Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Misinterpretation / Misquotation of the actual speech

Below is the link that clearly explains what President Ahmadinejad, in fact, said was 'Israel should be vanished from the page of time" (Safhe Roozgar in Persian) and he actually misquoted Khomeini's speech in which he'd said 'Israel should be vanished from the scene of time' (Sahne Roozgar in Persian).

The link to the English article published on Guradin website is here [1]

And the original Persian scripts can be found on the President's website [president.ir] or alternatively by clicking here[2]

I believe as Jonathan Steele says in his article, ' western and Israeli hawks ' are re-doubling their suspicions on the democratically-elected Iranian Government. Do you not think so?

LOVE, RESPECT, PEACE

From Persia, with 8000 years of civilisation and history--Sorkhadem 12:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Iran did not threaten to wipe Israel off the map, what he said is "The Imam [Ayatollah Khamenei] said this regeme occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," - there was no mention of map or wiping anyone off it.

- Love, respect and peace in the middle-east —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.40.30 (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous

It is crazy that the us government accuses and wants to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the United Nations Charter because of his mild criticism of Israel when most of the politicians are completely ignoring the genocide in darfur! cleary money is more important for some than life and freedom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adfefjhi3 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"population transfer"

The article currently states that:

Nevertheless, there were specific calls by the Iranian President to remove Israel's Jews to Europe, which fall under the definition of population transfer. [20]

Firstly, the grammatical mood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_mood#Conditional) of the reference [20] (http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10266) has been misinterpreted:

Iranian President MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD said that if Germany and Austria feel responsible for the Jewish Holocaust, they should give up their land for Israel, BBC reported. [...]

The mood of this sentence is Conditional, at worst Subjunctive, which are both by definition Irrealis moods (i.e. not real).

Secondly, again according to the referenced Aljazeera article [20], Ahmadinejad said:

You oppressed them, so give a part of Europe to the Zionist regime so they can establish any government they want [...]

However, according to the Wikipedia article on population transfer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer):

Population transfer is the forced movement of a large group of people [...]

There is obviously a contradiction here.

Therefore, independent of whether the actual speech included a "call" to remove Israel's Jews to Europe or not, this reference cannot be used to support that statement. This is the reason I removed it.

Would Netscott please explain why he keeps re-editing that sentence in?

citation numbers messed up

The {{ref|47}} reference numbering style can easily get messed up - as it clearly has on this page. It will require some work to fix up. IMHO the following reference style is easier to handle, since you only need to keep the reference list at the bottom in numerical order, and add new references at the bottom, and you can make several citations in the text to a single reference if needed, making it easier to support different statements, rather than (wastefully) having to list the same link several times. Anyway, with the two references i've added, i've tried doing this. Here's a brief explanation:

in the text:

First place in text {{ref label|bbckhatami|25|b}}

second place in text {{ref label|bbckhatami|25|c}}

in the notes section:

# {{note label|bbckhatami|25|b}} {{ref label|bbckhatami|25|c}} {{cite web etc...}}

Boud 17:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a now a referencing system which simply uses <ref> and </ref> tags around the in-line references, and automatically generates the References section. I have converted some refs to this system (after pasting content from the main article), but further work needs to be done. — JEREMY 02:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternative images on the web

Here's another example of style: [3], offered by Iran Student News Agency [4]. Although the guy is appearantly not Ahmadinejad (in the picture I first referred to), the painting below speaks for itself. --Constanz - Talk 07:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Leftist anti-Israel agitator?

Wikipedia is no place for jokes. Put a sentence in informing readers of any possible source of bias if you'd like, but verifiable please, and using an authoritive source. TopRank 10:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, Toprank; have done so — although it's not really a full sentence. — JEREMY 12:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Ignore me; misread the history. — JEREMY 13:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

MEMRI

I do not consider that MEMRI was founded in part by former Israeli intelligence officers to be either unverifiable or irrelevant in the context of this article. Is there a rule under which it should be removed? My point in including it is that MEMRI, which as far as I know has never been accused of having an anti-Israel bias, gives a nearly identical translation. TopRank 20:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I just got the leftist anti-Israel agitator joke. Jaygg, you can point to verifiable facts about Cole if you think they would give the reader a more accurate picture of him. That is not irrelevant. It is a verifiable fact that MEMRI was founded in part by former members of Israel's intelligence services, and it is relevant because the MEMRI translation therefore cannot be considered to come from a source hostile to Israel. If you consider Cole a leftist or anti-Israel or whatever, just provide a verifiable fact and there is no problem with it going in. TopRank 06:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would this claim be relevant to this article? Should it be included as boiler-plate with every single reference to MEMRI in every single article which mentions it? If not, it is poisoning the well. Please read that link carefully. We don't have various sly innuendos included about the other sources referenced here; do we mention, for example, the much more relevant criticisms of Juan Cole as both anti-Israel and an anti-Semite? No, we don't. And you obviously know what poisoning the well is, since you removed it in relation to Hamas. If you again attempt to include this well-poisoning in the article, I will simply revert your edits without comment, as I have done just now. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, either you're deliberately misinterpreting TopRank (which I consider unlikely) or you're just not paying attention. Far from "well-poisoning" (for which, I realise, you could not suffer his edits to persist), TopRank is attempting to demonstrate that MEMRI is unlikely to display a pro-Iranian bias, and therefore why its translation should be trusted. (If anything, rather than acting "with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say", he's talking them up.) This is entirely relevant in a situation where MEMRI's translation is being used as a counter-example to the NYT's. I believe my recent changes render TopRank's description and reference less necessary, but I'd still like to hear you explain why you disagree with this reasoning, and perhaps to apologise to TopRank for your unreasonable characterisations of his actions. — JEREMY 05:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it is supportive or not; it's an inappropriate description of MEMRI. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a factual description as per the opening of the MEMRI article, and it was externally referenced. Please point to the wikipedia policy or guideline under which it is "inappropriate" to contextualise sources. (I notice you haven't retracted your accusations of well-poisoning, btw.) — JEREMY 07:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If it is verifiable, which it is or it should not appear in the MEMRI wikipedia article, and it is relevant, which it is because it demonstrates a lack of anti-Israel bias in the translation, and a wikipedia editor inserts it, then it should not be removed unless it violates some policy. I am also asking for the policy or guideline under which you are arguing it should be removed. TopRank 14:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I would also happily put the issue of supposed well poisoning before the arbitration committee, but I would expect Jayjg to recuse himself. TopRank 14:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea where the idea that every boilerplate reference to MEMRI should discuss its ties to Israel, but here specifically, the fact that an organization presumably sympathetic to Israel interprets the speech the way Cole interprets it is relevant. A reader unfamiliar with MEMRI might believe it has a pro-Iran or anti-Israel agenda. There is no reason that cannot be cleared up in the article using a verifiable fact. Again, I agree to be bound by the arbitration committee's decision if you would like to present it. TopRank 01:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not file an arbitration request over this. This is exactly the type of petty squabble we do not want. I do think the insinuation that because former Israeli intelligence officers founded MEMRI it must somehow be presumed biased is inappropriate. With a large body of publicly available work that they have done, you should look at that work. It's all there in black and white. Fred Bauder 14:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many times, in how many ways Jeremy and I have to say this. I am not presuming MEMRI is biased. Including the statement dispels any idea a reader might have gotten that MEMRI is biased against Israel. I have to say this is weird. TopRank 03:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

MEMRI is linked; the person who wants to know anything about it can click on the link. As noted above, I'm simply going to revert insertion of poisoning the well, which you yourself has recognized is a problem. By the way, the arbitration committee doesn't deal with minor content disputes. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that MEMRI is linked does not make the fact either irrelevant or non-verifiable. It is not poisoning the well as was pointed out above. I think you are being irrational here. I'll report it to the arbitration committee and see if they decide not to deal with it. I expect you to recuse yourself from any discusssion. TopRank 12:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Request third opinion

I consider the description of MEMRI:

MEMRI, a US based translation service founded in part by former members of Israel's intelligence services, interprets the phrase similarly:

To be both verifiable and relevant. Relevant because the MEMRI quote is being used as an interpretation that does not come from a source arguably hostile to Israel. The description of MEMRI certainly does not fit the definition at the link [poisoning the well] however it is being repeatedly reverted by user Jayjg. TopRank 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a big problem with this description, but it's a tossup which one is better. People can click on the wikilink if they want more information about it. I would err on the side of taking that description out and letting people click on it if they want. We shouldn't be conducting original research here, and if there's an issue with MEMRI's translation, then we find a source for that. Fagstein 01:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It has been put in because at least one editor finds it both verifiable and relevant. It is being removed on the basis that it is well poisoning. I will take Fagstein's position as a vote that it is not well poisoning, which has a specific definition that the MEMRI description does not fit. TopRank 04:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You would be wrong. See the next section. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Shockingly, you seem not to understand that "you are wrong" is not an argument or defense of your position. The fact that "you are wrong" is not an argument at all, but is still the best argument you, or anyone on your side has produced about poisoning the well, should indicate the weakness of your position. TopRank 03:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop your attempts of poisoning the well and your childish ad homs. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Poisoning the Well

I also suggest that the Hamas destruction of Israel is clearly well poisoning while MEMRI's ties to Israel is not well poisoning. I have explained the relevance of MEMRI's ties to Israel, which is that MEMRI's quote is being presented as from a source relatively sympathetic to Israel. Hamas' quote regarding the obliteration of Israel has no bearing on the amount of support Ahmadinejad's views have among Palestinians, which is the only relevance of Hamas even appearing in an article about Ahmadinejad. This article is becoming laughably POV with the eager participation of what apparently are editors such as Jayjg who should know better. This is truly sad to see. TopRank 04:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The destruction of Israel is Hamas' raison d'être, see their own charter doc and their speeches. I cannot comprehend why is the nationality/ethicity/previous jobs of some of the MEMRI's founders relevant to the quality of their translations. "MEMRI's ties to Israel" is something you'll need to prove. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"MEMRI was founded by former members of Israel's intelligence services" is a verifiable statement. I'm not claiming MEMRI is unreliable. I'm not even claiming that MEMRI is sympathetic to Israel. The reader can take the relevant, verifiable fact and draw what the reader considers an appropriate inference. I think it is appropriate to infer that MEMRI is not some radical left-wing organization that is downplaying its translation out of hostilitiy towards Israel. But the reader can draw his or her own inference. TopRank 01:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What you conveniently ignore is the fact that Hamas was a creation of Mossad in order to weaken the secular nationalistic Palestinian movement. Lixy 11:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

To recap, first, removing information on the basis of poisoning the well does not seem to be even unofficial wikipedia policy. But either way, let's look at how wikipedia defines it:

Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy where adverse information about someone is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say. Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem. The term was first used with this sense

In the case of MEMRI, the fact that some of its founders were former Israeli intelligence members is not presented as adverse information, nor is there an intention of discrediting or ridiculing the organization. It is a verifiable fact that is included to dispel any idea the reader may have that the translations were chosen from parties hostile to Israel. Also, Jayjg's contention that it was poisoning the well was contested and Jayjg provided no argument that it is actually poisoning the well after being asked to do so by two different people. Instead he and now Humus Sapiens have continued reverting changes on that basis.

In the case of Hamas, the article is about Ahmadinejad and Israel, the subsection is about Palestinian responses to MA's speech. The fact that Hamas is Palestinian and has been elected as the ruling party is relevant information regarding Palestinian responses to MA's speech. The fact that there is a quotation regarding the obliteration of Israel in Hamas' charter is not directly relevant to the Palestinian response to MA's speech. It is included purely to discredit or ridicule what Hamas says. Unlike the MEMRI reference the Hamas reference is purely poisoning the well. TopRank 01:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Long speech, little sense. This time you outdid yourself and got both points wrong. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"Long speech, little sense." Is not an argument or a defense of your position. Please produce a defense of your position that obliteration of Israel is not poisoning the well but former intelligence officers is a poisoning the well. TopRank 03:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of IRNA Holocaust translation

IRNA is the official news agency of Iran. It presented an interpretation of the speech that was entirely removed, first by Pecher, then by Humus Sapiens. Pecher claiming that IRNA is not as reliable as CNN, Humus Sapiens claiming that including it is POV.

