| Revision as of 14:54, 20 October 2006 editJayjg (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,922 edits →The Lead Paragraph is Completely Absurd← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:35, 11 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,800,285 editsm →top: merge blp/living/activepol params into blp=activepol; cleanupTag: AWB | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Skip to talk}} | |||
| {{WPBiography | |||
| {{tmbox|type=content|text=<br /> | |||
| |living= Yes | |||
| *'''The subject of this article is ] and content may be in ].''' Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, supplying full ] when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information. | |||
| |class = B | |||
| *'''This is ] for general discussion of ].''' Any such comments ] or ]. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about ] at the ], discuss relevant Misplaced Pages policy at the ], or ask for help at the ]. | |||
| |priority= Mid | |||
| *Please redirect comments that have to do with Israel to ] | |||
| |activepol= Yes | |||
| *Please redirect comments that have to do with controversial issues to ] | |||
| |politician-work-group= Yes | |||
| |auto= | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|blp=activepol|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Ahmadinejad, Mahmoud|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Iran}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=Mid}} | |||
| {{facfailed}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Iran|importance = High}} | |||
| {{onlinesource2005|section=July 11\u201320 | |||
| {{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{external peer review|date=], ]|comment=He on the article somewhere before August 10, 2008 (perhaps ). See ] for his review.}} | |||
| {{Article history | |||
| |action1=FAC | |||
| |action1date=17:02, 12 February 2006 | |||
| |action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/archive1 | |||
| |action1result=not promoted | |||
| |action1oldid=39356010 | |||
| |currentstatus=FFAC | |||
| |itn1date=5 August 2009 | |||
| |otd1date=2012-08-03|otd1oldid=505508629 | |||
| |otd2date=2013-08-03|otd2oldid=566860103 | |||
| |otd3date=2015-08-03|otd3oldid=674391113 | |||
| |otd4date=2020-08-03|otd4oldid=971041730 | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Press|year=2005|section=July_11.E2.80.9320 | |||
| |title=Mystery surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad | |title=Mystery surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad | ||
| |org=Kompas (Indonesia) | |org=Kompas (Indonesia) | ||
| |date=July 13, 2005 | |date=July 13, 2005 | ||
| |url=no url}} | |||
| {{FAOL|Hebrew|he:\u05de\u05d7\u05de\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d7\u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d6'\u05d0\u05d3}} | |||
| *'''Please redirect comments that have to do with Israel to ].''' | |||
| |year2=2007 | |||
| |monthday2=15 August | |||
| |author2=Jonathan Fildes | |||
| |title2=Misplaced Pages 'shows CIA page edits' | |||
| |section2=August | |||
| |url2=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6947532.stm | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Annual readership|days=90}} | |||
| *'''Please redirect comments that have to do with controversial issues to ].''' | |||
| {{Archives|auto=short|search=yes|index=User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad|bot=ClueBot III|age=365}} | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="270px" | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|age=8760|archiveprefix=Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive|numberstart=23|maxarchsize=120000|header={{Automatic archive navigator}}|minkeepthreads=8|minarchthreads=1|format= %%i}} | |||
| |- | |||
| {{Archive basics | |||
| !align="center" colspan = "2"|]<br>] | |||
| |archive = Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| ---- | |||
| |counter = 23 | |||
| |- | |||
| |headerlevel = 2 | |||
| |] | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 120K | |||
| |] | |||
| |archiveheader = {{Aan}} | |||
| |- | |||
| }}<!-- 12:16 August 26, 2018 (UTC), Sam Sailor added ] --> | |||
| |] | |||
| {{Broken anchors|links= | |||
| |] | |||
| * <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Labor and welfare) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"Labor and welfare","appear":{"revid":316273727,"parentid":315062461,"timestamp":"2009-09-26T08:46:21Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":521310098,"parentid":521075224,"timestamp":"2012-11-04T04:50:39Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> | |||
| |- | |||
| }} | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | |||
| == arbitration == | |||
| I'm sorry to say it, but I'm pretty sure this is the only option left. This discussion has been so repetitive it's unbelievable. The mediation cabal has all but ceased, and the mediation of this talk page has failed. The RFC also did not work. I can see no other way to reslve the issue other than ArbCom. What does everyone else think? --] 21:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| It's a pretty useless process. Mostly Admins listing Hebrew as a language, or displaying Israeli symbols on their user pages will respond they have no problem with the biased edits. Worst-case they ban you for suggesting the article needed comment or some type of oversight. ] 09:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :]. So much for ]. -- ] 13:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::the funniest is when the POV pusher Markovich actually blames others for imaginary POV with bad faith and breaking WP:NPOV, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:BLP, Misplaced Pages:Categorization of people, Misplaced Pages:Consensus, and Misplaced Pages:Categorization, which he broke all. ] 13:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Huh, I guess you take every opportunity to make up false accusations just because you don't agree with me. Did you even notice that this topic is about arbitration before you started with your ill-considered behavior? ] 16:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you can't see the connection between your bad faith behaviour and what Avi said, it's your problem. ] 18:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you didn't notice, Avi responded to Sarastro777's comments; you are just trying to find an excuse to take your jabs at me. If you can't stay on topic, you could, at the very least, keep your behavior ] and not make bogus accusations of others breaking policy. ] 21:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Amoruso, shut up. You're just being rude now. It's completely uncalled for. | |||
| :::Please, let's just stop all this bickering. --] 22:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Please don't tell other users to shut up. It was very called for. Markovich has been attacking me constantly. He drove Thuran X away and he's trying the same tactics on other users simply to enforce his POV . ] 19:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You haven't responded to polite requests to cease incivil behavior. I'm afraid my response was warranted. Your above comments are filled with so much bad faith that it makes me uneasy. Without any provocation in this section, you have made a personal attack against Markovich, and then accuse ''him'' of attacking ''you'' constantly. You have become very disruptive to this conversation, please, take a step back and cool off. --] 23:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::<sigh> . It is obvious you're attempting to make this something that it isn't because you agree with Markovich on the content. That's dishonest. It's sad really. Tell others to shut up and talk about incivility with them. ] 23:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "make this something it's not", could you clarify? Also, I dislike that you are accusing me of bad faith. I never said that I was a perfect person, but you ''have'' been incivil, especially in the comment I was responding to. If you noticed, I also asked everyone to stop bickering right afterward. All I want is for this discussion to continue in an amicable manner. --] 00:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| A compromise seems to be somewhat close now, arbitration is most likely not needed. Awesome. --] 01:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Wipe the slate clean== | |||
| Let's just forget our opinions on the subject and move on. Just discuss ways to make this article better, not your personal feelings on the subject. I've read some of the material discussed on this talk page and it's horrendous and rather immature. Again, stop the opinions and discuss the facts. ] 04:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Just so you know, when I brought up the issue of categorization a month ago, the facts are ''exactly'' what it was about for me. I fully expected that if wikipedia policy supported the categorization, editors would explain why and show the facts to prove me wrong. Since then though, the debate has made it clear to ''many'' editors that adding the category at this time is POV and not supported by policy. Myself and other "pro-policy" people had tried '''many''' times to ellicit facts rather than opinions, but as you see (presuming you read the whole debate), we basically never got anything '''but''' opinions. Thats why the other side won't just "stop the opinions"; their entire argument is based on them. | |||
| :It would be nice to have this article unlocked and wipe the slate clean, but at least one of the "pro-categorization" editors shows no intention of respecting policy if that were to happen. I think that is the biggest reason why this is still going on, and why at least one person supports arbitration. ] 06:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Interesting document found== | |||
| I found this article about Iran trying to initiate a rapprochment with Israel, recognizing its existence in a proposal to the United States in 2003. The report claims that Iran's peace proposal with Israel was not accepted by the United States. I think this is some important piece of information that needs to be used in these articles. But I dont know where and in what article we could fit this in best. Anybody have any ideas? Please do use the article as reference anywhere you see fit. | |||
| The article: | |||
| :"Iran offered 'to make peace with Israel'" by Gareth Porter. ], May 2006. Link: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE26Ak01.html | |||
| Thanks.--] 22:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you. I believe this is a fine article. --] 07:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disputes Resolved?== | |||
| I believe that the arguments have ceased and in the near future, if anyone wishes to request unprotection, go right ahead. Wait one to two weeks to check if anyone else pops up that has a dispute. ] 05:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It seems that MA saying he's not anti-semetic and possibly the article above (about Iran proposing peace with Israel) pretty much put the nail in the coffin on the category. --] 07:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I am hopeful that the arguments have ceased, and I suppose unprotection is what is best for the article at this point. My only fear is that no matter what the circumstances are when it is unprotected, the category in question will be added without regard for the discussion that has gone on here. Below I have included a section of the debate that stands unresolved, so maybe this will help reach an end ASAP. ] 23:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree. Even if this article does go unprotected, someone else could open up another dispute based on opinion and this could start a new chain of disputes. People have to realize that this is not a talk page where you can debate opinions. You have to discuss what's been placed on the article, not your personal POV. ] 01:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{quotation|you're going around in pathetic circles again. What you see as anti semite is your opinion, this is a term made which is open to discussion. You still did not say what is anti semite in your opinion or explained why we should care what your definition of the term is. When the world community has a consencus over a term like this, then that's how it is determined. This is with every issue in the world. Amoruso 08:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You fail to accept that MA has done or said nothing anti-semitic '''by the wikipedia definition'''. "People saying so" doesn't count. Any source you cite is a)opinion or b)MA saying something that you think makes him anti semitic, but fails to prove "prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group." This is going in circles because I keep telling you that and you keep finding reasons to ignore it. Markovich292 08:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::ha, now you're citing wikipedia ? (not that it helps you, in fact it refutes you). but anyway, wikipedia also says : "Holocaust denial is generally considered an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory." like I said - discussion over. Amoruso 09:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Two points: 1) "generally considered" (not always), 2) he did not deny the Holocaust // Liftarn | |||
