclaimer"-like statement to remind the reader that human rights has remained an issue even under his government. Also, you could link to the main article on the topic or the student protest. In sum, there should be no drastic change here; just add a little something to prevent misleading readers into thinking that Ahmadinejad is some sort of "tolerance freak." I'm having trouble seeing what exactly you are aiming for, so add it and then I can better express my opinion. The Behnam 08:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International both lay much (though not all) of the responsibility for the current Human Rights situation in Iran at Ahmadinejad's feet. The section, when I looked closer, was included unsourced claims directly contradicted by HRW and AI reports. I've gone for a very general and brief coverage of the situation using the 2006 the AI and HRW reports and focusing as much as possible on points where they attribute human rights violations to Ahmadinejad's election, cabinet, etc. I think this gives the full picture of the specific impact MA has had on the human rights situation. Sdedeo (tips) 16:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of your change looks good. The standalone comparison between Ahmadinejad and Khatami, while sourced, may be contested in other sources. Suppression and newspaper closures came with Khatami too, so I'm not sure if only Human Rights Watch should be used. Also, now that the section exists, anything else rights-related(aka Women's rights) should be moved there, and then the section will be divided into subsections. Good job overall. The Behnam 19:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Behnam -- one of the few times I've stepped into a controversial article and met with pleasant folks on the talk page when I've made such a big edit. Definitely, this section could be expanded and in my quick write-up I've used only three sources: HRW, AI and the Canadian government. I'm hardly an Iran expert, but I think what I'll do now is wait for the section to evolve in the usual wiki fashion. If I come across new sources to balance or expand I'll definitely add them in. Sdedeo (tips) 20:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not sure how Sina Kardar's edits affect the situation. Now there are multiple mentions of the student protest, one for national criticism and another for the human rights aspect of the reaction. I have some schoolwork to do, but I'll think about it and if I can devise a solution, I'll bring it here. It may just require manipulation of sections and subsections. The Behnam 21:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead Neutrality Tag

Just so y'all know, I added a neutrality tag to the lead in light of the obvious conflict there. Adding my reasoning per Avraham's request. Thanks Avraham for correcting my stupidly-positioned tag. The Behnam 18:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any discussion on Talk: though, as it claims, so you should probably remove it. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well there has been some discussion in the Slander in the Lead section. Unfortunately, a lot of the people undoing your edits don't discuss the matter anymore. However, I felt , based on the edit conflict and the accompanying edit summaries, that there is definitely a neutrality conflict there. If you object to the "talk" part, then the "talk" mention will be removed, but not the neutrality tag as a whole. Though I'm not exactly sure how to modify the tag, but I'll figure it out. If you still object to the "talk" part, I'll try to remove the "talk" mention. The Behnam 00:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a standard tag, and you shouldn't modify it. If they're reverting without Talk:, then the tag simply doesn't belong. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you know of a better tag that simply states the neutrality dispute? There is definitely a neutrality dispute, so it is only pright to proclaim this. The focus, after all, behind placing the tag is not the discussion but rather the neutrality issue itself. You do recognize the neutrality dispute, do you not? The Behnam 00:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It is standard practice on Wikipedia that if people are unwilling to advance their points on Talk:, then they have no right to deface articles with tags. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of defacement. I simply put a neutrality tag because the neutrality is obviously disputed. I don't think it would be honest to remove mention of the neutrality dispute, because it is still there, regardless of whether or not the users have added more to the discussion. Apparently, they had discussed previously, but for no known reason, they haven't decided to speak on the recent wave. Still, I'm concerned about trying to cover up the obvious neutrality dispute; are you sure that you don't know of a better way to mark this obvious condition of the section? Thanks for help. The Behnam 00:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to remove the second paragraph? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Benham, it might a good idea to remove the tag and let those who are actually disputing the issue to add the tag if they feel it's necessary (along with, hopefully, contributions to talk). Unless you are also disputing the neutrailty yourself, in which case you might want to say why. Make sense?