"If the Europeans are telling the truth in their claim that they have killed six million Jews in the Holocaust during the World War II - which seems they are right in their claim because they insist on it and arrest and imprison those who oppose it, why should the Palestinian nation pay for the crime. Why have they come to the very heart of the Islamic world and are committing crimes against the dear Palestine using their bombs, rockets, missiles and sanctions. [...] The same European countries have imposed the illegally-established Zionist regime on the oppressed nation of Palestine. If you have committed the crimes so give a piece of your land somewhere in Europe or America and Canada or Alaska to them to set up their own state there. Then the Iranian nation will have no objections, will stage no rallies on the Qods Day and will support your decision."

I don't think I have to argue that this, presented as an Iranian translation, is both verifiable and relevant. If putting this into a less-visited subsection is responsible for the relentless attempts to insert POV into this subarticle, then I suggest merging this sub article back with the main article, where it will get more exposure and these attempts to add POV can be more broadly resisted. TopRank 04:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Mention that it's Iran's official agency and leave it at that. People can make their own determination. Fagstein 06:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you trying to say, the entire independent and free (as in freedom) Western media got it wrong (oh yeah, I forgot: it's controlled by the Joos), while the Iranian propaganda outlet IRNA got it correct? LOL. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If the translations differ, include them both. Remember, it's verifiability, not truth. Fagstein 18:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Humus Sapiens, you seem to be attempting to construct this argument such that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically an anti-Western, anti-Freedom conspiracy theorist — and an antisemite. I find your strawmanning and tarbabying extraordinarily offensive; it reflects very poorly on your ability to act in good faith. Please cease all such tactics forthwith. — JEREMY 04:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your concerns. Where did "anyone who disagrees with you" come from? This is not about me, so I suggest you save your "righteous" adjectives, and watch for amount of whitewashing that goes on in this article. Speaking of which: the Holocaust denial should be called for what it is. Other than whitewash, why is that translation notable? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

When "whitewashing" is adding verifiable statements, "whitewashing" is wikipedia policy. Removing "whitewashing" because it does not match your POV is antithetical to wikipedia policy. The translation is notable, because it is the translation of the government of the speaker. The translation is also notable because speaking of the Holocaust MA says "it seems it did happen". The translation has been there for months and now you deign yourself, without any argument, able to declare it non-notable and therefor subject to removal. That is crazy, but that is what we are starting to see in this article. TopRank 03:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

The Neutrality of the article and its factual content are disputed. Relevent information is being removed by POV known POV warriors, which means that its factual accuracy is compromised. Tags added in this regard.--Irishpunktom\^talk 14:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Tom, you need to stop blindly reverting articles as your first edit. I'm simply not accepting your usual editing methodology on this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Jay, you have blindly reverted three times on this article, you are in absolutely no position to bemoan anyones "editing methodology"! - You are a known POV warrior, and this is just any series of blind reverts made by you which remove information which can be seen as Critical of your POV. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a "known POV warrior"? LOL! Anyway, please abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me what facts are being disputed and what assertions are biased. The assertions made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are known and widely documented, and as far as I know, nobody has disputed their accuracy. Irishpunktom, if you're going to slap a tag on this, you need to very specifically explain why you're doing so, or I'll just remove the tag. --Leifern 15:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The controversy appears to rest over Jayjg's removal of these two paragraphs:

In 8 May 2006, Vice Premier Shimon Peres said in an interview to Reuters that "the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map," Army Radio reported.[5] In 1981, Israeli fighter jets targeted Iraq’s nuclear reactor but today experts state, this is not the case, explaining Iran has such facilities located in numerous locations, with some being deep underground, a safe distance from aerial strikes.[6] Israel is within range of Iran's ballistic missiles but Israel is believed to possess the only nuclear arsenal in the Middle East.[7]

Peres, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, drew unusually stiff criticism from an analyst on Israel's state television, Yoav Limor, for talking of destroying another country. "There is a broad consensus that it would have been better if Peres had not said this, especially now," Limor said. "I'm quite sure Israel does not want to find itself in the same insane asylum as (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad."[http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/3850070.html

Well, for starters that does not constitute grounds for a tag of factually disputed; no facts are in dispute here. As for violating NPOV, I'm not sure how Peres's comments are relevant to the topic at all. I'm going to leave the NPOV tag intact for now, but the factual dispute has got to go. --Leifern 21:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The first seems to me clearly on topic; the second should perhaps be summarized down to There has been widespread Israeli criticism of this proposal to destroy another country (with link). Septentrionalis 20:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Would the editor who added the dispute tag please describe why the neutrality of this article and its factual content are disputed? —Viriditas | Talk 20:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The controversy over Shimon Peres (May 8, 2006) has no place in the section "2005 "World Without Zionism" speech" and I think this is not the right article for it. Especially the paragraph "Peres, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, drew unusually stiff criticism from an analyst on Israel's state television..." ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

My two cents is that the removal of the IRNA translation of Ahmadinejad's speech, as well as the POV application of the non-wikipedia policy of removal of well-poisoning in the case of MEMRI but not in the case of Hamas, warrant the addition of a POV tag to the article. Especially given that here in the discussion, there is literally no defense of the positions taken by Jayjg, Humus Sapiens and others. Other than namecalling and gang reverting there is no discussion taking place. That is the decision of one group and readers should be directed, if they are interested in seeing the process behind this article. TopRank 03:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

MEMRI and Hamas: second try

If there is a reasonable position, here is the place to put it.

Hamas

In a biographical article about Ahmadinejad, in a sub-article about MA and Israel, in the section about MA's world without Zionism speech, there is a subsection about the Palestinian reaction to the speech. Hamas, a group with popular Palestinian support has expressed a position on Ahmadinejad in the context of the controversy about the speech. What is the relevance to this section or to this article of a quotation in the preamble to Hamas' charter? If the quotation is not included to discredit or ridicule Hamas, what is the point of the quotation appearing in the article? What is the relationship between the quotation and the Palestinian reaction to MA's speech? TopRank 14:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hamas supports exactly what Ahmadinejad called for; Hamas's support for the destruction of Israel is certainly relevant when it defends Ahmadinejad's call for the destruction of Israel. As it is, the phrase is a compromise, since the article used to actually state the obvious truth, whereas now it uses a euphemism. And there are plenty of sources for that truth:

• Hamas, which is committed to the destruction of Israel and establishing an Islamic state in its place
• Hamas is sworn to destroy Israel
• Hamas, which is sworn to destroy Israel
• Hamas, a militant group whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel
• Meshaal whose group -- sworn to the destruction of Israel
• Hamas is sworn to destroy Israel
• support for terrorism and the destruction of Israel
• after its victory -- in fact, ever since it was founded in 1987 -- Hamas has unwaveringly articulated its goal to destroy Israel
• newly elected leaders still calling for the destruction of Israel
• Hamas has said its ultimate goal is to destroy Israel
• Hamas... a group sworn to destroy Israel
• Hamas, an Islamic militant group sworn to destroy Israel

etc. By the way, that last link was from the Khaleej Times, in the United Arab Emirates. Anyway, you went complaining to various ArbCom members about this, who told you that you were wrong, and that you shouldn't continue to remove obvious and relevant facts. In fact, to quote one of them on your Talk: page I don't think much of this edit [8] by you. Deleting a well known fact on the basis that there is no exact quote seems rather obtuse. Additionally I don't think the phrase "destruction of Israel" is particularly point of view, biased or inflammatory.[9] The fact that you continue to edit-war to remove these obvious facts is quite damning. The next time you do, I'll be restoring the non-euphemism version ("calls for the destruction of Israel"). Jayjg ^(talk) 15:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

MEMRI

In a biographical article about Ahmadinejad, in the subsection regarding the translation of a speech, specifically a quote that has been portrayed, arguably incorrectly, as a threat to carry out the physical destruction of Israel, there is a reference to the fact that the group whose translation is being included was founded in part by Israeli intelligence members. The relevance of this fact is that the source that is producing a less inflamatory translation was founded at least in part by people with no incentive to downplay threats to Israel. If there is an argument that the inclusion is not relevant, or a basis on which it should be removed, please put it here. TopRank 14:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me just preempt Jayjg's main argument. The fact that the information can be found somewhere else does not by itself warrant its removal here. TopRank 14:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it was partly founded by Israeli intelligence members is irrelevant to this article; it was founded a long time ago, we do not mention the founders of other news/translation services, and we do not use poisoning the well to imply a "natural bias" on the part of an organization. If The New York Times says something we think it supportive of Ahmadinejad, so we describe it as "The New York Times, which became an internationally recognize paper under the ownership of Adolph Ochs, a Jew, stated..."? Of course not. Moreover, boilerplate information which is available in a link is not included in every article describing the link, that's why we have links in the first place; your "pre-emption" of what you claim is my "main argument" simply holds no water. Please desist from trying to insert this well-poisoning without consensus; any edits you make which include this phrase will be deleted in their entirety. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You are asserting it is well-poisoning, but you have not shown how it is consistent with the wikipedia definition of well-poisoning when you have been repeated asked to do so. There is far from a consensus that it is well-poisoning, you are the only person who has said it is well poisoning here. I and Jeremy have said it is not well-poisoning. Fagstein has said he does not see a problem with it, implying that it is not well-poisoning. "Deleted in their entirety", over several different edits, including edits you do not dispute, just because they come from a single editor is abusive and you should know better. You are not being rational here. Parenthetically, this is support for the POV tag. TopRank 15:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope you recognize the difference between a long time ago, over 100 years in the case of the New York Times and a long time ago, 1998 in the case of MEMRI. I also hope you recognize the difference between "a jew" and "former members of Israel's intelligence services". If the Times had been founded ten years ago, but former members of Israel's intelligence services, I contend that it would be completely relevant to point to that fact that we are not dealing with some radical anti-Israel organization. You obviously would disagree. What would your argument be? Because so far you have not made an argument. TopRank 15:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The New York Times is still published by Ochs' Jewish descendents, the Sulzburgers, so the issue is "current", and you still haven't managed a coherent defence of your poisoining the well. Nor, despite all of your campaigning, have you managed to get even one Arbitration Committee member to agree with you on this; in fact, they all seem to disagree with you. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I also hope you recognize the difference between "a Jew" and "former Israeli intelligence officers". A compromise has already been reached. It seems you just want to argue. When one of the most active editors of an article, who also happens to be on wikipedia's arbitration committee, argues for the sake of arguing, that is another reason the article should have a POV tag. TopRank 19:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What we are talking about is a translation, not an interpretation. There are plenty of people who are bilingual in English and Farsi, as well as English and Arabic; so MEMRI's translation is easily verifiable and disputable. By including the presumed caveat that the founders of MEMRI are one thing or another, you are planting the idea in some readers' heads that the accuracy of the translation is in doubt. That is poisoning the well - if you can find sources that dispute the translation, that's another matter. --Leifern 15:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There is one translation: "wiped off the map", and another translation "removed from pages of history", or "eliminated from slate of time" that are linked in the article. One of the less inflammatory translations is from a source founded by former Israeli intelligence officers. MEMRI, a relatively unknown organization, that a reader might presume has produced a less inflammatory translation because of an anti-Israel bias, is the source that disputes the translation. On the one hand, the entire subsection is describing doubts about the accuracy of the translation. On the other hand "planting ideas in readers heads" through verifiable facts is the wikipedia-approved way to do so. I get a sense that you have not read the section in question. TopRank 16:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I am confused that you can even argue that it isn't well-poisoning. You are attempting to imply that their translation is somehow less valid because of who may possibly have founded it. This is the very definition of well-poisoning.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Not less valid, Moshe; more valid. The suggestion is that MEMRI is unlikely to mistranslate MA in a way favourable to him. Therefore if a translation does seem to concur with the Iranian one, it's possibly more trustworthy if coming from MEMRI, who are not known for their pro-Iranian bias. — JEREMY 04:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If there is a discrepancy about the translation, then the different interpretations should be noted in the article; assuming one bias or another based on the source is a fallacy. Incidentally, former intelligence officials are trained to be accurate not biased. We can argue that point for a long time and never arrive at a consensus. --Leifern 12:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"US-based translation service MEMRI interprets the phrase similarly". This is adequate, I don't see what the problem is as long as MEMRI is merely translating and not interpreting.... Ramallite ^(talk) 19:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the section? Because I cannot figure out where you get assuming one bias or another. I also do not see how "founded in part by former Israeli intelligence officers" is more of a fallacy than "US-based". There is no assertion of bias. It is clearly not well-poisoning. Intelligence officers are trained to be accurate, not biased. But the reader cannot be informed of MEMRI's background this even though it is verifiable. That is POV. As a compromise, I'll change it to MEMRI, a translation service. TopRank 15:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