| ::::1) lol 2) rotfl but "Holocaust is a zionist myth that didn't exist" is indeed not denying it. Amoruso 09:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Another reason that this is going in circles...we went over this before. Liftarn is right, "Generally cosidered" means that there are enough people, such as yourself, to conclude it is a widespread sentiment but is not necessarily true. In other words, not all holocaust deniers are anti-semites. Oh, and I find it funny that you say wikipedia refutes me, but don't even say why. Do enlighten me... Markovich292 09:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::the best compromise is what I suggested far earlier and that's '''adding the "Anti Semitism" category as opposed to the "Anti Semitic People" category.''' This tells the user that anti-semitism is being discussed in the article. If some people think that MA has allegdly denied this then that is addressed in the article. This solution has worked for other articles where the status of the anti semitism of the person was disputed. This solution is OK with me, though with other users who stand firm that MA is anti-semitic (like Thuran X, Avi and Mantanmoreland ) it doesn't. Still , I think it's a good compromise. No doubt, a certain user will attack me again with his bad faith comments and condescending disruptive behaviour like he does all the time, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a good compromise. ] 08:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::So what you're saying is, even with a ] that this is not an acceptable solution, you still think that your "compromise" is the best idea? ] 17:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What are you talking about ? Or is this another lie like your false allegations against me based on your disruptive behaviour ? ] 18:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you don't "undertand" though it's not a difficult issue to grasp, I'm proposing this as a compromise. Which I think is best. Perhaps other users also in the camp that advocated (the truth) that MA is anti-semitic will agree as well. Some of them were ambivalent about it, and maybe some on the camps that think he isn't anti-semitic (those that really honestly think that, not you...) will also agree to the compromise. And for once, reply only with something productive please.] 18:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I would call my question above productive, afterall it got an answer: ''"Which I think is best..."'' I have established that you still think your "compromize" is "best" even though only you seem to support it. I even got an incivil comment to boot that just happens to show your bad attitude toward me: "those that really honestly think that, not you..." | |||
| ::::::''"This solution is OK with , though with other users who stand firm that MA is anti-semitic (like Thuran X, Avi and Mantanmoreland ) it .''" I don't think anything more is needed to be a "productive" reply considering that quote from your own statement backs me up. ] 21:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Wow, you really need to cool down since you are making statements like that regrading a perfectly legitimate post. ] 21:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Nothing was legitimate about it. I'm proposing a "compromise" which obviously I think is "best" which is the reason I'm proposing it. The proposal needs to be raised so people can think about it and see if they're convinced about it. Like I wrote, I believe most if not all will be convinced about it, except for certain POV pushers. I believe the users I indicated (Thuran X, Avi and Mantanmoreland) will all accept this as a temporary solution actually, and others will too. It's the nature of the compromise, and what I wrote meant to show that they still believe MA is anti-semitic (like me) and therefore no decision was made a compromise like the one I proposed is badly needed. The fear of these users is that a compromise will help endorse the lie that MA is not anti-semitic and weaken the stand. But it's the nature of a compromise to have some middleground, which is what I also thought was legitimate with "new anti-semitic people" and you attacked me about it using bad faith earlier. The best indeed is simply to leave the "anti-semitism" category which is already used in situations like this. ] 19:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::There is nothing legitimate about asking if you think your compromise is the best idea ''even knowing that nobody else supported it when you mentioned it before''...now I've heard everything. Anyway, the "best indeed" here is not for you to propose a "compromise" that just so happens to be almost exactly the same as your original argument. (Proposal for mutually acceptable compromise can be seen below). ] 22:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::''"...the lie that MA is not anti-semitic..."'' Can you '''''please''''' stop pushing your POV as fact?? I'm not against discussing this, but when you make sweeping statements like that it makes it terribly hard to work with you. --] 23:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::that's something very awkard to say . Obviously this is my opinion here which I believe is a fact. No problem with saying that. Markovich said the opposite many times in much a similar way. Actually looking at it, it wasn't even my opinion but the opinion of those which I cited. I'm sorry they don't think the same way as you ! geez. ] 23:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You're twisting my words to discredit me, which I don't appreciate. You weren't even citing anyone, you were making a statement about your own opinions. Also, I don't think I've seen similar statement before on this page. --] 00:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I'm not twisting anythign and you're aware of that. I made a statement about the opinion of the other users. Their statements believing that it's whitewashing not to say MA is anti-semitic etc is all over the page. ] 00:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::But you're making it seem like I dislike people for not agreeing with me, which is not true, and that ''is'' twisting someone's word. I only disagree with people (anyone) who state their opinion as a fact, which I've run into more than once. Things like "(this band) is just bad, that's all there is to it" and "I don't like your music, so you're a shitty band". I guess you could call it a "pet peeve" if you wanted to. And, just to clarify, the wording of your comments did not imply citing the opinions of others. You share those opinions anyway, don't you? --] 01:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I didn't try to make it seem like you dislike people for not agreeing with you or discredit you. Sorry if you got that idea. Simply I meant to say that what I said was the opinion of those I referred to. ] 05:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Well, I guess it's ok. I apologize if I was more hostile than necessary. --] 05:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Amoruso, do you realize that you're just inciting more bad feeling when you make comments like "a certain user will attack me again..." "...another lie like your false allegations against me..." and "...that advocated (the truth) that MA is anti-semitic..."? You're either being uncivil, or pushing you POV as truth again. Please, stop being so uncivil. I'm not trying to single you out, either. | |||
| :::On anther note, could provide a few links to pages with the anti-semetism category that are of people? I'd like to see if your compromise would fit, rather than just deciding on it without any background info. --] 22:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And as for you LifeEnemy, it is bad faith behavior to act all "neutral" when in fact you're supporting Markovich's opinion, and you have made no comment regarding his comments (for example he has made the comment earlier of the nature : "a certain user seems intent on disrupting/not respecting..." ) nor made any "warnings" in his user page, so please do not make any statements like that, they don't sound honest. Not to mention you actually seemed to endorse his blatant lie concerning "Here are just some of the policies that he has violated already, or is trying to violate by adding the category: WP:NPOV, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:BLP, Misplaced Pages:Libel, Misplaced Pages:Categorization of people, Misplaced Pages:Consensus, and Misplaced Pages:Categorization." ] 19:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am greatly offended. You have '''no right''' to accuse me of bad faith. I am trying to be objective, which is something that is desparately needed in this discussion. It's true I didn't respond to that comment, and I haven't responded to all of your comments either. I speak to you because recently you have been making many attacks against other users and have been increasily hostile, and you comments have been more offensive or direct than most. Not to mention Markovich's comment was much less insulting in nature. | |||
| :::::I have been acting "neutral" in that I want '''you''' AND '''everyone else''' to stop the personal attacks and childish behavior. I have asked that ''countless'' times and everyone seems intent on ignoring me and acting immature. I have never tried to act as though I didn't have an opinion. Rather, I have been trying to get everyone to calm down so we can continue this discussion in a mature fashion. If you want to accuse me of bad faith for that, fine. But you're acting in the worst of bad faith by doing so. | |||
| :::::As for Markovich's accusations, I don't agree with ''all'' of them, but you have obviously violated CIVIL and NPA. Many other people have also, so I'm not singling you out, but it still doesn't make it right. As for the others related to adding the cat, you shouldn't be angry about those. Those are the subject of this discussion, and obviously each side thinks the other will violate those policies. Although he could have brought it up in a friendlier way, it's nothing to get upset about. Don't be so sensitive. --] 23:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You're greatly offended but you tell me not to be sensitive ? You took Markovich's opinion which is the reason you DID single me out by addressing your possts to me and not to him. Anyway, you were guilty of incivility too just before. but since I have no desire to keep this going.... whatever. 00:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::'m offened because you're accusing me of bad faith (serious accusation), but I'm telling you not to be offended by the point of the discussion, which is subject to interpretation (very minor point in the scheme of things). Did you even read ''why'' I responded to you and not him? Do you agree or disagree with my assesment? AND, why didn't you address any of the positive points of my comment? Did you just pick out the bad parts? Please, I'm trying to push this conversation back towards civility and relevence to the article, but I can only do so much on my own, I need you to try as well. --] 00:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::So it's ok for you to be offended and not me ? I missed the part where you adequately explained why you turned to me and not to Markovich. His comment were just as recent and just (actually more, seeing that my weren't really) as insulting. Anyway, I'm willing to move on which is what I was willing to to do all along. You'd notice it is Markovich's behaviour to keep this up all the time. Before me, he did the same against Thuran X who couldn't take it any longer. ] 00:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::You accuse me of bad faith, obviously I should be offended. You would be to. Let me clarify my earlier statement: You shouldn't be sensitive about Markovich accusing you of breaking those policies. All but CIVIL and NPA (which you have broken) are, as I said, the substance of this discussion and they are subject to interpretation, meaning it's only natural he would think that you would break those if you add the category (I would agree on that point). Those particular accusations are hardly against you anway, they're against adding the cat. | |||
| ::::::::::Markovich's comment that you cited did not seem that insulting, which is why I didn't address it. I only told you to shut up because the comments I read seemed very negative, and I had asked you before to be more mindful of what you said. | |||
| ::::::::::<s>One last thing. I would like to clarify something. Please tell me, do you think that you have been incivil at all in this conversation?</s> --] 01:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I also would have liked to have had clarification on that. I guess he is extending his philosophy of ignoring anything that he pleases, even though that in itself is widely considered incivil. ] 23:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::I was trying not to ignite personal debates again. LifeEnemy made this question before he said that we're on the right track after I complied by his requests of civility and acts of good faith measures, see below . Obviously you would have responded in this usual way to anything I would have written, and even now, after the situation is seemingly over , it's obvious what you're trying to do. Let's avoid that.] 01:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I assure you I gave serious thought to what I was going to say and it was '''not''' to incite hostility; the goal was to stimulate a response to LifeEnemy's question and to remind you that ignoring people is '''not''' acceptable (you have done that in the past, and if you are really going to "turn over a new leaf" that is something you need to remember). You should also remember not to make a response laden with ill-considered accusations. You said "it's obvious what you're trying to do" which is quite a negative remark. Ironically, then you say "let's avoid that," presumably talking about personal comments (which to me is somewhat insincere since you made a personal comment right before saying that). I avoided saying "you were intentionally avoiding the question for obvious reasons," so in the future you could just remember to avoid saying things like that as well (I know, I added it now, but that was after you said what you did, and still only to give you an example). | |||