IronDuke 01:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nah, don't remove the second paragraph, it makes complete sense to talk about that stuff. Obviously, I have mentioned that there is need to find a middle ground between the whole "Israel" versus "regime" thing so that opposing sides don't keep changing it, but that doesn't involve moving the paragraph at all. Pejman needs to explain whatever is so POV about displaying it an inch higher on the page; it is not like he objects to actual content in the paragraph, so it seems a silly and trivial change with no affect on POV. Really, I added to tag to reflect reality(there was a neutrality conflict) and also as an attempt to appease people who keep changing it, without actually having to go their way on the edit. Perhaps they wouldn't care so much about implanting their views if they know that the reader will know that neutrality is questioned. Anyway, I suppose it is better to remove the tag despite the fact that dispute does exist. Based on current trends, these people will neither reinstate it nor restart discussion, but continue to enforce the changes. The Behnam 01:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The current quote within a quote where only the inner quote is actually to Ahmadinejad's words is confusing and misleading. The body of the article presents several nuances important to understanding his statements about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Holocaust - the lead does not fairly summarize this. I'm putting the neutrality dispute tag back up. Haukur 10:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly confusing; just about every source says this. The point is what he has been internationally condemned for, which is what made the news, not the various "nuances" that his apologists continually use to try to excuse him. Keep in mind that, regardless of what he actually said or meant in the initial speech, when later questioned about it on 60 Minutes, and given the opportunity to deny he meant the destruction of Israel but merely "regime change", he refused to do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

We can't say things like: "He has been condemned by many world governments for "calling for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'"" and pretend that we're not taking a stance on whether this was what he actually meant or not. If I say "George Bush has been widely condemned for being an idiot" it's technically true but I still can't say things like that and pretend I'm not taking a stance on his purported idiocy.

As for the 60 minutes interview I don't see how it supports your claims. When asked about the comment in question he responded: "I think that the Israeli government is a fabricated government." This is perfectly consistent with the view that he was calling for regime change, rather than genocide. Haukur 17:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The international community has taken a stance on this, and we need to report that. Many reliable sources have noted that he has been condemned by the international community for making these statements. Frankly, Ahmadinejad is the opposite of a reliable source when it comes to what he meant. Finally, the international community has not formally condemned George Bush for being an idiot, so your analogy fails. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, Ahmadinejad is the opposite of a reliable source when it comes to what he meant. It was you who brought this up. Haukur 23:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The wording of the Security Council resolution was: "The Security Council condemns the remarks about Israel attributed to Mr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of the Islamic republic of Iran." Haukur 23:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The summary of this section reads like this at [5]: "He further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away." This source cannot reasonably be construed to be biased against Ahmadinejad so it might be of some use. Haukur 20:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how, though. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, for example I think a wording of the lead which went something like this would be neutral: "condemned for predicting that the increasing turmoil in the Middle East would "in no time wipe Israel away"" Haukur 12:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

But that's not what he was condemned for. He was condemned for calling for the destruction of Israel; none of those condemning him had even heard of his absurdly weak ex post facto rationalization of his words as "predicting that the increasing turmoil in the Middle East would "in no time wipe Israel away"" - and if they had, they would rightly have either laughed at it or ignored it entirely. Wikipedia has to report on what actually happened, not what you wish had happened in some sort of alternate universe. Reporting reality is entirely neutral; the sources are reproduced quite faithfully, and the translation apologia are a minor sidebar. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to report on what actually happened, not what you wish had happened in some sort of alternate universe. So, quote what the guy actually said - not a biased summary of it. Haukur 23:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't about his speech, and the various suppporters who have tried to white-wash it after the fact, it's about what was notable, which was the reaction to his speech i.e. the huge worldwide outcry and condemnation of it. He was condemned for denying the Holocaust and calling for the destruction of Israel; he was not condemned for pontificating on the possible outcomes of the current Middle East situation. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

But we're supposed to report neutrally on things, not uncritically imply that he said something he may not have. Haukur 17:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