We have millions of Farsi speakers in the world. The only sure thing it doesn't mean is to kill anybody. It is talking about a country and is a geopolitical statement not demographical. When people talk about Israel in Farsi, they usualy do not refer to the biblical/Quranic meaning of Israel as people. They regard Israel as a country. So it cannot not be a racist statement. By the way; what he said in Farsi is this: "Esraeel bayad az safheye roozegaar mahv shavad." Here is a word-by-word translation. Esraeel: Israel as the country not as the people, bayad: must, safhe: page, ye: of, roozegar: history, timeline or destiny, mahv-shavad: disappear Mohseng 15:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Links that fail

Humus Sapiens hid a paragraph because the link that sourced it expired. It was a paragraph that had survived examination from people with different views over months. In general, information that clearly did support their statement but have now expired should not lead to information being removed, perhaps insert a cite-tag so someone else can track down another link. The link that points to Erekat's "we should be talking about adding Palestine to the map" has failed. Somebody should restore it. In the future, I hope we can avoid trigger-finger hiding of information that goes against our POV's. TopRank 15:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

TR, the paragraph was not "removed" as you insinuate: I commented it out and marked Fix the link then uncomment. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You hid the paragraph as I said, not as I insinuate. It was a paragraph that had been in the article for months during which time you have been an active editor of this article. It was a paragraph that you have seen, and that you would have removed months ago if you had not been able to verify it. My point is that instead of immediately hiding a paragraph of information that you know is verifiable, it would have been better to leave it and put a message in the comments to alert someone to find another link. If you must change the article, it would be better just to add a cite tag. By hiding the information, as far as readers of the article are concerned, you removed the information. You would not have done that to information that fits your POV. It was behavior that you should be ashamed of, but I ask that you not do it in the future. TopRank 01:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

reversions of near article rewrite

I am reverting most of the recent changes of User:TopRank. Besides the fact that most of his edit summaries stated that he was just *fixing* the article because of another editors "tantrums", the information is also very pov.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. Let's talk about the reverts you made. The information I supposedly added that you are describing as "very POV".

• Humus Sapiens hid a paragraph because the link expired. I found new links and unhid the paragraph. Like Jayjg before you, you reverted that edit.

-Please explain how this was "very POV".

• Peres' statement that Iran can also be wiped off the map was consolidated with the other statements by Israeli leaders in a new subsection "Israeli reactions to the speech". You reverted that edit

-Please explain how this was "very POV"

• Dates were added to the Palestinian responses and the responses were put in order. You reverted that edit.

-Please explain how this was "very POV"

• In an obvious mistake a quoted paragraph appeared twice. I removed the second one. Like Jayjg before you, you reverted that edit so that the paragraphs again appeared twice.

-Please explain how this was "very POV"

This behavior is outrageously inconsistent with wikipedia's philosophy and truly you should be ashamed of yourself. I urge adult wikipedians to keep an eye on this article. Because it seems that some people who should know better feel relentless pressure to change the article to fit their political agendas. TopRank 01:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Remove POV tag?

Any second? TopRank 00:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

MEMRI, a source relatively sympathetic to Israel ?

MEMRI presents some middle-east articles/TV shows translated in english. Its purpose is to make extremist arab/muslim speech understandable. The sympathy may reside in the choice of the excerpts. But they are all authentic and presented without commentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.53.149 (talk • contribs)

Oh, please! For centuries, antisemites have been slurring Judaism by presenting selective, out-of-context excerpts from the Talmud and the preaching of extremists. How is this any different? It's what they choose to translate (and thus elevate to prominence) that reveals their agenda. — JEREMY 03:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Intentional mistranslation?

Liftarn and Jeremy insist on adding this to the article:

There is some question about whether the English idiom "wiped off the map" is an accurate translation of what Ahmadinejad said in Farsi, with some sources suggesting the phrase may have been deliberately mistranslated.

It's clearly an extreme minority opinion/conspiracy theory from a non-notable source. Can Jeremy or Liftarn explain their seeming disregard for policy? Are there a number of reliable sources promoting this conspiracy theory? Also, please keep in mind that even if this source were not disqualified on other grounds, one cannot use a Swedish source to discuss whether an English translation from Farsi is correct. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's two parts. "There is some question about whether the English idiom "wiped off the map" is an accurate translation of what Ahmadinejad said in Farsi" this is undeniable since theree are many different translations.[10][11][] "with some sources suggesting the phrase may have been deliberately mistranslated." This may need more sources.[12][13] // Liftarn

As far as the first part goes, the fact that there are different translations does not necessarily imply that any one of them is inaccurate; one can only say there is a "question" regarding the accuracy of "wiped off the map" if people actually question its accuracy. As far as the second part goes, neither of the sources you have brought are reliable sources; even worse, "Little Red"'s version of the conspiracy blames MEMRI, but MEMRI never actually translated it as "wiped off the map", but instead used a much milder expression. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

We can say that it has been translated in different ways. And the sources are good as sources about themselves so we can say that "A and B thinks this and that". // Liftarn

What's the point in saying it has been translated in different ways, when we show just that in the article itself? There's no point in additional useless verbiage, unless one is trying to make some kind of point. As for the sources, since they're not reliable, they can only be used in articles about themselves, not about anything else. Let me know if you start an article about "Little Red". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the Swedish translation does not say anything that the English translations do not say so I'm okay with it being out. I've hidden it for now. I also think "deliberately mistranslated" is a little too strong for what we have verifiable sources for. I think as it is, the reader has plenty of information to form a fact-based conclusion without being led by the editors. TopRank 20:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Some translators

If we must spell out all of the different ways the phrase is translated in this very article, then we should spell them all out: Some translators prefer "regime occupying Jerusalem/regime occupying Qods/occupying regime" to "Israel", and "[vanish from] from the page of time/eliminated from the pages of history" to the idiom "wiped off the map". Otherwise we can just say where there are differences and leave the actual translations where they are. TopRank 04:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed entire section with no discussion?

Jayjg: That section has been here for over a month, during which time you have been an active editor. This is really insane. The speech was newsworthy at the time and directly addresses the subject of this article, Ahmadinejad and Israel. The speech has also been given a full paragraph in the main article, but you are deleting every reference to it in the subarticle. You are going on a POV rampage. It is starting to appear that you cannot be objective when editing this article. As a member of the wikipedia arbitration committee, you should be setting a higher standard. TopRank 04:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is clearly far too lengthy, it doesn't matter if it is relavent, would we include the entire speech during the Nuremberg Rally on the Holocaust article? Also please do not refer to the edits of other people as "insane" it is not at all civil.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

When a section that has been here for six weeks, during which time Jayjg has been editing throughout, is suddenly removed in its entirety that is insane. Second, this is not the entire speech, but excerpts. Make suggestions for shortening it if it is too long. How can you even consider removing it in its entirety when one paragraph out of five is dedicated to it in the summary in the main article? Again, that is insane. TopRank 13:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You condescending tone does not help your argument, again please be civil. A long section composed almost exclusively of quotes does not belong in a wikipedia article. If people want to see it the interwiki is right there.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A major section that has been present through edits by Jayjg and yourself for six weeks should stay until you at least provide a summary. Wiping a relevant section out, that just happens not to support your POV, on the grounds that it is too long (but not even offering a shorter version) is behavior that you should recognize as POV activism contrary to wikipedia ideals. TopRank 13:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have provided adequate reasoning. The amount of time that it has been there is irrelevant.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk

How wikipedia works is major changes are made by consensus, discussion and compromise. To make a major change the way you are trying to make it is POV activism. The idea that no mention at all is preferable to language that was acceptable to both you and Jayjg for six weeks is ludicrous. It is sad that I even have to explain this. TopRank 13:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So is it just completly unreasonable for me to suggest you start acting with a little bit of respect? The matter at hand is not how long it was accepted or who agreed to it. The matter is that you are not supposed to include a long section filled almost entirely with quotes in a wikipedia article. That is what wikiquote is for.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The entire section was just a reproduction of one of Ahmadinejad's speeches, it was neither relevant nor interesting. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As you know, it was widely reported in the international and United States press. That a speech by Ahmadinejad about Israel that is widely reported in the news media can be not relevant to a wikipedia article "Ahmadinejad and Israel" is breathtaking. Obviously do you not find it interesting, I suspect for POV reasons, but that is not grounds for complete removal. I removed the quotations except one and just left descriptions of what was said. You removed that also. This is very disappointing behavior. TopRank 16:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue (and article) here is the controversy (regardless of the current whitewashed title), not any general speech or statement Ahmadinejad makes about Israel. Wikipedia articles should actually be about something interesting and relevant, not merely a soapbox for some politician's speeches. All the quotes are in Wikiquote. And your accusations accusations of POV and failure to assume good faith are even more disappointing, as are your continued spamming of ArbCom members pages. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I and others find that text quite interesting and relevant. It was widely reported in US and international press because they found it interesting and relevant. Why, when after six weeks the section suddenly became objectionable to you, did you not start a discussion here yourself so that we could reach consensus? TopRank 17:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Interesting and relevant" for what reason? How "widely reported" was it? And of what relevance is the "after six weeks" statement you keep making? I cleaned up the article and removed some useless puffery, explaining why in my edit summaries; who cares how long ago it was added? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So how long after a pssage is edited is it no longer allowed to be removed? 3 weeks? Maybe a month?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre, isn't it? And I'm not sure exactly what TopRank thinks the importance of that "young tree" vs. "old dying tree" analogy was. Does he consider it poetic or moving? It seemed rather dull, bland, and all-too predictable to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Many news sources led their international sections at the time with the story that Ahmadinejad said Israel is an old tree that would crumble in a storm. I left the quotation in for any reader who remembered that story which was widely reported. The reason a long section was put into the wikipedia article, and that it takes a full paragraph in the article summary out of five paragraphs is because at the time it was considered very interesting and relevant by essentially everyone. That is the reason it lasted six weeks of intense editing by people with your POV before now when you decide to remove it with no discussion at all. TopRank 17:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

None of your quotes (even in the shortened version) are either particulary relavent or particularly notable. Least of all the dying tree metaphor- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

None of the quotes about his opinion of Israel, given in a speech about Israel, that was widely reported in the news, is either interesting or relevant to an article "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel"? Before it had too many quotations. I removed almost all of the direct quotes and now you claim it is not relevant to the article. (Don't read the title of the article, that's just a whitewash) 1) Why not discuss it before removing it six weeks after it was put in? 2) Why not offer alternative language instead of removing it?TopRank 17:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Alternative language to the quotes? You meaan that we should change what he said? Just because the quotes were taken from a speech about how bad Israel was does not make them relavent or notable enough for this article. As we've said before, the length of time that they were present in the article is completly irrelevant, so please stop reminding us.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You do not believe it is notable. Are you asserting that that is the consensus of editors or do you assert that you have the right to remove sections that happen not to match your POV without consensus? There certainly is no policy that a widely reported speech about the subject of a wikipedia article should not be reported at all in a wikipedia article. The shortened version has one paragraph of summary of the speech and one quote. Change the language of the summary of you'd like. Removing it entirely is disappointing behavior from people who should know better. TopRank 18:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

For six weeks there was an obvious consensus that the information was relevant, a consensus that you and Jayjg were part of. Now apparently the consensus changed suddenly, and you and Jayjg were the only people who knew about it. That is insane. TopRank 18:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually there was no discussion of it on the talk page, and I have not been editing this article very long. Usually when people start editing an article they mainly concentrate on the recent edits, so a bad addition can sometimes get by. You are just assuming that there was consensus about it because it was around for 6 weeks, and oh yeah, Thats insane.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you the only person who counts towards consensus? Six weeks ago that was a new addition. Are you submitting that the editors at that time, including Jayjg let a bad addition get by. There was discussion about it in the discussion of the main article. I wanted a small mention, other editors, apparently with your POV, wanted a full paragraph in the summary. If there is a paragraph in the main article summary, there should be a section in the article. TopRank 18:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Completly irrelevant, articles are supposed to change constantly. Should I show up at some other article then demand that nobody removes anything that has existed for a certain amount of time unless every single person who used to edit the article shows up and expressed agreement? I think it is time you move on to another argument.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Two people have said it should be removed: You and Jayjg. Two people, not counting Jeremy who was the first to restore it, think it should stay. Myself, and Irish. There is no consensus that it is not notable or relevant. When it first went in, six weeks ago, Jayjg left it because it was relevant. I'm not sure why he has now changed his mind. He has not explained. Major sections of articles are not supposed to constantly be removed in their entirety without discussion. I'm calling for other editors to read the article, read this discussion and weigh in. Until a consensus is reached, I see no reason for it to go but I am willing to leave a section with only one direct quotation. TopRank 18:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I submit that I, TopRank, Jayjg, Moshe and IrishPunkTom have made our opinions known. I would very much appreciate if other editors weigh in on this. Count me as one vote for the section remaining in its shortened form: [14] TopRank 17:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion request has been filed

I think the section as it presently stands should preferably stay. It is a short quote particularly compared to e.g. the Holocoust section. I think it is relevant and notable enough in that I felt I got a better overall view of Ahmadinejad's attitude: someimtes arguably fascist or at least extreme and other times fairly moderate, from having read it. It brings the article up to date.