| :::::::::::::I sincerely thought LifeEnemy still would have wanted an answer, but now that he crossed it out, I will posit the question myself. Will you please just give a serious answer now instead of posting diffs that, to you, negate the need to answer? ] 05:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::Hopeless, see below. ] 06:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Please, Markovich, there's no need to incite anything any longer. we've all come to an understanding on this issue, I believe. --] 04:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I was just trying to get an answer, and maybe prove the point that he should be changing his ways from "ignore" to "politely answer". If Amoruso would just have answered your question, that would not have been necessary. It wouldn't have caused any problems or "ignite personal debates again," so his reason to aviod answering it was poor IMO. Really, he should have answered it in the first place, because otherwise it just comes off as incivil. ] 05:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::The question came before we decided to go on a new track without personal accusations. I considered that Answering it would spark a new war of words and accusations which will derail the discussion from the topic. LifeEnemy seems to agree. Because of your nature to comment on everything, you would have without doubt made your criticizm to my comment which will have continued forever, much like now. I know realise that discussing with you is hopeless, you intend to turn discussion pages into your private infinite war of words and accusations even when it has nothing to do with the article. LifeEnemy (who agreed with you on the original issue) asked you to stop, but you didn't. ''I will ignore'' you from now on and with final note to you, '''I sincerely hope you cease your provocative behaviour like this''' in the future and that you won't turn content disputes to endless sticky baseless accusations like you were doing all the time. Incidentally, your last paragraph addressed to me, with the overly excessive parentheses, is '''frankly disturbing'''. G'day. ] 06:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::I see how it is. I respond to your personal remarks, and ''I'' am automatically the one who is turning "pages into my private infinite war of words and accusations." Even in my response to LifeEnemy I just explained things how they are; '''you''' came back with personal accusations. '''Now do you see why LifeEnemy originally asked that question''', and ''why I still am curious to hear the answer''? | |||
| :::::::::::::::I hate to say it, but everything is not resolved. We have only a temporary solution as you said, so since we will both have a presence on this page in the near future, it would be good of you to actually ''not'' ignore other editors and answer legitimate questions. Whatever you do (answer or ignore) keep in mind that I have already said that answering wouldn't automatically incite hostility, as long as you keep personal accusations out of it and keep it civil. ] 19:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Per Avi's statement, I officially request a response on my talk page. ] 21:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Come on, guys, we don't need anymore of this. I think it's safe to assume Amoruso knows he ''was'' incivil in the past, as have many of us. The important thing is how this conversation continues, not how it was in the past. --] 00:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| As for your question, indeed there are many people who are in this category. Kevin B. MacDonald, Arash Miresmaili (iranian), Joseph Massad, and others , see here : . This solution is best simply because it is appropriate in the category even if MA denys it and allegdly explains the difference between anti semitism and what he believes (which he didn't AFAIK but that's what some people claimed) - it deals with the issue and explores this issue. It is NPOV and so it's the best compromise, as a temporary solution atlesat to unlock the article. As you can see through the category, this doesn't blame MA in anything, and could even suggest he's a fighter against anti-semitism which is what people here suggested that he "loves Jews", per some other articles. It says that the issue of anti-semitism is relevant for the article, nothing more. ] 19:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It is quite unnecessary to add this article to because ] is already listed. That is a dedicated article that goes further into the allegations of anti-semitism. Compare this situation to Israel and human rights issues. ] is not listed under to 'tell the user that being discussed in the article,' but the main article, ] is listed under . | |||
| :My counter proposal is that we go ahead and add ] to because that article deals with anti-semitism as much as ] does, and use of the category can truly be said to "tell the user that anti-semitism is being discussed in the article." ] 22:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I understand your proposal, Amoruso, and it seems to make sense. Markovich brings up a kind of good point about other pages being in the cat, but I can see how the MA article would fit, since there is an extensive "allegations of anti-semetism" section. But, you need to understand why some people will be resistant to this. It's because it seems like a "ploy" to get ''some'' anti-semetic category in the article, do you understand what I mean? That, plus your suggestion of "new anti-semetism", which had the same "ploy" feeling, makes it seem like you may have negative intentions rather than good. Personally, I like to assume you're acting in good faith with that compromise, but even I am a ''little'' circumspect, and others will be more so. --] 00:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nice comment LifeEnemy, thank you. I agree with you. I think you realise that this is a good middleground. Like you accurately pointed out, this article too deals extensively with the issue and therefore its inclusion in other articles isn't enough. Of course I want the anti-semitic category , but placing anti-semitism acheives the main goal of diverting the attention of users to the issues of anti semitism raised here. This is the target of categories to bring people up to speed and knowledge about certain issues. I don't mind (personally) the label of MA himself but I do mind the discussion of anti semitism and not whitewashing any relevant facts pertaining to this issue. That way, one can read all the denials and decide for himself. It's basically like a search engine with the word anti-semitism to see the relevant article being discussed. The reader can make up his own conclusions himself. This sounds good atleast for a temporary status I'm sure. If the issue of anti-semitism is not so extensive in the future, it can be dropped completlely, and if the issue is elevated to MA being a clear anti-semitic like certain users believe so, it can be changed to that in the future. What better solution is that. There is no compromise btw by suggesting to add categories o other articles since we're in the discussion page of the current article. I think we're generally in agreement over this which I see as a very positive step. Good day. ] 00:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Even if you were more than a ''little'' circumspect and ''didn't'' assume good faith, you still wouldn't be in violation of the AGF policy (I won't cite the line so this stays free of further tension). All I wanted to say is that you are certainly not close to violating AGF just because of your thoughts on his proposal. | |||
| ::Also, what are your thoughts on my proposal above? The article that I mention is directly linked from the "extensive 'allegations of anti-semetism' section" that you mention. Since that is the main page regarding allegations of anti-semitism and this page just has a a summary, classification on that page is more consistant with wikipedia convention (as mentioned with the Israel reference). Amoruso also gets to add an anti-semitism category to a MA article, so everybody can be happy. ] 01:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, I don't think anybody would really disagree with adding that cat to MA's controversy page. The only thing that is a little questionable is adding that tag to a person's page, since it could be mistaken for calling them an anti-semite. That can be fixed with a little addition to the category page, though. --] 01:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think nobody will object for you to add anything you wish in the description of the category page of anti-semitism. If you add it, and Markovich accepts it, I think the category can be safely added to the MA page (because adding it to the controversy page is not suffice IMO per above and below, and the human rights example is not relevant IMO per my explanation below) and thus the article be unlocked. ] 01:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I added some sentences about it. What do you two think? --] 05:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think they're well written. Good job. ] 05:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Sweet. Thanks. --] 05:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Human rights are being discussed in almsot all country's articles, just like ecomony, geography and foreign relations. Anti-semitism is not being discussesd in every biography article/president biography articles. Bad example. ] 23:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Umm, most country articles do ''not'' have a section on human rights. Those that do most likely have a dedicated "Human rights in..." page (which is where the category is placed, not in the main article). Therefore, good example. ] 23:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Umm no. Most DO have. and those that don't are simply in need for that section to be added. It's exactly like economy and the rest of my examples. ] 23:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ok, now this is exactly the kind of thing that I've been talking about. Both you <s>STOP</s> '''stop''', right now, before you get into another quarrel. Now, both of you give some examples of country articles that support your idea, and do it ''without'' being offensive, demeaning, or incivil. Please, just try it. --] 00:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Considering I have been perfectly civil here, I think it wan inaccurate for you to "yell" STOP at ''both'' of us. Anyway, all he has to do is look at all the articles of countries and count up the number that have a human rights section if he still insists that he is right. ] 00:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I didn't really intend that as a "yell", but I know that's what it looks like. I'll change it. It looks like you guys are starting another argument, so I wanted to get my point across. And, not trying to be condescending or anything, but, be honest, no one here has been "perfectly civil". We all have been rude at least ''once'' on this page. | |||
| :::::I still say you both need to cite examples. If only one person does it, they can skew the results however they want, think of that as incentive to look. You both have to put a little effort in if you want this exchange to anywhere besides childish fighting again. --] 00:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You see LifeEnemy, that's the problem with Markovich. Now he actually claims he was being perfectly civil <strike>LOL. ROTFL.</strike> There are many countries with the human rights sections, and those that don't simply are in need of expansions. Many also lack foreign relation section, music, culture, cuisine sections and so on. '''The point is that every country has human rights relevant issues''' (positive or negative or both), whehther it's already included or pending writing, whether in a seperate article or not, but not every person or president has anti-semitic issues (to either side or in general discussion) but rather a very limited number of people. Therefore the example <strike>simply makes no sense</strike> is irrelevant IMO. ] 00:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yes, he did say that, but you should understand your comment just now doesn't help the situation. Here's the problem, you assumed his meaning, and then stated that's his "problem", and even added laughing to the end. Why? That can only incite more problems. You saw how I responded, that would have been much better. As it turns out, he meant in this section, which I assume is restricted to this dialogue about country articles. That actually makes his statement correct, since incivility hasn't come into this exchange yet. You should try to avoid making assumptions like that and instead point out errors in a civil manner. Adding "LOL" is just mean, and serves no purpose other than to incite anger and drive this conversation further down. You guys need to make sure that you understand exactly what the other person means, which is much easier when discussed calmly instead of argued. | |||
| :::::::Also, a slighty better way to describe his example might be "isn't relevant". --] 01:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::As an act of good faith, I politely request that you strike "LOL ROTFL" from your above comment. --] 01:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Excellent! Thank you, Amoruso. We're getting closer to civil, back-on-track discussion. --] 01:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::My point from the beginning was that ''even for countries with very hotly debated human rights issues'' (such as Israel), you still don't see the main page for that nation added to any "human rights" categories or subcategories. You turned that into something totally different and acted like all countries needing a human rights section somehow affects what I said about the addition of categories. '''I refer you to ]'''. Also, it would be appreciated if you admit that you were incorrect that most country's articles '''do''' have a human rights section. ] 02:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::There are many more countries which their human rights issues are much more "hotly debated". The example is irrelevant because human rights issues appear virtually in every article, whether in a section or in a differnet article or within the article and need to be expanded to sections. It's something common for country articles. You were incorrect in suggesting this as a valid example as I explained. I said and maintain that "Human rights are being discussed in almsot all country's articles" - some of it wasn't codified to sections, some have. Some it's incorporated into other sections like "demographics" or "government".Many countries, just by browsing - Iran, China, Cuba and others have it as sections. France only as an article. Same goes for Cuisine for example - Japan as a section, others as an article and so on. But these issues : foreign relations, culture, economy, geography, tourism and many more are all relevant sections/articles for countries. '''However, anti-semitism is not a relevant category for ALL presidents/people'''. Therefore it's important to note it also in the name article and therefore one can't make the analogy you proposed. ] 03:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::''"Even for countries with very hotly debated human rights issues (such as Israel), you still don't see the main page for that nation added to any "human rights" categories or subcategories.''" That has absolutely nothing to do with numbers, it has to do with categorization. More specifically, it has to do with the fact that categories are not used on wikipedia just to tell the user that certain things are being discussed in the article like you said before. Don't forget that "Restraint should be used as categories become less effective the more there are on any given article." | |||