And we have very neutrally summarized what has made him famous. Also, please review WP:NPOV, which doesn't say what you seem to imply it says. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What has "made him famous" is being president of one of the world's largest countries. WP:NPOV says: "This page in a nutshell: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." You are overemphasising the "proportionately" part while ignoring "fairly" and "without bias". Haukur 12:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No, there a lots of presidents of countries in the world, but the controversy swirling around Ahmadinejad involves his nuclear ambitions, denial of the Holocaust, and call for the destruction of Israel, just as what makes the current President of Israel Moshe Katsav famous are the accusations of raping female subordinates. The intro of Moshe Katsav is illustrative: it reads:

Moshe Katsav (Hebrew: משה קצב; born December 5, 1945) is the eighth and current President of Israel (since 2000). As of January 25, 2007, he is on a leave of absence from his presidential duties amid impending charges of crimes stemming from his alleged raping of female subordinates.^[1]

^[2]

No-one is trying to hide what has brought him to world attention, nor are they filling the intro with his protestations of innocence. Yes, I'm sure his supporters have all sorts of defenses of his actions, just as Ahmadinejad's supporters have all sorts of defenses for his actions and statements, but those defenses are not what are notable. NPOV is satisfied by giving the apologists space in the section discussing the details, and in inserting Ahmadinejad's claim into the lead that he is not antisemitic. NPOV in no way requires that we insert in the lead the rather absurd ex post facto claims of a small number of people that he really didn't call for Israel's destruction; the body of the text handles the details of that embarrassing "debate". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What is nice there is that it says "alleged," so it doesn't really take a POV. I still don't know why this is "apologetic,"; I'd say few here actually like Ahmadinejad. It seems like a translation issue, and editors are concerned that we are ascribing to him a quote that he could not have said. The current setup is not neutral. The Behnam 17:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

But Ahmadinejad was condemned for calling for Israel to be destroyed; that's a direct quote. He wasn't condemned for allegedly anything. Look, a direct quote of a reliable source Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who since coming to power in 2005 has drawn international condemnation by describing the Holocaust as "a myth" and calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map."? See? That's what reliable sources say. We not ascribing to him anything at all, we're describing what he has been condemned for. And if Katsav is convicted of rape, then the lead will say he was convicted for raping someone, not that he was convicted for "allegedly" raping someone. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's rather disappointing that you have been reverting without responding. Again, you must quote the sources accurately. You simply cannot pretend they say something they do not, even if you claim that enhances NPOV. He was condemned for calling for the destruction of Israel; he was not condemned by anyone for "allegedly" doing so. I've re-worded the intro again in the interests of trying to solve your complaint, in a way that actually accurately represents the sources used. However, I simply cannot allow Wikipedia to falsely represent sources; you should also have taken this as your primary goal, even above your ideological need defend Ahmadinejad. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I agree it won't go anywhere without discussion. My idea was to not quote the entire statement "for saying that Israel must be 'wiped off the map'", but instead only quote the "wiped off the map" part. By avoiding the direct quote, the neutrality dispute is open to a possible solution by allowing for "allegedly" or a similar word to be added to signify that, as far as articles where the quote is the primary subject, there is a disagreement over the exact meaning.

However, the "widely reported" wording is fine and reflects the fact that it was widely reported; I am glad that you took some input from others, and an agreement was reached. The version I kept undoing was an obvious POV statement portraying the wording as definite fact, that until now had been enforced regardless of the neutrality objections on this page.

As far as my supposed "ideological need to defend Ahmadinejad", please refrain from personal attacks and ill-considered accusations. This would be like me saying you compromise WP articles out of an ideological need to defend Zionism. Completely baseless; don't you think so?