I should not be taken as endorsing the comments y TopRank regarding the time the article has remained up without interference (which I feel is irrelevant) nor with the accusation of POV crusading that does not appear consistent with assuming good faith. If there is reason to doubt good faith then it would be helpful to the observer to state what this is and would certainly be fairer to the person being criticised. Also, perhaps on a point of pedantry, is this strictly apposite for a third opinion request? There are four editors and acrimony flying all round, should a request for comment be considered? --Lucifer(sc) 19:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think different edits should be treated differently. If some vandal comes in and adds a section that should be treated differenty than an entire section that is referred to substantially in the main article. Removing a section with no discussion is how vandalism should be treated. You see a lot of discussion now. Look at the version of this talk page at the time the section had been removed then restored then removed again. No discussion at all. That is how vandalism should be treated. Also there should be a different burden for keeping an article as is or making a major change. When Jayjg suddenly wants to remove a section entirely that has been here for a while, there should be a different burden than if he removed it when he first saw it six weeks ago. I consider that relevant. I cannot just decide that the "wiped off the map" speech is not notable and that section should be removed, then if someone agrees it should be gone until enough people come and say it should stay. To remove a substantial section of the article is not a clean-up. It is a major change that should have been discussed here, by him, before the change was made. And the change should not have even been attempted until a consensus formed. A consensus certainly has not formed yet that it should be removed. Thanks for the tip about the request for comment. Not exactly sure how that works. TopRank 20:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Do we have some media source for this? How about just summarizing what they had to say about this incident and leave it at that? Seems like a compromise to me. Fagstein 21:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

IRNA, Iran's official news organization produced the full text of the speech. As far as I know, this is the only time it has done so. This is an article about Ahmadinejad and Israel. The speech was by Ahmadinejad about Israel. Seriously, where is the argument that the speech should not be mentioned at all in the article? Has there ever been a situation where a sub-article of a biographical article has been directly addressed in a speech by the person the article is about, but wikipedia policy prevents the speech from being mentioned at all? Beyond that, as the section shows, it was reported on extensively by Western media. There is no wikipedia policy that would cause it to be removed. Jayjg does not like what it says but there is no wikipedia policy that relevant, sourced information should be removed because an editor does not like what it says. TopRank 01:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments submitted [15]

Looks like I did it wrong. Could someone point me to an explanation of how requests for comments works? TopRank 02:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Weasel sentence

According to some translators the subject was a "regime" and not "Israel" and the idiom "wiped off the map" was not used.

That statement is relevant, verifiable and supported in the rest of the article. "Some translators" are identified as Cole, MEMRI and the NY Times translator in the article. Why, other than that it does not fit your POV, should the sentence be removed? TopRank 13:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. You have consistently been acting very rudely and I would hope that you could begin acting a little more professional. When you say "some translators" right before you identify the three that you just mentioned, you are implying that there are more, if there are you have not identified them.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm an amateur. Are you being paid? Does "some" really imply more than three? If you don't like the word "some", change the word, don't remove the entire sentence. What you are doing is POV activism. TopRank 16:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You really are not in any place to make accusations about my motives. "Some" does not inherantly imply more than three, however when you use the word right before you mention the only three that you are referring to, you are insinuating that there are actually more.

Also you are equivicating, asking someone to be professional is the same as acting them to act mature and not get personal.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what information the sentence adds; we immediately show the reader two differing translations. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a summary of the subsection, and points to exactly where the disagreements are. What exactly are your grounds for removing this relevant, verifiable statement? Very disappointing. TopRank 16:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you not read my reasons why it should be removed? Very disappointing. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a summary that adds information. Deleting a summary that is relevant and verifiable is very disappointing. There is no rule that subsections cannot have sentences that explain what the subsequent quotes will demonstrate. TopRank 17:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to see what you're saying here; the section was quite short, and no summary was required. Summaries are an inevitable way of introducing POV, and are not usually required, except as article leads, or perhaps leads to very lengthy sections. The summary added nothing but useless verbiage, much like your continual repetition that every edit you disagree with is "very disappointing". Jayjg ^(talk)

Please show me a policy "no summaries" or else show me a policy reason this verifiable relevant information must be removed. "Inevitable way of introducing POV" doesn't work because we see the sentence. "According to some translators the subject was a "regime" and not "Israel" and the idiom "wiped off the map" was not used" does not by any standard introduce POV. Wikipedia policy is not to remove relevant, verifiable information because you don't like it. TopRank 11:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It highlights the difference between what was widely reported and what some translaters say. I cannot see a reason to remove this relevant, verifiable statement except POV. TopRank 17:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well what you believe is hardly relevant. You have only produced three translators that disagree with the established translation, and all three are people or organizations that typically hold fringe positions on most issues.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this a joke? The New York Times, MEMRI and Juan Cole typically hold fringe positions on most issues? Second, none of the "Israel wiped off the map" sources purport to be direct translations, rather summaries or paraphrases. The only sources I have ever encountered that purport to be direct translations say "regime" in some form (note the Farsi word "rezhime") and two of the three, one by Juan Cole and the other by Memri, which whose president is a former Israeli intelligence officer, and which is routinely accused of pro-Israel bias say he did not use "wiped off the map". Please show me a link to someone claiming to translate the speech that uses "Israel must be wiped off the map". TopRank 17:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The New york times was just reporting the dispute. It wasn't their position that the translation was wrong, and yes Juan Cole is somewhat of a fringe figure.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The translation provided by the New York Times, which is featured more prominently than any other translation on the page, is "the occupying regime must be wiped from the map". That you didn't know this really raises the question of did you read the page before becoming such a vehement editor of it. TopRank 11:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the current version is perfectly adequate - it notes that MEMRI and Cole translate it differently. Putting the same information in a summary form slightly earlier in the same section seems entirely unnecessary. At any rate, it seems fairly clear, at least, that "wiped off the map" is not a literal, word for word translation of what Ahmadinejad (and Khomeini, presumably) said. I'm not sure anyone with a knowledge of Farsi has ever disputed this. Presumably the translation was meant to be contextual. "Erased from the pages of history" or "wiped from the page of time" or whatever the literal translation is, is not a very commonly used phrase in English, while "wiped off the map" is. I think that a translation of this sort is probably unwise, but I'm not sure it makes much difference. Also, is Moshe trying to suggest that MEMRI, as a "fringe organization," is likely to have some reason to give a translation that's vaguely more favorable to Iran? john k 14:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It is fairly clear that MA used the word "regime" and that he did not use the idiom "wiped off the map" but what is the [[[harm]]] in making it more clear? This is relevant, sourced information. What is the benefit of not presenting it? How is making it more clear, using relevant sourced statements POV? If it is not POV, why should it be removed? TopRank 02:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Also does every quotation in wikipedia stand alone? Is it that quotations should never be introduced or is it that these quotations should not be introduced? I'm also not seeing a lot of arguments about wikipedia policy. I'm seeing a lot of arguments that come down to "take it out because I'd rather it not be there." TopRank 02:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not implying anything, and the "fringe" comment was primarily directed at Juan Cole, he is really not mainstream at all.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"all three are people or organizations that typically hold fringe positions on most issues" Forgive me if I get the impression that this is not being conducted in good faith. TopRank 02:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide any particular evidence that Cole is outside the mainstream of academia writing on Middle Eastern history? He certainly has strong viewpoints, but those viewpoints (opposition to the war in Iraq, sympathy for the Palestinian cause) seem pretty par for the course for academics of the Middle East. His views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may be somewhat outside the mainstream of American political life at the present, but they are fairly typical of, for instance, European opinion. And, at any rate, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the focus of Cole's research. What exactly are you referring to in your contention that he is far outside the mainstream? In this particular case, has anybody with knowledge of Farsi disputed Cole's contention that "erased from the page of history" or something along those lines, is a more correct literal translation of Ahmadinejad's statement than "wiped off the map"? john k 17:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

He is miles away from American mainstream opinion. He supports the old dual loyalty charge against most American Jews, he uses the epithet "Likudnik" basically torefer to any Jewish person that supports Israel. Here is an LA times article that basically states that Juan Cole is a non-notable attention seeker: [16].- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm responding on your talk page, since this is off-topic. john k 22:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

While relevant and supported, the summary is also unnecessary, especially for such a small section. I would suggest leaving it out. Fagstein 21:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Relevant and supported but leave it out because what? One or even many editors considering a phrase unnecessary is not grounds for removal, if it is relevant and supported. Please point me to a wikipedia article that does not contain statements such as that. If not I think it should go in. TopRank 01:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Leave it out because it's redundant. It adds nothing to the article to summarize two sentences in a third, unless I'm missing something here. Fagstein 06:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

To remove a significant section without any discussion (there was no discussion at all here until I added it after the section had been removed then restored then removed again) and then to persist even when it became apparent that it was a minority viewpoint indicates that an agenda has become more important than wikipedia policy or consensus. I had hoped this type of activity had come under control when I recently suggested removing the tag but obviously it had not. TopRank 11:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Article mentioned on The Guardian "Comment is free" website

In an article entitled Lost in translation, Jonathan Steele says: By the way, the Wikipedia entry on the controversy gets the NYT wrong, claiming falsely that Ethan Bronner "concluded that Ahmadinejad had in fact said that Israel was to be wiped off the map" 129.241.47.164 13:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Steele says "I'm glad the NYT accepts that the word "map" was not used by Ahmadinejad." In fact, this is how Bronner concludes the article: "So did Iran's president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so." Typical dissembling from an Ahmadinejad aplogist. --Mantanmoreland 14:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"The fact that he compared his desired option - the elimination of "the regime occupying Jerusalem" - with the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel."[17] // Liftarn

"So did Iran's president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so." -- Ethan Bronner.--Mantanmoreland 15:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Steele denies that Bronner stands by the original story. What he is saying is that when Bronner notes that Ahmadinejad (inadvertently?) changed Khomeini's word (which might mean "map," but don't quite exactly mean that) to a different word (which doesn't mean "map"). Bronner's conclusion seems to be that "wiped off the map" is basically what Ahmadinejad meant, even if he may have misquoted Khomeini and said something slightly different. john k 17:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Brenner did stand by the Times' early translation, despite all the spin and dissembling. In fact, here's Brenner's conclusion: "So did Iran's president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so." It is typical of the rubbish that has been published on this subject that Steele mischaracterizes the Wiki article. --Mantanmoreland 17:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, saying you want to remove an entity from the pages of history, to remove all rememberence of the thing, is much worse then saying you want to destroy them. This guy is grasping at straws. Masterhomer 22:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"Destroy Israel"

"Reaction to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

   See also: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

On July 15 2006, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad compared the actions of Israel in launching an offensive against Lebanon to that of Nazi Germany. "Hitler sought pretexts to attack other nations," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by the ISNA students news agency at the inauguration of a Tehran road tunnel. "The Zionist regime is seeking baseless pretexts to invade Islamic countries and right now it is justifying its attacks with groundless excuses," he added.[64]

On Aug 3rd, 2006, in a speech during an emergency meeting of Muslim leaders, Ahmadinejad said, "although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented". "Israel is an illegitimate regime, there is no legal basis for its existence." "Today the Americans are after the greater Middle East," he said. "The Zionist regime is used to reach this objective. The sole existence of this regime is for invasion and attack." [65]The solution to the Middle East crisis was to destroy Israel.[66]

Number 65 is a source from the Washington Post Article, "Ahmadinejad: Destroy Israel, End Crisis [18]

If you actually read the article, you'll see that even though the headline proclaims to "destroy israel", no where in the article does Ahmadinejan actually say that he wants to destroy Israel. The Washington Post wrote those words, not him. "Destroy Israel" is an active statement and implies, like the "wiped off the map" thing, a subjective belief of Ahmedinejan's desires. Since these desires are debatable, there is no reason for that last comment at the end of the section. Hence, we should just remove it completely, which I will now do.