| :::::::::You seem to be talking about ''how many'' people/countries these categories apply to for no particular reason. '''The number of articles with a human rights section (or the lack of people that are accused of antisemitism) has nothing to do with how categories are applied.''' ] 04:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I've already explained that I didn't make an error and I explained what I meant , that every article deals with issues like these. My rationale is that it doesn't matter whether it's in a section or not, but they can all be added to sections. Some of them, quite many actually, already have the section. Other are pending further editing of sections into articles. But the issue here is totally different. Your new argument that categories aren't used this way is something else. If we move on to it then, I disagree with that statement. First of all, the antisemitism category already disproves it, as it was used for numerous articles exactly for this reason. This is true to also any other category in wikipedia. The category states an issue is related to the subject without saying exactly whether it's related to the subject in a positive or a negative or a neutral way. This is common of course. ] 05:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I think there's been a misunderstanding. Allow me to clarify: Markovich, you used human rights sections in country articles as an example where something discussed in the article isn't put into a category, correct? Amoruso pointed out that "human rights" is a standard point that is present in most or all articles on countries, and that it is sometimes in it's own section, it's own article (when big enough), or within other sections. In all cases, it's standard to have human rights dicussed in articles on countries. In contrast, not all president articles discuss anti-semetism, which is why this particular page can fit the anti-semetism category. I hope that clarified things. | |||
| ::::::::::Also, Markovich, please remember to ] before you accuse someone of using ] arguments or using strong words like "...it would be appreciated if you admit that you were incorrect..." I don't think Amoruso was using a strawman, I think you may have simply misunderstood his argument, which also made him seem 'incorrect' to you. By assuming good faith we don't have to worry so much about arguments getting out of hand. --] 05:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::(I posted the above comment before I saw amoruso's statement above it, if that has any bearing.) --] 05:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::No, it's ok, and thanks. I see how it could have been interpreted that I put more weight than meant on the word section (which I didn't use but responded to). Anyway, many countries do have the section. But it's really not relevant. I think Markovich is saying that categories aren't used this way and as an example, Israel/Iran/North Korea/France is not listed in human rights category, but its article human rights in X is. But that's the thing - because you'd expect to find human rights issues on every country, there's a seperate category for it which lists human rights per country. But for Presidents of countries you won't expect to find anti-semitism related issues on every and each president. It's a different issue altogether. If we knew anti-semitism was dealt with many presidents' articles, then it would be a different issue. But this issue is prominent enough in the current article, not in others and not in related more detailed ones. In this specific one. And per wikipedia standards, if it's detailed enough, it can be categorized as well. ] 05:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Sorry, I meant "here" as in this specific section. I know that I have not been civil in every single one of my posts unfortunately. If I may add, however, my incivility stems from the extremely hostile attitude of one or two other editors (look just above for an example, at least you responded to me in a civil manner...). I know that is not an excuse, but considering the things that have been said to me I think I handled it much better than many other editors would have. ] 01:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don't know other way to say this, but citing individual examples will prove nothing about ''most'' country's articles. The only way to prove one way or another if most countries have such a section is to make a tally like I mentioned before. I have done such a tally with what is essentially a random sampling of nations, and exactly two of them had a human rights section. In other words, if the sample size were increased to every country on wikipedia, chances are that ''most'' of them have do not have a human rights section. ] 03:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The number of articles that have the sections in practice is irrelevant. What's important is '''can these sections be added or not?'''. I'm not responsible for the adequate editing of these articles, but it's obviously an existing section on many articles and the fact they have their own articles for so many countries in Human rights per country category proves that sections can be added to all, just like with tourism by country, foreign relations by country, cuisine by country, music by country, culture by country, geography by country and so on. But anti-semitism can't be added for every president like human rights can be added to virtually every country. ] 03:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I'm well aware that the important issue is not how many articles have the section, but rather "can they be added or not." I posted that information because LifeEnemy asked us '''both''' to contribute to resolve the disagreement that was started when you denied that "most country articles do ''not'' have a section on human rights." You apparently found the same information I did. In your posts above you don't even acknowledge that, so it seems to me that you can't admit when you have made an error. If you won't do that, I would just prefer that we call it quits on this issue and get back to finding a solution to the categorization issue. ] 05:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I've explained this above. ] 05:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I see what Amoruso is saying in this matter about countries and human rights discussions. In the end, though, this question is not really important to this discussion. It seems to me that the last point that needs clearing up is the inclusion of the "Anti-semetism" category. I understand why it possibly should be included, but, Markovich, could you please summarize your argument as to why it should not be included? --] 04:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::This (or any) category is supposed to be used to group similar articles together <sup></sup>, not to tell the user that something is being discussed in the article. That erroneous assertation is why Amoruso first mentioned adding the category, which I agree with you in saying that it seems like a "ploy" to add a category with the word "anti-semi" to this article. Since the primary reason for categories to to group similar articles, there is no legitimate purpose to add this article to the proposed category, especially considering that ] is '''much''' more similar to the other articles in that category than this one is. In short, based on wikipedia guidelines this category would be more appropriately assigned to the main article, ]. | |||
| :::::::::This proposed categorization also seems to violate ] because according to Amoruso himself, nobody agreed to this category but him when he brought it up before. ] 06:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::First of all, the last assertion is not correct. I brought it up briefly before and it wasn't discussed (mainly because I brought up a proposal of new anti-semitic which was literally confusing to the users). It is my understanding that this solution will be accepted on a broad basis actually with no real objections as a temporary solution. Your rationale about categories is also something I disagree with and think it's false. '''Of course it's grouping similar articles together: articles that deal/discuss with the issue of anti-semitism'''. Simply saying it differently doesn't mean it's a different issue altogether because it isn't, you should see that IMO. It is the same thing and it's per wikipedia standards and guidelines. In your link like I said "'''Categories ... help users find information'''" LifeEnemy didn't say it was a "ploy" and let's not insinuate that he did. It can't be a ploy because it's already used on many articles in anti semitism category and per LifeEnemy's solution he also added further clarification on anti semitism category page. The solution to put it on "controversies page" is not adequate for many reasons : that article is not notable enough, that article is not complete enough - if you note, there's also an article about Israel, and also about controversies , and in the article both sections deal with anti semitic issues. Anti semitic issues can also be dealt in regard to other sections, the U.S, the nuclear question, and so on. The article as a whole deals with enough anti semitic issues/allegations/refutes/denials that it deserves its own category per wikipedia rules. Also note that whether other agree or not is irrelevant now. The question is why do you object to this seeing that it clearly can't be in any reasonable way misleading / ploy anymore. Not why it's better to put it somewhere else, but why object to it at all (adding the category to some OTHER article is of course no compromise at all. The question is why object to a compromise relating to the relevant page). ] 06:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I understand your points, Markovich, and normally I would be skeptical of adding this category to this page. However, since other biography pages have made use of this cat, I would agree to placing it here. I don't think it could do much harm, considering that most users probably won't get their anti-semetic-or-not ideas on MA from an ambiguous category, but from the "allegations of anti-semtism" section, which would include accusations, souces, and MA's own statements refuting anti-semetism; letting the users decide for themselves. | |||
| ::::::::::As far as this article goes, I think the category is all right. I can see why you might not want it on bio pages, though, and I suggest that bring that issue up on the category page if you feel inclined to do so. | |||
| ::::::::::Also, my "ploy" statement was to explain to Amoruso why some people might be resistant to the cat, despite any arguements for it, and to suggest to take that resistance with a grain of salt. --] 17:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I do respect your opinion on adding that category since you have shown no ulterior motives, but it does seem to me that your main reason to think this categorization is ok is because "other biography pages have made use of this cat." I just want to mention that this isn't quite a reliable standard for why we should include this article. Just as an example why we can't justify the addition of a person (MA in this case) to a category because other people are already there, I ask you to look at the article ]. Amoruso cited this man (and even blatantly pointed out he is Iranian) to convince us why MA can go in . That article actually makes no mention of anti-semitism (and only hints at a dislike for the state of Israel), so I imagine you would call that a POV categorization which is eerily similar to this situation. | |||
| :::::::::::My proposal is still that the category be added to ] instead, because that is clearly supported by guidelines and can't be considered a POV edit. As I touched on before, adding the category to that article would better group similar articles together . It would also as we are supposed to do, , and even honor the prior ] on the subject. | |||
| :::::::::::I know Amoruso has disagreed in the past, but using other articles to settle content disputes is a perfectly logical alternative. As outlined above, this solution is very consistant with wikipedia policies and guidelines, so I am hopeful that this debate can finally come to a mutually acceptable conclusion. ] 03:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::I still think that because a number of other articles have made use of it, that it is currently justified under wikipedia policies. And, as I said before, I would recommend you bring up why it shouldn't be included on certain pages on the category page itself. --] 03:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Seeing as ], one of the main objectors to classify MA in the ] supports my compromise proposal to add the category ] as atleast a '''temporary compromise in order to unnlock the thread''', is there anyone else besides ] who objects to this compromise ? It seems a solution which most users can accept and should be deployed for now in order to unlock the thread which seems to be locked forever. ] 13:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Just wanted to belatedly toss in a note agreeing with said compromise. --] 05:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I'd like to re-iterate that if a firm consensus can be reached to include ] or if a firm consensus can be reached to exclude even ] that would be preferable. However, as it stands, I too think that the compromise is better than the ] that this article experienced previously. -- ] 13:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't want to sound argumentative, but a concensus does not override standing policy, so a concensus ''can not'' be used to justify the inclusion of Ahmadinejad in ] with the current sources we have. | |||