Also, use talk ages for their intended purpose of discussing the articles unless you must respond to a personal comment about you made by another. I am not part of Ahmadinejad's ideology; I am not even a Muslim, much less a "blame-the-British-and-the-Zionists-for-everything-bad" type. My 'ideology' here is to maintain neutrality, and I think that this has finally been satisfied with the current wording. The Behnam 18:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Widely reported" is a reasonable compromise. Even accepting that he said wiped of the map, even the most biased source still translates rezhim-e as regime not Israel. To say he meant Israel is POV considering the number of times he has used that word as equating to the Soviet regime dissapearing. Nuetrality should be maintained even if it does conflict with the personal beliefs of a large number of people. Wayne 13:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Lead Compromise

I think we don't lose anything by being specific in the lead. His statements can easily be alluded to with more specificity, otherwise we not only violate WP:LEAD, but make the lead a whole lot less clear. IronDuke 01:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of quote from IRNA via International Clearing House

I want to comment on my rationale for removing the quote from the IRNA. The problem is that we don't have the original text of what Ahmadinejad said, what we have is an edited and truncated version that came to us via an unreliable source. (You'll note that the ellipses in the ICH piece are exactly the same as those in our article, which means we either got it from ICH or both of us got it from someone else). There has been a lot of debate over whether Ahmadinejad's comments in the past have been misinterpreted, mistranslated or otherwise altered to push a POV. (See for example the controversy over whether Ahmadinejad said Israel should be wiped off the map). Given this history, I think its a very bad idea to use an edited quote especially when the point of the quote is vague, as this one is. GabrielF 20:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You can get the quote straight from the horse's mouth here: [6] Haukur 20:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you figure out what any of it means, or how it would be relevant? It appears to be written in some sort of political propaganda-speak that looks like English, but doesn't really have any meaning when examined more closely. What is it saying? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This summary isn't entirely coherent, which has probably mostly to do with lack of English skill on behalf of those summarizing Ahmadinejad's speeches on his website. The intention is fairly clearly to express general sympathy for the Palestinian cause while decrying the propaganda value the Israeli cause has got out of the Holocaust, stopping just short of explicitly denying that the Holocaust took place. Some fairly generic snipes at the West too. Something like that. But we may be able to find a clearer summary of Ahmadinejad's views. Haukur 22:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's just summarizing a speech where he expressed his views on Palestine, Holocaust, Zionist & colonial culture, etc. I'm not sure what is so confusing about that. The fact that it states a bunch of his conclusions rather than his arguments is probably why it doesn't seem very valuable. It should be considered relevant to his views about Palestine, Holocaust, Zionist & colonial culture, etc. The "political propaganda-speak" reveals the political nature of the speech. I hope that makes sense. The Behnam 00:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Behnam, are you surprised a politician makes a speech with a political nature? --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 10:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

:), All of his speech have elements of PR, and It is natural for a politician like all around the world. For example, didn't you have get the meaning of "wipe of the map" and "holocaust conference", it is: "we can be very dangerous. so, It's better for your to don't bother us!" But this interpretations have no place in here, but we must give all of his quotes even if they contradict itself. The interpretation of them is task of reader. --Pejman47 11:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Pejman, that's exactly the point. Ahmadinejad contradicts himself. He says one thing to Iran, and another thing to the west. And that's why it makes no sense to believe anything he says. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 11:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that quote as offering any value at all. It is an incoherent rant.--Mantanmoreland 17:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

^ "Israel's attorney general has told President Moshe Katsav to move out of his official residence in Jerusalem while he takes a leave of absence to fight off accusations that he committed rape and other crimes, media reported Wednesday. Katsav's attorneys reacted with anger, saying he was being intentionally humiliated by Attorney General Meni Mazuz, who said last week that he planned to charge Katsav with a series of crimes stemming from his treatment of female subordinates." (Intl Herald Tribune)
^ Bousso, Ron (25 January 2007). "Israel's bland president Katsav facing disgrace". AFP (via Yahoo! News). Retrieved 2007-01-25. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[1] "Israel's attorney general has told President Moshe Katsav to move out of his official residence in Jerusalem while he takes a leave of absence to fight off accusations that he committed rape and other crimes, media reported Wednesday. Katsav's attorneys reacted with anger, saying he was being intentionally humiliated by Attorney General Meni Mazuz, who said last week that he planned to charge Katsav with a series of crimes stemming from his treatment of female subordinates." (Intl Herald Tribune)

[bousso-2] Bousso, Ron (25 January 2007). "Israel's bland president Katsav facing disgrace". AFP (via Yahoo! News). Retrieved 2007-01-25. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[1]

[2]