Furthermore, there is a difference between "elimination of zionist regime" and "destroy Israel". The former is the end of the "illegal" nation of Israel, while the second implies a destruction of its people, government, etc. The former is much more correct.

-fs Fortune4260 21:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Cites state "destroy"- see def. Overwhelming international consensus is that the "elimination of zionist regime" means the same as "destroy" -much like Ronald Reagan's railing against the "evil empire" of the Soviet Union was a desire that it cease to exist. There is no "difference". <<-armon->> 01:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you state it bluntly "destroy Israel", then the normal person reading this may assume it to mean that it means to massacre all Israelis and "push them into the sea" because they don't understand the subtle difference between "elimination" and "kill everyone". "Destroy" is a strong word at at first glance. It adds more credence (in those terms) to the idea of Ahmadinejad/Hitler comparisons. That definition you provided includes "to kill". Do you think that applies? That is not Ahmadinejad's desire, as he states constantly. He is not anti-semitic Letter to American People, only anti-zionist. There is a distinction between the Israeli people and the Zionist regime. That's the difference I'm talking about.

The Cites may state "destroy Israel" but that's irrelevant to what's actually true and reflect some misunderstanding on the part of the authors of those cited articles. First of all, they are translations of is words and the translators can injerfect more powerful synonyms if they want. If you added "According to Reuters, to end the Middle East Crisis, Israel must be destroyed", then that would be accurate to the citations. But that's not what he said. We need to make it more factual on the wiki article than with the cited articles bias.

My desire to make it more accurate to Ahmadinejad's specific belief(again, not legitamizing) should only be testament to make this article more factual and clear up things. This is the same argument as "wiped out". So it shouldn't matter to you if I change it to "dismantle nation of Israel" or "the end of the Israel as a nation" because that's just as good, and even better than simply "destroy". Fortune4260 02:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The arguments you've presented are simply apologetics and WP:OR not supported by the citations. A debate about whether or not he is "anti-semitic" or only "anti-zionist", or whether he thinks the "elimination of zionist regime" could be effected without killing anyone, would be a waste of time, and is irrelevant. <<-armon->> 03:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that my comment is not supported by Those citations and thus I have no right to continue to defend that position. But that he says "destroy Israel" is not supported by the citations either because he never directly says that. The authors of the citation wrote that and its obvious that comment was gleaned from the headline. It's their conclusion and hence not directly Ahmadinejad's specific reaction to the Israeli-Lebanese conflict, which is the heading of that section. Unless you cite their opinion (According to some...), you can't just rewrite the headline/eye catcher as Ahmadinejad's words. That shows some WP:OR. Since in that same paragraph of that recation, it is already mentioned Ahmadeinejad's comment that the solution was the "elimination of the Zionist regime", you should just remove that last sentence, like I did in a previous edit, because it is otherwise redundant and irrelevant. Tell me what you think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fortune4260 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree that the last sentence was sort of tacked on and could be miss-read as a direct quote in a jumble of direct quotes, so I rewrote the paragraph following the cite as closely as possible to make clear his call to "destroy" Israel, and his rationale for it. Better? <<-armon->> 12:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I can accept that.Fortune4260 15:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As the Soviet Union disappeared

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said only a few weeks ago: "As the Soviet Union disappeared, the Zionist regime will also vanish..." [19] He might be odious, but accepting his example, I do not believe he is advocating genocide. smb1971 04:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I put in a line: "It's worth noting that the Soviet Union did indeed collapse, rather than being "wiped out" by another force." It is being deleted by user:E0N without comment. Fig (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

2005 "World Without Zionism" speech

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's actual words should be correctly summarised in the section assigned to his 2005 speech. The second paragraph ("Ahmadinejad also claimed...") is worded in a way that improperly validates The New York Times' misreporting, which is excerpted in the same section directly above. Any objections if I change this? --smb1971 22:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Comprehensive new analysis

Islam Online has a detailed analysis of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech and the subsequent misreporting.

"One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising."

Arash Norouzi, The rumor of the century, Islam Online 19 January, 2007. --smb1971 22:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a direct link here that retains the original emphasis and formatting smb1971 01:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Population transfer == Genocide ?

In the 'Interpretation of speech as call for genocide' section, Why did Cop 633 change genocide to 'population transfer'? under the Wikipedian definition, Genocide includes: "..deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.." The Israelis won't agree to move to Europe any more than the Palestinians would; most of them don't have European citizenships and would become refugees. They would have to be forced out, and this is the only logical inference from suggesting 'population transfer' in this case. Thank you for your feedback in any case. Counterboint 01:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving people doesn't kill them is why. Genocide is killing people and trying to destroy their race. Moving people doesn't kill them and doesn't destroy their race. It's extremely cruel and horrific, but it isn't murder. Like I said, I'm not trying to defend Ahmadinejad. You just need to note that he's being very careful not to advocate genocide. He knows that would be suicide. He's choosing his words carefully, and then when people squawk 'genocide! genocide!', he can throw up his hands and claim the moral high ground, saying 'see how the evil West distorts my words!' You're falling into his trap. Cop 633 03:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I see, so you agree that wherever in Wikipedia Israel is accused of Genocide, this can be removed too? this job could take weeks to do, then would have to be done again after the onslaught of Edit revisions. In any case its not me who distorts, but the Wikipedia 'Genocide' definition, which broadened mainly so it can apply to any Israeli actions up to and including buying groceries, but apparently implicity assumes that this new definition is not to be used on Arab regimes or leaders. There should have been small print to this effect. Counterboint 10:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article simply quotes the United Nation's official definition. Israel is not mentioned once in that article. If you are finding the UN's definition misused anywhere, of course you should change it. If you are polite and reasonable, people will even assist you. If you're angry and rude, they will ignore you. Such is the world. Cop 633 13:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as a side note, population transfer is by definition "forced".

Ahmadinejad never denied the accusation

I have mentioned a phrase which says that he has not denied the notion that wants to wipe Israel off the map, notwithstanding the possible misinterpretation of his words. (When asked so repeatedly by western media, he never denied, only tries to deflect the issue). I think this is worthy of mention. The fact that he didn't deny the accusation inferred from his words (only others have), is at least as important and revealing as the piles of paragraphs regarding the mistranslation itself; I view this as an attempt to give him cover for his revealing slip-up by diverting the discussion to semantics rather than the nature of his intentions. Even if he didn't say he wanted to Wipe Israel, he did not deny such an intention when so accused, and this is a fact. Why is it more important to devote coverage to multiple others arguing hotly that he doesn't intend to destroy Israel than to his consistent refusal to agree with them? are they more authentic speakers of his thoughts than he is? that is a bias. Counterboint 02:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this WP:OR or do you have a source on this?--Gerash77 05:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/09/60minutes/printable1879867.shtml, pages two and three. -- Avi 07:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And not only there.. in all other places I have seen as well (e.g. his response in TV interviews, as described here). Sometimes silence speaks for itself. Counterboint 10:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You have never denied being a <insert random insult>, have you?

Not when Mike Wallace of 60 minutes asks him point blank, and he refuses to answer. A tad different. -- Avi 23:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"...although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime..."

How can this possibly be interpreted as anything but a call for the elimination of Israel? --Leifern 16:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, since you asked... the previous regime in Iraq was obliterated. However, Iraq is still there (more or less). Bladestorm 16:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The Saddam/Ba'ath regime was indeed eliminated, but there was no call to destroy Iraq. --Leifern 17:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• blink blink*... Um, AGAIN... The regime in iraq was eliminated. Iraq itself was not eliminated. Thus, a regime can be eliminated without being destroyed. Which part do you not understand? Bladestorm 17:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that what the rest of the article has been at pains to elucidate?

"Zionist regime" is a reference to a form of government - not to a country. Ahmadinejad's statement only amounts to a stated preference for the dismantling of a certain form of government.

Now you are perfectly entitled to take it as a veiled threat to "destroy Israel" if you wish, but the fact is the statement can be interpreted in a very different way and therefore you cannot advance this interpretation as though it were an undisputed fact. Gatoclass 16:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

... I don't know if it's a veiled threat that he intends to destroy Israel, but it is an explicit and unambiguous call to destroy Israel. If you care about the meaning of words. "A certain form of government" is a meaningless phrase. As an editorial aside, I find it amusing that this character spews genocidal propaganda, only to have useful idiots rush in and say, oh no, he's really a conciliatory guy, something is just lost in the translation. --Leifern 17:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, calling for the end of a regime is not the same as calling for the destruction of a country. You are entitled to interpret it that way if you wish, but you should recognize that that is only your interpretation and not an objective and demonstrable fact. Gatoclass 17:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

...it is an explicit and unambiguous call to destroy Israel. Please stop abusing the words 'explicit' and 'unambiguous'. Thank you. --smb 17:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

On its face, it's a call for "regime change". Of course, it might be a veiled threat to drive Jews into the sea, but that's not the literal meaning. For instance, America "eliminated the Ba'athist regime", but Iraq is still there. —Ashley Y 04:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It can't. It's called whitewashing. Amoruso 04:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ethan Bronner and NYT

The page is incorrect when it says that Bronner in the NYT article agreed that Ahmadinejad said “wiped off the map”. Bronner actually said:
"Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran's most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say 'wipe off' or 'wipe away' is more accurate than 'vanish' because the Persian verb is active and transitive. The second translation issue concerns the word 'map'. Khomeini's words were abstract: 'Sahneh roozgar.' Sahneh means scene or stage, and roozgar means time. The phrase is widely interpreted as 'map', and for years, no one objected. In October, when Mr Ahmadinejad quoted Khomeini, he actually misquoted him, saying not 'Sahneh roozgar' but 'Safheh roozgar', meaning pages of time or history. No one noticed the change, and news agencies used the word 'map' again."
Therefor the NYT actually said: "the regime occupying Jerusalem must be wiped off the pages of time", not "wiped off the map" as is claimed in the WP article. Wayne 16:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Bronner's conclusion was that "pages of time" or "off the map" were semantically the same. This is also the mainstream view, backed up by Iranian media and Ahmadinejad's website. <<-armon->> 01:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad again made threats to destroy...

Armon is attempting to change line 263 from (i) to (ii). "On Aug 3rd, 2006..."

• "...Ahmadinejad made other statements that the Associated Press reported as a threat to destroy Israel."
• "...Ahmadinejad again made threats to destroy Israel."