| :Anyway, I fully support this ''finally'' coming to an end, so a concensus on ] is probably the fastest way to solve this. I propose that we create a new section, outlining the specifics of each option, and just ask people to sign their name under the one that they agree with most. If we leave this poll open for two weeks, that should be enough time for everybody involved to weigh in, and also a good opportunity for the community at large to have their say. ] 19:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::That sounds like a good idea to me. --] 22:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==OK, let’s see== | |||
| Very well, if y'all think you have a suitable comprimise using ], I'll unlock the article, but if things get out-of-hand, this will be buttoned down pretty quickly again. -- ] 19:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I do not object to you unlocking the article like you did, but you have made a mistake in adding the category right now. Nobody had a chance to respond to either of the two posts just above, so you swooping in and adding a category that is still being debated is highly premature. I will not revert it myself right away (which would probably result in it being locked again), but it would be prudent for you to perform a self-revert. ] 22:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think you've acted a little too quickly. I never expected another debate until Markovich292 included an unsolved dispute. People then started responding. I never expected so much change over a short period of time. My suggestion is to lock the article again until disputes have been '''completely''' resolved. A "suitable compromise" is not enough to end disputes. There could be retorts and or alternatives to solve the problem. You must wait for a week's time (a month's time if you must) before you consider this change. ] 04:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think we could leave the category for now, but keep a strict watch on it, as you said. It seems that more people are coming back to this page (besides Markovich, Amoruso and I), so I think we'll be able to get a general opinion on this move pretty soon. --] 03:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I thougth this issue was resolved. He is '''NOT''' anti-semitic. ] 02:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Correct, Yas ]. The compromise is to use category ] and '''not''' ]. This way there is not a direct accusation just yet, but the well-sourced controversy is handled. -- ] 03:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I just want to remind you that this was put in place only as a temporary solution, it is not a final compromise. Well actually, it is simply a stopgap measure that you put in place when you unlocked the article, without waiting for it to be worked out on the talk page. Because of that, this isn't even a good-faith (not in the wiki sense, but in the general sense) implementation of Amoruso's proposal IMO. ] 04:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Agreed; I hope a resolution acceptable to all parties, or at least a suitable consensus, is reached, but if Amoruso and LifeEnemy agreed on this, I think that is a serious start, and worthy of unlocking the article. I am sure that this will be discussed for a while to come. As pointed out earlier, sysops are ''always'' accused of reverting to the :) -- ] 04:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| There seems to be a truce...the anti-Semitism issue is mostly solved. The retorts and controversial disputes seems to have ceased. Not a final compromise, but we're getting there. ] 06:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==US ambassador to Israel also thinks so== | |||
| ] is a one of the most well known pro-Israeli supporters ever in US government. | |||
| See for yourself what he has to say abouit MA: . --] 20:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : He said he's not hitler, not that's he not anti-semitic. In fact, he says he denys the holocaust and wants to destroy the jewish state, but it's still not hitler. btw, he's not at all pro-Israeli... he pushed for Israeli concessions for the Palestinians at the time very heavily. ] 09:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Ahmadinajad and Iranian Azarbajian== | |||
| ''"There is evidence that he has close ties to the Republic of Azerbajian and he has ties to the Turkish facist group ] because he has been seen displaying the Grey Wolves hand sign."'' | |||
| Umm, even if an appropriate source is found that says this, how is it that "hand signs" can be called "evidence" to tie Ahmadinejad to the Grey Wolves? What do people think about removing this section (keep in mind the group that Ahmadinejad allegedly supports was founded by an organization that advocates the creation of a Turkish Empire extending as far as China if I recall correctly), unless something concrete can be found to confirm this? ] 06:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Well, hand signs can be interesting if used as evidence. Have a look at http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushsatanworship.htm and think a bit about that. ;-) // ] | |||
| :I was wondering what was up with that section. --] 00:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Israel? == | |||
| Why is it that in the opening paragraph about Mahmoud, there is a small blurb about him hating Israel? I am not disputing whether he hates Israel or not but it does *not* belong in the opening paragraphs. That's like the opening paragraph of U.S President Andrew Jackson containing his disregard for Native Americans. | |||
| : Actually its nothing like opening the Jackson article with his disregard for Native Americans. Stop being excusenary. --] 01:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: "it does *not* belong in the opening paragraphs". why not ? it actually does per ] and the prominence of it in the article. ] 01:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''"The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article."'' | |||
| :::Just thought I would mention this (from ] that you cited). Most of the article deals with his presidency/politics/etc., not with his comments regarding Israel (just as an estimate, the section with his comments devoted to Israel take up only about 10% of the article). Something like 40% of the opening is devoted to this topic, however. I am not saying "it does not belong" like the person above, but it does not follow ] as it is. Maybe the best way to fix this is to add content to the ''other'' parts of the lead. ] 01:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Mujtaba == | |||
| --'Khamenei's eldest son Mujtaba was Ahmadinejad's campaign manager during the election, and' -- | |||
| ghalibaf and karoubi alleged mujtaba to have shifted support from ghalibaf to ahmadinejad a few days before election. who wrote this campaign manager bs? | |||
| --'Ahmadinejad was widely perceived at the time of his election to be Khamenei's protégé.'-- | |||
| this one is just pure bs. i was in iran at the time of election, and no such thing was perceived. let alone "widely". | |||
| i changed this accordigly.--] 01:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Occupying “regime” == | |||
| Markovich, please explain this to me. According to the current wording, MA has no problems with the presence of the state of Israel in that location, he just wishes to remove its government? I am not sure I understand that. Thanks. -- ] 05:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, that is correct. His quote, transliterated, is: | |||
| "In režime išqâlgare qods bâyad az safheye ruzgâr mahv šavad." | |||
| :Which means: | |||
| "This regime which illegally occupies Jerusalem must be abolished from the pages of the world." | |||
| :No mention of the land of Israel. All that is mentioned is the government. I hope that cleared things up. Markovich, please tell me if I am missing anything. --<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="pink">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 08:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| So, he would be fine with a completely Jewish government as long as it is not the current ] makeup? Or, if not, pray tell, what is the state of Israel without a Jewish government? I believe that is semantics. It is the equivalent to saying that "we have no problem with the Vatican, as long as it is not Christian" which is somewhat of a joke, in my opinion, which makes the presence of the word "regime" disingenuous and misleading. Thank you. -- ] 15:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: The way I understand Misplaced Pages, we should base his statement on what he said, not on what an editor reads into what he said. Editors should not engage in Original Research and interut what he meant by the regime being wiped off the map. He did not say that it shouldn't be a Jewish government, so your comparision with the Vatican as long as it's not Christian is meaningless. Maybe you see the defining characteristic of the Israel regeme as being Jewish, but others may have problems with it that are not based on the ruler's race or relegion, but rather on the policies it enacts. George W. Bush wanted a regime change in Iraq, but that did not mean that he didn't want a secular Iraq, or one without Arabs, simply a change. ]]] 19:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Ah, they beat me to it ]! They both pretty much summed up why I reinstated that edit though anyway. I'll just add that the quote above is the source of the translation "wiped off the map." Since that is being passed off as a direct quote in this article, it is just adding insult to injury to botch the context (which is partially fixed with "regime" being added). It changes the entire meaning to leave out "regime," and since that is a word that Ahmadinejad used himself (as stated in many RS) it isn't semantics, it is being accurate. ] 01:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Avi, don't you understand: ''"This regime which illegally occupies Jerusalem must be abolished from the pages of the world"'' simply means that MA does not favor the ruling party in Israel and wants the opposition to come to power. So, is he for Likud or Avoda? ←] <sup>]</sup> 02:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Maybe Moledet. I'm going to add that he possibly supports the ]. ] 02:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Markovitch, so I am correct in understanding that you firmly believe that ] is all for Jewish leadership of Israel, just that he does not like ]? Well then, at the next Israeli election, are we to expect a congratulatory call to the new prime minister from MA? For I believe that is a logical outcome from what you have just said. If not, then I stand by saying the "regime" is a insertion meant to whitewash the statement. If it is a direct quote is one thing, but the statement in the article is a paraphrase, and the intent is clear that to MA, regime = Jewish Israel. -- ] 02:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I apologise if you are certain you know it, but please check a dictionary for the meaning of "regime." You saying it is logical to expect MA to congradulate a new PM of Israel, based on what has been said here, makes it seem you don't fully understand the meaning of the word. Also, how can you say that it is whitewash to use a word when talking about a quote ''that was said by the quoted person in the first place?'' Lastly, even though ''you'' think that "to MA, regime = Jewish Israel," there is no reason to add that ] to the article. ] 05:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Just a note: Within Iranian regime's rhetoric: Israel is فلسطین اشغالی = "Occupied Palestine", and the regime of that land is called رژیم اشغالی = "Occupying Regime". To say some place be wiped off the map implies genocide, which I think is incorrect in this case.--] 00:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Map redux=== | |||
| I've replaced the paraphrase with the quote from the ] version of MA's speech. I think that should be acceptable to everyone, for that is what the man said. -- ] 12:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I would imagine that this is worse than saying "regime...wiped off the map" for some people. Just to remind you, someone said before that including this quote at the beginning of the article is "political partisanship unworthy of wikipedia" if I recall correctly. Still others (look above for example) have said that this quote is wrong. Basically, many, many people (and reliable sources alike) have said something to the effect of "the primary source for this translation screwed up, so indeed that is ''not'' what the man said." Even more moderate opposition to this is that it should not be in the beginning of the article, and instead placed where it can be properly explained. Also, please see: ] ] 19:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This is the most widespread translation in the western world, it is reliable and authoratative (new York Times) and may well be his most famous statement in the past five years. That sounds like something that belongs in the lead to me. -- ] 00:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It doesn't seem like a good idea to have something so highly contested in the lead paragraph, since it can't be NPOV without at least including the arguments against it, which would make the lead to long. I think marovich's version was pretty good, since MA has made (and been critisized) for more than just that one quote. It also avoids an improper (and possibly partisan) translation. --] 01:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :That pretty much sums up what I would have said about this specific issue. I'll just add that Misplaced Pages is supposed to clear up issues like this, not push/further the persuasions of the west, which is the effect that the current lead has. ] 02:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| If ] is no longer considered a reliable source, I am uncertain what remains acceptable. I have brought the citation in the text of the article. -- ] 04:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :No one has disputed the reliability of the NYT. The translation itself has been disputed (also by reliable sources, I believe), and many people feel such a disputed item should not be included in the lead paragraph, but later in the article where the dispute can be properly explained. --] 08:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == The Lead Paragraph is Completely Absurd == | |||