Armon's edit summary for this action reads: There is no "dispute" that he wants Israel destroyed -check the cites. There IS a dispute over whether Iran will invade or nuke Israel to make that happen. [20]

This explanation is unsatisfactory because it ignores Interpretation 1.3 on the same page. There has been a minor disagreement over line 263 once before, though the matter was soon settled because 1. all three cites lead to the same AP story 2. the exact interpretation and meaning of his earlier remarks is clearly disputed. With this in mind, can someone other than myself please also ask Armon to stop edit warring. Ta. smb 02:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A one state solution where the "colonial" Jews go back where they came from, and the Palestinian diaspora returns, means the destruction of the Zionist entity. This really isn't subject to debate. <<-armon->> 03:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad called for a vote. He did not threaten a nuclear strike or invasion. Advocating a binational solution is not a crime. Lots of people support such a proposal. I'm requesting quite reasonably that you self-revert. I cannot do so because of WP:3RR. I am also inviting others to comment on (or correct) Armon's erroneous edit. smb 04:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You are conflating two different issues. That A wants Israel destroyed is beyond dispute. What you are talking about is how. See also discussion above. <<-armon->> 05:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Using the phrase "made threats to destroy Israel" is POV in that it implies he means not only the government but the people as well. It is only western media that reports it that way. I point out Ahmadinejad's quote:"there should be elections among Jews, Christians and Muslims so the population of Palestine can select their government and destiny for themselves in a democratic manner." and a quote by Khamenei: "We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state." Ahmadinejad has spoken about destroying the regime but that is a government you can destroy without war not a people and it is POV (not to mention OR) to connect the two. The article should make it clear Ahmadinejad wants the Zionists out not the jewish people. Before the establishment of Israel, Jews and Palestinians lived peacefully together there without any problems. Clearly Ahmadinejad wants to go back to those days. Wayne 05:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:RSs are not simply "western media". That may be your POV, but it's WP:OR. However, it does bring up the question of whether the "colonial Zionists" and their descendants will get a vote, and what will be done if they don't leave peacefully in order to return the region to some mythical golden age. <<-armon->> 06:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is my OR but that doesn't negate it's truth. I doubt if Ahmadinejad expects all Zionists to leave and, again it's my OR, I think he only means the extremists. This "mythical" age as you put it is certainly not achievable in todays world but dialogue with Iran needs to consider Ahmadinejad's belief in it to make a peaceful solution possible. Wayne 07:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you're still not getting it. There is two basic elements in any genuine threat: capability and intention. If Ahmadinejad demanded a one-state solution, and if he was contemplating an Iranian invasion to attain it, then yes, that would be considered a threat. But merely advocating a one-state solution by way of a countrywide referendum -- something he cannot force -- cannot seriously be considered a threat to destroy Israel. And that's what Interpretation 1.3 is all about. The previous wording took this into consideration, whereas your POV pushing does not. smb 18:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's why Iran backs "peace groups" like Hezbollah. Anyway, I've changed "threat" to "called for the destruction". <<-armon->> 01:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Armon is still POV pushing. You believe in one interpretation of Ahmadinejad's remarks over all others. Thus, it is the Iranian president's intention to destroy Israel by invasion or means of military science (a nuclear weapon). [21] That's fine. We all have a right to hold and push our own personal opinions. But not on Wikipedia. Your fallback position still isn't neutral enough. By insisting on the statement "...Ahmadinejad again made..." threats or even calls "...for the destruction of Israel..." you dismiss other well-sourced interpretations of his earlier remarks. WordWeb defines destruction:

• The termination of something by causing so much damage to it that it cannot be repaired or no longer exists

It has misleading connotations not only according to User:Fortune4260, Wayne (see above) and myself, but more importantly according to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel Interpretation 1.3, which is appropriately sourced. Yet you continue to assert the most alarming interpretation over others. This can be neutralised by resorting the original text: "Ahmadinejad made other statements that the Associated Press reported as a threat to destroy Israel." (All 3 cites lead to the same AP piece in any case.) The interpretation is retained and NPOV is complied with. Otherwise we can make a RfC. smb 03:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Armon has now reverted both myself and WLRoss. His most recent justification for doing so is: "please read the cites" [22] Indeed I examined the cites long ago. All 3 lead back to the same syndicated Associated Press story, hence the (AP) tag. Moreover, Ahmadinejad is actually quoted as saying: "Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented". And the definition according to WordWeb again is:

• elimination : The act of removing or getting rid of something
• destruction : The termination of something by causing so much damage to it that it cannot be repaired or no longer exists

You cannot say "again" because his original remarks are still disputed. You cannot say "threatened" because Ahmadinejad doesn't have the power to force a countrywide vote. However it is perfectly okay to attribute these views accordingly. In this case the AP. This is why the original wording was better: "...Ahmadinejad made other statements that the Associated Press reported as a threat to destroy Israel." Please don't revert again. smb 06:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Lets put this to bed. Amon keeps saying "read the cites" to justify "destruction of Israel" and granted it does say that but look closer......... SEAN YOONG (the reporter) said "Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution .....is to destroy Israel". Then Yoong goes on (as smb said above) to quote Ahmadinejad directly:"...solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime." Not once in the many quotes in the article does Ahmadinejad use the word "Israel" and if you look at the word Regime you will see it means "government" not "country". You can't use the reporters POV interpretation of what Ahmadinejad said in the WP article when the actual quote is not only given in the same news report but is prominant and unambigious. Wayne 09:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

First point, this is your OR, even if two of you agree. Second point, you'll have great difficulty finding a case where Ahmadinejad refers to Israel as "Israel" rather than a euphemism or epithet like "Zionist regime" or "Zionist entity". Reliable sources, Ahmadinejad's audience, and indeed, the international community, have no difficulty understanding that he means Israel. There's is no difference so please stop pov-pushing that there is one somehow. We follow the sources on WP, we don't insert our own apologia. <<-armon->> 09:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What is OR in what i said? It is POV to put what "we" think he meant instead of what he actually said. Unless you can provide a source where Ahmadinejad says he uses the word regime as a euphemism then we must accept actual statements not reword them to suit our own agenda. Wayne 10:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Again. Please read the sources. <<-armon->> 10:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Neither point of view is OR. There are two or three different strands of thought as to the exact meaning of Ahmadinejad's remarks. It really doesn't matter what interpretation we think is the correct one. As editors, we must be sure to respect NPOV and Armon is not doing so because this user is ignoring other reliable sources. Near the top of the page we have a section on the original translation dispute and beneath that we have sources interpreting his remarks as a call for a referendum. The current wording -- Ahmadinejad again called for the destruction of Israel -- gives readers the impression that no such controversy exists, and that Iran is planning to lay waste to the whole area, despite his other quoted remarks that Iran has no intention of starting a war of aggression. Armon is promoting one interpretation to the exclusion of others. Nor is it necessary to have three cites to the same AP piece when one will suffice. smb 19:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove cites. You are drawing inferences based on the minority viewpoint. You will also need a cite backing up your position on this particular threat. <<-armon->> 11:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

My position does not require any external sources. It is your editorializing that is the problem. [23] Undue weight does not permit you to ignore the central tenant of NPOV which requires editors to represent fairly and without bias all significant views published by reliable sources. To reiterate: 1. By saying "...again called for the destruction of Israel..." you exclude a significant point of view published by reliable sources. 2. All three cites point to the exact same Associated Press copy (a lesser matter but one still worth pointing out). This can be neutralised by restoring the original text that was settled upon previously. smb 12:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, reread the cites. This is not my opinion, but what the RSs reported. <<-armon->> 12:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Those reliable sources are immediately taken into account: "Ahmadinejad made other statements that news sources including the Associated Press reported as a threat to destroy Israel." This wording also respects other reliable sources that offered a different interpretation of his earlier remarks, whereas your editorializing does not. I'm running out of words to express the same thoughts. I have never made a RFC before, but I am willing to learn. Unless you want to do it? smb 12:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW I did actually find a quote where he uses the word "Israel":

Reverting to the vitriol of Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of the Iranian revolution, Mr Ahmadinejad warned fellow Islamic leaders against softening their stance against the "Zionist regime". Last month, Bahrain announced that it would resume trade with Israel.
"Anybody who recognises Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury. Anybody who recognizes the Zionist regime is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world," said Mr Ahmadinejad. [24]

Clearly "Israel" is interchangeable with "Zionist regime". 12:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That is not the point. You are clearly in violation of NPOV by trying to insert an absolutist statement, ie "Ahmadinejad again made threats to destroy Israel". WP:NPOV states the following: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."...By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute."

The argument that Ahmadinejad "made threats to destroy Israel" is very clearly "a matter which is subject to dispute" as the rest of the article clearly demonstrates. What you are trying to do is insert the opinion of one particular source or sources as if it were an undisputed fact. But that is clearly not the case, since that opinion is disputed by other reliable sources. In other words, the statement cannot be absolute - "Ahmadinejad threatened to destroy Israel" - but needs to be attributed - "AP reported that Ahmadinejad made threats..." - in order to retain NPOV. Gatoclass 13:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already changed the wording to "called for the destruction of Israel" in order to take that into account. That Ahmadinejad wants the destruction (somehow) of the "Zionist regime" is not subject to dispute. <<-armon->> 14:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That wording still has the same basic problem. To say he "called for the destruction of Israel" is an interpretation of his words, not an actual quote. And we can't favour one interpretation over another, because that violates NPOV.

I've reworded the paragraph in such a way as to make it clear that it's an interpretation, while reincluding the word "threat", and leaving the refs. I think that is a fair compromise. Gatoclass 14:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Except "called for the destruction of Israel" is not an interpretation, it's a fact, as the Ahmadinejad quote immediately following makes clear. WP:NPOV is not a justification for WP:WEASEL. We are meant to present the facts. <<-armon->> 17:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

He did not use the words "destruction" or "Israel". He said "elimination" of the "Zionist regime". You are putting words into his mouth.

The article discusses at length the very wide differences in interpretation that can be made from his statements. You have to ignore that whole debate in order to make your false assertion that you are merely stating an undisputed "fact". And in doing so, you are clearly and indeed egregiously violating NPOV. Because there most certainly is a debate about the meaning of these phrases, as the rest of the article demonstrates. Gatoclass 00:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? Could you provide the RS cites here which show that there is a semantic difference between "elimination of the Zionist regime" and "destruction of Israel"? You will need to show that "elimination" is not the same as "destruction" and that "Zionist regime" is not the same as "Israel". <<-armon->> 02:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Done, see the mainpage. Gatoclass 04:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. Well the problem is, I asked for reliable sources. CounterPunch isn't one. <<-armon->> 04:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Here's what WP:RS has to say:

Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

Virginia Tilley is a Professor of Political Science with expertise on the Israel-Palestine conflict. She is clearly a reliable source.

On reliable publications, WP:RS states:

Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight.

Counterpunch is a political newsletter with an editorial board consisting of well known and well qualified journalists. It clearly meets the definition of a reliable source. Gatoclass 04:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've also read the cited article now. It not about this incident. <<-armon->> 04:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be - it's the interpretation that is being challenged, not any one incident in particular. Gatoclass 04:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"You will need to show that "elimination" is not the same as "destruction" and that "Zionist regime" is not the same as "Israel". <<-armon->>"
"We" do not need to show you anything as most people know the difference and you would just ignore what we said anyway.
Elimination: noun: the act of removing or getting rid of something.
Destruction: noun: an event (or the result of an event) that completely destroys something.
I suggest you read a dictionary to find the difference between "elimination" and "destruction" yourself to make sure I'm not making it up. Then you can show me how these pages for Regime and Israel are semantically the same to prove your point. Make your case they are the same then I may change my mind. Wayne 06:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Armon is mistaken. The article mentions directly the Aug 3rd, 2006 meeting of Muslim leaders: "For months, scholars like Cole and journalists like the London Guardian's Jonathan Steele have been pointing out these mistranslations while more and more appear: for example, Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments at the Organization of Islamic Countries meeting on August 3, 2006." smb 07:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. My OR objection is wrong. <<-armon->> 08:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Translation by IRIB - Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network

Firstly, if you want to start a new discussion on a talk page, please start it at the bottom of the page not the top. Thanks.

Secondly, this news article is already referred to on the mainpage.

Thirdly, reproducing it in full is totally redundant, as the only relevant point is that the news agency translated the phrase as "wiped from the map". It probably violates copyright as well.

Finally, this article is about what Ahmedinejad said, not about how it was translated by some news agency. Adding a long section on the news agency's translation violates WP:UNDUE, and only serves to confuse and obfuscate the issues. Gatoclass 07:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The IRIB text is an English translation by NATIONAL IRANIAN NEWS

Gatoclass,

1. IRIB's story was not previously referred to. Search 'IRIB' in the text and you will see.

2. It is highly relevant, as it a text written in English by the Iranian Government's own national news service. It therefore has much higher relevance than disputed translations by external parties.

3. The text is not long. Reproducing it in full is relevant, as it is published by the Iranian government. The selection of words is important. Consider instead to reduce the rather lengthy discussion on correctness of translation. We may assume that the Iranian Governmental News Agency has looked at the wording in English.

4. Copyright is not a problem, the text contains almost nothing else but quotes by President Ahmadinejad, and the source is clearly referred to.

5. When editing this discussion page, you claimed to have moved my text to the bottom of the page. This is not true - you deleted it.

Here is the IRIB news piece you erased: http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=200247 [25]

Ahmadinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map 01:34:13 È.Ù Tehran, Oct 26 - Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the President told a conference in Tehran entitled 'the world without Zionism'.

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to the late founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Imam Khomeini.

Addressing some 4,000 students gathered in an interior ministry conference hall, Ahmadinejad also called for Palestinian unity, resistance and a point where the annihilation of the Zionist regime will come.

"The Islamic umma (community) will not allow its historic enemy to live in its heartland," he said.

Regarding the Zionist regime's retreat from the Gaza Strip he said, "we should not settle for a piece of land".

"Anyone who signs a treaty which recognises the entity of Israel means he has signed the surrender of the Muslim world," Ahmadinejad said.

"Any leaders in the Islamic umma who recognise Israel face the wrath of their own people."

Regarding the prolonged conflict between the Islamic Ummah and the Zionist regime, Ahmadinejad said "It dates backs hundreds of years. Sometimes Islam has advanced. Sometimes nobody was winning. Unfortunately over the past 300 years, the world of Islam has been in retreat".

"One hundred years ago the last trench of Islam fell, when the oppressors went towards the creation the Zionist regime. It is using it as a fort to spread its aims in the heart of the Islamic world."

Utalempe —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

1. IRIB's story was not previously referred to. Search 'IRIB' in the text and you will see - Utalempe

You are mistaken. It's right there at the end of the first section, including source, I quote: "Iran's state-owned Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting translated Ahmadinejad's comments as "Israel must be wiped off the map", [21].

As for your latest edit, I suggest to you that if it's a belligerent quote you are looking for, the NYT quote is far more disturbing in that respect, as well as being shorter and more to the point. I am not going to revert at present, but I suggest you examine the two quotes yourself side by side and ask yourself which is the more confrontational. Gatoclass 08:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Gatoclass,

I have found the reference to IRIB in the earlier writings, and stand corrected on this point. Thanks for pointing it out.

However, as long as the correctness of translation remains a major issue in the text, publishing the IRIB text does serve a purpose, as IRIB is an authoritative source, and is affiliated to Ahmadinejad, which is not the case with US news or with MEMRI.

By using the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting translation, it should be possible to lower the priority of discussing what actually was said - regardless of which statement is the more confrontational. Thereby the discussion on translation issues - e.g. Prof Juan Cole, etc - may be moved further down in the text, focusing the text more on the actual confrontation Ahmadinejad's Iran vs Israel. Utalempe 16:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to "lower the priority of of discussing what actually was said" - that issue is central to the page. So I would resist any attempt to do that.

As for which quote to use - I'm convinced the NYT quote is much more effective. You could scarcely ask for a more controversial statement than his referral to Israel as a "disgraceful stain". It speaks volumes about his attitude in a way that the other quote simply does not.

So I think that's by far the better quote to use. But I am certainly not opposed to the notion of using the IRIB repetition of the phrase "wiped from the map" as a method of underlining the point. Gatoclass 16:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Utalempe: "The IRIB text is an English translation by NATIONAL IRANIAN NEWS" The Islamic Republic News Agency translation is not verbatim according to various sources, hence the controversy. For example, Arash Norouzi writes:

"One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising. The inflammatory 'wiped off the map' quote was first disseminated not by Iran's enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran's Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy." [26]

Perhaps this can be worked into the page? smb 18:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

He didnt denie the holocaust

and furhtermore he didnt say that israel should be "wipped off the map" or sth like this! Go on international offical translating pages. everybpdy who can speak german (I am germa (-;) can take this page as a resourcehttp://www.uni-kassel.de/fb5/frieden/themen/Medien/iran.html or go on the german wiki article 'bout him (-->Rede auf der Teheraner Konferenz 2005 „Eine Welt ohne Zionismus“ cnn verbot (german ahmadinejad= ahmadinedschad) also go on youtube- there you'll find lots of informations and resources about this case in english. but as i told u,you can research the internet and you'll find even more official sides than n UNIVERSITY (link).... oroginally: >>This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.“)<< and: >> ISRAEL is a myth in THE NAME OF holocaust<<

The page doesn't claim he said "Israel should be wiped from the map". The page discusses in detail the various translations and interpretations of his words, so I don't know what you are objecting to. Did you read the whole article? Gatoclass 23:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Utalempe: IRIB and IRNA are parts of the Iranian government. Various experts can discuss the translations they provide, but the Government News Service has provided a text in English, and this must be refered to. I therefore put it back. As the article puts emphasis on the issue of what actually was said, I have added the statement of Arash Norouzi, which, while challenging the IRIB/IRNA translation, points out it's fundamental importance for the discussion surrounding the statement. It is, in fact, not a NYT translation that is being discussed, it is an IRNA/IRIB translation. This needs to be included in the article.

The NYT translation is AFAIK exactly the same, but the difference is that the NYT link gives the full speech whereas the IRIB link only gives a few extracts. Therefore the NYT link is more appropriate.

Also as I've pointed out to you before, the IRIB link is already extant in the article. Gatoclass 10:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Utalempe: Gatoclass, if your only concern is not to repeat certain phrases, this must be a minor issue. From this point of view the article will get marginally longer, but the content will not change. No big deal.

My point of view is, however, that the addition of the IRIB translation is important. It is not only about what was said by Ahmadinejad, but also according to who. The NYT says that Ahmadinejad said "erased off the map". Cole says that it is a mistranslation. NYT is pro-Israel, and Cole is anti-Israel. Therefore the exact english wording delivered by various official IRanian government sources, the Iranian news being a central one is ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL. An official source in the Iranian government may be bad at English. They may be good at English. This does not matter. The government has said it. When Bush said "crusade" after 9/11 it is relevant, although it was pointed out repeatedly that he only meant it as a figure of speech. Why? Because it is a statement from the original source. It is the origin of a chain of reactions. According to Norouzi, the west reacted on IRNA/IRIB, not on NYT. Another argument to lay out EXACTLY what IRNA/IRIB said.

The criticism against the translation discusses details in the wording, therefore the details of the words released by the official Iranian government news agency are needed (no matter how good or bad they are at English).

You might be of a different opinion, but your point is about style, and mine is about essence of content and fidelity to original sources. Essence has higher priority. Therefore, the IRIB translation stays.

We might also need to look into how "must vanish from the pages of time" should be interpreted in English. There is no such literal expression in English, but it seems to very close to "Erased from history", which is stronger than wiped off the map. Not only will the country be removed, any recognition of its former existance will be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utalempe (talk • contribs) 12:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

the Iranian news being a central one is ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL

I don't really think so, but I don't think it's important enough to argue about, so I'll concede on that point. However, we certainly don't need two translations of the same speech in the lead, so what I've done is give the IRIB translation of "wiped off the map" the star billing, and followed up with the NYT quote, because I think that quote is more concise and to the point and it also links to a full transcript of the speech which the IRIB story does not.

We might also need to look into how "must vanish from the pages of time" should be interpreted in English

Have you read the WP:OR guideline? "We" don't have the luxury of "looking into" things on our own behalf, we can only report on what reliable sources have said. To put it another way, editors cannot insert their own ideas into articles, such as your suggestion above that you think "erased from history" would be a more appropriate translation. That sounds like a classic OR proposal to me.

Anyhow I suggest if you haven't already done so you read the guideline carefully, as it is an important part of Wiki policies. Regards, Gatoclass 00:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gatoclass. The present arrangement is better. The IRIB translation is concisely acknowledged, and we also have the NYT quote. smb 14:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the wording works. Now it remains to see how authoritative sources explain the meaning of the persian idiom "vanish from the pages of time", which does not exist in English. IRIB translated it into the idiom "wiped off the map". --Utalempe 18:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Direct quote added

It's rather surprising that nobody added the actual quote so far. Just because many readers are illiterate (in arabo-persian script) does not mean that the quote should be omitted. We live in the age of unicode and the internet, so let's use them to go directly to the first-hand source, instead of just limiting ourselves to interpretations or interpretations of interpretations... Anyway, i added the most controversial part of his sentence. " بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود " see Boud 11:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Are these Ahmadinejad's direct words, or are they his reported words? I'd like a video source as corroboration, if at all possible. smb 14:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

They are the best evidence we have (so far) of his direct words. Getting further sources, either Persian language texts by people in the audience, or as you suggest, audio and/or video recordings, would certainly be a good idea. AFAIK nobody has contested what words he said in the Persian language, but if someone does contest it in a reliable, external way, then we should add that. Boud 17:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Juan Cole's transliteration "bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad" is consistent with the quote - see Persian alphabet and remember that in the arabo-persian script, the vowels are frequently (but not always) implicit and are frequently presented in latin transliterations as "a". Boud 18:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

An independent comment: the web archive of 25 June 2006 of the president.ir page has the quoted phrase identical to the present version. The full list of web archive backups of that page show no changes since the page was first archived. Boud 17:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

re: Original transcripts

Well, I think I found the original transcripts which might proof that he didnt denie the holocaust etc /didnt say wiped off the map etc. I'm from germany so reading it would be hard for me, I can read a bit persian, but this might work out sb else for me. Here is the page where you will find the links. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NOR20070120&articleId=4527 beforehand I have to tell you: one transc. is in persian language, one is written in englsih. I hope this will help you. By the way, In the german wiki- article it is already said that the quotes (wiped off the map etc) are wrong... You may find other resources over there, if this text doesnt work on every statement that is discussed Well I dont know if ahmadinejad is wrong quoted or not but I'd say the truht will triumph at wikipedia (-: sry I forgot to sign my statement -->--Englishazadipedia 15:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The only link i found to a persian "original" on the globalresearch.ca points to the president.ir link which i added earlier. Its word by word transliteration and literal translation of the translation is useful though and would be worth adding - Juan Cole doesn't go to this level of detail. Boud 20:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

- Well, theres also a translation of antoher speech, you just oversight it. Well who will "correct" the article now, the quotes on the article seems to be wrong. --Englishazadipedia 00:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

- I posted my links to main discussion page about Ahmadinejad. Please disuss my comments there

Origin of "wiped off the map"

Many "sources" quote "wiped off the map" but none tell us the name of the person who heard Ahmadinejad say it and translated it into this English phrase. All the reports are second or third-hand hearsay. WP has a notion of "verifiable" but it amounts to taking (eg.) the BBC's word for it, since the BBC is considered "reliable". It does not require that we should ask the BBC "Who heard him say that and translated it" - i.e. "Who is your primary source". What do you call something that is widely repeated but can't be traced back to a primary source? Myth? Urban legend? Fourtildas 04:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad and the sixteen-year-old nuclear scientist

Why is this paragraph even in the article. It does not fit in with the parent section on H denial. It looks incomplete. Was this added just to poke fun at the President? I think it should be

1. Taken out as it lacks any explaination or cited analysis. 2. Moved to another section where it will be expanded so we understand why and what is being discussed Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 18:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the text is unconnected. You can always be bold and remove it yourself. smb (talk) 21:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand that concept :) but I never like changing articles without first discussing with the other contributors. So I guess I am "boldish".  :) Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Jewish groups

Re: "Ahmadinejad's remark found support among Anti-Zionism Jewish groups". This report is probably a reference to Yisroel Dovid Weiss and Neturei Karta or some other such group. ~ smb (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

From that report: "On plots of Zionism to occupy Palestine, rabbi Vice said that unfortunately, Zionism has been busy hatching plots since the earliest day of its formation about 200 years ago" is interesting. The earliest evidence I've seen is the text of 3 letters only 126 years ago.

Vice also says "The anti-Zionism figure said that Torah clearly bans Jews from ownership of lands", which I believe is fairly central to the belief of some Jews, but I can't find it anywhere in WP. I'm in no position to write it up myself. I'm surprised not to find it here or here. PR^talk 11:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Reuters report 2 June 2008

The recent report by Reuters which refers to a speech by Ahmadinejad has not, as far as I can tell been verified or repeated by AFP despite a reference to AFP in the article reference. The official news agency IRNA said something rather different. It says the following:-

Ahmadinejad said on Monday that the era of use of force and that of bullying powers has ended.

Underlining the need for unity and solidarity of the Muslim World, he said all satanic powers will be eliminated through unity of Muslims and vigilance of the Islamic Ummah.