| As an avid reader of Misplaced Pages, I have never seen such a cruel display of Western bias. Even the founder of the ], ], has a more forgiving lead paragraph than Mr. Ahamadinejad. I am not arguing whether Mr. Ahmadinejad is an anti-semite, he may very well be but that should *not* be the opening paragraph. ] in a drunken stupor commented that "Jews are responsible for all wars in the world"; Even ] has made controversial remarks about Jews; ] slaughtered thousands of Native Americans and blatantly defied the Supreme Court of the United States; ] had sexual relations with an Intern; What I find interesting is that all of the aforementioned people are Americans and their comments/actions aren't included on their lead Misplaced Pages page. It's only the "anti-Western" people like ], ] and ] that have the most negative lead paragraphs. I guess you can only be an anti-semite if you're American. | |||
| This article is mired in a sticky bias that just flat-out reeks. Misplaced Pages should be an encyclopedia that is devoid - as much as possible - from editorializing. The editors of this article - especially the lead paragraph - should be ashamed. These are the exact type of articles that give Misplaced Pages the reputation of being unfair, unreliable, and biased. | |||
| ] 16:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : ""anti-Western" people like Osama..." . You're serious ? ] 02:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Well, what would you call Osama Bin Laden? Pro-Western? Heh. ] 04:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm asking if you're serious that Osama Bin Laden is ''simply'' anti-western and that's why his article is biased like you claim. You'd rather write in the lead that Osama is just a peace loving misunderstood guy fighting against the Big Devil ? or that MA wants to wipe out the Little Devil from the world for just reason ? ] 12:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Instead of saying "The editors of this article - especially the lead paragraph - should be ashamed" (some of us are trying to get rid of this west oriented bias afterall), why don't you offer something constructive for how to improve it? ] 19:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Winter, please ].--<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="pink">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 11:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Bah!'''You really want to see a "negative lead paragraph"?? Head over to ]....(Where Admins such as ] have taken an oath to Rev/Block anyone who may disagree)... Yes it may read like a damming report written by the ]...but they still call it an encyclopaedic article!!! ] 14:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please avoid future violations of ] and ]. Thanks. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 14:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Today's 'Inspired by God' comment == | |||
| I just read on BBC that Ahmedinejad claims to be inspired by God, and that Bush is likewise inspired by Satan. Bush similarly claims himself to be inspired by God. | |||
| I thought God is of Peace, Love and tranquility, not wars and bullets and bloodshed. If any of these men are really for God, they would not be fighting and would be at peace! ] (]) 17:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Their whole deal is that they think they are fighting to make peace. Besides, God isn't against killing a few thousand (or million) non-christians; just take a look at the old testament. --] 00:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Where did you get that from? There were no Christians at all in the Old Testament. But in the New, Christ tells his followers who wanted to call fire down on non-believers "You don't know what kind of spirit you have." (Lk 9:55) ] (]) 01:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, either way, my first sentence still stands. This section is unnecesary anyway. --] 01:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Or, if you substitute "people not of his/their religion" for "christians", then it works. --] 03:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think that is one of the things that makes Christ's teachings so very different from every religion in the world. Because every religion in the world has something in it, somewhere, that says "It's perfectly okay to screw over 'the others'." (Be it through usury, genocide or whatever). Only Christ's teachings stand out as being different from the others: he specifically taught that it is NOT okay to do this. ] (]) 11:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, I know that's not totally right. But in any case, this is not the place for such a discussion. I shouldn't have brought it up. --] 02:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Talk page time: I dispute the quote of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad == | |||
| First and foremost, a little background. | |||
| I noticed today an edit made by the user ] (by the way, שלום עליכם). As Markovich clearly states, and as '''this talk page reveals''' many people oppose to that quote being in the leading paragraph, due to undue weight. So I decided to revert this edit because it was '''unsourced''' and ignored talk page commentary. To my utter surprise, he reverts me within five minutes and claims that I should not remove '''sourced''' material. This, as if it was not already enough absurdity, is followed by a message on my talk page which says ''"Please do not remove cited information from reliable sources, that is considered vandalism. Thank you."''. Notice the timing of that message; it was given to me AFTER he added the source. That is to say, that user ] falsely accused me of removing sourced material for no reason (vandalism) when in fact I removed the material before it was sourced. I notified Avraham by leaving him a message on his talk page explaining my actions and concerns to him reguarding his accusation of vandalism. I also added that it is irrelevant to me whether or not it is sourced anyways, as I perceived his edit to be a violation of the ]. So then he responds again on my talkpage explaining to me that he brought the quote as a Wikiquote. However, when you look at the version of the article I reverted, no mention of Wikiquote is there. He also claims that ''"I do not believe it is a POV issue, as it is one of the most reliable sources that exist, AND the translator is Iranian, I believe. I am sorry you have a personal problem with it, but it is not a wikipedia issue."'' By stating this, he violated the Misplaced Pages principle of ], by claiming that I have a personal problem with the quote (how would he know?). Also, I had already stated that I didn't care about the source, as I saw it as a violation of NPOV policy. And then ] proceeds to state that the translator is Iranian, as if that has any grounds in providing objectivity on the issue. Looking at Nazila Fathi's articles in the NYT, it is clear that she has a biased stance towards Iran . Also, a Google search for her credentials ends up emptyhanded. So I ask, how is she a reliable source for Misplaced Pages to use as a translator when she is a layman with no credentials for translating foreign languages? So what if she speaks Persian, ]! What makes her more of a qualified expert in fields she has not studied in? So now let us return back to the article at hand. I decided to revert the article explaining that presenting the NYT translation as Misplaced Pages's POV is a violation of NPOV policy. Yet, I am reverted by ] who states ''"many, many reliable sources use this translation"''. This is particularly troubling, because he doesn't even bother to add these "many, many reliable sources" to the article. What good is that? And again, this misses my point; that it is not the source I am worried about, but rather the POV in the source being presented as Misplaced Pages's POV. Not wanting to break the ], I decided to put a tag on that single statement, and promised to explain in the talk page. And here I am. Thank you for taking my concerns into consideration. --<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="pink">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 06:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :''WaAlaikum usSalam'' (my apologies for not knowing the Farsi script for it). As mentioned on your talk page, the fact that the translation comes from the NYT was mentioned a number of times on this talk page, it is quoted as such in the article ], and in so the provenance of the translation was beyond repute before I clarified it in this article. Secondly, ] is about a ] as one has. It is also one of the most widely read English-language papers in the world. It's translation is ], ], and ] as one could have. An argument may be made, and has been made, that the ] is actually a left-leaning paper, for that matter. The translation is a fact. That there are those that argue with the translation is also a fact. However, this is still likely the most widely accepted translation of his speech, and that sentence may well be the most talked about sentence he has uttered in the past three years. It is notable and sourced and is well placed in the lead of the article. You may speak Persian fluently, and G-d bless you for it, but you are not ]'s official translator. Your opinion of the statement is ]. Ms. Fathi's translation is a published work in an English-language reliable source. The difference is clear. Thank you. -- ] 06:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Look, just because those articles and Wikiquote use that translation '''does not make it an authorative one'''. That is a logical fallacy known as ], because I can just as easily raise the same issues at Wikiquote, as well as the talk page of the ] article. As I already said, so what if it was mentioned elsewhere in the article that the quote was from the NYT? It needs to be referenced '''immediately''' after the quote, that is Misplaced Pages policy for references. And again, I don't care about the reliability of the source, '''I am worried about the neutrality of presenting that source as fact in the leading paragraph, when clearly there are disagreements on the issue both within the article and on its talk page'''. Also, I don't care if it is the most widely read English-language paper in the world, that does not make its views any more valid. Nor does it matter if it is a "left-leaning paper", that does not mean it is valid. What is troubling is your claim that "the translation is a fact". Not according to ], who says that ""Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse." (please see the ] article for this). He has more credentials than Ms. Fathi, shouldn't we be using him instead for a much better translation? Or even better, how about MEMRI's translation, which is entirely relevant to their purpose, which is to translate Middle East Media? And they translate it as ''"his regime that is occupying Qods must be eliminated from the pages of history."'' Nothing about maps, nothing about wiping. Certainly they are a more credible source than some unacclaimed writer for the New York Times? And again, you state that because it is the most widely version of translation, it is '''fact'''. Do I even need to bring up what ] And then you claim that I am not the New York Times official translator, as if the official translator is qualified as a translator in the first place. And then you state that my opinion of the statement is original research. Seeing how as I have '''not yet stated my opinion''' on the matter, how can you claim it is original research? Do you honestly believe that I have never heard of the Misplaced Pages concept of No original research, and that I chose to ignore it in editing this article? Please stop assuming bad faith. I thank you for responding, and I look forward to your next response. --<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="pink">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 07:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::If it is in the article many other times, does it need to be in the lead? Also, since there is such a controversy among sources about the translation, it seems as though we need to represent both sides of the argument (i.e. ''NPOV''), which can't be done in the lead without adding unnecessary length to it. --] 08:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::We went through all this before. There is not "so much controversy" about the translation. There is a little bit, by a few minor people. I well believe that "wiped off the map" is not an idiom in Persian. "Eliminated from the pages of history" is not an idiom in English. That's why it was translated the way it was. Is it the best translation? I dunno. Doesn't matter. It's far and away the most used one. And as for MEMRI being a more reliable source than the NYTimes, all I can say is that you're on the wrong wiki if you truly believe that. This (very minor) dispute is dealt already . We don't need to use weasel words in the lead. The support for this translation is overwhelming. | |||
| :::Some more sources (out of many): | |||
| :::, , | |||
| :::<font color="green">]</font> 19:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't think anyone is asking to use another translation. Personally, I just don't see the need to have any quote in the lead since it's in the other section, where the controversy is explained. Also, I don't understand what point you were trying to make with the sentence about idioms, could you clarify? Also, I would ask that you please keep possibly inflammatory comments out of edit summaries. Thank you. --] 02:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| :::::What's being asked is to give equal weight to two translations, "map" versus "page." But the "map" translation has such overwhelming support in terms of notability and RS, we can use it with only passing mention (elsewhere) of the "page" quote. What I mean by idiom is that some users seem to be getting confused, thinking that a ''literal'' translation must be the ''correct'' one, and therefore editors who object to giving it equal weight disregard the truth. This is wrong because 1) It doesn't matter if the "page" version is "truer." WP is not about truth. It's about verifiability. Map is far more verifiable, for our purposes. 2) When people translate idioms, they want their non-native speaking audience to understand what's being referred to. If I translate Bush saying in English of (e.g.) the U.S. economy "We need a ]" into Farsi, I'm guessing a literal translation would be meaningless to most Farsi speakers. Some comparable idiom would have to be employed to convey the nuance. That is what has happened, IMO, with "map" versus "page." | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| :::::The quote should be in the lead because he's famous for saying it, more so than any other single statement. | |||
| I have just added archive links to {{plural:11|one external link|11 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: | |||
| :::::I'm sorry if you were inflamed by my edit summary. It wasn't meant to have that effect. <font color="green">]</font> 02:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131028134018/http://books.google.com/books?id=0g8n9mmnjKgC&lpg=PA145 to https://books.google.com/books?id=0g8n9mmnjKgC&lpg=PA145 | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141018132405/http://www.alef.ir/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26085&Itemid=99999999 to http://www.alef.ir/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26085&Itemid=99999999 | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120306113836/http://irannegah.com/Video.aspx?id=593 to http://irannegah.com/Video.aspx?id=593 | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080507180645/http://www.rajanews.com:80/News/?3739 to http://www.rajanews.com/News/?3739 | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080507180641/http://www.rajanews.com:80/News/?3737 to http://www.rajanews.com/News/?3737 | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081207120901/http://www.baztab.com:80/news/65372.php to http://www.baztab.com/news/65372.php | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061021093546/http://roozonline.com/english/016235.shtml to http://roozonline.com/english/016235.shtml | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090417033036/http://www.presstv.ir:80/detail.aspx?id=91361§ionid=351020101 to http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=91361§ionid=351020101 | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081207114200/http://www.presstv.ir:80/detail.aspx?id=52720§ionid=351020101 to http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=52720§ionid=351020101 | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141018125358/http://www.alef.ir/vdcg3z9x.ak9nt4prra.html?25046 to http://www.alef.ir/vdcg3z9x.ak9nt4prra.html?25046 | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081207134205/http://www.africasia.com:80/services/news/newsitem.php?area=mideast&item=081104102917.yxb25ese.php to http://www.africasia.com/services/news/newsitem.php?area=mideast&item=081104102917.yxb25ese.php | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know. | |||
| ::::::Ah, I understand now. You make a good point, although I don't know the specifics. Do you know if MA used a similar farsi idiom in his speech? | |||
| ::::::Personally I didn't mind the summary, but this talk page seems prone to degrading very quickly, and I hope to avoid the unnecessary conflicts that have plagued this page thus far. Thank you for your civil reply. --] 05:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=true}} | |||
| ::::], what I don't understand is why you think that the most commonly used version of the quote should be the one that Misplaced Pages uses. Here at Misplaced Pages, we don't place ''popular'' information as fact, we place ''logical'' information as fact. So what if that translation is most popular; so what if that translation comes from a verifiable source? That doesn't it make it '''true'''. This distinction must be made, and placing the most popular version of the quote in the leading paragraph is not the right thing to do. The astrology article doesn't say that "astrology makes authorative claims" in the first paragraph, because such a statement is controversial amongst knowledgable people. Most people, however, do believe in astrology (sadly enough). But just because astrology is popular does not make it true, nor does it mean that we should present "astrology is a fact" as Misplaced Pages's stance on the issue. --<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="pink">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 04:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 15:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| Kirby, maybe you are unaware, but please look at one of the official policies of wikipedia: ]. Thanks. -- ] 05:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| That is irrelevant. What I'm saying is that it should not be '''presented as truth'''. Please see ], which states that if we are to use the NYT's translation, then we MUST say it is the NYT translation; we cannot use their translation as Misplaced Pages's point of view. As the article currently stands, it says ''"Ahmadinejad is a controversial figure, criticised by Western governments for various statements including his agreement with Ruhollah Khomeini regarding Israel by saying “Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement,”"''. It should instead say that the NYT thinks he said those things. --<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="pink">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 05:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| There is a clear citation that references the NYT with a link to the full translated text; why doesn't that absolve your worries? -- ] 05:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have just added archive links to {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: | |||
| I guess not. I've added the ], ], and ] cites brought above to the text to demonstrate its pervasiveness. -- ] 06:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080926215934/http://www.presstv.ir:80/detail.aspx?id=70578§ionid=3510302 to http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=70578§ionid=3510302 | |||
| *Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120308095614/http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=85792§ionid=351020102 to http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=85792§ionid=351020102 | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}). | |||
| :Avi, don't start it again. You're completely acting according your strange POV. The article starts with criticisms that are not NPOV. At least they should be in their category. It seems you're labeling a living person with your . Thanks. | |||
| --] 12:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=true}} | |||
| Removing properly cited and sourced content that you disagree with from articles is POV-pushing and vandalism and will be treated as such. Please discuss articles on the talk page, as LifeEnemy and Kirby and IronDuke and I are doing. Thank you -- ] 12:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 07:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd just add this: 1) Avi's POV is not strange. If you want to criticise him, do so for having too ''mainstream'' a POV. 2) Criticisms are never NPOV, by definition. 3) It's not OR at all. The quote has been repeated over and over again, by both Western and Middle-Eastern media outlets. Even ''Palestinians'' subscribe to this translation. I respectfully invite you to go back and review ]. <font color="green">]</font> 22:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| You have got to be kidding me. All of you look at the current version, and then look again at the concerns that people have raised on this talk page. And in terms of equal weight in the lead vs. the rest of the article, the situation is now many times worse than before. Just as a refresher from ], let me reiterate that ''"The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article."''] 23:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| :I agree. The lead needs to be toned down. I think that the holocaust denial and "map" quote can stay, but what we have now is over the top. <font color="green">]</font> 23:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have just modified 4 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
| I am fine with toning it down, but the point of the citations is to show that the "map" comment is accurate, widespread, and notable, and should stay. -- ] 00:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131217073441/http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/106378.html to http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/106378.html | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131217073724/http://www.stalbertgazette.com/article/GB/20110420/CP01/304209937/-1/sag0806/iranian-lawmakers-warn-ahmadinejad-to-back-intelligence-chief-as%26template%3DcpArt to http://www.stalbertgazette.com/article/GB/20110420/CP01/304209937/-1/sag0806/iranian-lawmakers-warn-ahmadinejad-to-back-intelligence-chief-as%26template%3DcpArt | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629142027/http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4681.htm to http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4681.htm | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707101117/http://www.africanexecutive.com/modules/magazine/articles.php?article=4368 to http://www.africanexecutive.com/modules/magazine/articles.php?article=4368 | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
| At this point, I think we can dispense with the NYT, CBS, MSNBC, Al Jazeera, MEMRI, etc. namedropping. I think with the construction “including the widespread understanding of his agreement…” should be enough to show that there is disagreement and that it is not gospel, but that it is by far the most accepted and widespread translation (Al-Jazeera and Palestinan president Saeb Erekat included) of his statements. I then streamled them into one sentence, with refs in the proper places. What do y'all think? -- ] 00:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
| :I was going to point out that the lead was getting way too cluttered, but you guys beat me to it. Anway, I think the version that you're reffering to Avi is pretty good. It's a good starting point, at the very least. --] 00:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <p>The lead paragraph is becoming more absurd with each passing day. "''including the widespread understanding of his agreement with Ruhollah Khomeini regarding Israel by saying in his UN speech that...''". a survey might solve the issue--] 01:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 09:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ===Ahmadinejad does not deny statement=== | |||
| Please see the ] that I cited in the text. Ahmadinejad does not deny the statement '''at all''' and confirms it by eventually answering "fabricated state" after dancing around the question (in ]'s words). I beleive this is darn near well what we call proof-positive. -- ] 22:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Conspiracy Theorist == | |||
| :Have you considered that when "wiped off the map" was translated in the interview, the translator probably did not use a phrase in Farsi that implies totally destroying Israel (not just the government)? Just food for thought. Also, could you explain how him calling Israel a fabricated state confirms that he wants it annihilated? ] 23:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Is he more of a conspiracy theorist for suggesting that the US and Israeli governments are involved in 9/11 than the US and Israeli governments themselves for their '''highly''' disputed version of what happened? I don't think so. Shouldn't be in the conspiracy theorist category anymore than officials from US or Israeli governments. — ] (]) 23:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::Do you really think Ahmadinejad is that naïve to be ignorant of that, especially as it was asked three times? One thing Ahmadinejad is not, is stupid. He is brilliant and crafty, even if his views are, shall we say, extreme. To say he didn't know what he was being asked is almost insulting to him, in my opinion. Secondly, if he did not make that statement, as many wish to claim, this was the perfect opportunity to clarify that he never said anything like that, and to make all the apologies/explanations that many in the media have made saying he was mistranslated, etc. He did not, but explained (after being pressed again and again) that WHY he felt Israel should be wiped off the map was because it is a "fabricated" state. -- ] 23:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*He's a holocaust denier. ] (]) 04:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::No the fuck he isn't. Also, given that he's never spoken a word of English, are you stating here and now that you speak Farsi? ] (]) 01:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Insufficiently sourced reports of arrest == | |||
| :::I think Markovich meant that the translator used a phrase that didn't convey the same meaning as "wiped off the map," not that MA misunderstood. But, in any case, I think it is a bit of a stretch (possibly bordering on ]) to take that single statement as proof of MA ''confirming'' that he wants Israel "wiped off the map." --] 00:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The lede is showing this text: | |||
| ::I was careful not to say "confirm" in the text of the article, it is brought as another reference, but it is powerful enough, in my opinion, to obviate the need for the rebuttals and qualifications in the lead. Those more accurately belong in th esection about the phrase, which I believe was spun off into its own article, ], which accounts for why there is not so much text in THIS article, although there ''could'' be. See ]. -- ] 01:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :On 6 January, 2018, '']'' and '']'', both citing '']'', reported that Ahmadinejad had been arrested after expressing support for the protesters in a speech.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-ex-iranian-president-ahmadinejad-arrested-for-inciting-unrest/ |title= Report: Ex-Iranian president Ahmadinejad arrested for inciting unrest |author= Staff |date= 6 January 2018 |work= ] |accessdate= 7 January 2018 }}</ref><ref name="IBTimesBFearnow">{{cite web |url= http://www.ibtimes.com/who-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-former-iran-leader-arrested-speech-report-says-2638071 |title= Who Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Former Iran Leader Arrested For Speech, Report Says |author= Benjamin Fearnow |date= 6 January 2018 |work= ] |accessdate= 7 January 2018 }}</ref> | |||
| :::Fair enough. I guess we'll soon see what opinions others have. --] 21:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)::: | |||
| Such a claim should be in the body, and then summarised in the lede. | |||
| :::Regarding : If all the official translations "refer to wiping Israel away," there is no significance to the fact that Ahmadinejad did not deny this question by Wallace, because it was asked through a translator. As I indicated previously (), Ahmadinejad probably did not hear (from his translator) a phrase that denotes complete destruction (as "wipe off the map" does), so why would he dispute it? ] 02:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The quoted sources do not really provide the sources, merely "The Times of Israel could not independently confirm the report." and the IBT article links to which has text that google translates to: | |||
| :Al Quds Al Arabi learned from reliable sources in Tehran that the authorities ordered the arrest of former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during his visit to the city of Shiraz and that the arrest was made with the approval of Supreme Leader Seyed Ali Khamenei after his remarks in Bushehr Described as inciting unrest. | |||
| ''::The quote should be in the lead because he's famous for saying it, more so than any other single statement.'':::'' | |||
| ''::I'm sorry if you were inflamed by my edit summary. It wasn't meant to have that effect. IronDuke 02:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)::'' | |||
| :It was learned that the authorities intended to impose house arrest on him. | |||
| That's absurd. Bill Clinton is the most famous for saying "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman" but you don't see it as his lead paragraph. As I stated in a previous section, this article is so biased that its not even an article - it's an editorial. ] 23:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| "ordering the arrest" is not the same as "arrested" in my opinion. | |||
| Perhaps we should wait until more reliable news sources, such as Reuters or the BBC? | |||
| -] (]) 03:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Update: I've removed the so far uncorroborated claims of arrest, as nothing has been mentioned by Reuters, BBC, Associated Press and Washington Post. You can monitor Reuters breaking news in case news does emerge. -] (]) 05:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :It's more than a statement, it's the idea behind the statement, which has been interpreted to mean that MA calls for ] or ] against Israel. Clinton is also famous for "I didn't inhale" and "That depends on what the meaning of 'is' is", so I would disagree that we'd have to have the "that woman" quote in the lead. But I agree, the Clinton lead could be expanded to deal with some of the scandal, if you feel up for it. Let me know if you need a hand. <font color="green">]</font> 02:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| == American Enterprise Institute on Bill Mahr == | |||
| == A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion == | |||
| During this past week’s episode of ''Real-Time with Bill Mahr'' a woman named Danielle Pletka from the American Enterprise Institute attributed a parapharsed quotation to Ahmadinejad where Ahmadinejad said he wanted to ’destoy the United States’ (in her words). I checked Misplaced Pages, thinking I might find some reference detailing what this referred to, but there’s nothing here as far as I can see. Does anyone know what she may have been referring to? --] 01:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: | |||
| * ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: speedy | 2019-03-27T05:38:04.744364 | 5th International Conference in Support of the Palestinian Intifada, Tehran (1).jpg --> | |||
| You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —] (]) 05:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion == | |||
| :I've heard "destory the whole western world, the civilized world; He wants to take over the planet. etc. It might be concluded from the chanting of "Death to USA".--] 01:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: | |||
| * ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2019-03-27T07:15:56.725671 | 5th International Conference in Support of the Palestinian Intifada, Tehran (1).jpg --> | |||
| Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 07:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Ahmadinejad or Ahmedinejad? == | |||
| == Unverified Farsi-language citations == | |||
| There seems to be some disagreement on the spelling of this fellow's name, though clearly consensus seems to favour the former. Not sure what the paradigm is on transliterated names, but I've removed the "Ahmedinejads" that appear within the article for consistency's sake. ] (]) 03:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Most of the citations in this article are in Farsi, and even if we have some people willing to go on record verifying the citations, this is English wikipedia, and it does strain the credibility of the article to an extent. Please see ]. Thank you. -- ] 05:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 08:35, 11 November 2024
| Skip to table of contents |
 |
|
 | This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was reviewed by ] on August 10, 2008. Comments: He commented on the article somewhere before August 10, 2008 (perhaps this revision). See here for his review. For more information about external reviews of Misplaced Pages articles and about this review in particular, see ]. |
 | Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on August 5, 2009. | |||||||||
 | Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 3, 2012, August 3, 2013, August 3, 2015, and August 3, 2020. | |||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
 |
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
|
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131028134018/http://books.google.com/books?id=0g8n9mmnjKgC&lpg=PA145 to https://books.google.com/books?id=0g8n9mmnjKgC&lpg=PA145
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141018132405/http://www.alef.ir/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26085&Itemid=99999999 to http://www.alef.ir/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26085&Itemid=99999999
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120306113836/http://irannegah.com/Video.aspx?id=593 to http://irannegah.com/Video.aspx?id=593
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080507180645/http://www.rajanews.com:80/News/?3739 to http://www.rajanews.com/News/?3739
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080507180641/http://www.rajanews.com:80/News/?3737 to http://www.rajanews.com/News/?3737
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081207120901/http://www.baztab.com:80/news/65372.php to http://www.baztab.com/news/65372.php
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061021093546/http://roozonline.com/english/016235.shtml to http://roozonline.com/english/016235.shtml
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090417033036/http://www.presstv.ir:80/detail.aspx?id=91361§ionid=351020101 to http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=91361§ionid=351020101
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081207114200/http://www.presstv.ir:80/detail.aspx?id=52720§ionid=351020101 to http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=52720§ionid=351020101
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141018125358/http://www.alef.ir/vdcg3z9x.ak9nt4prra.html?25046 to http://www.alef.ir/vdcg3z9x.ak9nt4prra.html?25046
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081207134205/http://www.africasia.com:80/services/news/newsitem.php?area=mideast&item=081104102917.yxb25ese.php to http://www.africasia.com/services/news/newsitem.php?area=mideast&item=081104102917.yxb25ese.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 15:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080926215934/http://www.presstv.ir:80/detail.aspx?id=70578§ionid=3510302 to http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=70578§ionid=3510302
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120308095614/http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=85792§ionid=351020102 to http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=85792§ionid=351020102
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 07:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131217073441/http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/106378.html to http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/106378.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131217073724/http://www.stalbertgazette.com/article/GB/20110420/CP01/304209937/-1/sag0806/iranian-lawmakers-warn-ahmadinejad-to-back-intelligence-chief-as%26template%3DcpArt to http://www.stalbertgazette.com/article/GB/20110420/CP01/304209937/-1/sag0806/iranian-lawmakers-warn-ahmadinejad-to-back-intelligence-chief-as%26template%3DcpArt
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629142027/http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4681.htm to http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4681.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707101117/http://www.africanexecutive.com/modules/magazine/articles.php?article=4368 to http://www.africanexecutive.com/modules/magazine/articles.php?article=4368
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Conspiracy Theorist
Is he more of a conspiracy theorist for suggesting that the US and Israeli governments are involved in 9/11 than the US and Israeli governments themselves for their highly disputed version of what happened? I don't think so. Shouldn't be in the conspiracy theorist category anymore than officials from US or Israeli governments. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- He's a holocaust denier. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- No the fuck he isn't. Also, given that he's never spoken a word of English, are you stating here and now that you speak Farsi? 174.115.100.93 (talk) 01:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Insufficiently sourced reports of arrest
The lede is showing this text:
- On 6 January, 2018, The Times of Israel and The International Business Times, both citing Al-Quds Al-Arabi, reported that Ahmadinejad had been arrested after expressing support for the protesters in a speech.
Such a claim should be in the body, and then summarised in the lede. The quoted sources do not really provide the sources, merely "The Times of Israel could not independently confirm the report." and the IBT article links to this Arabic newspaper which has text that google translates to:
- Al Quds Al Arabi learned from reliable sources in Tehran that the authorities ordered the arrest of former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during his visit to the city of Shiraz and that the arrest was made with the approval of Supreme Leader Seyed Ali Khamenei after his remarks in Bushehr Described as inciting unrest.
- It was learned that the authorities intended to impose house arrest on him.
"ordering the arrest" is not the same as "arrested" in my opinion. Perhaps we should wait until more reliable news sources, such as Reuters or the BBC? -84user (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Update: I've removed the so far uncorroborated claims of arrest, as nothing has been mentioned by Reuters, BBC, Associated Press and Washington Post. You can monitor Reuters breaking news here in case news does emerge. -84user (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
References
- Staff (6 January 2018). "Report: Ex-Iranian president Ahmadinejad arrested for inciting unrest". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 7 January 2018.
- Benjamin Fearnow (6 January 2018). "Who Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Former Iran Leader Arrested For Speech, Report Says". International Business Times. Retrieved 7 January 2018.
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
.jpg){kind=link}
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Ahmadinejad or Ahmedinejad?
There seems to be some disagreement on the spelling of this fellow's name, though clearly consensus seems to favour the former. Not sure what the paradigm is on transliterated names, but I've removed the "Ahmedinejads" that appear within the article for consistency's sake. Spongebubby (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Categories:- Biography articles of living people
- Active politicians
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in People
- B-Class vital articles in People
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Iran articles
- High-importance Iran articles
- WikiProject Iran articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- Externally peer reviewed articles
- Misplaced Pages In the news articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press