As to the Israeli atrocity in the occupied lands, Ahmadinejad said the criminal regime which has been plundering the wealth of the oppressed Palestinian nation and has been murdering innocent people in the past 60 years, "has reached its end and will disappear from the scene".

On the latest developments in Lebanon, he said the small country which was under the rule of big powers and Israel, has now turned to a power defeating the US and the Zionist regime.

The president stressed that the resistance of the Lebanese nation prevented the enemies from carrying out their conspiracies in that country, he added

.

http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0806023503151017.htm

The key words this time are "disappear from the map" (Reuters) or "will disappear from the scene" . . . which may sound similar, but are actually very different. The Reuters report continues to refer to the 2005 quote as being "wiped off the map" which has been widely discredited. Last time it was the New York Times that spread an alarmist and misleading story.

Who do we believe now? Reuters or the official news agency? This story has been spread all over the web but as far as I can see all the reports seem to feed back to Reuters or other agencies quoting Reuters. I am no fan of the Iranian regime but I think we should get more than one independent source for claims like this.

Yes, this section needs to be improved. According to the Reuters report, "Ahmadinejad was speaking at a gathering of foreign guests ... the official IRNA news agency said." Reuters appears then to provide their own translation of Ahmadinejad's remarks, which as you correctly observe, conflict with the official source. Certainly, a search of the official IRNA news agency website produces zero results for the Reuters text. [27] So perhaps we should make a note of both translations in the relevant section? ~ smb 21:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Shiraz Dossa

Text temporally moved from the main page...

Dossa also wrote that "What Ahmadinejad has questioned is the mythologizing, the sacralization, of the Holocaust and the “Zionist regime’s” continued killing of Palestinians and Muslims. He has even raised doubts about the scale of the Holocaust. His rhetoric has been excessive and provocative. And he does not really care what we in the West think about Iran or Muslims; he does not kowtow to western or Israeli diktat."

Why was this removed? It is properly sourced and is significant since this comes from a tenured professor at a Canadian University.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC))

I agree. See my last two edit summaries for a brief explanation. [28] [29] We can hear from Dossa twice. Section 1 should be left to deal with the 'wipe off the map' controversy. That portion still remains on the page. I was then hoping we could reinsert the passage above in sections 6 or 7 (r.e. holocaust denial), where it has precise relevance to the matter at hand. ~ smb 09:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point. I've reinserted this quote into Section 7. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC))

The stinking Zionist regime is doomed to collapse. Enough already

Might we begin to limit the number of statements on this page? Ahmadinejad is always jabbering about the Zionist regime. It's past the point of notability. — eon, 01:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole purpose of this article is to demonstrate Ahmadinejad's severe and continuing verbal attacks against Israel. This statement was made in front of the US General Assembly. This is surely notable.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a political soap box. We need not "demonstrate" anything. This purpose is to inform, in a neutral and balanced way as possible. Slowly, this page is turning into a collection of quotes that all say the same thing. If Ahmadinejad's remarks at the UN are notable, then we should begin removing comments that are less so. — eon, 12:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My point is that all of these comments are notable. This man denies the holocaust and calls for the destruction of another state at international venues. Please explain how these statements are not notable?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC))

I may be bias but I believe that statements by the leader of a nation calling for the destruction of another nation (by military or other means) and denying the holocaust are extremely notable. But that's just my opinion.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC))

You need to stop conflating Ahmadinejad's patent holocaust denial with your personal interpretation of various other remarks. I want to deal specifically with the latter, not the former. But let us suspend reality just for one moment and enter the world of fiction. Let's us agree for arguments sake that Ahmadinejad threatened to destroy Israel "by causing so much damage to it that it cannot be repaired or no longer exists". (WordWeb) After he threatens to "wipe Israel off the map" for the one-hundredth time, how is that still noticeable? The answer is "it's not". You can't just keep adding more and more remarks to this page indefinitely. Wikipedia is not a quote farm. — eon, 00:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My personal interpretation is that Ahmadinejad's comments on Israel and the Holocaust are notable. How they are interpreted is certainly open to debate as to whether or not he seeks Israel's destruction or denies the Holocaust (although I admit my opinion on this is evident). But either way, they should still be included in this article since its purpose is Ahmadinejad's stance on Israel. Even if you don't believe that he seeks Israel's destruction, the fact that he keeps making statements on Israel means that this article should be kept up to date.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

We both agree that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's stated position toward Israel, together with a collection of his remarks, belong in this article. What I find objectionable, however, is simply filling up this page with more of the same, ad infinitum, every time he opens his mouth in a public forum, especially when his most recent comments echo precisely his old. It is not our job to catalogue every word (try Wikiquote instead). We have supplied more than enough information so readers can understand exactly his position. It was suggested that if you wish to add something fairly recent, consider removing some non essential material first. That is entirely fair and proper. — eon, 01:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still concerned. How would we decide which citations should remain? I was under the impression that this article was meant to cover everything related to Ahmadinejad vs. Israel. Determining which citations should remain would be a very subjective and disputatious process.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

Apologia, original research, and WP:NPOV violations

Please stop inserting apologia and original research into this article. That includes phrases such as

Close studying of the original speech in Farsi later showed however, the first part of this translation was inaccurate, and should have read:

and

...made comments on Palestine, on the state of Israel, and on the Holocaust, in which comments he used the word ‘myth’. He may have meant to criticize a perceived ‘mythologizing and sacralization’ of the Holocaust in the Western world in comparison to a lesser Western concern for the fate of the Palestinians.

Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

While there are elements of OR in what's been inserted previously, it is evident that the English-language press has, at times, simply published falsehoods about what's been said in other languages. The mis-translation of Ahmadinejad's comments: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" is a classic example of just how bad this problem can be. It took two years before the BBC even hinted that there were problems. PR^talk 21:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop soapboxing. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

‘…the letter, which has not as yet been disclosed…’ (Chancellor Merkel, Aug. 2006, revealing excerpts from a private letter from Ahmadinejad)

Both DW and M&G mention in their article the fact that the letter is still undisclosed, and they are right to do so, because it’s an essential aspect of this news item. A reliable news medium ought not suggest as a fact what they only know from hearsay – not even when the hearsay comes from a political leader – and in these articles DW and M&G therefore prove reliable news media. Same wise, our encyclopaedia ought not suggest that DW or M&G or AFP or Mehr has actually seen the letter. --Corriebertus (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, untrue. And your pattern of a) denying the existence of multiple sources on this and now b) deliberately misquoting the DW article leads me to suspect that these are bad faith edits. Anyway, that aside, the lead of the DW clearly states "whose contents have not been disclosed until now". I'm assuming you can read as well as I can. I'm reverting. Again. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

As serious encyclopaedia we must ignore the claim from Mail & Guardian and Deutsche Welle and Mehr that: ‘Ahmadinejad told .. that the Holocaust may have been invented ...’, and consequently also the heading: ‘Ahm.: Holocaust was made up’. It is totally irresponsible journalism and equally irresponsible encyclopaedic science, to interpret a letter out of six selected isolated sentences, out of their context, and selected moreover by someone who is prejudiced about the sender of the letter and eager to prove her ‘point’ about this sender. And, moreover, doesn’t want to hand over the whole letter... By which we haven’t even the slightest certitude whether these sentences really are in the letter. The whole M&G and DW articles therefore are inferior, malicious and shameful journalism. Moreover, in none of the six ´cited´ sentences we see Ahm write: ``the holocaust is made up´´ or something like it; sentence 2 rather seems to say the opposite; “this excuse” in sentence 1 can in the letter easily have pointed to a million other things than Holocaust. --Corriebertus (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC) By the way, where did I misquote DW? I´m not aware of it, and surely did no such thing on purpose, so I may have slipped, but tell me where? --Corriebertus (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Your comments above are completely beyond the pale of Wikipedia RS guidelines. You're seeking to dismiss internationally respected publications as "inferior" simply because they don't support your agenda. You even seem to suggest that the German chancellor herself is in on some vast conspiracy? Give me a break. Take it elsewhere, because it won't wash here. Revert.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Corriebertus, please stop using original research to try to refute reliable sources and whitewash Ahmnadinejad. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent addition

I am removing Cowperth's text (diff) for the following 3 reasons:

1. This article is named Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel, not Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani and Israel.
2. It contains not a single reliable third-party source, thus the material is original research.
3. jiw.blogspot.com is not a reliable source; indeed XLinkBot has already removed it once (diff) Dynablaster (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the so-called "Iranian Press Service" link is also somebodies personal Blogger account. Click here to see for yourself. Dynablaster (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahmadi's Israeli heritage

I think this article shows deep down, we're all the same. Let's just get along.

[30]

Wikidea 13:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Please Note this!

[31] Somthing like this was on the background section until the july 23, but removed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonbasic (talk • contribs) 21:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

organizing the article chronological?

The section ‘denying the Holocaust?’ refers to the speech of 14 December 2005, and should therefore be the third section in this article, right behind Muslim Summit (8 Dec 2005). Also, the section should be named neutrally, for example ‘Remarks 14 December 2005’, referring then to the supposed holocaust denial in a sub-section. And after this statement should chronologically follow Ahmadinejad’s two statements from 2006, on Ariel Sharon and on Lebanon-conflict. Because an article like this should be put up chronological. Accordingly, I’ll have the article altered within a minute from now. --Corriebertus (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

“This article contains too many quotations …” ??

Someone put a sign on top of the article: “This article contains too many quotations …” etcetera. Why ‘too many’?? The very reason of existence of this very article lies pretty much in “quotations” of our well (or less) respected mr president Ahmadinejad, and reactions of other people on those quotes. So could that someone be a little more specific about that “too many”? If not, I think we might remove the sign..…? --Corriebertus (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The tag is self-explanatory. This article has far too many quotations for an encyclopaedic entry. We must not keep adding sections named Statement on ______ everytime Ahmadinejad opens his stupid mouth. There are 14 such sections at the present time. That is what Wikiquote is for. Dynablaster (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don’t think Wikipedia is the place to revile people by saying they have a “stupid mouth”, not even politicians, not even the president of Iran. Perhaps Dynablaster means, we should not keep adding new lengthy sections everytime Ahmadinejad more or less repeats what he already said before on a certain topic. In that case I agree with him/her.

It would be better, to analyse some of the early remarks of Ahmadinejad on Israel, Zionism, Holocaust etcetera, summarize them (if possible) into a few clear statements, and make sections of them – for example, section 1: ‘The establishment of Israel is only part of the war of the World of Arrogance [i.e. the West] against the Islamic Ummah’. Section 2: ‘Europe gave Palestine to the Jews as compensation for the Holocaust’. Section 3: ‘As compensation for the Holocaust, Europe should give European provinces to the government of Israel, and the Jews occupying Palestine should move to those European provinces’. Later remarks of Ahm along those same lines can then be mentioned, shortly summarized, in those existing two, three, four, I don’t know how many sections.

And some remarks perhaps need not be in this article or in Wikipedia at all. For example: the present section ‘Rahim Mashaei speech 2008’, should not be in this article, but in article Iran-Israel relations. I’ll remove that section to article Iran-Israel relations right now. Next section ‘Sept 2009 interview’ is not informatory. We’re sort of falling in the middle of some conversation of which we don’t know anything, and only hear Ahmadinejad saying he is “sorry for everyone” who got killed in World War II. Everyone is that, so it needs not be recorded in Wikipedia. Wipe that section, I hereby suggest; I tentatively remove this section therefore to this talk page. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

tentatively removed section

(This section seems not informatory, it tells us only that Ahmadinejad is “sorry for everyone” who got killed in World War II. Everyone is that, so it needs not be recorded in Wikipedia. Wipe that section, I hereby suggest; I tentatively remove this section therefore to this talk page:)

September 2009 interview by Anchor Katie Couric

During an interview for CBS News, Ahmadinejad critised "exaggeration of Holocaust", he started:

“There are many historical events, similar historical events. Why is this one in particular so important to you?... During World War II, 60 million people were killed. Why are we just focusing on this special group alone? (...) All of them were human beings. And it doesn't matter whether they were Christians or Jews or Buddhists or Muslims. They were killed. So, we're sorry for everyone.”

After an inverview, Ahmadinejad accused US media for “coordinated campaign to damage Iran's image”.

(--Corriebertus (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC))